Measuring Inclusive Education Volume 3

MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Series Editor: Chris Forlin
Recent Volumes:
Volume 1:
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream

Schools Edited by John Visser, Harry Daniels, and
Ted Cole
Volume 2:
Transforming Troubled Lives: Strategies and Interventions

for Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties Edited by John Visser, Harry Daniels, and
Ted Cole
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION VOLUME 3
MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
SERIES EDITOR
CHRIS FORLIN
Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
VOLUME EDITORS
CHRIS FORLIN
Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
TIM LOREMAN
Concordia University, Canada
United Kingdom North America

India Malaysia China
Japan
Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2014
Copyright r 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Reprints and permission service
Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in
any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence
permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency
and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the
chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or
otherwise, as to the chapters suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78441-146-6
ISSN: 1479-3636 (Series)
ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.
Certificate Number 1985
ISO 14001
CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
ix
SERIES INTRODUCTION
xiii
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 3
xv
SECTION I: ISSUES IN MEASURING

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
CONCEPTUALISING AND MEASURING
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin, Dianne Chambers,
Umesh Sharma and Joanne Deppeler
ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS IN
MEASURING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Agnes Gajewski
WHAT IS EFFECTIVE INCLUSION? INTERPRETING
AND EVALUATING A WESTERN CONCEPT IN AN
INDIAN CONTEXT
Richard Rose, Mary Doveston,
Jayashree Rajanahally and Johnson Jament
19
37
DATA COLLECTION TO INFORM INTERNATIONAL

POLICY ISSUES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Amanda Watkins, Serge Ebersold and Andras Lenart
53
RESOURCING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Donna Barrett
75
vi
CONTENTS
MEASURING EFFECTIVE TEACHER PREPARATION

FOR INCLUSION
Sarah Copfer and Jacqueline Specht
93
LEADING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: MEASURING

EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP FOR INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION THROUGH A BOURDIEUIAN LENS
Joseph S. Agbenyega and Umesh Sharma
115
IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE TEACHING PRACTICES

IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
Anne Jordan and Donna McGhie-Richmond
133
SECTION II: MEASURING INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION IN PRACTICE
MEASURING INDICATORS OF INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin and Umesh Sharma
165
LEARNING ABOUT INCLUSION FROM

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: USING THE
INDEX FOR INCLUSION
Suzanne Carrington and Jennie Duke
189
USING NETWORKING TO MEASURE THE

PROMOTION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE CASE OF THE
PACIFIC REGION
Susie Miles, Laisiasa Merumeru and Donna Lene
205
SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM INDICATORS OF

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Julie Lancaster
227
Contents
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCIES FOR

INCLUSIVE SETTINGS: COMPARATIVE
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER PREPARATION
PROGRAMS
Kymberly Drawdy, Meng Deng
and Catherine Howerter
DEVELOPING AND USING A FRAMEWORK FOR
GAUGING THE USE OF INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY
BY NEW AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS
Jennifer Spratt and Lani Florian
USING GRADUATION RATES OF STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES AS AN INDICATOR OF
SUCCESSFUL INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Janet I. Goodman, Jessica Bucholz,
Michael Hazelkorn and Mary Louise Duffy
vii
247
263
279
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
303
INDEX
307
Joseph S. Agbenyega
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria,

Australia
Donna Barrett
Northland School Division No. 61,

Peace River, Alberta, Canada
Jessica Bucholz
University of West Georgia, Carrollton,

GA, USA
Suzanne Carrington
Faculty of Education, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia
Dianne Chambers
University of Notre Dame, Perth,

Western Australia
Sarah Copfer
University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario, Canada
Meng Deng
University of Beijing, Beijing, China
Joanne Deppeler

Australia
Mary Doveston
University of Northampton,
Northampton, UK
Kymberly Drawdy
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,

GA, USA
Mary Louise Duffy
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,

FL, USA
Jennie Duke
Faculty of Education, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia
ix
Serge Ebersold
National Higher Institute for Training and

Research for the Education of Young
Disabled Persons and Adapted Teaching
(INS HEA), Paris, France
Lani Florian
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK;

University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
Chris Forlin
Hong Kong Institute of Education,

New Territories, Hong Kong
Janet I. Goodman
Haralson County Schools, Tallapoosa,

GA, USA
Michael Hazelkorn
College of Coastal Georgia, Brunswick,

GA, USA
Catherine Howerter
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,

GA, USA
Johnson Jament
University of Northampton, Northampton,

UK; Venad Education & Social Services,
Kerala, India
Anne Jordan
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,

Canada
Agnes Gajewski
Centennial College, Toronto, Ontario,

Canada
Julie Lancaster
Charles Sturt University, Bathurst,

New South Wales, Australia
Andras Lenart
European Agency for Special Needs and

Inclusive Education, Odense, Denmark
Donna Lene
Indooroopilly State High School, Brisbane,

Queensland, Australia
Tim Loreman
Concordia University College of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Donna McGhieRichmond
University of Victoria, Victoria, British

Columbia, Canada
Laisiasa Merumeru
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS),

Suva, Fiji, Pacific Islands
xi
List of Contributors
Susie Miles
Manchester Institute of Education,

University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Jayashree Rajanahally
Brindavan Education Trust,

Bangalore, India
Richard Rose
University of Northampton,
Northampton, UK
Umesh Sharma

Australia
Jacqueline Specht
University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario, Canada
Jennifer Spratt
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
Amanda Watkins
European Agency for Special Needs and

Inclusive Education, Odense, Denmark
SERIES INTRODUCTION
The adoption internationally of inclusive practice as the most equitable and
all-encompassing approach to education and its relation to compliance
with various international Declarations and Conventions underpins the
importance of this series for people working at all levels of education and
schooling in both the developed and developing worlds. There is little
doubt that inclusive education is complex and diverse and that there are
enormous disparities in understanding and application at both inter- and
intra-country levels. A broad perspective on inclusive education throughout
this series is taken, encompassing a wide range of contemporary viewpoints, ideas, and research for enabling the development of more inclusive
schools, education systems, and communities.
Volumes in this series on International Perspectives on Inclusive Education
contribute to the academic and professional discourse by providing a collection of philosophies and practices that can be reviewed in light of local
contextual and cultural situations in order to assist educators, peripatetic
staffs, and other professionals provide the best education for all children.
Each volume in the series focuses on a key aspect of inclusive education and
provides critical chapters by contributing leaders in the field who discuss
theoretical positions, empirical findings, and impacts on school and classroom practice. Different volumes address issues relating to the diversity
of student need within heterogeneous classrooms and the preparation of
teachers and other staffs to work in inclusive schools. Systemic changes
and practice in schools encompass a wide perspective of learners in order to
provide ideas on reframing education so as to ensure that it is inclusive of
all. Evidence-based research practices offer a plethora of suggestions for
decision-makers and practitioners incorporating current ways of thinking
about and implementing inclusive education.
While many barriers have been identified that may potentially inhibit
the implementation of effective inclusive practices, this series intends to
identify such key concerns and offer practical and best practice approaches
to overcoming them. Adopting a thematic approach for each volume,
readers will be able to quickly locate a collection of current research and
practice related to a particular topic of interest. By transforming schools
xiii
xiv
SERIES INTRODUCTION
into inclusive communities of practice all children should have the opportunity to access and participate in quality education in order to obtain the
skills to become contributory global citizens. This series, therefore, is highly
recommended to support education decision-makers, practitioners,
researchers, and academics, who have a professional interest in the inclusion of children and youth who are marginalizing in inclusive schools and
classrooms.
Chris Forlin
Series Editor
This volume provides a focus on measuring inclusive education from a
range of differing perspectives. It is grounded on a review of international
conceptualizations of inclusive education and ways in which different
systems are measuring, or can measure, its impact and effectiveness. It considers the complex issues associated with measuring inclusive education and
provides examples of practice and models of effective measures. This is
important for two reasons. First, there is a growing international focus on
how inclusive education might be measured. As school systems increasingly
adopt an inclusive approach, they want to know how effective their practice
is. This helps to meet requirements of public accountability for the education provided to children, along with providing internal markers for
ongoing improvement. Second, efforts at measuring inclusive education are
important from the perspective of providing targets. School systems need
specific indicators in order to provide a focus on what they should be doing
so as to provide an equitable, fair, and effective education for all children.
By looking towards outcomes, school systems can work backwards from
them and govern their practice with the end firmly in mind.
This volume is divided into two sections. Section I addresses broad issues
in measuring inclusive education. The chapter Conceptualising and
Measuring Inclusive Education serves as an introduction to the rest of the
book, outlining how inclusive education can be conceptualized and
described. This provides a common understanding of what inclusive education is and acts as a foundation for the chapters that follow. Other chapters
in this section discuss the range of complex issues that educators and educational administrators are faced with when engaging in measuring inclusive
education. These include ethical dilemmas, problems with applying measurement models in different cultural contexts, issues concerned with policy
development and implementation, models of inclusive education resourcing,
measuring effective teacher preparation, teacher traits, and practices used
by teachers to promote inclusion, and how leadership for inclusive
education might be viewed. This is a conceptual and theoretical section, but
with the implications for practice always retained at the forefront of the
discussion.
xv
xvi
Section II addresses measuring inclusive education in practice. It commences with a current and in-depth review of the literature on the development of international indicators for measuring inclusive education, and
provides thematic areas for consideration in indicator development.
Subsequent chapters offer examples of some of the models presently
employed to frame an evaluation of inclusive practice. These provide illustrations of effective measurement strategies to evaluate inclusive educational
practice at all levels, including the use of previously developed and widely
available instruments, and how areas such as school and classroom practice,
teacher competency, and inclusive pedagogy might be examined. This
volume concludes with discussion on how inclusive education might be measured from a system perspective through indicators such as graduation rates
and school retention.
A number of experienced researchers and practitioners were invited to
contribute chapters to this book, all of whom have been internationally
recognized for their work in this area. Many of them have worked
collaboratively with the partners they worked with to produce their prior
work. The strength of this volume relies on the considered perspectives and
deep expertise of these authors, and we are grateful to all of them for their
thoughtful and research-informed evidence-based contributions.
As we write this introduction we are engaged in some work on developing indicators for inclusive education in the Pacific region led by one of our
authors, Umesh Sharma, and colleagues. We are reminded of the importance of basing this work on strong theoretical and practical foundations
that recognize the issues involved, the research previously completed, and
the necessity to be consistently aware of the unique needs of various
cultural contexts. Along with informing educators at all levels, education
administrators, and academics, we trust that this book will be of value to
those engaged in similar endeavors around the globe.
Chris Forlin
Tim Loreman
Editors
SECTION I
ISSUES IN MEASURING
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
CONCEPTUALISING AND
MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin, Dianne Chambers,
Umesh Sharma and Joanne Deppeler
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an overview of inclusive education, specifically
examining conceptualisations of inclusive education and some of the
models used to frame an evaluation of the practice. While international
human rights agreements, covenants and legislation provide definitions
that focus on equity, access, opportunity and rights, inclusive education
continues to lack a tight conceptual focus that may contribute to its
misconception and often confused practices. In the absence of a unified
definition of what inclusion is, attempts to measure or compare such a
complex equity issue are challenging. Some promising models do,
however, exist and are explored in this chapter.
Keywords: Inclusive education; equity; access; disability;
measurement
Measuring Inclusive Education

International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 3, 3 17
Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003015
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes
inclusive education. It commences with an overview of inclusive education,
which subsequently informs the discussion regarding how to measure inclusive education. Specifically, this chapter examines conceptualisations of
inclusive education and some of the models used to frame an evaluation of
the practice.
Inclusive education is a contentious term that lacks a tight conceptual
focus, which may contribute to its misconception and confused practice
(Berlach & Chambers, 2011). International human rights agreements,
covenants and legislation provide definitions of inclusion that focus on
equity, access, opportunity and rights. These features are interpreted into
practice with definitions that theorise inclusion into two broad categories,
namely, (i) conceptualising inclusive education based on its key features
and (ii) conceptualising inclusive education as the removal of that which
excludes and marginalises. In the absence of a unified definition of what
inclusion is, attempts to measure or compare such a complex equity issue
are, unsurprisingly, challenging.
DEFINITIONS OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO) first stated in 1994 that inclusive schools were the most effective
way to counter discriminatory approaches and attitudes towards students
with a disability. International legislation and policy subsequently evolved
to challenge exclusionary practices and focus attention on equity and access
to high quality education for all, while respecting diversity (UNESCO,
2008). According to UNESCO (2009) an inclusive education system
can only be created if ordinary schools become more inclusive
in other
words, if they become better at educating all children in their communities
(p. 8). Article 24 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities recognises that education should be accessible without
discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity within an inclusive
education system at all levels . It is widely acknowledged, nonetheless,
that children with disabilities continue to experience different forms of
exclusion which vary depending upon their type of disability, domicile
and the culture or class to which they belong (UNICEF, 2013).
Conceptualising and Measuring Inclusive Education
Inclusion in education is recognised as a basic human right and the

foundation for a more just and equal society (European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2012). Interpretation
of inclusive education challenges educators and educational systems to
think about the work of teaching and learning in different ways and from
varied perspectives. According to Grima-Farrell, Bain, and McDonagh
(2011, p. 118), Inclusive education represents a whole-school concern and
works to align special education with general education in a manner that
most effectively and efficiently imparts quality education to all students.
The issue of equity has been a major force internationally underpinning
the movement towards a more inclusive educational system and the way in
which inclusion is defined (Forlin, 2012). Loreman (2009) argues that
the majority of educators know very well what inclusion is, but it is
sometimes politically expedient for them to manipulate the term to suit
whatever practice they happen to be currently engaged in, be it inclusive or
not (p. 43). In the words of Graham and Jahnukainen (2011), While some
might say that we have witnessed the globalisation of inclusion, questions remain as to what has spread (p. 263). Nes (2009) adds further that:
In Norway all students in compulsory education are entitled to education adapted to
their needs in a free school for all, irrespective of (dis)ability, gender, ethnicity, social
class, etc. The curriculum, methods and organisation are in principle to be adapted to
all students, without streaming or segregation, but with the necessary support. Most of
the special schools have been closed down. However, these inclusive ideals are one
thing; the realisation of inclusive practices in many ways has proven to be something
else. (p. 305)
Scholars, practitioners, governments and organisations such as

UNESCO and UNICEF have also provided conceptualisations and definitions of inclusive education. Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2006), for example, propose a typology of six ways of thinking about inclusion that
considers inclusion: as a concern with students with disability having special
educational needs; as a response to disciplinary exclusion; in relation to all
groups being vulnerable to exclusion; as developing the school for all; as
education for all; and as a principled approach to education and society.
International human rights agreements, covenants and legislation further
provide definitions that are critical to understanding and implementing
inclusion as these often bind all signatories and flow on to influence
national legislation. Based on analysis of all of these sources, definitions
can be broadly grouped into two categories: (i) conceptualising inclusive
education based on key features (e.g., Berlach & Chambers, 2011) and
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
(ii) conceptualising inclusive education as the removal of that which

excludes and marginalises (e.g., Slee, 2011).
CONCEPTS OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Conceptualising Inclusive Education Based on Key Features
The most prevalent education conceptualisations are those that define
inclusion based on certain key features and characteristics such as ageappropriate placement and students being able to attend their local school.
Berlach and Chambers (2011) provide a philosophical framework for inclusive education along with school- and classroom-based examples. Their
philosophical underpinnings include: availability of opportunity; acceptance of disability and/or disadvantage; superior ability and diversity; and
an absence of bias, prejudice and inequality. Hall (1996, cited in Florian,
2005) notes that inclusion means Full membership of an age-appropriate
class in your local school doing the same lessons as other pupils and it mattering if you are not there. Plus you have friends who spend time with you
outside of school (p. 31). Other definitions refer to the presence of community (Forest & Pearpoint, 1992), ordinary schools expanding what they do
(Clark, Dyson, & Millward, 1995), problem solving (Rouse & Florian,
1996) and response to student needs via curriculum organisation and provision (Ballard, 1995).
Loreman (2009) provides a synthesis of the features of inclusive education evident in a variety of sources found in the literature that can be
situated firmly in the key features category. These topographies are:
All children attend their neighbourhood school.
Schools and districts have a zero-rejection policy when it comes to registering and
teaching children in their region. All children are welcomed and valued.
All children learn in regular, heterogeneous classrooms with same-age peers.
All children follow substantively similar programs of study, with curriculum that can
be adapted and modified if needed. Modes of instruction are varied and responsive
to the needs of all.
All children contribute to regular school and classroom learning activities and
events.
All children are supported to make friends and to be socially successful with their
peers.
Adequate resources and staff training are provided within the school and district to
support inclusion. (Loreman, 2009, p. 43)
Attempts to define inclusive education by what it is, however, are problematic because such definitions can be impacted by shifts in educational
practice, context, culture and circumstance that can quickly render these
features irrelevant and outdated. Such definitions tend to assume that
educational practice is subject to a set of commonalities that are static
across time and place, but this is not the case. For example, in many rural
areas of the world where the one room schoolhouse still exists, the criteria
of children being educated with their same-age peers might not factor into
a definition of inclusion.
Conceptualising Inclusive Education as the Removal of

That Which Excludes and Marginalises
Some inclusive education scholars such as Mittler (2012) and Ainscow,
Dyson, Goldrick, and West (2011) conceptualise inclusion as being that
which identifies and then removes barriers to participation in education.
Indeed Slee (2011) and Graham and Slee (2008) go as far as to suggest that
the special school regular school dichotomy is no longer a useful way of
framing education, and that barriers that exist in both sectors need to be
removed so as to produce what is, in the end, unlike either (i.e., they
suggest the irregular school). According to Slee (2011), the irregular
school is neither a special nor a regular school, but one which has been
re-envisioned and restored with a view to eliminating barriers to inclusion
in an anticipatory way and also as they present. He states that Reforming
education is a manifold and complex task that reaches into the deep structures of education and schooling to produce different policies, practices
and cultures (Slee, 2011, p. 164). Macedo (2013), though, has further
argued that international policies like the United States No Child Left
Behind Act (2001) create artificial lines, but that the very idea of inclusion
is to blur lines and to develop education committed to the uniqueness of
students.
Extensive literature has identified potential barriers to inclusion. For
example, in a wide-ranging review of practices in Australia, Shaddock
(2006) concluded that barriers perceived by teachers include:
Lack of time.
Difficulty in individualising within a group.
Inadequate training and resources.
Lack of school support.
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Their view that adjusting for some students (a) compromises the learning
of others; (b) draws negative attention to student differences; and/or
(c) fails to prepare students for the real world.
A further challenge that continues to create significant barriers to inclusion
is the attitude of society (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009;
Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008, 2011). Many nations nowadays consist
of diverse cultures and ethnic groups with diverse understandings of
disability that may inform attitudes towards inclusion.
It may, therefore, be that neither of these two categories related to identifying key features or removing barriers in isolation is adequate in providing a good conceptual definition of inclusive education. Attempts to define
what inclusive education is are problematic because they may fail to take
into account a variety of context-dependent features. Attempts to conceptualise inclusion as the removal of that which excludes and marginalises are
problematic because barriers may vary enormously between jurisdictions,
cultures and contexts, and this description fails to adequately describe what
an inclusive setting might actually be. Consequently, it is not surprising
that there is difficulty picturing what inclusion looks like in practice.
INCLUSION AS A WHOLE OF SCHOOL ISSUE

To this point inclusion has been presented through a disability lens.
Inclusion, however, is not only a disability issue. Finley Snyder (1999, cited
in Shaddock, MacDonald, Hook, Giorcelli, & Arthur-Kelly, 2009) observes
that the inclusion movement has primarily been a special education movement (p. 174), and as such it is easy to fall into thinking that it is only
about children with disabilities. The impetus for inclusion has, indeed,
come from outside of the mainstream; from those who have been traditionally excluded largely as the result of disability. Many, however, now hold
an expanded view of inclusive education as being concerned with diversity
more generally. According to Shaddock et al. (2009), inclusion implies that
if participation becomes an issue for any student, whether arising from
disability, gender, behaviour, poverty, culture, refugee status or any other
reason, then the desirable approach is not to establish special programs for
the newly identified individual or group need, but to expand mainstream
thinking, structures and practices so that all students are accommodated.
When inclusion is seen as a disability issue and not as a whole of school
issue, inclusive education can become code for special education and as
such can work against inclusive practice, with certain individuals and
groups of children becoming pathologised in the eyes of educators (Slee,
2011). An expanded view of inclusive education allows it to be seen as a
human rights issue, with marginalised and excluded groups being discriminated against and denied what is readily available to others in the mainstream. Inclusion, thus, requires a focus on all policies and processes
within an education system, and indeed, all pupils who may experience
exclusionary pressures (Ainscow, Farrell, & Tweddle, 2000, p. 228).
Ainscow et al. (2006, p. 15), in advocating a broader understanding of
inclusion write, We question the usefulness of an approach to inclusion
that, in attempting to increase the participation of students, focuses on the
disabled or special needs part of them and ignores all the other ways
in which participation for any student may be impeded or enhanced (italics
added).
Ultimately, a definition of inclusive education that would broadly seem
to satisfy the criteria of most in the field comes from UNESCO. This is
proposed as the most defensible definition on which this chapter and indeed
this book is grounded as it is consistent with conceptualisations in the literature, and has broad international agreement:
Education is not simply about making schools available for those who are already able
to access them. It is about being proactive in identifying the barriers and obstacles learners encounter in attempting to access opportunities for quality education, as well as in
removing those barriers and obstacles that lead to exclusion. (UNESCO, 2012, para. 1)
MEASURING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Berlach and Chambers (2011) describe the initial step to inclusive education
as having an accurate understanding of what is in preparing for
what may be on a much broader scale (p. 52). To do this it follows that
it is essential to be able to measure inclusive education. Not dissimilar to
IQ tests that purport to measure intelligence in the absence of an agreed
upon definition of what that is, inclusive education measurement instruments are forced to provide their own definition of inclusion (or at least
make it implicit in the criteria used) before providing areas for
examination.
Following the definition of inclusion from UNESCO (2012) used in this
chapter, schools must be ready both to accept students with diverse needs
and to behave in proactive ways to eliminate barriers in order to enable full
10
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
participation. Schools must adopt the features of inclusion, while at the

same time being prepared to dismantle mechanisms and practices leading
to exclusion (Forlin, 2013). Measuring, therefore, involves reviewing inclusion from the perspective of a whole school approach such as proffered by
the UNICEF definition of Inclusion is really about how well child-friendly
schools are doing at making practical changes so that all children, regardless of their background or ability, can succeed (2010, p. 31). Winter and
ORaw (2010) list ten themes associated with inclusive education:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
provision of information,
physical features,
inclusive school policies,
the Individual Education Plan (IEP),
student interactions,
staffing and personnel,
external links,
assessment of achievement,
curriculum and
teaching strategies.
A variety of measures of these features of inclusion have been developed.

Possibly the most widely cited measuring instrument is Booth and
Ainscows (2002) Index for Inclusion (revised 2011). The Index provides a
series of research-based indicators of inclusion and is designed for use at
the school level through a process of self-reviews. Its use has been extensively reported throughout the world and it has been translated into at least
22 different languages and modified according to various international contexts (EENET, n.d.).
There is evidence noting some difficulties, though, associated with using
the Index in schools, especially in regards to a lack of capacity for selfreview by school staff (Heung, 2006). The Index was validated for use in a
small number of Western Australian schools in 2001. It was concluded that
due to the comprehensive nature of the Index and the time necessary for
staff to effectively use it that:
Based on the trial of the Index for Inclusion in Western Australian schools, it would
seem that dissemination of the Index for Inclusion without a clearly developed professional development process to ensure its use is likely to be given little more than token
acknowledgment by schools. (Forlin, 2004, p. 201)
It has, however, been found useful in interrogating the fine grain of

culture building that goes on in schools through pedagogy, curriculum,
11
school and classroom organisation and the character of decision making

and so on (Slee, 2006, p. 114). The Index was also employed to enhance
the development of a learning community of educators in Education
Queensland. The Index was modelled as a tool to prompt reflective discussion for teachers aiming to incorporate inclusive education values, indicators and questions into their action plans (Carrington & Duke, 2014;
Duke, 2009). Nes (2009) also researched the role of the Index for Inclusion
in supporting school development in Norway. She remarks that:
Reluctance to engage in the Index in Norway and elsewhere also sometimes referred to
the perceived complexity of the material. The Index can be a rich resource to address
all aspects of the school, but the threshold to access it sometimes seems high. To overcome this, time and preferably external support is needed. (p. 318)
It would seem that as a tool to be used during structured professional

learning opportunities the Index provides a comprehensive measure. The
value of it for schools without a critical friend to facilitate dialogue,
though, may be limited.
Another important instrument for measuring inclusive education has
been devised by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009), who suggest the use of
an input-processes-outcomes model as indicated in Fig. 1.
Everything provided to the system at any level to achieve inclusive

education, including financial resources, policy, central and local staffing,
training, curriculum, required infrastructure, interdisciplinary support,
centralized resources, consultants, etc.
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Fig. 1.
Practices in school jurisdictions, schools, and classrooms that translate the

inputs into ways of working with students, ultimately producing outcomes.
This includes instructional and assessment practices, pragmatics at the
school level, funding distribution and use, etc.
Result stemming from the inputs and processes including stakeholder

group satisfaction, academic achievement rates, school attendance, cost
effectiveness, post-school employment or study activities, etc.
The Inputs-Processes-Outcomes Model Based on Kyriazopoulou and

Weber (2009) and Presented in Loreman (2013).
12
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
The input-processes-output model evaluates inclusive education based

on what is available to support it, what happens during the implementation
phase and what the end result is. Critically, Kyriazopoulou and Weber
(2009) also suggest that inclusive education systems need to be measured
on three levels: macro (large scale such as school jurisdiction, nations,
regions), meso (schools and groups of schools along with local communities) and micro (individual classrooms and people). Kyriazopoulou and
Weber (2009) provide a set of criteria, consistent with their model, that can
be used to assist in measuring inclusive education.
More recently, a review of the literature by Loreman (2013) ascertained
possible outcomes for measuring inclusive education. This process yielded
a number of themes leading to outcomes grouped into the three macro,
meso and micro
levels suitable for measuring inclusive education.
Loreman cautions, however, that many of the international scholars consulted as part of his earlier review process expressed doubt that any set of
outcomes or indicators, however good, would be adequate for the task of
measuring inclusive education. Nevertheless, themes from which outcomes
could be derived were identified, along with specific outcomes for Alberta,
Canada. These themes have international relevance and are outlined in
Table 1. In a subsequent study by Loreman, Forlin, and Sharma (2014),
featured in the chapter titled as Measuring Indicators of Inclusive
Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature of this book, the additional theme of role of special schools was added, which would have an
impact largely at the inputs and processes levels.
Like conceptualisations of inclusive education, efforts to measure inclusion are complicated by differing perspectives and a lack of agreed viewpoints and criteria. A broad and varied methodological approach is, thus,
essential in evaluating an inclusive education system and/or inclusive
Table 1.
Themes for Developing Inclusive Education Outcomes from

Loreman (2013).
Inputs
Policy
Staff professional
development and teacher
education
Resources and finance
Leadership
Curriculum
Processes
Outcomes
Climate
School practices
Participation
Student achievement
Classroom practices
Collaboration and shared
responsibility
Supports to individuals
Post-school outcomes
13
practice in schools and classrooms. To achieve this, most systems adopt a

whole school approach by measuring aspects of access, support, policy,
curriculum, pedagogy, quality teaching and assessment of achievement.
In response to being signatories to international conventions, governments are required to give assurances that disability and diversity are being
addressed, especially within an inclusive educational domain (Donnelly &
Watkins, 2011). Yet as has been argued, measuring outcomes achieved by
inclusion is multifaceted. For example, there have been many contextual
challenges and complexities faced in Australian school settings in the identification of evidence-based practice for inclusion (Foreman & ArthurKelly, 2008).
Even in a well-developed country such as Australia, It is difficult to
develop sophisticated policy approaches to address complex equity issues
when education discourse is simplified (Reid, 2011, p. 4). While the quantity of inclusive education can be easily measured by simply counting children in classrooms, quality is much harder to assess. With reference to
early childhood classrooms in the UK, Soukakou (2012) observed that in
a review of measures designed specifically to assess the quality of inclusion
in early childhood programs, very few measures have been found to serve
this purpose (p. 480). Saunders (2010) elaborated on some of the difficulties associated with conducting a small-scale evaluation of inclusive education in Kosovo, suggesting that where evaluations are constrained by time
and resources an evaluator needs to turn to other tools in order to adequately deal with the complexity.
[An] underlying issue is how an evaluator can how far s/he should make evaluative
use of personal encounters, tricky situations, opportunistic events, unplanned activities
and so on. This is a subject not discussed in evaluation reports and rarely in textbooks,
because the usual models of evaluation are based on a notion of rational planning,
methodological logic and checklisted procedures. But it seems to me that the success or
otherwise of an evaluation especially where time and resources are short depends
on ad hoc and idiosyncratic (i.e. neither predictable nor replicable) elements, and on
how far an evaluator can turn his/her intuition and capacity for improvisation to the
advantage of the evaluation. (p. 211)
Many international models of teacher quality include criteria relevant to

inclusive teaching. For example, in Alberta, Canada, to qualify for initial
teacher certification a teacher must understand that:
all students can learn, albeit at different rates and in different ways. They know how
(including when and how to engage others) to identify students different learning styles
and ways students learn. They understand the need to respond to differences by
14
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.

creating multiple paths to learning for individuals and groups of students, including
students with special learning needs. (Government of Alberta, 1997, section e)
Similarly, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, their Quality Teaching

Model has an inclusive education component requiring teachers to ensure
that Lessons include and publicly value the participation of all students
across the social and cultural backgrounds represented in the classroom
(NSW Department of Education & Training, 2003, p. 15). Such criteria,
however, lack the sort of comprehensiveness required to be taken seriously
as measures of inclusive education in any jurisdiction and at best form a
basis for only one aspect of teacher evaluation with respect to inclusion.
CONCLUSION
According to Slee (2003), the term and conceptualisation of inclusive
education show all the signs of jetlag (p. 62). While a myriad of definitions
and conceptual discussions exist in various agreements, covenants and
legislation, inclusive education continues to lack a tight conceptual focus.
This may contribute to its misconception and often confused practices.
Inclusion is interpreted into practice with definitions that conceptualise
inclusion from two broad categories, namely, (i) conceptualising inclusive
education based on key features and (ii) conceptualising inclusive education
as the removal of that which excludes and marginalises. Definitions often
assume a set of commonalities that are static. In reality, however, these are
continually impacted by changing educational practice, context, culture
and situations. Therefore, in the absence of a unified definition of what
inclusion is, attempts to measure or compare such a complex equity issue
are challenging. It is possible that to date inclusive education scholars and
educators have largely avoided the task of trying to measure inclusive
education due to the complex nature of the endeavour and the high likelihood of encountering a lack of contextual sensitivity in measurement
instruments, no matter what the method or criteria chosen.
Some promising models do, however, exist. The widely used Index for
Inclusion has been in existence for nearly 15 years. Measures in Europe are
being developed that take inclusive education into consideration at three
levels: macro (government and state), meso (schools and communities) and
micro (individual classrooms and people) (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009).
Most systems adopt a whole school approach with instruments designed to
15
measure areas associated with access, support, policy, curriculum, pedagogy, quality teaching and assessment of achievement.
The remaining chapters in this book will attempt to untangle some of
the various strands that are important to the effective implementation of
inclusive education, and in doing so they will provide clear mechanisms for
measuring the various essential aspects of the practice. They will focus on
inclusive education as being concerned with what is good practice for all
students, and what reduces the barriers to participation for marginalised
groups. Unless we are able to formulate processes for the evaluation of
inclusive education it will be difficult to move schools and school systems
into an era of evidence-informed reflection on their progress in this area.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2011). Developing equitable education
systems. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., & Tweddle, D. (2000). Developing policies for inclusive education:
A study of the role of local education authorities. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 4(3), 211 229.
Ballard, K. (1995). Inclusion paradigms, power, and participation. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, &
A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools. London: David Fulton.
Berlach, R. G., & Chambers, D. J. (2011). Inclusivity imperatives and the Australian national
curriculum. The Educational Forum, 75, 52 65.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. London: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.
Carrington, S., & Duke, J. (2014). Learning about inclusion from developing countries: Using
the Index for inclusion. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1995). Towards inclusive schools? London: David
Fulton.
Donnelly, V., & Watkins, A. (2011). Teacher education for inclusion in Europe. Prospects:
Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41(3), 341 353. doi:10.1007/s11125-0119199-1
Duke, J. (2009). The use of the Index for Inclusion in a regional educational learning community.
Unpublished. QUT Digital Repository. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/
EENET. (n.d.). Newsletters and resources (index for inclusion). Retrieved from http://www.
eenet.org.uk/resources/index.php. Accessed on May 16, 2013.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012). The inclusive education
in action project. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/iea.
Accessed on May 23, 2013
16
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Florian, L. (2005). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In K. Topping & S. Maloney
(Eds.), The Routledge Falmer reader in inclusive education (pp. 29 30). UK: Routledge.
Forlin, C. (2013). Issues of inclusive education in the 21st century. Journal of Learning Science,
6, 67 81.
Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2008). Social justice principles, the law and research, as
bases for inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 109 124.
Forest, M., & Pearpoint, E. (1992). Putting all kids on the MAP. Educational Leadership,
50(2), 26 31.
Forlin, C. (2004). Promoting inclusivity in Western Australian schools. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 8, 185 202.
Forlin, C. (2012). Responding to the need for inclusive teacher education: Rhetoric or reality?
In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education (pp. 3 12).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing
pre-service teachers attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195 209.
Government of Alberta. (1997). Teaching quality standard applicable to the provision of basic
education in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Government Printer.
Graham, L. J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland. Journal of
Education Policy, 26(2), 263 288.
Graham, L. J., & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 247 260.
Grima-Farrell, C. R., Bain, A., & McDonagh, S. H. (2011). Bridging the research-to-practice
gap: A review of the literature focusing on inclusive education. Australasian Journal of
Special Education, 35(2), 117 136. doi:10.1375/ajse.35.2.117
Hall, J. (1996). Integration, inclusion: What does it all mean? In J. Coupe OKane &
J. Goldbart (Eds.), Whose choice: Contentious issues for those working with people with
learning difficulties? London: David Fulton.
Heung, V. (2006). Can the introduction of an inclusion index move a system forward?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4 5), 309 322.
Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education.
Loreman, T. (2009). Straight talk about inclusive education. CASS Connections (Spring).
Loreman, T. (2013). Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5), 459 483. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.788223
Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Sharma, U. (2014). Measuring indicators of inclusive education:
A systematic review of the literature. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring
inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Bingley,
UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Macedo, E. (2013). Equity and difference in centralized policy. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
45(1), 28 38. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.754947
Mittler, P. (2012). Overcoming exclusion: Social justice through education. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Nes, K. (2009). The role of the Index for inclusion in supporting school development in
Norway: A comparative perspective. Research in Comparative and International
Education, 4(3), 305 320.
17
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). US Department of Education. PL107 110.

NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW schools.
Discussion Paper, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney, NSW,
Australia.
Reid, A. (2011). What sort of equity? Professional Educator, 10(4), 3 4.
Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (1996). Effective inclusive schools: A study in two countries.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 71 85.
Saunders, L. (2010). The challenges of small-scale evaluation in a foreign country: Reflections
on practice. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(3), 199 213.
doi:10.1007/s11092-010-9101-3
Shaddock, A., MacDonald, N., Hook, J., Giorcelli, L., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2009). Disability,
diversity and tides that lift all boats: Review of special education in the ACT. Chiswick,
NSW: Services Initiatives.
Shaddock, T. (2006, May). Students with disability in the mainstream: What works for
teachers and students? Paper presented at the Cheri Conference, Westmead, NSW.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers
attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with
disabilities. Disability and Society, 23(7), 773 785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2011). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices: An international validation. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 12(1), 12 21.
Slee, R. (2003, December). Inclusive education: A framework for reform? Paper presented at the
International Conference on Inclusive Education, Hong Kong Institute for Education.
Slee, R. (2006). Limits to and possibilities for educational reform. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 10(2 3), 109 119.
Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling, and inclusive education. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Soukakou, E. P. (2012). Measuring quality in inclusive preschool classrooms: Development
and validation of the inclusive classroom profile (ICP). Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 27(3), 478 488. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.003
UNESCO. (1994). The world conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Final
report. Salamanca, Spain; Ministry of Education and Science, Madrid; UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2008). Inclusive education: the way of the future. Conclusions and recommendations
of the 48th session of the international conference on education (ICE) Geneva 25 28
November, 2008. Retrieved from www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/
brazil_NR08.pdf
UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Retrieved from http://www.inclusiveeducation-in-action.org/iea/dokumente/upload/72074_177849e.pdf. Accessed on May 23,
2013.
UNESCO. (2012). Education: Addressing exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/
new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/inclusive-education/
UNICEF. (2013, May). The state of the worlds children: Children with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/SWCR2013_ENG_Lo_res_24_Apr_2013.pdf
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm#convtext
Winter, E., & ORaw, P. (2010). Literature review of the principles and practices relating to
inclusive education for children with special educational needs. Trim, Ireland: National
Council for Special Education.
ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND

DILEMMAS IN MEASURING
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Agnes Gajewski
ABSTRACT
This chapter draws on data from an empirical study investigating ethical
challenges and dilemmas in inclusive classrooms in order to consider the
ways in which such issues may impact the effective implementation and
measurement of inclusion. Data from interviews conducted with 12 classroom teachers show that teachers frequently face ethical problems in
their practice. Most concerning are those related to the discriminatory
behaviors and practices of colleagues. While teachers acknowledge that
these behaviors and practices disadvantage students, most elect to compromise their beliefs, professional responsibilities, and ethical principles
in order to protect fellow professionals for fear of negative reprisals.
Electing loyalty to colleagues over the best interests of students raises
questions regarding the measurement of inclusive education. Responses
on measurement tools may reflect a desire for teachers to protect colleagues or themselves, providing an inaccurate picture of the situation. On
the other hand, honest responses to measurement initiatives may come at

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003017
19
20
AGNES GAJEWSKI
the expense of collegial relationships, potentially undermining the very

inclusive practices such measurement processes are trying to encourage.
Keywords: Ethical dilemmas; inclusion; teachers; teaching practice;
collegial relationships
INTRODUCTION
Susan is a special education teacher at an elementary school that practices
inclusion. As a part of her role, she supports general education teachers with
programming and planning to ensure that students with special needs have
meaningful learning experiences in the general education classroom. Susan
believes that students should be full and active participants in their regular
classrooms, rather than being withdrawn by her for additional support.
One of the greatest challenges for Susan is the willingness of some teachers
to fully include students with special needs into their general education
classrooms:
You walk into the room and they are like, Can you just take Mary and John and work
with them somewhere else? The teachers just do not want anything to do with you. Some
of the teachers at the school are just harder to work with than others. Some just dont
believe that the kids with special needs should be included in the regular classroom. Theyll
say things like; I dont know why they put Johnny in here. Theres no way! He is only at
the grade 2 level and I am teaching grade 6. Why is he here? Its very hard to convince
them that there are still things that Johnny can learn in their classroom When other teachers make disparaging remarks about your students, thats hurtful! Other teachers dont
want your kids to come in, even when it is music or it is art, you know. [They say] Your
kids were in again and they made a noise, they did this, they did that. And ethically, you
just want to say, Cant you just handle my kids? Cant you just rise to the occasion?
(Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, pp. 108 109)
Susan has made an attempt to gently encourage these teachers and she has
offered extra support to help them feel successful. Nevertheless, their level
of resistance has not diminished. She considered discussing her concerns with
the principal, but she has reservations about how her concerns will be received.
Susan does not want to jeopardize her relationships and create animosity
with colleagues; she worries that they will be intimidated, uncooperative, and
perhaps unreceptive when she comes into their classrooms to support students.
She frets about negatively impacting the classroom and school community,
which in turn will affect the supports and learning opportunities students receive.
Ethical Challenges and Dilemmas in Measuring Inclusive Education
21
At the same time, Susan feels strongly about advocating for the students and
she believes that it is the responsibility of teachers to meet the students individual learning needs.
Teachers, like Susan, are troubled by situations in which they must make
difficult choices, especially those that are believed to be problematic on
ethical grounds. They agonize, considering alternatives and consequences,
all the while taking into account their professional obligations and responsibilities to students and colleagues. Given that there are no evident or
ready solutions, matters that are ethical in nature weigh heavily on teachers.
In keeping with the themes of this volume, valid identification and measurement of the effectiveness of inclusive practices must be premised on
teachers being able to implement the practices that make inclusion successful. This chapter explores ethical challenges and dilemmas that occur in
teaching and considers the ways in which such issues may impact the
effective implementation and successful measurement of inclusion. It is
contended that ethical problems can serve as a barrier to the realization of
inclusion and impede measurement tools. Emphasis is placed on issues
surrounding collegial loyalty and associated consequences for teaching
practice and student learning. Accounts and experiences of teachers, from a
study investigating ethical challenges and dilemmas in inclusive classrooms,
will be used as the basis of this discussion (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012).
ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS IN

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Internationally, many educational institutions have assumed the practice
of inclusion based on recommendations from the United Nations (2006)
and UNESCO (1994). Such practices support equal access to educational
opportunities and resources for all individuals, regardless of need or ability
(Hutchinson, 2002; Jordan, 2007). Inarguably, the movement toward inclusion comprises an ethical underpinning, contingent on the principles of
equity, fairness, and justice as they occur in the context of teaching and
learning (Norwich, 2013). Rude and Whetstone (2008) suggest:
From an ethical point of view, these mandates [for inclusion] specify rights of students
with disabilities that are inherent and unquestionable. The manner in which the
mandates are implemented, however, leads to a variety of interpretations of concepts
that are inter-related with ethics including: equity, responsibility, rights, duty, and
justice. (p. 10)
22
AGNES GAJEWSKI
Given the inherent ethical nature of inclusion, challenges and dilemmas are
bound to occur (Berkeley & Ludlow, 2008; Rude & Whetstone, 2008). An
ethical dilemma involves a trying situation in which the teacher must make
a choice between two or more alternatives. While a dilemma requires the
existence of choice, ethical problems in which a choice is not apparent are
also a source of angst for teachers (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012). Such challenges and dilemmas occur frequently because the nature of the profession
necessitates that teachers fulfill numerous roles, possess an array of knowledge and skills, and adhere to regulations, policies, and institutional
demands, some of which are competing. Consequently, teachers are continuously torn in many directions, having to make important decisions
(Colnerud, 2006; Courtade & Ludlow, 2008). From the curriculum materials they select, the pedagogies they apply, the classroom management
techniques they use, to the seating arrangement they implement they are
accountable to students, other teachers, administrators, and parents
(Campbell, 2003).
In fact, some scholars claim that in special and inclusive education, ethical problems are exacerbated (Courtade & Ludlow, 2008; Fiedler & Van
Haren, 2009). A reason for this, proposed by Howe and Miramontes
(1992), is that the obligation to be equitable and the necessity of specialization place a strain on resources, practices, and the professional knowledge
and skills of teachers. Fiedler and Van Haren (2009) assert that it is the
accountability teachers maintain toward students that provokes ethical tensions. In their professional role, teachers have a responsibility to protect
the interests of their students and ensure that they are not disadvantaged
a task that becomes exceedingly difficult when individual cases and unique
circumstances need to be taken into account. Moreover, students with
special needs may be more at risk given their minority status, potential
vulnerability, and possible inability to advocate for themselves (Fiedler &
Van Haren, 2009).
COMPROMISING THE MEASUREMENT OF

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Research in the field of inclusive education has established practices and
components that are fundamental to the successful inclusion of learners
with diverse needs and abilities into mainstream classrooms (Forlin, Earle,
Loreman, & Sharma, 2011; Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009).
23
In order for inclusion to be effective, it must be adequately implemented,

practiced, and supported at different levels in the education system.
Measurements provide an evaluation of the practice through the use of indicators (Ainscow, 2005) or outcomes (Loreman, 2013). The purpose of the
indicators and outcomes is to outline criteria necessary to implement and
support inclusion, so that its presence and quality can be assessed (Ainscow,
2005; Loreman, 2013). Essentially, measures are intended to act as levers
for change by promoting accountability and transparency, thus driving continuous improvement and ensuring consistency in the practice of inclusion
on a larger scale (Ainscow, 2005, p. 119). A better understanding of proceedings at each level can provide insights into the practice and the ways in which
the levels work together in order to improve teaching and learning for all
students.
While likely beneficial, there is the risk that attempts at measurement
using associated tools can provide an inaccurate view of a situation, especially given the complexities of teaching and inclusion. Moreover, measurements can mask problems and difficulties, thus counteracting the progress
of inclusive education (Ainscow, 2005; Loreman, 2013). Ainscow (2005)
discusses the benefits and the consequences of data collection and
measurement:
On the one hand, data are required in order to monitor the progress of children,
evaluate the impact of interventions, review the effectiveness of policies and processes,
plan new initiatives, and so on. In these senses, data can, justifiably, be seen as the
life-blood of continuous improvement. On the other hand, if effectiveness is evaluated
on the basis of narrow, even inappropriate, performance indicators, then the impact
can be deeply damaging. Whilst appearing to promote the causes of accountability
and transparency, the use of data can, in practice: conceal more than it reveals; invite
misinterpretation; and, worst of all, have a perverse effect on the behavior of professionals. (p. 119)
Conceivably, challenges and dilemmas may intensify such phenomenon,

especially given their ethical nature, as difficulties create barriers for
teachers to manage in the scope of their practice. While experienced at the
school and classroom level by teachers, ethical problems are influenced by
numerous factors, including those that exist outside of the educational
system. Multiple stakeholders, opposing interests, and contradictory
demands, compounded by policies and funding regulations, make ethical
dilemmas extremely messy and convoluted. Thus, they are difficult to
dissect and analyze. Furthermore, ethical issues are a significant stressor
for teachers, regularly eliciting feelings of anxiety and guilt. Teachers often
do not know how to cope with or resolve ethical challenges; therefore, they
24
AGNES GAJEWSKI
are frequently ignored or left unresolved (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012).

Consequently, ethical dilemmas may complicate or negatively influence the
measurement of inclusion. By concealing problems and obscuring situations or practices, they may influence responses on measurement tools,
making them ineffective.
The following section of this chapter will build on the discussion of
ethical challenges and dilemmas in relation to the measurement and practice of inclusion by citing examples from an empirical study. These examples will demonstrate the seriousness of ethical dilemmas in practice and
illustrate the extent to which the ethics of teachers are tested. Twelve
classroom teachers working at the elementary and secondary level
engaged in a survey followed by individual interviews. During the interviews, the teachers were asked to describe ethical dilemmas that they
experienced in the context of inclusion, coping strategies they employ,
and current supports available to assist them in managing ethical difficulties. Ten of the twelve teachers were female and two were male, eight
worked in inclusive general education classrooms and four were special
educators. Teaching experience varied significantly between participants,
with a range of 1 24 years. Data were analyzed qualitatively using a
constant comparison method to identify emergent themes (KieltykaGajewski, 2012).
The results of the study demonstrate that teachers often experience
ethical challenges and dilemmas in the context of inclusion that tug at
their consciences and leave them with feelings of uncertainty and doubt.
Teachers were primarily concerned that the principles of equity, fairness,
and care were being compromised and that students with special needs
were being disadvantaged. There was a general consensus that the individual needs of students were not being adequately met in mainstream
classrooms. While a portion of the ethical issues were attributed to a lack
of support and training, feelings of unpreparedness and inadequacy, and
special education policies and regulations, the most pressing were those
associated with colleagues and collegial relations. In their discussions of
more generalized challenges and dilemmas in inclusive education, participants reverted to troubles associated with the practices, actions, and
behaviors of other teachers. Colleagues who were unwilling to include
students into their general education classrooms, those who failed to
make necessary accommodations and modifications, and those who treated students with special needs inequitably were highlighted as being
especially disturbing.
25
ETHICAL CHALLENGES, PERPLEXITIES, AND

PROBLEMS IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS:
ACCOUNTS AND PERSPECTIVES OF TEACHERS
In the classroom, inclusion is actualized through the delivery of supports
and services, instruction, assessment and evaluation, collaboration between
stakeholders, and the direct and continuous involvement of students. A
common misconception that seems to exist is the belief that if students are
physically present, the provision of inclusion has been met. Teachers interviewed perceived a significant discrepancy between the concept and practice
of inclusion. Many felt that inclusion in schools continues to be regarded
as a matter of placement as opposed to a practice or program that
addresses the individual learning needs of students. A primary school
teacher expresses her concerns:
Sit in the corner and play with this for an hour while I teach the rest of the kids. Is that
really meeting their needs? Thats not differentiated instruction. Thats not inclusion.
Physically inclusive doesnt necessarily mean the kid is engaged. Putting kids with special needs in a general classroom, yay! What we did was physically include all of these
kids with special needs, but just because they are in the classroom, I have seen so
many cases where the teachers were like, Ok, as long as they are quiet in the corner
and playing, I can continue with my class. But, is that what that child needs?
(Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 107)
While inclusion is endorsed in many schools, a focus on placement means

it is not effectively implemented, thus inequalities and issues of access to
social and academic opportunities continue to be experienced by students.
In such cases, teachers who attempt to meet the needs of their students and
engage in a practice that is fair and equitable for all, face numerous
challenges. For one, they often feel unsupported, as is the case with this
intermediate teacher:
The thing is, the integration of students with special needs into the classroom, is blind,
We must integrate all children into this classroom, and no support comes with
it and that is unethical in my opinion. Just because you plop them into my room
does not mean anything. And so many [students with special needs] are suffering. So
many of them are not reaching their potential. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 108)
Some teachers also feel unprepared to meet the demands of an inclusive

classroom. Many lack the knowledge and skills required to individualize
instruction, make accommodations or modification, or address the unique
26
AGNES GAJEWSKI
needs of their students. Inclusion focused on presence as opposed to participation, results in the sustainment of exclusionary practices and culture at
the school level, leaving teachers on their own to deal with the repercussions. Support and professional development are not seen as necessary
because there is an assumption that inclusion is occurring. Consequently,
as was the experience of this intermediate teacher, those who seek support
are often denied:
I dont think thats so much to ask I kept saying, I dont know how to meet her
needs. And the principal kept saying, Oh youre fine. She loves you. She works
hard. And she did, she worked really hard, whatever I gave her. But I wanted more
for her and I wanted help. I was reaching out for help. And all I got was a pat on the
back. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 133)
It is imperative to identify school practices that are not conducive to the

active and meaningful participation of students with diverse needs and abilities, as such practices establish barriers, for both teachers and students,
and prevent successful inclusion (Slee, 2011; Wedell, 2008). In a culture of
partial inclusion, adequate supports and professional development for
teachers are often lacking, thus students with special needs continue to be
segregated and disadvantaged. Connor and Ferri (2007) argue that school
practices drive successful inclusion in the classroom:
General education classes are not always perceived as adequately prepared to meet the
needs of diverse learners. The readiness of teachers in particular is often claimed to
be lacking Although we most often talk about isolation in special education, alienation can occur for disabled students in general education settings Thus, simply allowing students to be present and visible is not the same as promoting interaction or
integration. Anything short of full and meaningful participation, which will require fundamental changes in general education, violates the principles of inclusion. (pp. 71 72)
Despite the inadequacy and inaccessibility of supports in schools, teachers

feel a sense of obligation to their students. They feel that it is their responsibility to secure necessary resources and services and to provide an individualized program that will allow their students to succeed socially and
academically. Ethical difficulties arise when teachers are unable to meet
their students needs. This, in turn, affects their sense of efficacy as, according to Stanovich and Jordan (2002), teachers who do not have access to
adequate supports and resources are less likely to be successful at including
students with special needs into their general education classrooms, hence,
making them more resistant and pessimistic about the practice of inclusion.
How can inclusion accurately be measured if it is superficial? If school
practices sustain a culture of physical inclusion, where the focus is on
27
placement, lines of distinction are maintained. Subtle or not, the segregation may not be distinguished by all teachers and administrators, thus
attempts to evaluate the presence and success of inclusion may be misrepresented. More so, exclusionary practices at the school level can infiltrate
into the classroom.
Inclusion comes to fruition at the classroom level (Loreman, 2013).
Classroom practices that foster equity and fairness and support students
with different needs and abilities are fundamental to its realization. The
basis of learning occurs within the classroom and the individual who
possesses primary responsibility over its functioning is the teacher. It is the
teacher who establishes the classroom community and culture, makes decisions about instructional and assessment practices, promotes principles and
expectations, and serves to ensure the well-being of each student under his
or her care.
The global shift toward inclusion has resulted in changes to the roles
and responsibilities of general educators. Within the inclusive education
approach, the general educator is predominantly accountable for the teaching and learning of students with special needs (Bunch, Lupart, & Brown,
1997; Bunch & Valeo, 2004). While the fundamentals of inclusion are
dependent on access, its effectiveness is contingent upon the degree of
ownership that teachers assume over their students (Bunch & Valeo,
2004, p. 61). Respectively, classroom teachers are vital to the success of
inclusion (Stanovich & Jordan, 2004). Jordan et al. (2009) argued that the
achievement of full inclusion is determined by teachers conceptions about
disability and the role they assume in supporting students with special
needs. Likewise, Stanovich and Jordan (2002), based on an empirical study
which measured student outcomes, identified four variables which are critical to the attainment of inclusion: teacher beliefs about disability and the
inclusion of students with special needs into general education classrooms;
teacher efficacy; teaching practices; and school norm/culture pertaining to
disability (p. 175). It is important to acknowledge that three of the four
variables focus on the classroom teacher. Consequently, teachers who hold
a positive attitude about disability possess and employ an array of instructional and assessment strategies which address individual needs and
abilities. Such practices are used to benefit all students, not only those with
special needs. In turn, these teachers feel confident and successful at including students with diverse learning needs into their classrooms, thus they
maintain a positive attitude about disability and support inclusive education (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003; Forlin et al., 2011).
Regrettably, this cycle can also be negative and, in turn, exclusionary
28
AGNES GAJEWSKI
(Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008; Stanovich & Jordan, 2002), as exemplified by this secondary school special educator who describes the antagonistic attitudes and exclusionary behaviors of some of her colleagues:
They were like, Oh okay. What are you going to be teaching? And I said, I am starting the Asperger program. They asked, What does that mean? Are we getting the
really stupid kids? And I said, No. I am teaching students who have been diagnosed
with high functioning autism. And he asked, Are they being shipped in? And I said,
No. Believe it or not, but some of them are already in your school. You have probably
taught them. You will probably continue to teach them . So, I knew right from the
start then that I would have resistance from colleagues where I worked. Some of that
had manifested in colleagues flat-out refusing to accept my students in their classrooms,
where I have had to go to admin and say, Look, this is what the student wants to
take, there is room in the class, how do I get the student in this program? The most
common phrase I hear when I ask about integrating my students is that my student is
making the learning environment poisonous. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 257)
Many of the ethical problems reported by teacher participants related to

inclusion can be attributed to differences in teachers attitudes and beliefs
about disability. Practices and behaviors which segregated, disadvantaged,
and characterized students with special needs as inferior and deficient
troubled teachers. Jordan and Stanovich (2001, 2003) identified a continuum of beliefs maintained by teachers about disability. These range from
pathognomonic; where disabilities are viewed as characteristics of the child
and his/her family, static and not amenable to change, to interventionist;
where disabilities are seen as barriers to accessing learning with curriculum
that needs to be changed or circumvented. Teachers who hold pathognomonic beliefs maintain a negative attitude toward disability, thus hindering
the success of inclusion. Jordan, Glenn, and McGhie-Richmond, (2010)
suggest that teachers attitudes and beliefs are inextricably linked to their
practices, not only in how they work with students who have special needs
but how they approach instruction for all their students. Those who hold
pathognomonic beliefs view students with special needs as being unable to
learn, thus absolving themselves of all responsibility for their teaching and
learning, a point illuminated by the account of this elementary school general educator who describes a colleague:
I saw the resource teacher teaching the student incorrectly. I went over and I tried to
help her. I told her that I could explain it if she wanted and she said, Oh, it doesnt
matter for these kids. Theyll never get it anyways. It doesnt matter how you teach it,
right or wrong, they will never get it anyways. So that kind of attitude is troublesome.
The teachers dont care, it seems, whether the students learn. I have also seen that same
teacher gives students the answers because, as she explained it to me, These students
29
will never learn it, so we might as well get it done for them I would sit there and try
to explain the work to the students and she would laugh at me and tell me that I was
wasting my time. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 258)
Essentially, general education teachers who exonerate themselves of the

task of teaching students with special needs are less likely to develop inclusive practices and programs, engage in positive interactions with students
who have special needs, collaborate with colleagues, or seek counsel and
professional development to expand their knowledge and skills (Jordan
et al., 2010; Stanovich & Jordan, 2002, 2004). By and large, inclusion is
therefore most successful and sustainable when teachers maintain positive
attitudes and beliefs about disability and accept responsibility for the teaching and learning of all students.
Apathetic attitudes about disability and resistance to the active and
meaningful participation of students with special needs into mainstream
classrooms are extremely problematic. If teachers are key to the success of
inclusion, but they do not support it, how can inclusion be successful?
Arguably, it cannot be as such practices contradict inclusion. How can teachers who perceive students with special needs as unteachable and inferior effectively remove existing barriers and support their learning in the
classroom? By extension, these concerns relate to the measurement of inclusion. How can we measure outcomes for a practice that is not realized in the
school or classroom? More so, if the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of teachers oppose inclusion, how can the practice and its progress be effectively
evaluated, especially using tools that rely on self-evaluation? Presumably,
we would expect that measurement tools would attain adverse data through
the observations and reports of teachers who support inclusion. Yet, given
the findings on ethical dilemmas in relation to collegiality in the context of
inclusion (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012), this assumption must be questioned.
COLLEGIAL ADVERSITY IN THE CONTEXT

OF INCLUSION
The most pressing ethical issues and those that elicited the greatest anxiety
and stress, as described by teachers, dealt with relations with colleagues.
Given the increased responsibility that teachers are assuming over students
with special needs, along with the inherent complexities of teaching, the
necessity to be equitable, fair, and caring places a great deal of pressure on
teachers, especially in the face of colleagues who make it difficult for them
30
AGNES GAJEWSKI
to do so. Ethical dilemmas reported by teachers in the context of inclusion

consist of the reluctance of colleagues to be inclusive, negative perceptions
of disability, ineffective programming, and the inequitable treatment of students with special needs (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012).
The prevalence and culpability of ethical difficulties involving colleagues
is substantiated by the empirical works of Campbell (1996, 2003) (Canada),
Colnerud (1994, 1997, 2006) (Sweden), and Tirri and Husu (2002)
(Finland). Such instances concern direct interactions between teachers,
observations of coworkers, or accounts obtained from a third party, where
teachers had reason to believe that students were mistreated or neglected
(Campbell, 2003, 2008; Colnerud, 1994, 1997). Campbell (1996, 2003) in an
examination of ethical dilemmas in teaching found that collegial problems
pervade the profession. Likewise, Tirri and Husu (2002) suggest that one
third of all dilemmas reported in their study consisted of situations in
which a colleague behaved in a cruel way towards a child (p. 72). In a
majority of these difficulties, teachers felt torn between their responsibility
to students and their loyalty to colleagues. Regrettably, all of the researchers
found that in situations involving colleagues, loyalty negated obligation to
the student, as suggested by Campbell (2003), [teachers] suspend their
morality [and] conform to the collective norm, in this case collegial
loyalty, even in situations in which they do not believe they should (p. 92).
Accordingly, Colnerud (1994) claims that teachers elect loyalty to the detriment of their personal and professional sense of ethics, stating, teachers do
not follow what they intuitively or consciously think is the right thing to do.
They fail to act in a way that they themselves define as morally good (p. 3).
Consequently, in situations involving colleagues, teachers fail to question
the actions or practices of other teachers, even if they are aware that a students best interests are jeopardized (Campbell, 2003; Tirri & Husu, 2002).
Collegial conflicts exert a great deal of pressure, anxiety, and strain on
teachers. Those who support inclusion and strive to uphold ethical principles
in their practice must work in opposition to colleagues who disadvantage or
mistreat students with special needs. Despite the difficulties and ethical
issues, teachers refuse to confront colleagues or call them out on their reprehensible behaviors. For example, rather than address behaviors that are
patronizing and nasty, this primary school teacher decides to forfeit his
preparation time in order to protect the best interests of his students:
Gym got so bad that
was so patronizing to
would all be happier
them because it was
I just yanked them out. It was so stupid. She [the

my students. I was like, Its okay. We can just go
then, and it wasnt a very good gym class. So, I
a bad integration experience. She was just nasty
gym teacher]
outside. We
de-integrated
So I just
31
decided to miss my prep, which sucks for me but what can you do? (Kieltyka-Gajewski,
2012, p. 112)
While self-sacrifice in the interest of students is commendable, failing to

address the issue is counterintuitive, as other classes and students are likely
to be facing similar experiences. Allowing such actions and behaviors to
continue, essentially condones them. The gym teacher will probably continue to mistreat students with special needs without repercussions. This,
however, is not an isolated response. Most teachers elect to turn a blind eye
to extremely problematic situations that involve other teachers. This
elementary teacher, along with other staff at the school, chooses to ignore
the blatant verbal abuse of students:
Any kid that needs extra help, she complains about them and calls them names. She
doesnt want to put in the extra time. She likes the girls and the kids who dont ask anything extra of her. If she has to re-explain something, she gets really frustrated. So, the
kids with special needs, they get most of it from her because they are the kids that are
usually going to go up and ask for the extra help and she verbally abuses them . The
other kids hear her calling their classmates names I would more often than not leave
it alone. Its just the whole notion that it is safer to leave it alone I have heard others
say nasty things about her, but I never say anything. I know so many things, but I will
never go and say that because I do not want to be the rat All the teachers in the
school knew. The teacher in the classroom next door told me that the classroom was
always so crazy and so loud that she wasnt able to teach . I dont think that any
teacher has actually approached her and told her what she was doing was wrong.
They all know about it but you know no one wants to put their neck out.
(Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 143)
Campbell (1996, 2003) argues that fear is the driving factor that prevents
teachers from intervening. The fear of personal or professional consequences, or collegial ostracism, for criticizing a colleague is so intense that
the teacher would prefer to make personal sacrifices in order to evade associated risks. Colnerud (1994, 1997) agrees. She attributes this social norm
of loyalty to the apprehensions teachers feel of being identified as whistle
blowers. Colnerud (1997) states:
One of the most striking conflicts described is between protecting pupils and the social
norm of loyalty to colleagues. Teachers sometimes witness, or are informed by others,
that a colleague is treating the pupils in a harmful way . Although the teacher
regards the colleagues treatment as harmful, although he or she cares about the pupil,
it is difficult to confront the colleague . Criticism of each other within the teacher
group seems to be taboo. (p. 631)
Consequently, the majority of collegial ethical challenges and dilemmas are

left unresolved (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012; Tirri & Husu, 2002).
32
AGNES GAJEWSKI
There are, however, grave costs associated with ignoring and avoiding
collegial issues, both personal and professional. Despite their refusal to
confront colleagues, the teacher participants were aware of their obligation
to address issues in order to protect the well-being of students. As a result,
many reported feelings of regret and guilt as well as a sense of failure.
Some even contemplated leaving the profession as they felt that they were
not fulfilling their professional responsibilities (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012).
Nevertheless, Campbell (1996, 2003) claims that if offered a chance to
make a different choice and reverse their decision, most would once again
elect to protect colleagues. Additionally, collegial conflicts made it difficult
for teachers to advocate for their students or to collaborate with colleagues
to best meet their needs. Yet, the success of inclusion is contingent on collaboration and shared responsibility (Deppeler, Loreman, & Sharma, 2005;
Loreman, 2013). All stakeholders must work together to meet the needs of
the student and ensure his or her social and academic success. Teachers
must be able to access supports and resources to enhance and improve their
practice in the classroom. Stanovich and Jordan (2004) concur, drawing on
research data they argue that successful inclusion involves teachers accepting responsibility for students with special needs and working with others
to ensure their needs are met:
Accepting responsibility for including students with disabilities does mean: being a
member of a team, being part of a collaborative school culture, collaborating with colleagues, partnering with parents, knowing when and who to ask for help, knowing
where to go for and how to get resources, and knowing the kinds of questions to ask
that will help you be an effective teacher for all your students. (p. 179)
Collaboration was especially difficult for special educators who were

required to work with and support general educators due to the nature of
their role in the school. Many felt that they had to be very cautious and nonintrusive when working with other teachers, as they worried that their support or feedback would be interpreted as criticism, a challenge exemplified by
the accounts of a special education teacher at the elementary school level:
Sometimes I would go into other teachers classrooms and I would be horrified! They
were giving the students [with special needs] totally different work or making them sit
there and do paperwork. They were having an EA [educational assistant] take the kids
into a corner and work alone with them. It was just awful. Or giving them work that was
way too hard for them, giving them tests that were impossible for them to be doing. And
the teachers knew that it was too hard because it wasnt on their IEP [individual education plan]. And then how would I tell the teachers that they were not doing it right. And
also, when do you go to the principal and tell him or her what is going on? That is the
hardest thing. It is very nerve wrecking. And can you? And if you do and they cant
33
really do anything about it, they think that you are a crybaby. Thats really tough .
Especially when you are in special ed and you are working with other teachers in their
classrooms. When you are co-teaching and team teaching. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012,
p. 206)
Regrettably, in order to remain cordial, special educators frequently failed

to address the problematic behaviors and practices of teachers. The special
educators were concerned that if teachers felt intimidated or insulted they
would not welcome them into their general education classrooms or they
would refuse assistance. How can general educators be supported if special
educators are hesitant to address practice-related issues? Research denotes
the importance of support and professional development for the success of
inclusion as it positively affects teacher efficacy and the effectiveness of
practice (Bennett, 2009; Leatherman, 2007; Silverman, 2007). Jordan (2001)
argues that the best investment of resources is to support and enhance
the ability of teachers to respond to the diverse needs of all students
(p. 357). Nevertheless, the very support that teachers require appears to be
restrained by fear and collegial loyalty.
A culture of collegiality or a norm of loyalty, which supersedes all professional responsibility and accountability to students, poses a significant
obstacle to the measurement of inclusion. How can teachers accurately
reflect the implementation of inclusion at the school and classroom level
when they hesitate to voice concerns about the reprehensible behaviors or
problematic practices of colleagues? Collegial loyalty may necessitate
teachers to disguise challenges or complications to inclusion, thus any
attempts to measure the practice would be unreliable. In their efforts to
protect colleagues or themselves, teachers would potentially misrepresent
the situation, in consequence skewing results. Conversely, honest responses
on measurements may further problematize collegial relationships or interactions, making collaboration and in turn, the support of general educators
even more difficult. Given the importance of collaboration, shared responsibility, student and teacher support, efficacy, climate, and classroom practices (Loreman, 2013) to the successful implementation of inclusion, it is
arguable that collegial issues need to be addressed before inclusion can
effectively be practiced.
CONCLUSION
The teacher is integral to the success of inclusion. Yet, it is also the teacher
who experiences numerous ethical predicaments in practice. Ethical issues
34
AGNES GAJEWSKI
may serve to impede the implementation and delivery of inclusive

education, which has significant implications for student learning and the
fulfillment of the United Nations and UNESCO directives. Moreover, such
problems may hinder measurement tools and obscure outcomes, thus
providing an inaccurate evaluation of inclusive practice, which could withhold improvement and restrain progress.
An examination of the ethical perplexities that arise in teaching students
with special needs demonstrate that there are numerous challenges that
threaten the implementation of inclusion. Therefore, it is critical to consider how inclusion can effectively be identified, measured, and supported
when ethical challenges and dilemmas complicate and at times thwart the
variables that are imperative to its practice and more importantly success.
Berkeley and Ludlow (2008) state, We believe that it is impossible to provide individualized and meaningful special education programming unless
these [ethical] issues are addressed and discussed on a continuing basis
(p. 6). Understanding the challenges that teachers face may provide insights
as to how measurement tools and processes can be revised. Such improvement has the potential to enhance practice and in turn learning for all
students, thus advancing the goal of inclusive education.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change?
Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109 124.
Bennett, S. (2009). Including students with exceptionalities. What works? Research into practice.
The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.
edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Bennett.pdf
Berkeley, T. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in rural special education: A call
for a conversation about the ethics of practice. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
27(1 2), 3 9.
Bunch, G., Lupart, J., & Brown, M. (1997, April). Resistance and acceptance: Educators
attitudes to inclusion of students with disabilities (ED 410 713). Toronto, ON: York
University.
Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (2004). Student attitudes towards peers with disabilities in inclusive
and special education schools. Disability and Society, 19(1), 61 76.
Campbell, E. (1996). Ethical implications of collegial loyalty as one view of teacher professionalism. Teachers and Teaching, 2(2), 191 208. doi:10.1080/1354060960020203
Campbell, E. (2003). The ethical teacher. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Campbell, E. (2008). Review of the literature: The ethics of teaching as a moral profession.
Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 357 385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00414.x
35
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers attitudes
towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability,
28(4), 369 379. doi:10.1080/13668250310001616407
Colnerud, G. (1994). Loyalty conflicts in teacher ethics. Retrieved from ERIC database: http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED392738.pdf
Colnerud, G. (1997). Ethical conflicts in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6),
627 635.
Colnerud, G. (2006). Teacher ethics as a research problem: Synthesis achieved and new issues.
Teachers and Teaching, 12(3), 365 385. doi:10.1080/13450600500467704
Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other
paradoxes in special education. Disability and Society, 22(1), 63 77.
Courtade, G. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (2008). Ethical issues and severe disabilities: Programming
for students and preparation for teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1 2),
36 42.
Deppeler, J. T., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2005). Reconceptualising specialist support services in inclusive classrooms. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 117 127.
Fiedler, C. R., & Van Haren, B. (2009). A comparison of special education administrators
and teachers knowledge and application of ethics and professional standards. The
Journal of Special Education, 43(3), 160 173.
Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service
teachers perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3),
50 65.
Howe, K. R., & Miramontes, O. B. (1992). The ethics of special education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Hutchinson, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and exceptional learners in Canadian schools: A practical
handbook for teachers. Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.
Jordan, A. (2001). Special education in Ontario, Canada: A case study of market-based
reforms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 349 371. doi:10.1080/030576401200
86602
Jordan, A. (2007). Introduction to inclusive education. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley and Sons
Canada Ltd.
Jordan, A., & Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The supporting effective teaching
(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers beliefs about
disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(2), 259 266. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535 542.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns of teacher student interaction in inclusive elementary classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International Journal of
Disability, Development, and Education, 48(1), 33 52.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers personal epistemological beliefs about students
with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 3(1), 1 11. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2003.00184.x
Kieltyka-Gajewski, A. (2012). Ethical challenges and dilemmas in teaching students with
special needs in inclusive classrooms: Exploring the perspectives of Ontario teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto.
36
AGNES GAJEWSKI
Leatherman, J. M. (2007). I just see children as children: Teachers perceptions about inclusion.
The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 594 611.
Loreman, T. (2013). Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5), 459 483. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.788223
Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. London: Routledge.
Rude, H. A., & Whetstone, P. J. (2008). Ethical considerations for special educators in rural
America. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1 2), 10 18.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773 785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Silverman, J. C. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes towards inclusion in pre-service
teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 42 51.
Slee, R. (2011). Irregular schooling: Special education, regular education, and inclusive education. London: Routledge.
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (2002). Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive classrooms: Some food for thought. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 173 185.
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (2004). Inclusion as professional development. Exceptionality
Education Canada, 14(2), 169 188.
Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in the best interest of the child:
Relational voices of ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 8(1), 65 80.
doi:10.1080/13540600120110574
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
Wedell, K. (2008). Confusion about inclusion: Patching up or system change? British Journal
of Special Education, 35(3), 127 135.
WHAT IS EFFECTIVE INCLUSION?

INTERPRETING AND
EVALUATING A WESTERN
CONCEPT IN AN INDIAN CONTEXT
Richard Rose, Mary Doveston,
Jayashree Rajanahally and Johnson Jament
ABSTRACT
The concept of inclusive education has been largely debated and developed within a western context and its application within other cultural
situations can be challenging. This chapter considers how the interpretation of inclusion within India is influenced by traditional values from
within that society which may challenge some of the more conventional
ideas within this area. In particular, consideration is given to the ways
in which teachers and policy makers define those conditions that might
support inclusive schooling and evaluate the ways in which schools are
responding to change.
Keywords: India; inclusion; values; teachers; policy

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003018
37
38
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
In India as elsewhere, in response to recent moves towards creating more
equitable education systems, policy initiatives have been introduced to
encourage the development of inclusive education. In particular, the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (Ministry of Human
Resource Development India, 2009) commonly referred to as the RTE has
introduced renewed vigour into debates about future provision for previously marginalised populations of children. This legislation, which builds
upon earlier initiatives including Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) (Ministry
of Human Resource Development, 2000) with a stated objective of ensuring universal elementary education for children throughout India, reflects
international trends towards the introduction of policy initiatives for the
promotion of improved access to learning (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO], 1994, 2000).
The authors of this chapter applaud the attempts made by the Ministry
of Human Resource Development to provide a definition of inclusion that
recognises the close relationship between poverty, caste and special educational needs. Whereas in some legislatures, the focus of inclusive schooling
has been upon the education of pupils with special educational needs
and disabilities, such an approach within the Indian context would fail to
recognise the significance of potent factors that have led to the marginalisation of children within the education system. Inclusive education will not be
achieved until such time as the influences of poverty and the challenges
associated with ingrained beliefs about peoples from scheduled tribes or
castes are addressed. A policy of inclusion demands that policy makers and
those working in schools address the socio-economic as well as cultural and
educational inequalities that characterise much of Indian educational
provision.
The legislation in India has undoubtedly been significant in raising
awareness and placing a focus upon special educational needs issues in a
country where universal access to schooling remains a challenge (UNESCO,
2014). RTE places an emphasis upon achieving greater access to education
for girls, children from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, those
described as being from economically weaker sections of society (EWS),
and others with disabilities or special educational needs. Indian initiatives in
this area can be seen to have had some success through the encouragement
of provision of new schools and classrooms and the training of additional
teachers in several parts of the country, though this is inconsistent across
states (Singh Kainth, 2006). Furthermore, there is some indication that
Interpreting Inclusion: A Western Concept in an Indian Context
39
issues of physical access to buildings and increased awareness of disability

issues have resulted in improved access to school for children who would
previously have been denied admission (Mehta, 2009). This has certainly
been significant in contributing to a decrease in the number of children out
of school with the UNESCO Institute for Statistics reporting that policy
changes in India have contributed a decrease in the number of out-of-school
children from 20 million to 4 million between 2002 and 2008 (UNESCO,
2009). However, it has been difficult to ensure high levels of awareness of
the requirements of RTE and responses to recommendations have varied
across the Indian states (Pandey, 2013; Rao, 2009). Whilst the earlier SSA
initiative has undoubtedly achieved a level of success in increasing provision
and access to education, there remain many issues associated with progress,
retention and attendance that require further investigation in order to ascertain the overall impact of the initiative (Kingdon, 2007a, 2007b).
The RTE builds upon the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act (Government of
India, 1996) that afforded the right to pursue free and compulsory education for children with special educational needs and clearly defines the
responsibilities of state authorities, schools, teachers and parents. In addition, it defines the functions of the National Commission for Protection of
Childrens Rights in respect of monitoring the implementation of the Act.
Whilst this legislation has been broadly welcomed by organisations representing children from minority groups (Sightsavers, 2011), the focus of
attention has been upon the allocation of a quota model recently upheld by
the Supreme Court, placing a responsibility upon all schools, both government and private, to admit an increased population of children from minorities and discriminated groups (The Hindu, 2012; Times of India, 2012).
Critics of the legislation from groups representing children with disabilities
and their families have suggested that there are significant weaknesses in
the Act (Alkazi & Rajasree, 2012; Jha, Ghatak, Mahendiran, & Bakshi,
2013). In particular, they point to a clause that indicates that home-based
education may be the best option for some children with the most complex
needs and to the emphasis within the legislation upon other groups, such
as those from scheduled castes with little attention given to those with
disabilities. However, Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal
assured both Parliament and the Central Advisory Board of Education
(CABE) that all categories of children with disabilities would receive benefits under the RTE Act.
Whilst debates around the RTE have centred upon the interpretation of
policy, the practicalities of implementing the Act for schools in respect of
40
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
their state of preparedness have received less attention. Discussions of

teachers readiness to address the needs of a more diverse population have
been limited (Soni & Rahman, 2013), though this would seem to be a critical factor in terms of the successful implementation of the legislation. In
the Act, there is a section that outlines issues related to teacher qualifications and acknowledges the need to strengthen the provision of professional development. As yet it is impossible to evaluate whether changes in
this area are taking place at a rate that will allow for a transition towards
the more inclusive forms of schooling advocated.
An area of particular concern is the lack of procedure for the assessment of quality in terms of provision that is made for pupils with special
educational needs and others entering school for the first time. Whilst it is
clear that more children from these marginalised groups are being
admitted to school as a result of recent legislation, and that awareness of
the diversity of learning needs has increased, there is little evidence of formal approaches to the evaluation of the progress made by these pupils, or
of the quality of teaching that they receive (Hernandez, 2008). Where
attempts have been made to examine the effectiveness of inclusion in
Indian schools, this has generally been narrowly focused (Singal, 2006).
We contend that an understanding of the effectiveness of policies intended
to promote inclusion and practices developed for its implementation is a
complex process that requires attention in relation to several critical factors. These should include an analysis of the levels of understanding of the
needs of individual pupils, an appreciation of those environmental factors
that have an impact upon learning, and a determination of required learning outcomes in both academic and social terms. It has often been the case
that efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of education have been concentrated only upon specific aspects of teaching or learning, providing little by
the way of data that could realistically inform changes towards a more sustainable system. In many instances, as for example in England, where considerable efforts have been invested in the recording of academic learning
outcomes as an indicator of successful educational provision, the social
and emotional needs of vulnerable pupils and their individual progress
from what is often a relatively low baseline has been sadly neglected. In
the rush to measure academic attainment, the achievements of individual
learners have often been overlooked. There are many instances of pupils
who have made progress commensurate with or even greater than that of
their peers but who fail to reach age-expected norms and continue to be
described as poor learners. For many such pupils their achievements
remain unrecorded, whilst their apparently low attainment results in their
being seen as failing pupils.
41
In order to address this shortcoming, it is necessary to establish more holistic approaches by which we may interpret the effectiveness of schooling and
through which we may make observations about its inclusiveness. In several
western countries efforts have been made to develop instruments that may
assist teachers and others in assessing the state of schools in relation to
their inclusiveness and these have generally adopted a much broader view of
what might constitute success. Instruments such as the Index for Inclusion
(Booth & Ainscow, 2011) and Inclusion Quality Mark (Coles & Hancock,
2002) developed in England and the Inclusive Education Framework
(National Council for Special Education, 2011) in Ireland have provided an
effective aid to schools self-evaluation and a means of scaffolding development in order for schools to become more welcoming and supportive of
pupils with diverse needs. One of the strengths of these instruments is the way
in which they have attempted to look at a broad range of issues that impact
upon school effectiveness, including the management of the school, the fostering of positive attitudes, the development of relationships both within schools
and the wider community, and the recognition of a broad spectrum of learning needs. In the case of at least one of these instruments, the Index for
Inclusion, translation into other languages has made the document accessible
to schools internationally, though challenges with regard to cultural validity
of all these documents remain largely unaddressed (Jament, 2013).
In providing a framework for the assessment of inclusion each of the
aforementioned instruments have a common advantage in the efforts that
their authors have made to evaluate the suitability of schools for inclusion,
whilst also considering the purpose of inclusive schooling and the way that
principles might be applied in inclusive classrooms. These afford a more
relevant means of considering the relative success of provision than the
more simplistic and narrow assessment of learning outcomes to define
effective schools. However, where these are implemented it is essential that
they are not simply used as a checklist whereby schools can claim to have
become inclusive, but rather as a means of fostering discussion and debate
and providing developmental opportunities for addressing inclusion in a
holistic manner.
THE CHALLENGE OF ASSESSING

INCLUSION IN INDIA
Developments in inclusive education were originally led by countries with
well-developed socio-economic infrastructures and well-established special
42
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
education provision (Armstrong, 1998). Movement towards an inclusive

education system was promoted both by a rights-based agenda often led by
groups and individuals who had themselves experienced marginalisation or
exclusion (Bjarnason, 2003; Rieser & Mason, 1992) and through the development of a greater understanding of pedagogical approaches that were
supportive of teaching previously segregated pupils in mainstream classrooms (Ashman, 2012; Norwich, 2013). A similar pattern has been followed in India, but has been slower to progress due to the diversity of the
country in terms of socio-economic variability across states, and difficulties
of achieving national co-ordination in a large nation, where access to education has been far from universal. Alur and Bach (2010) have articulated
the challenges faced in gaining even the most fundamental facilities for children with disabilities or others who come from socially or economically disadvantaged sections of Indian society. In calling for change to a more
inclusive education system, they recognise that the uneven picture across
India presents challenges on many levels. Whilst for some pupils the focus
is upon transition from segregated to mainstream provision, for many
others there remains a challenge of gaining education in any facility. As
Alur and Bach state, a significant number of children who are currently
excluded from education are caught in a vicious grip of poverty and often
live in remote and inaccessible areas of the country or in city slums. Many
come from families with little or no experience of schooling and often these
children have not been made welcome in schools. Because of this, western
definitions of inclusive schooling and the ways in which we may assess the
effectiveness of inclusion may well be inadequate.
Unnikrishnan (2010) suggests that the development of inclusive education in India is fundamentally dependent upon raising awareness and developing skills. Inclusion will not be achieved until such time as teachers and
other professionals feel confident in addressing a wide range of needs and
adopt positive attitudes towards those learners who have traditionally been
denied access to schooling. Unnikrishnan believes that a common language
of inclusion shared by policy makers, teachers, and parents is critical for
the achievement of a consistent development of procedures and practices to
support children with special educational needs. This view reinforces that
expressed by Alur and Bach and suggests that the assessment of inclusion
is unlikely to be consistently managed until such time as a common understanding of its purpose and the ways in which it may be delivered is
attained.
Hammer (2013) in an analysis of the intentions of the RTE as a means
of promoting a more equitable and inclusive education system in India
43
proposes that assessments should be made of three variables. These may in

fact provide us with a useful starting point when considering the ways
in which we may implement processes for the assessment of inclusion in
India.
The first variable described by Hammer considers three aspects of
what he terms school characteristics, these being student attendance
records, teacher attendance and student teacher ratio. He suggests that
there are serious issues with regards to attendance on the part of both students and teachers that impact upon the provision of education to children
from marginalised groups. The attendance of students has often been poor
and influenced by economic factors, such as their wage earning potential,
that might be essential for the welfare of their families. Parental attitudes
towards school attendance need to be understood if expectations that all
children receive an education are to be achieved. The long-term benefits of
education, for example in providing potential for employment in more
skilled and better paid jobs, need to be understood by parents and young
people alike if incentives to attend school are to be understood.
Student attendance is closely allied to that of teachers and the recent
UNICEF Education for All Monitoring Report (UNICEF, 2014) stressed
the challenges that exist here. Teacher attendance in many schools, particularly those in the poorer communities of India, is inconsistent and in some
instances haphazard. This relates in part to poor working conditions
and low salaries, coupled with the lack of esteem in which teachers in the
poorer areas of India are held in their communities. It also relates to
teacher pupil ratios that are often high resulting in teachers managing
diverse groups of learners in crowded classrooms and with minimal
resources. Such situations obviously increase levels of teacher stress and are
a disincentive for teachers to face the new challenges that they perceive as
coming with the RTE (Dreze & Kingdon, 2003). The difficulties associated
with recruiting teachers to work in schools in deprived areas of India have
been well documented. Govmda and Josephine (2005) have recorded a
worrying trend to employ increasing numbers of unqualified teachers to
work in many of these schools, with a subsequent lowering of the quality
of teaching. The ability of schools to address diverse learning needs is
exacerbated where teachers have a limited understanding of the rudimentary principles of classroom management and are ill-equipped to recognise
the individuality of their pupils.
Hammer (2013) also emphasises the need to examine infrastructure and
material output variables. These he states comprise the infrastructure
within which schools operate, the national midday meal scheme and the
44
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
availability and deployment of learning materials. The quality of the school

learning environment varies considerably across India. There are many
well-appointed schools with excellent facilities and teaching spaces that
afford accommodation as good as could be found anywhere in the world.
Unfortunately in many of the countrys poorer communities the standard
of infrastructure provision remains less than adequate and has a detrimental impact upon the quality of learning experience that can be provided
(Muralidharan & Kremer, 2006). The District Information System for
Education (DISE) Report (National University of Educational Planning
and Administration, 2010), that regularly analyses data related to all
aspects of elementary education, noted that 21% of schools lacked the
availability of drinking water and 40% schools do not have access to adequate toilet facilities. In schools with poor sanitation there are serious
health issues and these act as a deterrent to parents sending their children
to school.
A highly successful government initiative that Hammer sees as being
significant in support of the RTE Act is that of midday meal provision.
In 2011, the Indian government increased this facility, with the aim of
ensuring that children, who could otherwise suffer from nutritional deficiencies, are afforded the opportunity to benefit from one well-balanced
meal each day. This scheme was also perceived as a way of providing an
incentive for parents to send their children to school and has in many
respects been a highly successful initiative. Whilst undoubtedly beneficial
the scheme has not been without its critics and has at times been problematic in respect of implementation. Corrupt practices have been reported
with instances of the allocated food not getting to schools, and in some
well-reported cases poor quality or contaminated food has been provided
and has had devastating effects upon childrens welfare and health (Reuters
News Agency, 2013). In western societies the recognition of a correlation
between good nutrition and successful learning has been recognised with
the establishment of breakfast clubs in many English schools (Hoyland,
Dye, & Lawton, 2009).
Whilst these have not necessarily been developed with a focus upon
inclusive education, it may be that in poorer communities an evaluation
of nutrition and the provision of a meal may be a significant factor in
determining the inclusiveness of a learning environment.
The availability of teaching materials in schools varies, with considerable
disparity between provision in private and government institutions (Kingdon,
2007b; Tooley, Dixon, & Gomathi, 2007). In many schools pupils continue
to share textbooks and the availability of learning resources is restricted.
45
The provision of specialist or differentiated resources is limited and this issue

is complicated by multilingual and cultural challenges (Thirumurthya &
Thirumurthya, 2007). Specialist resources appear more readily available for
English-media schools, but for those learning in local languages, often in
government schools in poorer communities, these are unlikely to be accessed
by teachers.
Hammers third concern is for what he refers to as district demographics variables. These comprise the percentage of children in the district
out of school, the percentage enroled in private schools and levels of
teacher education and training. He suggests that if we are to be honest in
our appraisal of the impact of inclusive schooling, we must begin by considering the numbers of pupils who are out of school and have no access
to formalised education. To make an assessment of inclusion based solely
upon those children accessing school would be to deny the very principles
upon which it is founded. Similarly, Hammer recognises that there is considerable discrepancy between the resources and opportunities available in
the private and government school sectors. One might reasonably expect
that better-resourced schools should be more able to make accommodation
for those who experience difficulties with learning. To judge government
schools that are often ill-resourced and have teachers who are less qualified
by the same standards, may prove little more than a disincentive for the
poorer schools, in terms of their commitment to inclusion. This is in a
sense ironic, when we consider that many of the schools in rural communities, or the slum areas of cities have been most willing to accept the
enrolment of pupils who would not necessarily have been welcomed in private institutions.
This latter point is reinforced when considering the issue of teacher
training and its potential for impact upon inclusion. In western societies
the importance of providing a well-trained work force to address the challenges of meeting a diverse school population have been well documented
(Forlin, 2008; Kershner, 2014). In India, the challenge of providing an adequate training for teachers to equip them with an understanding of special
educational needs, and certainly that aimed at promoting more inclusive
classrooms, remains a source of some frustration (Das, 2001; Mitchell &
Desai, 2005). Whilst there is evidence of a number of initiatives aimed at
improving teacher education (Dyer, 2005), few of these have considered the
quality of teacher training in relation to inclusion (Sharma, Moore, &
Sonawane, 2009).
Hammers interpretation of the challenges facing the RTE Act are useful
in identifying a focus for those concerned to assess the impact of inclusion
46
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
within an Indian context. Each of his three dimensions may be related to

the ways in which we view policy for inclusion, provision of support for its
development and how that is translated in a classroom environment.
Policy for Inclusion

Having passed legislation for the promotion of inclusion, the Indian government made provision for the National Council for Protection of Child
Rights (NCPCR) and the State Council of Protection of Child Rights to
oversee the monitoring of its effectiveness. However, this presents a major
challenge when considering that rights enshrined in the RTE cover close to
200 million children in over 1.3 million elementary schools and across a
range of school management systems; government, government-aided, and
private. Furthermore these bodies, charged with a responsibility for monitoring the RTE, have not been empowered with any legal authority to
address any of the shortcomings that they may find. A report produced by
the RTE Forum, a collective of national education networks and teachers
organisations, revealed that over a two-year period, the NCPCR had
received 2,215 complaints regarding the RTE but had been able to
resolve only 110 of these. Furthermore, the disparity between states in
implementing the requirements of the Act is marked (RTE Forum, 2012).
Provision of Support for the Development of Inclusion

Hammers concerns around teacher motivation and the training that they
receive are critical in any assessment of movement towards the provision of
support for inclusion. Feng Yan (2010, 2012) indicates that in situations
where children have been denied access to schooling it is essential that
we examine teacher motivation for working with children with special
educational needs. In many countries teachers working with these children
are afforded low status. Feng Yan suggests that in an environment where
children with special educational needs or disabilities have been regarded as
unlikely to make a social or economic contribution to national development, it has been difficult to motivate teachers to take responsibility for
their learning. Negative attitudes and low expectations have dominated
school systems and the interest in changing the lives of children with special
educational needs has been invested in a few individuals who have
47
high intrinsic motivational factors, possibly emanating from personal

experiences. In India, the research of Parasuram (2006) supports the view
expressed by Feng Yan that teachers who are likely to be motivated to want
to work with children with special educational needs are often those who
have had some personal experience of disability affecting them or their
families. Both Feng Yan and Parasuram believe that a skills-based approach
to training teachers to work with children with special educational needs is
likely to yield limited results, until such time as expectations are raised and
attitudes changed by creating a wider awareness of the potential of children,
and tackling the stereotypes that surround categorised groups of learners.
Hodkinson and Devarakonda (2009) have argued that if inclusive education
becomes more effective there is a need for a greater focus within teacher
education that will enable teachers to improve their knowledge and understanding of how inclusion can be defined and implemented within the context of the Indian educational system. At present they suggest, there are
significant shortcomings in this area.
Provision in Classrooms
Hammers view of the need to examine infrastructure and output variables
has particular significance as we consider how provision in classrooms
might be assessed. Modification of the curriculum and planning to address a
range of needs in the classroom has been identified as a critical factor in the
promotion of inclusive classrooms (Thurlow, 2014; Watkins & Meijer,
2010). Singal (2010) suggests that in India many teachers working in mainstream schools do not feel confident in addressing children with special educational needs and that as attempts have been made to introduce greater
inclusion, many of these teachers feel themselves to be de-skilled. This view
would appear to be reinforced by the work of Ojha Seema (2013) who in a
study conducted in Haryana reported limited awareness amongst teachers
of either the need, or the knowledge of how to make significant accommodations to address a range of teaching needs and abilities. Most of the teaching observed by Ojha Seema was based around textbook exercises and
demanded a certain level of literacy competence. With regards to assessment
of learning, much of this was summative and dependent upon formal testing
and examination procedures, which excluded the effective participation of
some learners and where results were obtained, these were seldom used in a
formative manner.
48
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
CONCLUSION
The assessment of inclusion in India is complex and the direct application
of approaches used in other societies is likely to fall short of being satisfactory. Hammers work is useful in identifying the different dimensions
requiring attention by those who wish to understand the development and
impact of inclusive practices. What is apparent is that there is a need to
consider the evaluation of inclusion at a range of levels.
At national level, a strengthening of the authority invested in the NCPCR
and the State Council of Protection of Child Rights, along with a clear statement of expectations on the part of state administrators and schools is essential. Whilst there will always be significant variations between states, there is
a need to develop a monitoring infrastructure that can oversee the interpretation of the RTE Act and its interpretation in schools at all levels. Support
must also be provided for teacher training, including provision to ensure that
those who are responsible for the training of teachers are themselves competent and confident in respect of inclusive teaching practices.
At school level, Hammers concerns regarding infrastructure and resourcing remain as a core issue. Teacher attitudes and expectations are unlikely
to be changed until such time as the conditions in which they are expected
to work are improved. This requires that not only additional resources
should be supplied but also teachers are given the confidence to use these
for the benefit of pupils with a wider range of needs and abilities.
The legislation for the support of inclusion in India is strong. The key
to its successful implementation lies in both the monitoring of its interpretation and the provision of support to those professionals responsible
for its delivery.
REFERENCES
Alkazi, R. M., & Rajasree, V. (2012). Second annual report on the status of children with disabilities under The Right to Education Act. New Delhi: Aarth Astha.
Alur, M., & Bach, M. (2010). The journey for inclusive education in the Indian sub-continent.
London: Routledge.
Armstrong, D. (1998). Changing faces, changing places: Policy routes to inclusion. In
P. Clough (Ed.), Managing inclusive education: From policy to experience (pp. 31 47).
London: Paul Chapman.
Ashman, A. (2012). Facilitating inclusion through responsive teaching. In C. Boyle &
K. Topping (Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 81 97). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
49
Bjarnason, D. (2003). School inclusion in Iceland: The cloak of invisibility. New York, NY:
Nova.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The index for inclusion (3rd ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies
on Inclusive Education.
Coles, C., & Hancock, R. (2002). The inclusion quality mark. Bristol: Public Sector Matters.
Das, A. (2001). Perceived training needs of regular primary and secondary school teachers to
implement inclusive education programs in Delhi, India. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
University of Melbourne.
Dreze, J., & Kingdon, G. G. (2003). School participation in rural India. Review of
Development Economics, 5(1), 1 24.
Dyer, C. (2005). Decentralisation to improve teacher quality? District institutes of education
and training in India. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
35(2), 139 152.
Feng, Y. (2010). Teacher career motivation and professional development in special and inclusive
education in China. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Feng Y. (2012). Teacher career motivation and professional development in special and inclusive education: Perspectives from Chinese teachers. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 16(3), 331 351.
Forlin, C. (2008). Education reform for inclusion in the Asia Pacific region: What about teacher
education? In C. Forlin & J. L. Ming-Gon (Eds.), Reform, inclusion and teacher education:
Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region. Oxford: Routledge.
Government of India. (1996). Persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection and full
participation Act). New Delhi: Government of India.
Govmda, R., & Josephine, Y. (2005). Para-teachers in India: A review. Contemporary
Education Dialogue, 2(2), 193 224.
Hammer, J. (2013). Lessons in learning: An analysis of outcomes in Indias implementation of
the Right to Education Act. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Hernandez, V. T. (2008). Making good on the promise of international law: The convention
on the rights of persons with disabilities and inclusive education in China and India.
Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, 17(2), 497 527.
Hodkinson, A., & Devarakonda, C. (2009). Conceptions of inclusion and inclusive education:
A critical examination of the perspectives and practices of teachers in India. Research in
Education, 82(1), 85 99.
Hoyland, A., Dye, L., & Lawton, C. (2009). A systematic review of the effect of breakfast on
the cognitive performance of children and adolescents. Nutrition Research Reviews,
22(2), 220 243.
Jament, J. (2013). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Indian education:
Identification, interpretation and management of ADHD characteristics. Saarbrucken,
Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Jha, J., Ghatak, N., Mahendiran, S., & Bakshi, S. (2013). Implementing the Right to
Education Act 2009: The real challenges. Bangalore: Centre for Budget and Policy
Studies.
Kershner, R. (2014). What do classroom teachers need to know about meeting special educational needs? In. L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education. London:
Sage.
Kingdon, G. G. (2007a). The progress of school education in India. London: ESRC Global
Policy Research Group.
50
RICHARD ROSE ET AL.
Kingdon, G. G. (2007b). The progress of school education in India. Oxford Review of

Economic Policy, 23(2), 168 195.
Mehta, A. C. (2009). Elementary education in India. New Delhi: National University of
Educational Planning and Administration.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2000). Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. A programme
for universal elementary education
Framework for implementation. New Delhi:
Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development India. (2009). Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act. New Delhi: Government of India.
Mitchell, D., & Desai, I. (2005). Diverse socio-cultural contexts for inclusive education in
Asia. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new
international perspectives. London: Routledge.
Muralidharan, K., & Kremer, M. (2006). Public and private schools in rural India.
In R. Chakrabarti & P. Peterson (Eds.), School choice international: Exploring
public private partnerships. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
National Council for Special Education. (2011). Inclusive education framework. Trim: NCSE.
National University of Educational Planning and Administration. (2010). Elementary
education in India: District Information System for Education (DISE) report. New
Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education. London:
Routledge.
Ojha Seema, S. (2013). Implementing right to education: Issues and challenges. Research
Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 1 7.
Pandey, S. K. (2013). An exploratory study on the apprehensions and implementation of
Right to Education Act, 2009. Education India Journal, 2(2), 15 28.
Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers attitudes towards disability and inclusive
education in Mumbai, India. Disability and Society, 21(3), 231 242.
Rao, V. S. (2009). Lack of community participation in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan: A case
study. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(8), 61 64.
Reuters News Agency. (2013). Contaminated school meal kills 25 Indian children (Wednesday
July 17). Patna, India: Reuters News Agency.
Rieser, R., & Mason, M. (1992). Disability equality in the classroom: A human rights issue.
London: Disability Equality in Education.
RTE Forum. (2012). Status of implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009: Year two (2011 12). Retrieved from http://www.rteforumindia.
org/content/forum%E2%80%99s-publications-status-reports. Accessed on April 22,
2014.
Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teachers
regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319 331.
Sightsavers. (2011). Policy paper: Making inclusive education a reality. Haywards Heath, UK:
Sightsavers.
Singal, N. (2006). Inclusive education in India: International concept, national interpretation.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53(3), 351 369.
Singal, N. (2010). Including children with special needs in the Indian education system:
Negotiating a contested terrain. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting obstacles to inclusion.
International responses to developing inclusive education (pp. 45 57). London: Routledge.
51
Singh Kainth, G. (2006). A mission approach to Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Economic and
Political Weekly, 41(30), 3288 3291.
Soni, R. B. L., & Rahman, A. (2013). Status of implementation of RTE Act
2009 in the
context of disadvantaged children at elementary stage. New Delhi: National Council of
Educational Research and Training.
The Hindu. (2012). Supreme Court says no to review of Right to Education verdict (September
20th). Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3915647.ece.
Accessed on October 7, 2012.
Thirumurthya, V., & Thirumurthya, V. (2007). Special education in India at the crossroads.
Childhood Education, 83(6), 380 384.
Thurlow, M. L. (2014). Instructional and assessment accommodations in the 21st century. In
L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (Vol. 2, pp. 597 612).
London: Sage.
Times of India. (2012). Supreme Court declines review of Right to Education verdict
(September 20th). Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-0920/news/33975994_1_unaided-schools-minority-institutions-weaker-sections. Accessed
on October 7, 2012.
Tooley, J., Dixon, P., & Gomathi, S. V. (2007). Private schools and the millennium development goal of universal primary education: A census and comparative survey in
Hyderabad, India. Oxford Review of Education, 33(5), 539 560.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1994). The Salamanca
statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2000). The Dakar framework for action, education for all: Meeting our collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2009). Education for all:
Global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2014). Education for all:
Global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
Unnikrishnan, P. (2010). Inclusive education in India
Challenges and implications for
persons with special needs. Educational Quest, 1(1), 21 25.
Watkins, A., & Meijer, C. (2010). The development of inclusive teaching and learning:
A European perspective. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting obstacles to inclusion. International
responses to developing inclusive education (pp. 227 244). London: Routledge.
DATA COLLECTION TO INFORM

INTERNATIONAL POLICY ISSUES
ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Amanda Watkins, Serge Ebersold and Andras Lenart
ABSTRACT
All countries need to track the implementation of their educational
policies and legislation. The justifications and pressures for mapping such
developments are very clear at the international level, as can be seen in
the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (UNCRPD) call for data collection and monitoring at State
level. They are also apparent at the European level, as outlined in the
European Council priorities and targets outlined in the education and
training ET 2020 strategy. This chapter will focus on the current situation in European Union member countries. It will attempt to identify the
issues that must be addressed by systems of data collection at international and national levels in order to monitor learners rights to inclusive
education.
Keywords: International policy requirements; learners rights;
evidence to support policy-making

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003019
53
54
AMANDA WATKINS ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
The pressures on policy-makers to demonstrate how policies are leading
towards greater educational inclusion results in the need for the systematic
collection of qualitative and quantitative information that answers key
questions and can be used longitudinally within countries to map national
developments, as well as internationally across countries to compare
relative developments.
CURRENT INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO DATA

COLLECTION FOR MONITORING PURPOSES
At the international and European levels, quantitative data collection
linked to different aspects of education has been a well-established activity
for many years (Ebersold, 2011; OECD, 2004, 2007; World Health
Organisation [WHO], 2011). However, many different approaches have
been taken and it can be seen that data collection relating to inclusive education has been a particularly problematic area for European Union member
states. Whilst the need for data to monitor developments and trends in
inclusive education is well recognised (e.g. Council of the European Union,
2009), the approach and methods to be used are far from clear.
An analysis of the approaches to data collection taken by seven key
international and European organisations involved in educational data
collection
UNESCO; WHO; OECD; European Commission
the
Directorates-General for Education and Culture (DG-EAC) and
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG-EMPL); Eurostat; Eurydice
and the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (the
Agency from now on) shows that three main approaches are apparent in
current international work:
1. Data collection based on categories of special educational needs (SEN);
2. Data collection based on the allocation of additional resources for SEN;
3. Data collection based on placement of learners identified as having SEN.
These approaches are all based on the same highly interconnected core
concepts, that is, the identification of SEN and subsequent support to meet
a particular need. The different emphases in each approach, though, lead
to potential strengths and weaknesses, which are outlined in the following
sections.
Data Collection to Inform International Policy Issues
55
Data Collection Approaches based on Categories of SEN

Approaches to disability and categorisation systems vary among countries
and the profiles of learners identified as having SEN are heterogeneous. The
Agency (2011a) highlights a number of issues in relation to this situation that
require consideration: First, country legislation and policy may or may not
include a definition of what is meant by inclusive education and a segregated
setting. Second, countries include different categories of learners within their
definitions of SEN. Different categories of special needs may or may not be
covered: disability (sensory, physical, psychological); learning difficulties;
behaviour problems; health problems; social disadvantage, etc. Agency (2010,
2011a, 2012) work indicates that some countries define only one or two types
of special needs. Others categorise learners with special needs in more than
10 categories. Most countries distinguish 6 10 types of special needs.
Work from OECD (2007) and the European Commission (2009) and
Eurydice (2011) suggests that in addition, learners with temporary learning
difficulties, Roma learners, learners with an ethnic minority background, as
well as gifted and talented learners may be included in definitions of SEN.
In looking at information available from these sources, countries use of
categorical systems linked to data collection can be summarised in Table 1.
It is crucial to emphasise that these differences between countries are
clearly related to administrative, financial and procedural regulations
they do not reflect variations of the actual incidence and the types of SEN
between these countries (Agency, 2003, 2010).
Data Collection Approaches based on Allocation of Additional Resources

All countries link SEN to factors hindering a learners success at school.
Legal definitions of SEN provided by countries (Agency, 2012) show that
they all relate SEN to the need for support that learners may require in
their learning as a result of a particular condition that they experience.
Depending on the countries, this may include a disability, a learning difficulty or a social disadvantage (Agency, 2012).
Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (UNCRPD) calls for a focus on the development of systems for inclusive education. This is in line with the 1997 International
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) definition of special needs
education that implies that it is necessary to consider all learners receiving
additional support for educational purposes within an inclusive education
56
Table 1.
Data Collection Using Categories Identified Within National

Definitions of SEN.
Austria
Belgium (Flemish-speaking
community)
Belgium (French-speaking
community)
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
(England)
United Kingdom
(Scotland)
United Kingdom (Wales)
Disability
Categories
Only
Disability
Categories Plus
Disadvantaged
Learners
Xa
Disability
Categories
Plus Gifted
and Talented
Learners
Disability
Categories Plus
Disadvantaged
Learners and
Talented Learners
Non-categorical
Systems
X
Xb
Xc
X
X
X
X
X
Xd
X
X
Xc
Xc
X
X
X
X
X
Xc
X
X
Xc
Xe
Xf
X
X
Sources: OECD/European Commission (2009), Agency (2010) and Eurydice (2011).

In the SEN-Disabilities, Difficulties and Disadvantages (DDD) exercise disability categories and disadvantaged learners were
included.
b
Greater difficulties compared to the majority of children.
c
Learners at risk and socially disadvantaged learners including ethnic minority groups.
d
This differs from OECDs table developed in 2007. Greece indicated that Article 3 of the SEN law (3699/2008) excludes learners with school underachievement due to environmental factors, social disadvantages, linguistic or cultural particularities
from the category of learners with disabilities and SEN.
e
This includes socially disadvantaged learners including ethnic minority and non-native language speakers.
f
UK (England) categorises by SEN at School Action Plus level and statements by types of need.
a
57
approach. According to this classification the concept of children with

special educational needs extends beyond those who may be included in
handicapped categories to cover those who are failing in school for a wide
variety of other reasons that are known to be likely to impede a childs
optimal progress (UNESCO, 1997, p. 42). Including all learners receiving
additional support and/or resources would also be in line with the 2011
ISCED definition that defines special needs education as an:
Education designed to facilitate the learning of individuals who, for a wide variety of
reasons, require additional support and adaptive pedagogical methods in order to participate and meet learning objectives in an educational programme. Reasons may include
(but are not limited to) disadvantages in physical, behavioural, intellectual, emotional
and social capacities. Educational programmes in special needs education may follow a
similar curriculum as that offered in the parallel regular education system, however
they take individuals particular needs into account by providing specific resources
(e.g. specially trained personnel, equipment, or space) and, if appropriate, modified educational content or learning objectives. These programmes can be offered for individual
learners within already existing educational programmes, or be offered as a separate
class in the same or separate educational institutions. (UNESCO, 2012, p. 83)
While it can be argued that by describing parallel approaches in education, the proposed definition can be seen to perpetuate the concept of separate systems of provision for different learners, this perspective does
highlight the need for data collection in different settings that may exist in
countries, that is, mainstream and separate special settings. This definition
may also overcome the potential discrepancies of disability definitions by
shifting to an approach focusing on resources delivered by countries at
national level and implemented at school level. Such an approach concentrates on the impact of legal frameworks in encouraging policies towards
inclusion and refers to the educational restrictions learners have to face, to
funding rules and to the capacity to create equitable education systems.
This approach further relates the need for additional resources to address
a lack of adaptability within the schools curriculum and to the need for additional human or material resources to stimulate effective and efficient learning
for learners. It therefore links the whole concept of SEN to a changed system
that emphasises the need to monitor policies in order to promote strategies
that lead to change (Ebersold & Evans, 2008; OECD, 2004, 2005, 2007).
Such an approach has been adopted in the resource-based classification system developed by the OECD since the 1990s to provide international comparable data on special needs education (OECD 2007). The
categories used in this system for data collection are: Cross-national
58
category A (the disabilities category) that includes learners who receive

additional resources as a result of difficulties in education that have
clear organic bases; Cross-national category B (the difficulties category)
encompasses learners who receive additional resources to support their
emotional and behaviour difficulties, or specific difficulties in learning.
Their educational need arises from problems in interactions between the
learner and the educational context; Cross-national category C (the disadvantages category) involves learners who are in need of additional
educational resources to provide additional support to difficulties arising
from problems due to aspects of their socio-economic, cultural and/or
linguistic background. This tripartite categorisation system potentially
provides data that allows a comparison at international level (Eurostat,
2011). Between 1998 and 2009, many countries were involved in data
collection using the OECDs resource-based classification system that
was helpful in producing useful data for monitoring and comparison
purposes. Data collected provided information on learners receiving
additional resources from ISCED level 0 3, their type of education
(mainstream classes, special classes and special schools), and their age
and gender.
However such a data collection system has weaknesses, some of which
are apparent from an examination of the data currently available. First,
learners may receive additional resources due to a combination of causes
and may therefore be counted twice. In addition, the approach only takes
into account resources delivered by the ministry of education although
other ministries may also allocate resources for educational purposes.
Third, the approach does not provide information on the access and
opportunities for success available to learners with a disability. Indeed, in
some countries, learners with a disability may not have the same opportunities to access education as those with a learning difficulty (Ebersold,
2011). In addition, the type of support and accommodation, as well as
their implementation, depends on the type of need that has to be met.
Having a breakdown by type of need, therefore, seems crucial. Fourth, in
line with the ISCED definition, such an approach focuses on resource
allocation mechanisms and therefore specifically includes those who are
entitled to receive human, technical, or financial resources for educational
purposes. Countries resource allocation policies result in differences
among countries, as those allocating less resources count fewer numbers
of learners with SEN than those allocating more resources (OECD,
2004).
59
Data Collection Approaches based on Placement of Learners with SEN

The data collection work of the Agency between 2004 and 2012 has
focussed upon two factors: learners formally recognised in countries as
having SEN (identification) and where they are educated (placement). The
data collection applies an agreed operational definition of a segregated setting: Segregation refers to education where the learner with special needs
follows education in separate special classes or special schools for the largest part (80% or more) of the school day (Agency, 2012, p. 5).
Across all Agency member countries in total, 4.2% of the compulsory
school population is officially identified as having some form of SEN as
defined by legislation in the participating countries (a rise of 0.3% since the
same data collection activity in 2010). However, this overall figure hides
great differences in countries as is shown in Table 2 which indicates the percentage of learners in the compulsory school sector recognised as having
SEN (in all educational settings). Some countries identify less than 2% of
learners as having SEN, while others identify more than 10%.
In relation to where learners with SEN are educated, across all countries, in total 2.2% of learners within compulsory schooling are educated
in either a special school or a separate class in a mainstream school
(a decrease of 0.1% from data collected in 2010). However, this overall
figure again hides differences between countries with some countries
placing less than 1% of learners in separate settings, while others place
over 4% in separate settings (Table 3).
Table 2.
0 2%
Luxembourg
Sweden
Percentage of Learners Recognised as Having SEN.

2.1 4%
4.1 6%
6.1 10%
10.1% and Above
Austria
Greece
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Spain
UK (England)
UK (Wales)
Belgium (Fr.)
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Switzerland
UK (Northern Ireland)
Belgium (Fl.)
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Finland
Norway
Slovakia
Slovenia
Iceland
Lithuania
UK (Scotland)
60
Table 3.
Percentage of Learners Educated in Separate Settings.
Up to 1.0%
1.01 2.0%
2.01 4.0%
4.01% and Above
Italy
Luxembourg
Malta
Norway
Portugal
Spain
UK (Wales)
Austria
Cyprus
Iceland
Ireland
Lithuania
Poland
Sweden
UK (England)
UK (Northern Ireland)
UK (Scotland)
Czech Republic
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Netherlands
Slovenia
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Denmark
Estonia
Germany
Latvia
Slovakia
Switzerland
Note: Percentages are calculated using the raw data totals of learners in compulsory education
and learners placed in segregated settings.
Using country definitions of SEN as the basis of data collection presents

a number of methodological difficulties that need to be made clear. In addition to issues relating to categories of learners within country definitions
of SEN (as discussed above), country legislation and policy may or may
not include a definition of what is meant by inclusive education and/or a
segregated setting.
The identification of learners placed in fully separate segregated schools
is far easier than the identification of those in special, segregated classes in
mainstream provision. Despite the requested application of the agreed
operational definition of a segregated setting to data collection, countries
may or may not consider learners in special classes in mainstream schools
as being educated in inclusive provision.
The age range of compulsory school education is not the same in all
countries. Alongside this, some countries count learners outside the compulsory age range if they are enrolled in compulsory sector education, whilst
others do not count learners of school age who are either not in school or
who are placed in non-education (e.g. health or social services) provision.
Some countries provide official recognition of a learners SEN in the
form of a decision, certificate, statement or other legal document. However,
not all countries collect data relating to learners with an official recognition
of SEN. Allied to this point, many countries do not collect data on the numbers of learners in fully inclusive settings that receive some form of SEN
support. A number of countries make it clear that official figures relate only
to learners receiving extensive support, but that other learners also receive
support.
61
Countries have obvious differences in the numbers and proportions of

learners being identified as having SEN; however as previously stated
these differences may not reflect the actual incidence of SEN (Agency,
2003) rather these identification rates reflect differences in policies and
funding mechanisms. This fact suggests that mapping the implementation
of inclusive education requires an agreed shared framework relating to
inclusive education.
In June 2012, Eurostat published the outcomes of their enquiry into
quantitative data collection for special needs education. The enquiry was
carried out as a response to the Council Conclusions of May 2007, which
identified the need for data collection linked to an indicator for special
needs education. Amongst the findings were that, while there may be possibilities for longer-term developments, countries agreed that the most reliable information currently available is that linked to national definitions of
SEN, focussing on rates of placements in segregated provision.
APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT DATA TO POLICY

QUESTIONS AND ISSUES
A key issue regarding data currently available from international and
European organisations is whether it can address the policy priorities identified by policy-makers. Lee and Mossaad (2010) identify three groups of
factors that reduce data comparability at any level of work, in any arena:
comparability issues being included or not within the original purpose for
which the data was collected; factors related to the analytical methods used
such as the definition the target group; and factors related to data collection processes and methods, for example, whether data collection is part of
a wider administrative process.
Generally it can be argued that when data currently available from all
the organisations described in the preceding sections is considered in terms
of relative usefulness implementation of policy for inclusive education, then
all three groups of factors identified by Lee and Mossaad are evident:
Comparability issues in relation to quantitative data have not been successfully addressed in any data collection work of any international
organisation;
Data analysis difficulties as a result of the failure to satisfactorily define
the target group remains an outstanding methodological issue at
national, European and international levels;
62
Issues emerging as a result of multiple and often widely differing methodologies for data collected at national levels and then used at
European or international levels remain.
Challenges are apparent in relation to definitions, data collection
methods and inclusive education policies. These challenges must be overcome if data is to be collected that can use fully information policy issues
surrounding inclusive education.
The Agency report exploring a framework for developing indicators for
participation in inclusive education states: Because children dont count if
they are not counted, the capacity building of education systems to
improve their data on children at risk of exclusion and marginalisation is
an important policy issue internationally (Agency, 2011b, p. 19). Two specific assertions can be further posed:
1. Country systems for educational data collection do not cover all the
issues that may arise in relation to inclusive education at international,
European as well as national levels;
2. Quantitative data alone is not enough to map developments in inclusive
education; qualitative information must be collected and made available.
CURRENT POLICY DEMANDS RELATING TO DATA

COLLECTION
Inclusive education can be understood as the presence (access to education
and school attendance), participation (quality of the learning experience
from the learner perspective) and achievement (learning processes and outcomes across the curriculum) of all learners in mainstream classes (Agency,
2011a). Mapping the implementation of inclusive education policies is a
key factor in developing inclusive education systems (Agency, 2009, 2011a).
Evidence in the form of data permits examination of the effects of policy
and practice and provides policy-makers with valuable information that
can help them introduce, monitor and evaluate changes and then improve
the effectiveness of their policies with the intention of removing barriers to
individual learners access to education, participation in the learning process and academic and social achievement. In order to put this policy priority into a clear context, the next section outlines the data collection
requirements in relation to people with disabilities generally, as well as
63
specifically in relation to the right to inclusive education as outlined within

the UNCRPD (2006).
The Need for Evidence on Inclusive Education at an International Level

It is clear that UNCRPD (2006) is a stimulus for a process of change and
development in the field of inclusive education. Article 1 of the Convention
states its purpose as being to: promote, protect and ensure the full and
equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all
persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity
(p. 4). Article 1 defines people with disabilities as including: those who
have long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment, which
interacts with various barriers in their environment that may hinder their
full and effective participation on an equal basis with others (p. 4).
Most EU Member States are signatories to the convention and many have
ratified both the Convention and the Optional Protocol. The European
Union is also a signatory to both the Convention and the Optional Protocol
(see http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?id=166).
The UNCRPD (2006) is central to the work of policy-makers for inclusive education in two crucial aspects:
1. First, Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
emphasises that people with disabilities have a right to education without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity. It goes further outlining: States Parties
recognise the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realising
this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties
shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels The full development of
human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect
for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity . (p. 17)
This article recognises the right of learners with disabilities to education on

the basis of equal opportunity, ensuring an inclusive education system at
all levels and the facilitation of access to lifelong learning.
2. Second, Article 31 outlines the responsibilities of State Parties with respect to
Statistics and Data Collection. States Parties are required to undertake to collect
appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the present Convention. Article 31, continues: The information collected in accordance with this article shall be
disaggregated, as appropriate, and used to help assess the implementation of States
Parties obligations under the present Convention and to identify and address the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in exercising their rights States Parties shall
64

assume responsibility for the dissemination of these statistics and ensure their accessibility to persons with disabilities and others. (p. 23)
Article 33 requires States Parties to establish national/regional monitoring

points and independent monitoring mechanisms and Guidelines for monitoring progress in reaching the CRPD are specifically outlined within the associated Convention Appendices.
Specific quantitative but also qualitative data collection in relation to
Article 24 are outlined in the Guidelines for monitoring progress in reaching
the CRPD. However, the intentions for data collection outlined in the
UNCRPD do not appear to have been completely fulfilled. In 2010, the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs published the
report Strategic Action Towards Inclusive Development: Disability, Human
Rights and Statistics. The report reviews disability statistics relevant for
monitoring progress towards disability-inclusive development goals, such
as the Millennium Development Goals and the UNCRPD (2006). It also
examined disability statistics and considered their potential for the monitoring and evaluation of stated UN goals on the lives of people with disabilities and in this aspect, identified a number of areas where there was a
perceived need for a stronger partnership: between data collection and
reporting systems regarding disability and development goals (p. 7).
The Need for Evidence to Address Key Policy Concerns at the National Level
Within the Agencys Mapping the Implementation of Policy for Inclusive
Education project (2011a) policy-makers in European countries were able
to identify their data collection priorities. All policy-makers agreed that
they needed clear and relevant evidence on inclusive education that could
be used to develop, implement and monitor policies. They identified five
key policy needs relating to data collection that would inform national level
policy-making for inclusive education:
(1) The need for national level data collection to be anchored within wider
international level agreements
Data collection work needs to be aligned to the broad concept of inclusive
education as an approach for all learners. This will lead to:
A re-interpretation of traditional target groups for data collection in
order to consider all learners at risk of exclusion, such as migrants, or
learners not attending formal education, as well as those with SEN;
The need to integrate specific data gathering for inclusive education
within all usual educational data gathering activities.
65
European level agreements need to be reached on data collection to track

inclusive education possibilities across all lifelong learning phases; from
pre-school to adult education opportunities.
(2) The need to understand the impact of differences in countries education
systems
A number of potential areas of impact that occur as a result of differences
within educational systems can be highlighted as being important:
Issues related to the size and population of countries;
The degree of centralisation or decentralisation in countries education
systems;
Teacher education as well as training for other education professionals;
The numbers of learners with IEPs; the perceived quality of the implementation of IEPs;
Class size and staff ratios in inclusive education;
Provision within non-state sector education;
Issues relating to trends in the identification of needs and resource allocation for SEN.
(3) The need to analyse the effectiveness of inclusive education
Applicable data can empower policy-makers to address the complex issues
and questions related to the effectiveness of inclusive education and identify
strategies to improve policy and practice. They stressed the equal importance of quantitative and qualitative data being available and highlighted
the importance of:
Regular and systematic data collection systems providing answers to the
right questions;
Converging data collection, particularly from research sources in order
to identify trends and similar findings from different points of view (i.e. a
form of data triangulation);
Data sources that can be verified, for example via direct sampling of
schools;
More detailed and long-term data on the outcomes of the education system for individual learners.
(4) The need for data collection to provide evidence relating to quality assurance issues
All data collection should provide information that ultimately provides evidence about the effectiveness of the education system. Data should address
the question of what works and what does not work and then support
policy-makers in making hard decisions based on that information.
66
Evidence-based policy-making is crucial and all countries are facing the

challenge to move from experience based policy making to policy-making
that is based upon clear and reliable information.
Data to provide evidence of effectiveness needs to support policy-makers
in considering cost benefit and value for money issues as well as the
impact of change within education systems. Crucially, data needs to provide evidence that the goals countries have for inclusive education are being
reached.
(5) The need to track the progress of learners in the long term
Meaningfully tracking the educational life histories of learners with SEN is
perceived as being a real challenge. Project experts argued that inclusive
education should be about making improvements to all young peoples
lives, but to demonstrate this it is necessary to map outcomes related to:
Academic attainments;
Social relationships and achievements;
Quality of life issues including self-reliance/autonomy and employment;
Such long-term systematic and detailed data collection would, potentially, provide insights into the crucial question of how inclusive education supports inclusive societies.
Policy-makers need qualitative and quantitative data that informs them
about the quality of education of learners with SEN. This includes comparable data on the outcomes and effectiveness of different approaches
specifically including:
Data on learners experiences and achievements;
Data that demonstrates learners rights to inclusive education are being
met.
DATA TO MONITOR LEARNERS RIGHTS TO

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
(2007) states that: Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and
protected. Article 26 states that: the EU recognises and respects the right
of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure
their independence, social and occupational integration and participation
in the life of the community (p. 8). Article 24 of the UNCRPD (2006)
67
emphasises that long-term inclusion in a persons local community must be

the final goal of the right to inclusive education.
It is clear that any data collection must be in line with the international
normative instruments that identify and aim to protect individuals rights.
Data collection must provide evidence about the implementation of the
rights of persons with disabilities and the educational opportunities they
are entitled to.
Monitoring learners rights to equal opportunities within education is
essentially an equity issue and policy-making for inclusive education therefore requires evidence of the ability of education systems to be
equitable and non-discriminatory for learners with disabilities and SEN.
Ebersold (2014) presents a conceptual framework for examining
available European country data, based on learners rights. This conceptual
framework relates the realisation of the right to education in terms of the
existence of an inclusive educational system that aims at success and the
social integration of all learners. Such an approach places the learner on an
equal footing with others in terms of access, success, prospects and social
recognition (Bickenbach, 2012; Heyman & Cassola, 2012; Quinn, 2010).
A Right to Education Anchored in Equity in Terms of Access

The realisation of the right to education is directly linked to access to general schooling. Article 24 of the UNCRPD asserts that persons with disabilities must not be excluded from the general education system on the
basis of disability.
Data is required to highlight discrimination that learners with disabilities
and SEN are facing in terms of the educational pathways open to them
(Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). Such data would also address
questions on the activities and experience of learners resulting from their
access to general forms of schooling, especially in terms of language and
relational skills, of inclusion in a social network optimising the learners
commitment within the classroom dynamic and their experience of a change
in the widely held vision of disability and impairment (Ewing & Jones, 2003;
Farrell, 2000; Foreman, Arthur-Kelly, Pascoe, & King, 2004; Hunt, Alwell,
Farron-Davis, & Goetz, 1996; Kennedy, Cushing, & Itkonen, 1997).
However, access to general schooling does not represent a guarantee of
the right to education. The rates of access to forms of general schooling do
not say anything about the conditions of schooling, about learning process
quality or about the meaning these have for the individual learner.
68
Limiting the data on the right to education to physical access to mainstream schooling makes access an aim in itself. This may lead to issues
around learning, academic achievement and the different dimensions
leading towards the full development of a learners human potential; as
outlined in Article 24 of the convention, being overlooked.
Such a limitation of data prevents a questioning of the organisational,
pedagogical and social conditions within schools. It establishes a utilitarian
vision of social belonging that is limited to placement in general schooling
and perpetuates a normative concept of the school that is mainly based on
the learners ability to adapt to formal or non-formal school rules.
A Right to Education Depending on Equality of Treatment

Ensuring learners with SEN and their families are given equal treatment
as outlined in Article 24 links the right to education to the undertaking of
reasonable accommodation aimed at alleviating the barriers to learning
that learners may face during education. In this respect it is important to
understand the way in which accessibility is organised as shown in the
way disability is represented in an organisations policy and the promotion
of an inclusive ethos in the organisation (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Wagner,
Newman, & Cameto, 2004).
Data are required to examine the way in which the learning environment is made accessible, supporting the participation of learners with SEN
in a class group, their motivation for school-work and their academic
achievements.
The existence of support and accommodation is not, per se, a guarantee
of equal treatment of learners with SEN; it is not synonymous with success
and social recognition. Despite the existence of support, research shows
that learners with SEN have a more difficult school path than the average
of the population (Le Laidier & Prouchandy, 2012; Newman, Wagner,
Cameto, & Knokey, 2009).
A Right to Education Related to the Enabling Effect of the

Educative Environment
The realisation of the right to education cannot be separated from the
enabling effect or, conversely, the disabling effect of the learners educational environment. Article 24 of the UNCRPD requires State Parties to
69
take effective individualised support measures that maximise learning and

academic progress and optimise all learners wider socialisation. The
UNESCO ISCED 2011 classification relates the education of learners with
SEN to the ability of the schooling systems to make that learners meet the
requirements of the study programmes and acquire the necessary skills
(UNESCO, 2012).
Current data shows that learners with SEN consider that they have
fewer progression opportunities than their peers; that they think their
school achievements have been obtained thanks to their parents involvement and not to flexibility of learning methods, responsiveness of the pedagogical team, or to the presence of an educational advisor (Ebersold, 2012).
Data relating to such enabling effects can be linked to a learners academic achievements, their success in post-compulsory education in terms of
knowledge and skills acquired, or in terms of qualifications obtained.
This information alone may not be sufficient. It is not possible to reduce
the overall enabling effect of the school environment to a few dimensions
for learning. The rate of learner qualification gives no information on the
conditions under which a learner has been educated; similarly, having
obtained a qualification is in no way a predictor of the learners social and/
or professional inclusion.
A Right to Education Depending on the Consistency and

Continuity of an Educational Career
The realisation of the right to education is linked to a learners overall prospects and conditions for fulfilling his or her rights. Ebersold (2014) argues
that learners with disabilities face choices in their educational careers that
non-disabled learners do not one such choice is often between accessible
learning opportunities, or preferred choice of study subject. For many learners, accessible learning opportunities may mean separation from their
non-disabled peers. As Ebersold argues such learners have to face a series
of socially disqualifying experiences that place on the edge of social and
professional support services which results in a risk of them becoming fully
marginalised.
Data on sources of discontinuities in learners educational careers that
over expose them to school failure and/or to being oriented towards separate provision (special schools or classes) are an important aspect informing
rights issues. Clear data can help identify which forms and conditions of
transition between schooling cycles have an enabling effect for the learners
70
concerned, giving them the opportunity to consider that they have a future
in which they are the key actors or, conversely, that may have a disabling
effect by depriving learners with disabilities of the capacity to gain social
and/or professional recognition.
A Right to Education that Accounts for Affiliating Effects

Educational participation offers learners learning opportunities, but also
possibilities to take part in the same activities as others, to experience
common ventures and to take part in exchanges within a dynamic of
reciprocity where words, representations and practices can be shared and
discussed.
The realisation of the right to education cannot be dissociated from the
affiliating effect of the schooling process. This effect can be understood to
involve the possibilities for equal participation given to young adults that
means they consider themselves to be as worthy of respect and esteem as
any other person (Fraser, 2005). This affiliating effect can be seen in the
different dimensions contributing to a persons economic and social independence especially in terms of housing, access to leisure time activities,
involvement in social life, income and resources. This economic and social
independence has an identity dimension and is for the concerned persons a
symbol of their capacity.
Data on affiliating effects, whilst difficult to collect, is essential if evidence of the fulfilment of learners rights is to be truly comprehensive. Such
data would explore learners feelings of belonging to a school community,
matters of mutual respect and of social esteem that places them on an equal
footing of participation with others (Fraser, 2005).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
This chapter has presented a number of key international level policy issues
for data collection linked to inclusive education. It has raised a range of
questions and highlighted various data requirements, without being able to
give specific answers or responses. At the present time, there are more questions than clear answers the provision of data that can effectively inform
policy-making for inclusive education is an area presenting a myriad of
challenges with some small step solutions only beginning to now emerge.
71
Nationally and internationally, there are increasing demands, at international, European and national levels, for accountability and betweenschool and between nation comparisons are rising. The emergence of big
data (meta analyses of combined data-sets and sources) presents both
opportunities, but also real challenges for inclusive education.
The calls for evidence-based policy and resource allocation highlight the
need for meaningful data related to all learners. It is necessary to know
which learners are receiving what services, when and where (counting all
learners). It is also necessary to have data on the quality of services and the
outcomes they lead to (consider practice).
A major challenge for data collection is linked to the avoidance of classifying, categorising and labelling learners in order to provide information
on the provision they receive. The pluralities of definitions applied to learners and the politics of labelling systems cannot be ignored; neither can the
effects these labelling systems and definitions lead to.
Developing meaningful quality indicators for inclusive education is still
a challenge and developing comprehensive data collection methods requires
a long-term commitment. The limitations of purely statistical information
must be acknowledged and understood; numerical data is not a panacea
for educational issues countries are facing.
Inclusive education must be seen as an evolving concept with issues
relating to diversity and democracy as increasingly being important.
Measuring the implementation of inclusive education, as well as commitments to inclusive education will be a challenge for the short- and long
term. This will require the integration of data from a variety of sources
including sources that capture the experiences of learners and their families.
Asking the right policy questions is the starting point for collecting data
that will in the long term inform policy in significant ways.
REFERENCES
Bickenbach, J. E. (2012). Ethics, law and policy. London: Sage.
schools. Bristol: CSIE.
Council of the European Union. (2007). Council conclusions on a coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education
and training. 2802nd Education, Youth and Culture Council meeting, Brussels, 24 25.
Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/
educ/94290.pdf. Accessed on May 2007.
72
Council of the European Union. (2009). Council conclusions of 12 may 2009 on a strategic
framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020) (2009/C
119/02).
Ebersold, S. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in tertiary education and to employment. Paris: OECD.
Ebersold, S. (2012). Les transitions vers lenseignement tertiaire et vers lemploi des jeunes
adultes handicapes. [Transitions to tertiary education and employment of young adults
with disabilities.] Paris: OECD.
Ebersold, S. (2014). Accessibilite, politiques inclusives et droit a` leducation: Considerations
conceptuelles et methodologiques. Alter, 8(4). [Accessibility, inclusive policies and the
right to education: Conceptual and methodological considerations].
Ebersold, S., & Evans, P. (2008). A supply side approach for a resource based classification
system. In M. McLaughlin & L. Florian (Eds.), Disability classification in education:
Issues and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CL: Corwin Press.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2010). Special needs education country data 2010. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/publications/
ereports/special-needs-education-country-data-2010/SNE-Country-Data-2010.pdf
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011a). Mapping the implementation of policy for inclusive education: An exploration of challenges and opportunities
for developing indicators. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011b). Participation in inclusive education
A framework for developing indicators. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012). Special needs education country data 2012. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/publications/
ereports/sne-country-data-2012
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Kyriazopoulou, K., &
Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators For inclusive education in
Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/indicatorsfor-inclusive-education/indicators-documents/Indicators-EN.pdf
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, & Meijer, C. J. W. (Eds.).
(2003). Special education across Europe in 2003: Trends in provision in 18 European
countries. Middelfart, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education.
European Commission. (2009). Strategic framework for education and training. Brussels:
European Commission.
European Union. (2007). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2007/C 303/01).
Eurostat. (2011). Country data published on. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
Eurydice. (2011). Country data published on. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/
eurydice/index_en.php
Ewing, K. M., & Jones, T. W. (2003). An educational rationale for deaf students with multiple
disabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 267 271.
73
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 153 162.
Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., Pascoe, S., & King, B. S. (2004). Evaluating the educational
experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive and segregated classroom settings: An Australian perspective. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 29, 183 193.
Fraser, N. (2005). Quest ce que la justice sociale? Paris: La decouverte.
Heyman, J., & Cassola, A. (2012). Lessons in educational equality. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53 71.
Kennedy, C., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997). General education participation improves
the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 7(2), 167 189.
Le Laidier, S., & Prouchandy, P. (2012). La scolarisation des jeunes handicapes. Note dinformation 12.10, ministe`re de leducation nationale, de la jeunesse et de la vie associative,
pp. 1 7.
Lee, M. A., & Mossaad, N. (2010). Assessing comparability of available data on characteristics
of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce Canada, United
Kingdom and United States. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. (2009). The post-high school
outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. Menlo Park, CA: SRI
International.
OECD. (2004). Equity in education for students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2005). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Statistics and
indicators. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2007). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies,
statistics and indicators. Paris: OECD.
OECD, & European Commission. (Eds.). (2009). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties
and disadvantages in the Baltic States, South Eastern Europe and Malta. Educational
policies and indicators. Paris: OECD and European Commission.
Quinn, G. (2010). Article 24 CRPD on the right to inclusive education. Unpublished report.
OHCHR/UNESCO.
UNESCO. (1997). International standard for classification ISCED 1997. Montreal, Quebec:
UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International standard classification on education.
ISCED 2011. Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, NY:
United Nations.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). Strategic action towards
inclusive development: Disability, human rights and statistics. New York, NY: United
Nations.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., & Cameto, R. (2004). Changes over time in the secondary school
programs of students with disabilities. A report of findings from the national longitudinal
74
transition study and the national transition study 2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI
international.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in the early
post school outcomes of youth with disabilities A report of findings from the NTLS
and the NLTS-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
World Health Organisation. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
RESOURCING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
Donna Barrett
ABSTRACT
This chapter will address four key areas related to resourcing inclusive
education. Consideration will be given first to an international perspective
on models of funding, reviewing direct or student-based approaches, and
decentralized versus local organization of funding. The relationships
between funding and implementation of inclusive education will then be
explored, looking at ways of measuring these using indicators or protocols.
Third, continuous improvement, planning, and accountability will be
reviewed for their role in setting priorities, targets, and benchmarking
progress while addressing competing resource needs. Finally, approaches
to building capacity to support inclusive practice through a range of
approaches will be proffered.
Keywords: Inclusive education; resourcing; funding; indicators;
improvement planning

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003020
75
76
DONNA BARRETT
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this chapter is to bring together key ideas related to strengthening inclusive education practice in public school systems. For the purposes of this chapter inclusive practice occurs in the students community
school, in a classroom with similar age peers, addressing key learning
experiences that are planned for the others in the class. Within this context
there may be choice, differential performance expectations, and levels of
support provided for students in the classroom. Clarity in describing the
key attributes of inclusive education is a necessary first step in developing
systems of measurement to determine the extent to which public education
systems, schools, and classrooms are inclusive.
FRAMING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

There appears to be a general consensus of support internationally, nationally, and provincially (in the Canadian context) that education systems
should be inclusive in all aspects of their operation. The notion of inclusion
has shifted from inclusion as a means of understanding and overcoming a
deficit to the broader definition of inclusive education as a process aimed at
offering quality education for all while respecting diversity and the different
needs, abilities, characteristics, and learning expectations of students by
eliminating all forms of discrimination (European Agency for Development
in Special Needs Education/UNESCO, 2010). UNESCO suggests that
inclusive education will necessitate the development of teaching practices
that respond to individual differences and permit educating all children
together. Inclusive education is viewed as a social and economic good as
inclusive schools model a positive approach to addressing diversity and
provide a living example of a just and nondiscriminatory society. Finally,
UNESCO claims that a unified system will be more economical.
Lupart and Webber (2012) provide a chronology of educational reform
efforts in regular and special education. They suggest that the general
education system has been primarily concerned with achieving academic
excellence while the special education system focuses on promoting equity
for all students. The shift from a focus on including students with special
education needs in mainstream education to creating a system that is inclusive in all aspects is a significant change in direction. It has the potential to
silence the language of disability that has signaled that there are two groups
Resourcing Inclusive Education
77
of individuals, those who are able and those who are disabled. It also
requires that all educators assume full responsibility for the entire student
population within a given community (p. 30). The reframing acknowledges
that lack of optimal success of individuals and groups of students is a reflection of shortcomings in an educational system that does not adequately
respond to their needs. Lupart and Webber suggest that a unified system
must direct all of its resources to achieving both excellence and equity.
FUNDING AN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION SYSTEM

Models of funding public education have also shifted with the increasing
awareness that funding based on disability or medical diagnosis had
resulted over time in substantial increases in the number of students
assessed and diagnosed as meeting criteria for some form of enhanced
funding (Goddard & Foster, 2006). Funding based on eligibility criteria
creates an incentive to assess and code students as being eligible for additional funding. This system had a numerous unfortunate consequences.
Some children were labeled unnecessarily, or students with mild disabilities
were given funding eligibility codes with more severe conditions, which
qualified for more funds. In some cases attribution of special education
labels resulted in lower expectations for students and removal from the regular education system. Children and parents were burdened unnecessarily
with all of the challenges associated with a disability label. In addition, limited specialist resources were utilized to conduct assessments instead of
being used to support and improve educational programming.
Increased identification and coding based on disability created pressure
on government funders. The increase in the number of students meeting
special education eligibility requirements legitimated requests for additional services to support these students and increased funds from governments. As the proportion of the total education budget required to
support students with special needs rose, some parents and staff became
concerned that regular students would be short-changed when money
to fund the whole system were limited. Tax dollars allocated to the public
education system by government are ultimately a political decision based
on the support of the voting public. There is a limit to the willingness of
the public to contribute to financial resourcing of the education system
particularly when the majority of taxpayers do not have children in
school.
78
DONNA BARRETT
The shift to an inclusive funding model has served as a positive move

ideologically, while at the same time addressing some of the unfortunate
outcomes of the bounty funding model. An inclusive funding model
based on population demographics eliminated financial incentives to label
and code students. Recently, Finland has moved to a process where schools
and municipalities will not receive additional education funding for identifying students as having special needs (Jahnukainen, 2011).
Li (2010) identifies adequacy and equity as the two dimensions of educational funding. Adequacy refers to the question of whether there is enough
funding in the system to meet the desired outcomes. Adequacy of funding
remains an open question that is difficult to answer until there is agreement
about how to best use funding to maximize the ability of the system to
achieve the desired ends. Accountability for inclusive education means that
schools and school systems must accept responsibility for using funds
appropriately. Demonstrating effective allocation of available funds is one
component to determining the adequacy. If funds are allocated effectively,
it is more likely that intended outcomes will be achieved. However, this is
not a simple process because if the system is insufficiently funded, choices
and compromises will have to be made that may impact outcomes. Slow
progress or limited progress to achieve system goals may signal insufficient
funds but it may also signal a capacity gap in the system that is related to
other factors such as the lack of knowledge, resourcefulness, and leadership
to bring about change.
Equity refers to methods of distribution of the funds available. Li (2010)
defines horizontal equity from the educational funding perspective as the
notion of treating students equally regardless of their wealth. Vertical
equity refers to need to provide variable supports to students who have
diverse learning needs in order to enhance their ability to achieve educational outcomes. Skria, Scheurich, Garica, and Nolly (2004) suggest that
schools and districts should use equity audits as a means to determine
systemic distribution of teacher quality and program equity in order to
impact achievement equity. Audits of teacher quality consider teacher education, experience, mobility and those teaching within or outside their area
of training or expertise. Program equity addresses student access to or
exclusion from programs. The authors suggest that when examining
student access to programs there should be a review of discipline processes
that may remove students from regular classroom activities due to suspensions and other disciplinary processes. Equity audits and data related
to attendance, achievement, and engagement of students can be helpful
in identifying areas where students are or are not achieving success.
79
These attributes serve as measures of progress for an inclusive education

system.
FROM FUNDING TO RESOURCING AN INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION SYSTEM
Resourcing an inclusive education system refers to how the system allocates
time, talent, personnel, and funds in support of system goals and priorities.
Resourcing reflects organizational values and beliefs about what is important. It also reflects an operational understanding of where emphasis
should be placed in order to realize the vision and mandate of the system.
Achievement equity, drop out, or school and course completion rates,
and attendance patterns can guide decisions related to how to direct
resources to impact improvement. Galletly, Knight, and Dekkers (2010)
caution about the dangers of allocating supports based on coding and
advocate the provision of additional supports based on a combination of
low achievement and the response to intervention process. To be effective,
resources must be allocated in a manner that has the most positive impact
possible. This means that those making decisions must have a deep understanding of powerful leverage points to improve the system. Allocation of
resources is one way of building system capacity by investing in positive
educational change. It is for this reason that there needs to be a researchbased approach to guide schools and school systems to make appropriate
choices in the expenditure of funds as a part of holding them
accountable for results. The next section of this chapter will identify key
areas of focus to guide expenditure of funds to support inclusive education.
SETTING PRIORITIES TO BUILD CAPACITY IN AN

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION SYSTEM
Realizing quality learning for all students in an inclusive education system
requires growth and learning at all levels of the system. Change, however,
if it is to have real impact, must happen for students in classrooms and
schools. Teachers, paraprofessionals, and school leaders need to build their
capacity to meet the needs of all students. Teachers need to utilize instructional practices that allow students to engage in meaningful learning
80
DONNA BARRETT
opportunities with their peers. They must be aware of and have easy access
to teaching and learning materials to meet a range of learning needs.
Paraprofessionals need to play a supportive role that encourages learning
and social inclusion. Principals must understand what it means to be an
inclusive school in order to provide leadership to realize this goal. They
need to help others become aware of and support this direction, to set
expectations and support staff to create inclusive learning environments for
all students, organize their schools, hire, support and supervise staff, work
with their parents and communities, allocate resources, and monitor progress to achieve this end.
School divisions and schools need to become increasingly precise in identifying where focus should be placed to improve, given the scarcity of dollars available for that purpose. Initiatives and practices need to be selected
on the basis of their demonstrated potential to strengthen the learning
environment for all students. Priorities need to be set at the division,
school, and classroom levels. There should be alignment and connection
between priorities at all levels. However, schools and classroom teachers
require some flexibility in determining how priorities can be attained. The
litmus test being the potential benefit through an inclusive lens.
What binds school and school divisions together are common priorities.
A limited number of important priorities should be the drivers for a school
system. The goals themselves should be inclusive in nature in that they
apply to all students. Frequent measurement of progress towards goals provides a vehicle for reviewing and adjusting practice so that all students are
included and achieving success, more parents and families are satisfied with
their level of involvement and influence, and staff indicate that they are
supported to deepen their practice.
Speaking of this process in generalities provides a process or framework
for moving forward. However, when dealing with specific situations there
will be times when developing more inclusive learning opportunities
requires a shift in resourcing that will result in a situation where clear
choices may have to be made. Decisions in these incidents will likely be
contested. Gable (2014) proposes a critical realist framework that she suggests can serve as a means to consider and challenge school practices that
have become entrenched in conventions of thought and consider the contributions of alternative understandings (p. 97). It will be important for
those engaged in this process to facilitate dialogue so that reasonable solutions may be attained. These situations can also result in innovative ways
of addressing challenges and using already existing resources in a more
inclusive way. Booth and Ainscow (2002) provide a detailed, value-based
81
process to guide school communities to work together in identifying priorities to become more inclusive. A particular strength of this approach is that
the processes are inclusive and serve to deepen understanding of what it
means to be an inclusive school.
A FOCUS ON QUALITY TEACHING

Quality teaching is foundational to student success. To the greatest extent
possible resources should be used to build system capacity at the classroom level. Significant resources should be directed to activities to assist
schools and school divisions in having an excellent teacher in every classroom. The success and achievement of students, particularly students at
risk, are directly linked to teacher quality. An inclusive education system
requires that teachers and others involved in the system learn and implement strategies to deliver quality learning opportunities for all students.
Recruitment, retention, and the development of quality teachers are foundational to an inclusive educational system that meets the needs of all students. Teaching quality needs to be framed in terms of the ability of the
teacher to meaningfully plan for, instruct, and assess all students.
Allocation of resources to support recruitment, retention, and development of strong teachers and leaders is critical to the development of an
effective inclusive system.
BUILDING INSTRUCTIONAL CAPACITY

Pijl and Frissen (2009) suggest that policy makers need to understand that
schools and classrooms are complex environments and educators, as
professionals, need to have some flexibility in the development of their own
inclusive teaching practice. They also highlight the need to ensure that
teachers have access to support from governing bodies, administration,
colleagues, and other professionals in this process. Huberman, Navo, and
Parrish (2012) reviewed the educational practices of eight districts in
California where students with special needs were demonstrating strong
performance. Their findings indicated that although there were some differences among the districts that they attributed their success to inclusion and
access to core curriculum for all students, collaboration between classroom
82
DONNA BARRETT
and special education teachers, continuous assessment for learning and

Response to Intervention, targeted professional development, and the use
of Explicit Direct Instruction. They also suggest that inclusive practices
increase student access to the curriculum that in turn increases opportunities for learning. However, teachers need to build their practice in
ensuring that all students benefit from quality teaching in an inclusive
classroom and school. Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin (2012) have identified a tool for measuring teacher efficacy in implementing inclusive practices. Instruments such as this can be used to assist teachers in the
development of professional growth plans and form the basis for professional development. They can also guide schools and school systems in
providing targeted support to build teachers instructional capacity in an
inclusive context.
QUALITY LEADERSHIP
The direction and quality of leadership provided by school principals are
positively correlated with student success (Leithwood & Seashore-Louis,
2011). Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2007) conducted interviews
with preservice principals to identify their perceived needs to support
school-based inclusive leadership. Respondents saw the benefits for inclusion but indicated they required additional support to create inclusive
environments including the ability to lead teachers in best practices such
as differentiation, collaboration and behaviour supports (p. 128). They
also indicated a need for training to assist them with organization strategies that enable effective use of classroom teachers and special education
supports. Fullan (2014) suggests that a key role for principals is the ability to promote collective learning of staff and that principals need to be
actively involved themselves as learners with their staff in the process.
Waldron, McLeskey, and Redd (2011) reviewed the practices of a principal of a school that was both highly effective and inclusive. They found
that the principal had unrelenting focus on success for all students and
was resilient, positive, and optimistic. She made important staffing decisions to build capacity, worked to improve working conditions for staff,
celebrated successes, used teacher-generated data to monitor student
growth, and used a tiered model to provide effective instruction either in
the general classroom or in an alternate setting if students were not
experiencing success.
83
CREATING QUALITY ADULT LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS
Creating opportunities for ongoing embedded professional learning is
essential to enable all staff working in inclusive schools to increase their
capacity to provide quality inclusive learning environments. Teachers need
to have strong skills in formative assessment and know how to gather and
interpret meaningful data to determine student progress. They need time to
work and plan together to develop strategies and plans to adjust instruction
to be responsive to students learning styles. Teachers require meeting and
planning time to engage in these activities.
Principals can respond to this need by transforming traditional staff
meetings to professional learning times. Reducing face-to-face instructional
time to increase opportunities for teachers to visit each others classrooms
or work on building capacity is a valuable but expensive use of resources as
other teachers must be employed to provide instruction during these times.
Leaders at both the school and jurisdiction need to work with staff, parents,
and communities to create opportunities for quality adult learning that have
a positive impact on teaching and student learning while having a minimum
negative impact on school budgets, staff workload, or interruptions to the
delivery of schooling caused by school closures for staff learning.
RESOURCING PREVENTATIVE SUPPORTS

The difficulties that many disadvantaged students face can be addressed or
moderated by a focus on early intervention. This requires providing instructional supports to at risk students at an early stage. Close monitoring and
intensive supports to provide rich language learning experiences and targeted teaching to young students can assist students who enter school at a
disadvantage to achieve success and avoid unnecessary labeling. In Finland,
since the 1970s, there has been easy access to supports for students with
mild problems in reading, writing, and mathematics (Jahnukainen, 2011).
Early intervention can take many forms. Accurate, timely, and relevant
data related to readiness growth and achievement are essential to effectively
resourcing preventive measures. The recent work in a number of Canadian
provinces using the Early Developmental Instrument (Guhn, Janus, &
Hertzman, 2007) provides a snapshot of school readiness and gaps that has
the potential to be used in communities to promote conditions to improve
84
DONNA BARRETT
school readiness. Educators need to work as partners in these processes.

Readiness assessments such as the Early Years Evaluation (2009) can serve
as a starting point to assess school readiness in kindergarten. What is important is that teachers are able to use these documents as a way to target learning supports for young students.
REPURPOSING RESOURCES
If people resources are the key to the realizing an inclusive education system, the roles of special education specialists and teachers, teacher assistants, and students themselves will need to be examined to determine how
each can contribute. All will need to understand the goals of an inclusive
education system. They will need to work collaboratively with teachers,
principals, and others to clarify their roles so that everyone is practicing in
a manner that contributes to the realization of the common goal.
Specialists have knowledge that can be of value to classroom teachers in
helping them to meet the needs of all students. They will need to be able to
provide this support in a timely way. They will need to develop a deep
understanding of the classroom context in order to work with teachers to
support workable classroom and instructional improvements. They will
have to assess their own expertise and recommendations in light of the
demands of the inclusive classroom. In complex situations, specialists need
to coordinate with each other and classroom teachers.
The role of paraprofessionals also needs to be examined within the framework of inclusive classrooms. Teachers are ultimately responsible for the
learning growth of the students in their classes. This is not a job that can
be delegated to a teacher assistant. Takala (2007) suggested that teachers
do often not receive training in how to work with another adult in the
classroom. She suggests that teacher assistants need to work collaboratively
with teachers in the planning and delivery process otherwise they often
spend their time waiting for the lesson to unfold before they know how to
assist students.
ACCOUNTABILITY IN AN INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
It should be clear at this point that every aspect of classroom, school, and
system operation may need to be reexamined in terms of its ability to
85
deliver on the promise of meeting the learning needs of all students. The
key players in this self-examination and process for accountability are the
students, parents, school and system staff, and elected officials. Classroom
and school developed assessments can measure growth. They provide
important information to teachers and parents. An analysis of teachergenerated data can also provide information back to teachers to inform
future practice. While the most powerful forms of accountability come
from internal commitment and the increased motivation that comes from
being successful, external accountability measures that provide assurance
of quality is a reality that must be addressed, particularly in the North
American context. Groen (2012) suggests that the evolution of educational
accountability in the United States has created a threat to the very notion
of an inclusive public education system. On a more positive note, Simon
and Black (2011) describe an accountability process that focused on a
review of school improvement plans to determine the extent to which they
identified and provided professional development in practices to support
learning for a range of students in an inclusive context. It is important that
schools, school systems, and governments develop and utilize accountability processes that promote the goals they seek to attain as these processes
can be powerful drivers that influence the allocation of time, energy and fiscal, and professional resources.
CONCLUSION
The development of an inclusive education system is at its heart a valuebased process that will be influenced by the beliefs and desires of the society
that the education community serves. Creating inclusive learning environments is already happening for many students, in many classrooms,
schools, and educational systems. Bringing this process to scale in every
classroom for every student is the challenge. Increasing clarity on what
strong practice looks like is an important first step. Moving forward it will
be important to provide resources in a manner that enables everyone who
is part of the system to build and expand on what we already know about
quality teaching and learning and to monitor progress in a way that provides information about who is benefitting and who continues to experience
barriers to success.
Ultimately, students and parents should expect that the school system
will welcome each child. It will be physically, emotionally, educationally
86
DONNA BARRETT
accessible providing learning opportunities that will encourage and motivate each child to achieve learning outcomes to the best of his or her capability. They should expect that educational equity will extend beyond the
classroom to full participation in the life of the school including extracurricular activities, opportunities to develop friendships, and make plans
for future learning and career opportunities.
Everyone in the education system is accountable to use the resources at
their disposal to achieve these results. This chapter was intended to provide
guidance for system and school leaders in how to direct finite dollars and
resources to build capacity at the classroom, school, and school division
level. In closing it is important to remember that the most powerful
resources are the children and adults who are part of the system. In supporting the shift towards inclusion, Pijl and Frissen (2009) suggest the
only feasible and desirable option is to train, motivate and influence teachers in schools. They note that schools and teachers have to develop
inclusive schools themselves. Schools must be supported to develop responsive practices to societys needs. This can only be done by policy makers
willing to grant professional autonomy to schools and decision making and
purchasing power to parents. This calls for contextual steering that avoids
intense and detailed regulations (p. 374). Booth and Ainscow (2002) note
that if an inclusive education system is our goal, our processes to getting
there must be inclusive as well.
CASE STUDY
Inclusive Education in Alberta
The framing of an inclusive education system recently occurred in the
Alberta context. In 2007, the government of Alberta undertook a severe
disabilities funding profile review. The review was launched to respond to
concerns with regard to the funding of students with severe disabilities. It
served as a way of monitoring how school divisions were using the funds
allocated to meet the needs identified students. The review identified inconsistencies in identification, assessment, coding, and programming practices
in schools and jurisdictions serving students with severe special needs. The
review resulted in a government position described in a publication called
Setting the Direction (Alberta Education, 2009) that envisioned One
inclusive education system where each child is successful (p. 5). The report
87
spoke to an inclusive education system as a way of thinking and acting

that demonstrates universal acceptance of, and belonging for, all students.
Inclusive education in Alberta means a value-based approach to accepting
responsibility for all students. It also means that all students have
equitable opportunity to be included in the typical learning environment or
program of choice (p. 5).
The review evolved over a period of time to legislated requirements for
an inclusive education system as part of an overall process of educational
transformation. In 2010, following a province wide consultation, the
Alberta government produced Inspiring Education, a document that
provides the vision for education in Alberta to 2030. The specific outcomes
for the provincial education system are to support youth to be engaged
thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Decisions related
to teaching, assessment, policy, and governance are guided by the core values
of opportunity, fairness, citizenship, choice, diversity, and excellence. The
goals of Inspiring Education are to create an education system in Alberta
where communities are engaged to create a system that is learner centered;
uses flexible approaches; is inclusive and responsive; enables equitable access
to learning; where there is shared responsibility and accountability for
results; is sustainable and uses resources efficiently; and where innovation is
used to promote and strive for excellence (Alberta Education, 2010). The
vision, values, and goals of Inspiring Education encapsulate many of the
attributes of a fully inclusive education system where every child is valued
and supported to achieve personal success. The Ministerial Order (Alberta
Education, 2013) legislated an inclusive Kindergarten to grade 12 education
system. The document reflects the goals of Inspiring Education and identifies core competencies for all students. A number of provincial initiatives are
currently in process of development to support the implementation of
Inspiring Education. These include the revised funding framework implemented in 2013 that was developed as part of the recommendations from
Setting the Direction.
Funding an Inclusive Education System in Alberta

In Alberta, public, separate, and francophone school divisions are funded
with provincial taxes. Charter and private schools are partially funded by
the government. The Alberta provincial funding framework shifted for the
2012 2013 school year to an inclusive model for public, separate, and francophone school jurisdictions (Alberta Education, 2012). In this model, the
88
DONNA BARRETT
province distributes dollars to school authorities using a provincial funding

framework that is driven by student enrollment, equity of opportunity
funding, and inclusive education funding. Equity of opportunity funding
attempts to address educational costs related to providing education in
sparsely populated and remote areas of the province. Inclusive education
funds are to provide supports and services that benefit all students in an
inclusive education system as well as additional supports that students
require to help them achieve success (p. 10). Inclusive education funds are
provided on the basis of demographic characteristics. This change was significant in that it separated the coding and funding processes.
There remain several areas where funding is based on identification of
individual students. The province continues to provide additional funding
to preschool students with severe disabilities based on demonstrated eligibility. High school funding is based on the number of credits earned by
each student; however, eligible students with special needs codes are funded
at a full time student rate. The rationale being that their disability precludes
them from earning credits. Additional funding is also provided for English
Language Learners who meet assessment criteria and First Nations, Metis
and Inuit students based on an annual process of self-identification
(Alberta Education Funding Manual 2014/2015).
Allocation of Provincial Funds

The Alberta Education 2014 2015 Funding Manual indicates that 98 percent of funds can be allocated at the discretion of the school board to meet
the needs of their students. Although school divisions have different models
and processes for allocating provincial funding, the basic challenge of
resourcing the development of an inclusive education system is to determine how to best allocate a finite fiscal resource to maximize opportunities
to build capacity while continuing to operate. School divisions and schools
face the similar challenges in determining how to equitably allocate
resources to best support the achievement for all students.
Accountability and Quality Assurance

Alberta has a well-developed system designed to demonstrate the quality
and efficacy of the provincial education system. The current system
involves direct measures of student achievement, measures of graduation,
89
and dropout rates. It also includes information gathered from student, parent, and staff surveys that reflect levels of satisfaction with regard to educational quality, safe and caring environment, preparation for work, school
improvement, and access to a range of programs. School systems and
schools are required to share this information with their publics and to
develop improvement plans related to these measures. These plans identify
how systems set priorities and allocate resources as part of a process of
continuous improvement.
Measuring an Inclusive Education System

The current provincial accountability framework includes measures that
can be of assistance in determining system progress on inclusive education.
For example, student achievement results on provincial achievement tests
reflect the attainment of all students in a school, division, or the province
as a whole on provincial achievement tests. The data is also available in disaggregated forms so that one can determine the relative success of various
groups of students on these common measures.
The accountability/measurement system is evolving as part of the educational transformation process. For example, in the fall of 2014, Alberta
Education will pilot Student Learning Assessments in literacy and mathematics for grade three students. These tests will be administered early in the
school year and are intended to guide instruction rather than to be a summative evaluation of teaching and learning. This shift is important in that
it creates a structure for school staffs to demonstrate how they use this
data to design interventions to support student success. It will be important
that provision of inclusive supports be promoted throughout this process.
School divisions and schools will need to consider how they allocate fiscal
and other resources to support this work.
REFERENCES
Alberta Education. (2009). Setting the direction framework 2009. Alberta, Canada: Alberta
Education.
Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans, April 2010.
Alberta, Canada: Alberta Education.
Alberta Education. (2012). Strategic financial services sector. School finance branch. In
Funding manual for school authorities 2012/2013 school year. Alberta, Canada: Alberta
Education.
90
DONNA BARRETT
Alberta Education. (2013). Ministerial Order (#001/2013) Student Learning.

Alberta Education. (2014). Strategic financial services sector. School finance branch. In Funding
manual for school authorities 2014/2015 school year. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Education.
Early Years Evaluation. (2009). KSI Research International Inc.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education/UNESCO. (2010). Inclusive
education in action
Project framework and rationale. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Retrieved from https://www.
european-agency.org
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Gable, A. S. (2014). Disability theorising and real-world educational practice: A framework
for understanding. Disability and Society, 29(1), 86 100.
Galletly, S. A., Knight, B. A., & Dekkers, J. (2010). When tests frame children: The challenges
of providing appropriate education for children with special needs. Australasian Journal
of Special Education, 34(2), 133 154.
Garrison-Wade, D., Sobel, D., & Fulmer, C. L. (2007). Inclusive leadership: Preparing principals for the role that awaits them. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching
and Program Development, 19, 117 132.
Goddard, J. T., & Foster, R. Y. (2006). When labelling leads to revenue generation: A socialcultural of the dark side of funding protocols. Exceptionality Education Canada, 16(1),
45 69.
Groen, M. (2012). NCLB The educational accountability paradigm in historical perspective.
American Educational History Journal, 39(1), 1 14.
Guhn, M., Janus, M., & Hertzman, C. (2007). Special issue: The early development
instrument. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 369 374.
Huberman, M., Navo, M., & Parrish, T. (2012). Effective practices in high performing
districts serving students in special education. Journal of Educational Leadership, 25(2),
63 71.
Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of
the special education and inclusive special education in Alberta (Canada) and in
Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5), 489 502.
Leithwood, K., & Seashore-Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Li, X. (2010). How unequal are their vertical equity measures? A comparison of three
Canadian provinces. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 218 230.
Lupart, J., & Webber, C. (2012). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education
systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 8 37.
Pijl, S. J., & Frissen, P. H. A. (2009). What policymakers can do to make education inclusive.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(3), 366 377.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices: An international validation. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 12(1), 12 21.
Simon, M., & Black, W. (2011). Differentiated accountability policy and school improvement
plans: A look at professional development and inclusive practices for exceptional students. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 160 184.
91
Skria, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garica, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership
tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Education Administration Quarterly,
4(1), 133 161.
Takala, M. (2007). The work of classroom assistants in special and mainstream education in
Finland. British Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 50 57.
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the school
principal in an effective inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2),
51 60.
MEASURING EFFECTIVE
TEACHER PREPARATION
FOR INCLUSION
Sarah Copfer and Jacqueline Specht
ABSTRACT
This chapter will provide an overview of the types of concerns that are
evident in the research literature regarding how well teachers are
prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms citing both preservice education
and in-service professional development/learning. It will present an
overview of the measurements that have been used to measure teachers
perceptions of preparedness for inclusive environments and the use of
surveys to assess attitudes, beliefs, and values. The chapter will conclude
with a discussion regarding measuring teachers perceptions to inform/
improve teacher preparation efforts/policies/practices and what needs to
be done to improve teacher preparation for inclusive education.
Keywords: Teacher preparation; inclusive education; professional
development; preservice teachers; measurement

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003021
93
94
SARAH COPFER AND JACQUELINE SPECHT
INTRODUCTION
Although there continue to remain controversies and diversified approaches,
inclusive schooling is now a predominant approach to teaching and learning
around the globe (Florian & Becirevic, 2011; Forlin, 2010a; Vaillant, 2011).
With this approach comes the need to provide professional learning
opportunities for our teachers in their initial training and throughout their
careers. Despite differences in the definition of inclusion, the education
required to become a teacher, and many other contextual factors, there
is consensus that the perception of teachers is that they are not adequately
prepared to teach in the inclusive classroom (Gokdere, 2012).
In a review of the research literature, Loreman (2010) indicates that
there are seven key areas that are critical for the success of beginning
teachers in the inclusive classroom: an understanding of inclusion and
respect for diversity; collaboration with stakeholders; fostering a positive
social climate; instructing in ways conducive to inclusion; engaging in
inclusive instructional planning; engaging in meaningful assessment; and
engaging in lifelong learning. Based on our reading of the research literature, we believe it is fair to say that these are key areas for all teachers to
be successful in the inclusive classroom. Forlin (2010b) advocates that teachers need to gain theoretical and practical knowledge, but also possess the
belief that they are responsible for the education of all of their students
regardless of their diversity. It is no small task, but one that is essential if
our next generations are to be healthy and valued members of society. The
question remains how. How do we structure our initial teacher education
programs to graduate teachers who are prepared to teach in inclusive
classrooms and how do we help them to continue their professional
development as they gain the experience of teaching? There are arguments
over whose job it is to develop inclusive teachers. Pijl (2010) claims that
reforming initial teacher education is not the sole answer. We could not
agree more. We need to reform teacher education from the beginning to
the end of their careers.
Across the globe, research efforts have focused on two broad areas
affecting the implementation of inclusive practice in general education settings: the attitudes, beliefs, and values of practicing teachers, and their
pedagogical knowledge, skills, and perceived efficacy around the implementation of inclusive teaching strategies. Considerable research in the realm
of inclusive education therefore focuses in on the connections between effective inclusion at the classroom level, practicing teachers attitudes and
beliefs toward inclusive education as a pedagogical approach, and teachers
Measuring Effective Teacher Preparation for Inclusion
95
knowledge of appropriate pedagogical strategies to implement inclusive

forms of teaching. With the gap between inclusive policy and classroom
practice still evident worldwide, more recent research efforts have been put
toward examining educational efforts to improve in these two areas. This
literature informs the practice of institutions concerned with initial teacher
education, focusing on measurement to ensure that newly graduated
teachers have the attitudes and skills and feel confident to teach in inclusive
classrooms.
This chapter will present a review of the international literature as it
relates to the research that investigates teacher reform through the use of
measurement. It is not enough to say this is what we should be doing, we
need to determine if what we are doing is changing the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes of our teachers. The purpose of the chapter is to give an
overview of measures that have been used in research to assist researchers
and practitioners in determining what works. Therefore, while results of
research will be addressed, the focus is more on the measurements that have
been employed and the importance of such measurement to ensure that we
are addressing the preparation needs of teachers for the inclusive classroom.
Teacher preparedness and abilities to teach in inclusive classrooms have
been measured in multiple forms across the global context. Research efforts
have relied on both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to understand teachers attitudes, beliefs, and concerns about teaching in inclusive
environments, and the types of knowledge, skills, and abilities required to
be able to do so effectively. Quantitative methods generally have been used
to assess teachers attitudes and knowledge around inclusion across levels
of schooling, including different schools, school districts, and even across
different geographic locations, such as states, provinces, and countries in
order to obtain a broad understanding of teachers beliefs, knowledge, and
practices of inclusion. Qualitative studies, on the other hand, have enabled
researchers to capture teachers voices, opinions, and feelings of inclusion
and inclusive practice in more detail to understand the teacher perspective
more thoroughly. A number of studies have also employed a mixedmethods approach using both quantitative and qualitative measures as a
means of understanding teachers attitudes, beliefs, and practice.
From the research, it is evident that in order for inclusive education to
be effective, teachers need to believe that all students belong in the regular
classroom, feel confident in teaching all students in the regular classroom,
and have the knowledge and skills to do so. The remainder of the chapter
will investigate the measurement tools that have been used to assess these
attributes in the mission of improving practice.
96
IN-SERVICE TEACHERS
Attitudes
Overall, research across the world on teacher attitudes toward inclusion
suggests that while teachers are generally supportive of inclusive philosophies and practices, many question the practicality of implementation
(Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c;
MacBeath, Galton, Steward, MacBeath, & Page, 2006).
Teachers attitudes and beliefs about inclusion have been linked directly
to the implementation of inclusive practice in the classroom (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002). It has been suggested that the ambivalent attitudes of educational stakeholders regarding inclusion and the philosophical debates
that come from these have impeded the transition toward more inclusive
approaches in schools (Ross-Hill, 2009). Identifying these attitudes and
beliefs, understanding their cause, and addressing the concerns that stem
from them is therefore a critical aspect in understanding how to develop
more inclusive approaches. A number of different measures have been used
in the literature to assess the attitudes of teachers for inclusive education.
Forlin (2001) developed and used the Teacher Stress and Coping
Questionnaire (TSC) to identify potential stressors associated with inclusive education and a range of coping strategies in-service teachers
employed in inclusive settings in primary (elementary) school classrooms
in Queensland that included students with moderate to severe intellectual
disabilities. An adaptation of this survey was used again by Forlin, Keen,
and Barrett (2008) in Western Australia to understand primary and
secondary school in-service teachers concerns of inclusive education and
coping strategies used in inclusive settings that included an identified
student with an intellectual disability. In a similar research effort, Subban
and Sharma (2006) used the Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale
(ATIES; Wilczenski, 1992, 1995) and the Concerns about Inclusive
Education Scale (CIES; Sharma & Desai, 2002) to determine the attitudes
and concerns around inclusion of primary school teachers across 50
schools in Victoria. The ATIES measures attitudes toward inclusion in
terms of who belongs in the classroom. It asks about four broad classifications of student exceptionality (social, physical, academic, and behavioral).
The CIES assesses the views of the teachers on the practicalities of implementing inclusion. The goal of these research efforts was to identify
in-service teachers concerns and teaching strategies used in order to
improve on inclusive-based efforts.
97
In Canada, Montgomery and Mirenda (2014) used the Teacher Efficacy

for Inclusive Practices (TEIP; Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2011) and
the Sentiments, Attitudes, Concerns about Inclusive Education Scale
(SACIE-R; Loreman, Earle, Sharma, & Forlin, 2007) to investigate teachers concerns about inclusion of students with developmental disabilities.
The SACIE measures attitudes toward including students with different
educational needs, concerns about inclusive education, and sentiments when
interacting with people with disabilities. The TEIP measures efficacy to use
inclusive instructions, manage behavior, and collaborate. Results indicate
that teachers who are more confident in their ability to provide inclusive
education and implement inclusive practices have more positive feelings
about inclusion.
In the United States, Ross-Hill (2009) examined the attitudes of elementary and secondary teachers from three schools in rural Southeastern
United States toward the implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms. The study relied on the Scale of Teachers Attitudes Toward
Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC; Cochran, 1997) to investigate teachers
perceptions of advantages, disadvantages, and social issues around inclusion. The goal of the study was to determine teachers attitudes around
inclusion in order to promote greater acceptance and social change toward
inclusive efforts.
It is important that we understand the issues and concerns of teachers
for teaching in inclusive classrooms. The measures introduced in this
section allow us to determine the issues raised by teachers in inclusive classrooms. We must systematically determine what these concerns are so that
we can address them with requisite knowledge and skills.
Knowledge, Skills, and Practice

Research efforts in the realm of inclusive education have also focused in
on teacher knowledge, skills, and practices and the impact of these on
teachers abilities to foster inclusive classroom environments. Effective
inclusive practice has been linked directly to teachers attitudes and beliefs
about inclusive education, but also connects directly to their professional
knowledge, experience, and skill set.
In Canada, Anne Jordan et al. have taken a comprehensive approach to
exploring the connection between effective teacher practice, teacher beliefs
about disability and their responsibility to teach students with disabilities,
and the influence of school culture in shaping inclusive practice in the
98
Supporting Effective Teaching (SET) project (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhieRichmond, 2010; McGhie-Richmond, Underwood, & Jordan, 2007). Beliefs
about disabilities and teacher responsibility were measured in this project
using the Pathognomonic-Interventionist (P-I) Interview, a narrative interview between the teacher and researchers to measure teacher beliefs through
teacher recollection of working with students with disabilities and the
Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire (BLTQ; Glenn, 2007;
Glenn, Schwartz, & Jordan, 2007), which categorized teachers epistemological beliefs about ability into either entity (ability as a fixed trait) or
incremental (ability as malleable) beliefs. Effective inclusionary practice
and instructional behaviors have been measured using the Classroom
Observation Scale (COS) (Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). The COS includes a
total of 27 items that have been common indicators of teaching effectiveness
are rated in terms of three categories: classroom management, time management, and lesson presentation. The COS also measures interactions of the
teacher with the class as a whole, students with disabilities, and students at
risk for academic failure using three scales (Predominant Teaching Style;
Teacher Interaction with students with disabilities; Teacher Interaction with
at-risk students). These items are rated on a 3-point scale (consistent
scored as 2, inconsistent scored as 1, or not in evidence scored as 0) by
a trained observer in the classroom.
Findings from this series of studies have confirmed the relationship
between teacher beliefs and attitudes of inclusion and effective inclusionary
practice, suggesting that teachers beliefs about the nature of disability and
ability impact on their perceptions of their roles and responsibilities to
these students, and also on the way they shape their practice. Inclusionary
practices demonstrated by teachers who adhered to inclusive philosophies
and epistemologies were also found to be effective to all students in the
classroom (Jordan et al., 2010; McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007).
Similar research on teacher practices in the United Kingdom (BlackHawkins, Florian, & Rouse, 2007; Farrell et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2007c;
Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011) has demonstrated that teachers who have
adopted inclusive approaches are able to be highly inclusive and improve
academic standards over time. Inclusive philosophies of learning and
positive attitudes toward inclusion, therefore, have been linked to the development of effective inclusive pedagogies.
Roy, Guay, and Valois (2013) have recently developed and used the
Differentiated Instruction Scale to assess the use of differentiation strategies intended to benefit inclusive classroom environments in their Canadian
study. Measurement areas included differentiated instructional (DI)
99
strategies (in terms of instructional adaptations and academic progress

monitoring), a scale assessing the level of autonomy support that teachers
offered to students (Su & Reeve, 2010), and a scale evaluating teachers
perceptions of school climate (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The study investigated the use of DI strategies of 123 in-service teachers in order to
improve inclusive practice, and also provided an empirically based conceptualization and assessment tool of DI practices. Roy et al. found that
teachers used strategies that did not take a lot of preparation to use or that
were not directed at individual students.
From the research on teacher practice, it is evident that teachers who
have the attitudes and skills employ more inclusive practice in their classrooms and improve the academic outcomes of their students. It is important then to assess ways in which teachers gain this new knowledge after
they have begun teaching.
Professional Development
Studies have examined the impact of specialized training on in-service
practice. Measurement has been used to determine if professional development provided for teachers results in increased knowledge and skills. For
example, teachers in the United States felt confident in their ability to teach
students with disabilities because of adequate in-service training (1 year or
more) provided to them by the school district (Ross-Hill, 2009). In Malta,
teachers also felt they benefitted from ongoing professional development
and support to gain new understandings of teaching and learning
(Borg, 2009). Professional development opportunities from the school level
helped to shape more inclusive philosophies and pedagogical approaches to
learning in this context. In Australia, Hsien, Brown, and Bortoli (2009)
focused their research efforts on investigating the effects of postgraduate
special education training on attitudes toward inclusion and effective
inclusionary practice. The survey measurement used for this study was
researcher-developed and included statements about inclusion and openended questions focusing on teacher attitudes and beliefs, efficacy,
confidence, knowledge, experience, and practice.
From these studies, it is clear that additional teacher training impacts on
in-service teacher attitudes and practices. Teachers need ongoing learning
opportunities to improve their practice in inclusive classrooms, but we
must ensure that we are using tools to confirm that the learning is useful
for them as professionals.
100
Collaboration
Considerable research examining teachers knowledge and skill levels for
effective inclusion has focused in on collaboration. Collaboration can be
examined at the school level and in the broader community. Collaboration
with colleagues is often seen as a critical aspect of successful inclusion in
terms of teacher practice (Boyle, Jindal-Snape, Topping, & Norwich, 2012).
Collaboration has been found to be a key coping strategy for teachers
for many concerns around inclusion (Forlin et al., 2008). Barriers to collaboration include issues around implementation, lack of training in effective
collaboration, communication and problem solving, lack of time, and lack
of willingness of educators to collaborate with outside resources and
programming. Lack of collaboration between teachers (especially between
general and special education teachers) was perceived as being a barrier to
inclusion (Montgomery & Mirenda, 2014).
MacBeath et al. (2006) employed a qualitative method using classroom
observations and interviews in the United Kingdom to investigate collaboration between parents and teachers working in inclusive environments.
While collaboration with parents, overall, was described as being a key
ingredient to effective inclusion, consultation with parents (in different
forms) was often seen as a source of additional stress in terms of time
management and the administrative work that was involved around this
collaboration.
In Canada, Lupart, Whitley, Odishaw, and McDonald (2006) have used
the Diversity, Individual Development, and Differentiation survey
(DIDDs) to assess perceptions of inclusion in terms of school functioning
and inclusive practices in a school district-wide project. Themes of the
DIDDs included school culture, safety and security, school development,
stakeholder attitudes, school and teacher practices, resource availability,
communication efforts, and professional development and were implemented across five surveys to assess school functioning through different
perspectives of stakeholders (students, parents, education assistants, teachers, and administrators). Similarly, McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman,
Cizman, and Lupart (2013) used a revision of the DIDDs to form the
Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion in Rural Canada Scale in order to assess
inclusive policies, attitudes, and practices of another school district in rural
Western Canada. Components measured included teacher attitudes, essence
of supportive communication and collaboration, developing a supportive
classroom community, and support and training. The researchers added
a qualitative case-study component to deepen their understanding of
101
the survey results, using teacher interviews to explore meaning behind

teachers answers. Results were used to address issues related to inclusive
education within the district and examine and explain differences between
teachers at different levels.
Collaboration is an important area for teachers to understand. It
takes on many forms from interactions with other teachers, to other professionals, to parents, and the broader community. More experts appear to be
involved in the lives of children with disabilities and therefore it is important that we use measures to ensure that our teachers are equipped with the
skills to engage in effective collaboration.
PRESERVICE TEACHERS
Given the importance of attitudes, knowledge, skills, and practice for the
implementation of inclusive education by practicing teachers, it is important to understand if preservice programs are successful in graduating
teachers who are ready to practice in inclusive classrooms. Within this
body of research, people have investigated the attitudes, skills, and knowledge of preservice teachers as well as the programs in which these students
have been taught. In all of the studies, measurement has been key in assessing the outcomes of interest.
Attitudes
Research in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America seems to indicate
that we are graduating teachers who feel confident. A number of measures
have been used in these studies. These measures have also been used in
research with practicing teachers and were presented in previous sections.
For the benefit of the reader, a brief explanation of what the questionnaire
measures is given in the Appendix.
The first set of studies has investigated existing programs and the effect
on the preservice teachers. Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman (2008) investigated newly graduated teachers from Canada, Australia, Singapore, and
Hong Kong. They employed the ATIES (Wilczenski, 1992, 1995), the
Interaction with Persons with a Disability Scale (IPD; Gething, 1994), and
the CIES (Sharma & Desai, 2002) to determine the outcomes of being
enrolled in the preservice teacher education program. Forlin, Garc a
102
Cedillo, Romero-Contreras, Fletcher, and Rodr guez Hernandez (2010)

were also interested in the attitudes of newly graduated teachers in Mexico
because very few of them have courses in working with students with disabilities. They employed the Sentiments, Attitudes and Concerns about
Inclusive Education (SACIE; Loreman et al., 2007) and the TEIP (Sharma
et al., 2011). In a study across Canada, the Canadian Research Centre on
Inclusive Education investigated the efficacy of preservice teachers as they
finished their program of study (McGhie-Richmond, Specht, et al., 2013)
using the TEIP (Sharma et al., 2011). All of these studies showed that students were graduating with positive beliefs about their attitudes, skills,
knowledge, and confidence for including students. What is missing from
these studies is whether the program actually increased these traits, or
whether they existed when the students entered. To assist with that question,
other researchers have investigated the traits before students begin their
course and at the end.
Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling (2003) used the IPD (Gething, 1994) in
their study of the impact of a 30-hour course in Australia. Ching, Forlin,
and Lan (2007) investigated change from beginning to end of a 20-hour
course on inclusive education in Hong Kong using the ATIES
(Wilczenski, 1992, 1995), the IPD (Gething, 1994), and the CIES (Sharma &
Desai, 2002). Finally Sharma (2012) used the SACIE (Loreman et al.,
2007) in Australia to support his use of concept mapping as a method for
getting more in-depth responses about the sentiments, attitudes, and concerns of preservice teachers from the beginning to the end of a course on
inclusive education. All of the above mentioned research determined that
at the end of the programs students had positive attitudes toward teaching students in the inclusive classroom, felt confident about teaching students with disabilities in the classroom, and believed that they possessed
the necessary knowledge and skills. These outcomes were more pronounced if they had been given field placements where they worked with
students with disabilities.
In a qualitative study, Richards (2010) reports on two different placement opportunities for students at a university in England. One placement
had preservice teachers working with students with special education needs
for two weeks in a special school and two weeks in mainstream school. The
other placement had students working two weeks in a special school. Both
groups talked about how their confidence had increased for working with
students with special education needs. The group that had worked in both
environments talked more about inclusion strategies and understanding
students as individuals. Richards notes that this could have been due to the
103
two extra weeks of placement. Interestingly, however, this experience also

made them question why students had to be in special schools and why
ability grouping. They had seen success in the mainstream and knew it
could be done. Perhaps one of the best ways to show success and change
attitudes is a comparison of the two placements where preservice teachers
can see that the students with disabilities can work alongside with students
without disabilities and be successful.
Although we seem to be graduating teachers who feel confident, this
is perhaps not too surprising given the work of Boyle, Topping, and
Jindal-Snape (2013) and Gokdere (2012), who determined that new teachers seem to be more positive about inclusion than those with years of
experience. In a retrospective study, in-service teachers suggest that their
preservice teacher preparation did not equip them with necessarily skills
and knowledge to meet the needs of diverse learning populations
(DeSimone & Parmar, 2006). The need to change teacher preparation to
ensure an entry level to the profession is paramount and has been called
for repeatedly in the literature (e.g., Booth, 2011; Kozleski, Gonzalez,
Atkinson, Mruczek, & Lacy, 2013). Although the profession of teaching,
like all other professions, is one that will benefit from experience on the
job, it is still the case that more could be done in the initial preparation to
increase the chances of success in the inclusive classroom. It is necessary to
ensure that our programs have courses that provide the knowledge and
skills that they will need in the classrooms, that instructors adhere to providing the knowledge and skills, and that preservice teachers are learning
the knowledge and skills. There are pockets of concerted effort around the
globe, but more need to occur. The following section provides examples of
research that have investigated these different areas and the measurement
tools utilized.
Effective Program Components

Some research has looked at a wide range of programs within their countries using a gap analysis to determine what needs to be taught. Harvey,
Yssel, Bauserman, and Merbler (2010) performed a national survey on
what is available in preservice teacher education program across the United
States. They created the Pre-service Teacher Preparation for Inclusion
Assessment Survey. Results showed the institutes of higher learning were
offering courses in special education and exceptional students and that field
experiences offered opportunities to collaborate across disciplines and
104
majors. What they found lacking across the United States was a course in
collaboration for students not in the special education stream. Historically,
teacher education in the United States has been divided into general
education and special education. Therefore, this result implies that teachers
in the general education classrooms are not equipped to collaborate
with parents or other professionals in the field. Given Loremans (2010)
finding that collaboration with stakeholders is key for success, it is clear
that more should be done to provide this type of knowledge in their
programs.
In England, Nash and Norwich (2010) were interested in the Post
Graduate Certificate in Education. This is a one-year program after a
university degree to qualify to become a teacher. The program has three
components: subject teaching, professional study, and school placement. A
major finding was that their Primary (elementary) programs offered more
coverage of special education topics than secondary. As we know that secondary is a more complicated place for inclusion (McGhie-Richmond,
Irvine, et al., 2013), there should be at least the same amount of coverage,
if not more, for the higher levels of education.
While it is a huge undertaking, these types of studies are necessary to
ensure that the components necessary for success in inclusive classrooms
are being offered at our initial teacher education programs. Such measures
can reform entire systems to ensure better outcomes. At the very least, we
can use these types of gap analysis measures in our own institutions to
determine what we need to do to improve our programs.
Preservice Instructors
Initial teacher education programs have a set course work and we must
ensure that it is conveyed. Measures employed to help instructors reflect on
how they are delivering the curriculum can assist in achieving this goal.
Florian, Young, and Rouse (2010) taped lectures to ensure that courses
were following the Inclusive Practice Project (IPP). The IPP is funded by
Scottish Government to ensure that new teachers have a greater awareness
and understanding of the educational and social problems or issues that
can affect childrens learning and have developed strategies that they can
use to deal with students with difficulties (Florian & Linklater, 2010,
p. 370). They determined that 48% of lecture time was spent attempting to
connect theory to practice and another 30% discussed strategies for working with students, colleagues, and other adults in the school.
105
Kroeger et al. (2012) used photovoice to change how they were working
in the preservice program. Kroeger et al. indicated that in the school of
Education in Cincinnati, Ohio, they were still teaching at the preservice
level as if students were separated into general and special education in
classrooms and needed to change. Faculty from educational leadership, literacy and second language learning, secondary school, middle school, and
special education as well as student teachers and field supervisors came
together to discuss the change. They used photovoice as a way of discussing
the collaboration of the faculty. In photovoice, participants take pictures of
multiple images that reflect the theme of interest. In this study, it was of
objects and people that represented the values of collaboration. Through
many discussions, the group was able to identify that separation perpetuated the deficit model of disability. Additionally they noted that it is a lot
of work to bring all stakeholders together, but believed that it is that work
that will create true change.
Such analyses are a good way to examine our own practices as teacher
educators as well as see the program as a whole in terms of what is being
presented and how it is being delivered.
Knowledge, Skills, and Practice

Just as it is important to determine if the professional development opportunities provided to practicing teachers are improving practice, we must
determine if the programs that we provide for preservice teachers are
effective.
The course work that we provide should translate into knowledge and
skills that teachers will use in their practice. A number of research studies
have been performed by initial teacher education programs to determine if
what they are doing is effective for practice. Theoharis and CaustonTheoharis (2011) had their students develop elaborate lesson plan templates as a course assignment. The intent was to get students using
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) right from the beginning of their
careers rather than attempting to retrofit lesson plans. They used qualitative interviews to determine what worked and what did not work. Student
teachers found them to be overwhelming, but really helped them think of
all of the issues of planning lessons for inclusive classrooms. Based on the
feedback from students, the assignment was revised to continue to incorporate UDL, but adhere to more of what would be expected in the
classroom.
106
Lancaster and Bain (2010) provided a course where preservice teachers

acquired basic knowledge and created lessons for struggling readers. Half
the class then had the opportunity to work with students in a local neighborhood program using the lessons that they created. They employed
the Self-efficacy Toward Future Interactions with People with Disabilities
Scale (SEIPD; Hickson, 1995). Both groups increased their scores pre to
post, but there was no difference between groups. They conclude that it
may not have been experience per se but that skills were learned in both
courses as there was opportunity to participate in practical skill building.
Florian and Linklater (2010) report on the IPP initiative in Scotland. In
this chapter, they present a qualitative project where class discussions were
audio recorded and transcribed. Data analyzed indicated that this program is
helping preservice teachers understand that learning is influenced by teachers
and is not a static trait. Overall, the program is helping preservice teachers
work with what they already know about teaching and applying that to students who are having difficulties. It shows what many of us have been saying
for years. That is, inclusive education is not special, it is taking what we know
are good teaching strategies and implementing them in a diverse classroom.
These three studies are excellent examples of using measurement to
ensure that the curriculum we deliver makes a difference in the learning of
our preservice students. We call for evidence-based practices in our schools
and it is clear that we ought to follow the same edict in our initial teacher
education programs.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

Research indicates that teacher attitudes, knowledge, skills, and confidence
are all important in the effective implementation of inclusive education. We
get into difficulty with inclusion because we continue to provide special education in the regular classroom instead of creating truly inclusive classrooms. Instead of spending our money on proving kids different, we need to
spend our money on creating schools and teachers that celebrate diversity
and have strategies to teach all learners. Coming back to Loreman (2010),
we need educators to: have an understanding of inclusion and respect for
diversity; collaborate with stakeholders; foster a positive social climate;
instruct in ways conducive to inclusion; engage in inclusive instructional
planning; engage in meaningful assessment; and engage in lifelong learning.
107
The literature on teacher preparation indicates that it is necessary to

provide consistent and ongoing professional development opportunities
for preservice and in-service teachers to increase their attitudes, knowledge, and skills around practice and teaching strategies for including all
learners. We do this through excellent preservice programs and professional development through institutes of higher learning, ministries of education, local school districts, local schools, and individual learning. The
second area is the importance of fostering a cohesive school culture
around inclusion which reinforces inclusive beliefs and ideologies, allows
for adequate learning opportunities, and encourages collaborative teaching
and learning amongst teachers. The administration in schools is paramount in this and is discussed elsewhere in this volume (Agbenyega &
Sharma, 2014).
It is important to ensure that we are providing opportunities for our
teachers to develop these attributes right from the beginning of their
teaching careers. Many measures exist to assess these attributes in order to
ensure that we are successful. We must ensure that we use the measures
that we have available to know whether what we are doing makes a
difference or not. All stakeholders must be involved in the change for a
better education system. We have to be the difference.
REFERENCES
Agbenyega, J. S., & Sharma, U. (2014). Leading inclusive education: Measuring effective
leadership for inclusive education through a Bourdieuian lens. In C. Forlin &
T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on
Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion:
A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129 147.
doi:10.1080/08856250210129056
Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in schools.
London: Routledge.
Booth, T. (2011). The name of the rose: Inclusive values into action in teacher education.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41, 303 318. doi:10.1007/
s11125-011-9200-z
Borg, F. M. (2009). Schools as contexts for the development of social and emotional learning.
The International Journal of Emotional Education, 1, 55 70.
Boyle, C., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Norwich, B. (2012). The importance of peersupport for teaching staff when including children with special educational needs.
School Psychology International, 33, 167 184. doi:10.1177/0143034311415783
108
Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers attitudes towards inclusion in
high schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 527 542. doi:10.1080/
13540602.2013.827361
Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian pre-service general educators towards people with
disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 65 79.
Ching, C. S., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course
on attitude change or pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher-Education, 35, 161 179.
Cochran, H. (1997). The development and psychometric analysis of the scale of Teachers
Attitudes toward Inclusion (STATIC). Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers beliefs about
inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 21, 98 110. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00210.x
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007a). Inclusion and
achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22,
131 145. doi:10.1080/08856250701267808
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007b). SEN inclusion
and pupil achievement in English schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 7, 172 178. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00094.x
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007c). The relationship
between inclusion and academic achievement in English mainstream schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18, 335 352. doi:10.1080/09243450701442746
Florian, L., & Becirevic, M. (2011). Challenges for teachers professional learning for inclusive
education in central and Eastern Europe and the commonwealth of independent states.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41, 371 384. doi:10.1007/
s11125-011-9208-4
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational
Research Journal, 37, 813 828.
Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive
pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40,
369 386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588
Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive and diverse educational environments: Studying curricular reform in an initial teacher education
course. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 709 722.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.
Educational Research, 43(3), 235 245.
Forlin, C. (2010a). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong:
Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
10, 177 184. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01162.x
Forlin, C. (2010b). Editorial. Teacher education reform for enhancing teachers preparedness
for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 649 653. doi:10.1080/
13603111003778353
Forlin, C., Garc a Cedillo, I., Romero-Contreras, S., Fletcher, T., & Rodr guez Hernandez, H. J.
(2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated
teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 723 739. doi:10.1080/
13603111003778569
109
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with
inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 55, 251 264. doi:10.1080/10349120802268396
Gething, L. (1994). The interactions with disabled persons scale. Journal of Social Behaviour
and Personality, 9, 23 42.
Glenn, C. (2007). The impact of teachers epistemological beliefs and their beliefs about disability
on their teaching practices in inclusive classrooms. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Glenn, C., Schwartz, E., & Jordan, A. (2007, July). Teacher beliefs and inclusive teaching
practices: Who is affected? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Study
Association of Teachers and Teaching, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada.
Gokdere, M. (2012). A comparative study of the attitude, concern, and interaction levels of
elementary school teachers and teacher candidates towards inclusive education.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12, 2800 2807.
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions.
Remedial and Special Education, 31, 24 33. doi:10.1177/0741932508324397
Hickson, F. (1995). Attitude formation and change towards people with disabilities. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Hsien, M., Brown, P. M., & Bortoli, A. (2009). Teacher qualifications and attitudes toward
inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33, 26 41. doi:10.1375/ajse.33.1.26
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective Teaching
Education, 26, 259 266. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005
Kozleski, E. B., Gonzalez, T., Atkinson, L., Mruczek, C., & Lacy, L. (2013). Teacher education in practice: Reconciling practices and theories in the United States context.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 156 172. doi:10.1080/08856257.
2013.778114
Kroeger, S., Embury, D., Cooper, A., Brydon-Miller, M., Laine, C., & Johnson, H. (2012).
Stone soup: Using co-teaching and photovoice to support inclusive education.
Educational Action Research, 20, 183 200. doi:10.1080/09650792.2012.676285
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and
their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 38, 117 128.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996 2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177 199.
Loreman, T. (2010). Essential inclusive education-related outcomes for Alberta pre-service
teachers. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56, 124 142.
Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument
for measuring pre-service teachers sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive
education. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 1 16. Retrieved from http://
www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/
Lupart, J., Whitley, J., Odishaw, J., & McDonald, L. (2006). Whole school evaluation and
inclusion: How elementary school participants perceive their learning community.
International Journal of Whole Schooling, 4, 40 65.
MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, A., & Page, C. (2006). The costs of
inclusion. Cambridge, UK: Victoria Press.
110
McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher
perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Education, 36(1), 195 239.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Specht, J., Loreman, T., Aylward, L., Bennett, S., Gallagher, T., et al.
(2013, June). New teachers self-efficacy for teaching in diverse and inclusive classrooms: A Canadian snapshot. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, Canada.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Underwood, K., & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada,
17(1), 27 52.
Montgomery, A., & Mirenda, P. (2014). Teachers self-efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities. Exceptionality
Education International, 24, 18 32.
Nash, T., & Norwich, B. (2010). The initial training of teachers to teach children with special
education needs: A national survey of English Post Graduate Certificate of Education
programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1471 1480. doi:10.1016/j.tate.
2010.06.005
Pijl, S. J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from the
Netherlands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 197 201.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01165.x
Richards, G. (2010). I was confident about teaching but SEN scared me: Preparing new
teachers for including pupils with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 25,
108 115.
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs
students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9, 188 198. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-3802.2009.01135.x
Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs:
Development and validation of a Differentiated Instruction Scale. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 17, 1186 1204. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.743604
Sharma, U. (2012). Changing pre-service teachers beliefs to teach in inclusive classrooms in
Victoria, Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 53 66.
Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated education in India. Asia
and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5, 2 14.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers
attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with
disabilities. Disability & Society, 23, 773 785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2011). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement
inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12, 12 21.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers and principals beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 98, 221 238.
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers perceptions of inclusive education
in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 42 52.
Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs
designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159 188.
111
Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive
classrooms: Revising lesson-planning expectations. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 15, 743 761. doi:10.1080/13603110903350321
Vaillant, D. (2011). Preparing teachers for inclusive education in Latin America. Prospects:
Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41, 385 398. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9196-4
Wilczenski, F. L. (1992). Measuring attitudes toward inclusive education. Psychology in the
Schools, 29, 306 312.
Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 291 299.
112
APPENDIX: MEASUREMENT TOOLS FOR INCLUSIVE

PRACTICE
Name
Authors
Teacher Efficacy for

Sharma et al.
Inclusive Practice (TEIP) (2011)
Teacher Stress and

Coping Questionnaire
(TSC)
Forlin (2001),
Forlin et al.
(2008)
Wilczenski
(1992, 1995),
Subban and
Sharma (2006)
Concerns about Inclusive Sharma and
Education Scale (CIES) Desai (2002)
Attitudes Toward
Inclusive Education
Scale (ATIES)
Purpose
Preservice In-service
Efficacy for instructional

strategies, collaboration
and classroom
management
Identification of stressors,
concerns, and coping
strategies
Attitudes toward inclusion

of students with
disabilities in the
classroom
Concerns of the
practicalities of inclusion
Scale of Teachers
Attitudes Toward
Inclusive Classrooms
(STATIC)
Cochran (1997) Attitudes toward inclusion

in terms of advantages/
disadvantages and social
issues
Diversity, Individual
Development, and
Differentiation survey
(DIDDs)
Lupart et al.
(2006)
Perceptions of inclusion
for instructional strategy
improvement
Teacher Perceptions of
Inclusion in Rural
Canada Scale
McGhieRichmond,
Irvine, et al.
(2013)
Stanovich and
Jordan (1998)
Perceptions of inclusion
for improvement of
policies, attitudes,
practices
Beliefs about disability
and teaching responsibility
Glenn (2007),
Glenn et al.
(2007)
Epistemological beliefs
about ability and disability
Indicators of teaching
effectiveness in terms of
classroom management,
teaching practices,
teaching style, teacher
interaction with students
PathognomonicInterventionist (P-I)
Interview
Beliefs about Learning
and Teaching
Questionnaire (BLTQ)
Stanovich and
The Classroom
Observation Scale (COS) Jordan (1998)
113
Appendix.
Name
Authors
(Continued )
Purpose
Preservice In-service
Researcher-developed
survey
Hsien et al.
(2009)
The impact of additional

teaching training on
attitudes/beliefs, efficacy,
knowledge, and classroom
practices
Differentiated
Instruction Scale (DIS)
Roy et al.
(2013)
DI strategy use, teacher

support to students,
teacher perceptions of
school climate for
improvement of classroom
practice
Sentiments, Attitudes,
Loreman et al.
Concerns about Inclusive (2007)
Education Scale
(SACIE-R)
Attitudes toward students

with disabilities, concerns
about inclusive education,
sentiments when
interacting with students
with disabilities
The Interaction with

Gething (1994)
Persons with a Disability
Scale (IPD)
Levels of comfort
interacting with students
with disabilities
Harvey, Yssel,
Preservice Teacher
Preparation for Inclusion Bauserman,
and Merbler
Assessment Survey
(2010)
Assessment of preservice
teacher education program
components
Self-efficacy Toward
Future Interactions with
People with Disabilities
Scale (SEIPD)
Hickson (1995) Self-efficacy in interacting

with students with
disabilities
LEADING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION:

MEASURING EFFECTIVE
LEADERSHIP FOR INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION THROUGH A
BOURDIEUIAN LENS
Joseph S. Agbenyega and Umesh Sharma
ABSTRACT
Leading inclusion is a complex field of practice that is framed in traditional conceptions of school administration. Leadership in inclusive
schools is a constant struggle with fluctuating dimensions, often compounding difficulties for students with difference and disability. Nevertheless, inclusive school leadership remains an important component of
successful practice of inclusive education, where all students with diverse
abilities equally benefit. This chapter provides an introduction to different
types of leadership practices that promote inclusive practices. A key focus
of the chapter is to discuss the social theory of Bourdieu in relation to
understanding and measuring what we consider as effective inclusive
school leadership. This framework provides both theoretical and practical

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003022
115
116
JOSEPH S. AGBENYEGA AND UMESH SHARMA
approaches in developing inclusive school leadership practices and ways

effective inclusive leadership practices could be measured.
Keywords: Inclusive school; leadership; administration; culture;
Bourdieu
INTRODUCTION
A key focus of the chapter is a critical discussion of the socio-critical theory
concepts (capital, habitus and field) introduced by Pierre Bourdieu, to
frame how leadership can be theorised to offer a pragmatic foundation for
developing effective leadership practices in inclusive schools. In doing so,
we introduce the concept of habitus, field and forms of capital and discuss
how these offer cognitive and practical tools for understanding and
measuring what we consider to be effective inclusive leadership. We follow
this by offering practical directions for developing effective inclusive school
leaders through a Bourdieuian analysis. We provide in our conclusion how
effective inclusive school leadership might be perceived and measured
through Bourdieuian critique.
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND LEADERSHIP IN

SCHOOLS
Implementing inclusive education in schools requires significant shifts in
the way school leaders act and respond to daily challenges that schools face
in meeting the needs of students with diverse abilities. In order to understand the critical role played by school leaders in leading inclusive schools,
it is important to first define inclusive education. Inclusive education first
and foremost is high quality education for all rather than special education
for some. This is in line with UNESCO (2009) definition which states, that
an inclusive education system can only be created if regular schools
become more inclusive in other words, if they become better at educating
all children in their communities (p. 8). Inclusive education is also conceptualised as the task of identifying and removing barriers to participation in
education (Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick, & West, 2011; Mittler, 2012).
Measuring Effective Leadership for Inclusive Education
117
Schools continue to reject students who are different in abilities, interest

and or racial backgrounds. For example, Ainscow (2001) states that some
students receive subtle messages from their teachers that suggest that they
are not valued as learners (p. 1). In view of this, schools have to incorporate ways of determining the barriers experienced by some learners and
addressing these in a supportive way. In this context, the views of the pupils
themselves are proving to be a promising source of evidence for stimulating
discussion (p. 1). It is important to recognise that it is not easy for schools
to become inclusive. A number of practices can assist schools to become
more inclusive (Ainscow, 2001; Ainscow et al., 2011).
Inclusive Education Starts with Existing Practices and Knowledge

One of the key strategies for schools to become more inclusive is to use
existing expertise and creativity within any context. Ainscow (2001) emphasises that schools know more than what they use (p. 2). Schools need to
be proactive in identifying their strengths and start from a belief that they
already have some practices to support inclusive education in their schools
rather than to start with a view that they do not know anything about
inclusive education. Schools may engage in identifying practices that create
a welcoming environment for all and results in improved learning outcomes
for all.
Inclusive Education Thrives on Seeing Differences as

Opportunities for Learning
One of the fundamental barriers to create inclusive schools is the predominant beliefs in schooling community that students with disabilities are different and that schools lack knowledge and skills to work with differences
as opportunities rather than as barriers. Diversity in the classroom provides
an excellent opportunity for teachers to learn new skills to engage all learners. Once teachers become proficient in creating engaging classroom for
all learners, it benefits all including the teacher. It is important to recognise
that it will be difficult to encourage teachers to be more inclusive in contexts where they feel unsupported or threatened (Ainscow, 2001). Thus supporting teachers would influence them to see differences as opportunities
for learning.
118
Inclusive Education Thrives on Making Use of Available Resources to

Support Learning
For schools to become inclusive does not necessarily require lots of additional resources, but it does require efficient use of existing resources. One
resource that schools tend not to use efficiently is human resource. Schools
need to engage a range of key stakeholders in working together to make
schools more inclusive. Schools that have been successful in creating inclusive culture are those that promote greater co-operation between teacher,
parents, support staff, and the student. Ainscow (2001) also emphasises
a need to make better use of student to student co-operation. Such
co-operation can result in the creation of classrooms where learning conditions are conducive for all members.
Inclusive School Thrives on Creating Conditions that Encourage Risk-Taking

In inclusive schools there is an expectation that educators will take risks.
They take risks when they attempt to use a teaching approach that they
have not used in the past. Teachers are aware it is only through risk-taking
and trying innovative methods of teaching that they can create engaging
classroom environment for all learners. Such risk-taking can only happen in
schools where such risk-taking is allowed and supported. Without necessary
support from the leadership team and an atmosphere of collaboration in the
schooling community such risk-taking behaviours are unlikely to be seen.
The factors that facilitate inclusive schools development foreground the
importance of inclusive leadership to bring them to fruition. There is some
research that identifies styles of leadership that are more conducive to leading inclusive schools. Inclusive leaders are more democratic and transformative (Sharma & Desai, 2008). The leadership in such schools does not reside
within one individual but it is distributed across the school community.
According to Ryan (2006) concentrating leadership power in a single individual is exclusive; those who are not considered leaders are left out of leadership related activities (p. 8). He adds that the influence of single individuals
on institutions is generally limited, and as a consequence, it does not make
sense to rely heavily on single leaders (p. 8). Inclusive leaders work
with rather than work over their staff (Blase & Anderson, 1995). This kind
of leadership where leaders act democratically and involve everyone in
the school is also called distributed leadership (Gronn, 2002). The type of
leadership is grounded in activity not in position or role (Harris, 2005;
119
Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Using distributed practice should

not be seen as a prescriptive approach to creating inclusive schools, it should
rather be seen as a framework that determines how the school functions on
a daily basis (Harris & Spillane, 2008; Spillane, 2006). Within this framework everyone in the school, including a student with a disability or his or
her parents, could be leaders.
According to Harris (2005), leadership practice is like a group dance,
where the interactions of the dancers rather than their individual actions
allow us to understand what is taking place (p. 14). There are two critical
aspects of distributed leadership that adds up to make a leader a distributed leader (Spillane, 2006). These are leader-plus aspect and practice aspect
(Spillane, 2006). The leader-plus aspect recognises that multiple leaders are
necessary to lead an inclusive school. The practice aspect describes how
various key stakeholders interact with each other, their followers and
respond to a situation (Spillane, 2006). Inclusive leaders perform a range of
critical roles to make their schools inclusive. Sharma and Desai (2008) identified these roles and responsibilities based on a review of research on effective inclusive leaders. These roles and responsibilities could be classified
into seven categories.
1) Developing and selling a vision of inclusive education: Inclusive leaders
are like salesmen. They look for any opportunities to sell the vision of
inclusive education to staff working in their school and in their community. These leaders strongly believe in their school to be inclusive and
they try everything possible to make sure that everyone in their school
can see the benefit of being an inclusive school for all including students
with and without disabilities, teachers, parents and the community.
2) Seeking and supporting active involvement of parents and family members:
Inclusive leaders are aware that creating such schools is largely dependent on parental support. These leaders seek support from parents of
children with and without disabilities through various means. They
make sure to involve parents in decision-making at different levels. They
also ensure that the agenda of school being inclusive is not just owned
by educators but parents also support it and advocate for it through
different forums.
3) Obtaining and providing resources: Inclusive education is unlikely to happen in schools without necessary support. Inclusive leaders not only
acknowledge this; they actively look for resources to support teachers
and other members of the schooling community to implement inclusive
practices. These leaders are creative resource finders. Most critically
120
4)
5)
6)
7)
these leaders ask right questions. They ask, how best we can use existing resources in our school and the community to support inclusion of
Tom. Rather than asking questions such as why is it difficult to include
Tom in our school.
Modifying school policies to support inclusive education: Inclusive leaders
are aware that there are some school policies that may hinder the inclusion of students with disabilities in their schools. They actively participate in the process of modifying such policies and ensure that all school
policies are in line with the schools vision of being inclusive. They also
recognise that quality education to all students cannot be provided
unless school is inclusive of all learners.
Developing a plan of professional development: To lead an inclusive
school is not easy. It requires leaders to acquire new skills on a regular
basis. Inclusive leaders are proactive in identifying suitable professional
development opportunities that will make them better inclusive leaders.
They also identify similar opportunities for their staff and encourage
them to participate in professional developmental activities that will
make their school more inclusive. One area that leaders often tend to
know little about with regard to inclusive education is legislation and
policies that support implementation of inclusive schooling practices for
children with disabilities (Pazey & Cole, 2013). Inclusive leaders make
sure that everyone in their school undertakes professional development
programs about relevant legislation and policies that relates to students
with disabilities and their education.
Monitoring the progress of inclusive education efforts: Leaders who
believe in their schools to be inclusive need to monitor the progress of
their schools on a regular basis to understand how students and
families experience inclusive education in their school. Schools can collect data from all parents about their satisfaction with the schooling of
their child. In this regard, inclusive schools carefully analyse data from
parents of students with and without a disability. Schools can also collect data from students themselves about their belongingness and their
satisfaction with their education and overall schooling experience
(Jones, 2013; Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2013).
Supporting staff in their efforts to implement inclusive education practices:
Including students with a range of learning needs poses new challenges
for schools. Inclusive leaders are aware of this. Rather than denying
challenges that teachers may face in successfully including students with
diverse learning needs, they acknowledge such challenges and ensure
that they support teachers to address the challenges. They provide
121
support to the staff in different forms. This may be in the form of providing support through additional time for planning or in-class support.
Our discussion so far demonstrates that effective inclusive leadership,
what it is and how it might be understood, is complex undertaking in inclusive educational research and practice. We argue that leadership for inclusive education poses particular difficulties in relation to how leaders fully
understand how the leaders self is constituted in inclusive leadership practices (Karol & Gale, 2004). That is, how the leaders dispositions dictate
the practices of inclusive schools. As there is currently limited evidence
of how effective inclusive school leader can be developed to be critically
attentive to personal and systemic issues associated with habitus, field and
capital, we focus the next section of this chapter on the critical social theory
of Bourdieu and introduce the concepts of habitus, field and forms of
capital to explain how these offer cognitive and practical tools for understanding and measuring what we consider as effective inclusive school leadership. We followed this with practical directions as to how to develop
and measure effective inclusive leadership through a Bourdieuian analysis.
We argue in this chapter that Bourdieuian analysis provides unique understanding of how and why some leadership practices still constitute practices
of domination and exploitation of some children and staff in inclusive
schools (Mills & Gale, 2007). In addition we noted that the application of
Bourdieus work to leadership constitutes critical mindfulness into the leaders self, reproductive tendencies , society and culture, which, by extension, reproduce essentially (Karol & Gale, 2004, p. 1) dominant practices.
BOURDIEUS CONCEPTUAL LENSES

Lens 1
Habitus
This chapter is premised on the supposition that Bourdieus theorising and

his central concepts of habitus, capitals and field can be productively utilised in understanding effective inclusive leadership practice (Eacott, 2010).
We argue in this chapter that Bourdieus concepts are useful for interrogating and understanding the emergent field of effective inclusive leadership.
We begin this section by explaining what Bourdieu refers to as habitus,
capitals and field. This is followed by linking these concepts to effective
inclusive leadership practice.
122
According to Bourdieu (1989), habitus is our internalised embodied

social structures (p. 18) and cultural unconscious or mental habits or
internalised master dispositions (Bourdieu, 1989, cited in Houston, 2002,
p. 157). Bourdieu (1993) sees habitus as including beliefs, values, norms
and attitudes which humans have accumulated from cultural, historical and
social experiences. This conceptualisation frames habitus as reflecting the
social and institutional contexts in which people acquire it. Because habitus
is internalised, it acts as a mind tool and influences human actions, interpretation of actions and how humans react to events. Bourdieu further theorises that habitus is embodied within an individual which can only be
viewed through how it manifests in practice (Mills & Gale, 2007).
Therefore, the mental structures and dispositions from which humans
make choices of what to do and how to do it is generated within the habitus (Agbenyega, 2014). Arguably, everyday educational practice including
leadership is engulfed in an endless activation of skills where humans enter
into a social world of which they are both products and agents (Bourdieu,
1989). Humans become products through institutional regulations which
dictate their daily practices, and agents when they deploy actions based on
their own internalised habitus. Legislations and policies about inclusive
education thus dictate aspects of what inclusive leaders do. In working
within inclusive legislative and policy frameworks effective leaders activate
collective habitus while autocratic leaders engage solely their personal habitus. This view is supported by Bourdieu (1993) when he argued that habitus
potentially generates a wide collection of possible actions, at the same time
enabling the individual to draw on transformative and constraining courses
of action. He writes:
Habitus is a kind of transforming machine that leads us to reproduce the social conditions of our own production, but in a relatively unpredictable way, in such a way that
one cannot move simply and mechanically from knowledge of the conditions of production to knowledge of the products. (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 87)
This means habitus is a structuring structure; that is, it is a structure that

structures the social world [in which individuals function] [our own insertion]. On the other hand, it is a structured structure; that is, it is a structure
which is structured by the social world (Ritzer, 1996, p. 541).
Lens 2
Capital
Bourdieus second concept, which is relevant to inclusive leadership, is

capital. He explains that capital manifests in various forms including
123
economic, cultural, social and symbolic. Humans often define economic

capital in monetary terms, cultural capital in terms of a persons or institutions possession of recognised knowledge, social capital as constituted by
social ties and symbolic capital as ones status, honour or prestige
(Bourdieu, 1998). These forms of capital govern the nature of human positioning and their relationship in the social world in which they exist and
act. For example, a leaders position in an inclusive school is determined by
the nature of the leaders capital.
Economic, symbolic, cultural and social capitals contribute in many
important ways to everyday relations and practices, and inclusive leadership is based on relationships. Capital determines our agency, that is, our
ability to strategically engage with others and contribute to the development of our world in meaningful ways (Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002).
In cases where one form of knowledge capital is less valued than another,
this could result in limited capacity of those less valued to be strategically
involved in collaborative leadership practices.
Lens 3
Field
The third lens which we applied to the understanding of inclusive leadership is field. According to Bourdieu, a field:
is a structured social space, a field of forces, a force field. It contains people who dominate and people who are dominated. Constant, permanent relationships of inequality
operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which the various
actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field. All the individuals in
this universe bring to the competition all the (relative) power at their disposal. It is this
power that defines their position in the field and, as a result, their strategies. (Bourdieu,
1998, pp. 40 41)
This conceptualisation of Bourdieu sees field as spatial, a network of relations among the objective positions which is different from positivists conceptions of field as social location (Bourdieu, 1998). It is argued that
conceptualising field as social milieu, context and social background one
would fail to highlight sufficiently the conflictual character of social lived
experience which is commonplace in leading inclusive schools (Mills &
Gale, 2007). The concept of field denotes a social arena in which people
interact, manoeuvre and struggle in pursuit of desirable capitals (Bourdieu,
1997). Therefore, all human actions, including inclusive leadership, take
place within social fields, which are arenas for the struggle of acquisition of
124
knowledge, credentials and development. By explaining Bourdieus three

conceptual lenses we turn our attention to how these lenses can help us
construe what effective inclusive leadership entails.
FRAMING EFFECTIVE INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP IN

HABITUS, CAPITAL AND FIELD CONCEPTS
Inclusive leadership is a social and political activity through which leaders
attempt to bring about transformations in practice. Bourdieu (1984) used
the following equation to explain practice: [(habitus) (capital)] + field =
practice. This may look somewhat mechanistic when viewed merely from
algebraic point of view (Crossley, 2003), but for Bourdieu, the equation
represents the interactive complexity of his concept of habitus, capital and
field as demonstrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 shows inclusive leadership framed in Bourdieuian thought. It
demonstrates how habitus, capital and field merge into a whole to emphasise a final outcome of inclusive leadership. Situating inclusive leadership
practice in this conceptualisation means that leadership for inclusion is an
effect of actions and interactions which are shaped, simultaneously and in
equal measure, by the habitus and capital of agents as well as the context
and dynamism constituted by their shared participation in a common
game (field) (Eacott, 2010, p. 222). It offers lens through which to
Habitus
Capital
Field
Inclusive leadership
Fig. 1.
Inclusive Leadership Framework.
125
investigate the possibilities and constraints within the work of educational

leaders, particularly in the field of inclusive schools (Lingard & Christie,
2003). By ascribing to Bourdieus conceptual ideas in contemporary inclusive leadership, it is not possible to efficaciously use any one particular
instrument to measure effective inclusive leadership. How then do we know
effective inclusive leadership from a bad one? Theorising from a Bourdieuian
sense one would argue that effective inclusive leaders are those that recognise themselves as field or what we termed in Bourdieus conceptualisation
as a network of relations within positions where actors are committed to
leadership practice that is enabling and reinvigorating for education
(Wilkinson, Olin, Lund, Ahlberg, & Nyvaller, 2010, p. 67). What this
means is that an effective inclusive school leader is constantly aware of,
acknowledges and values the various capitals that each actor within the
inclusive school brings to the inclusive leadership table. An effective or
effective inclusive school leader understands various social relationships
(field) and has insights into the breadth of individual habitus, capital and
field power dynamics (English, 2006). This understanding enables an effective inclusive school leader to create a local and global network of educators who are prepared to promote, initiate and nurture systems that
embrace the principles of inclusive education and universal design for
learning within schools and communities.
We argue that on the purely pragmatic level, it is surely impractical to
imagine that any educator attempting to lead in inclusive schools would
ever be able to do this successfully without drawing on others habitus and
capital. What becomes certain in driving effective inclusive leadership is
enacting a form of democratic or distributive leadership, where collective
habitus and capital are respected, valued and deployed in the field. This
means, effective inclusive leadership is about transforming existing normalised practices. According to Bourdieu (1993), a transformed habitus
enables a leader to develop the leadership skills foundational to transforming practices, fostering collaborative relationships and troubleshooting barriers and bottlenecks to fully establishing a functioning inclusive
educational system. In this way, the conceptual tools (habitus, capital and
field) become operational tools helping the leader to lay a foundation that
supports a progressive and sustainable inclusive programme, and personnel
professional continuous reflection that is grounded in the theoretical and
practical elements of inclusive education and universal design that facilitates learning for all.
An effective inclusive school leader is a practitioner who recognises and
values others habitus and capital in the operational field of inclusive
126
education. This means inclusive leaders must think and act relationally
(Apple, 2010). In this sense inclusive school leaders recognise that those
whom they work with (students, parents, policy makers and paraprofessionals) are all part of the leadership team and situate their practices in the
unequal power relations of larger society and in the realities of dominance
and subordination and the conflicts that are generated by the relations
(Eacott, 2010). In Leonardos (2010) view,
contradictions and tensions are: not an annoyance to wish away but opportunities
that present the [leader, our own insertion] with a glimpse into the order of things. To
live without contradictions is to exist with one eye closed, missing a full view of the
panorama called education. [Inclusive, our own insertion] Education is full of contradictions, giving way to both complexity and vulnerability. That said, leaving tensions prevents movement and change. Being open to contradictions is not the same as
surrendering to them. Wading through, rather than lingering in, contradictions allows
development and the potential for growth. (p. 157)
Leonardos argument further problematises inclusive educational leadership, and how the leader must engage in the messy field of inclusive school
organisation, where all agents bring differing capitals and habitus and
acknowledging that the effectiveness of inclusive schools is by implication
how the leadership team deals with the field of dominance and subordination. In inclusive leadership both the leader and teams including students
and families occupy distinct positions within the field in which struggles or
manoeuvres take place over specific knowledge or stakes, and access to
them (Bourdieu, 1993). The intellectual distinction, class, prestige and
social class in varying degrees often define the stake of the inclusive leadership and team. Therefore, an effective contemporary inclusive leaders
main task is to minimise the struggles between his/her theoretical leadership
knowledge and the knowledge that families and students who are involved
in the leadership team bring to the leadership practice. To measure an
effective inclusive leader is to view his/her practice because the knowledge
and skills the inclusive leader possesses become visible through how he/she
practices leadership. For example, the only way to determine whether the
inclusive leader respects those that they work with and the rights of all children and families as well as takes their contribution to leadership practice
seriously is not in the ways the leader set the rules and policies on paper
but it is about how the leader consults and values the input of the leadership team.
Less effective inclusion leaders activate their habitus and perceive other
members of the leadership team as simply objects to be manipulated leading to imposing predetermined structures on them. Imposition may lead to
127
destabilisation and resistance. It is through the same habitus that a positive

image of agents in inclusive practice emerges for the inclusive leadership
team and enables the inclusive leader to enact inclusive leadership practices
that consider the strengths of all who make up the leadership team, adding
richness to inclusive school leadership (Bourdieu, 1993).
A Bourdieuian theorisation recognises that every leader is a social, political and cultural agent endowed with habitus, inscribed in their bodies by
past experiences and by virtue of their training (Houston, 2002). These
past experiences and training may predispose an inclusive leader to think
and act in particular ways. An effective inclusive leader recognises that the
habitus as a system of schemes of perception, appreciation and action
should enable inclusive leaders to work with others as equals (Mills &
Gale, 2007). This guides leaders to generate appropriate and renewed
leadership strategies. An effective inclusive school leader recognises that
implementation of inclusive practices take place in a structured social
world full of material and symbolic artefacts such as tools and language,
structured social interactions such as rituals and games, and cultural institutions such as families (Tomasello, 2009, p. 207). In addition, they are
well informed that social institutions, family practices and students that
they work with are dynamic, fluid and shifting, hence inclusive leaders
cannot limit themselves to pre-programmed and rigid set of activities. They
must be generative and transformative to deploy strategies to deal with
complex inclusive school problems.
To apply this sense to inclusive leadership means the composition of the
internalised master dispositions of the inclusive leader determines the ways
he/she selects leadership styles. In doing leadership in a particular way, leaders produce systems and practices to structure the inclusive schools systems in which they are part of. They are in turn affected by the system that
they actively or passively construct. The implication is that unless the inclusive leadership team considers the nature and extent of capitals that both
the leadership team and the school community bring to the leadership field,
inclusive leadership can become a destabilising experience for the whole
inclusive school community. This implies that the nature of capital can
turn inclusive leadership into a field of struggle. Bourdieu posits that the
outcome of the struggle one engages in within an educational field is determined by the amount and nature of capital possessed by competing actors
in that given field (Bourdieu, 1993; Webb et al., 2002). The inclusive
leaders position in the inclusive school, including the rest of the school
community are informed according to Bourdieu by hierarchy of the
amount of knowledge and symbolic capital the individuals possess
128
(Wacquant, 1998). Inclusive school leaders need to recognise that leading

inclusion has social justice, human rights and equity requirement because
they may be dealing with members endowed with unequal amounts of
institutional, knowledge, symbolic and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1998;
Mills & Gale, 2007). An effective inclusive leader, therefore, is one that is
able to accentuate various forms of capitals of members of his/her leadership team by assigning them important roles in the leadership according to
their capital, and not just treating them as objects of regulation. This means
recognising and authorising the contributions of their knowledge in all
aspects of school practices (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). From this perspective it is evident that the interrelationship between habitus and capital
is useful for explaining how various forms of capital can affect the kinds of
inclusive leadership we conduct with teams in inclusive schools to progress
the field of inclusion (Webb et al., 2002).
Furthermore, an effective inclusive leadership can be measured in the
way it takes as one of its central projects an attempt to be discerning and
attentive to those places and practices where social agency has been denied
and produced (Giroux, 2011, p. 3). Consequently, an effective inclusive
leadership should not be viewed merely as a call to practice leadership skill,
technique or method but as a requirement to avoid rendering some members of the inclusive school community as cheerful robots (Giroux, 2011,
p. 3). Leadership for inclusive education results from an interrogation of
the three types of limitations (social position, of field and of the scholastic
point of view) that are constitutive of knowledge itself (Schirato & Webb,
2003, p. 539). This means the inclusive leaders must be conscious of their
class, ethnicity, context, religion, etc., their position within the field in relation to those they work with in the inclusive school field.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

In an attempt to become an effective inclusive school leader, the educator
needs to ask the following three self-reflection questions:
How is my leadership providing for the schools community to challenge,
question or hold me to account for the values and practices espoused by
inclusive education?
In what ways is my habitus preventing others to dialogue with me in
terms of leading a successful inclusive school?
129
How are my assumptions, dispositions, habits and cultural capital contributing to the success or struggle of this inclusive school?
According to Bourdieu (1993), we form our dispositions, beliefs, values etc.
(habitus) from our historical, cultural and institutional socialisation overtime. As humans we structure our social worlds to produce different forms
of capital (economic, symbolic, cultural, social and knowledge) which in
turn structure us to act in particular ways. This means, effective leadership
can be learnt, transformed and improved. To become effective inclusive leaders and improve education for all, we need to turn a critical attention to
Bourdieus conceptual tools and consider this as a dialogic encounter
through which we give meaning to leadership. Leadership is complex evolving activity; therefore Bourdieu suggests eclectic approach to leadership
practice. Bourdieu argues:
All activity and knowledge is always informed by a relationship between where the
agent has been and how their history has been incorporated, on the one hand, and their
context or circumstances (both in a general sense and of the moment), on the other. In
other words, agency is always the result of a coming together of the habitus and the
specific cultural fields and contexts in which agents find themselves, in both senses of
the expression. (Schirato & Webb, 2003, p. 541)
Becoming Bourdieuian leaders in inclusive schools requires us to understand the role that a particular leadership style can play in reproducing the
theoretical and procedural status quo, limiting certain innovative leadership
practices (Bourdieu, 1998). For example, we need to be aware of how institutional and cultural regulations can render inclusive leadership difficult.
Inclusive leaders need to regularly ask questions of themselves in order to
avoid taking actions that may be domineering and meaningless, particularly to those who may not be part of the official decision-making process
(Eacott, 2010). Leading inclusive schools should not be based exclusively
on leaders protecting their institutions than the rights of students.
Therefore, to become an inclusive leader in Bourdieuian sense, the inclusive
leader must turn a critical eye on himself/herself, and the cognitive and
practical tools being deployed in the leadership practice. The focus should
be on the contribution that the leadership practice is making to the overall
development of the inclusive school community, and not only to the institutional and professional fame.
Furthermore, a Bourdieuian inclusive leader is one who applies critical
mindfulness, which is the awareness that emerges through the leader
attending to the inclusive leadership practice from a non-judgemental
perspective. It is about shifting preoccupation away from the leaders and
130
the leadership teams past and future, in order to locate oneself into the
actuality of the lived experience of the team (Bishop, Lau, Shapiro,
Carlson, & Anderson, 2004; Nagata, 2006). In the absence of critical mindfulness inclusive leadership would become depersonalising, objectifying,
compartmentalising, and treats those in the inclusive school community as
objects, thereby neglecting inclusive leadership as lived experience.
Bourdieu is critical of what he called the intellectualist bias which often
arises, for example, when an inclusive leader is inadequately critical of his/
her leadership style, the field of leadership, the habitus and the presuppositions inscribed in the act of thinking about the world (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p. 39). The lack of critical mindfulness on the part of
inclusive leaders could result in their failure to grasp the logic of practice
which emerges from the choice and use of particular inclusive leadership
styles and approaches.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have illustrated that there is no one particular way
to offer effective leadership in inclusive schools. Bourdieus theory is not
prescriptive but provides conceptual tools for working reflectively with
educational problems. In our view, Bourdieus contribution to effective
inclusive leadership is his attempt to help us deconstruct and reconstruct the
intellectual habitus, a system of dispositions necessary to the constitution
of the craft of the intellectualist in universality (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 271). In
view of Bourdieus argument, we propose that the inclusive leader needs to
possess the attributes of reflexivity and critical mindfulness in order to selfassess their effectiveness by bringing together all the interactive components
of leadership for a holistic understanding of inclusive education. We argue
that inclusive leadership is innovative when it does not yield to a particular
fashion but rather, it is participatory and evolving based on a system of
habitus that celebrates all agents capital (knowledge) and invites them to be
co-designers of the leadership direction and processes of a school (Swart &
Pettipher, 2005). Involving others as co-designers of leadership is building a
network of relations which Bourdieu refers to as field. It is essentially about
respecting the unique knowledge, cultural and symbolic capital, which
accentuates the rights of team members and promotes social justice. This
process is multifaceted and complex, and challenges leaders to both think
and lead inclusive schools with self-questioning (Swart & Agbenyega, 2010).
131
REFERENCES
Agbenyega, J. S. (2014). Beyond alienation: Unpacking the methodological issues in visual
research with children. In M. Fleer & A. Ridgeway (Eds.), Visual methodologies and
digital tools for researching with young children: Transforming visuality (pp. 153 168).
Switzerland: Springer.
Ainscow, M. (2001). Developing inclusive schools: Implications for leadership. Manchester, UK:
National College for School Leadership.
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2011). Developing equitable education systems. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (2010). Theory, research, and the critical scholar/activist. Educational
Researcher, 39(1), 152 155.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L., & Anderson, N. D. (2004). Mindfulness: A
proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230 241.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership. London: Cassell.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14 25.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells
(Eds.), Education: Culture, economy and society (pp. 46 58). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Crossley, N. (2003). From reproduction to transformation: Social movement fields and the
radical habitus, Theory, Culture and Society, 20(6), 43 68.
Eacott, S. (2010). Studying school leadership practice: A methodological discussion. Issues in
English, F. W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardised knowledge base in
advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(3), 461 472.
Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: The Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second
international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653 696).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harris, A. (2005). Crossing boundaries and breaking barriers: Distributing leadership in schools.
London: iNET, Specialist Schools Trust.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education, 22(1), 31 34.
Houston, S. (2002). Reflecting on habitus, field and capital: Towards a culturally sensitive
social work. Journal of Social Work, 2(2), 149 167.
Jones, P. (Ed.). (2013). Bringing insider perspectives into inclusive teacher learning: Potentials
and challenges for educational professionals. London: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Karol, J., & Gale, T. (2004). Bourdieu and sustainability: Introducing environmental capital.
Paper presented at the AARE, Melbourne.
132
Klibthong, S., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2013). Thai early childhood educators perspectives:
Transforming inclusive teachers to move beyond religiosity. In P. Jones (Ed.), Bringing
insider perspectives into inclusive teacher learning: Potentials and challenges for educational professionals (pp. 121 132). London: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Leonardo, Z. (2010). Critical empiricism: Reading data with social theory. Educational
Researcher, 39(1), 155 160.
Lingard, B., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading theory: Bourdieu and the field of educational
leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 317 333.
Mills, C., & Gale, T. (2007). Researching social inequalities in education: Towards a
Bourdieuian methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
20(4), 433 447.
Mittler, P. (2012). Overcoming exclusion: Social justice through education. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Nagata, A. L. (2006). Cultivating researcher self-reflexivity using voice and mindful inquiry in
intercultural education. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 9, 135 154.
Pazey, B. L., & Cole, H. A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development
of socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243 271. [Adobe Digital Editions
version]. doi:10.1177/0013161x12463934
Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 5(1), 3 17.
Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2003). Bourdieus concept of reflexivity as metaliteracy. Cultural
Studies, 17(3 4), 539 553.
Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2008). The changing roles and responsibilities of school principals
relative to inclusive education. In C. Forlin & M. G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion, &
teacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp.
153 168). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23 28.
Swart, E., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2010). Developing researcher self-reflexivity and agency: A
cross-cultural narrative of inclusive education research. Paper presented at the
Australian Association for Research in Education Conference in Melbourne Australia,
29 November 2 December 2010.
Swart, E., & Pettipher, R. (2005). A framework for understanding inclusion. In E. Landsberg,
D. Kruger, & N. Nel (Eds.), Addressing barriers to learning (pp. 3 21). Pretoria: Van
Schaik.
Tomasello, M. (2009). Culture and cognitive development. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), Current
directions in developmental psychology (pp. 207 212). Boston, MA: Pearson.
UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO.
Wacquant, L. (1998). The double-edged sword of reason: The scholars predicament and the
sociologists mission. European Journal of Social Theory, 2 3(Spring), 275 281.
Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage.
Wilkinson, J., Olin, A., Lund, T., Ahlberg, A., & Nyvaller, M. (2010). Leading praxis:
Exploring educational leadership through the lens of practice architectures. Pedagogy,
Culture & Society, 18(1), 67 79.
IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE
TEACHING PRACTICES IN
INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
Anne Jordan and Donna McGhie-Richmond
ABSTRACT
Over nearly two decades the Supporting Effective Teaching project examined the characteristics of teachers that result in successful inclusion of
students with disabilities in Canadian regular education classrooms. These
studies revealed that teachers who rate high in adapting and calibrating
instruction for students who have special needs are the most successful
overall with all their students. In this chapter, we present an adaptation of
the observation scale that we used to rate effective inclusive instructional
practices. The adapted scale can be used both as a self-rating and as a
third-party measurement scale of effective teaching practices. We link
each element of the scale to the Universal Design for Learning framework. We discuss how challenges to effective practices are affected by
teacher beliefs about ability and disability, collegial differences in beliefs
and practices, and the focus set by the leadership in the school.
Keywords: Inclusion; observation; rating; effective instructional
practices; teacher beliefs; universal design for learning

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003023
133
134
ANNE JORDAN AND DONNA McGHIE-RICHMOND
INTRODUCTION
A student was struggling in her primary class, daydreaming and failing to pay attention to
the lessons. Her mother suggested to the childs teacher that together they could set up a
school-home communication system in which the teacher would check off completed work,
and the mother would give her daughter stickers as a reward at the end of the day for
on-task behaviour. The teacher responded to this idea: I dont have time for this. I have
five others who are worse than her and they take up all my time and energy! You should be
telling her to pay more attention!
Teachers regularly express reasons why including students with diverse

characteristics and needs in regular and subject-specific classrooms does
not work. As illustrated by the vignette reported above, common reasons
teachers give for resisting inclusion are:
students with special education needs detract from my instructional time
with students who are more likely to achieve;
teaching students with special needs requires additional work;
I am not trained to deliver the specialized instruction required by
students with special education needs; and
it is not my problem. It is the responsibility of the special educator/
parents/student/family.
Based on 16 years of research in a variety of regular Canadian
classrooms, we propose an alternative view of classroom experiences for
teachers and students. We describe the instructional practices of regular
education classroom teachers who are effective in teaching students with
diverse learning needs in their classroom and we present a series of criteria
for identifying these characteristics through observing and reflecting upon
instruction in a classroom. Some of these practices will seem familiar to
readers who may ask whether many of them are simply good teaching practices. While some of these practices have been around for a long time, they
have not been previously connected to effective inclusion.
Indeed, we make the case with support from our research that good
inclusive teaching is good for all students since these practices are not
specialized for individual students, but are beneficial to all. We provide evidence (e.g., McGhie-Richmond, Underwood, & Jordan, 2007) to show that
teachers who are most effective in teaching students with formally identified
special needs and those who are at risk are also the most effective teachers
overall. They generate more instructional time and use it more effectively
than other teachers, and they expect and proactively plan for student
Identifying Effective Teaching Practices in Inclusive Classrooms
135
differences by applying principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

(Katz, 2012; McGhie-Richmond & Howery, 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002).
THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTIVE

INCLUSIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
In our Supporting Effective Teaching (SET) project from 1992 to 2008, we
spent considerable time in inclusive elementary- and secondary-level general
education (regular) classrooms in both urban and rural schools in two
Canadian provinces, examining the instructional practices of teachers who
had a diverse range of students with special learning needs in their rooms.
Schools served a wide range of students, from a variety of economic,
cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Sometimes there were educational or
teaching assistants or special education resource teachers present in the
classrooms, but mostly we looked at how each regular education classroom
or subject teacher worked directly with the students. When possible we
chose to observe classes in which core skills (i.e., Language, Arts/English,
Mathematics, Science) were being taught, where students with special needs
were included in the lesson and with no other adults present.
Beginning with an observation scale first developed by Stanovich (1994),
we observed and recorded the length, topics, and interaction patterns of the
teachers with several students. One observed student was formally designated as having special needs (i.e., according to the provincial Ministry of
Education Special Education guidelines); one was considered to be at
risk of failure; and one was achieving at or above the class average. This
sample enabled us to examine differences in how teachers interacted with
each group of students, particularly during seatwork and small group
segments of the lesson, and how new concepts, learning strategies, and
skills were introduced to the class as a whole, and then calibrated to the
needs of individual students. Thus, we recorded a students eye view of
the instruction received by a range of students; those formally identified
as having a disability, designated as gifted, at risk of underachieving, and
typically achieving.
Two observers in each classroom used the Classroom Observation Scale
(COS; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998) to guide their observations. The scale
assesses a teachers effectiveness in including a wide range of students
in instructional lessons. The characteristics of teaching effectiveness are
operationally defined culminating in teachers scores on the COS, a scale
136
derived from the synthesis of effective teaching skills reported by Englert,

Tarrant, and Mariage (1992). Over the length of the research project and
from well over 100 elementary and secondary regular classrooms, the scale
grew and was adapted as we learned more about effective teaching in
diverse and inclusive classrooms.
The revised COS (Appendix) will be explained in terms of the instructional and environmental variables that it can be used to identify. Each of
the elements will be described, followed by a summary of the research that
justifies the element as a measure of teacher effectiveness. The principles
and guidelines of UDL developed by the Centre for Applied Special
Technology (CAST, 2011) are listed in Table 1 and cross-referenced with
elements of the COS.
THE ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE

In the COS, seven elements are observed in the practices of effective
teachers: A. classroom management; B. time management; C. lesson presentation; D. large group and whole class instruction; E. small group and
individual instruction to calibrate instruction to individual learners;
F. predominant teaching style; and G. classroom tone. These approximate a
progressive series, with elements A, B, and C establishing a foundation for
the elements that follow. Together the seven elements represent effective
inclusive teaching practices. While the early elements will be familiar to
readers as simply good teaching, based on our research we contend that
they are foundational for the later adaptation of instruction to various
learner needs and learning characteristics.
The later elements, in particular, are consistent with the higher order
guidelines in the UDL framework; providing options for comprehension,
executive functions, and self-regulation (Table 1). Universal Design
acknowledges the variability inherent in student skills, needs, and interests
and accordingly provides multiple means of presenting information and
content; allowing for student expression; and engaging student interest and
motivation. These design features are universal in that they are not
restricted to a single group of users, such as those with a specific disability.
For example, writing new vocabulary on a blackboard to assist students to
spell when taking notes from text may help those with spelling and expressive language difficulties, but also those without such difficulties who seek a
handy reference while writing. Recording assignment details and due dates
137
Table 1.
Principle
UDL Principles and Guidelines.

Guideline
Examples
I. Multiple
Provide options for
Means of
1. perception of information,
Representation 2. symbolic representation of
information,
3. comprehension of information.
Offer ways of customizing

information; alternatives for
auditory and visual information;
clarifying vocabulary and
symbols, syntax, and structure;
support decoding of text and
symbols; promote understanding
of languages, provide illustrations
through multi-media; activate or
supply background knowledge;
highlight patterns, features, big
ideas, relationships; guide
information processing,
visualization, and manipulation;
maximize transfer and
generalization
II. Multiple
Means of
Action and
Expression
Provide options for students for

4. how they physically interact with
information,
5. how they express themselves, and
communicate,
6. the types of scaffolding they
require in order to support their
executive functioning (i.e., setting
goals, planning, and
implementing strategies,
monitoring progress, etc.).
Vary methods of responding and

navigating; optimize access to
tools and assistive technologies;
use multi-media for
communication; use multiple tools
for construction and composition;
develop fluency with graduated
levels of support for practice and
performance; guide goal setting,
support planning, and strategy
development; facilitate managing
information and resources;
enhance capacity for monitoring
progress
III. Multiple
Means of
Engagement
Provide options for

7. recruiting student interest,
8. sustaining effort and persistence,
9. self-regulation (i.e., expectations
and beliefs, coping skills and
strategies, self-assessment and
reflection).
Optimize choice and autonomy;

optimize relevance, value, and
authenticity; minimize threats and
distractions; heighten goals and
objectives; vary demands and
resources to optimize challenge;
foster collaboration and
community; increase masteryoriented feedback; promote
expectations and beliefs that
optimize motivation; facilitate
personal coping skills and
strategies; develop self-assessment
and reflection
Source: Adapted from CAST (2011).
138
on a flip chart that can be accessed at any time, or sending this information
to students by e-mail, not only assists those who have organizational and
memory difficulties but also those who need a timely reminder. The result
is that students are less likely to be penalized for incorrect spelling or for
not remembering assignment details, and are more likely to be graded on
whether or not their skills meet the learning objectives.
Applied in the classroom environment, the underlying principles and
guidelines of UDL provide access to and support engagement in the activities of learning for all students, acknowledging student variability both
within individual learners and across learners in an inclusive classroom. We
illustrate how the COS aligns with the framework that CAST and others
(Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000) have identified as the key elements of
Universal Design applied in a classroom. These are:
1. Multiple Means of Representation: providing options for the what of
learning where students are able to perceive and comprehend
information;
2. Multiple Means of Action and Expression: providing options for the
how of learning where students can navigate the learning materials,
act on, and express their learning; and
3. Multiple Means of Engagement: providing options for the why of
learning wherein student interest and motivation is optimized.
We emphasize that UDL does not involve simply adding media to a classroom. It is not merely requiring students to solve a problem and then color
the diagram, or to choose between writing a poem and building a diorama.
It is essentially how the teacher applies the principles and guidelines of
UDL to curricular elements (i.e., goals, methods, materials, and assessment) to optimize learning opportunities for all students, many of which
feature ongoing instructional interaction with dialogues between the student and the teacher and peers.
Within this framework, the fears of teachers about inclusion are
reduced. Inclusive practices become a style of teaching that supports all
learners, rather than a supplement to regular classroom practices.
The elements:
A. Classroom management
Objective: To create efficient routines managed by students that frees
the teacher for instruction with individuals and groups
Appendix,
Section A; UDL Principles 2 and 3 Multiple Means of Action and
Expression, and Engagement
139
These items are the familiar routines of good classroom management and are the prerequisite skills that all teachers need to acquire
during their training. Many studies have examined these mechanics
of teaching, especially during the 1970s and 1980s when so-called
process-product studies attempted to identify the correlates of the process of teaching with the outcomes in student achievement (Englert
et al., 1992). The unifying theme of these studies was that the longer
the time students spent engaged in learning, the better their learning
outcomes.
At the beginning of a semester or year, effective teachers establish
rules for routines such as starting and completing lessons, modulating classroom noise levels and student talk, and for retrieving learning materials. They establish rules for behavior and mutual respect,
and provide charts as required to remind students of the classroom
rules and their responsibilities to assist one another. As a result,
these teachers are able to sidestep being the center of control of
classroom and time management by having in place clear expectations about who is to do what, by when, and how. Thus they are
able to delegate some management to students, thus freeing themselves to concentrate on instruction. Delegating does not mean relinquishing control however. Effective teachers arrange the physical
layout of furniture and storage so that they are able to scan the
room frequently and are able to respond quickly to students in all
parts of the room. They ensure all students in the classroom understand and can access the rules. They establish consequences for noncompliance, although their goal is to foster student independence in
learning, and therefore they provide students with choices to make
good decisions in class.
In our studies, effective teachers had well-established classroom
routines for beginning and completing a lesson, handing out and collecting materials and transitions between tasks, expecting students to
help each other before asking for help from the teacher, and taking
some responsibility for managing their behavior and engagement in
learning activities. UDL Principle 3 supports student engagement
and closely connects with classroom management. Guideline 8 provides options for sustaining student effort and persistence by, for
example, expecting students to support each other. Guideline 9 also
contributes to this element, wherein teachers provide options that
encourage and support student self-regulation of behavior and learning strategies.
140
B. Time management
Objective: To establish and maintain routines for individual and group
work and student responsibilities for maintaining their learning.
Appendix, Section B; UDL Principles 1 and 3 Multiple Means of
Representation, Engagement
Having well-established routines and expectations for the class that
allow the teacher to focus on instruction, increasing instructional time
and students time on task become the teachers next priority. Engaged
instructional time has long been viewed as outcomes or products of
teaching techniques, with a direct relationship between time engaged in
learning and achievement (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012;
Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, & Carta, 1994).
The time students spend in learning is in part related to how teachers
manage their instructional time allocations and there were considerable
differences among teachers in our study. Some spent more time on
managing student behaviors and routines than instructional talk, often
where the students were inattentive due to factors such as lack of clear
directions, lack of prepared routines, and inadequate lesson materials.
Others spent minimal time in directing students since they had established the routines and expectations for effective classroom management. These were previewed at the start of an activity and often
displayed on charts on the walls and in closer proximity for a number
of students who required it (e.g., at the front of the students work binder; taped to the top of their desk).
The teachers used and posted rubrics and lesson objectives and provided handouts that were accessible to the learners (e.g., varying formats
with and without pictures to support the text). Thus, teachers used varying ways of representing information that were appropriate and accessible for their students, illustrating how UDLs first principle of Multiple
Means of Representation is evident in time management. It also
supports UDL Principle 3 focused on optimizing student engagement.
Even though interruptions during instruction, such as school
announcements via the intercom and walk-in visitors, were common,
some teachers went to great lengths to minimize noninstructional time
and to maximize the time that their students engaged in learning. As
described below, in one study (Jordan, Lindsay, & Stanovich, 1997) the
most effective teachers generated and used almost twice as much instructional time as the less-effective teachers. This extra time was spent in
lesson-related dialogue with individual students, pairs and small groups,
extending their understanding of the lesson skills and concepts.
141
C. Lesson presentation including seatwork, practice

Objective: To ensure students are involved in the structure, progress, and
expectations of the lesson; to allow students to manage their own learning
and assist others to do so. Appendix, Section C; UDL Principles 1, 2,
and 3 Multiple Means of Representation, Action and Expression,
Engagement
Differences among teaching patterns increased when the observers
considered how effectively teachers responded to the diversity of attributes among their students. The lessons of effective teachers were lively,
fast paced, and interactive. As shown in the items in Section C of
Appendix, typically teachers introduced new material in a large group
expository fashion with a review of previous concepts and an overview
of how the lesson would extend these skills and concepts.
The most effective teachers made sure that students were aware of the
objectives of the lesson, the expectations that they must meet, and the
requirements for meeting them. Rubrics, objectives posted on flip charts
and handouts, were all used to ensure that the students knew what they
would be doing, how the lesson content relates to previous material, and
where the lesson would lead. In other words, effective teachers wanted
their students to be aware of and participate in the larger structure of
the lesson by making connections between past learning, the content
and skills to be mastered, and the goals and objectives to be reached.
These teachers attempt to reduce or remove student doubts about the
purpose and content of the lesson.
In our observations in many classrooms, teachers usually ran short of
time to complete the lesson and were unable to review achievements and
forecast what would be forthcoming in the next lesson or unit. This
made the opening of the lesson critical to helping students participate in
the lesson, and assisting them to monitor their own learning. The opening of lessons featured reviewing past concepts, activating student
knowledge about the topic, activating learning strategies, linking previous concepts and skills, and forecasting where the lesson would lead.
The structure of lessons varied widely. Some teachers used a format
that began with a whole group or class expository unit, followed by individual practice as seatwork. Others used a great deal of group work,
with cooperative groupings and peer support. Others grouped by ability
and designed different tasks for each group. Seatwork assignments were
then taken up either by having the students line up at the teachers workstation (the least effective use of engaged learning time, since students
frequently opted not to work but to socialize while waiting in the line),
142
or by the teacher circulating through the class to examine student work

at their desks (a more efficient use of learning time since students could
not predict when the teacher would arrive).
The most effective teachers often used different strategies involving
mixed ability paired or group work. These teachers had prepared the
seatwork as group activities, and they assigned students to groups
through various means; some permanent, and some flexible and changing
daily or weekly. Teacher assignment of students or student self-selection
to groups was deliberate depending upon the goals of the lesson, activity,
or goals for individual students. In these groups, students were trained in
cooperative learning methods to work together as partners or cooperative groups, to assign roles to assist the weaker learners to participate,
and to monitor each others responses. In primary classrooms in
particular, the tasks were set up at semi-permanent workstations through
which the groups circulated. As a result, these teachers had a minimal
role in managing and directing student activity, and a great deal of
time to spend with individuals, pairs and groups of students.
In the Lesson Presentation element (Appendix, Section C) there is evidence of many Guidelines under the UDL Principles 1, 2, and 3.
Teachers considered to be effective highlighted the salience of the lessons
goals and objectives (Guideline 8.1) and supported students in understanding and establishing goals for their own learning (Guideline 6.1).
While there were overall curricular goals for the lesson, students with
special needs and those at risk participated in the curricular unit and lessons. Students were observed to self-select from learning materials that
varied according to format (i.e., printed text, picture, computer-based;
audio, visual) and reading levels. Thus, the learning materials and how
students engaged in expressing their learning varied according to their
needs and individual goals. Two guidelines of Principle 1, Multiple
Means of Representation were particularly evident in the classrooms of
effective teachers: providing options for perception (Guideline 1) and
providing options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols
(Guideline 2). Teachers provide a wide variety of choices to assist students to gain insights into their own learning needs, an important part of
developing self regulation (Guideline 9).
An observation system for lesson presentation in an inclusive regular
education classroom would be incomplete without considering criteria
for observing the use of adaptive technologies and assistive communication devices. The adoption of a range of technology to support teaching
and learning aligns with each of the Principles of UDL and particularly
143
Principle 2 wherein teachers provide multiple means of students action

and expression; options for physical action, expression, and communication, and executive function (Guidelines 4, 5, and 6; Table 1).
Technology that enhances how teachers represent information, as well
as how students engage and express what they know and can do is
increasingly pervasive in todays classrooms. Web-based computer technology, with built in universal design access features, and educational
software provides multi-media interactivity as well as access to the world
outside the classroom. The explosion of mobile technology (i.e., iDevices
such as iPhones, iPods, iPads), features, and Apps has increased user flexibility in accessing information and expression. Digital text can be
manipulated and offers multi-sensory capabilities that support and
enhance student access and engagement. All students can benefit from
this increased adoption of digital technology that provides access to
information and communication with others beyond the classroom.
However, many students with special needs, particularly those who have
physical and sensory challenges, require the use of these tools and other
specialized devices, software, and applications in order to access information, engage and express their knowledge and skill, and increase their
independence.
Assistive technology provides compensatory strategies that support
student access, expression, and learning including text to speech, voice
recognition, graphic organizers, word prediction, digital calendars and
organizers, and communication software. Teachers who are effective in
meeting the diverse needs of their students recognize the value and necessity of technologies in enhancing teaching and providing access to learning opportunities for their students. These teachers advocated for the
adoption of technology in their classrooms.
D. Large group and whole class instruction: scaffolding
Objective: Instruction during large group and whole class portions of
lesson; introducing new concepts, skills, and strategies, using multiple
means of representation to maximize the opportunity for students to learn.
Appendix A section D, item 28 a) to d). UDL Principles 1, 2, and 3
Multiple Means of Representation, Action and Expression, Engagement
With the routines featured in elements A, B, and C well-established,
effective teachers are able to turn their attention and time to how they
deliver instruction, and, as importantly, to how students are responding
to instruction.
144
Teachers frequently introduce new material by commencing a

lesson with a whole class, expository component. When this was well
done, teachers were sensitive to the responses of members of the class;
activating students prior knowledge, reviewing previously learned
material, asking frequent questions, and gearing their presentation to
clarify misunderstandings, relate concepts and extend ideas, and previewing upcoming concepts. Section D of the COS taps into these
instructional skills during the large group expository part of a lesson
where a new concept or skill is being introduced or a previously taught
concept or skill is being reviewed.
The presentation of the new material was invariably supported with
explanatory maps, diagrams, and organizing frameworks presented on
the blackboard, a projector, and frequently as a handout. Multiple
forms of representation took the form not only of use of these various
media but also of the teacher actively demonstrating new concepts,
learning strategies, and procedures by modeling how to work with
them, by relating them to effective problem solving in the content area,
and by thinking aloud how to approach and work through problems.
For example, the teacher verbalizes his or her thinking aloud while
working through a problem on the blackboard or overhead: If I try
putting this idea as a central theme, then it will help me to link these
two facts together. Ill put a one here in the tens column, because
that will count as a ten, and I need to add into the tens next. The teacher will also point out how the material is organized, and how the
parts relate to each other and to previously learned material. The focus
of instruction is on learning strategies; how to understand, remember,
apply, and generalize the material. Multiple ways of representing information and concepts (UDL Principle 1, Guidelines 1, 2, and 3) that
provide students with numerous supports to understand the learning
concepts was clearly evident in these classrooms.
The skills described here are also referred to as scaffolding.
Scaffolding occurs when a teacher provides the assistance necessary for
a student to achieve success (Butler, 1998; Harris & Graham, 1996;
Stone, 1998). Central to the notion is that teachers actively participate
in the learning dialogue by modeling and describing the needed strategies, then gradually relinquishing control (withdrawing the scaffold) as
the student becomes able to use the strategies independently. The teacher supports or bridges a students or groups thinking initially by
direct instruction of strategies that they have missed. The support is
reduced to prompting and cues and is gradually withdrawn as the
145
students increase in competence and are finally able to be successful

without assistance.
During the scaffolding process, the teacher uses strategic instructional procedures, such as questioning, thinking aloud, modeling, and
tutoring others, to support student comprehension of curricular
content. Providing options for comprehension (UDL Principle 1,
Guideline 3) is particularly closely linked with how the teacher scaffolds students understanding. Teachers connect concepts to what students already know and have experienced, point out patterns, critical
features, and the key ideas of what is to be learned, guide student
engagement and processing of learning materials and support their
generalization to other aspects of the curriculum and student
experience.
E. Small group and individual instruction: calibrating instruction to individual learners individual and small group work
Objective: During small group and individual work or as teacher checks
individual work, teacher supports individual and group efforts toward
mastery by assessing the students current level of understanding, to analyze his/her misconceptions and miscues and to probe the extent of his/her
response in order to adapt instruction to the students learning threshold
(ZPD)
Appendix, Section E; UDL Principles 1, 2, and 3 Multiple
Means of Representation, Action and Expression, Engagement
Scaffolding is continued when the teacher works with individual and
small groups of students. Each of the UDL principles of multiple means
of representation, action and expression, and engagement are witnessed
in this kind of instruction, particularly at the higher levels that focus on
providing options for learner comprehension, executive functions, and
self-regulation at an individual student level (Table 1, Guidelines 3, 6,
and 9, respectively). Each of the guidelines under Principle 3 wherein
teachers focus on encouraging and supporting student engagement by
providing options for recruiting interest (Guideline 7), sustaining effort
and persistence (Guideline 8), and self-regulation (Guideline 9) relative
to curricular and individual student goals is characteristic of this element of the COS. This instruction supports teachers to gain insight into
student learning processes and in turn, they are able to calibrate their
instruction accordingly.
The calibration of instruction to individual learners understanding
is significant to the observation scale, and it emerged during a
146
discriminant function analysis designed to identify the COS items that

discriminated the most effective (highest scoring) teachers from their
less-effective colleagues (McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007). One function,
a cluster of five items (N = 63, eigenvalue = 6.93), accounted for 95%
of the variance in teachers effectiveness scores on the COS, and clearly
discriminated the most effective teachers from among the sample of 63
teachers. On this function, four items related to establishing clear lesson
expectations and engaging student attention, and one item related
to maintaining high rates of student responses by prompting, and
providing error correction and feedback. This is item 23: Maintains
high accurate responding rates in teacher-led activities (Appendix,
Section E). In other words, this one item had a significant predictive
power in identifying excellence in teaching in the context of including
students both with and without disabilities.
The result of this finding was to expand this category by adding two
additional items that focus on the teachers questioning routines: 24.
Provides frequent questions to evaluate students mastery of lesson concepts, and 25. Evaluates students understanding of seatwork tasks and
cognitive processes by asking students what, how, when, where, why
questions related to the targeted skill or strategy.
F. Predominant teaching style how teachers interact with students during
individual and small group seatwork
Objective: Teacher heightens salience of learning goals and objectives,
optimizes learning challenges and nudges students toward mastery
Appendix, Section F; UDL Principle 3 Multiple Means of Engagement
Perhaps the most powerful element in the observation scale concerned
what we termed the teachers Predominant Teaching Style. This develops
from the previous element building on the feedback received from the teachers questioning in order to shape student responses toward the intended
instructional outcome. The overall goal is to engage students in learning at
a high level of cognition. This element of effective teaching corresponds
closely with Principle 3 of the UDL framework focused on student engagement, particularly at the individual student level.
Having succeeded in generating time to work with individual students
during seatwork and small group activities, teachers use of this time varied
widely. Some teachers engaged in prolonged tutorial-style interaction with
students, while others corrected student work, or made a superficial examination of students work. The interaction style of the most effective
teachers featured engaging students individually and in small groups
147
through questioning and eliciting feedback from students to identify what

they understood, in order to identify gaps in skills and concepts and where
errors and misconceptions were evident and needed to be addressed. As
one of our exemplary teachers stated, I look for where they are, and if
they are stuck, I track back, back and back til I find what they understand
and then I nudge them forward again, nudging along a track until they get
it. This teacher had in mind a learning objective and a sequence of learning steps needed to reach the objective. This became her template for assessing each students understanding and then calibrating her instructional
sequences to move the student toward mastery.
Early in the project we had recorded teacher talk as teachers circulated
in their classrooms during small group activities and seatwork, noting how
they differed in their interactive styles with their students. We logged the
type of interactive style of the teachers with three groups of students;
those formally designated as special needs, those at risk of failure (teacher
nominated), and those typically achieving (Jordan et al., 1997). The item
had a 5-point rating scale ranging from 0 = no dialogue with the student,
1 = cursory management comments by the teacher, and 3 = instructional
transmissions, to 5 = interactive dialogue between the teacher and student.
The amount of time was assessed in seconds, and was recorded as instructional or noninstructional (i.e., management, discipline, social, etc.). In this
study, three major findings were revealed:
1. The teacher talk was generally consistent across all groups of students.
That is, the style was consistent for each teacher regardless of whom
they were instructing.
2. The amount of instructional time was correlated with the time and
classroom management and lesson presentation skills of the teachers
and varied considerably from one teacher to the next. Some teachers
were able to generate up to twice the instructional time of other teachers, largely by having in place the classroom and time management
routines described above. They used this time to engage their students
in extended dialogues about the lesson content and to provide feedback
and ask questions that developed higher order thinking skills in the
manner of scaffolding.
3. The amount of teacher talk was distributed among all the students in
each classroom. Both students with and without disabilities in the classrooms of the three highest scoring, and arguably most effective, teachers
received almost twice as much instructional time at higher levels of cognitive engagement than the typically achieving students in the classes of
the low scoring teachers.
148
Teachers often comment that students with special education needs take
up too much of their instructional time, detracting from their time to
instruct students without special education needs. From this study, we concluded that this was not the case (Jordan et al., 1997; Jordan & Stanovich,
2004). It was the case, however, that in the classrooms of those teachers
rated as most effective with inclusive practices, students identified as having
special needs were receiving considerably greater amounts of teacher interaction than in the classrooms of the less-effective teachers.
The typically achieving students, however, were also receiving considerably more instructional interactions. This was simply because the effective
teachers generated more instructional time than their less-effective colleagues and they used it with all their students. Far from being pressured to
allocate their time with the students who were achieving well, these teachers
seemed to have all the time in the world to engage individuals and small
groups in questioning and explanation. We infer from this that teachers
who are effective in including students with special needs are more effective
overall with all their students, including those who are typically achieving
and achieving above the class average.
As a result, we developed a new element for the COS which we termed
the teachers Predominant Teaching Style (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhieRichmond, 2010; McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007) (Table 2). It requires the
observer to listen in on the teachers dialogue with individual pairs and
groups of students during the seatwork and the practice parts of a lesson.
Table 2.
1
Scale for Rating Predominant Teaching Style.

2
No interactions with CHECKS

students on lesson Teacher circulates,
content.
checking work
Does not circulate.
briefly and
moving on (brief
and cursory).
3
TRANSMITS
4
ELABORATES
Teacher circulates,
Teacher asks student(s)
transmits directions,
questions about
and comments (tells
lesson material and
students what to work
concepts that require
student responses;
on, how to correct it,
teacher may then
and moves on).
elaborate further,
requiring extended
student
participation.
Note: This is the style that characterizes the majority of the teachers activity during the seatwork and group work portions of the lesson.
149
The observer can gauge the type of interaction taking place as much by
watching as listening to the teacher student turn-taking exchange.
The observers had previously received from the teacher a class list on
which the teacher has identified those students formally designated as having special needs (i.e., according to the provincial Ministry of Education
Special Education guidelines), those who, in the opinion of the teacher,
were at risk of underachieving, those who are working at an average or
typical level in the class, and those who were exceeding the class average. It
should be noted that the classrooms of the participating teachers were
highly diverse in terms of including a range of students. From this list, the
observers selected several students to monitor while the teacher circulated.
The teacher was not aware of who was being monitored. When the teacher
met one of the students, either individually or when working with a small
group, the observer rated the nature of the interaction that ensued, using
the scale above.
If a student on the observers list did not receive direct instructional
time, the observation is scored as 0. When teacher student interactions
occurred, they were scored in terms of level of cognitive extension of the
student: checking (the teacher clarified the task or content but demanded
low or no response from the student); transmission (teacher tells, gives student direction, student acknowledges), and elaboration (teacher explains
and questions student requiring complex student responses, which teacher
follows up). Elaboration is a measure of dialogical turn-taking between the
teacher and student or students in which the teacher uses student responses
to judge the mastery level of the student in order to calibrate further
instruction designed to extend the students current understanding.
Elaboration is characterized by demanding high levels of cognitive engagement from the learner.
The Predominant Teaching Style scores are intended to give the observer a student-eye view of the instruction being received that is designed
to calibrate the lesson to each students current level of understanding, and
to prompt the student to move toward higher levels of cognitive mastery.
In the adapted COS (Appendix), an observer can often gauge the type and
content of individual teacher student interactions by being close to or by
participating in the small group activities with the teacher, by listening during teacher checks of student work and by assessing the extent to which
the teacher questions and then responds to the student, observing the
length of the student teacher interactions, and number of conversational
turns taken.
150
Unfortunately, the incidence of this elaborative type of instructional

interaction tended to be sufficiently rare that it represented only a fraction
of our data (Neale, 2004).
What does an elaborated instructional dialogue look like? In the following dialogue the teacher is attempting to assist a small group of students to
understand the concept of density. Note how the teacher prompts the students recall and encourages them to create answers from their observations, guiding them toward the concept:
Teacher: Aldo, can you remind us of the relationship that we learned yesterday between
density and weight?
Aldo: (no response)
Teacher: When we placed the cork in the water, it did something different from the
metal. Can you tell us what that was?
Aldo: It floated
Teacher: Thats right. It floated. What about the wood? What did it do?
Aldo: It floated too, but it didnt, like, bounce around like the cork.
Teacher: Good observation. Now can you remember what made the cork and the wood
behave differently from the metal?
Aldo: The air in them Yeah they werent as dense as the metal.
Teacher: Great! You remembered the term dense.
Student 2: What about the oil? It floated too but it didnt have any air in it .
This interaction contrasts with the following less elaborated, more transmissive dialogue:
Josh is reading an assigned novel when the teacher arrives at his desk.
Teacher: Hows it going Josh?
Josh: Good.
Teacher: Have the vampires got them yet?
Josh: I dunno. I havent got that far.
Teacher: What do you think will happen?
Josh: Theyre going to the White House to see the mayor?
Teacher: The White House?
Josh: Uhhuh. I think theyre gonna get the people.
Teacher: Okay. You continue reading. Youre making good progress.
151
In this example, there is little evidence of a negotiated exchange based

on the students current level of understanding. The teacher appears keen
on correcting a factual error (Mayor or President) rather than pursuing the
students train of thought. This interchange falls short of elaborating the
students understanding.
G. Classroom tone
Objective: Foster respect, invite learning and risking to learn, encourage
taking responsibility for learning, promoting respect, mutual support, and
collaboration
Appendix, Section G; UDL Principle 3 Multiple Means
of Engagement
This element is perhaps the most elusive from the perspective of an
observer since it refers to largely intangible aspects of instruction. The six
criteria for Classroom Tone constitute of a list of possible indicators of
positive classroom tone: whether students are seated together or isolated in
groups or alone, whether they are called upon to undertake classroom
tasks, provide responses, and participate with peers, and whether there are
posters and rules in evidence that emphasize cooperation and mutual
respect. For example, the observer may note how the teacher has configured the classroom, blending the students with diverse needs into the overall seating arrangement and groupings, or isolating them in a designated
area. In one so-called inclusive classroom that we observed, the students
with learning difficulties were lined up facing a blackboard with their backs
to the other students, while the teaching assistant wrote their individual
problems on the board for them to solve. The rest of the class faced
another blackboard and their teacher at 90 from the teaching assistant.
The class had a ring-side seat of how each student with a disability
struggled with the problems assigned to him or her, but from behind these
students backs. This was clearly not a classroom in which all students felt
that they belonged to a community.
These indicators, however, tend to be intangible because generally teacher attitudes are difficult to gauge by observation. Yet we have shown the
importance of teacher attitudes and beliefs about their roles and responsibilities for students with disabilities. In multiple studies (Jordan &
Stanovich, 2004; McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman, Cizman, & Lupart,
2013; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998), teachers who view themselves as responsible for the learning of all their students go to considerable lengths to
ensure that the diverse needs of their classes are being met.
Those who do not see themselves as responsible and who think that such
students needs should be met exclusively by special education personnel
152
tend to ignore these students; provide them with tasks that focus on learning facts and skills that are not connected to deeper levels of conceptual
understanding and skill development across domains and subjects. Such
teachers absolve themselves from the responsibility of monitoring and
reporting student progress.
A study examined the changes in teachers attitudes and beliefs about
their roles and responsibilities toward their students with disabilities and
learning difficulties over five years (White, 2007). The school and school
system espoused inclusion as a priority, and we expected to see changes
favoring greater inclusion as the years progressed. Yet, White showed that
the beliefs and attitudes of teachers over the intervening time period were
largely dependent on the beliefs they held at the beginning of the project.
One teacher, the mother of three children with learning disabilities, commenced the project strongly favoring inclusion, and completed the exit
interview and COS observation with considerably more confidence and a
broader repertoire of inclusive instructional skills. The same cannot be said
for three other teachers who, at the outset, expressed doubts about inclusion, were rated as holding beliefs that blamed the students with disabilities
for not working harder, or blamed their parents for not providing more
support. They assigned core learning as homework to be undertaken by
parents at home, and failed to draw upon resources that were readily available in the school to assist them to meet the requirements of the students
Individual Education Plans and their classroom needs. Five years later,
even in a school board with a strong focus on inclusive practices and after
in-service exposure to techniques for diversifying instruction, these three
teachers had barely moved in either their beliefs about inclusion or their
practices as observed on the COS.
The UDL Principles and Guidelines that we have linked to each of the
COS effective teaching elements acknowledge and account for variability in
all learners. Teachers who understand the diverse nature of their students
and the elements in the classroom that can pose barriers to student participation and learning and who incorporate these Principles and Guidelines
set a tone in the classroom that acknowledges and is accepting of student
differences; indeed these teachers expect variability in students and organize
their classrooms and plan their instruction in consideration of learner
variability using whole class instructional approaches and strategies that
are known to be effective, such as Differentiated Instruction (Ministry of
Education of Ontario, 2014; Subban, 2006), Response to Intervention
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), and cooperative learning groups (Salend, 2001).
153
Addressing student variability supports all students by providing multiple ways of accessing and engaging in learning. Students feel a sense of
membership and belonging in the classroom. A sense of belonging to a community of learners contributes to student engagement (Anderman, 2003;
Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; Christenson
et al., 2012; Hazel, Vazirabadi, & Gallagher, 2013).
USING THE COS

Observation and Reflection
The COS is offered here for a variety of uses. It was developed for our
research as a third-party observation scale that enables administrators, teacher educators, and others to measure the skills that a teacher has acquired.
However, it was originally developed as a self-rating scale (Englert et al.,
1992) that enabled teachers to keep track of their own professional skills
and development over time. As a self-rating system it provides powerful
means of measuring professional growth for those teachers who reflect
upon their practice and seek a guide to evaluate their effectiveness as
teachers. As an observation scale, it has value in identifying areas of
skill and possible areas for growth in teachers who aspire to increase their
effectiveness in todays diverse and complex classrooms.
We recognize that some students require environmental and instructional adaptations, resources and supports that are more specialized and
not required by other students in diverse and inclusive classrooms. The
scale does not provide criteria identifying the more specialized skills and
knowledge that may be required by teachers who work directly with students with significant and complex learning needs. The scale does, however,
counter the arguments posited by teachers that they should not include students with diverse needs in their classrooms. Our research studies resulted
in several insights:
1. The greatest risk of failure may lie with students who are deemed by
their teachers to be at risk of failing to achieve, but who have not
been formally designated by a Ministry of Education-required procedure
as having special needs. These students received the least amount of
instructional adaptation, and the lowest amount of instructional dialogue with teachers in the classrooms in which we observed (Glenn, 2007;
154
Jordan et al., 2010). These students were at greatest risk of falling academically behind their peers. If inclusive practices are designed to prevent
failure, these at-risk students need to receive the inclusive instructional
benefits that students with identified disabilities are receiving, and
preferably before they qualify as having special needs.
2. There is a lack of cognitively engaging dialogical interaction between
teachers and students (Neale, 2004). In the most effective inclusive settings,
this was a hallmark of instructional excellence. In order to generate time
for such dialogues effective teachers diligently protect their instructional
time from interruptions of all kinds. This instructional time was then used
for calibrating instruction to individual learners and small groups, in order
to nudge students toward achievement. Teachers need to be encouraged
to engage in instructional dialogue with their students, a skill that few
apply, because it requires rethinking how instructional time is allocated.
3. Finally, there are barriers to effective instructional practices that lie
beyond the classroom. These include contrary attitudes of colleagues
and administrators about students with special needs, and about instructional priorities. Kieltyka-Gajewski describes elsewhere in this volume
the research with teachers who were frustrated in their efforts to include
students with learning disabilities. A main source of frustration was the
restrictive rules of professional practice that effectively prevent a teacher
from interceding when a student is being poorly served. School
administrators are pivotal in supporting inclusion (Horrocks, White, &
Roberts, 2008; Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010;
Loreman, 2001; McGhie-Richmond, Barber, Lupart, & Loreman, 2009;
Stanovich & Jordan, 1998, 2004). Stanovich and Jordan (1998, 2004)
showed that principals attitudes to inclusion were the single most
important factor in predicting teachers attitudes about students with
special learning needs, and how teachers instruct in their classrooms.
Principals set a tone for the school that carries over considerably to the
attitudes and beliefs of staff, which in turn impacts instructional practice
(Praisner, 2003).
Even when teachers are willing to include students with special needs they
may become overloaded with the numbers of these students in their classrooms. In some cases, teachers who are successful at inclusive instruction
find that a disproportionate number of students with special needs are
assigned to their classrooms. Coupled with sparse resources and assistance
that is temporary, these teachers are at risk being unable to sustain their
efforts and positive beliefs. The potential solutions to this situation are
155
complex, but lie in resource allocation that recognizes and rewards high
levels of instructional effectiveness with a range of students with diverse
learning needs.
CONCLUSION
The strengths of the observation scale described in this chapter lie in enhancing instructional practice so that regular education teachers are better able
to address the diverse learning needs of their students, overall. The scale can
be used both by teachers themselves to self-rate on how their inclusive instructional skills support their goals, and to identify and monitor areas in which
further support and training would be useful. It can also be used as a thirdparty rating scale to measure the inclusive practices that are effective and
supportive of learning not only for students with special education needs but
for all students. When used over time, the scale can indicate areas of growth
and development in teaching that should be recognized and celebrated.
Inclusive instructional practices are not the daunting extras and time
consuming add-ons to regular instruction that many teachers fear. Many of
the instructional elements are already familiar to teachers and educators.
Applying them does not require specialized training beyond using adaptive
technology and communication supplements. Even then, the principles of
Universal Design can be applied to ensure that providing multiple means
of representation, action and expression, and engagement benefits all students. Teachers do need to know, however, that there is a style of teaching
that reaches all students, and that requires rethinking how curriculum is
traditionally delivered. Effective teaching is consistent with inclusive practices and with designing classrooms and lessons that are universally accessible, and therefore of benefit to all learners.
REFERENCES
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle
school students sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education,
72(1), 5 22.
Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E.
(2008). Childrens perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic
performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the responsive classroom
approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129 149.
156
Butler, D. B. (1998). In search of the architect of learning: A commentary on scaffolding as a

metaphor for instructional interactions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4),
374 385.
CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student
engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Mariage, T. V. (1992). Defining and redefining instructional
practices in special education: Perspectives on good teaching. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 15, 62 86.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and
how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93 99.
Glenn, C. (2007). The impact of teachers epistemological beliefs and their beliefs about disability
on their teaching practices in inclusive classrooms. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Carta, J. J. (1994). Identification and translation of
effective, teacher-developed instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and
Special Education, 15, 140 151.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition
and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Broadline Books.
Hazel, C. E., Vazirabadi, G. E., & Gallagher, J. (2013). Measuring aspirations, belonging, and
productivity in secondary students: Validation of the student school engagement measure. Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 689 704.
Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals attitudes regarding inclusion of
children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 38(8), 1462 1473.
Irvine, A., Lupart, J., Loreman, T., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational leadership
to create authentic inclusive schools: The experiences of principals in a rural school district. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 70 88.
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective Teaching
Education, 26, 259 266.
Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. J. (1997). Classroom teachers instructional interactions with students who are normally achieving, at-risk and exceptional. Remedial and
Special Education, 18(2), 82 93.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2004). The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about
including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms.
Exceptionality Education Canada, 14(2 3), 25 46.
Katz, J. (2012). Teaching to diversity: The three-block model of universal design for learning.
Winnipeg, Canada: Portage & Main Press.
Kieltyka-Gajewski, A. (2014). Ethical challenges and dilemmas in measuring inclusive education. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3).
International Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Loreman, T. (2001). Secondary school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities
in Victoria, Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Victoria,
Australia.
157
McGhie-Richmond, D., Barber, J., Lupart, J., & Loreman, T. (2009). The development of a
Canadian instrument for measuring teacher views of their inclusive school environment
in a rural context: The Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion in Rural Canada (TPIRC)
scale. International Journal of Special Education, 24(2), 103 108.
McGhie-Richmond, D., & Howery, K. (2014). Program planning and student diversity. In
J. W. Andrews & J. Lupart (Eds.), Diversity education: Understanding and addressing
student diversity. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education Ltd.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher
perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Education, 36(1), 195 239. P. 4.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Underwood, K., & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada,
17(1 2), 27 52.
Ministry of Education of Ontario. (2014). Professional learning guides: Differentiated instruction. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/studentsuccess/lms/differentiated
instruction.pdf. Accessed on July 10, 2014.
Neale, D. (2004). Teachers perceptions of the needs of their students and their roles in meeting
them. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Toronto.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students
with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135 145.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/. Accessed on July
10, 2014.
Salend, S. J. (2001). Differentiating large and small-group instruction for diverse learners. In
A. A. Davis & G. Marsella (Eds.), Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective
practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers and principals beliefs about inclusive
education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary
School Journal, 98(3), 221 238.
Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (2004). Inclusion as professional development. Exceptionality
Education Canada, 14(2 3), 169 188.
Stanovich, P. J. (1994). Teachers sense of efficacy, beliefs about practice, and teaching behaviours as predictors of effective inclusion of exceptional and at risk pupils. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344 364.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education
Journal, 7(7), 935 947.
White, R. (2007). Characteristics of classroom teachers which contribute to their professional
growth in implementing inclusive practices. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
Toronto.
158
APPENDIX: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SYSTEM

FOR INCLUSIVE TEACHING PRACTICES
A. Classroom Management
Objective: To create efficient routines managed by students that free the
teacher for instruction with individuals and groups
1. Arranges physical space to maintain minimally disruptive traffic patterns and procedures.
2. Rules and procedures exist for noninstructional events (e.g., movement about room, student talk, distributing materials, bathroom
use, etc.) and for instructional events (e.g., getting ready for lessons,
expected behavior of instructional group, obtaining help, seatwork
procedures, out-of-seat procedures, etc.).
3. Consequates rule noncompliance quickly; cites rule or procedure in
responding to disruptive behaviors.
4. Positions self in room to provide high degree of visibility (e.g., can
make eye contact with all students).
5. Scans class frequently.
6. Uses nonverbal signals whenever possible to direct students in a nondisruptive manner when teaching other groups of students.
7. Administers praise contingently and uses specific praise statements.
B. Time Management
Objective: To establish routines for whole class and group work and for
student participation
1. Allocates generous amounts of time for instruction (limits time spent
on behavior management, recess, and nonacademic activities, keeps
transition time between lessons short).
2. States expectations for seatwork and transitions in advance (e.g.,
prepares students for transitions in advance by stating behavioral
expectations and informing students that lesson is drawing to a
close).
3. Establishes clear lesson routines that signal a beginning and end.
4. In large group expository portions, gains students attention at the
beginning of the lesson and maintains attention during instruction at
90% level.
5. Designs activities for individuals and groups for practice and seatwork; Monitors transition by scanning and circulating among
students.
159
6. Maintains students attention during seatwork at 86% or higher.

7. Circulates frequently during seatwork students to assist students and
to monitor progress.
8. Provides active forms of seatwork practice clearly related to academic goals.
C. Lesson Presentation
Objective: To ensure students are involved in the structure, progress, and
expectations of the lesson; to allow students to manage their own learning
and assist others to do so
Opening the lesson:
1. Provides review of previous days concepts at beginning of lesson;
actively tests students understanding and retention of previous
days lesson content.
2. Provides a clear overview of the lesson:
a) Explains task in terms of teachers and students actions. Tells
students what they will be accountable for doing.
b) States the purpose and objective of the lesson. Introduces topic(s)
of learning.
c) Activates prior experiences and knowledge relevant to the topics,
strategies or skills to be learned.
Closing the lesson:
3. Provides error drill on missed concepts or review of difficult concepts during and at the end of each lesson.
4. Gives summary of the lesson content and integrates lesson content
with content of other lessons or experiences.
5. Summarizes the lesson accomplishments of individuals and group.
6. Forecasts upcoming lesson content.
D. Large Group and Whole Class Instruction Scaffolding
Objective: Instruction during large group and whole class portions of
lesson; introduces new concepts, skills and strategies, using multiple
means of representation to maximize the opportunity for students to learn
1. Actively model and demonstrate new concepts, learning strategies,
and procedures related to effective problem solving in the content
area:
a) Provides organizational framework that will help students organize the lesson information (e.g., text structure genre, diagram of
lesson topics and subtopics, concept maps, semantic web, etc.).
160
b) Points out distinctive features of new concepts and uses examples

and nonexamples to show relevant and irrelevant features of the
concept.
c) Points out organization, relationships, and clues in learning
materials that elicit learning strategies.
d) Models task-specific learning strategies and self-talk that will
help students achieve (e.g., rehearsal strategies, retrieval strategies, etc.).
E. Small Group and Individual Instruction: Calibrating Instruction to
Individual Learners
Objective: During small group and individual work or as teacher checks
individual work, assess the students current level of understanding, to
analyze his/her misconceptions and miscues and to probe the extent of
his/her response in order to adapt instruction to the students learning
threshold (ZPD) (Multiple means of representation, action and expression; student engagement)
1. Maintains high accurate responding rate (70 90%) in teacher-led
activities:
a. Repeats practice opportunities until students are not making
errors.
b. Delivers instructional cues and prompts.
c. Provides error correction procedures.
2. Using prompting or modeling following errors rather than telling
the answer.
a. Provides frequent questions to evaluate students mastery of lesson concepts.
3. Evaluates students understanding of seatwork tasks and cognitive
processes by asking students what, how, when, where, why questions related to the targeted skill or strategy.
F. Predominant Teaching Style
Objective: Teacher heightens salience of learning goals and objectives, optimizes learning challenges and nudges students toward mastery
The following requires the observer to listen in on the interaction of the
teacher with individual students during seat work, small group work (not
whole class expository component of lesson but during practice of skills,
concepts, etc. previously presented). Note that the teacher student interactions could be individual or small group, and should be academic (lesson
focused) and not managerial or social.
161
Scale for Rating Predominant Teaching Style

This is the style that characterizes the majority of the teachers activity
during the seatwork and group work portions of the lesson.
1
No
interactions
with students
on lesson
content.
Does not
circulate.
2
CHECKS
Teacher circulates,
checking work briefly
and moving on (brief
and cursory).
3
TRANSMITS
Teacher circulates,
transmits directions, and
comments (tells students
what to work on, how to
correct it, and moves on).
4
ELABORATES
Teacher asks student(s)
questions about lesson
material and concepts
that require student
responses; teacher may
then elaborate further,
requiring extended
student participation.
1. Using the scale above, identify the predominant teaching style between
the teacher and students overall
Notes:
the teacher and one student who is designated as exceptional
(Exceptional student)
Notes:
the teacher and one student who is at risk of academic failure although
not designated as exceptional (Student at-risk)
Notes:
4. Using the scale above, identify the predominant teaching style of interaction between the teacher and one student who is typically achieving in
the class (typically achieving student)
Notes:
G. Classroom Tone
Objective: Foster respect, invite learning and risking to learn, encourage
taking responsibility for learning, promoting respect, mutual support and
collaboration
1. Is the curriculum delivered to the students with disabilities the same
subject/content as to the students without disabilities?
162
2. Are the included students called on to answer questions in teacher-led

activities (or volunteer a response, ask a clarification of the teacher, read
aloud or supply a response in turn with other students, etc.)?
3. Is technology used to mediate student learning for those experiencing
difficulty?
4. Describe the seating arrangement in the classroom as it relates to the
included students (fully integrated, groupings for instruction, seating for
attention/behavioral purposes, judge effectiveness, and comment on
valuing/devaluing).
5. Are the students with disabilities regularly included in classroom routines procedures (e.g., helper of the day, passing out snacks/materials,
sharing time, clean up, etc.)?
6. Does the teacher model for other students acceptance and warmth with
students with exceptionalities?
7. Is there evidence of rules that involve respect for other members of class
and/or teacher provides verbal reminders to students about how to treat
each other (Wall posters, reminds of rules or of previous agreements
about respect and support)?
SECTION II
MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION IN PRACTICE
MEASURING INDICATORS OF
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION:
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin and Umesh Sharma
ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews the international literature in order to support
ongoing international development work on indicators for measuring
inclusive education. Building on previous work in this area, this chapter
outlines 13 themes in the international literature that should be
considered in the development of a set of indicators for measuring
inclusive education and has produced one extra thematic area for
consideration.
Keywords: Inclusive education; indicators; measurement; assessment;
evaluation; testing

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003024
165
166
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
This review of the literature regarding existing indicators of inclusive education was undertaken in order to inform a broader project on developing
and testing indicators designed specifically for measuring inclusive education in the Pacific region. It addresses the international academic and
public sector literature regarding indicators for inclusive education. The
question guiding this review is: What themes are apparent in the international literature for developing indicators of inclusive education? This
review serves as a foundation from which informed discussions can take
place in order to devise the most contextually appropriate set of indicators
for use in other parts of the world.
A number of international documents provide indicators for the presence of inclusive education and some of these (e.g. Booth & Ainscows,
2002, Index for Inclusion) have been used extensively throughout the world.
The Index for Inclusion has been translated into at least 22 different languages and modified according to various international contexts (EENET,
n.d.). There is, therefore, a clearly demonstrated need internationally to
develop mechanisms in the form of indicators to assist those concerned
with education to better understand the inclusivity of their education
systems and to be able to map progress. Of fundamental importance to this
review is a clear understanding of how inclusive education is defined. As
discussed in the first chapter of this volume, a defensible definition of
inclusive education comes from UNESCO. Accordingly,
Education is not simply about making schools available for those who are already able
to access them. It is about being proactive in identifying the barriers and obstacles learners encounter in attempting to access opportunities for quality education, as well as in
removing those barriers and obstacles that lead to exclusion. (UNESCO, 2012, para. 1)
THE LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS

An earlier international review of outcomes for inclusive education from
which indicators might be developed was recently undertaken by Loreman
(2014) and was deemed a useful starting point for this current review. The
present review was, therefore, conducted in order to update the earlier
paper with new international literature and also to include any further articles and themes that may have not been included in the earlier review. In
addition to this, as the earlier review did not focus on work in developing
countries, this aspect was added. In this way the new review has become
Measuring Indicators of Inclusive Education
167
a more comprehensive overview of the literature in this area than its

predecessor.
A search was conducted for articles relevant to measuring inclusive
education using major education search engines including ERIC, EBSCO
Education Research Complete and Academic Search Complete and
PsycINFO. Subject terms used in this search included combinations of
inclusive education, measurement, indicators, outcomes, evaluation,
evaluating, progress, developing countries, disability, special needs
and inclusive education system. With duplicates removed (including from
the Loreman, 2014 study) a total of 27 articles were located in this phase.
In addition to this a search of reports and documents from multilateral
agencies was undertaken using similar search terms. This produced a total
of 87 documents which were then subjected to scrutiny to ensure that they
met criteria described below. This scrutiny first involved an examination of
the abstract or summary (43 documents were retained following this
phase), followed by a reading of the article in full if the abstract appeared
relevant. A final total of 28 documents were retained at the end of this
process and incorporated into the review. The criteria for inclusion of an
article or document, with reference to methodology adopted by Waitoller
and Artiles (2013), were as follows. A document needed to meet the following five criteria in order to be included in the current review:
1) The study questions, purpose, or hypothesis addressed both of the
following two aspects:
a. The article was primarily about inclusive education.
b. The article was in some way about measurement, assessment, evaluation or indicators of progress.
2) Source of publication: The studies must have been published in
reputable sources, preferably peer-reviewed journals. International agencies such as UNESCO, the UN and other multilateral agencies were
also deemed to be reputable sources.
3) Time range: The studies were published between 2001 and 2013 to
ensure currency of the information.
4) Research methods: Research designs were appropriate to the topic
under investigation and followed accepted practice in quantitative,
qualitative or mixed design data collection and analysis. In addition to
this, conceptual papers were included provided they were supported
with peer-review literature or primary or secondary sources of data.
5) The document could not have been located and either discarded or
included in the earlier Loreman (2014) review in order to avoid
duplication.
168
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Themes were presented as part of the Loreman (2014) review and these
were used as an initial loose organizing structure for this study. Additional
articles found for the current review were examined in terms of their
fit with those themes, or to see if the development of new themes were
required. The analysis was conducted in an ongoing manner consistent
with the recommendations of Miles and Huberman (1994) and a theme was
only retained if a number of articles cross-validated one another within
that theme using the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Using this process it was noted that the pre-existing themes were
either further supported or not negated by the additional literature. One
additional theme was identified and labelled as role of special schools.
The number of articles used in this study, therefore, included 51 from
Loreman (2014) as well as an additional 28 from this review, providing a
total of 79 documents. In order to ensure a concise results section, only the
most salient examples relating to each theme are discussed in detail.
Articles retained for the review but not specifically mentioned under each
theme are consistent with the information presented.
FRAMEWORKS FOR EXAMINING INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION: THE EUROPEAN APPROACH
This section examined indicators for inclusive education on three levels.
These levels are consistent with the European approach (Kyriazopoulou &
Weber, 2009) and include micro, meso and macro. The micro level involves
individuals and classrooms, the meso level involves schools and the contexts
in which they operate and the macro level includes broader systems such as
those found in local and national government bodies. This approach has
been widely accepted by national governments, particularly in Europe. The
premise of this research is that the effectiveness of an inclusive system needs
to be measured at each of these levels.
Another frame (also recommended by Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009,
and also employed in Europe) was employed to examine this topic by
applying the inputs-processes-outcomes model. This model, seen in Fig. 1,
aimed to identify which areas specifically might be contributing to or
detracting from the ultimate goal of achieving inclusive education.
These concepts fit together well to provide a sound and defensible conceptual framework for this review. Table 1 shows the relationship between
169
Everything provided to
the system to achieve
inclusive education
including financial
resources, policy,
staffing, staff training,
curriculum,
infrastructure, support
from other disciplines,
resource centres,
consultants, etc.
Practices in school
jurisdictions, schools,
and classrooms that
transform the inputs
into ways of working
with students that
produce outcomes. This
includes instructional
practices, pragmatics at
the school level, how
funding is distributed
and used, etc.
Inputs
Fig. 1.
The result of the inputs

and processes including
satisfaction from
stakeholder groups, rates
of academic achievement,
cost effectiveness, postschool employment or
study activities, etc.
Processes
Outcomes
The Inputs-Processes-Outcomes Model based on Kyriazopoulou and

Weber (2009), Appearing in Loreman (2013).
Table 1. The Relationship between the Micro-Meso-Macro Levels and

the Inputs-Processes-Outcomes Model.
Level
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Macro Policy
Staff PD & teacher
education
Resources and finances
Leadership
Climate
School practice
responsibility
Support to individuals
Role of special schools
Participation
Student
achievement
Post-school
options
Policy
Staff PD and teacher
education
Leadership
Curriculum
Climate
School practice
Classroom practice
responsibility
Participation
Student
achievement
Post-school
options
Micro Resources and finances

Leadership
Curriculum
Climate
School practice
Classroom practice
responsibility
Participation
Student
achievement
Post-school
options
Meso
170
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
the micro-meso-macro levels and the inputs-processes-outcomes model as

they have been employed in this review.
BROAD AREAS OF LITERATURE ON MEASURING

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: IDENTIFIED THEMES
This section provides a brief summary of the themes apparent in the literature, organizing these areas into one of the three components of the inputsprocesses-outcomes model.
Component One: Inputs

Theme One: Policy
The presence of policy enabling and supporting inclusive education is viewed
as being a critical foundation for successful instructional practice and many
evaluative documents include a section on policy. The European Agency
for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE, 2011a) includes
the policy context in its framework for the development of indicators for
inclusive education, exploring the necessity for policy in the area of inclusive
education for all and equitable and accountable education systems.
Many documents and measurement instruments focus on issues of policy
to varying degrees. Cushing, Carter, Clark, Wallis, and Kennedy (2009)
include the school district mission statement as one indicator of inclusive
education. The intentions of policy makers must be clearly articulated at all
levels to ensure not only consistent policy, but clear guidelines for practice
as well. If such policy is to be effective it needs to be aimed at removing system barriers and inequalities that serve to exclude some groups of children
from inclusive school participation.
Some examples drawn from the literature in this area of what is evident
in good inclusive education policy include:
Policy being articulated at the highest level (government) consistent with
international standards, and reflected in subsequent policy at the school
level.
Further, it is clear that policy should be developed and/or modified in
collaboration with all members of the school community, including
students, parents, teachers and staff.
171
The literature supports the importance of policy that articulates an inclusive approach based on eliminating barriers and discrimination, and
makes all members of the educational community responsible for attaining the specified ends.
Policy should also be directed at providing appropriate resources to support inclusive education and should articulate the processes, if required,
for the identification of the special needs of children.
Theme Two: Staff Professional Development and Teacher Education
Many evaluative inclusive education tools attempt to measure the extent to
which teachers and school staff are prepared to implement inclusive practices. This governs the success of inclusion at the school and classroom
level. Cushing et al. (2009) include a written plan for staff professional
development as one of their measurement indicators. The Government of
the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Directorate of Primary Education
(2012) measured the amount and nature of training provided to school
leaders and teachers. Much of the literature included in this review in this
area noted that many teachers did not feel that they had the necessary skills
to implement inclusive education.
With this in mind professional development and teacher education
should reflect the provision of opportunities for staff to learn effective pedagogical approaches. The EADSNE (2012a) provides not only a profile of
the traits and practices of inclusive teachers, intended for use in teacher
education, but also insights in the form of indicators. A values and competencies model was adopted, taking into account attitudes as well as skills
and knowledge.
Helpful staff development reflected in the international literature might
involve:
Deliberate and required participation in teacher education for inclusive
education at pre- and in-service levels;
The provision of training to support staff such as teacher assistants and
other professionals;
Staff development activities supporting collaboration and that have a
direct impact on practice;
The provision of professional development based on data relating to the
needs of the staff and
The impact of subsequent education being measured against this data,
and staff experiencing an improvement in self-efficacy with reference to
engaging in inclusive practices.
172
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Theme Three: Resources and Finances

In order for inclusive education to work effectively, adequate levels of
funding and resources must be provided, however, there is understandably
a seemingly large disparity between the expectations of developed and
developing nations in this regard. The Government of the Peoples
Republic of Bangladesh Directorate of Primary Education (2012) measured
a number of system inputs such as the availability of potable water, the
condition of the classrooms, grant expenditures and classroom size. These
sorts of considerations are often taken for granted in higher-income countries that might instead focus on resource provision and the adequacy of
instruction for students with special needs when compared with students
who do not have special needs. Indicators for inclusive education in the
area of resources and finances should be aimed at measuring how they are
used to improve education for all children through the provision of a range
of required services.
Specific examples with respect to resources and finances drawn from the
literature might include:
Some areas such as the coordination of adequate financial resources to
support inclusive education at the school level, in combination with
access to centralized resources such as other professionals, specialized
equipment, etc.;
The provision of support to children at the youngest age possible;
The development of rules and procedures for the provision of financial
and other resources and
The expectation that school staff will develop resources that assist in the
learning of all children in their classes, including those with disabilities.
Theme Four: Leadership
Effective leadership at all levels is essential to the operation of an inclusive
school system. Schools with strong administrative support for inclusion
have been shown to effectively serve greater numbers of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Cushing et al. (2009) include a number of
leadership indicators in their Program Quality Measurement Tool (PQMT)
including the values held by school principals and the practical actions they
take to support staff and students. This is consistent with a Canadian study
that showed that there is reason to believe that effective administrators
hold positive views of inclusive education (Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, &
McGhie-Richmond, 2010). Waldron, McLeskey, and Redd (2011) found
that good inclusive school leadership involved support for teachers as they
173
developed a highly effective programme, providing areas in which indicators for inclusive education might be developed. These included considerations in the following areas:
1) How the direction for the school was set (e.g. are staff involved in
setting the overall direction and focus of the school?);
2) How the organization of the school was redesigned (e.g. to what extent
were different models of education considered?);
3) How working conditions were improved;
4) How high-quality instruction could be provided in all settings (pedagogical leadership) and
5) How a data system could be developed and used to monitor the effectiveness of the programme.
Theme Five: Curriculum
Issues around curriculum design and implementation form an important
theme with respect to indicators of inclusive education on an international
level. For curriculum to be inclusive and to allow for adequately scaffolded
instruction it must be designed consistent with the principles of universal
design for learning (UDL) in that it is written to include a diverse range of
learners from the outset. This means engaging in teaching that provides
multiple forms of representation, multiple means of engagement for
students and multiple opportunities and means for expression. In some
instances there is recognition that, where UDL is not apparent, individualized programmes are necessary for some children. This is especially evident
in the more senior grades in school (Bulgren et al., 2006). Cushing et al.
(2009) therefore include the use of Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and
general instructional content in their PQMT instrument.
Notwithstanding the recognition that in some circumstances individualized programmes are necessary, the question as to whether these should be
commonplace and recommended is questionable. Winzer (2008) places
such supports in a historical context as part of the medical model, which is
largely deficit-based and has a therapy or rehabilitative tone. The nature of
indicators devised in this area can certainly influence the approach taken.
In summary, areas for consideration with respect to measuring curriculum design and implementation include:
Adoption of the principles of UDL: Multiple means of representation,
engagement and expression.
Curriculum is seen as needing to be designed to suit learners.
IEPs may still be required in some specific circumstances.
174
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Component Two: Processes

Theme One: Climate
A welcoming and open social climate that embraces differences at each of
the macro, meso and micro levels is critical to the success of inclusive education (Carrington & Robinson, 2006). Such a climate is developed on the
basis of the positive beliefs and attitudes of all members of the educational
community, particularly those at the school and classroom levels. Many
studies have demonstrated that teacher attitude is a major determinant of
the success or failure of inclusive education (Forlin, Sharma, & Loreman,
2013; van der Veen, Smeets, & Derriks, 2010). Florian and Spratt (2013)
developed a framework for evaluating the inclusive practice of newly graduated teachers. The classroom-based practices evaluated include a social
justice theme where teachers must believe they are qualified and capable of
teaching all students, and demonstrate this in their practice. Considerations
with respect to climate may include:
Is the school explicit in welcoming all students?
Do educators hold positive attitudes with respect to inclusion of all learners? What do they believe about learners from marginalized groups?
Do school leaders encourage the inclusion of all?
Do educators hold high levels of self-efficacy with respect to inclusive
practice?
Theme Two: School Practices
One theme in the literature on indicators of inclusive education relates to
practices at the school level, with the underlying logic being that a wholeschool approach is necessary for success as opposed to simply encouraging
inclusive practice in individual classrooms. It is noted by Curcic (2009) that
these practices can range from scheduling, to membership in various clubs
and teams, to resource provision, to communication, to transportation,
among other areas. Grimes (2010) offers 17 indicators that speak to school
and classroom indicators of inclusive education that are relevant to the
Laotian context. These range from social and emotional indicators, to peer
support and parent involvement, along with academic indicators relating to
student access and achievement. Grimes indicators include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
All pupils feel welcome in the school

All students support each other in their learning
All students are well supported by school staff
Teachers and parents cooperate well.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
175
All students are treated equally as valued members of the school

All students feel that their opinions and views are valued.
All students can access learning in all lessons.
All students can access all parts of the school building.
All students attend school every day.
All students enjoy lessons
All students are engaged in all lesson activities.
All students achieve their learning in all subjects according to their individual
ability
All students learn together.
All students have access to appropriate health services as necessary.
School ensure that the all students enter the school
All vulnerable children are successful in their learning
School creates a school environment which supports all students learning. (p. 44)
Theme Three: Classroom Practices

The classroom is where inclusion is realized and where many of the thematic factors are already discussed, such as climate, curriculum, policy,
resources and school practices interact in complex ways. In addition to this
a number of activities specific to the individual classroom must be engaged
in. These include assessment for and of learning, pedagogical techniques
and strategies that support learning for a wide range of diversity in a classroom and catering to areas such as multiple intelligences and different
learning styles. Cushing et al. (2009) pay attention to the instructional
approach, such as taking into account learning styles and providing
instructional choices to students in their PQMT instrument. The EADSNE
(2011a, 2011b) includes classroom practices such as including students in
planning and assessment in its framework for indicator development.
In the Florian and Spratt (2013) framework for evaluating the inclusive
practice of newly graduated teachers the classroom-based practices evaluated include understanding learning, which embodies such instructional
practices and inclusive beliefs. The Florian and Spratt (2013, p. 124) framework includes the following principles that in many ways summarize this
theme:
Difference must be accounted for as an essential aspect of human development in any conceptualization of learning.
Teachers must believe (can be convinced) they are qualified/capable of
teaching all children.
The profession must continually develop creative new ways of working
with others.
176
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Theme Four: Collaboration and Shared Responsibility

Collaboration at all levels is a key feature of successful inclusive education.
The EADSNE (2011a) includes participation of children in school, with
particular reference to participatory relationships such as staff collaboration and collaboration between home and school in its indicator development work. Levels of collaboration identified in the literature previously
included between school systems and individual schools, the school and the
community staff within schools, staff and students, other professionals and
education staff, and staff and families. In Florian and Spratt (2013) the
classroom-based practices evaluated include the theme of becoming an
active professional working closely with colleagues towards common goals.
Theme Five: Supports to Individuals
In systems where the curriculum is not adequate to meet the needs of all
there is a need for the provision of extra supports to individuals (Loreman,
2014). The form of these supports included curricular support such as
individualized programmes, but also support from other professionals and
para-professionals. These supports best fit an inclusive model when they
are provided through in-classroom resources or interactions with staff or
other professionals (Deppeler, Loreman, & Sharma, 2005). However, an
inclusive school allows for students to engage in specific activities outside
of the regular classroom, such as individual or small group research time,
the expectation being that at some point all students will engage in this sort
of activity and that it will be regarded as normal. Roach and Elliott (2009)
note that jurisdictions can support individuals by providing enough:
Expert consultants;
Therapists;
Learning coaches and
Other professionals as required.
The presence of individual supports such as those noted above need to be

included in instruments designed to measure inclusive education.
Theme Six: Role of Special Schools
In moving towards an inclusive education system it is not only regular
schools that will need to change, but also special schools will need to adapt
to the new reality. Lupart and Webber (2012) suggest that there is an
undue separation of regular and special education focus and concern (p. 9)
and suggest that the two systems should merge. There have been practical
moves in this direction. Forlin and Rose (2010) document practice in
177
Hong Kong where special schools are being asked to serve as resource hubs
for mainstream schools. They identified key issues that need to be considered in special school mainstream school partnerships in Hong Kong,
which include collaboration, resources, student support, school culture,
school ethos, the government system and human resources. These areas
need to be considered in the development of indicators for measuring inclusive education, with the caveat that transferring special school inclusive
school models of collaboration from one context to another is not always
possible or desirable.
Component Three: Outcomes

Theme One: Participation
Significantly more literature was found in the area of what is being
measured with respect to student participation in schools. Typically, the
literature involved the examination of systems data with respect to disability and school attendance, grade promotion, graduation and gender equity.
The EADSNE (2012b, 2013) examined data on students who were in mainstream classrooms at least 80% of the time using data from national school
systems. This data was then desegregated to examine gender, age, types of
support provided, etc. However, they warned that using large national
datasets to measure outcomes for students with disabilities:
It is clear that, although there has been much time and effort put into collecting and
disseminating data on children with disabilities, a substantial amount of which focuses
on developing countries, good data sets do not currently exist. Existing data sets are
fragmentary and inconsistent in their definitions of disability. They provide little basis
for meaningful international comparisons and, with some exceptions, are of unknown
reliability and validity. This depressing conclusion applies both to data on the
prevalence of developmental disabilities and to data on the education of children with
disabilities in developing countries.
A particularly disturbing feature is that the major global initiatives Education for All
(EFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) are essentially silent on the
topic of disability as far as data are concerned. This is unsurprising as the indicators
adopted to assess the success of these initiatives do not currently give explicit mention
to disability. (EADSNE, 2013, p. 35)
Possibly in response to this, UNESCO (2010) examined areas such as

levels of poverty, birth weight and health issues as barriers to education
along with participation in pre-primary education, reduction in numbers of
out-of-school primary age children, gender parity and school completion
178
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
rates. In Annex 4 of the UNESCO Report (2013) a series of indicators in

the areas of early childhood education, basic primary education, meeting
the needs of youth and adults, adult literacy, gender parity and quality of
education are identified. These are intended to help nations with their 2015
EFA assessments.
Black-Hawkins (2010) investigated the relationship between inclusive
participation and student achievement in terms of providing a methodological framework for studying this. A correlation of student achievement
results with participation results based on the framework provided data
linking levels of participation with academic accomplishment. The BlackHawkins study presents a structure for the collection, analysis and presentation of detailed qualitative and quantitative data within a mixed-methods
multi-site case study approach.
Theme Two: Student Achievement

Some research on inclusive education has demonstrated positive outcomes
for all students in the area of academic achievement (e.g. Demeris, Childs, &
Jordan, 2008). Further justification for the view that student achievement
in a number of areas should be monitored across school systems was
provided by the following:
Baulch (2011) included a measure of grade progression as an indicator of
the success of an intervention in Bangladesh.
Frederickson, Simmonds, Evans, and Soulsby (2007) used peer-measures
of social and affective outcomes along with perceptions of who might be
candidates for bullying to measure social inclusion.
Chadha (2007), examining a pilot project on inclusive education in India,
used the following outcomes as evidence: enrolment, the availability of
assistive devices, the academic achievement of children with disabilities,
the impact of teacher-training, peer acceptance of children with disabilities, the extent of physical barrier-free access in schools, the development of teaching-learning materials and resource support for children
with disabilities.
Grimes (2010) in Laos measured enrolment in school of children with
special needs, passing rates for each grade level, repetition rates of grade
levels and drop-out rates as partial evidence of successful systemic inclusive education.
The Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Directorate
of Primary Education (2012) measured student academic achievement,
179
enrolment rates (and breakdowns with respect to gender, etc.), school

completion rates and other related areas.
Engel, Cossou, and Rose (2011) and Engel and Rose (2011) in Benin and
Cambodia, respectively, measured school enrolment rates, student retention in schools, gender equity with respect to school enrolment, regional
equity and quality of education provided.
UNESCO (2010) looked at indicators in the area of educational quality
between nations though student performance on large-scale tests
(e.g. PISA). However, it needs to be noted that some of these tests, such
as PISA, exclude many children with disabilities.
Theme Three: Post-School Outcomes
One indicator of an inclusive education system is the success of school
graduates at the completion of their education. It has been noted that students with disabilities have fewer post-school opportunities than students
without disabilities (Ryndak, Ward, Alper, Storch, & Montgomery, 2010)
although an effective education system should prepare all students in such
a way as to maximize opportunities for them on leaving school. Goodman,
Hazelkorn, Bucholz, Duffy, and Kitta (2011) used graduation rates of students with disabilities as an indicator of successful inclusive education,
although this does not examine longitudinal post-school outcomes for
those who have disabilities. The United Nations (2011) proposed an indicator that examines literacy rates of 15 24 year olds as evidence of progress
for children with and without disabilities with relation to Millennium
Development Goal Number 2 that addresses universal primary education,
although this too is not necessarily a guarantor of post-school success.
While the area of post-school outcome indicators is considered important,
more international work needs to be conducted in this area.
Table 2 provides a summary of the themes listed under their component
and, consistent with the conceptual framework, cross-referenced to their
corresponding micro, meso or macro level for the international literature
(see Fig. 1).
DISCUSSION
This review provides a contextual framework from which specific indicators
for use in international contexts can be discussed and developed. It has
identified a range of outcomes, strategies, practices and recommendations
180
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Table 2. Analysis of Inclusive Education Indicators for Inputs, Processes

and Outcomes for the Three Levels of Macro, Meso and Micro
Application.
Level
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Macro Policy
Aim is to remove barriers
and inequalities
Policy is articulated at the
highest level (govt), is
consistent with international
standards and is reflected in
subsequent policy at the
school level
Provide guidelines for
practice
Policy is directed at
providing appropriate
resources to support IE
Policy articulates the
processes, if required, for the
identification of need in
children
Staff PD and teacher education
Staff are prepared to
implement IE
Based on competencies
Mandated at all levels
Adequacy
Availability and conditions
of basic needs (e.g. water,
classrooms, buildings, etc.)
Access to assistive
technologies
Leadership
Government support
Climate
Provincial, district levels
embracing IE
Attitudes towards IE
School practice
Access to quantity and
quality education
responsibility
Coordinated approach
At all levels, district,
school, community,
peripatetic staff, families,
etc.
Shared responsibility
Access to experts
Special schools as
regional hubs of expertise
Participation
Include previously
marginalized and
excluded
Overcome local
issues (e.g. poverty,
gender parity)
Ratio boys to girls
Net enrolment ratio
of children with
disabilities
Student achievement
Data for monitoring
at district, region,
country
Grade progress,
passing rates
Repetition rates
Drop outs
School retention
Availability of
assistive technologies
Large-scale testing
(e.g. PISA)
Post-school options
School completion
rates
Literacy rates
Access to careers
Meso
Climate
School levels embracing
IE
All learners are valued
and respected
School practice
WSA access and
achievement
Participation
Include previously
marginalized and
excluded children
Active involvement
Academic and social
achievement
Acceptance by peers
Policy
District missions
Guidelines for practice
Developed and/or modified
Collaborative with school
community
Discipline policy is positive
and aimed at student safety
181
Table 2.
Level
(Continued )
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Staff PD and teacher education

Local training
Has a direct impact on
classroom
Based on evidence and
analysis of data
Adequacy
Guidance: how to use
Availability and conditions
of basic needs (e.g. water,
classrooms, buildings)
Locally controlled with
some central services
Access to appropriate staff
and professionals
Access to assistive
technologies
Leadership
Strong admin support for IE
School, district support
Support for teachers
School direction,
organization, instruction
Development of data
systems to measure
effectiveness
Practical actions
Curriculum
UDL written at outset to
accommodate all
Some use of individual
programmes, but rare

quality education
Scheduling
Membership of clubs,
teams, etc.
Social and emotional
Parent involvement
Classroom practice
Curriculum UDL
Authentic assessment
practices for, of and in
learning
Planning
Assessment
responsibility
At all levels, district,
school, community,
peripatetic staff, families,
etc.
Collegial support
Co-teaching, consulting
and coaching exchanges
of special regular school
staff and resources
Overcome local
issues (e.g. poverty,
gender parity)
Net enrolment ratio
of children with
disabilities
Student achievement
Data for monitoring
at school level
Grade progress,
passing rates
Repetition rates
Drop outs
School retention
Social inclusion,
bullying
Availability of
Post-school options
School completion
rates
Literacy rates
Access to careers
Climate
Embracing IE
All learners are valued
and respected
Teachers beliefs in own
ability to implement IE
School practice
Scheduling
Peer support
Social and emotional
Parent involvement
Participation
Include previously
marginalized and
excluded children
Active involvement
Academic and social
achievement
Friendships/
relationships
Contacts/
interactions
Acceptance by peers
Micro Resources and Finances

Adequacy
Guidance on how to use
Access to assistive
technologies
Access to appropriate
human resources
Leadership
Support for teachers
Practical actions such as
mentoring and pedagogical
leadership
182
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Table 2.
Level
Inputs
Curriculum
UDL
Scaffolded instruction
IEPs as required
Individual focus on needs
(Continued )
Processes
Outcomes

quality education
Membership of clubs,
teams
Classroom practice
Curriculum UDL
Differentiated instruction
Authentic assessment
practices: for, of, in
learning
Good pedagogy
(e.g. grouping, delivery,
design, learning styles)
Planning
Assessment
responsibility
Collegial support
In and out of class
options
Access to experts
Meet individual needs
Self-perception
Student achievement
Data for monitoring
at classroom levels
Social inclusion,
bullying
Availability of
Post-school options
Maximize potential
for employment
Access to careers
from the international literature that are implicitly suitable for forming
indicators to measure inclusive education. The lack of a ready-made, comprehensive list of internationally relevant indicators for inclusive education
that is suitable for all contexts may disappoint those looking for a quick-fix
in this area. To present such a list would be to obscure the complexities
found at the local level with respect to cultural, social, religious and other
contextual differences. Rather, the thematic areas should be viewed as a
basis from which indicators can be drawn following discussion and further
research at the local level.
This would necessarily include a review of local literature, perhaps along
the lines of that conducted in the companion paper to this one (see Forlin,
Sharma, Loreman, & Sprunt, 2014), and extensive consultations and
research involving local stakeholders. This systematic process might help to
183
alleviate some of the scepticism that accompanies the production of indicators of inclusive education, which some suggest might lead to a shallow
evaluation of educational contexts (Loreman, 2014). As the companion
paper to this chapter points out, evaluating inclusive education practice is
not simply a matter of checking off boxes on a list. It involves multiple
means of data gathering and interpretation, both qualitative and quantitative. Employing methods such as participatory action-research (Dymond,
2001) and/or approaching the issues from ecological perspectives may also
contribute to a more robust and credible evaluation of progress in inclusive
education.
This review serves to validate themes identified in the earlier Loreman
(2014) review of the literature, adding new literature that was not available
or located in the previous review. Further, the addition of a search for
terms that might have been considered to be conspicuously absent from the
earlier review, such as disability, were shown to have had no impact, as
relevant documents identified were subsumed under the previous search
terms, producing duplicates. This review did, however, identify an additional theme, designated as Role of special schools. It became increasingly
clear through this review that the role special schools have to play in facilitating the role of inclusive education is one that should not be ignored in
the development of indicators in this area.
This review attests to the complex nature of inclusion, with 14 identified
themes, often interconnected at various levels. The micro-meso-macro framework adopted to present the results of this review attests to the complexity of the issues, as well as their dynamic nature. Measuring inclusive
practice, then, is equally complex and entails use of a dynamic process. Not
only must those attempting to benchmark inclusive education pay attention
to various and diverse areas of practice, policy and relationship, but this
must also be done at levels ranging from large systems to individual student
experiences and how they develop and interact over time. It is clear that
there is no simple solution to the question How are we doing with inclusive
education? and authentic answers will only be evident where the complexity of the construct is taken into account.
CONCLUSION
Building on previous work in this area this study validated 13 themes in the
international literature that should be considered in the development of a
184
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
set of indicators for measuring inclusive education, and produced one extra
thematic area for consideration. This study involved re-visiting the international literature in this area, and broadening the search both in terms of
extending the time frame and in terms of search terms used.
This review not only highlights areas that school jurisdictions can focus
on when measuring inclusive education, but also provides examples of existing instruments that might be adopted and applied as circumstances dictate.
This can further better practice in inclusive education through a process of
benchmarking progress towards the better inclusion of all learners.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been funded by the Australian Government through the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trades Australian Development
Research Awards Scheme (ADRAS) under an award titled Developing
and testing indicators for the education of children with disability in the
Pacific. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth
of Australia accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage or injury resulting from reliance on any of the information or views contained in this
publication.
The assistance and advice of members of the International Inclusive
Teacher Education Research Forum (IITERF) is gratefully acknowledged,
along with the many members of the ADRAS research team who provided
documents and advice.
REFERENCES
Baulch, B. (2011). The medium-term impact of the primary education stipend in rural
Bangladesh. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 3(2), 243 262. doi:10.1080/
19439342.2011.570449
Black-Hawkins, K. (2010). The framework for participation: A research tool for exploring the
relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 33(1), 21 40.
Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B., Davis, B., &
Grossen, B. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education
185
classes: Teachers instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based
practices and standards. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39 65.
Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2006). Inclusive school community: Why is it so complex?
Chadha, A. (2007). Evaluation of a pilot project on inclusive education in India. Journal of the
International Association of Special Education, 8(1), 54. Retrieved from http://iase-biz1.
webs.com
Curcic, S. (2009). Inclusion in PK-12: An international perspective. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 13(5), 517 538.
Cushing, L. S., Carter, E. W., Clark, N., Wallis, T., & Kennedy, C. H. (2009). Evaluating
inclusive educational practices for students with severe disabilities using the program
quality measurement tool. The Journal of Special Education, 42(4), 195 208.
doi:10.1177/0022466907313352
Demeris, H., Childs, R. A., & Jordan, A. (2008). The influence of students with special needs
included in grade 3 classrooms on the large-scale achievement scores of students with
special needs. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 609 627.
Deppeler, J., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2005). Reconceptualising specialist support
services in inclusive classrooms. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2),
117 127.
Dymond, S. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inclusive school
programs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 54 63.
doi:10.1177/108835760101600113
EENET. (n.d.). Newsletters and resources (Index for Inclusion). Retrieved from http://www.
eenet.org.uk/resources/index.php. Accessed on December 11, 2012.
Engel, J., Cossou, M., & Rose, P. (2011). Benins progress in education: Expanding access and
closing the gender gap. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Engel, J., & Rose, P. (2011). Rebuilding basic education in Cambodia: Establishing a more effective development partnership. London: Overseas Development Institute.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011a). Mapping the
Implementation of Policy for Inclusive Education (MIPIE)
An exploration of challenges and opportunities for developing indicators. Retrieved from http://www.europeanagency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011b). Participation in inclusive education
A framework for developing indicators. Retrieved from http://www.
european-agency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012a). Teacher education
for inclusion
Profiles of inclusive teachers. Retrieved from http://www.europeanagency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012b). Special needs education country data 2012. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2013). Agency data collection
interim report. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive
practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119 135. doi:10.1080/
08856257.2013.778111
Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships for enabling inclusive education
in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 13 22.
186
TIM LOREMAN ET AL.
Forlin, C., Sharma, U., & Loreman, T. (2013). Predictors of improved teaching efficacy following basic training for inclusion in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 18(7), 718 730. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.819941
Forlin, C., Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Sprunt, B. (2014). The first stage of a process for developing indicators for inclusive education in the Pacific Islands. Article submitted for
publication.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and
affective outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105 115.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00463.x
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion
and graduation rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
21(4), 241 252. doi:10.1177/1044207310394449
Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Directorate of Primary Education.
(2012). Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Sector Performance Report (ASPR
2012). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org
Grimes, P. (2010). A quality education for all: A history of the Lao PDR inclusive education
project 1993 2009. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Save the Children.
Irvine, A., Lupart, J., Loreman, T., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational leadership
to create authentic inclusive schools: The experiences of principals in a rural school
district. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 70 88.
Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators For inclusive education in Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Loreman, T. (2014). Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5), 459 483. doi:10.1080/13603116.
2013.788223
Lupart, J., & Webber, C. (2012). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education
systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 8 37.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roach, A. T., & Elliott, S. N. (2009). Consultation to support inclusive accountability and
standards-based reform: Facilitating access, equity, and empowerment. Journal of
Educational & Psychological Consultation, 19(1), 61 81.
Ryndak, D., Ward, T., Alper, S., Storch, J. F., & Montgomery, J. (2010). Long-term outcomes
of services in inclusive and self-contained settings for siblings with comparable significant disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(1),
38 53.
UNESCO. (2010). Education for all global monitoring report 2010. Retrieved from http://www.
unesco.org
UNESCO. (2012). Education: Addressing exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/
new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/inclusive-education/
UNESCO. (2013). Education for all national EFA 2015 reviews guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Santiago/pdf/guidelines
nationalefa2015reviewsenglish19062013.pdf
187
United Nations. (2011). Disability and the millennium developmental goals

A review of the
MDG process and strategies for inclusion of disability issues in millennium development
goal efforts. Retrieved from http://www.un.org
van der Veen, I., Smeets, E., & Derriks, M. (2010). Children with special educational needs in
the Netherlands: Number, characteristics and school career. Educational Research,
52(1), 15 43. doi:10.1080/00131881003588147
Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for
inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership,
24(2), 51 60.
Winzer, M. A. (2008). Children with exceptionalities in Canadian classrooms (8th ed.). Toronto,
Canada: Pearson Prentice Hall.
LEARNING ABOUT INCLUSION

FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
USING THE INDEX FOR
INCLUSION
Suzanne Carrington and Jennie Duke
ABSTRACT
There is a need for a more critical perspective and reporting about the
value of taking a model of inclusion developed in western countries and
based upon the human rights ethos applying it in developing countries.
This chapter will report firstly on how the Index for Inclusion (hereinafter referred to as the Index) was used in Australia as a tool for review
and development; and secondly how the process of using the Index is
adjusted for use in the Pacific Islands and other developing nations in
collaborative and culturally sensitive ways to support and evaluate
progress towards inclusive education. Examples are provided from both
contexts to demonstrate the impact of the Index as an effective tool to
support a more inclusive response to diversity in schools.
Keywords: Index for Inclusion; inclusive education; action research;
international aid; developing countries

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003025
189
190
SUZANNE CARRINGTON AND JENNIE DUKE
INTRODUCTION
The Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) is a resource of ideas
informed by a social model of disability and reinforces a suite of values as
a framework for inclusive education. Inclusive values such as respect for
all, equity, compassion and entitlement can guide direction and inform
school culture, policy and practice (Booth, 2011). Inclusive education signifies much more than the presence of students with disabilities in regular
classrooms. It has developed from a long history of educational innovation
and represents school improvement on many levels for all students (Skrtic,
Sailor, & Gee, 1996).
The Index has been used in many countries around the world for
school review and development for inclusive culture, policy and practice
(http://www.csie.org.uk/resources/inclusion-index-explained.shtml). It was
originally developed in 2000 at the Centre for Studies in Inclusive
Education (CSIE) in England and provides a framework for action
research in a school community. The Index can be used to engage stakeholders such as parents, students, teachers and school staff in exploring
what is going well in their school and what are the concerns that need to be
addressed.
We acknowledge that schools exist in specific socio-cultural contexts and
education must be responsive to the lived realities of learners and educators in those contexts (Tikly & Barrett, 2011, p. 5). We believe that
knowledge and meaning are constructed through interaction with people in
socially constructed ways. Therefore we assume that peoples interpretations of what inclusive education means will shift over time and will be
different from place to place (Carrington et al., 2012).
These views influence the approach and research methods that we have
used to record and report the lived realities of our school communities that
have worked to develop inclusion in their schools. The action research cycle
described in the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) provides educators in schools responsive ways to represent stages of finding out about
the school, making plans for change, implementing plans and review and
further development across five phases:
Phase 1: Getting started
Phase 2: Finding out together
Phase 3: Producing a plan
Phase 4: Taking action
Phase 5: Reviewing development
Learning about Inclusion from Developing Countries
191
This cyclical approach to inquiry can challenge assumptions about

teaching and learning for students and their place in society. An essential
element of this approach is that teachers in the school can see themselves as
agents of change for their students learning outcomes and connectedness
to their school. Parents and other community members can be engaged in
developing a shared vision for their school community that incorporates
culture, policy and practice. The dimensions of culture, policy and practice
work together. For example, if a school begins to investigate how inclusive
their culture is, it will open the conversation about the other two dimensions as well. A school culture includes beliefs, values and assumed ways
of doing things among the school community. The culture of a school
organisation affects the differences in the way schools develop policy and
practice.
The process of engaging the views of the various stakeholders in a school
can support the development of shared values and commitment to working
together (the culture) to achieve positive learning and social outcomes
for all. The resource prompts the school community to question the status
quo, supports decision making involving staff, parents and students; and
creates opportunities for prioritising future development. The action
research process and index of materials organised under culture, policy and
practice are designed to help a school community consider the strengths
and practices in schools that support inclusion and highlight where
students, families and staff may be excluded. As Roger Slee says Whos in?
Whos out? How come? Who decides? Who benefits from this? Who loses?
And inevitably: What are we going to do about it? (2001, p. 175). These
are the types of questions that can be explored by a school community
using the Index process.
The three dimensions: culture, policy and practice are divided into two
sections. For example, Dimension A: Creating inclusive cultures has two
sections: A1: Building community and A2: Establishing inclusive values.
Each section then has a list of indicators of inclusive culture.
Dimension A: Creating inclusive culture
A.1 Building community
Indicators
A.1.1 Everyone is made to feel welcome.
A.1.2 Students help each other.
A.1.3 Staff collaborate with each other.
A.1.4 Staff and students treat one another with respect.
192
A.1.5 There is a partnership between staff and parents/carers.

A.1.6 Staff and governors work well together.
A.1.7 All local communities are involved in the school.
A.2 Establishing inclusive values
Indicators
A.2.1 There are high expectations for all students.
A.2.2 Staff, governors, students and parents/carers share a philosophy
of inclusion.
A.2.3 Students are equally valued.
A.2.4 Staff and students treat one another as human beings as well as
occupants of a role.
A.2.5 Staff seek to remove barriers to learning and participation in all
aspects of the school.
A.2.6 The school strives to minimise discriminatory practice.
Then each indicator has a list of questions that can be used to gather
information from the school community. Sample questions for indicator
A.1.3 Staff collaborate with each other are:
i. Do staff treat each other with respect irrespective of their roles in the
school?
ii. Do staff treat each other with respect irrespective of their gender?
iii. Do staff treat each other with respect irrespective of their class or
ethnic background?
iv. Are all staff invited to staff meetings?
v. Do all staff attend meetings?
vi. Is there wide participation in meetings?
vii. Are all teachers and classroom assistants involved in curriculum planning and review?
viii. Is teamwork between staff a model for the collaboration of students?
ix. Do staff know who to turn to with a problem?
x. Do staff feel comfortable about discussing problems in their work?
xi. Are regular supply staff encouraged to be actively involved in the life
of the school?
xii. Are all staff involved in drawing up priorities for school development?
xiii. Do all staff feel ownership of the school development plan? (Booth &
Ainscow, 2011, p. 14)
193
OUR EXPERIENCE USING THE INDEX IN AUSTRALIA

TO PROGRESS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
The Index was initially used in Queensland in 2001 in a primary school in a
very complex and diverse cultural community. The pilot work in this
school informed the use of the Index in the Department of Education in
Queensland as a key resource to support inclusive school development
(Gillies & Carrington, 2004). The school also had a large special education
unit that supported children who had disabilities and learning difficulties.
Teaching staff, teacher assistants and specialist and senior staff were committed to doing their best for their student community and a university
partnership was established to address the challenges for this school community (Carrington & Robinson, 2004).
In the following years, the Department of Education in Queensland,
Australia, prioritised the implementation of inclusive education. A range of
initiatives to develop an inclusive approach to schooling was implemented.
For example, The Staff College, Inclusive Education coordinated learning
and development opportunities to enhance the capacity of school and community personnel to support students with diverse learning needs (for more
information see Gillies & Carrington, 2004). The Index for Inclusion
(Booth & Ainscow, 2002) was used extensively by staff and networks in the
Staff College to: question the status quo in education policy and practice;
gather data from stakeholders in school communities to inform the development of inclusive culture, policy and practice; contribute to decision
making involving staff, parents and students; and create opportunities for
prioritising future development. The Index was recommended as a resource
to support Triennial School Review in Queensland schools.
We used the Index not simply as a list of dimensions, indicators and
questions. We focused strongly on the process of collaborative planning,
review and development that could occur with the support of the action
research cycles. The language used in the Index is sometimes not appropriate for Australian schools. There is a need to modify and adapt the questions to meet the needs of the school community. It is the values framework
of inclusion that informs the dimensions of culture, policy and practice in
the Index that can be readily adapted to most education contexts in our
experience. Beyond the individual school context, the Index has been utilised to enhance the development of inclusive learning communities across
a whole region of schools.
194
We designed professional inclusive learning opportunities for all staff,

early years, primary and secondary, in one school region to explore and
align their values, beliefs and practices. School staff were able to explore,
compare and align their own, their school and their regions inclusive practices to the state and regional strategic plans (Duke, 2009). For example,
some schools investigated questions like: Are learning activities planned
with all children in mind? Teaching assistants support the learning and
participation of all children; Assessments encourage the achievements of all
children. This use of the Index indicators assisted development of relevant
and challenging questions for a learning community in an education region.
This ultimately improved and enhanced understanding of inclusive practices through the scrutinisation in progressively greater detail using
challenging questions (Rustemier & Booth, 2005, p. 12). For example, in
one of these projects a participant commented:
I think there are a lot of questions raised today. It was interesting to see the challenges
faced by all schools and to be able to share this. I think it will also be a huge task to
transfer back to the everyday teacher. Huge but able. (Programme participant, 2009)
The Index provides a framework for exploration of issues that assists

school leaders to transfer back to the everyday teacher through exploration of beliefs, attitudes, practices and policies. Through the action research
process of the Index and cycles of inquiry, teachers can work in groups or
as individuals to implement change. We have worked with school committees to critically examine and explore the Index indicators and questions to
develop a unique approach to inclusive review and development. It is the
process of discussion, debate and group consensus about how to proceed
that supports the development of inclusion. School community members
learn that each person has an individual perspective and people learn to
respect diversity as part of the Index process. Don who was a parent
involved in the school review and development using the Index explained:
it is the sense of family that is the inclusion. You dont necessarily love everything
about everybody who is in your family, but you accept them and thats the way it is in
this school. We know there are people with certain difficulties and constraints and
opportunities, dare I suggest, but they are accepted. And thats an absolutely fabulous
thing. The parents have been made to feel wonderfully involved in this whole process.
(Carrington & Holm, 2005, pp. 155 171)
In the range of school projects using the Index, activities using the
indicators and questions were developed for staff meetings, parent forums,
focus group interviews, class meetings and student councils to provide
195
opportunity for school stakeholders to share values and beliefs and dream
about their ideal school. Creative and imaginative ways were developed to
engage people in talking about the values of inclusion and to seek out
opportunities to challenge the status quo through collective review and
implementation of plans and review of progress.
The most exciting work using the Index engaged students (see
Carrington, Allen, & Osmolowski, 2007; Carrington & Holm, 2005). These
projects involved student forums gathering data from their peers in the
school community and informed future priorities in the school development plan. For example, the students presented ideas to a school committee
involving parents and teachers about ways to improve the relationships
between teachers and students, ways to welcome students to the school
particularly those students who join the school during their secondary
school years, considerations for managing behaviour and supporting students and finally some authentic insights about how it feels for students to
be included and excluded in their school community.
WORKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO

PROGRESS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
While now working in the university context, we both have the privilege of
working in a range of Australian Aid funded projects to support inclusive
education in developing countries. We believe that the Index can be used in
these different cultural contexts. The Index has been translated and/or
adapted for use in many countries around the world such as India (Booth &
Black-Hawkins, 2001), Brazil through the South African Four Nation
Study (Muthukrishna, Schoeman, Ntombela, & Jairaj, 2000) and New
Zealand (Bourke, Holden, & Dharan, 2007). In 2011, there were 40 translations of the second edition.
The concept of inclusion in the Index prompts a community to consider
who (students, parents and teachers) experiences barriers to learning and
participation. The Index process invites feedback from parents, students
and teachers in the local school community and then through an action
research cycle supports planning for action so that resources can be mobilised to support development.
As early as 2001, developers of the Index cautioned its use in developing
countries without exploration of its relevance to each countrys context
(Booth & Black-Hawkins, 2001). We are aware that inclusion could be
196
described as a western concept and we need to be aware of what we export

and how we are imposing a western concept through aid-funded programmes in developing countries. However, we also suggest that the values
of inclusion can be applicable in a range of countries: Each value represents
the actions required to move towards a more inclusive society (Booth &
Ainscow, 2011, p. 22). Some values such as participation, community, trust,
compassion, honesty, joy, love and hope are clearly evident and demonstrated in community life in many of the countries that we have worked in.
Other values may be more aspirational such as equality, respect for diversity and rights because these values are supported by countries in the
signing of conventions such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child (United Nations, 1989), World Declaration on Education for All
(EFA) (UNESCO, 1990) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006).
A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION AS A WESTERN CONCEPT
Inclusion has also been described as global evangelization by Le Fanu
(2013) who suggests that inclusive education has become the justification
for many development initiatives in education. For example, he highlights
that in the UNESCO work, Embracing Diversity (UNESCO, 2004, p. 6), it
indicates that every school should provide (an) inclusive, learning
friendly environment (that) welcomes, nurtures, and educates all children
regardless of their gender, physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic
or other characteristics (UNESCO, 2004, p. 6). Le Fanu challenges this
approach when it is understood that many education systems in developing
countries have a lack of resources, low quality teacher training and large
class sizes. He questions whether it is possible to achieve inclusion in the
developing countries. These points are valid and in our experience these
types of issues are certainly acknowledged as part of the social and cultural
context in each country that we have worked in. However, we would also
suggest that the social and cultural interpretation of inclusion and the
underlying values can inform the Index process and progress a school community to consider more inclusive ways of working to support diversity.
A further criticism comes from Armstrong, Armstrong and Spandagou
(2010) who specifically comment about the use of the Index in developing
countries. These authors caution against the associated risks of cultural
197
imperialism. They argue that because the Index provides a tool for thinking
about the western version of inclusion, it carries with it specific western
values of inclusivity. These values if imposed crudely (p. 118) may be far
removed from the wider social, cultural, political and economic context of
that developing country, therefore rendering any school improvement planning ineffective.
When introduced as the guiding principles of education reform, these taken for granted
ideas (developed in the Western philosophical and political traditions over the
centuries) obfuscate the unequal relationship between countries and the dependency
promoting outcomes of change-orientated development interventions. Thus, when
policies on inclusive education are abstracted from the broader social context within
which they are situated it is unlikely that they will be effective. (Armstrong et al., 2010,
p. 118)
Armstrong et al. (2010) also warn that The Index is formulaic in nature
(indicators of inclusive practice) and inclusive education is not formulaic.
Therefore, no matter how flexible or adaptable the tool (the Index) is there
are inevitable risks and preconceptions in its use. The consideration of differing understandings of inclusion in developing countries may not be given
enough weight when implementing review and development. When planning and delivering professional learning and mentoring, we acknowledge
the risks of abstraction from context (p. 118) and formulaic approach to
inclusive education and respond according to each situation.
USING THE INDEX IN COLLABORATIVE AND

CULTURALLY SENSITIVE WAYS
In our experience, collaborating with developing countries requires us to
maintain power and control in the hands of local educators and therefore
reduce any post-colonial exertion of power. We create learning opportunities that are collaborative in a number of ways. Collaboration through
dialogue and partnerships is achieved through a mentorship and critical
friend approach that is inclusive, rather than top down expert knowledge
or based on benevolence or arrogance. We have collected examples of the
manner and method that we have used the Index from many contexts and
illustrate them as suggestions. For example, the manner in which representatives garner support from their community is highly context driven. In
some countries the network of the church, temple or mosque is used to
198
disseminate information and explain the relevance of the action research.

We encourage the collective intelligence of the representatives of each country to determine the manner and method of use of the Index materials.
We ensure our approach is strategically based upon globally accepted
frameworks such as action research. These approaches are enhanced
through application of knowledge of local imperatives as opposed to
intervention-based approaches as identified by Armstrong et al. (2010). For
example, a pre-survey of need or a situational analysis of the context we
will be working in is an important first step. The use of the pre-survey
allows us to respond to the context in the planning stages. Alignment of
inclusive education values to local religious, social and economic values in
our content may be useful. For example, links made between the values of
inclusion and Christianity in Samoa and Islam in the Maldives. Alignment
is made to local policy and government ministry through documents and
practices and people. For example, in Vanuatu education policy documents
are very clear about the responsibility of schools to provide inclusive education for all learners. We quote from and relate to these documents in presentations to strengthen links to local context. The local participants are
encouraged to discover links from their policies to add to their action
research proposals.
The sustainability of processes is achieved through the coaching of
local researchers working in the schools. For example, educators from the
Maldives and Bhutan wrote their own training modules for their contexts
after introductory Index awareness and we provided ongoing critical friend
advice for implementation. National researchers in Samoa, Vanuatu, Fiji
and Solomon Islands developed local committees for the use of the Index
for action research in their schools after initial Index awareness training.
The translation of documentation, ideas, terminology into local written
and oral language is vital for the success of the use of data collection using
the Index. For example, the research term focus group was changed in each
country to represent the local practices. The participants from Papua New
Guinea used the local word kibung which means to bring people together
to solve an issue, rather than the term focus group. In Samoa, the word
talanoa which means meetings with full disclosure was preferred by
participants. The simple change of term assisted the participants to consider local and existing opportunities for the collection of data within their
communities.
Presentation of the Index as a non-formulaic approach can be enhanced,
adjusted and changed to meet local contexts. The non-formulaic approach
to the use of the Index was always the intent of the authors Booth and
199
Ainscow. Representation of the country in Index training presentations

through the use of local resources such as stories, photographs, video, terminology, activities can enhance the local ownership and shared learning
for all about developing more inclusive culture, policy and practice in
schools. For example, the cafe culture is an important part of social life in
Maldives and our activities such as World Cafe (Brown, 2001) were
modified and used by local teachers in their implementation of Inclusive
Education Training Modules.
MEASURING SUCCESS ABOUT INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT
In many cases, our work with the Index and developing countries is part of
larger inclusive education projects which include learning about ethical
leadership, and more inclusive approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment. Our accountability to the outcomes of these projects is monitored regularly to ensure accountability to the organisations involved and
reporting of outcomes to Australian Aid. For example, the Index resource
has been used in Bhutan with the Ministry of Education since 2011 and
school principals and leaders in the Ministry have developed and used their
own training modules in schools. Inclusive education is now a key priority
in the Eleventh Five Year Plan with more support for schools across the
country to develop inclusive education.
The Ministry of Education has established Changangkha Lower Secondary School in
2001 as an integrated school providing special needs education and education for the
hearing impaired was introduced in Drukgyel Lower Secondary School in 2003. In
addition, there are six other schools catering to the special needs education. The
Ministry has also introduced the Inclusive Education programme for children with
Special Education Needs (SEN) and has established a division for Special Education
Needs under the Department of School Education. (Ministry of Education, Bhutan,
2013, p. 224)
In addition, the Royal University of Bhutan Teachers College at Paro

will engage in professional development and learn how to utilise the Index
in action research projects in Bhutan in 2014. This work will also support
the implementation of the Eleventh Five Year Plan in Bhutan.
We actively seek feedback from participants about the relevance and
usefulness of the Index before, during and after the project. Before implementation of their projects, representatives have been concerned about how
200
to translate inclusion as a theoretical perspective. During the early stage of

workshops, issues such as overcoming negative attitudes and beliefs of the
community, either about research or including students with disabilities,
have usually been the most frequent concern expressed by representatives.
The process we use invites participation and contribution. For example, we
would explain using our examples how students can be engaged in projects
where they contribute ideas about how they perceive their school community. We would then invite sharing of ideas from the group about whether
that approach would be appropriate in their context and how it would be
arranged.
Our methods and ideas shared have resulted in positive feedback at the
end of projects. For example, 100% of feedback from participants rated
the value of Inclusion workshops delivered to teachers in Maldives, written by educators from Maldives and co-presented with QUT staff, was
good to excellent (Ministry of Education, Maldives, 2012, personal communication). The Index provided the module writers from Maldives contemporary theoretical and practical indicators of practices for inclusion to
frame their work with schools. A participant in an Index for Inclusion
programme from Papua New Guinea extended the usefulness of the Index
to undergraduate study. The participant described the Index as, an
excellent package for classroom teachers and for teacher trainees
(Participant 1, 2014).
The use of the Index and our response to local context is demonstrated
by quotes and feedback from participants. For example, many participants
value the research-based design through action research that responds to
local needs.
We need to get moving and shaking in the region or we end up with bits of paper
with writing on it borrowed from someone else. We need to move people on based
on research, real knowledge and skills. We wont be able to do everything but what we
will do
we will do well. Inclusive education has never been a topic in peoples consciousness. We need to work together to develop a vocabulary to describe what inclusive education is about. (Participant, Fiji, 2014)
Another participant of one international, inclusive education capacity

building project also commented about the importance of research-based
approaches to Inclusive education and their local system and policy
development.
Inclusive education will find its place in all of the policies. We have a long way to go to
unify and harmonise our system. To us research is so important as inclusion is a construct system owned by the whole society. (Participant, Vanuatu, 2014)
201
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We suggest that the Index is an excellent resource that can be used in a
range of international contexts. We have provided examples from our
experiences in Australia and in other countries. These stories and quotes
indicate how the ideas and values of the Index can be used to inform
engaging discussion and debate about the challenges of supporting education for all in many school communities. The dimensions, sections and
indicators provoke and challenge a school community to dream for the
better worlds that they want for their children. Parents, teachers, school
principals and students can be encouraged through the Index process to
challenge society and cultural assumptions in their own context. The
Index process supports the collecting of information from people in the
school.
Participants can then be encouraged to come together to analyse, discuss
and develop a shared commitment for what they want for their community.
The danger comes of imposing a western concept of inclusion when the
questions and surveys are used without the community engagement and
discussion that we have described in the stories above.
We would like to close by sharing a beautiful quote from one of our
recent participants in the Index workshop in Fiji. Importantly, participants
were able to connect the values and beliefs of inclusive education as represented in the Index to their context and one described it as being (inclusive education is) a new song to me and it will be a beautiful song in my
language (Participant, 2014).
REFERENCES
Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International
policy and practice. London: Sage.
Booth, T. (2011). Curricula for the common school: What shall we tell our children? Forum,
53(1), 31 44.
schools. Bristol, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
schools. Bristol, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Booth, T., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2001). Developing learning and participation in countries of
the south. The role of an Index for Inclusion. UNESCO report, 2001.
Bourke, R., Holden, B., & Dharan, V. (2007). You think youre doing it, but now I question
myself: Using a self review process in New Zealand schools for learning and change.
202
The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 7(2),

57 66.
Brown, J. (2001). The world cafe: Living knowledge through conversations that matter. The
Systems Thinker, 12(5), 1 5.
Carrington, S., Allen, K., & Osmolowski, D. (2007). Visual narrative: A technique to enhance
secondary students contribution to the development of inclusive socially just school
environments-lessons from a box of crayons. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 7(1), 8 15.
Carrington, S., & Holm, K. (2005). Students direct inclusive school development in an
Australian secondary school: An example of student empowerment. Australasian
Journal of Special Education, 29(20), 155 171.
Carrington, S., MacArthur, J., Kearney, A., Kimber, M., Mercer, L., Morton, M., &
Rutherford, G. (2012). Towards an inclusive education for all. In B. S. Carrington & J.
MacArthur (Eds.), Teaching in inclusive school communities (pp. 3 38). Milton, QLD:
Wiley, Australia Ltd.
Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2004). A case study of inclusive school development:
A journey of learning. The International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(2),
141 153.
Duke, J. (2009). The use of the Index in a regional educational learning community. Retrieved
from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29400/
Gillies, R., & Carrington, S. (2004). Inclusion: Culture, policy and practice: A Queensland
perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 24(2), 117 128.
Le Fanu, G. (2013). Reconceptualising inclusive education in international development. In
L. Tikly & A. M. Barrett (Eds.), Education quality and social justice in the global south:
Challenges for policy, practice and research. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Education, Bhutan. (2013). 11th Five Year Plan 2013 2018. Self reliance and inclusive green socio-economic development. Bhutan: Gross National Happiness Commission,
Royal Government of Bhutan.
Ministry of Education, Maldives. (2012). Report QUT inclusive workshop 2012: Follow-up
workshop of ALAF & PSLP program.
Muthukrishna, N., Schoeman, M., Ntombela, T., & Jairaj, S. (2000). Developing sustainable
inclusive education policy and practice in South Africa. Interim report. Durban:
University of Natal.
Rustemier, S., & Booth, T. (2005). Learning about the Index in use A study of the use of the
Index in schools and LEAs in England. Bristol, United Kingdom: CSIE.
Skrtic, T. M., Sailor, W., & Gee, K. (1996). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion. Remedial and
Special Education, 17(3), 142 157.
Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: The case of
inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5, 167 177.
Tikly, L., & Barrett, A. M. (2011). Social justice, capabilities and the quality of education in
low income countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 3 14.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.06.001
UNESCO. (1990). World conference on education for all. Meeting basic learning needs. A
vision for the 1990s. Retrieved from unesdoc.unesco.org. Accessed on September 25,
2014.
UNESCO. (2004). Embracing diversity: Toolkit for creating inclusive, learning friendly environments. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.
203
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www2.
ohchr.or...ish/law/crc.htm. Accessed on May 6, 2014.
Unites Nations. (1990). World declaration on education for all. Retrieved from http://www.
unesco.org/education/wef/en-conf/Jomtien%20Declaration%20eng.shtm. Accessed on
May 5, 2014.
https://treaties.un.org. Accessed on May 8, 2014.
USING NETWORKING TO
MEASURE THE PROMOTION OF
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE
CASE OF THE PACIFIC REGION
Susie Miles, Laisiasa Merumeru and Donna Lene
ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews the history of an approach to networking between
practitioners which uses inquiry-based methods to document innovative
examples of inclusive education. The networking task is located in the
context of efforts to promote Education for All which have so far failed
to include the economically poorest and most marginalised children. The
case of the Pacific regions efforts to include children with disability in
education is presented as a particular challenge, given its small, multilingual and geographically scattered population. An emerging strategy is
presented as a framework for analysing the context of, and promoting
greater conceptual clarity around, inclusive education in the Pacific
region. Ultimately this networking approach has the potential to measure

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003026
205
206
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
progress towards a more nuanced conceptualisation of the inclusive education agenda.

Keywords: EFA; inclusive education; indigenous culture; networking;
Pacific region
INTRODUCTION
The potential role of regional networking in promoting conceptual clarity,
locally relevant approaches to inclusive education and systems for measuring progress is discussed in this chapter. Inclusive education involves a
highly complex set of social processes which vary enormously according
to cultural context. This is particularly the case in the Pacific Island
Countries as they develop more inclusive approaches to education and
systems for measuring progress towards inclusion across this large and
diverse region.
The account presented here is based upon two main sources of data: an
autoethnographic study which identified key principles for the development
of an inclusive network, carried out by the first author (Miles, 2013); and
an analysis of material collected when co-researching the viability
of a Pacific regional network, linked to Enabling Education Network
(EENET), and focused on the inclusion of children with disability in
education. The material was collected in two distinct, but related, stages. A
two-week scoping visit to the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati and Samoa,
conducted in 2013 by the first and second authors, was supported by the
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS). The countries were chosen
because they were developing innovative inclusive practice and they each
had a champion who was leading the innovation and who was open to the
potential role of networking to share practice across the region. A series of
consultations were held in each island country with potential stakeholders
in the proposed network. This included, personnel from Ministries of
Education, Internal Affairs and Community Development, womens
groups, teacher educators, head teachers, pre-school and primary school
teachers, and special school staff (Miles, Lene, & Merumeru, 2014, p. 2).
Following the scoping visit, policy documents and field notes were analysed
in relation to relevant literature, and the authors participated in lengthy
online discussions to clarify the emerging themes. The significance of this
chapter is in its contribution to baseline information about the development of networking around inclusive education in the Pacific region.
Networking (on Inclusive Education?) in the Pacific Region
207
We argue here that a thorough analysis of context is a prerequisite for

promoting greater inclusion in education systems, and that such analysis
can promote the measurement of those aspects of inclusive education which
are valued by stakeholders. We also argue that national and regional networking can play a valuable role in promoting such contextual analysis,
and ultimately in the potential measurement of progress. In this way, stakeholders can support each other to promote the measurement of what they
value, rather than simply accepting the tendency to value what is measured
(Ainscow, 2005).
We begin by reviewing international efforts to promote inclusive education as part of the broader Education for All (EFA) challenge, and to
address inequitable access to basic education. Ensuring a minimum standard of education for all children, while guaranteeing the inclusion of the
poorest, most marginalised children, continues to be one of the worlds
greatest challenges, especially in remote rural areas (UNESCO, 2010). We
consider the experience of the EENET in promoting the inclusion of
marginalised groups, through the documentation and sharing of inclusive
practice in country contexts, where practitioners tend to have limited access
to information and material resources. Such approaches have lessened
isolation and enabled practitioners to develop contextually relevant
approaches to inclusive education. We develop our argument in the wider
context of the challenge of constructing knowledge about inclusive education in diverse cultural contexts, but with a particular focus on the Pacific
region, and recent efforts to develop a regional network. Finally, we
present an emerging strategic framework used to guide the development of
regional networks.
ADDRESSING EQUITY AND INCLUSION:

THE ROLE OF NETWORKING
Enormous strides have been made in promoting greater access to education
since the launch of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is estimated that the number of children who do not attend school has reduced
from 108 million in 1999 to 57 million in 2013 (UNESCO, 2013). However,
there are still great concerns about the quality of education
it is
estimated that at least 250 million children cannot read or count, even if
they have spent 4 years in school (DfID, 2012, p. 4). In addition, EFA programmes have tended to overlook children identified as having a disability
208
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
(Miles & Singal, 2010), and many large international donors have adopted
a position which regards the education of children with disability as a luxury issue for which donors do not have time (Lei & Myers, 2011, p. 8).
Leaving no-one behind is the current rallying cry, as the international
community faces up to the failure to include the economically poorest and
most marginalised children in education. The Australian governments
approach to supporting disability inclusive development is unusual and
has had an impact in promoting inclusive education in the Pacific.
The second author has held regular discussions since early 2013 with
development partners, such as UNESCAP, Pacific Disability Forum (PDF)
and PIFS, and education stakeholders (e.g. in the Marshall Islands, Tonga
and Tuvalu), and reports that they face considerable difficulties in defining
disability, and determining a form of inclusive education that will work for
the Pacific context. This lack of conceptual clarity has, arguably, resulted
in confusion and inhibited progress. For many of the stakeholders, inclusive education is simply a concept encapsulated in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which carries little
practical meaning or relevance. Policy makers are therefore making decisions about the development of school policies and practices largely on the
basis of an arguably foreign concept, yet one that has potential synergy
with the inclusive culture of the Pacific region (Miles et al., 2014).
Regional networking has already played a role in facilitating study visits
to countries where promising practice is beginning to emerge, and in sharing ideas and experience of teacher education and policy development. For
example, Ministry of Education representatives from Kiribati have visited
the Cook Islands; and head teachers and policy makers from Fiji have visited schools in Samoa. Although such visits are highly beneficial, they are
not sufficient in sustaining innovative practice
a more consistent
approach to the regular sharing of practice for all stakeholders is desirable.
The model of networking developed by EENET was recognised as having great relevance to the Pacific, with several practitioners having made
use of EENET materials over the past decade or so. This link with EENET
led to the scoping visit and formal consultations referred to earlier.
Established in 1997, with the encouragement of UNESCO, and technical
and financial support from a range of international non-governmental
organisations, EENET promotes contextually relevant approaches to the
inclusion of marginalised groups in education. Its core activities continue
to be focused around the sharing of information through personalised
correspondence, the website, and an annual publication which features
accounts of practice, primarily in countries where material resources are
209
scarce. All publications are carefully edited to ensure that accounts are
both easy-to-read and contextualised, and, where possible, written by education stakeholders who have direct experience of marginalisation. As far
as possible, they are produced in accessible formats, to reinforce the fact
that the medium is also the message (Miles, 2013).
Bold claims are made for the benefit of networking. Yet, Networks are
on the one hand revolutionary technologies for social organisation and on
the other hand simply an enhancement of what ordinary people do (Riles,
2000, pp. 68 69). The information revolution has enabled new forms of
transnational communication, unimaginable a few decades ago, making it
deceptively easy to move information around the world. As Friedman
(2006, p. 8) suggests, this opens up new possibilities: We are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single global network, which could usher in an amazing era of prosperity, innovation
and collaboration.
However such global networking can also be exclusionary. Castells
(2000) is one of the few writers who focuses on the global digital and
communication divide which seems likely to grow, leading to increasing
impatience with people who are digitally illiterate and the further marginalisation of communities whose traditions are predominantly oral, as is the
case in many Pacific Island communities. Conscious of the exclusionary
effects of the digital divide, and the deepening of unequal relationships
between and within countries as a result of technological advances
(Castells, 2000), EENET continues to develop ways of balancing the rapid,
high-tech forms of communication with the information needs of the most
excluded and marginalised groups of people. This involves providing information in hard copy through slow mail, where necessary. The website has
also grown in size and popularity. In the 12 months leading up to May
2014, there were 62,840 unique page views, 17% of whom revisited the site.
The top 10 countries include India (in second place after UK), Brazil,
Philippines, South Africa and Zambia
13 of the top 20 are low- and
middle-income countries
and altogether there were visitors from 207
countries and territories.
THE PACIFIC CONTEXT

The Pacific is the most linguistically complex region in the world. It is
made up of hundreds of small islands and atolls, dispersed across 3 million
210
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
square kilometres of Pacific Ocean

one third of the globes surface
(Cave, 2012). More than 1,000 distinct languages (one fifth of the worlds
languages) are spoken by less than 8 million people. Although ethnically
diverse, the Pacific is predominantly Christian. Small, geographically
spread populations present very different challenges to countries with
larger, denser populations. Infrequent and expensive flights connect the
islands, but often via a regional hub, such as New Zealand, Fiji or even
Hawaii. Some of the outer islands can only be reached by boat, involving
journeys of several days, and many have populations of less than one
hundred people.
The issue of scale presents different and interesting challenges to networking, such as how to generate interest in issues of marginalisation in
small, remarkably intact, island communities, grounded in oral culture, but
where indigenous languages, values and cultures are under increasing threat
from external influences. Although new technology is one of the factors
threatening traditional ways of life, mobile phones are becoming a powerful
tool with great potential for rural communities to leapfrog over recent
technological advances, and so access electronic information in relatively
affordable ways. Not everyone owns a television or a computer, but with
the de-regularisation of company monopolies, cheaper services are now
available, and access to mobile telephones in rural areas has increased
dramatically. Tsunami and cyclone warnings are issued over mobile networks, so there is potential to share key messages on inclusive education
through mobile phone networks across the often isolated and remote
islands of the Pacific.
NEGOTIATING TENSIONS THROUGH NETWORKING

The idea of developing a Pacific network on inclusive education was first
conceived in 2005 at a conference convened by UNESCO. The tensions
surrounding the interpretation of inclusive education were also debated at
this conference, as the following quote illustrates:
An issue much discussed during the workshop was the commonly held view of inclusive
education being for children with disabilities only. UNESCO is, however, promoting a
broader view, which encompasses all children excluded on grounds of gender, ability,
ethnicity, linguistic or poverty related reasons. Getting all children into school is therefore only a first step. At the heart of inclusive education is the need to transform regular
education into systems that can provide quality education for all learners. (Sandkull,
2006, p. 36)
211
Tensions between school improvement and a disability inclusive

approach to education, and between international and indigenous concepts
of inclusion, are inevitable and need to be debated. Such debates, and the
difficulties with terminology (such as special, integration, inclusion), have
caused confusion, especially in countries which face real challenges to
ensuring that there are sufficient resources to educate all children (Miles &
Singal, 2010). In order to illustrate these different approaches, we present
an example of a school improvement approach in Kiribati and a disabilityfocused approach in Samoa later in this chapter.
The need to establish a Pacific Island Enabling Education Network
was identified in 2009 as one of the desired outcomes of a regional workshop organised by, The Pacific Regional Initiatives for the Delivery of
basic Education (PRIDE). This regional gathering was attended by 44 people, representing 14 island countries (Puamau & Pene, 2009, p. 169). The
PRIDE project lasted for three years (2006 2009) and played a key role in
promoting regional conversations and produced a series of useful publications on a range of educational topics. Led by a local champion, the
PRIDE project highlighted the importance of inclusive education as part of
broader education policy debates, encouraged sensitivity to Pacific cultures
and emphasised the role of networking to:
articulate our vision [of inclusive education] more clearly and help each other to find
the best way forward for the Pacific. (Rabukawaqa, 2009, p. 8)
McCullough (2009) suggests that regional networks can raise the visibility
of inclusive education, provide a forum for sharing successes and articulating concerns and asserts that:
Networks are vital to the learning process. They provide opportunities to listen and
learn, to debate and to voice collectively both the celebrations and the challenges. In
addition, networking within the region assists in identifying, developing and supporting
Pacific peoples expertise and experience. The development of regional skills and opportunities for skill-sharing are another aspect of recognising and nurturing the expert at
home. This practice assists in ensuring the acknowledgement and incorporation of
Pacific values and cultures in the process of IE [inclusive education]. (McCullough,
2009, p. 154)
In their regional meeting, in 2011, the Pacific Ministers of Education

reiterated the need to initiate systems for sharing practices in inclusive
education (PIFS, 2011), and in 2013 the Disability Coordination Officer of
the PIFS began to make concrete efforts to develop a network
eight
years after the initial suggestion. The Pacific Islands Forum is a political
212
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
grouping of 16 independent and self-governing states, established initially

in 1971, and founding members include Australia and New Zealand. The
Secretariat is based in Fiji and has a mandate to provide policy advice and
guidance in implementing decisions made at high-level ministerial meetings.
In this sense, the Secretariat is well-placed to provide regional support and
coordination for the development of inclusive education.
The difficulties faced in establishing effective and accountable networks
are well-recognised: the history of networks in the aid sector is one of false
starts and inflated promises (Ramalingam, 2011, p. 4). Guidance on the
practical implications of the networking task is difficult to locate, and there
is little appreciation in international agencies of the cost and complexity of
managing and sustaining networking activities, especially between countries
with limited material resources, and where policies and practices of inclusive education are in their early stages of development. Although there is
now an emerging body of literature focusing on transnational development
networks (see, e.g., Bebbington & Kothari, 2006), and transnational advocacy networks have been particularly effective in the areas of, human
rights, the environment, women, infant health, and indigenous peoples
(Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 9), little attention has yet been paid to networks
on education in southern contexts (Miles, 2013).
Balancing the international vision of a rights-based approach to education with inclusive indigenous values in the small and scattered populations
of the Pacific islands is not easy. The concept of inclusive education originated in highly resourced contexts, where sophisticated and complex
services, policy and legislation exist for the benefit of all children, including
those identified as having disability and diverse educational needs.
Merumeru (2006, p. 26) argues that there are additional tensions in relation to promoting more inclusive approaches in the Pacific:
Teachers need to be made aware of potential clashes between traditional educational
values which many Fijians still hold dearly and the free and democratic education that
inclusive education advocates.
The term traditional education, referred to here, concerns the knowledge

and skills related to economic and social survival which parents and knowledgeable elders pass on to their children in Fijian communities to prepare
them for adult life. This knowledge is not formally documented, as it
belongs to oral tradition, and relates to family obligations, traditional roles
and customs and behavioural norms. Traditional learning is through observation, imitation and experience learned within the confines of traditional
gender roles; boys learn to hunt, fish, farm and other manual tasks, while
213
girls learn tasks traditionally assigned to females (Kedrayate, 2001).

Although traditions vary between Pacific Island countries, they have a
strong influence on the way in which a concept such as inclusion is
interpreted. To overlook these traditional attitudes when conducting inquiries into educational equity would be foolish, yet little effort has yet been
made to consider how the inclusive values of the indigenous Pacific cultures
will be negotiated. In his critique of curriculum changes introduced in
Papua New Guinea to promote inclusion, Le Fanu (2013) has argued that
the proposed pedagogical ideals are inappropriate for the national context
as they conflict with local understandings of education (Le Fanu, 2013),
such as those highlighted by Kedrayate (2001). Instead, Le Fanu (2013)
puts forward the concept of grounded inclusionism, as a way of resisting
global inclusionism, rooted, as it is, in Northern practice, and assumptions about the transformative potential of schools.
One of EENETs concerns is to find ways of sharing information in
non-written formats in order to engage with communities in which oral
traditions continue to be strong, despite a tendency to assume that, if it is
not written, it is not heard or discussed (Slim & Thomson, 1993, p. 20).
Oral traditions are increasingly threatened in the Pacific, as digital forms
of communication become more affordable and accessible. Reflecting on
decades of experience of conducting participatory inquiries in predominantly oral cultures, Chambers (2008, p. 155) has expressed concern about
the negative impact of digital technology upon development activities and
relationships, To learn about poverty you now visit a web site, not a village. Email has become, at the same time, resented, addictive and tyrannical, tying staff more and more to their computer screens, and reducing
personal contact. The literature provides few clues about ways of negotiating and respecting oral culture in our literacy-based and globalised
world.
RESEARCHING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A

REGIONAL NETWORK
An innovative feature of the case from the Pacific region presented here is
that the research itself is embedded in the development of a regional
network. This involves analysing island contexts and promoting accessible
ways of involving all stakeholders in action research activities, and, in
this way, the network is sustained and stimulated. Based on a set of
214
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
propositions derived from EENETs experience (Miles, 2013), the rationale

for the regional network is as follows:
Within communities, schools and other educational institutions in the
global South there are untapped experiences and expertise that can be
used to encourage inclusive educational developments;
Existing forms of networking, dominated by electronic communication,
often overlook this expertise, concentrating instead on importing strategies from countries of the North;
Such imported strategies often have limited impact because they fail to
take account of local contextual factors;
As a result, the voices of practitioners, students, parents and community
members are usually silent, and their knowledge is not made available to
others;
Networking of various forms can be a powerful means of enabling such
voices to be heard;
In order to make this happen new thinking is needed about ways of fostering the development of more inclusive social learning processes, and of
overcoming barriers that prevent communication and sharing of expertise.
Bearing in mind these propositions, the development of the Pacific network
has been guided by the following research question, How can regional networking processes be made effective in connecting to the experiences of
hard to reach communities? This question has, in turn, helped to shape the
underlying rationale of the emerging strategic framework presented in this
chapter.
We argue that the proposed regional network will support the development of locally appropriate strategies, which combine the best of indigenous approaches with the cautious use of western, or Northern, knowledge
of inclusion. The role of teachers as change agents in managing this delicate
balance between old and new is arguably crucial, as children tend to be
caught between these two cultures, and, the main bridge, in the view of
many Pacific Island educators, must be the teacher (Thaman, 2001,
p. 7). In order to explore the particular contextual challenges faced in the
Pacific, we present two illustrative examples from Kiribati and Samoa.
Responding to Absenteeism in Kiribati

A central focus of an ambitious national school improvement programme
in Kiribati, funded by Australian Aid, is to improve participation and
215
access through large-scale curriculum reform and associated teacher education (Ministry of Education, 2012). Although inclusive education is still
just a phrase and does not yet carry much meaning, the Ministry of
Education is developing a policy which will embed inclusion within the
Ministrys work, rather than seeing it as a separate issue.
A national Inclusive Education Working Group was formed in Kiribati
in 2012 to carry out research and promote inter-ministerial collaboration
on this new emerging issue. Its first piece of commissioned research looked
at prospects for the education of all children with disability (Jolley &
Rokete, 2012), and its current research project is focused on absenteeism.
Data has been collected in three school communities in contrasting contexts
within Kiribati (Ministry of Education, 2013). A distinction was made
between those children who have never enrolled (estimated to be approximately 25% of children); drop-outs; and poor attenders. The barriers
identified have been divided into: school-related; and family-based causes
of absenteeism; as well as geographical factors, such as the danger and difficulty of travelling long distances between home and school; and economic
factors. There are particular concerns about the number of sickly children,
those with disability, and the disproportionate number of boys who do not
attend school.
Community-based interventions are already underway, with school committee members ringing a bell at 9 p.m. in one island community to ensure
that all the children go to bed early enough to be able to attend school the
next day. In the morning a community member accompanies the children
to school. This highlights the importance of seeing the issue of disability
alongside other factors such as poverty, safety from abuse, parents lack of
interest and motivation, childrens boredom in school and inadequate
school sanitation. Developing a more child-centred approach to pedagogy
through the creation of a new, more relevant curriculum, alongside
in-service education for all teachers, is an important step in the direction of
making education a more engaging and inclusive experience for all
children, including those with disability (Kiribati Teachers College, 2013).
Developing Locally Appropriate Forms of Inclusive Education, Samoa

Samoa has a population of 200,000, spread across five inhabited islands,
and it is estimated that there are 2017 Samoan children aged 0 19 years
who have disability, based on a prevalence rate of 2.2% (Samoa Bureau of
Statistics, 2011). Prior to 2000, only approximately 100 children were being
216
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
educated in four special schools, each one run by an NGO. Following a

national disability survey, conducted in 2000, six special units were established attached to selected schools on the two largest and most populous
islands with a considerable amount of donor funding. The initiative failed
for a variety of reasons, including a shortage of teachers in general, misunderstandings at school level about the purpose of the units and a lack of
onsite support for those who managed the units (Lene, 2009). Lessons
learned through networking about the difficulties in sustaining the practice
of specialist units in similar cultural contexts and the use of action research
could have helped to develop a more sustainable and contextually appropriate use of donor funding.
A large national NGO, SENESE, has developed an elaborate and modestly resourced itinerant support service to 240 children with disability,
their school principals and teachers, and parent support groups, in over 70
settings, including pre-schools, almost half of all primary, and some secondary schools (SENESE, 2012). More intensive support is also provided
to 15 students with intellectual disability who are taught in a building adjacent to their secondary school where they are socially included. Intensive
sign language support is provided to 15 deaf learners included at the same
secondary school. Effective use is made of the system of salaried village
chiefs to disseminate information and provide social support, such as housing and school uniforms.
It was the Samoan governments enforcement of EFA in 2010, through
the Compulsory Education Bill, that guaranteed the legal right of children with disability to attend their village school. Lobbying by local
champions in the Samoan NGO community
including an active disabled peoples organisation which was acutely aware of the UNCRPD
helped to hold the government to account. SENESE developed an inservice course in 2012 on inclusive education for the training of teachers
aides and mainstream teachers, which has been certified by the governments qualifications authority
an important step towards ensuring
that this training continues to be nationally recognised and remunerated
(Miles et al., 2014).
EENET materials have been used for almost a decade by SENESE as
a source of inspiration and practical support for the development of inclusive services, while working in relative isolation from other practitioners in
the region, and maintaining strong links with donor agencies and professionals based in New Zealand and Australia. Practitioners in both government and NGOs are keen to work more closely with other Pacific Island
colleagues.
217
AN EMERGING STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The emerging strategy referred to earlier can be regarded as a framework
for the development of a network within a region. It has potential for
educational stakeholders, such as those in Kiribati and Samoa, who are
supporting schools to become more equitable by seeking to include all
children, and by measuring progress towards, and the impact of, inclusive
education. This strategy has arisen partly from the lessons learned from
the experience of a wide range of regional networks linked to EENET
(in South America, Asia, the Middle East and in sub-Saharan Africa), and
partly from the process of developing a working model of inclusive networking (Miles, 2013). It is also derived from our more recent experience
of laying the foundations for the development of a regional network in
the Pacific. The strategic framework consists of the following elements: the
establishment of a core group; the development of conceptual clarity; the
establishment of a common language; addressing contextual factors; analysing potential contributions from network members; ensuring minimum
resources and engaging critical friends.
It would be naive to assume that the development of a regional network
is a straightforward task. Networking is a complex and messy process, as
illustrated by the following photograph used to stimulate debate among
colleagues in the Pacific about the networking challenge (see Fig. 1).
Navigating the complex issues of power, control and influence requires
considerable skill, indeed, the ability to set the agenda is a form of power,
which the more influential members in the network are in a position to
exercise (Shahwki, 2011, p. 106). In her highly critical study of women in
development networks, based in Fiji, Riles (2000, p. 3) suggests that the
network offers a poignant case study of institutionalized utopianism.
Frankham (2006, p. 671) has further critiqued the utopian nature of the
network metaphor, and warns of the danger of seeing knowledge as easily
transportable across contexts, in such a way that it becomes decontextualised. There are, undoubtedly, many dangers associated with cross-cultural
networking, but the following strategic framework is offered as a way
forward.
1. Establish a core group
Networks need hubs which generate ideas and activities and ensure that
communication flows between network members. The size and composition
of the core group are key considerations in the early stages, as it is this
218
Fig. 1.
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
Tangled Wires
A Metaphor for the Complexity of the Networking

Process.
group which develops and sustains the values, principles and vision of the
network. The group should be big enough to be sustainable, but not too
big that it becomes expensive and difficult to manage. It should also ideally
have a coordinator to lead and feed the network, preferably a salaried
person who has a clear vision of the networking process. In the example of
the Pacific region, we have begun with a group of nine people, as follows:
a representative of each country (four countries initially, but this will
grow);
two people representing the network hub;
two regional leaders with disability who have complementary regional
roles and are members of related regional networks;
a critical friend, in this case an external person representing EENET in
the UK.
Ideally the core group should have diverse skills and experiences, which
include knowledge of inclusive education and research, but also financial,
administrative and communication skills.
2. Develop conceptual clarity
A shared understanding of the key concepts used in networking and
inclusive education is just as important as speaking the same language.
219
Conceptual clarity helps to build a strong network based on an

agreed set of guiding values and principles. This does not mean
that there has to be consensus, but that transparency about the
concepts used in the region is desirable, together with an appreciation of
the contextual differences between the island countries. For example,
there are likely to be tensions between stakeholders who regard inclusive
education as primarily benefitting learners with disability, and
those who consider it to be a lever for change in promoting school
improvement.
3. Establish a common language
It is essential that there is a common language spoken well by all
members of the core networking group, including the critical friends.
Ideally the core group will also speak the languages of the countries
and contexts that they are representing. However, establishing a common language is more than just the medium of communication, it is
also the language developed by the group to discuss the particular
approach and purpose of a network focused on inclusion. For example, one of the benefits of networking is to share practice between
contexts and to challenge or interrupt established patterns of thinking.
It is not to transpose practice from one context to another, rather it
is about exposure to unfamiliar contexts as a strategy for making the
familiar unfamiliar, and in this way it becomes bizarre, unusual and
novel (Delamont, 1992, p. 45). Ensuring that the experience shared is
seen as a catalyst rather than as a template (Artiles & Dyson, 2005,
p. 59) is crucial in promoting networks across cultural contexts, and
network members need to be able to communicate in this networking
language.
4. Address contextual factors
A thorough and nuanced understanding of the context in which inclusive education is developing is critical. Moving beyond the school or
local authority level, a careful analysis of the wider context in which a
network is to be developed is essential, and the core group plays an
important role in carrying out this analysis. This situation analysis needs
to be an ongoing activity in order to ensure flexible responses to the
needs of network users and members. The advantage of a network is
that it can enable the development of innovative strategies to support
the development of new, more fruitful working relationships between:
administrators and practitioners; children, teachers and community
220
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
members within and between schools; schools and their local communities; and networks concerned with disability and inclusion, as well as
those focusing more broadly on reducing poverty and disadvantage.
5. Analyse potential contributions
Ongoing contextual analysis is closely linked to the analysis of the contributions that network members are able to make to the proposed network.
Church (2005) has argued that the language of need emphasises deficits
rather than possibilities, and that it is the contributions offered by key
players, organisations and networks that are the building blocks of a sustainable networking process. In this way active and sustainable networks
focus on the sharing of wealth, not on meeting needs. A more active
engagement in the networking process, with an emphasis on existing assets
(skills and strengths such as, knowledge of indigenous culture and languages) is implied by this approach. A needs assessment tends to be carried
out by outsiders, and often focuses on what is missing from a context
rather than appreciating existing strengths.
When conducting a networking contributions analysis, it is important to
start with existing networking resources and capacity, by:
reflecting upon the meaning and understanding of networking in the
region;
analysing existing relationships and linkages between key stakeholders
committed to developing more inclusive practices in education;
critiquing existing networking resources in the region;
identifying existing regional networks, from whose experience lessons
could be learnt, and with whom networking alliances could be formed in
order to make the best use of existing resources and forms of communication regionally.
Existing Pacific regional networks focus on disability rights, childrens
issues, womens rights and education, but none are focused on the particular challenge of developing strategies to promote the inclusion of marginalised groups, such as children with disability, in mainstream schools. Yet
the small, scattered and isolated island populations require holistic support
and services. A network focused on inclusion would, therefore, not work in
isolation, but would make links with other related networks, such as those
focused on children, indigenous peoples and womens rights.
6. Ensure minimum resources
A minimum level of dedicated funding is desirable, and arguably
essential, in providing a solid and sustainable base for the network.
221
Funding is needed for the network hub, and should ideally be modest,
so that the cost of networking is shared across the network. Financial
resources are not sufficient in themselves, but are complementary to the
contributions made, in kind, by the key people and organisations
involved in the regional network.
Some of the regional networks linked to EENET have been active for
many years, reliant on volunteers and without any formal funding.
While others have employed people to manage the network, but,
because some of them have not grasped the nature of networking, the
impact and activities of the networking have been negligible, and the
network unsustainable. Ideally there is a balance between financial
security and a complex web of network actors who contribute to the network through their ideas, articles, and time spent meeting virtually and
face to face.
7. Engage critical friends
The process of networking is highly complex. There can be a danger
of working practices becoming hierarchical and less representative, and
so losing sight of the initial vision of a network structure which differs
considerably from that of an organisation. Critical friends are sometimes more able to challenge such tendencies than those who are caught
up in the day to day networking activities. Critical friends can be outsiders to the context, or just to the network. They need to have excellent
facilitation skills and ideally some experience of networking in a professional capacity, and of the issue championed by the network. The role
of the critical friend can also be to help design ways of measuring progress towards inclusive education, based on the experience they bring
from other contexts.
DISCUSSION
A focus on contextual analysis is, arguably, the most important aspect
of the proposed framework for the process of supporting and measuring
progress towards inclusive education. Developing confidence among network members in their capacity to continually analyse their own contexts is
one of the most critical components of facilitating more inclusive practices
and policies in education. There is a tendency in economically poor countries, however, for such analytical processes to be conducted by outside
research teams, often hired by international agencies, and this can further
222
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
undermine the confidence, capability and morale of local education

stakeholders.
Conceptual clarity about the inclusive education task is critical, and we
would argue that this can only be achieved in combination with contextual
analysis, not in isolation of it. The meaning and understanding of inclusion
in the Pacific is closely related to Pacific values, and any attempts to
measure progress towards inclusive education needs to be embedded in the
cultural values of the Pacific, and not those determined by international
agencies. This involves the challenging of assumptions about current practice, rather than focusing solely on the individual children who do not fit
easily into schools as they are currently organised.
Ainscow (2005) has argued that many of the barriers that learners face
arise from existing ways of thinking [and therefore] strategies for developing inclusive practices have to involve interruptions to thinking (p. 109).
Ainscow goes on to argue that in education systems, what gets measured
gets done (p. 119), and so rather than, valuing what we measure, as is
often the case, he urges us to measure what we value (p. 120). Indeed,
there are dangers in focusing too narrowly on the measurement of the educational progress of individuals, without an appreciation of the importance
of conceptualising and measuring progress towards inclusion in the context
of small, isolated Pacific communities.
Current approaches to measurement, focused on children with particular
characteristics, who are extremely low down on most governments priority
lists, rarely lead to system change, and so have little or no impact. One
such example is of the tendency for governments and international agencies
to insist on collecting statistics, arguably unethically, before providing services. This usually takes the form of an expensive national disability survey,
such as in the case of Iraq in 2010 (Alborz, Slee, & Miles, 2013). Although
the aim was to use the data to plan inclusive education services, little notice
has been paid to the data collected and there has not yet been any impact
on the education of children with disability.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has explored some tried and tested principles for developing
an inclusive form of networking in Southern contexts, as a way of measuring progress towards inclusive education. It has outlined a strategic framework to guide the documentation and measurement of progress towards
223
inclusive education through networking. Negotiating the writing of this

chapter has highlighted some of the challenges inherent in cross-cultural
networking, coming as we do from such different perspectives: an academic
with an interest in inclusive education internationally, linked to EENET in
the UK; a regional focus on promoting disability rights, based in Fiji; and
the management of a national inclusive education programme in Samoa. In
this sense we represent the local, national, regional and international levels
across which networking takes place.
From a Pacific Island perspective, practical knowledge is required to
support national school improvement efforts so that marginalised groups of
children can be effectively included, and their social and academic progress
measured. While it is important that each Pacific Island Country does this
in a way that is sensitive to context, a great deal can be gained by developing more inclusive systems through collaboration, rather than in isolation.
At a regional level, the challenge is to balance the competing pressures and
demands from politicians, donor agencies and disability rights activists,
given that education is just one aspect of development. At an international
level, the Pacific region has largely been overlooked in global discussions
about the development and measurement of inclusive education.
Some of the benefits of regional networking include the lessening of a
sense of isolation by those who are promoting inclusive education as a new
concept. It also provides an opportunity to develop contextually and culturally appropriate responses to the shared experiences of the island communities, which, in turn, will promote reflection on decision-making processes,
and possibilities for measuring progress. Currently, policy is driven by large
and influential donor agencies. The opportunity to document, reflect upon
and analyse the practice of inclusive education through networking and
collaborative inquiry has the potential to support education stakeholders
as they gain confidence to respond in more assertive and informed ways to
the suggestions of external consultants, and so enable greater stakeholder
engagement in the development of contextually appropriate policy and
practice, and in the measurement of the impact of inclusive education.
REFERENCES
Alborz, A., Slee, R., & Miles, S. (2013). Establishing the foundations for an inclusive education system in Iraq: Reflection on findings from a nationwide survey. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(9), 965 987.
224
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change?
Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109 124.
Artiles, A., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalisation age: The promise of a
comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualising inclusive
education. London: Routledge.
Bebbington, A., & Kothari, U. (2006). Transnational development networks. Environment and
Planning, A, 38, 849 866.
Castells, M. (2000). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cave, D. (2012). Digital islands: How the Pacifics ICT revolution is transforming the region.
Sydney, Australia: Lowy Institute for International Policy. Retrieved from http://
m.lowyinstitute.org/publications/digital-islands-how-pacifics-ict-revolution-transformingregion
Chambers, R. (2008). Revolutions in development inquiry. London: Earthscan.
Church, M. (2005). Creating an uncompromised place to belong: Why do I find myself in networks? Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bath. Retrieved from http://people.bath.
ac.uk/mnspwr/doc_theses_links/m_church.html. Accessed on July 11, 2014.
Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls and perspectives.
London: Falmer Press.
Department for International Development. (2012). Education position paper. Improving learning, expanding opportunities. London: DfID.
Frankham, J. (2006). Network utopias and alternative entanglements for educational research
and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 21(6), 661 677.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat. A brief history of the globalized world in the 21st
century. London: Allen Lane.
Jolley, T., & Rokete, T. (2012). Operational Research on Disability and Inclusive Education in
Kiribati. A report by the CBM-Nossal Institute Partnership for Disability Inclusive
Development in Partnership with Te Toa Matoa for Coffey International funded by
AusAID.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Advocacy networks in international
politics. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kedrayate, A. (2001). Why non-formal education in Fiji? Directions: Journal of Educational
Studies University of the South Pacific, Suva: Fiji, 44, 23(1), 75 96.
Kiribati Teachers College. (2013). Implementing the new curriculum. Developing students literacy and numeracy. Teacher professional development facilitators guide. March 2013.
Kiribati, South Pacific: KTC.
Le Fanu, G. (2013). Reconceptualising inclusive education in international development. In
L. Tikly & A. Barrett (Eds.). Education, quality and social justice in the global South.
London: Routledge.
Lei, P., & Myers, J. (2011). Making the grade? A review of donor commitment and action on
inclusive education for disabled children. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
15(10), 1169 1185.
Lene, D. (2009). Inclusive education: A Samoan case study. In P. Puamau & F. Pene (Eds.),
Inclusive education in the Pacific (pp. 135 145). The PRIDE Project. Pacific Education
Series No. 6. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.
225
McCullough, R. (2009). Emerging issues in inclusive education. In P. Puamau & F. Pene

(Eds.), Inclusive education in the Pacific (pp. 149 164). The PRIDE Project. Pacific
Education Series No. 6. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, University of the South
Pacific.
Merumeru, L. (2006). Inclusive education and teacher education in Fiji: The case of Lautoka teachers college. London: Institute of Education. An unpublished MA dissertation.
Miles, S. (2013). Creating conversations: An inclusive approach to the international networking of knowledge about education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
1 10. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12041
Miles, S., Lene, D., & Merumeru, L. (2014). Making sense of inclusive education in the Pacific
region: Networking as a way forward. Childhood, 21(3), 339 353. doi:10.1177/
0907568214524458
Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The education for all and inclusive education debate:
Conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education,
14(1), 1 15.
Ministry of Education. (2012). Sector strategic plan. 2012 2015. Kiribati: Ministry of
Education.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Pilot research on causes of and responses to student
absenteeism. A report to the Inclusive Education Working Group. Kiribati: Ministry
of Education.
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2011). The Pacific regional strategy on disability
(2010 2015). PIFS(09)FDMM.07. Forum Disability Ministers Meeting, Rarotonga,
Cook Islands, 21 23 October 2009. Session Nine. Suva, Fiji: PIFS. Retrieved from
http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/4_%20Internation
al%20and%20regional%20agreements.pdf
Puamau, P., & Pene, F. (Eds.). (2009). Inclusive education in the pacific. The PRIDE Project.
Pacific Education Series No 6. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, University of the
South Pacific. Retrieved from http://www.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/files/Institutes/pride/
Workplans_and_Reports/Paper_and_publications/IEbook.pdf
Rabukawaqa, E. (2009). Opening address. In P. Puamau & F. Pene (Eds.), Inclusive education
in the Pacific (pp. 1 8). The PRIDE Project. Pacific Education Series No. 6. Suva, Fiji:
Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.
Ramalingam, B. (2011). Mind the network gaps. ODI research report. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
Riles, A. (2000). The network inside out. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Samoa Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Population and housing census. Apia, Samoa: SBS.
Sandkull, O. (2006). UNESCO organises the first Pacific Region Workshop on Inclusive
Education: 23 25 November 2005 in Samoa, EENET Asia newsletter, Issue 2, p. 36,
April, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.idp-europe.org/eenet-asia/eenet-asia-2-EN/
page36.php. Accessed on July 11, 2014.
SENESE. (2012). Annual report. Apia, Samoa: SENESE.
Slim, H., & Thomson, P. (1993). Listening for a change. Oral testimony and development.
London: Panos Publications.
Thaman, K. H. (2001). Towards culturally inclusive teacher education with specific reference
to Oceania. International Education Journal, 2(5), 1 8.
226
SUSIE MILES ET AL.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2010). Reaching the marginalised. EFA global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2013). Schooling for millions of children jeopardized by reductions in aid. Policy Paper 09, prepared for
Education For All, Global Monitoring Report. Paris: Education for All Global
Monitoring Report and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM

INDICATORS OF INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
Julie Lancaster
ABSTRACT
Despite the existence of legislation and policy, the inclusion of students
with special needs remains a challenge for teachers when research-based
pedagogies and collaboration are not translated into practice. Given
emerging Indexes for inclusion, perhaps we should be attending to measuring school and classroom indicators of inclusive education to allow for
professional development for teachers in an empirical and guided manner. Following a brief introduction to the importance of inclusive practice
in schools, this chapter will address teacher use of research-based pedagogies and curriculum differentiation required to enhance success with
students in schools; teachers capacity to communicate about learning
using professional language and collaborative problem-solving processes;
teachers sense of self-efficacy when working with students who have special needs; and translation of these research-based skills into actual
classroom practice.
Keywords: Research-based pedagogies; inclusive education;
collaborative problem-solving; curriculum differentiation; self-efficacy

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003027
227
228
JULIE LANCASTER
INTRODUCTION
The Importance of Inclusion and Inclusive Teacher Practice in Schools
Australian and international policy requires that students with special needs
receive their education in the least-restrictive setting along a continuum of
available placements. Many teacher graduates will find themselves teaching
students with special needs within mainstream classes in inclusive schools
(Ashman & Elkins, 2012). As a result, all teachers, including new graduates,
are required to teach students who may vary widely in aptitude, learning
history and achievement in regular classroom settings. The successful inclusion of students with different learning needs occurs when there is a confluence of teacher skill (e.g. Carter, Stephenson, & Strnadova, 2011a), broader
school and system capacity (Carter, Stephenson, & Strnadova, 2011b) and
a responsive curriculum (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2012; Harris, 2011). Effective
knowledge, skills and attitudes of practitioners are factors required to help
bridge the gap between guidelines, policy and the actual implementation of
inclusive practices.
In spite of the federal legislation and policy, there is little evidence of
change in the way schools operate (Hueng, 2006). There is clearly a need
for high fidelity implementation of research-based teaching strategies to
provide a unified system of education where all students might be educated
in inclusive settings.
Given the complexity teachers are faced with today, responsiveness to
learner diversity is increasingly viewed as a benchmark of teacher effectiveness in inclusive classroom settings (Ashman & Elkins, 2012). Reaching this
benchmark requires that teachers can successfully deploy well-researched
teaching and collaborative approaches to differentiate classroom instruction. Teacher use of research-based pedagogies and curriculum differentiation of high-quality instruction are required to enhance success with
students in schools. Kretlow and Helf (2013) suggest that when evidencebased instruction is implemented with fidelity; instruction can be eliminated as a reason for students not making adequate progress (p. 168).
The skills required for differentiating classroom instruction include,
among others, advanced knowledge of evidence-based instructional
approaches (e.g. Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2013). Explicit Teaching (ET)
and Cooperative Learning (CL) are consistently identified as essential
pedagogies for successful teaching in inclusive classrooms. As exemplars
of research-based pedagogies, ET and CL are used here as the vehicles
to illustrate the theory to practice intent. These approaches permit
School and Classroom Indicators of Inclusive Education
229
the differentiation of learning expectations, active student participation,

social interaction and elaborated cognition required to provide meaningful
experiences for all students in inclusive settings (Rosenshine, 2012).
ET and CL also possess an extensive research history that shows statistically robust effects in controlled experimental research over time, settings
and populations (e.g. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Gillies & Ashman, 2000;
Hattie, 2012; Slavin, 2005). The effectiveness of these practices makes them
widely advocated and accepted features of programmes that enable
teachers to work successfully in inclusive settings.
EXPLICIT TEACHING
ET is a pedagogy that creates conditions for curriculum and instruction to
be differentiated. It involves systematic teacher demonstration, modelling
and the provision of feedback. It is useful for students who have complex
support needs and require many adaptations to curriculum and instruction
to enable learning to occur. It usually refers to whole class expository
teaching and involves the following features:
Learning outcomes are made clear to students;
The teacher controls the lesson activities and time;
Small steps are devised and successful student practice is required at each
step;
Feedback is given until independent mastery is reached and
Students are carefully monitored throughout the process (Killen, 2007;
Rosenshine, 2012; Ryder, Burton, & Silberg, 2006).
Bloom (1984) reports findings that suggest only 20% of school students
under conventional instruction as well as those who have one-to-one tutoring where many of the above features are present. The remaining 80% do
relatively poorly. This is a direct result of treatment of students in classrooms where the higher achieving students have the majority of the attention and feedback and reinforcement of the teacher. If teachers are taught
to use the mastery learning techniques along with explicit instruction, they
will be treating students much more equitably and therefore enabling
the 80% of those who usually struggle the ability to demonstrate their
potential. Cazden (1993) concurs indirectly by emphasising strongly that
immersion, even in its richest and most authentic form is not always
sufficient (p. 2).
230
JULIE LANCASTER
Many researchers have investigated teachers implementation of ET.

For example, Kretlow and Helf (2013) surveyed 534 teachers about their
practices used when teaching reading. Findings indicate that, unfortunately, some teachers used commercial reading programmes judiciously
with elements of explicit instruction embedded in their practice; while
others select, adapt or ignore components based on personal preference,
perceptions of student needs or teaching style. These findings are based on
teachers reporting their own practice. A more objective measure of essential
implementation characteristics is still required.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
CL consists of a set of instructional methods where students work in small
mixed ability teams for the purpose of learning. Students are responsible
for their own learning and for helping their teammates to learn. Wolford,
Heward, and Alber (2001) define CL as a peer-mediated instructional
arrangement where small groups of students work together to achieve
group success. Students are often assigned roles for completing a range of
tasks (Magnesio & Davis, 2010; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002).
To illustrate the widespread interpretation of CL one is directed to
McMaster and Fuchs (2002). These authors investigated the effectiveness
of research carried out between 1990 and 2000. They identified no less than
seven different approaches or variations to CL, either in combination with
other instructional methods or as a stand-alone. The aim of the review
was to determine the most salient characteristics of CL. In addition to the
characteristics noted above, the results of the review suggest that essential
elements include group goals and group rewards in line with individual
accountability and the careful structuring of the task activities. Across all
the various forms CL may take, the most researched elements that promote
optimal conditions for effectiveness include: positive interdependence
created by group goals, individual accountability and task structure
adaptations.
Many studies have been carried out to determine the effect of CL on
student achievement across every major subject, all grade levels and in
all types of schools (Bain, 2007; Gillies, 2002; Hattie, 2012). In spite of the
success demonstrated in the literature, when considering scale up of the CL
strategy, Slavin et al. (1996) report that 70% of primary school teachers
made some sustained use of CL. However, as noted in earlier discussion,
231
this figure may actually be a misrepresentation and may not include high
fidelity implementation given the wide interpretation of what CL actually
entails. Given the complexity involved in conducting CL effectively, professional development takes on an important focus to enhance and also to
measure implementation fidelity.
MEASURING IMPLEMENTATION FIDELITY,

SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY OF ET AND CL
Studies that examine the routine use of these approaches in classrooms
show implementation to be highly variable (Cook & Tankersley, 2012;
Kretlow & Helf, 2013). These authors found teacher understanding to be
inconsistent as was its implementation from class to class in schools. Few
practicing teachers appear to employ those recognised forms of the practice
that are associated with positive achievement effects. This is a disconcerting
finding given that the assumptions made about the benefits of these practices are based upon research studies where their procedural features were
implemented with high degrees of integrity (Slavin, 1997). This research
into practice gap calls into question whether these practices are being used
in ways that are actually responsive to individual difference in classroom
settings. This finding also points to the need to prepare teachers to deploy
the research-based characteristics of inclusive practices with integrity in
their classrooms.
Even though success is demonstrated in controlled experimental research
over time, settings and populations (e.g. Fraser, Walberg, Welch, & Hattie,
1987; Gillies & Ashman, 2000), what is still needed from researchers is
demonstrated as sustainability and scalability of these practices.
Sustainability and scalability in the field of inclusive education will be
discussed within the context of reading simply to make the scope manageable. Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, and Ahwee Leftwich (2004)
examined factors that led teachers to be high, medium or low implementers of research-based strategies such as ET. Evaluating implementation
integrity three years after the initial training occurred tested the sustainable
use of these strategies. Interesting findings delineate factors that affected
the high implementers for example: they considered the impact of the
strategies on their students, they were able to persist with new methods,
had an ability to problem solve and determine the overlap between the
existing and new school initiatives. In 2004, Klingner et al. delineated other
232
JULIE LANCASTER
factors that positively influence sustainability: For example, Teachers need

to see concrete examples of how a theory relates to their students and their
circumstances (p. 413). This is not surprising given the nature of ET using
modelling, guided practice and independent practice as elements of the strategies when teaching students, why would not the same apply to adult
learners?
When teachers are faced with too many changes and discord between
new and existing knowledge about effective pedagogies, it becomes easier
to revert back to familiar patterns of behaviour, even if these are less effective. Findings from the same study indicate that the medium-level implementers were frustrated by the range of ability levels in the class. Clearly
there is a need for these teachers to be taught effective strategies (i.e. the
means of differentiating the strategies that had been the focus of their inservice training) to a point of mastery, maintenance and certainly
generalisation.
Best practices have been demonstrated in the research literature when
authors began investigating the best methods for professional development
incorporating scientifically based practices (Little & Houston, 2003). These
particular authors provide a conceptual framework as well as specific
implementation activities to ensure best practices are utilised and implementation is assessed empirically. The professional development process
proposed including the following four steps:
Identify scientifically based instructional practices such as ET and CL;
Selection of teams of teachers to attend the professional development;
Classroom implementation of instructional practice from initial training
to checking fidelity of implementation down the track;
Data collection of the results of students learning through traditional
and action research methodologies.
Each of these steps encompassed observable criteria that could be used
to judge reliability and validity. For example, for selection of researchbased articles about practice, reliability scores of .85 .92 were achieved
against the selection criteria. Step two involved teams of teachers: A team
selection criterion was developed to ensure that only committed personnel
would be involved and they knew what they were going to be involved in.
Step three involved classroom implementation: training involved modelling
and guided feedback as well as the necessary materials. Electronic and mail
networks were established for this end and treatment validity was established. Critical teaching behaviour checklists were established for the different strategies being implemented. Step four involved data collection which
233
was completed on student impact data/progress as well as the implementation process. Multiple measures were considered for both (especially
curriculum-based measures for the student data). Action research was used
as the vehicle for the process.
As a means of sustainability, current participants were able to volunteer
to become trainers and a criteria sheet was developed for considerations
to be taken into account here as well. One year after initial training, 20,000
students had demonstrably benefited from instruction. Mean growth for
students achievement involved substantial effect sizes from .67 to .89. As
noted by Gillies and Ashman (2000) there are inherent difficulties when
using standardised assessments to measure students progress. The assessment should incorporate a curriculum-based assessment (CBA) that is sensitive to the curriculum.
Unlike the route suggested by Denton, Vaughn, and Fletcher (2003) and
Klingner et al. (2004), Little and Houston (2003) suggest starting with a
State-wide approach as a means of achieving scale and sustainability.
Deshler (2003) makes policy recommendations to be considered by funding
sources to assist bridging the gap between research and practice. He especially recommends an atmosphere of research that needs to be evident
across ALL levels of education in order to make a sustained difference
(Loreman, 2007).
Kretlow and Helf (2013) refer to a five-component framework devised
by ODonnell (2008) for defining implementation fidelity. These steps are
comparable to those of Little and Houston (2003). Very few studies exist
that examine any of these five components let alone the combination of
them (ODonnell, 2008). Bethune and Wood (2013) did provide a procedural fidelity checklist to determine teachers use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities.
Lopata, Miller, and Miller (2003) reviewed actual versus preferred use of
CL characteristics among exemplar teachers. The actual use of the desired
characteristics of CL fell statistically short of the levels teachers would prefer to be using. Even though teachers were aware of the implementation
fidelity they should be using, various reasons prevented it from occurring.
This seems surprising given the advanced level of understanding and skill
demonstrated by the participants.
The use of coaching was incorporated and the efficacy tested using
multiple baseline design. Results indicated a functional relationship
between coaching and improvement in accurate implementation performance. This resonates with step three offered by Little and Houston
(2003). This improvement was also sustained over a maintenance phase of
234
JULIE LANCASTER
the study and was also reflected in student behaviour results. The coaching
skills employed relied heavily on collaboration skills between participants
and researchers involved.
As noted earlier a more focused set of indicators is called for as opposed
to the broad indexes supplied by Hueng (2006). Cook and Tankersley
(2012) suggest we should identify the practices we wish to use and then
provide a guiding framework for implementation. The structure of steps
provided by Little and Houston (2003) provides such a framework and
involves support from initial professional development right through to
checking implementation fidelity using critical teaching behaviour checklists. Student impact data is collected as the final step and the whole process
is continued through an Action Research paradigm. Lee and Picanco (2013)
suggest a way forward for teachers to stop having the pedagogical fixations
due to philosophical orientations by tying research-based strategies to the
phases of learning the students are assessed to be in. For example, ET
would be required for the acquisition phase, where CL would be more
appropriate in the generalisation phase. This can be supplemented with the
differentiation put forward by Tomlinson (2001) through the areas of content, product and process (Ernest, Heckaman, Thompson, Hull, & Carter,
2011). The combination of these processes has potential to assess current
practices within classrooms as well as guiding the professional development
framework to develop teacher skills. Peer coaching and collaborative
problem-solving of course would naturally form part of this professional
development. Hintze (2005) provides us with essential characteristics to use
during direct observation to ensure reliability and validity when observing
teachers implementation within school settings. As well as the ability to
deploy evidence-based pedagogies, sustain their use and implement them
to scale with integrity; collaboration skills utilising consistent professional
language also need to be investigated as potential factors that mediate successful inclusion.
TEACHERS CAPACITY TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT

LEARNING USING PROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE AND
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESSES
Use of a common professional pattern language aids the ability to share
feedback using professional language about the instruction. If a community
is to evolve the practice of collaboration, it first requires its own pattern
235
language. A pattern language consists of the terms the community uses to

express its schema and to organise its models and practice (Smethurst, 1997).
For a teaching community of practice to be the social container for genuine
professional interaction, all teachers require the knowledge associated with
the teaching and learning approaches valued by the community. For example, if inclusive educators are to work together to solve a problem related to
the use of CL or ET, they all need to understand the roles and goals of those
practices within the broader context of the communitys overall schema of
inclusive practice. The schema requires a pattern language used to express
the essential features of those teaching and learning approaches. Pattern
language is required as a basis, then as a means to collaborate with others
at a sophisticated level. It becomes the term of reference and method for
metacognitive understanding whilst collaborating (Bain, 2007).
As noted earlier, implementation of research-based strategies is highly
variable and teacher understanding of the strategies remains inconsistent.
Perhaps this difficulty stems from the lack of consistently used professional
language with lexicon that describes essential characteristics of the strategies being employed. This lexicon is frequently presumed to exist in communities of practice in educational settings, although the findings derived
from the longitudinal study of schools (Bain, 2007; McLaughlin & Talbert,
2001) indicate that the presence of such a lexicon is much more likely to be
the exception than the rule.
A study by Bain, Lancaster, and Zundans (2009) set out to determine
whether students in an inclusive education teacher preparation subject
were able to deploy a pattern language related to specific inclusive teaching approaches after participation in a community of practice. The study
sought to establish whether the frequency and sophistication of pattern
language use increased as the pre-service course progressed and students
learned more about inclusive approaches. The results indicate that pattern
language frequency and sophistication co-varied with participation in the
subject, and increased over time. One implication of these findings invites
investigation to determine if appropriate professional lexicon is being
used in schools. In the Bain et al. (2009) study, frequency of pattern language use was measured by simply counting the use after participants
wrote a reflective piece about their pedagogies. Sophistication was measured by applying the SOLO taxonomy developed by Biggs and Collis
(1982). These same measurement practices could be applied in school settings. Tables 1 and 2 are examples of SOLO categories, the criteria is
applied to written reflections answering questions about characteristics of
pedagogy.
236
JULIE LANCASTER
Table 1.
Code
0
1
2
3
SOLO Level
SOLO Coding System Categories.

Criteria
Blank
The explanation section has been left blank and no explanation is

provided.
Prestructural
The response does not appear to answer the question or may simply
be stating the question.
Unistructural
One piece of information was evident in the response. Responses at
this level contain one fact.
Multistructural More than one piece of information was provided in the explanation.
Responses at this level contain several facts, but consider the facts
in isolation; no clear links are made amongst the facts.
Relational
Pieces of information have been presented and related together.
Various facts are linked together and are related to a main concept,
the explanation is valid only for the given context.
Extended
A response of this type goes beyond what is asked in the question
abstract
however the explanation presented by the respondent clearly
indicates how the additional information relates to the question.
The response generalises across contexts.
Source: Adapted from Biggs and Collis (1982); cited in Lancaster and Auhl (2013).
Collaboration skills involve the ability to engage in effective communities of practice to support the problem-solving in complex learning environments. Over the last 20 years collaboration techniques have become a
cornerstone of inclusive education practice used to develop and review individual education plans, for instructional problem-solving, as a medium
of engagement with parents and by the different professionals who serve
students with inclusive needs (Friend & Cook, 2010; Salend, 2005).
Collaboration is frequently identified as a key to the successful conduct
of inclusive classrooms and schools (Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2005)
with this positive relationship often well documented in the literature. This
places collaboration and collaborative problem-solving on the agenda of all
schools and higher education courses. More recently, the role and processes
of collaboration have been connected to the related construct of communities of practice (Wenger, 2000).
Communities of practice have been advocated in inclusive education to
tap expertise and bring stakeholders together for problem-solving and the
communication of professional knowledge (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley,
2003; Linehan, Muller, & Cashman, 2005). They can be viewed as the
places where the instrumental process of collaboration and collaborative
problem-solving are embedded systemically in a local context. Like
Table 2.
Code
SOLO Level
0
1
Blank
Prestructural
Unistructural
Multistructural
Relational
Extended abstract
237
Example Responses at Each Level of SOLO.

Example
No explanation is provided.
The lesson went well. Others started to think about the stages of a
narrative .
I think one of the strengths of the lesson is that I broke the lesson
down into a series of steps. Each step was in a logical sequence
that flowed on to the next.
More emphasis on definitive stage level. Need to list equipment.
Be specific with outcome, must make sure (outcome) has three
explicit parts (lacked condition). Methods of differentiation.
The attention grabber appeared to be effective they could all
follow the modeled mind map and apply this to the guided
practice. The independent practice didnt connect as well as it
could have to the modeled section may have been more
effective to have the dual display as part of the modeled section
next time
Some of the strategies included in my design include students
having knowledge of the task structure. Students will have
individually accountability to ensure they learn enough of the
correct material. Students (we)re also interdependent the
group have to learn as much as they can for the group. The
students will also have an understanding of the goals that they
must achieve as a group and the fact that they will be rewarded
for their work. I have also used the motivational strategy to
encourage the students to work their hardest. These elements
focus on the need for students to have a clear understanding of
what is expected from them both in an academic and social
sense. The combination of these elements allows students to
gain as much as possible from the lesson content as they have
directed questioning and a motivational reason and social
perspective to do well. They depend on each other.
Source: Adapted from Biggs and Collis (1982); cited in Lancaster and Auhl (2013).
collaboration, the construct of communities of practice also resonates

powerfully with the challenges of inclusion (Wesley & Buysse, 2001) and
especially the need for school-wide teacher collaboration if the inclusion of
students with varying needs is to be successful. The processes of collaboration require the elimination of traditional role boundaries among staff in
order to achieve equity; reciprocity and mutual respect (Friend & Cook,
2010); and establishing collegial norms for interactions (Salend, 2005).
Thomson et al. (2003) discuss a consortium of three universities in New
Zealand who formed with the intention of developing a programme that
238
JULIE LANCASTER
would ensure the effective acquisition of the skills of collaborative consultation for their support teachers working in schools. The impetus for the
programme development was to assist support teachers transition from a
pull-out role to one of inclusion and collaboration with the classroom
teacher. They effectively had to become agents of change using the collaborative consultation framework to implement the changed roles. Both
support teachers and classroom teachers found the professional development beneficial in supporting student learning and behaviour.
More recently, Thomson (2011) conducted a qualitative study that investigated the service delivery model of collaborative problem-solving in ways
that assisted teachers, support teachers and students working in inclusive
settings. She interviewed 14 teachers about their experiences with the collaboration process that were specific to the contexts and participants themselves. There is no doubt that collaborative consultation requires expertise,
but unless this expertise is actually utilised by classroom teachers, nothing
will change. The only meta-analysis noted was from Allen and Blackston
(2003) who noted an effect size of .95 in favour of consultation over traditional methods, so the benefits of using collaborative consultation were
significant.
The evaluation of collaborative process utilisation has yet to be pinpointed explicitly for the education sector. In Klingner et al. study (2004),
we noted the high implementers of strategies with integrity persisted with
strategies as long as they could problem solve with others and have feedback about their practice. Unfortunately, as Darling-Hammond and
Richardson (2009) note, schools do not provide ongoing collaboration and
assistance necessary to implement such approaches.
Implications from this literature suggest that collaboration is required in
order for educators to problem solve and find novel solutions to difficulties
as they arise (Buysse et al., 2003; Cochran-Smith, 2005; Linehan et al.,
2005). Common shared professional language (pattern language) is
required to deal with change in inclusive learning environments.
Friend and Cook (2010) provide characteristic steps for implementing
collaborative problem-solving that could be used for checking implementation fidelity in situ. Widely utilised steps include problem delineation,
brainstorming solutions in a divergent manner, prioritising solutions in
convergent manner, agreeing on final goal, make a plan and evaluate in
timely fashion (Friend & Cook, 2010). Frequency and sophistication of
pattern language could be measured in the same way that Bain et al. (2009)
employed in their study. Just as reliability and validity of observational
assessments could be checked for use of teaching strategies, these principles
239
could also be employed for the collaboration and pattern language processes (Hintze, 2005).
TEACHERS ATTITUDES, BELIEFS AND

SELF-EFFICACY REQUIRED FOR SUCCESS IN
THE INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM
When these skills of collaboration using consistent professional language
and pedagogical expertise are evident, it is expected that self-efficacy and
competence of teachers working with students who have special needs will
be increased. Attitudes, beliefs and self-efficacy of teachers also need to be
improved to work with students who have different needs (Avery & Meyer,
2012).
A teachers sense of self-efficacy is defined as the teachers belief in their
capability to organise and carry out actions required to successfully carry
out specific teaching task engage in a particular context (Jamil, 2012). Selfefficacy is seen to be grounded in social cognitive theory and involves efficacy beliefs directed towards a teaching context. These beliefs powerfully
predict the choice of task, effort expended, persistence shown and ultimately the level of student success achieved (Bandura, 1989, 1997). Those
with a strong sense of efficacy are thought to display the use of teaching
characteristics that enhance learning.
There has been a shift recently in the focus of self-efficacy studies from
whether teachers can cope with an inclusive classroom, to teacher selfefficacy about what strategies are best to ensure success (Ernest et al., 2011;
Hastings, 2012; Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, 2013; Viel-Ruma,
Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010; Yilmaz, 2011).
In spite of consensus about the importance of teacher self-efficacy, there
is no consensus about clear definition and measures of the construct (Chan,
2008) which presents an interesting anomaly. The concept of locus of control and Banduras social cognitive theory have been major sources of the
initial conceptualisation of the construct. Hoy and Spero (2005) identify
general collective self-efficacy; which is about teachers beliefs as a profession to affect student outcomes. The other area is that of personal or teacher self-efficacy which refers to teachers beliefs about their own abilities
to effect student outcomes. Teachers do not feel efficacious in all teaching
situations and their personal efficacy beliefs could be task- and context
specific.
240
JULIE LANCASTER
Thus researchers are grappling with the notion of different scales being
constructed to measure different tasks in the complex job of teaching.
Banduras scale involved 30 items that covered seven categories of teacher
behaviours. Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) summarised the areas
into three broader areas: instructional strategies, classroom management
and student engagement. Chan (2008) developed a scale to assess six
domains of teacher self-efficacy: teaching highly able learners; classroom
management; guidance and counselling; student engagement; accommodating diversity and enriching learning. The scales certainly have overlap as
well as discrepancies. Not all are focused on inclusive classrooms and,
indeed, the scale development to measure the construct by Chan (2008) had
only one dimension specifically focused on managing diverse learning needs
in the classroom.
The focus in this chapter is on teachers level of personal self-efficacy for
research-based strategy use. It is thus task specific (very specifically on use
of ET, CL and collaborative problem-solving processes) and context specific as it involves inclusive classroom settings. Teacher efficacy is related to
teacher behaviours in the classroom and is said to affect teacher levels of
effort, planning, organisation, and persistence and resilience. Specifically,
teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy utilise more behaviours that have
the potential to enhance student learning and motivation. Studies on implementation fidelity discussed earlier by Klingner et al. (2004) clearly state
that the high implementers of research-based pedagogies were those who
were concerned about student success. When their students succeeded, their
levels of self-efficacy were in turn improved. This in turn leads them to persist with new strategies and problem solve. Indeed a cycle of success is
created.
After interviewing 54 teachers, Yilmaz (2011) determined that the more
proficient teachers perceived themselves to be with pedagogical content
knowledge (e.g. about ET, CL and collaborative problem-solving), the
more efficacious they felt in implementation instructional strategies and
classroom management. The pedagogical content knowledge that was the
focus in this study was teaching English as a foreign language; one could
supplant knowledge of inclusive pedagogies such as ET or CL and
hypothesise about similar findings. As the authors suggest, studies conducted on the basis of teachers beliefs are important in determining the
way teachers perceive and organise instruction and assessment in their
classrooms. A teachers sense of efficacy directly influences the kind of
environment they create for their students to bring about learning (Yilmaz,
2011). That environment can include the pedagogies employed the amount
241
and depth of collaboration and the extent to which there exists a genuine
community of practice.
Using longitudinal quantitative methods, Holzberger et al. (2013) were
able to determine that a teachers self-efficacy was not only a cause of educational processes being used but also a consequence. In other words, when
teachers successfully used high-quality strategies for their students that
resulted in improved outcomes, their own self-efficacy significantly
improved as a consequence. It appears it is a two-way street when researchbased strategies are used in classrooms to enhance student learning, selfefficacy is enhanced.
The call consistently remains for further investigation into the mediating
variables involved in enhancing self-efficacy to ensure that student outcomes continue to improve with a more dedicated focus on inclusive education. A scale that encompasses the characteristics of research-based ET, CL
and collaborative problem-solving will be beneficial for classroom use.
CONCLUSION
The inclusion of students with special needs remains a challenge for teachers when research-based pedagogies and collaboration are not translated
into practice. We need to attend to measuring school and classroom indicators of inclusive education to enable professional development for teachers
in a more empirical and guided manner. The literature reviewed here provides a starting place for the indicators that are required as part of that
measurement process.
Teacher use of research-based pedagogies and curriculum differentiation
already has well-established characteristics; the need remains for consistent
implementation fidelity measurement and resultant professional development on an ongoing basis. Little and Houstons (2003) framework is readily translated from the research arena to practical settings and could be
useful to this end. Teachers capacity to communicate about learning using
professional language and collaborative problem-solving processes requires
consensus about the characteristics to be included so implementation
fidelity can be monitored in the same way.
The SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) enables empirical analysis
of professional language being used by teachers whilst collaborating.
Finally, teachers sense of self-efficacy when working with students who
have special needs requires a scale that encompasses these indicators so
242
JULIE LANCASTER
attention to results may aid in the translation of research-based skills into

actual classroom practice. All of the indicators require collective consideration so the optimum results may be obtained for staff and students alike.
REFERENCES
Allen, S., & Blackston, A. (2003). Training preservice teachers in collaborative problem solving: An investigation of the impact on teacher and student behavior change in realworld settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 22 51. doi:10.1521/
scpq.18.1.22.20878
Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (Eds.). (2012). Education for inclusion and diversity (4th ed.). Frenchs
Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Avery, L., & Meyer, D. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and
limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers self-efficacy for science and science
teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395 409. doi:10.1111/j.19498594.2012.00159.x
Bain, A. (2007). The self-organizing school: Next generation comprehensive school reform.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Bain, A., Lancaster, J., & Zundans, L. (2009). Pattern language development in the preparation of inclusive educators. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 20(3), 336 349.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729 735.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13(9), 4.
Bethune, K., & Wood, C. (2013). Effects of coaching on teachers use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education,
36(2), 97 114.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bloom, B. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one
tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4 17.
Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting
what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263.
Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Strnadova, I. (2011a). Agreeing to agree: A response to
Dempseys commentary on the reported prevalence by Australian special educators of
evidence-based instructional practices. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(2),
226 229.
Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Strnadova, I. (2011b). Reported prevalence by Australian special
educators of evidence-based instructional practices. Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 35(1), 47 60. doi:10.1375/ajse.35.1.47
Cazden, C. (1993). Immersing, revealing, and telling: A continuum from implicit to explicit
teaching. Paper presented at the International Conference on Teacher Education in
Second Language Teaching, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED365134&site=ehost-live
243
Chan, D. (2008). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers
in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 181 194. doi:10.1080/01443410701491833
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know.
Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 301 306. doi:10.1177/0022487105280116
Cook, B., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Research-based practices in special education. Boston, MA:
Pearson Higher Ed.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46 53.
Denton, C., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading
intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201 211.
Deshler, D. (2003). Intervention research and bridging the gap between research and practice.
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 1(1), 1 7.
Ernest, J., Heckaman, K., Thompson, S., Hull, K., & Carter, S. (2011). Increasing the teaching
efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction: A case
study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191 201.
Fraser, B., Walberg, H., Welch, W., & Hattie, J. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity
research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 147 252. doi:10.1016/
0883-0355(87)90035-8
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 126 137.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2012). Curriculum-based early literacy assessment and differentiated instruction with high-risk preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33(1 2), 11 46.
doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.630605
Gillies, R. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two-year followup. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15 20. doi:10.2307/27542408
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with learning
difficulties in the lower elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 19 27.
doi:10.1177/002246690003400102
Harris, D. (2011). Curriculum differentiation and comprehensive school reform: Challenges in
providing educational opportunity. Educational Policy, 25(5), 844 884. doi:10.1177/
0895904810386600
Hastings, P. (2012). Early career teachers self-efficacy for balanced reading instruction.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 55 72. doi:10.14221/ajte.2012v37n6.2
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London:
Routledge.
Hintze, J. (2005). Psychometrics of direct observation. School Psychology Review, 34(4),
507 519.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 774.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4),
343 356.
Hueng, V. (2006). Can introduction of an inclusion index move a system forward?
244
JULIE LANCASTER
Jamil, F. (2012). MyTeachingPartner: A Professional Development Intervention for Teacher

Self-Efficacy. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Killen, R. (2007). Using direct instruction as a teaching strategy. In R. Killen (Ed.), Effective
teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (pp. 62 89). Sydney: Social
Science Press.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M., Hughes, M., & Ahwee Leftwich, S. (2004).
Collaborative strategic reading: Real-World lessons from classroom teachers.
Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291 302.
Kretlow, A., & Helf, S. (2013). Teacher implementation of evidence-based practices in tier 1:
A national survey. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 36(3), 167 185. doi:10.1177/
0888406413489838
Lancaster, J., & Auhl, G. (2013). Encouraging pattern language development in a pre-service
inclusive education course: A comparative study. The International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 60(4), 363 381.
Lee, C., & Picanco, K. (2013). Accommodating Diversity by Analyzing Practices of Teaching
(ADAPT). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(2), 132 144.
Linehan, P., Muller, E., & Cashman, J. (2005). Communities of practice: Activities sponsored
by the Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org/
publications. Accessed on August 10, 2006.
Little, M., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through professional development.
Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 75 87. doi:10.1177/07419325030240020301
Lopata, C., Miller, K., & Miller, R. (2003). Survey of actual and preferred use of cooperative
learning among exemplar teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4),
232 239. doi:10.1080/00220670309598812
Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from Why? to
How? International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(2), 22 38.
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2005). Inclusive education: A practical guide to supporting diversity in the classroom. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Magnesio, S., & Davis, B. (2010). A novice teacher fosters social competence with cooperative
learning. Childhood Education, 86(4), 216 221. doi:10.1080/00094056.2010.10523152
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2013). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic
achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezeks
review. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 17(2), 107.
ODonnell, C. (2008). Defining, conceptualising, and measuring fidelity of implementation and
its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of
Educational Research, 78, 33 84. doi:10.3102/0034654307313793
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers
should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12 19.
Ryder, R., Burton, J., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects
from first through third grade. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 179 191.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R. (1997). Educational psychology theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
245
Slavin, R. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk. Retrieved
from http://www.americanprogress.org
Slavin, R., Madden, N., Dolan, L., Wasik, B., Ross, S., Smith, L., & Dianda, M. (1996).
Success for all: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 1, 41 76.
Smethurst, J. B. (1997). Communities of practice and pattern language. Journal of Transition
Management. Retrieved from http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/summer97/
community_of_practice.htm
Thomson, C. (2011). Collaborative consultation to promote inclusion: Voices from the
classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 882 894. doi:10.1080/
13603116.2011.602535
Thomson, C., Brown, D., Jones, L., Walker, J., Moore, D., Anderson, A., & Koegel, R.
(2003). Resource teachers learning and behavior: Collaborative problem solving to
support inclusion. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 101 111.
doi:10.1177/10983007030050020501
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202.
Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., & Benson, G. (2010). Efficacy beliefs of special
educators: The relationships among collective efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and job
satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(3), 225 233.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2),
225 246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002
Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2001). Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to
promote reflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
21(2), 114.
Wolford, P. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R. (2001). Teaching middle school students with
learning disabilities to recruit peer assistance during cooperative learning group activities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(3), 161.
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional
strategies. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(1), 91 100.
ASSESSING TEACHER
COMPETENCIES FOR INCLUSIVE
SETTINGS: COMPARATIVE
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAMS
Kymberly Drawdy, Meng Deng and
Catherine Howerter
ABSTRACT
The chapter will address comparative teacher preparation programs for
teachers who wish to teach in inclusive settings, including those in the
United States and Peoples Republic of China. Consideration will be
given to developing course objectives and outcomes for teacher preparation programs through the alignment of teacher standards and content
standards. Further, discussion will review assessing pre-service teacher
candidates for inclusive settings. It will conclude with recommendations
for inclusive teacher preparation programs.
Keywords: Pre-service teacher preparation; comparative special
education; inclusion; teacher certification

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003028
247
248
KYMBERLY DRAWDY ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
Both academic and social outcomes for students with disabilities are
improved when they are exposed to the general education curricula within
the inclusive setting (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Aglozzine,
2012). Instructional models presented in the K-12 classroom to meet the
needs of these students vary throughout the United States (US) and other
countries around the world.
In this chapter, the authors conduct an examination of the history of
teacher preparation programs in the US and Peoples Republic of China
(PRC) designed for teachers who wish to teach in inclusive settings as well
as teachers who are required to have this certification to be considered teachers of record in their classrooms. As the PRC continues to increase the
number, amount and type of special education services, including inclusion
of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum, the US is
also identifying models to address the rise in inclusive practices.
Concurrently, PRC and the US are both addressing and redesigning
their teacher preparation programs and, as such, provide a snapshot of
diverse planning for pre-service teacher programs that may address similar
program revision problems and solutions. The authors also examine the
emergence of the dual certification preparation of pre-service teachers.
THE MOVEMENT TOWARD SCHOOLING FOR ALL

The recognition of the importance of the inclusive school movement has
brought a new focus to the instruction of curriculum in K-12 classrooms
and the roles of those teachers and administrators responsible for that
instruction (Cooper, Kurtts, Baber, & Vallecorsa, 2008). Providing meaningful instruction within the context of inclusionary settings is a priority
for students with disabilities, and the trend toward inclusion requires modifications to the existing curriculum, and to the teaching methods and practices used to implement it (Coutinho & Repp, 1999; Foreman, 1996). The
emphasis on the inclusion of student with disabilities to provide the students with access to the general curriculum by a content specialist has led
to a change in the way all pre-service teachers are prepared.
Teacher preparation programs have introduced the concept of
co-teaching since the early 1980s which promotes the practice of two
professionals teaching and supporting the learning of diverse learners
Assessing Teacher Competencies for Inclusive Settings
249
within a single setting (Idol, 2006). An emerging teacher preparation

program that seeks to provide a single teacher with certification to teach
students with and without disabilities while being highly qualified in the
content area is that of the dual certification. The dual certification programs include designated coursework intended to produce teachers with
the skills of strategy instruction for all students and content knowledge for
addressing discipline-specific standards, such as mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies. Regardless of the movement toward dual
certification in special education, nearly all pre-service teacher education
programs include content within coursework that promotes the inclusion of
diverse learners (Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler, 2010).
The discussion in the US and the PRC includes both a pragmatic and
ethical discourse regarding the education of students with disabilities and
those children considered at risk for school failure. Considering the number
of children who come into public schools with a wide range of attributes
that may contribute to lack of academic success, the pragmatic question is
how can teachers best teach students who are placed in their classroom, but
who do not exhibit typical learning patterns. The ethical side of the discussion then promotes the long-held practice in the US and the PRC that
the future of the society and culture of any country has its roots in the preparation of future citizens.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF INCLUSIVE

INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS IN THE US AND PRC
In the US, instructional models for education began to change
quickly beginning in the 1960s. Legislation such as the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (1965), the Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments (1968), the Handicapped Childrens Early Education Assistance
Act (1968), and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975)
identified the national climate of including all students, especially those
with disabilities, in the general education system (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2011). The presence of students with disabilities into
the general education classroom meant shared responsibilities for general
and special educators (Garvar & Papania, 1982).
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
the introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), and the alignment
of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (reauthorized in 2004)
250
provided support for the current use of co-teaching in educational settings.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) called for access to the general education curriculum for all students. This mandate supported the need for general and special education teachers to work together (Ludlow, 2012). As a
result, the need for the recognition of common practices that were already
evident in the disciplines of special education and general education became
necessary.
The change to teacher preparation for general and special education can
be dated to the original special education law, The Education for all
Handicapped Children Act (1975). This law brought attention to the
increased need for the education of students with disabilities, but was seen
as a separate curriculum for those individuals whose intention was to teach
children with disabilities outside of the general education curriculum. This
initial period of change in teacher preparation (1975 1982) saw the first
special education teacher preparation programs (exclusive of those programs for the Deaf) designed to train teachers to work exclusively with
students with disabilities. The special education preparation programs in
institutions of higher education operated with the principle that special
education teachers would be teaching students with disabilities in special
education classrooms, not within the confines of regular education
classrooms (Idol-Maestas, 1983). During this time, general and special
education programs were separated, and pre-service general education
teachers did not take special education courses (Blanton & Pugach, 2011).
The second notable period of change, from 1983 to 2001, was marked by
the push for collaborative practices, with the relationship between general
and special education standards being explored by professional organizations (Pugach, Blanton, & Correa, 2011).
During this period, recognition that some students with disabilities
might be appropriate for instruction in classrooms with their nondisabled
peers began to arise, exemplified in the US under the Regular Education
Initiative (REI) (Will, 1986). With reauthorization of NCLB (2001) and the
subsequent alignment of IDEA (2004), a shift in the accountability for
both students and teachers occurred. Specifically all teachers are expected
to instruct students in such a way that student outcomes meet predetermined goals and that all students, including those with disabilities, should
show progress toward these goals. The research literature (McLesky &
Waldron, 2011; Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Aglozzine, 2012) continued to promote the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms to increase the exposure to standards-based content
taught by a content specialist in order to enhance the students knowledge
251
and retention of content included on high-stakes tests. The increase of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, and the increased
accountability for both special and general education teachers highlighted
the need to directly prepare both teachers for inclusive environments
(e.g., co-teaching) (Oyler, 2011).
Likewise, change began to occur for Chinese special education instructional practices under the open reform policy of Deng Xiaoping (Deng &
Poon-McBrayer, 2004). In 1982, the newly revised Constitution was the first
legislation to mandate the provision of special education in China. The
Compulsory Education Law of the PRC (The National Peoples Congress,
1986) mandated that all children who have reached the age of six shall be
enrolled in school and receive compulsory education for the prescribed
number of years (p. 41). The PRC requires schools to provide compulsory
education to children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities, and
visual and hearing impairments in primary or middle school (Ministry of
Education of China, 2003). This is a similar practice found in the principle
of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all children (Haring,
McCormick, & Haring, 1994) as mandated in the Education of Handicapped
Childrens Act (1975) in the US (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2004).
With the introduction of mainstreaming and inclusion to China in the
late 1980s, China initiated a national movement on inclusive education
called Learning in Regular Classrooms (LRC) in response to both the
domestic need and the international trend (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2004).
The intent was to address similar issues of providing quality education to
students with disabilities within the confines of the general education
setting. The LRC movement happened in conjunction with further teacher
preparation of all teachers in the instruction of students with diverse
learning needs.
The Suggestions on Developing Special Education (State Council of
China, 1989) promoted the idea that the training of teachers should precede
the creation of programs for students with disabilities at the local school
level. The tenets of this mandate were:
1. Various regions should provide special education training for the graduates from the middle teacher-training schools, and in-service teachers of
general secondary schools and childrens welfare institutions a part of
high school graduates and people-run teachers can also be trained to
teach in special education settings.
2. Various areas should adopt different measures to train on-job teachers
so as to enhance their professional potentials.
252
3. The Ministry of Education arranges for special education programs in a

few normal universities to train professionals in special education.
4. General middle teacher-training schools and pre-school teacher-training
schools increase instructional contents of special education. Higher
teacher-training institutions should increase elective subjects in special
education gradually (p. 8).
Later, the Chinese State Council created the Ordinance of Education for
Persons with Disabilities (Ordinance) (State Council of China, 1994) in
order to ensure the implementation of the Law on Protection. It stipulated
that:
1. The state implements a certification system for special education
teachers;
2. Local governments at county levels and above involve teacher training
for special education into working schedule, and set up training bases
for the on-job teachers to enhance their skills regularly;
3. General teachers schools open required or elective subjects on special
education for students so that after their graduation they can meet the
educational needs of students with disabilities learning in regular classrooms (p. 57).
With a sharp increase of children with disabilities being included into
general classrooms in China, teachers faced the challenge of meeting
diverse needs. The Law of Protection of Disabled Persons was the initial
mandate of the National Peoples Congress (Law on Protection) (The
National Peoples Congress, 1991) meant to address inclusion and
attempted to improve the current instructional practices of teachers by
advocating that curricula and instructional pedagogy for students with disabilities be integrated into the general education classrooms; and vocational
education should be added into the curriculum for students with disabilities. The Regulation on Implementing Learning in Regular Classrooms for
Children and Adolescents with Disabilities (LRC Regulation) (State Council
of China 1994) made further specifications on curricula and instructions
for students learning in general education classrooms and that a principle
of teaching in accordance with students potential should be carried out,
as well as emphasis on social skills and skill deficits. Schools should arrange
for students with disabilities to interact both academically and socially with
students without disabilities; and schools should modify the curriculum
and provide specific accommodations in the content requirements according to students disabilities.
253
The tenets of these acts, as well as other legislation, signaled a change in

the way students with disabilities were provided education and the way
that teachers were prepared to instruct them. In the PRC, the nationwide
quality index of school district performance requires that the enrollment
rate of students with disabilities is included in each schools report as an
indicator of school quality (Deng & Manset, 2000). It is the practice in US
schools to also account for accountability measures for students with
disabilities when determining school performance.
The attention by the state for mandated training of pre-service teachers
in the PRC to prepare for inclusive settings emphasizes the importance of
promoting the idea that the education of students with disabilities would be
a regular part of the role of the general education teacher. However, the
Ordinance (State Council of China, 1994) mirrored similar teacher preparation in the US in that the only special education courses that were required
for pre-service teachers were single electives in special education curricula.
Professional development in special education topics for in-service teachers
is required, also similar to the current professional development workshop
model in the US, but an integrated curriculum that provides strategies for
diverse learners as well as characteristics of those learners is not provided
for general education pre-service teachers (Ellsworth & Zhang, 2007).
Regardless of the existing mandates that promoted the training of preservice teachers in addressing the needs of diverse learners, the continuing
practice of having teachers with limited prior interaction with individuals
with disabilities provide instruction to these students was still evident as
recently as the turn of the new millennia, and most of the teachers did not
receive any training regarding the specific characteristics of students with
disabilities or how to instruct these students in their university or trainingschool courses for teacher preparation (Deng & Manset, 2000).
This lack of experience and expertise affected the quality of instruction
for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. A substantial
research base (e.g., Lang & Berberich, 1995; Villa & Thousand, 2000; Ye &
Piao, 1995) indicated the final responsibility for the success of the inclusion
of students with disabilities into the general education classroom rests primarily with general education teachers, and their willingness and ability to
modify curriculum and instruction have been put forward as prerequisites
for the successful inclusion. Thus, teacher training has been seen as one of
the most decisive factors to the successful instructional quality of LRC programs (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2004), and efforts have been made since
the 1980s to develop ways to train teachers adequately with basic expertise
in special education to teach students with disabilities in general education
254
classrooms. The current efforts to provide substantial, research-based curricula for teacher training at both the pre-service and in-service level continues to address the need for all teachers to have mastery of teaching
practices for a range of diverse learners.
Almost all policy documents relating to special education published by
the Chinese central government have specific chapters or paragraphs on
teacher training. After the passing of the Compulsory Education Law, the
State Council emphasized the importance of teacher training for LRC programs in its document Suggestions on Implementation of the Compulsory
Education Law (The National Peoples Congress of Peoples Republic of
China, 1986) and a follow up document the Suggestions on Developing
Special Education (State Council of China, 1989) declared that teacher
training should go before the development of special education programs.
This edict may have resulted from the fact that no specific teacher training institutions for special education could be found in China before 1980s
(Deng & Harris, 2008). Universities were requested to provide training programs and then the graduates from these new teacher training schools and
universities constituted a team of professionals who were trained according
to prescribed and sequential coursework. This was a change from prior teacher training which consisted of the observation of other teachers and
learning in an on the job model as one taught.
The university-trained teachers were prepared specifically to teach
students with and without disabilities in classrooms that were designated as
LRC, similar to the original practice in the US of schools with dedicated
inclusive classrooms. This type of pre-service teacher preparation
assumed that schools were not following a pure inclusive model where the
school-wide practice would be that all classes available to all students,
regardless of learning needs. Instead, this preparation recognized that some
classes would enroll students with diverse learning needs, while other
classes would contain only children who were identified as nondisabled.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR INCLUSIVE

CLASSROOMS
A similar change in the preparation of general education teachers has also
been witnessed in the US (Cooper, Kurtts, Baber, & Vallecorsa, 2008).
The pedagogical change in the US has been to adjust the preparation of
pre-service general education teachers at the elementary level to include
255
coursework in planning designed to instruct a diverse population of

students, such as differentiation, Understanding by Design (including
Backward Design) (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), Universal Design for
Learning (Rose & Gravel, 2010), and other planning techniques. These
planning tools were specifically tailored to provide a framework for
designing instruction around big ideas, key concepts, and enduring
knowledge and to provide a range of effective strategies to help students
with a variety of learning styles and learning needs access to the general
curriculum. This is a recent revision to the long-standing traditional
method of preparation that did not include planning for diverse learners,
but rather promoted more of whole class instruction.
The practice of teaching differentiated instruction has been a critical
issue among special education practitioners in China since 1990 (Piao,
1996). In the US, the design of differentiated teaching addresses the reality
that the population of a classroom is made up of students with varying skill
levels and cognition, and seeks to teach the same concepts while providing
differing levels of complexity suited to particular learners (Hall,
Strangman, & Meyer, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001).
Differentiated instruction by teachers may provide alternative ways to
assess the wide range of students skills presented in Chinese classrooms. In
the current instructional model in most Chinese classrooms that practice
differentiated teaching, the most common factor for the teachers is the
ability to be flexible in the teaching objectives, curriculum contents, and the
teaching pace and methods which can be adjusted according to students
abilities. This flexibility extends to the choices students are offered in the
assignments and assessments types and allows teachers to evaluate students
by assessing their progress toward mastery of specific content standards
rather than grading students with learning differences in relation to other
students in the same class (Liu, 2001).
In a 2010 study by Harvey et al., the survey respondents, who were both
special education and general education faculty at institutions of higher
learning (IHE) in the US, strongly support the fact that education majors
at their institutions took an introductory course in special education at
their institutions and that pre-service teacher educators were given opportunities to work across disciplines, including collaborative experiences in
both coursework and field experiences. This is the more traditional method
of teacher preparation, whereby pre-service teachers across all grade and
content levels are required, either by their program of study or state mandates or both, to take a singular survey class on special education. This traditional method of preparation of general education teachers may or may
256
not include specific course content that addresses the needs of students with
disabilities who may be included in the teachers classroom. Furthermore,
field experiences may or may not provide the opportunity for pre-service
teachers to work with students with diverse learners.
Most traditional teacher preparation programs may not provide coursework that includes content on differentiation for students and collaboration among teacher faculty, which is the foundation for inclusive settings.
In the same study (Harvey et al., 2010), the only item on the survey that
was found to be statistically significant between the special education
faculty and the elementary or secondary faculty survey participants was the
inclusion of a course on collaboration in the program of study. Special education faculty indicated that the course was available to their majors, while
the general education faculty indicated that this course was not a part of
their program of study. Interestingly, no statistically significant differences
were found between the survey participants in whether their program provided field experiences whereby pre-service teachers could collaborate
across content. It appears somewhat counterintuitive, however, that preservice teachers are placed in field experiences that promote collaboration,
but that the general education pre-service teachers, one half of a collaborative pair for inclusive settings, do not receive any specific coursework in
collaboration.
EMERGING MODELS OF INCLUSIVE TEACHER

PREPARATION
Perhaps the best model that might address the expectations that teachers
be prepared to teach all students is the dual certification model. As the US
has sought to increase the accessibility of general education curriculum for
students with disabilities, the current push for the dual certification in
special education and other grade level certification (dual certification in
special education and early childhood education, special education and
elementary education, etc.) becomes a more viable option than the two
teacher co-teaching model. Before the onset of the offering of dual certification programs, pre-service teachers receive licensure in either general or
special education (Blanton & Pugach, 2011), but rarely both.
Two types of teacher education models, the traditional and dual certification which are often referred to as integrated, merged, unified, blended,
and others (Blanton & Pugach, 2007) are aimed at preparing teachers for
257
inclusive settings (Blanton & Pugach, 2011). In teacher preparation programs that use the traditional model, pre-service teachers take coursework
in their selected area and may take one or two courses outside of that area
(Blanton & Pugach, 2011).
While the traditional model usually included the single mandated introduction to special education course, a pre-service general education teacher
might choose to take additional special education course(s) (Young, 2011).
The programs assume that pre-service teachers will make the link from general to special education and that they will generalize learning to the school
environment (Blanton & Pugach, 2011).
The dual certification program model is designed to overlap curricula
for the preparation of pre-service general and special education teachers.
In this type of pre-service training, special education and general education faculty collaborate to align the curricula for all pre-service teachers,
thus, preparing them to work with students with and without disabilities.
In this model, all courses are intended to provide coursework and field
experiences that provide a solid foundation in working in inclusive
settings.
The US has identified the need for assessment of teacher preparation
programs specific to dual certification and other certification for teachers in
inclusive settings; the PRC is quickly addressing many of the same issues
that are encountered in determining the teacher competencies for programs
that include skills for both traditional general education teacher preparation and special education teacher preparation.
Specific standards that are used to develop course content for general
education and special education programs include the Interstate Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (InTASC Standards)
(Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2013) and content
standards (i.e., NCTM, NCSS, CEC, etc.,) and these standards are often
cross-listed throughout a program curricula. As a result, many programs
match particular specific program area (SPA) standards to the overarching
InTASC standards. Similarities are identified within program courses that
illustrate the coverage of required standards. There is a recognition that
perhaps the best way to teach students with varying ability levels is to
prepare all teachers in a dual certification model. The teachers who are
prepared with both content and strategies are best prepared for teaching in
inclusive settings, and a dually certified teacher reduces the need for two
teachers in a single classroom. Since the passage of NCLB, the need for
highly qualified teachers is at an all-time high, especially in the high need
areas (Math, Science). The preparation of a single highly qualified teacher
258
who knows both content and strategies for diversity is cost-effective and
astute.
All teachers in the PRC remain a much needed commodity, and as such,
one-time requirements for certification of teachers have been loosened.
Formerly, a pre-service teacher was required to have either graduated from
an institution that provided teacher preparation program or have participated in some type of teacher preparation program. Since 1999, an applicant can receive a teaching certificate if he or she can pass four qualifying
tests. At this point the pre-service teacher can seek employment and schools
can recruit their own teachers (Ingersoll, 2007). Because of the need for
teachers, especially in the outlying rural areas, teacher preparation may
resemble the earlier emergency certification era in special education fields
that the US encountered in the early 1980s as students with disabilities
were being mainstreamed into general education classrooms (Deng &
Harris, 2008). It is in the interest of the PRC to create a culturally relevant
pre-service teacher preparation model that is inclusive in the premise that
the needs of future generations are being shaped by the teachers of today.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in order to assure that pre-service teachers are prepared for
inclusive setting it is essential that teacher preparation programs are
assessed based upon the current laws, current research, and national
standards. Teacher preparation programs must provide all pre-service
teachers with some training in inclusive practices. Effective programs base
these inclusive practices upon current research and national standards.
When assessing teacher preparation programs, two main areas should be
reviewed: (a) coursework and (b) field placements. Coursework should
include current research on inclusive practices (e.g., planning, co-teaching,
differentiation, backwards design). There should be specific courses on
addressing the needs of diverse learners, planning, collaboration, and strategy design. This change in how courses present the responsibilities of all
teachers to teach all students may affect teacher perceptions of self-efficacy
and competency in teaching students who learn differently.
Additionally, during coursework pre-service teachers should be provided
demonstration teaching by experts in the field; ideally this would be best
accomplished by co-teaching with university faculty members and with
their own supervising teacher. All teacher preparation programs should
259
provide pre-service teachers ample opportunities to practice teaching

through field placement in inclusive classrooms. Pre-service teachers should
be given the chance to interact with a wide variety of diverse learners at all
age levels. During this time, teacher preparation programs should allow
pre-service teachers the chance to collaboratively work with mentor classroom teachers and university supervisors.
Teacher preparation programs should encourage pre-service teachers
to co-teach with others; this could be the mentor teacher, university
supervisor, or other pre-service teachers. This collaborative practice will
increase the pre-service teachers self-efficacy regarding their own abilities
to teach a variety of learners. Ideally, perhaps all teachers should be prepared to teach all students regardless of learning needs. In order for this
change to occur, teacher preparation programs and in-service teacher
professional development should address the benefits to teachers by having this preparation, and should be charged with the responsibility of
significantly changing how teachers are prepared to work in inclusive
classrooms.
REFERENCES
Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2007, June). Collaborative programs in general and special
teacher education: An action guide for higher education and state policy makers.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2011). Using a classification system to probe the meaning of
dual licensure in general and special education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 34, 219 234.
Cooper, J. E., Kurtts, S., Baber, C. R., & Vallecorsa, W. (2008). A model for examining
teacher preparation curricula for inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 155 176.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013, April). Model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. Interstate
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium InTASC. Washington, DC: Author.
Coutinho, M. J., & Repp, A. C. (1999). Inclusion: The integration of students with disabilities.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Deng, M., & Harris, K. (2008). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms in China. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 195 207.
Deng, M., & Manset, G. (2000). Analysis of the Learning in Regular Classrooms movement
in China. Mental Retardation, 38(2), 124 130.
Deng, M., & Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2004). Inclusive education in China: Conceptualisation
and realization. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 24(2), 143 157.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. P.L. 94 142.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. P.L. 89 10.
Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1968. P.L. 90 247.
260
Ellsworth, N., & Zhang, C. (2007). Progress and challenges in Chinas special education development: Observations, reflections, and recommendations. Remedial and Special
Education, 28(1), 58 64.
Foreman, P. (1996). Integration and inclusion in action. Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
Garvar, A., & Papania, A. (1982). Team-technology: It works for the student. Academic
Therapy, 18, 191196.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for
UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/udl/
documents/DifferentiatedInstructionUDL_000.pdf. Accessed on November 2, 2006.
Handicapped Childrens Early Education Assistance Act of 1968. P.L. 90 538.
Haring, N. G., McCormick, L., & Haring, T. G. (1994). Exceptional children and youth: An
introduction to special education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Merrill.
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions.
Remedial and Special Education, 31, 24 33.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77 94.
Idol-Maestas, L. (1983). Special educators consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Publication.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. P.L. 108 446, 118 Stat,
2647.
Ingersoll, R. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in 6 nations.
Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Lang, G., & Berberich, C. (1995). All children are special: Creating an inclusive classroom.
York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Liu, S. S. (2001). Zhongguo yitihua jiaoyu yanjiu de lilun yu shijian [Theory and practice for
integrated education in China]. Wuhan, China: Wuhan Publishing Company.
Ludlow, B. (2012). Co-teaching & collaboration: A collection of articles from teaching exceptional children. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
McKleskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Education programs for elementary students with
learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(1), 48 57.
Ministry of Education of China. (2003). 2003 nian quanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhan tongji gongbao [The major statistics of the national education development in 2003]. Retrieved
from http://www.edu.cn/20040527/3106677.shtml
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics: 2011.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). P.L. 107 110, 115, Stat 1425.
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Aglozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35,
477 490.
Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive and critical (special) education. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 34, 201 218.
Piao, Y. X. (1996). Teshu jiaoyu cidian [Dictionary of special education]. Beijing: Huaxia Press.
261
Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., & Correa, V. I. (2011). A historical perspective on the role of
collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all
students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 183 200.
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker &
B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 119 124). Oxford:
Elsevier.
State Council of China. (1994). Can ji ren jiaoyu tiao li [Ordinance of education for persons
with disabilities]. Beijing: The State Council.
State Council of China. (1989). Guanyu fa zhan te shu jiao yu de ruogan yijian [Suggestions
on developing special education]. In Y. Xu & L. Y. Shi (Eds.), (1990), Ruozhi ertong
jiaoyu jingyan jing xuan [Symposia of special education on mentally retarded children]
(pp. 1 9). Zhejiang: Zhejiang Education Press.
The National Peoples Congress of Peoples Republic of China. (1986). Zhong hua renmin
gong he guo yi wu jiaoyu fa [Compulsory education law of the Peoples Republic of
China]. In Ministry of Education in China (Ed.), The laws on education of the Peoples
Republic of China (pp. 40 47). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
The National Peoples Congress of Peoples Republic of China. (1991). Zhong hua renmin gong
he guo can ji ren baozhang fa [Law of the Peoples Republic of China on protection of
disabled persons]. Beijing: Huaxia Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2000). Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing
the puzzle together. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility.
Washington, DC: US Office of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
Ye, L. Y., & Piao, Y. X. (1995). Te shu jiaoyu xue [The study of special education]. Fuzhou,
China: Fujian Education Press.
Young, K. S. (2011). Institutional separation in schools of education: Understand the functions of space in general and special education teacher preparation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27, 483 493.
DEVELOPING AND USING A

FRAMEWORK FOR GAUGING
THE USE OF INCLUSIVE
PEDAGOGY BY NEW AND
EXPERIENCED TEACHERS
Jennifer Spratt and Lani Florian
ABSTRACT
This chapter describes the development and use of a framework, based on
a set of theoretical principles that can support teachers, teacher educators
and researchers make informed judgements about inclusive pedagogy in
each unique setting. This chapter will address the concept of inclusive
pedagogy; how the framework was developed; and will provide an introduction to the framework. Discussion will focus on how the framework
was used by researchers to better understand how the ideas of inclusive
pedagogy were enacted by newly qualified classroom teachers and how it
was used to support experienced classroom teachers and specialist support
teachers to challenge and alter some existing practices.
Keywords: Inclusive pedagogy; initial teacher education; teacher
professional development

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003029
263
264
JENNIFER SPRATT AND LANI FLORIAN
INTRODUCTION
As schools are required to support the learning of increasingly diverse
populations of pupils, concerns have been voiced about the education of
teachers for inclusion at national and international levels (Acedo, 2011;
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011).
Forlin (2010) argues that teacher education has not kept pace with the
changes taking place in schools, suggesting that most courses on inclusion
and diversity are taught as segregated units for specialist teachers, thereby
sending a message that this is not part of the normal work of teachers. This
chapter reports on work undertaken in the University of Aberdeen,
Scotland, which sought to address this issue, by designing a core course for
pre-service teachers and a masters level course for experienced teachers
which were predicated on the notion of inclusive pedagogy as developed by
Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011).
Inclusive pedagogy is an approach to teaching and learning that seeks to
address the dilemma of difference, originally articulated by Minow (1985)
whereby responses to difficulties in learning often involve targeting support
in ways that highlight and exacerbate the very difference that they aim to
address. Instead, inclusive pedagogy argues for extending the options that
are ordinarily available to everybody rather than differentiating activities
only for some (Florian, 2010). However, whilst inclusive pedagogy is based
on a set of clear underlying principles to inform the choices teachers make,
it does not dictate any particular action. Questions arose, for us, as teacher
educators and researchers, about how teachers committed to inclusive
pedagogy would enact these principles and how we would recognise inclusive pedagogy if we saw it in action.
In this chapter we describe how we developed and used a framework, to
allow us to make robust judgements about the practice of newly qualified
teachers, who had graduated from the University of Aberdeens Professional
Graduate Diploma in Education course. More recently we have introduced
a masters level course entitled Inclusive Pedagogy for experienced teachers,
and later in the chapter we describe how teachers themselves have used the
framework to make judgements about their own work.
USING THE CONCEPT OF INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY TO

INFORM INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION
The one-year Post-Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) at the
University of Aberdeen was designed in the context of a Scottish
Use of Inclusive Pedagogy by New and Experienced Teachers
265
Government funded research and development project, the Inclusive

Practice Project (IPP). It aimed to ensure that beginning teachers had an
awareness and understanding of the educational and social issues that can
affect childrens learning, and that they develop strategies to respond to
such difficulties (University of Aberdeen, 2011). Rather than offering inclusion and diversity as optional specialist modules, this course used the concept of inclusive pedagogy as the underpinning theoretical framework for
the course reform (for an extended discussion, see Florian, 2012) and an
analytical framework was designed to study the practical enactment of
inclusive pedagogy by teachers who had newly graduated from this course
(Florian & Spratt, 2013).
The concept of inclusive pedagogy emerged from a study of the craft
knowledge of teachers committed to inclusion (Florian & Black-Hawkins,
2011). It is clear from Florian and Black-Hawkins work that the inclusive
actions that a teacher makes in any specific situation cannot be predetermined, in a technocratic way, since the very purpose of inclusion is to
recognise, value and respond to the uniqueness of everyone in the classroom. However, the analysis of the actions of teachers led to the identification of an interrelated set of theoretical assumptions that underpinned the
choices teachers made in varied settings and situations. Hence, the word
pedagogy is used in this context to mean the knowledge and the skills
required by teachers to inform the decisions they make about their practice
(Alexander, 2004).
The concept of inclusive pedagogy is predicated on an expectation of difference in the way that children learn and a commitment to teaching
approaches that account for those differences. Traditional notions of intelligence as a fixed and normally distributed entity are seen as particularly
problematic, owing to the lowering of expectations associated with those
children deemed to be low ability or to have additional support needs
(Hart, 1998). Instead, inclusive pedagogy recognises that the capacity of
children to learn is transformable, if conditions are right (Hart, Dixon,
Drummond, & McIntyre, 2004). This view is supported by a recent work
examining the psychological basis of intelligence, which reconceptualises
intelligence as new kinds of smart involving a broad range of flexible
skills, which are fostered by attitudes of curiosity, resourcefulness, reflectiveness, determination and sociability (Lucas & Claxton, 2010). These
attributes are clearly not fixed, but can be affected by the experiences that
children have in school.
This recognition of the transformability of childrens capacity to learn
has implications for the way that teachers work in their classrooms. In
particular, attention must be paid to the unspoken messages associated
266
with the ways in which children are supported when they face difficulties in
learning. Inclusive pedagogy suggests that instead of offering one learning
opportunity to most children with something different for some children,
teachers extend the choices ordinarily available to everybody in their classrooms. Thus, when planning, teachers consider the individuality of each
child in the class to ensure that there are options available for all, but they
are offered in ways which do not limit progress for any learner by prejudging what they might, or might not, do. Kershner (2009) suggests that
inclusive pedagogy should adopt strategies based on current psychological
understandings of collective learning such as situated cognition, distributed
intelligence, dialogic teaching and multimodal learning, thereby encouraging a flexible approach to teaching and learning in which children are
encouraged to learn together.
While it is commonly reported that classroom teachers often claim that
they do not have the skills required to teach certain groups of children,
who they deem to be the remit of specialists, it also argued that this
position is a barrier to the development of inclusive education. Inclusive
pedagogy demands that classroom teachers take responsibility for all children and seek support when needed rather than adopt the view that there
are some children who they cannot, or should not be required to, teach.
Findings from a large international study (Rix & Sheehy, 2014) have confirmed the lack of evidence for any special pedagogy being used when
teaching children deemed to have learning difficulties. As Rix and Sheehy
(ibid.) have argued, effective pedagogy for inclusion is based on the skills
that are already available to all teachers. Hence, class teachers need to be
disabused of the idea that they are not qualified to teach all learners.
The inclusive pedagogical approach invites teachers to re-think the traditional silos of professional responsibility, and to work with specialists in
order to find new ways of providing meaningful learning experiences for all
children within the classroom community. As Norwich (2009) points out,
categorising children into sub-groups according to their perceived deficiencies may stigmatise children, but not offering support to those experiencing
difficulty is discriminatory. Inclusive pedagogy does not reject the support
that specialists can provide but encourages new ways of collaborative
working that avoid the unintended negative outcomes associated with the
dilemma of difference.
The brief account above describes the three key theoretical principles
which were foundational to the IPP approach to initial teacher education:
(1) differences are to be expected, (2) class teachers can teach all learners but
(3) doing so requires new ways of working with specialists. In establishing
267
these principles as the spine of the course reforms at Aberdeen, we also

identified the actions that would need to be taken to implement the principles and the key challenges associated with doing so (Florian, 2012). Table 1
shows how the principles and actions associated with inclusive pedagogy
were linked to the course themes. In the final column, the potential outcomes refer to the attributes we hoped that the PGDE course would foster
in its graduates. In the following section we will show how these principles
and concepts were used to develop the analytical framework for studying
the practice of new teachers.
DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR GAUGING

INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY
Whilst the conceptual ideas of inclusive pedagogy provide a firm theoretical
framework to support new teachers in making choices about their practice,
they do not offer a prescriptive guide to practice. In designing a follow-up
study of graduates from the PGDE course we were interested in examining
how the ideas of inclusive pedagogy were enacted in practice. Our interest
was in an intensive study of the pedagogy of a sample of teachers rather
than course evaluation. The study had two dimensions: firstly to develop a
robust approach to gauging the inclusive practice of teachers, and secondly
to understand how these teachers were using the principles of inclusive
pedagogy they learnt in the course (further details are provided in
Florian & Spratt, 2013).
Measuring inclusion as an observer in a classroom is difficult, since
inclusion is a process, not a one-off event (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). The
observer cannot see the rationale behind the decisions made, the planning
involved nor is the observer aware of the history of the relationships in the
classroom, nor of the unique characters of each of the children. For example, the same action in a classroom, such as directing a child to use a computer, could be either inclusive or exclusive depending on the context.
Hence the approach to data collection necessarily involved observation followed by semi-structured interviews, inviting the participant to discuss the
actions observed during the lesson. Observation notes and data analysis
used an extended version of the framework as outlined in Table 1, where
each of the three principles of inclusive pedagogy are linked to possible
actions that would manifest in practice. By grounding the development of
the framework in these findings, the practical knowledge of experienced
The Relationship between the Principles of Inclusive Pedagogy and the Professional Studies Core
Themes.
Principles/Underlying
Assumptions
Associated Concepts/Actions
Key Challenges
PGDE
Professional
Studies Course
Themes
Replacing deterministic views of

ability with a concept of
transformability
2. Teachers must believe

(can be convinced) they
are qualified/capable of
teaching all children
The identification of difficulties Understanding

Social
in learning and the associated
Justice
focus on what the learner
cannot do often puts a ceiling
on learning and achievement
Teachers must be disabused of
the notion that some children
are not their responsibility
Modelling (creative new) ways of
Becoming an
Changing the way we think
working with and through others
about inclusion (from most
Active
and some to everybody)
Professional
3. The profession must

continually develop
creative new ways of
working with others
Demonstrating how the difficulties

students experience in learning
can be considered dilemmas for
teaching rather than problems
within students
Source: Florian and Spratt (2013).
Bell-curve thinking and notions Understanding

of fixed ability still underpin
Learning
the structure of schooling
Outcome (Programme
Graduates)
Reject deterministic
views of ability
Accept that differences
are part of human
condition
Reject idea that the
presence of some will
hold back the
progress of others
Believe that all children
can make progress (if
conditions are right)
Commitment to the
support of all learners.
Belief in own capacity
to promote learning
for all children
Willingness to work
(creatively) with and
through others
1. Difference must be
accounted for as an
essential aspect of human
development in any
conceptualisation of
learning
268
Table 1.
269
teachers in inclusive classrooms and the theoretical concepts taught on the

course were dialectically linked. Additionally, as the project progressed
further suggestions were added to the framework, some deriving from colleagues, some emerging from findings of the follow-up study, and some
suggested by the participants of the study themselves. Hence the development of this part of the framework was an iterative process emerging from
the synergy between practice, research and teacher education which lies at
the heart of this project.
We sought, within this study, to examine in detail how the principles of
inclusive pedagogy can be used to inform learning and teaching. Hence, we
were purposively seeking examples that fulfilled the criteria of the framework. In choosing to selectively report on practice that was deemed to
exemplify inclusive pedagogy, we are not claiming that the practice of the
new teachers was universally inclusive, we are simply providing two examples of how this concept can be brought to life in the classroom. What is
important here is that in using the framework as a research tool, we have
been able to demonstrate how the principles of inclusive pedagogy can be
applied in practice. In the sections below we provide two examples to illustrate. While they are not exhaustive, we hope they may stimulate others to
consider the practical applications of inclusive pedagogy.
THE ENACTMENT OF INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY BY

NEWLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
The first example of inclusive pedagogy is drawn from the work of a
Primary 5 teacher who, for the purposes of this study we have called
Mary (Scottish children in Primary 5 are aged between 8.5 and 9.5 at the
start of the school year). Mary worked in an inner city school in an area of
deprivation, and was keenly aware of issues of social justice as they applied
to her class. She was concerned about the difficulties that some of her children were experiencing when undertaking creative writing tasks, particularly as some of those children had fertile imaginations when asked to be
creative in other ways. Her approach to this dilemma was stimulated by
ideas generated by a discussion with a professional from a creative arts
organisation who was running a development event which she attended,
and with whom she maintained contact as she developed her approach to
creative writing. As a consequence Mary began using different stimuli for
creative writing. In the first instance she introduced a topic on aliens by
270
asking the children to make models of aliens, and then reported that the
stories written about these models were amazing. Following this, she used
a piece of music as a stimulus to writing, and made the following observations about one pupil:
[She] wrote a fantastic story and cant even write very well, she came out with this
amazing story about what she heard from the tune, that she thought it was a little girl
running away from lightening, because at one point when the cymbals crash she
thought that was like the lightening and this girl running and things like that, and this
was all in her head.
However, whilst the music proved to be a fantastic stimulus for one pupil
Mary noted it was less successful for others. Interestingly, the girl who was
normally the best writer in the class drew little stimulus from the music.
From these experiences Mary developed the practice of providing a range
of stimuli for creative writing, to widen the opportunities for all pupils to
be inspired to write.
Marys work clearly met the main principles of inclusive pedagogy, outlined in Table 1 as she based her work on an assumption of diversity in the
way that children would learn, and viewed it as her responsibility to support all learners in their creative writing. She rejected a unidimensional
approach to intelligence and instead sought multiple ways of inviting all
children to participate in the classroom learning. This example also showed
how she developed her pedagogy by working creatively with another professional. Within the example given we can see how no ceilings were placed
on the learning of children, but instead there were opportunities for transformability, where some childrens work was much improved through the
range of options available.
A second example of inclusive pedagogy in action is drawn from the
practice of Dianne, a secondary teacher of French. She discussed at length
how she was developing ways of differentiating work, acknowledging the
difficult balance between ensuring each child had opportunities that were
appropriate, whilst at the same time avoiding coded messages about
expected outcomes. She had begun by using what she called differentiation
by outcome meaning giving all children the same, open-ended, task which
allowed each child to approach it differently. However, in the context of
the secondary French curriculum, she was dissatisfied with this as her main
means of differentiation, so instead was introducing systems whereby various cues were available for all children (e.g. colour coding of key words,
or reminders made visible on the walls) so that help was available for those
who needed it, but the teacher did not make any pre-judgements about
271
who might make use of the additional supports. This was coupled with an
element of choice in the work activities, whereby several activities were
made available to the whole class, and the differences between them were
explained to the pupils, but the choice of who did which task, and in what
order was negotiated between the child and the teacher. At all times
Dianne avoided grouping by ability, but she purposefully selected groups
in which she felt children would support each other in their work. In this
way, developing a positive learning community was an important aspect of
her pedagogy.
Thus Dianne was responding to the diversity of existing knowledge and
skills of the children, by ensuring that all children had access to tasks and
support that they required to make progress in her subject, but she was
careful to avoid doing this in ways that communicated messages about
what any child was expected to achieve. This approach shows how her
understanding of learning was intertwined with her commitment to social
justice, demonstrating how the key themes of inclusive pedagogy are not
discrete issues to be addressed independently, but how they are synergistically intertwined.
Whilst the actual practice of Dianne and Mary that is described in these
examples is quite different, it can be shown that they are underpinned by
the shared principles of inclusive pedagogy. Both teachers took responsibility for all learners, and acted on a belief that all children will learn if the
conditions are right. Neither used ability as a main organiser for grouping
or allocation of work. Both avoided the situation where they provided one
activity for most of the class, with something additional or different for
some, but instead they ensured that the range of opportunities were available to everybody. Ultimately, both created opportunities whereby learning
capacity could be improved for the better.
The exemplification of the principles of inclusive pedagogy, as outlined
here, shows how the choices made by classroom teachers about the
organisation of teaching and learning are vital aspects of inclusion. As Hart
et al. (2004) point out everything that a teacher chooses to do, or not to do,
can have implications for the learning of children. Inclusion is not seen as
the responsibility of additional support staff, or other specialists. It is
notable that the actual practices that the teachers used in these examples,
and across our study data as a whole, were approaches that are widely
known within the repertoire of the teaching profession, echoing Rix
and Sheehys (2014) observation that there is no special set of methods
for children who are having difficulties with learning. The skill lies in
knowing when and how it is appropriate or helpful to use a particular
272
approach, and the theoretical framework of inclusive pedagogy can inform

those choices.
These beginning teachers, nonetheless, worked in schools which, as is
commonly the case, operated a range of policies and practices, some of
which ran counter to inclusion. For example, primary teachers sometimes
struggled with the school expectation that reading or maths should be
taught in ability groups. Secondary teachers found that some children were
extracted from their class to attend sessions in the additional support
base. Following Ball, Maguire, and Braun (2012) the policy environment
could often be seen as a discursive archive in which understandings of
inclusion might include outdated notions of ability grouping or setting
alongside more contemporary ideas of participation and pupils voice.
Whilst newly qualified teachers had some freedom to make choices about
their own practice, they were relatively powerless to make changes in the
wider school (McIntyre, 2009).
USING THE INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY FRAMEWORK

IN CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
FOR TEACHERS
There are compelling arguments for extending teacher education for inclusion beyond the initial phase of education, to ongoing professional development of practicing teachers. It is difficult to change the system through
initial teacher education, since, as described above, new teachers have little
influence in the wider school, and may be swayed by existing systems and
practices which may not always support the development of inclusion
(McIntyre, 2009). Hence, Rouse (2010) suggested that initial teacher
education was a necessary but insufficient condition for enhancing inclusion in contemporary schools. Pugach and Blanton (2014) argue that moving inclusive education forward requires the continuing professional
development of practicing teachers for two main reasons. Firstly, this
would have a direct impact on the experience of marginalised children who
are currently in school. Secondly, this would affect the world of practice to
which new teachers are inducted, and thereby have long-term effects on the
future of educational practice. However, Pugach and Blanton (ibid.)
also take the view that professional development for inclusion has been
inconsistent, and where it does occur that practice is only loosely coupled
with theory.
273
For this reason, following the implementation of the PGDE course, and
the development of a robust framework for gauging inclusive pedagogy, we
were very keen to extend the work of the IPP project to include an education programme for experienced teachers. The following section describes
the introduction of a masters level course entitled Inclusive Pedagogy
aimed at practicing teachers. This course can be taken as a stand-alone
option, or together with other modules it can contribute to the qualification
of Certificate in Inclusive Practice, Diploma in Inclusive Practice or
Masters Degree in Inclusive Practice. The course has a number of innovative features which are described below. Currently this course has run
twice, and as yet no formal follow-up research has been undertaken with
participating teachers. Hence this part of the chapter is based upon early
reflections by the teaching team based on discussions with teachers, assessment of assignments and teacher feedback.
In most schools there is a deep cultural and structural divide between
those teachers who are considered to be mainstream or regular education
class teachers and those who have responsibilities towards children deemed
to have additional support needs (or special educational needs) and this
may impede progress towards inclusion even where this is the stated aim of
the school (Pugach & Blanton, 2014). In Scotland, all teachers initially qualify as classroom teachers, and only after a period of time as a classroom
teacher do some elect to become additional support staff. Notably, however, it is rare for teachers to make the opposite move, to change from
being additional support back to becoming classroom teachers. Hence any
new insights on inclusion gained through experience in additional support
are not readily transferred back into the main classroom. For this reason,
the Inclusive Pedagogy course is aimed at both classroom teachers and
additional support needs teachers, in order to provide opportunities for
them to gain new perspectives by working together. During the course there
are multiple opportunities for discussions between the teachers. In particular, when preparing their assignments the teachers support each other in
small groups of critical learning buddies, made up of teachers with contrasting experiences, so that they may discuss their projects in detail
together. This aspect of the course design resonates with one of the key
principles of inclusive pedagogy, to develop new ways of working with and
through others.
The Inclusive Pedagogy course is delivered entirely online, which extends
its potential reach beyond those who can travel to Aberdeen regularly. Its
participants include Scottish and international teachers. Weekly readings
and activities are provided for students whose responses take the form of
274
contributions to the class discussion board. Additionally there are

four online workshops taking place in a virtual classroom, in real time. In
this virtual space we meet together to consider and discuss key issues of
the course. The online classroom provides many of the facilities of a real
classroom such as opportunities to split into small discussion groups, interactive white board, possibilities for Powerpoint presentations or access to
online materials. Coupled with the regular discussion board conversations
this allows the development of a sense of community between the participants, within the online environment, which is an important feature of the
course.
The course builds up to the concept of inclusive pedagogy by considering,
in turn a number of underlying issues. These include studying the changes in
the treatment of difference, from segregation, to integration to inclusion
(e.g. Thomas & Vaughan, 2004); building an understanding of inclusion as
participation (Black-Hawkins, Florian, & Rouse, 2007; Booth & Ainscow,
2011); a critique of ability labelling (Hart et al., 2004); implication of learning theories for inclusion (e.g. Daniels, 2009; Kershner, 2009); and active
professionalism (e.g. Sachs, 2000). These form the basis for the introduction
of the concept of inclusive pedagogy (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011) and
the inclusive pedagogy framework. The assignment for the course requires
the participants to critique an aspect of their own practice, and to introduce
a small change that can be justified by inclusive pedagogy. Thus, the teachers are using the Framework to interrogate their own practice. This
approach aligns with the suggestions of McIntyre (2005) and Pugach and
Blanton (2014) that meaningful teacher professional development should
involve an aspect of practitioner enquiry.
APPROACHES TO INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY

TAKEN BY EXPERIENCED TEACHERS
Early observations highlight some important differences between our work
with PGDE students during their initial teacher education and our work
with experienced practitioners. The pre-service students had little, if any,
experience of working in schools and were open to a wide range of new
ideas, whereas the experienced teachers were deeply embedded in the
ongoing culture and practices of their schools. Hence, for the experienced
practitioners, development of inclusive pedagogy involved challenging
275
existing ways of thinking and doing. Much of the discussion focussed on the
four key challenges identified in Table 1: Bell-curve thinking and notions
of fixed ability still underpin the structure of schooling; The identification of
difficulties in learning and the associated focus on what the learner cannot
do often puts a ceiling on learning and achievement; Teachers must be disabused of the notion that some children are not their responsibility; and
Changing the way we think about inclusion (from most and some to
everybody). Course participants could find it unsettling to be confronted
with literature suggesting that some of their habitual practices, which they
believed to be inclusive, could be construed as reinforcing difference.
Furthermore, the PGDE students were all preparing to be classroom
teachers, and therefore the challenge of inclusive pedagogy was to ensure
participation of all children in the learning community of the classroom,
and to prevent marginalisation and exclusion, whereas some of the experienced teachers were constrained by working in environments which were
structured for segregation rather than inclusion. In particular, those teachers whose responsibilities lay with educating children who were already
stigmatised and whose school lives had consisted of a history of repeated
exclusions found it difficult to know how to begin to enact inclusive pedagogy. This was, in some cases, exacerbated by a sense that they themselves,
as professionals, were conceptually outside the main body of the school,
having little influence on the staff as a whole. Therefore, when looking at
the choices that the experienced teachers made, in order to enact inclusive
pedagogy, much of the focus lay with working with and through others to
build better relationships between additional support staff and classroom
teachers.
The following are some examples of projects that the teachers undertook
as a result of the course. Across all of these projects it is possible to see
how the teachers were finding ways to make more opportunities available
to everybody instead of making different provision for some children. As
this has not been subject to formal research processes, these suggestions
should be seen as indicative of the kinds of ideas that may emerge from teachers who have engaged with the inclusive pedagogy framework, rather
than as research data. For this reason, these are simply outlines rather than
detailed descriptions or analyses of the projects.
A support teacher replaced the practice of taking a small group out of
class for emotional literacy sessions, but instead took the whole class
for a series of sessions, arguing that this was beneficial to all.
276
A classroom teacher disbanded ability grouping for mathematics for the

first time in her career, and instead offered a series of choices available
to everybody.
An additional support teacher and classroom teacher swapped roles
so that the additional support teacher led the class whilst the classroom
teacher spent more time getting to know the children experiencing
difficulties.
A classroom teacher worked closely with her additional support colleagues to find ways of supporting a non-English speaking pupil in the
classroom, instead of sending her out of the class for specialist support.
The transition to secondary school for a girl with complex learning difficulties had been planned as an individual, extended process, with visits
taking place over the final term of primary school. Instead, the whole
class spent more time concentrating on transition, and where the pupil
made extra visits this was organised along with a group of peers, to avoid
isolation.
A teacher of a small group of children with behavioural difficulties
invited a wider group of regular education staff to visit the group and
supported them to contribute to the education programme, thereby
enhancing the skills of teachers in the wider school to understand and
respond appropriately to challenging behaviour.
A primary special school teacher of children with severe and complex
disabilities organised shared play sessions with a nearby primary school.
This range of projects demonstrates how commitment to common themes
of inclusive pedagogy such as enhancing participation, avoiding stigmatising practices and a belief in a transformable capacity to learn gave rise to
different specific actions in response to the particular dilemmas that the teachers encountered in their own settings.
It is salient to note how the newly qualified teachers and the experienced
teachers found the theoretical framework of inclusive pedagogy to be very
helpful in making sense of inclusion within the school setting, demonstrating the important contribution that university teaching makes to professional learning of teachers throughout their careers. Yet university-based
teacher education courses are increasingly under threat in developed countries, as models of teacher education are emerging which valorise practical
school-based experience over theoretical learning, and school-based apprenticeships are the norm in many developing countries (Opertti & Brady,
2011). This raises important questions about how teachers of the future will
be supported to understand and respond to diversity.
277
CONCLUSION
This chapter has described how our approach to developing and applying a
tool can be used to make systematic judgements about inclusive pedagogy.
The framework has been used by researchers seeking to examine the
practice of teachers and by teachers interrogating their own work. It foregrounds some important principles that can inform the choices made by
teachers, whilst leaving the decisions of how to enact those principles to be
made by the practitioners themselves. We hope the framework will be used
by others in a variety of educational contexts. There is a complex intersection between teacher education, practice, school culture and policy
(Pugach & Blanton, 2014) and the framework may be useful in supporting
the development of inclusive education in the many different organisational
levels and contexts in which it occurs.
REFERENCES
Acedo, C. (2011). Preparing teachers for inclusive education. Prospects Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, 41(3), 301 302.
Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary
education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7 33.
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary school. London: Routledge.
Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in schools.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation in
schools (3rd ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Daniels, H. (2009). Vygotsky and inclusion. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & P. Farrell (Eds.),
Psychology for inclusive education (pp. 24 37). Abingdon: Routledge.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011). Teacher education for
inclusion across Europe
Challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Florian, L. (2010). The concept of inclusive pedagogy. In G. Hallett, & F. Hallett (Eds.),
Transforming the role of the SENCO (pp. 61 72). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in diverse classrooms: Key lessons for the
professional development of teacher educators from Scotlands Inclusive Practice
Project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275 285.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational
Research Journal, 37(5), 813 828.
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive
practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119 135. doi:10.1080/
08856257.2013.778111
278
Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher
education for inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3 12).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Hart, S. (1998). A sorry tail: Ability, pedagogy and reform. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 46(2), 153 168.
Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Kershner, R. (2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & P. Farrell
(Eds.), Psychology for inclusive education. New directions in theory and practice
(pp. 52 65). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2010). New kinds of smart: Teaching young people to be intelligent
for todays world. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 35(3), 357 382.
McIntyre, D. (2009). The difficulties of inclusive pedagogy for initial teacher education and
some thoughts on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 602 608.
Minow, M. (1985). Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: Bilingual and special
education. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(2), 157 221.
Norwich, B. (2009). Dilemmas of difference and the identification of special educational
needs/disability: International perspectives. British Educational Research Journal, 35(3),
447 467.
Opertti, R., & Brady, J. (2011). Developing inclusive teachers from an inclusive curricular
perspective. Prospects Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41(3), 459 472.
Pugach, M., & Blanton, L. (2014). Inquiry and community: Uncommon opportunities to
enrich professional development for inclusion. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook
of special education (2nd ed., pp. 873 889). London: Sage.
Rix, J., & Sheehy, K. (2014). Nothing special: The everyday pedagogy of teaching. In
L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 460 474).
London: Sage.
Rouse, M. (2010). Reforming initial teacher education: A necessary but not sufficient
condition for developing inclusive practice. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for
inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 47 55). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Sachs, J. (2000). The activist professional. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 77 95.
Thomas, G., & Vaughan, M. (2004). Inclusive education: Readings and reflections.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
University of Aberdeen. (2011). Professional graduate diploma in education course handbook
2011/12. Unpublished manuscript.
USING GRADUATION RATES OF

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES AS
AN INDICATOR OF SUCCESSFUL
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Janet I. Goodman, Jessica Bucholz, Michael
Hazelkorn and Mary Louise Duffy
ABSTRACT
Inclusive education in the United States has been a focus of government
policy for the past 30 years. The underlying goals of the inclusive education movement are to provide the most efficient and effective education in
the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. In response
to federal and state mandates, students with disabilities increasingly are
being educated in more inclusive settings. One way to measure the
success of inclusion is to examine graduation rates for students with disabilities. Although accountability related to state curriculum standards
and standardized test scores is important, graduation rates may be the
critical factor in deciding whether current educational policy is resulting
in successful outcomes for students. To determine the effects of inclusion,
a statewide study was conducted to look for trends in inclusion and
corresponding graduation rates for students with mild disabilities.

ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620140000003030
279
280
JANET I. GOODMAN ET AL.
The researchers examined the records of 67,749 students with mild disabilities in Georgia during a six-year period to determine the amount of
time spent in general education classrooms and the graduation rates for
each years cohort of students. Results indicated a 62% increase in the
percentage rate in inclusion for students with mild disabilities, while graduation rates for students with mild disabilities remained stable (+0.4%)
at less than 30% during that same period. This chapter will describe the
results of this study, discuss barriers to graduation, and present inclusive
practices that support students with mild disabilities.
Keywords: Inclusion; students with mild disabilities; graduation rate;
special education; inclusive practices
INTRODUCTION: INCLUSION AND THE CHALLENGE

OF RAISING GRADUATION STANDARDS
Prior to the 1970s, if students with mild disabilities attended public schools,
they were segregated from their general education peers and often were
viewed as the educational responsibility of special education personnel only
(McGrath, Johns, & Mathur, 2004; Ripley, 1997). The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments (1997) included the
importance of access to the general education curriculum for students with
disabilities, and mandated that students with disabilities receive instruction
in the same general curriculum as students without disabilities. The No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002) also emphasized that all
students are general education students (Sailor & Roger, 2005). IDEA 2004
stressed the need for high academic expectations for students with disabilities and ensured access to the general education curriculum in the regular
classroom, to the maximum extent possible (emphasis added) (20 U.S.C.
1400(c)(5)(A)).
Karger (2004) wrote that the wording regular classroom and maximum extent possible were added to the language to highlight the relationship between the access to the curriculum and the regular classroom.
Likewise, these laws require that students with mild disabilities make adequate yearly progress as measured by grade level standardized assessments
(Bost & Riccomini, 2006; Christenson & Thurlow, 2004; Murawski &
Dieker, 2004; Sitlington & Neubert, 2004). In response to these federal
Graduation Rates of Students with Disabilities
281
mandates, state departments of education are requiring that students

with mild disabilities be educated in the general education classroom
(McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012) with little regard to the
implications that a change of that magnitude might have.
McLeskey et al. (2012) posited that the extent to which students with
learning disabilities, are educated in the general education classrooms is
one of the most controversial issues facing educators because there are
mixed results regarding the effectiveness of these inclusive programs for
students with learning disabilities. Yet, the national percentage of students
served under IDEA, ages 6 21, who are being educated in the general education environment for at least 80% of the school day has increased from
45.3% in 1995 to 52.1% in 2004, an increase of 6.8 percentage points (U.S.
Department of Education, 2006). Since 2005, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) has been using statewide assessment in
math and reading to measure educational effectiveness. They have also
developed a method for calculating the inclusion of students with disabilities based on the number of students who participate in the statewide
assessments. The NAEP and National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES) have published the data from 2005, 2007, and 2009 to identify
change in inclusion rates in the United States. In 2005, the national average
of inclusion for eighth graders with disabilities who were included in statewide assessments was 77.0%; in 2007, it was 70.6%, and in 2009, it was
78.5% (Kitmitto, 2011).
The recent trend to further increase the percentage of students with mild
disabilities who receive their instruction in the general education classroom
with appropriate supports and accommodations also has been emphasized
at the state level. In Georgia, for example, one of the performance indicators of its Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is to include more
students with mild disabilities by using the 90/80 rule, which states that
90% of the special education population will be educated in the general
education classroom for 80% or more of the day (GADOE, 2008). State
policymakers hypothesized this performance indicator will ensure that
all students with mild disabilities receive instruction in the least restrictive
environment, which is typically the general education classroom. In
Georgia, the percentage of school age students under IDEA, who were educated in the general education environment for at least 80% of the school
day, has increased from 37% in 2002 to 60% in 2008 (GADOE, 2009c).
As a result of the increased emphasis for including students with disabilities in general education classrooms, states have begun modifying graduation requirements for receiving a standard diploma for both students with
282
and without disabilities (Johnson & Thurlow, 2007, p. 2) to reflect the

push for meeting higher standards. The trend for higher standards includes
the elimination of classes for students who may need more intensive
or specialized instruction (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006;
Brigham, Gustashaw, Wiley, & Brigham, 2004) and the discontinuation of
multiple diploma and graduation options. In many states, graduation is
even more closely linked to high-stakes tests and a standard core curriculum that will force more students to drop out (Bost & Riccomini, 2006;
Christenson & Thurlow, 2004; Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2012). For example, in California, there was a substantial increase in the dropout rate in the
same year (2006) that an exit-exam requirement was put into effect
(McNeil, 2008). After Massachusetts began requiring a high school exit
exam, not only did graduation rates drop but ninth-grade retention
rates increased, as did the percentage of missing tenth graders (Downing,
2008, p. 1).
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

In 2007, the largest school district in Georgia and the 14th largest in the
nation began phasing out its lower level academic standards, forcing
thousands of students to take more challenging classes. In other words,
students with disabilities who would have typically taken a math course
called Consumer Math no longer had that option; rather they were
placed in Algebra I, regardless of their prerequisite skills. But some
Gwinnett (county) teachers and parents fear students will struggle in more
difficult classes, causing some to drop out of high school (Diamond, 2007,
p. D5). Raising academic standards may intensify the challenge of getting
all students to meet the same standards to graduate. Although there are
inconsistent
and, some have argued, often inaccurate
methods used
by the states to calculate their official high school graduation rates
(Editorial Projects in Education, 2008), a recent national study showed that
only about 70% of ninth graders earn a diploma four years later, which
mirrors the graduation in Georgia in 2012 (Samuels, 2014). Research shows
that ninth grade is a critical year and for those who eventually drop out,
the process of dropping out begins as early as middle school (Balfanz,
2009; National Association of School Boards of Education, 2008). More
than one third of students who were enrolled in Grade 9 did not move on
to Grade 10 (Editorial Projects in Education, 2007). National studies
283
indicate similar results for students with disabilities, less than 60% of students with disabilities exit with a regular diploma (Swanson, 2008).
Students who do not complete high school are at an increased risk for
lower wages, higher rates of incarceration, and less access to postsecondary
education (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007; Test, Fowler, White,
Richter, & Walker, 2009). Without a high school diploma, options are
severely limited for postsecondary career success (Ryndak, Alper, Hughes, &
McDonnell, 2012). High school dropouts earn on average just under
$20,000, where high school graduates with no additional training can expect
to earn $10,000 more per year in mean earnings (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
Here is the critical issue: will the raising of standards for all students,
which includes limiting lower level course options for some students, be
detrimental for those same students in the long run? Will those limitations
cause them to drop out? Would it be better to be allowed to take fewer
classes in the mainstream if it means they are not able to keep up?
Although there are benefits to both students with and without disabilities
when all students are integrated into the general classroom, it is not yet
clear whether the benefits to inclusion outweigh the consequences for
students with mild disabilities who cannot meet the requirements necessary
for a standard high school diploma where the alternative is dropping
out (Sitlington & Neubert, 2004; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini,
Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to determine the impact inclusion has on graduation rates for students with
mild disabilities. Graduation rates in Georgia for the past six years graduating classes were examined for students with mild disabilities who were
seeking standard diplomas. Students with mild disabilities were chosen as
they are the students who are most often placed in inclusive settings, who
more often work toward a standard diploma, and who are assessed using
statewide assessment tools.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Specifically, the following three questions were asked:
1. Has the rate of inclusion changed for students with mild disabilities in
Grade 8 through Grade 12 and for each disability category?
2. How have graduation rates changed when students with mild disabilities
seeking a standard diploma have been served in inclusive settings?
284
3. Are graduation rates different for students with various mild disabilities,
regardless of the diploma options?
POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The data for this study included individual records for 67,749 students with
mild disabilities in 12th grade in Georgia during the 2003 2008 school
years. Mild disabilities were defined as students with specific learning
disabilities (SLD), emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), mild intellectual disabilities (MID), and other health impairments (OHI). The data for
these same students when they were in eighth grade were examined for the
1999 2004 school years to compare the number of students for the same
class four years later. The GADOE provided data from the End of Year
Summary Report submitted by each public school district for all students
in each of the 180 school districts receiving services under the IDEA,
including disability type, educational placement, and type of diploma.
METHOD
The authors compared state-reported school district data regarding the
amount of time students spent in general education (rate of inclusion) in
high school to the graduation rate. For this study, inclusion was defined as
students spending 80% or more of their school day in a general education
classroom. High school graduation rate was defined as the number of students in 12th grade who graduated from high school with a standard
diploma. Standard diplomas were defined as a high school completion credential that is fully aligned with state academic standards (34 C.F.R. 200.19
(b)(1)(iv) U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Alternative credentials (e.g.,
certificates of attendance, special education diplomas) were not counted.
By comparing the number of students at the end of eighth grade to the
number of students graduating in that same cohort four years later we were
able to construct, in a very rudimentary way, a picture of how inclusion
impacts graduation rates, when inclusion is required by limited diploma
options. It is unclear from the way the data are reported if it includes
students who graduated outside of their cohort, that is, taking more or less
than the four years expected.
285
The number of students with mild disabilities in inclusive settings was

divided by the total number of students with mild disabilities for each graduating class, yielding a percentage. Then the percentages were compared
during the six-year period to look for trends in graduation rates for those
who were served via inclusion versus those students with mild disabilities
served in self-contained program models. Eighth-grade data were used
rather than using ninth-grade data, because the data for ninth-grade students in Georgia are not available until October full-time equivalency
(FTE) count. In this way, students who left school before the October FTE
count were included in the cohort data.
A descriptive analysis of the data was used to answer all three research
questions. Data were disaggregated by year, disability category, educational environment (general education, resource, self-contained, etc.), and
diploma type (i.e., standard diploma, special education diploma, and certificate of attendance). Data then were disaggregated and analyzed for each
of the four different disability categories: SLD, EBD, MID, and OHI.
To answer the first research question regarding the change in the rate of
inclusion, first the percentage of students with mild disabilities in inclusion
was calculated when they were in eighth grade and then compared to the
rate of inclusion for the same class of students four years later. Using rate
of inclusion accounts for the inability to track individual students by name
across the entire state.
To answer the second research question on change in graduation rates
for students with mild disabilities with a standard diploma served in inclusive settings was answered by comparing the rate of inclusion to graduation
rates during the six-year period. And finally, to answer the third research
question regarding graduation rates for students with mild disabilities,
again, an analysis of the trends of the graduation rates for the six-year
period within each of the categories of disabilities was conducted.
STUDY RESULTS
Table 1 represents the percentage of inclusion rates and change in inclusion
rates for all students with mild disabilities in Grade 8 to Grade 12 for each
cohort from 2003 through 2008. The rate of inclusion for all students with
mild disabilities in the eighth grade ranged from 28.0% in 2003 to 32.2% in
2008. For 12th grade students with mild disabilities the inclusion rates went
from 44.5% in 2003 to 62.1% in 2008. The increase in inclusion rate
286
Table 1.
Inclusion/
Total
Disability
1999 2003
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2000 2004
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2001 2005
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2002 2006
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2003 2007
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2004 2008
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
Rate of Change of Inclusion.
Grade 8
Grade 12
Increase in
Inclusion
(%)
SWD in
Inclusion
(n)
SWD
(n)
Inclusion
Rate (%)
SWD in
Inclusion
(n)
SWD
(n)
Inclusion
Rate (%)
2,585
137
467
1,761
220
9,232
2,068
1,928
4,471
765
28.0
6.6
24.2
39.4
28.8
2550
178
324
1,698
350
5,734
1,442
830
2,772
690
44.5
12.3
39.0
61.2
50.7
58.9
86.4
61.2
55.3
76.0
2,491
74
411
1,762
244
10,568
2,201
2,202
5,172
993
23.6
3.4
18.7
34.1
24.6
2,992
230
362
1,956
444
6,505
1,608
882
3,171
844
46.0
14.3
41.0
53.5
52.6
94.9
320.6
119.3
56.9
113.8
3,009
133
488
2,014
374
11,203
2,214
2,208
5,455
1,326
26.9
6.0
22.1
37.0
28.2
3,104
290
369
1,933
512
6,569
1,575
914
3,125
955
47.3
18.4
40.1
61.9
53.6
75.8
206.0
81.4
67.3
90.1
3,173
140
512
2,102
419
11,710
2,279
2,332
5,562
1,537
27.1
6.1
22.0
37.8
27.3
3,768
302
491
2,293
682
7,161
1,590
1,000
3,449
1,122
52.6
19.0
49.1
66.5
60.3
94.1
211.5
123.2
75.9
122.7
4,293
202
677
2,724
690
12,279
2,257
2,385
5,784
1,853
35.0
8.9
28.4
47.1
37.2
3,958
360
517
2336
745
7,392
1,590
1,003
3,506
1,293
53.4
22.6
51.5
66.6
57.6
52.6
153.9
81.3
41.4
54.8
4,873
252
829
2,930
862
12,757
2,181
2,492
5,886
2,198
38.2
11.6
33.3
49.8
39.2
4,754
421
584
2,746
1,003
7,656
1,513
945
3,684
1,514
62.1
27.8
61.8
74.5
66.2
62.6
139.7
85.6
49.6
68.9
SWD = students with mild disabilities; MID = students with mild intellectual disabilities;
EBD = students with emotional/behavioral disorders; SLD = students with specific learning
disabilities; OHI = students with other health impairments.
287
demonstrated concerted efforts by the state to increase inclusion for all students with mild disabilities during this time period. Increases in the rate of
inclusion for each cohort ranged from a low of 52.6% for the class of 2007
to a high of 94.9% for the class of 2004. Table 1 also represents the rate of
inclusion for each disability category from Grade 8 to Grade 12 for the
years 2003 through 2008. For students with MID, the percentage of
increase in inclusion settings from Grade 8 to Grade 12 ranged from a low
of 86.4% in 2003 to a high of 320.6% in 2004. For students with EBD, the
percentage of increase in inclusion ranged from a low of 61.2% in 2003 to
a high of 119.3% in 2004. For students with SLD, the percentage of
increase in inclusion ranged from a low of 41.4% in 2007 to a high of
75.9% in 2006. For students with OHI, the percentage of increase in inclusion ranged from a low of 68.90% in 2008 to a high of 113.8% in 2004.
These percentages were calculated for each disability category for each
graduating class from 2003 through 2008. For each disability category, the
percentage of students who were included increased, with the largest
increases occurring for students with MID in each graduation year and the
smallest increases in inclusion for students with SLD.
Table 2 represents the graduation rate for each cohort from 2003
through 2008 and was calculated by dividing the total number of 12th
graders with disabilities in all settings who received a standard diploma by
the total number of students with mild disabilities at the end of eighth
grade who were entering ninth grade in the fall. For example, in 1999 there
were 9,232 students for all categories of mild disabilities. Four years later
in 2003, a total of 2,428 students with mild disabilities graduated with a
standard diploma for a total graduation rate of 26.3%. During the six years
of the study, the graduation rate for all students with mild disabilities went
from 26.3% in 2003 to 26.7% in 2008. From 2003 to 2008, the graduation
rates for each cohort of students with MID decreased from 4.6% to 3.8%,
students with EBD increased from 15.6% to 16.6%, students with SLD
decreased from 37.1% to 36.1%, and students with OHI decreased from
48.8% to 36.3%.
Graduation rates (Fig. 1) varied for each disability category, with a
decrease of approximately one percentage point in graduation rates from
2003 through 2008 for students with MID and SLD, an increase of one percentage point for students with EBD, and a decrease of 12.5% for students
with OHI. Figs. 2 5 represent the data from the inclusion rate of students
in specific categories in Grade 8 and in Grade 12 (bars) for each graduating
class in 2003 2008, with the graduation rate (line) for students in inclusion
for each graduating class. These figures show that as inclusion increases
288
Table 2.
Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities from 8th Grade to 12th Grade.
Number of SWD
Graduated in
12th Grade
Graduation
Rate (%)
2002 2006
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
11,710
2,279
2,332
5,562
1,537
2,986
83
349
1,922
542
24.7
3.64
14.97
34.56
35.36
23.8
3.27
13.08
33.22
43.81
2003 2007
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
12,375
2,312
2,397
5,796
1,870
3,032
80
402
1,914
631
24.5
3.46
16.77
33.02
33.73
22.0
3.07
13.50
30.01
34.84
2004 2008
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
12,851
2,237
2,511
5,902
2,201
3,429
85
416
2,130
798
26.7
3.8
16.57
36.09
36.26
Number of SWD
Graduated in
12th Grade
Graduation
Rate (%)
1999 2003
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
9,232
2,068
1,928
4,471
765
2,428
95
300
1,660
373
26.3
4.59
15.56
37.13
48.76
2000 2004
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
10,568
2,201
2,202
5,712
993
2,513
72
288
1,718
435
2001 2005
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
11,203
2,214
2,208
5,455
1,326
2,465
68
298
1,637
426
SWD = students with mild disabilities; MID = students with mild intellectual disabilities; EBD = students with emotional/behavioral disorders; SLD = students with specific learning disabilities; OHI = students with other health impairments.
Number of
SWD in 8th
Grade
Number of
SWD in 8th
Grade
289

100%
Standard diploma rates for students with disabilities

from 8th to 12th grade
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
OHI
SLD
30%
20%
EBD
10%
0%
MID
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 1. Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities from Grade 8 to Grade 12.
OHI = students with other health impairments; SLD = students with specific
learning disabilities; EBD = students with emotional/behavioral disorders;
MID = students with mild intellectual disabilities.
from Grade 8 to Grade 12 for all disability categories, the graduation rate
stayed stable (MID, EBD, and SLD) or decreased (OHI). A Pearson r analysis of the data (r = .461875) indicates a weak positive relationship
between inclusion and graduation rates for all students with mild disabilities; a visual examination of Figs. 2 5 shows that relationship is more
clearly in graphic form.
To determine whether 12th grade students with mild disabilities in inclusionary settings were more likely to graduate, rates were calculated to
examine the completion rates for each graduating year from 2003 to 2008.
Fig. 6 represents these completion rates as a calculation of the number of
students with mild disabilities in inclusion who received a standard diploma
divided by the total number of students with mild disabilities in inclusion
in 12th grade for each year. Completion rates for those students with mild
disabilities enrolled in 12th grade inclusive settings were as follows: 65.1%
in 2003; 59.4% in 2004; 56.3% in 2005; 57.7% in 2006; 56.6% in 2007; and
59.3% in 2008.
Completion rates varied for each disability category with a slight percentage decrease from 2003 to 2008 (Fig. 6). Although the overall percentages
290
100%
Change in inclusion rates 8th - 12th grade and

graduation rates - MID
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
12th
10%
Graduation
rate
8th
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 2. Inclusion Rates for Students with Mild Disabilities in Grades 8 and 12
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line) MID. MID = students with mild intellectual
disabilities.
100%
Change in inclusion rates 8th - 12th

and graduation rates - EBD
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
12th
40%
Graduation
rate
30%
8th
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line)
EBD. EBD = students with emotional/
behavioral disorders.
291

100%
Change in inclusion rates 8th - 12th grade

and graduation rate - SLD
90%
80%
70%
12th
60%
Graduation
rate
50%
40%
8th
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line) SLD. SLD = students with specific learning
disabilities.
100%
Change in inclusion rates 8th - 12th grade

and graduation rates - OHI
90%
80%
70%
60%
Graduation rate
12th
50%
40%
30%
8th
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line)
OHI. OHI = students with other health
impairments.
292
100%
Graduation rates 12th grade inclusion
90%
80%
70%
OHI
SLD
60%
EBD
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
MID
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 6. Percentage of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in 12th Grade Inclusive

Settings Who Graduated with a Standard Diploma. OHI = students with other
health impairments; SLD = students with specific learning disabilities; EBD =
students with emotional/behavioral disorders; MID = students with mild
intellectual disabilities.
of completion rates for students with mild disabilities in 12th grade were
higher than cohort graduation rates during the six years of the study, completion rates still decreased for each disability category: 3.7% for students
with MID, 0.4% for students with EBD, 4.5% for students with SLD, and
5.6% for students with OHI.
Since 1997, the IDEA has stressed the importance of including students
with special needs in the general education classroom. Both the IDEA (2004)
and the NCLB Act (2002) strengthened the mandate that all students have
access to the general education curriculum. The purpose of this study was to
examine inclusion in the general education classroom and graduation rates
for students with mild disabilities, with an eye toward the effect that increasing inclusion placements works to limit options for most students. As more
students are prescribed a service plan that places them in the general classroom, fewer course or content options are permitted. Future practice and
policy decisions regarding service delivery options for students with mild
disabilities should be based on data analysis of successful student outcomes
(Brigham et al., 2004). One such outcome is graduation rates.
293
In Georgia, the number of students with mild disabilities being educated

in inclusionary settings has increased from 37% in 2002 to 60% in 2008
(GADOE, 2009c). Despite a 62% increase in the percentage rate in
inclusion for students with mild disabilities and graduation rates remained
stable (+0.4%), overall graduation rates for students with mild disabilities
during the six-year period of this study were still less than 30%.
Graduation rates for students without disabilities during this same time
period increased by 8.1% from 70.8% to 78.9% (GADOE, 2009a, 2009b).
Although inclusion has many benefits for students with disabilities, it is not
clear whether the benefits outweigh the consequences for those who cannot
meet the requirements necessary for a standard high school diploma
(Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007; Skiba et al., 2006).
The change in graduation rates for the individual categories of MID,
SLD, and EBD mirrored the graduation rates for the total population of
students with mild disabilities. Overall, the graduation rate for students
with mild disabilities declined steadily from 2003 to 2005, increased
slightly in 2006, and then remained stable through 2008. In December
2005, Georgia adopted graduation test waivers and variances that may
explain some of this slight increase in rates starting in 2006 (GADOE,
2009b). Although graduation waivers and variances allow students to
exempt one portion of the Georgia High School Graduation Test under
specific circumstances and still graduate, one barrier for many students
may be state standardized graduation test requirements. However, regardless of the waivers, for students with OHI, the graduation rate has declined
a total of 12.5% from 2003 to 2008.
With increased emphasis on meeting the standard curriculum goals to
prepare students for college, other life skills, vocational, and prevocational
courses are unavailable for many of the students who need them. Trends in
curriculum for American high schools are overwhelmingly focused on
classes that teach skills needed for a postsecondary education.
BARRIERS TO GRADUATION EQUALS BARRIERS TO

INCLUSION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
In Georgia, the latest published graduation data are for 2011 2012 when
70% of all students graduated, only 35% of students with disabilities
graduated with a regular diploma (Samuels, 2014). This may be the result
of several factors interacting together to keep graduation rates from
294
improving and may ultimately be an underlying factor in limiting inclusion.

First, the emphasis on a more challenging curriculum and higher standards
may have caused some students to leave school early (drop out), but the
graduation rate stayed constant. Second, the increased emphasis on placement in general settings could have meant fewer supports, but the graduation rate stayed fairly constant. Third, the emphasis on more academics
and fewer vocational courses could have meant fewer options for students,
but the graduation rate stayed fairly constant. How did this happen? Were
the supports provided? Did teachers go the extra mile to include students?
Did alternative school options really make a difference? Certainly, on a
case by case basis all these things could and did happen. Skillful inclusion
relies on a case by case placement consideration. However, in general, the
research can guide us with an understanding of how to think about the
barriers to graduation for students with disabilities.
From these statistics, there are evidently barriers to graduation for
students with disabilities. When examining graduation statistics we need to
take a hard look at what happens to those students who fail to graduate to
find out how to prevent students from dropping out in order to improve
graduation outcomes. Some barriers described in dropout prevention literature include:
A lack of diploma options for students with disabilities (National
Education Association [NEA], 2008),
A major focus on college preparation and away from vocational education (Harvey, 2001),
Lack of consistent implementation for effective co-teaching and inclusive
practices (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008),
Challenges related to reading and math instruction for students with
MID (Samuels, 2014),
External barriers such as home life, mental, behavioral, and physical
barriers, attendance problems, lack of resources, and involvement with
juvenile justice systems (Fries, Carney, Blackman-Urteaga, & Savas,
2012).
Educators believe that all students can achieve when provided with appropriate services and programs. We cannot allow unreasonable high-stakes
exit exams and limited diploma options to deny students with disabilities
access to postsecondary education and successful employment (Dennis
Van Roekel as cited in NEA, 2008). The NEA posited that many more
students with disabilities could graduate with a regular education diploma
if states would examine alternatives for receiving a diploma, instead of all
295
students having to pass a standardized test as well as completing all of the

required coursework for graduation. There is a need for choices and opportunities for students with different strengths and abilities, not just those students who are preparing for college. As students with MID are graduating
at a rate of approximately 4% and students with EBD having graduation
rates between 13.5% and 16.8%, postsecondary options for both groups
are severely limited. Some allowances for diplomas besides an exit exam
include portfolios and satisfactory completion of IEP objectives and course
academic requirements (NEA, 2008). The NEA also suggested that
students on a modified curriculum should earn a general education diploma
if they completed all the requirements of their curriculum, and this option
should be extended to all students. Other recommendations by the NEA
included requiring states to provide accommodations for exit exams and
allowing students to earn a General Equivalent Diploma (GED) while still
enrolled in high school.
Since wholesale inclusion has not been proven to have a positive impact
on graduation rates for students with disabilities, inclusive practices need
to be closely examined to see if there is room for improvement. Many
students with MID are now included in the general core curriculum, yet
they continue to be years behind in their peers without disabilities in the
areas of reading and math. High schools struggle to provide effective remediation in basic skills while still providing access to the full curriculum
required by the state. Basically, the critical component is time: when do
students who are several years behind have the time to catch up when they
are currently enrolled in grade level classes needed to graduate? States are
continuing to address this issue that evolved as an unintended consequence
of the accountability measures required by the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). States are applying for flexibility
waivers for ESEA that would provide some options for students with documented disabilities. One example of this flexibility is a rubric designed to
allow students to waive some core math classes if they have a documented
disability in math (Samuels, 2014).
One way to break down a barrier to graduation faced by many students
with and without disabilities is to consider the environments where they
live and make an effort to include them in school even when their home
lives are so difficult on a day to day basis. Many students face a variety of
issues that interfere with regular school attendance or being able to focus
primarily on education. These students may have external challenges such
as poverty, unstable home situations, illness, lack of support and resources,
emotional and psychiatric problems, ADHD, learning problems, drug
296
abuse, gang affiliations, and juvenile justice issues. These problems often
start early in a students career and are pervasive throughout the grades
(Fries et al., 2012). Schools need to find ways to support students with
external challenges through community outreach and collaboration. Wraparound services provided by professionals in the school and community
help to ensure that students have timely and intensive supports for whatever challenges they may face. If students are supported in their life outside
of school, then they will be able to focus on their own education and learning in order to persevere all the way to graduation (Fries et al., 2012).
Communities and schools with successful high school outcomes, as
evidenced by high graduation rates, work together to provide the necessary
supports and services to families and youth who are at-risk of school
failure (Martin & Halperin, 2006).
USING INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES TO

SUPPORT GRADUATION OUTCOMES
State and local agencies are charged with ensuring that all students have
the necessary supports and services to successfully complete school. This is
critical for students with disabilities to ensure they can successfully complete school through graduation. There are a number of practices that can
be implemented to support students at-risk of dropping out and staying
included in school. As Sitlington and Neubert (2004) and Wagner and
Davis (2006) have found, students with EBD need options for relevant and
engaging curricula to best meet their academic needs. Students with SLD
are more than twice as likely to graduate than students with EBD, but still
have dismal graduation rates of between 30.0% and 37.1%.
Despite the 40 plus years of research and best practices on strategies to
support students with learning disabilities in high school, their graduation
rates seem to indicate either these strategies are not as successful as
research has shown, or the strategies are not being implemented as
intended. Because students with SLD are more likely to be included in
general education classrooms but less likely to graduate from high school
and seek postsecondary education than their nondisabled peers (Newman
et al., 2011), there needs to be more diploma and curriculum options for
these students. For students with OHI, the graduation rates decreased
from 48.8% to 36.3% during the six-year study. This dramatic decrease is
troubling. Although there is no readily apparent explanation for this
297
decrease in graduation rates for students with OHI, this decline requires
that educators examine their practices more closely to best educate these
students and help them graduate.
Spitler, Repetto, and Cavanaugh (2013) explore virtual learning environments as a viable alternative to supporting students with disabilities in
inclusive environments. To ensure that the same supports and services in
traditional schools are provided virtually they have developed a framework
that includes many of the evidence-based practices already mentioned.
Spitler et al. (2013) suggest schools design learning environments that
serve students with disabilities through the 5-Cs framework designed to
increase school completion: Connect, Climate, Control, Curriculum, and
Caring Community (p. 4). Program examples that are part of this framework in a virtual setting include active participation by students and parents in Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meetings and transition
planning; individualized modifications and accommodations; continual
monitoring of student progress; and collaborative partnerships between the
parents, students, and teachers (Spitler et al., 2013). Blended learning
provides opportunities beyond the traditional school setting to meet a variety of student needs for more individualization and options for when and
how students complete graduation requirements. Technology can be used
to support students beyond classroom instruction through flipped learning
opportunities where teachers facilitate what students have learned outside
the classroom. Additionally, alternative opportunities to earn credits can
be provided through virtual courses offered for part or a students entire
educational program.
CONCLUSION
In the almost 40 years since Public Law Number 94 142 (Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 1975), the data from this study
indicated that students with disabilities are not graduating at the same rates
as students without disabilities. Although laws continue to be written to
ensure that students with disabilities receive an individualized and free and
appropriate public education, data show that they in fact are not receiving
the same opportunities as students without disabilities. As graduation
requirements are standardized and diploma options are limited, individual
options for specialized instruction are being eliminated (Bridgeland et al.,
2006; Brigham et al., 2004). In response, decisions should be made at the
298
state level to provide more technical assistance and resources to districts to

ensure adequate supports and curriculum are in place for students with
disabilities.
It appears that state and federal legislators no longer recognize that students have different goals upon graduation from high school. Instead, policy now requires that all students meet the same standard by the year 2014
(NCLB, 2002). Whereas Sitlington and Neubert (2004) believed that it is
likely that the use of differentiated diplomas will continue to grow
(p. 282), the Education Commission of the States (2008) reports that
35 states have diploma options of only standard or college prep/honors as
of 2008.
In particular, Georgia had changed its graduation requirement for freshmen entering in 2008 to only one standard diploma for all students
(GADOE, 2009c). The results of this study indicated that thousands of students with mild disabilities leave school between the end of Grade 8 and
Grade 12. This might suggest that one general curriculum is not meeting
the needs of all students. As discussed previously, the answer is not crystal
clear. The goal of raising standards is a good one, achieving higher standards at the cost of limiting curricular options may need more exploration.
Although the general curriculum and standardized tests for all students
may meet the needs of the state and federal agencies for accountability
purposes, they are not the ideal tool to measure all students skills. We
need to ensure that although we have high expectations for all students, we
also continue to provide access to an appropriate education for all students. Educators need to find ways to support and enhance the strengths
and abilities of all students, not just those whose goals include immediate
entrance to college after high school. Setting higher standards and having
all students meet them is of no benefit when the narrow focus of the curriculum works to usher some students out before graduation.
Federal and state policymakers should be aware that policies regarding inclusion as the primary placement for students with disabilities to
receive access to the general curriculum do not necessarily bring about
successful results. Collecting and analyzing data should provide policymakers with the information required to evaluate the effectiveness of
current educational policies such as inclusion. Although the special education literature is replete with effective strategies and interventions to
use with students with disabilities in inclusive settings, there seems to
be a disconnect between best practices and implementation as evidenced
by the low graduation rates for students with mild disabilities in
inclusion.
299
REFERENCES
Balfanz, R. (2009, June). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and
practice brief. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Retrieved from
https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/Policy_Brief_Balfanz.pdf
Bost, L. W., & Riccomini, P. J. (2006). Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for
dropout prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 301 311.
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Jr., & Morison, K. B. (2006, March). The silent epidemic:
Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Brigham, F. J., Gustashaw, W. E., III, Wiley, A. L., & Brigham, M. S. P. (2004). Research in
the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act: Why the controversies will continue and
some suggestions for controversial research. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 300 310.
Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention, considerations,
interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36 39.
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2007). School characteristics related to high
school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 325 339.
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers attitudinal ratings
of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, 230 239.
Diamond, L. (2007, April 25). Gwinnett schools to phase out easier academic classes. The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, D5.
Downing, M. (2008, April 8). So much for No Child Left Behind. Houston Press. Retrieved from
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-04-10/news/so-much-for-no-child-left-behind/1
Editorial Projects in Education. (2007, June). Diplomas count 2007. National summary.
Bethesda, MD: Author.
Editorial Projects in Education. (2008). Diplomas count: National summary. Bethesda, MD:
Author.
Education Commission of the States. (2008). Standard high school graduation requirements.
Retrieved from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. (1975). Pub. L. No. 94 142, 20 U.S.C.
1401 et seq.
Fries, D., Carney, K. J., Blackman-Urteaga, L., & Savas, S. A. (2012). Wraparound services:
Infusion into secondary schools as a dropout prevention strategy. NASSP Bulletin, 96,
119 136. doi:10.1177/0192636512443282
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2008). Georgias performance goals and indicators for students with mild disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_
exceptional.aspx?PageReq=CIEXCPerfGoals
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2009a). Final AYP report: Graduation rate
rises to 78.9%. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/
communications/Pages/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?PressView=Archive&pid=138
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2009b). 2007 2008 Report card: Three-year
comparison of graduation rates. Retrieved from http://reportcard2008.gaosa.org/
(S(5s0ivq5wjmroamwrk0bfyy5n))/k12/Indicators.aspX?ID=ALL:ALL&TestKey=
GradRate&TestType=indicators
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2009c). 2007 2008 Special education annual
report. Retrieved from http://archives.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/Georgia_State_
Performance_Plan_2010.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6A71F37B4552D3085423CD03A8F5
B75A4D8B434F855E6DAAA&Type=D
300
Harvey, M. W. (2001). A vocational-technical education: A logical approach to dropout prevention for secondary special education. Preventing School Failure, 45, 108 121.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments. (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004. (2004). Pub. L. No.
108 446, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Johnson, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Revisiting graduation requirements and diploma
options for youth with disabilities: A national study (Technical Report). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Karger, J. (2004). Post IDEA 97 case law and administrative decisions: Access to the general
curriculum. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_idea97.html
Kitmitto, S. (2011). Measuring status and change in NAEP inclusion rates of students with disabilities: Results 2007 2009 (NCES 2011-457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Co-teaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, 52, 12 20.
Martin, N., & Halperin, S. (2006). Whatever it takes: How twelve communities are reconnecting
out-of-school youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
McGrath, M. Z., Johns, B. H., & Mathur, S. R. (2004). Is history repeating itself Services
for children with disabilities endangered? Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(1), 70 71.
McLeskey, J., Landers, R., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education,
24(3), 131 140.
McNeil, M. (2008, August 13). Exit scramble. Education Week, 27(45), 21 23.
Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52 58.
National Association of School Boards of Education. (2008). Beginning in the middle: Critical
steps in secondary school reform. The report of the NASBE study group on early secondary education. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Education Association. (2008). Changing the landscape: Including students with disabilities in high school graduation rates (Issue Brief No. 21). Washington, DC: NEA.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/PB21_StudentDisabilities.pdf
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Schwarting,
M. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years
after high school. A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2)
(NCSER 2011 3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://ies.
ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1048/988
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). 20 U.S.C. 70 6301 et seq.
Ripley, S. (1997). Collaboration between general and special education teachers. Retrieved from
ERIC database (ED409317).
Ryndak, D. L., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of educational contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 127 138.
301
Sailor, W., & Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide applications. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86, 503 509.
Samuels, C. (2014, January 29). Graduation disparities loom large. Education Week, 33(19),
1 8.
Sitlington, P. L., & Neubert, D. A. (2004). Preparing youths with emotional or behavioral disorders for transition to adult life: Can it be done within the standards-based reform
movement? Behavioral Disorders, 29, 279 288.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A. B., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006).
Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with mild disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72, 411 424.
Spitler, C., Repetto, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). Investigation of a special education program
in a public cyber charter school. The American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1),
4 15.
Swanson, C. B. (2008). Special education in America: The state of students with mild disabilities
in the nations high schools. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., White, J., Richter, S., & Walker, A. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition practices for enhancing school completion. Exceptionality, 17, 16 29.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Current population survey, published data. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov.population/www/socdemo/euc-attn.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008, December 22). No child left behind act: High school graduation rate. Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf
Wagner, M., & Davis, M. (2006). How are we preparing students with emotional disturbances
for the transition to young adulthood? Findings from the national longitudinal study
2. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 86 98.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Joseph S. Agbenyega is Senior lecturer in inclusive education and early
childhood education in the Faculty of Education, Monash University,
Australia.
Donna Barrett is Superintendent of Schools for Northland School Division
No. 61, Alberta, Canada.
Jessica Bucholz is Associate Professor of Special Education in the College
of Education and coordinator of the undergraduate program in Special
Education at the University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia, USA.
Suzanne Carrington is Head of School, Faculty of Education, School of
Cultural and Professional Learning at Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane Australia.
Dianne Chambers is Associate Professor, Coordinator of Special Education
at the University of Notre Dame, Perth, Western Australia.
Sarah Copfer is a Ph.D. student in the Educational Psychology and Special
Education program at the Faculty of Education at the University of
Western Ontario, Canada.
Meng Deng is Professor and Faculty in the special education program at
the University of Beijing.
Joanne Deppeler is Associate Dean of Research Degrees in the Faculty of
Education at Monash University, Australia.
Mary Doveston is Senior Lecturer in Education (Special Education Needs
and Inclusion) and Programme Leader for Masters Special Education
Needs and Inclusion at the University of Northampton, UK.
Kymberly Drawdy is Associate Professor in the Special Education program,
Department of Teaching and Learning at Georgia Southern University,
Georgia, USA.
Mary Louise Duffy is Professor of Exceptional Student Education at
Florida Atlantic University, USA.
303
304
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jennie Duke is Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, School of Cultural

and Professional Learning, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
Serge Ebersold is professor of sociology and former head of the international research unit on special needs at the National Higher Institute for
Training and Research for the education of Young Disabled Persons and
Adapted Teaching, Paris, France.
Lani Florian is Professor and Bell Chair of Education at the University of
Edinburgh.
Chris Forlin is Adjunct Professor of Special and Inclusive Education at the
Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Janet I. Goodman is Chief Academic Officer for Haralson County Schools,
Tallapoosa, Georgia, USA.
Michael Hazelkorn is Professor of Special Education and Dean of the
School of Education and Teacher Preparation, at the College of Coastal
Georgia (University System of Georgia), Georgia, USA.
Catherine Howerter is Assistant Professor of Teaching and Learning,
College of Education, at Georgia Southern University, Georgia, USA.
Johnson Jament is a Lecturer in Inclusive Education, University of
Northampton, UK and Director of Venad Education & Social Services,
Kerala, India
Anne Jordan is Professor Emerita of Special Education and Inclusive
Education at the University of Toronto, Canada.
Agnes Gajewski is Professor in equity and diversity studies at Centennial
College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Julie Lancaster is Lecturer at the School of Teacher Education, Charles
Sturt University, Australia.
Andras Lenart is the Project Officer for the European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education.
Donna Lene was a strategic leader in the inclusive education process
in Samoa, and is currently working with deaf students in an inclusive
secondary school in Brisbane, Australia.
About the Authors
305
Tim Loreman is Dean of Research and Faculty Development at Concordia

University College of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada.
Donna McGhie-Richmond is Associate Professor in the Department of
Education Psychology and Leadership Studies, at the University of
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Laisiasa Merumeru is the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariats (PIFS)
Disability Coordination Officer and Research Assistant.
Susie Miles is Senior Lecturer in Inclusive Education at the University of
Manchester, UK.
Jayashree Rajanahally runs the after-school remedial program and works
with children at the Brindavan Education Trust (a co-educational day
program for children ages 9 18) in Bangalore.
Richard Rose is Professor of Inclusive Education and Director of the
Centre for Education and Research, University of Northampton, UK.
Umesh Sharma is Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of
Special Education Programs in the Faculty of Education, Monash
University, Australia.
Jacqueline Specht is Associate Professor and Director of the Canadian
Research Centre on Inclusive Education at the University of Western
Ontario, Canada.
Jennifer Spratt is Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, at the
University of Aberdeen, UK.
Amanda Watkins is Assistant Director with the European Agency for
Special Needs and Inclusive Education.
INDEX
Ability, 5 6, 10, 21, 33, 43, 67 69,
78, 81 82, 84, 97 99, 103,
123, 133, 141 142, 175, 181,
210, 217, 229 232, 234, 236,
253, 255, 257, 265, 268,
271 272, 274 276
Absenteeism, 214 215
Access, 3 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21,
25 27, 32, 38 39, 42,
44 46, 58, 62 63, 67 68,
70, 78, 80 83, 87, 89, 126,
137 139, 143, 166, 172,
174 175, 178, 180 182, 207,
210, 215, 248, 250, 255, 271,
274, 280, 283, 292, 294 295,
298
Action research, 189 191,
193 195, 198 200, 213, 216,
232 234
Administration, 44, 81, 107,
115 116
Assessment, 10 11, 13, 15, 25, 27,
40 43, 45 48, 82 83,
86 88, 94, 99, 103, 106,
137 138, 165, 167, 175,
181 182, 199, 220, 233, 240,
257, 273, 281, 283
Attitudes, 4, 8, 28 29, 41 43,
46 48, 93 103, 106 107,
122, 151 152, 154, 171, 174,
180 181, 194, 200, 213, 228,
239, 265
Beliefs, 19, 27 29, 38, 79, 85,

93 99, 102, 107, 117, 122,
129, 133, 137, 151 152, 154,
174 175, 181, 191, 194 195,
200 201, 239 240
Bourdieu, 115 116, 121 130
Care, 24, 27 28
Central Advisory Board of
Education (CABE), 39
Classroom, 6, 11 12, 14, 19 20,
22 27, 29, 31 33, 43,
46 47, 67, 76, 78, 80 82,
84 86, 94 98, 100, 102 103,
105 106, 117 118, 134 136,
138 140, 142 143, 147,
151 154, 169, 171 172,
174 176, 181 182, 192, 200,
227 229, 231 233, 235,
237 242, 248 249, 251, 253,
255 257, 259, 263, 265 267,
269 271, 273 276, 280 281,
283 284, 292, 297
practices, 27, 33, 95, 138, 175,
242
Climate, 12, 33, 94, 99, 106, 169,
174 175, 180 181, 249, 297
Collaboration, 12, 25, 32 33,
81 82, 94, 100 101,
104 105, 118, 137, 151,
169 171, 176 177,
180 182, 192, 197, 209, 215,
223, 227, 234, 236 239, 241,
256, 258, 296
Barriers to participation, 7, 15, 116

307
308
problem solving, 100, 234, 236,

238, 240, 241
Collegiality, 29, 33
loyalty, 21, 30, 33
Community-based interventions,
215
Comparative special education, 247
Cook Islands, 206, 208
Culture, 4, 7 8, 10, 14, 26 27,
32 33, 54, 97, 100, 107, 116,
118, 121, 177, 190 191, 193,
199, 206, 208, 210, 213, 220,
249, 274, 277
Curriculum, 5 6, 10 13, 15, 22,
28, 47, 57, 62, 81 82, 104,
106, 145, 155, 169, 173,
175 176, 181 182, 192, 199,
213, 215, 227 229, 233, 241,
248, 250, 252 253, 255 256,
270, 279 280, 282, 292 298
differentiation, 227, 228, 241
modification, 47
Deaf, 216, 250
Developing countries, 166 167,
177, 189, 191, 193, 195 197,
199, 205, 276
Disability, 3 6, 8, 13, 27 30, 39,
47, 55 58, 64, 67 68,
76 77, 88, 96 98, 101, 105,
115, 119 120, 133, 135 136,
151, 167, 177, 183 184, 190,
205 208, 211 212,
215 216, 218 220,
222 223, 283 287, 289,
292, 295
perceptions of disability, 30
Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection
and Full Participation Act)
INDEX
(1996), 4, 39, 55, 63, 196,

208, 252
Diversity, 4, 6, 8, 13, 40, 42, 63, 71,
76, 87, 94, 100, 106, 117, 141,
175, 189, 194, 196, 228, 240,
258, 264 265, 270 271, 276
Education for All Monitoring
Report (UNICEF 2014), 43
EFA, 177 178, 196, 206 207, 216
Efficacy, 26 27, 33, 82, 88, 94, 97,
99, 102, 106, 171, 174, 227,
233, 239 241, 258 259
Enabling Education Network
(EENET), 10, 166, 206 209,
211, 213 214, 216 218,
221, 223
Equity, 3 5, 13 14, 21, 24, 27, 67,
76 79, 86, 88, 128, 177, 179,
190, 207, 213, 237
Ethical, 19 31, 33 34, 87, 199, 249
challenge, 21 22, 24, 25 29, 31,
34
dilemma, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30
principles, 19, 30
problem, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28
Evaluation, 3 4, 13 15, 23, 25, 29,
34, 40 41, 44, 48, 64, 84, 89,
165, 167, 183, 238, 267
Evidence to support policy making,
66
Exclusion, 4 5, 9 10, 42, 62, 64,
78, 166, 275
Fiji, 198, 200 201, 206, 208, 210,
212, 217, 223
Finances, 169, 172, 180 181
Funding, 11, 23, 57, 61, 75, 77 79,
86 88, 169, 172, 216,
220 221, 233
Index
Human rights, 3 5, 9, 63 64, 128,

189, 212
Improvement planning, 75, 197
Inclusion, 3 14, 19 30, 32 34,
37 43, 45 48, 54, 57, 67, 69,
76, 80 82, 86, 93 107, 115,
120, 124, 126, 128, 133 134,
138, 152, 154, 166 167,
171 172, 174 175, 178,
181 184, 189 201,
206 208, 211, 213 215,
219 220, 222, 227 228, 234,
237 238, 241, 247 253, 256,
264 268, 271 276,
279 281, 283 287,
289 295, 298
index for, 10, 11, 14, 41, 166,
189 201
meaningful, 106
Quality Mark, 41
Inclusive education, 3 15, 19,
21 25, 27, 29, 31, 33 34,
37 38, 41 42, 44, 47,
53 55, 60 67, 70 71,
75 79, 81, 83 89, 93 97,
101 102, 106, 115 123,
125 130, 133, 165 184,
189 190, 193, 195 201,
205 219, 221 223, 227, 229,
231, 233, 235 237, 239, 241,
247, 251, 263, 266, 272, 277,
279, 296
conceptualizations of, 99
definitions of, 4 6
framework, 41
indicators of, 165 184,
227 242
measurement of, 19, 22 24,
29, 223
309
models of, 256 258

themes, 10, 12, 170
Inclusive pedagogy, 263 277
Inclusive school, 4, 10, 37 38,
41 42, 45, 76, 80 81, 83, 86,
94, 115 121, 123, 125 130,
170, 172, 176 177, 193, 228,
248
India, 37 39, 41 45, 47 48, 178,
195, 209
Indigenous (culture, languages,
people, values), 206,
210 214, 220
Individual supports, 176
Inputs-processes-outcomes
framework, 11, 168, 169, 170
Inquiry-based approaches, 205
Instructional, 11, 27, 79, 81 84, 94,
98 99, 106, 133 136, 138,
140, 144 150, 152 155,
169 170, 173, 175, 228, 230,
232, 236, 240, 248 249,
251 253, 255
effective practices, 133
International aid, 189
Australian Aid, 195, 199, 214
International policy requirements, 53
Justice, 21, 128, 130, 174, 268 269,
271, 294, 296
Kiribati, 206, 208, 211, 214 215, 217
Knowledge, 22, 25, 29, 47, 69, 78,
84, 94 95, 97, 99 107, 117,
122 124, 126 130, 137, 141,
143 144, 153, 171, 190,
197 198, 200, 207, 209, 212,
214, 217 218, 220, 223, 228,
232, 235 237, 240, 249 250,
255, 265, 267, 271
310
Leadership, 12, 78, 80, 82, 105,

115 119, 121 130, 133,
169, 172 173, 180 181,
199
Learners rights, 53, 66, 67, 70
Learning, 5 6, 8, 11, 13 14,
20 21, 23, 25, 27 29, 34, 38,
40 41, 43 47, 55, 57 58,
62 63, 65, 67 70, 76,
78 87, 89, 93 94, 98 99,
103 107, 117 118, 120, 125,
133 136, 138 147,
151 155, 172 176, 178,
181 182, 189, 191 197, 199,
211 212, 214, 227 230, 232,
234 236, 238 241,
248 249, 251 252,
254 255, 257, 259, 264 266,
268 271, 273 276, 281, 284,
286, 288 289, 291 292,
295 297
Literature review, 166, 241
Marginalisation, 38, 42, 62,
209 210, 275
MDGs, 207
Micro-meso-macro framework,
183
Midday meal provision, 44
Mobile phones, 210
National Council for Protection of
Child Rights (NCPCR), 46,
48
Networking, 205 223
Observation, 98, 133, 135, 142,
145 146, 149 153, 155,
212, 234, 254, 267, 271
Oral culture, 210, 213
INDEX
Pacific Disability Forum, 208

Pacific Island countries, 206, 213
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat,
206
Policy, 4, 6, 11 13, 15, 37 39, 42,
46, 53 55, 57, 59 71, 81,
86 87, 95, 122, 126,
169 171, 175, 180, 183,
190 191, 193, 198 200, 206,
208, 211 212, 215, 223,
227 228, 233, 251, 254, 272,
277, 279, 292, 298
Post-school outcomes, 12, 179
Poverty, 8, 38, 42, 177, 180 181,
210, 213, 215, 220, 295
Practice, 3 5, 7 9, 13 15, 19 21,
23 26, 29 30, 32 34, 62,
65, 71, 75 76, 80 82, 85,
94 101, 104 105, 107, 115,
119, 121 122, 124 130,
136 137, 141, 148, 153 155,
167, 169 171, 174 176,
180 184, 190 193, 197, 199,
206 208, 211, 213, 216, 219,
222 223, 227 238,
241 242, 248 249, 251,
253 255, 259, 264 265, 267,
269 275, 277, 292
Professional development, 10, 12,
26, 29, 33, 40, 82, 85, 93 94,
99 100, 105, 107, 120, 171,
199, 227, 231 232, 234, 238,
241, 253, 259, 263, 272, 274
Professional learning, 11, 83, 94,
197, 276
Professional responsibilities, 19, 32
Qualitative, 54, 62, 64 66, 95, 100,
102, 105 106, 167, 178, 183,
238
Index
Quantitative, 54, 61 62, 64 66, 95,

167, 178, 183, 241
Rating, 133, 147 148, 153, 155
Research-based pedagogies,
227 228, 240 241
Resources, 6 7, 11 13, 21 22, 26,
32 33, 43 45, 48, 54 55,
57 58, 70, 77, 79 81,
83 89, 100, 118 120, 137,
152 154, 169, 171 172,
175 177, 180 181, 190,
195 196, 199, 207 208,
211 212, 217, 220 221,
294 295, 298
Right to Free and Compulsory
Education Act (RTE) (2009),
38 39, 42 46, 48
Rights, 3 5, 9, 19, 21, 37, 39, 42,
46, 48, 53, 55, 63 64, 66 67,
69 70, 75, 93, 115, 126,
128 130, 133, 165, 189, 196,
205, 208, 212, 220, 223, 227,
247, 263, 279
Samoa, 198, 206, 208, 211,
214 215, 217, 223
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)
(2000), 38 39
Scheduled Caste, 38 39
Scheduled Tribe, 38
School, 5 8, 10 15, 20, 23, 25 33,
39 41, 43 46, 48, 55 57,
59 60, 62, 65, 68 70,
76 89, 95 97, 99 100, 102,
104 105, 107, 115 116,
118 121, 123, 125 130,
133 134, 140, 152, 154,
169 182, 184, 190 197,
199 201, 206 208,
311
210 211, 214 216, 219, 223,

227 231, 233 235, 237, 239,
241, 248 249, 251 254, 257,
265, 269, 272 273, 275 277,
281 285, 293 298
culture, 97, 100, 107, 177, 190,
191, 277
school infrastructure, 43 44
school practices, 12, 26, 80, 128,
174 175
Self-efficacy, 106, 171, 174, 227,
239 241, 258 259
Shared responsibility, 12, 32 33,
87, 169, 176, 180 182
Special educators, 24, 32 33, 249
Special schools (role of), 7, 12, 59,
69, 102, 103, 168, 176 177,
183, 206, 216, 276
State Council of Protection of
Child Rights, 46, 48
Strategies, 10, 24, 27, 57, 65,
81 83, 94 96, 98 99, 102,
104, 106 107, 117, 123, 127,
135, 137, 139, 141 144, 152,
175, 179, 214, 219 220, 222,
228, 231 232, 234 235,
237 241, 253, 255, 257 258,
265 266, 296, 298
Students, 4 9, 11, 13 15, 19 34,
43, 76 89, 94 106,
115 117, 119 120,
126 127, 129, 133 155,
169 170, 172 179,
190 193, 195, 200 201, 214,
216, 227 242, 248 259, 268,
273 275, 279 298
achievement, 88 89, 139, 178,
230
attendance, 43
best interests, 19, 30
312
interests, 136, 138

participation, 152, 158, 177, 229
well-being, 27, 32
Survey, 24, 96, 99 101, 103, 198,
216, 222, 255 256
Teachers, 7, 11, 14, 19 34, 37 43,
45 48, 79 86, 93 107,
117 120, 133 136, 138 149,
151 155, 170 172, 174 175,
181, 190 192, 194 195,
199 201, 206, 208, 212,
214 216, 219, 227 235,
238 241, 247 259, 263 269,
271 277, 282, 294, 297
attendance, 43
beliefs, 27, 97 98
certification, 13
inservice, 216, 232
motivation, 46
professional development, 259,
274
supports, 33, 144, 145
INDEX
Teacher education, 12, 45, 47, 65,

78, 94 95, 101, 103 106,
169, 171, 180 181, 184,
208, 215, 249, 256, 263 264,
266, 269, 272, 274, 276 277
initial teacher education, 94 95,
104 106, 264 267,
272, 274
pre-service teacher preparation,
103, 254, 258
Teaching practices, 27, 48, 76,
133 137, 139, 141, 143, 145,
147, 149, 151, 153, 254
Testing, 47, 165 166, 180, 184
United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO),
4 5, 9, 21, 34, 38 39, 54, 57,
69, 76, 116, 166 167,
177 179, 196, 207 208, 210
Universal design for learning, 105,
125, 133, 135, 173, 255

Measuring Inclusive Education Volume 3

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Measuring Inclusive Education Volume 3

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

MEASURING INCLUSIVE

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream

Transforming Troubled Lives: Strategies and Interventions

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE

United Kingdom North America

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

SECTION I: ISSUES IN MEASURING

DATA COLLECTION TO INFORM INTERNATIONAL

RESOURCING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

MEASURING EFFECTIVE TEACHER PREPARATION

LEADING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: MEASURING

IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE TEACHING PRACTICES

SECTION II: MEASURING INCLUSIVE

LEARNING ABOUT INCLUSION FROM

USING NETWORKING TO MEASURE THE

SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM INDICATORS OF

ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCIES FOR

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Monash University, Clayton, Victoria,

Northland School Division No. 61,

University of West Georgia, Carrollton,

Faculty of Education, Queensland

University of Notre Dame, Perth,

University of Western Ontario, London,

University of Beijing, Beijing, China

Monash University, Clayton, Victoria,

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,

Mary Louise Duffy

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,

Faculty of Education, Queensland

National Higher Institute for Training and

University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK;

Hong Kong Institute of Education,

Haralson County Schools, Tallapoosa,

College of Coastal Georgia, Brunswick,

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro,

University of Northampton, Northampton,

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,

Centennial College, Toronto, Ontario,

Charles Sturt University, Bathurst,

European Agency for Special Needs and

Indooroopilly State High School, Brisbane,

Concordia University College of Alberta,

University of Victoria, Victoria, British

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS),

Manchester Institute of Education,

Brindavan Education Trust,

Monash University, Clayton, Victoria,

University of Western Ontario, London,

University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

European Agency for Special Needs and

Measuring Inclusive Education

TIM LOREMAN ET AL.

DEFINITIONS OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Conceptualising and Measuring Inclusive Education

Inclusion in education is recognised as a basic human right and the

Scholars, practitioners, governments and organisations such as

TIM LOREMAN ET AL.

(ii) conceptualising inclusive education as the removal of that which

CONCEPTS OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Conceptualising and Measuring Inclusive Education

Conceptualising Inclusive Education as the Removal of

TIM LOREMAN ET AL.

INCLUSION AS A WHOLE OF SCHOOL ISSUE