Student ID: DET 10310360

EDU020L013S

Inclusion - tension between policy and practice?

The issue of inclusion within the world of education is one that continues to be

at the centre of many debates into how children and young people with a

diverse range of needs can best have their educational needs met. There

have been many milestones over the past half a century in the ongoing quest

to define policy and ensure that it is transferred into practice. It has been

argued that guidance from government in the United Kingdom has been

viewed as somewhat ambiguous and that policy, though full of good

intentions, can be interpreted as rich in rhetoric and blind to day to day

practice and pressures (Macbeath et al, 2006). Policy has been shaped and

revisited to try to support inclusion and the aims set out and agreed on an

International level but progress in the practical implementation of such

policies, it is argued, has been a slow process with sometimes questionable

evidence of major change in school level practice as a result of policy

(Thomas & Vaughan, 2004). Inclusion continues to be an area that provides

challenge and differences in opinions across many arenas. At the time of

writing, political change, in terms of the first coalition government to come into

power in over half a century may well complicate the matter further, due to the

pledge within the programme for government to“remove the bias towards

inclusion” (Cameron & Clegg, 2010:29). In order to explore the issue fully, the

assignment will first seek to unpick the definition of inclusion before focussing

more sharply on a specific aspect of inclusive education based on the author’s

experience within the context of school based work before moving on to

compare this with the more recent experience of a position within a local

1
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

authority Inclusion Service. The importance of reflective practice will be

explored as a means to learn from experience with a view to shaping future

practice and supporting others. Research will be used to underpin the

assignment and to provide opportunities to support and challenge viewpoints

and arguments, leading to a conclusion regarding the issue of tension

between policy and practice. An international dimension around inclusion will

be used to widen the area for discussion and to bring an added perspective to

the study.

The author entered into work within education in 2002, undertaking a fairly

new role that was first introduced in 1999 by the Labour governments

Excellence in Cities (EIC) initiative. EIC was a resource based policy

specifically tailored to meet the challenges faced by inner city schools. Within

the EIC strategy, the role of the learning mentor was to work with pupils to

remove barriers to learning with the aim of supporting schools to raise

attainment and reduce exclusion. This was further developed within the

Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) that was introduced in 2002 with a

focus on working with identified secondary schools and their main feeder

primaries. The nature and requirements of the role brought the author into

contact with a number of children of primary school age, identified as having

varying degrees of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) being

educated in a mainstream school with additional support. After five years in

this role, the author was initially seconded, and then employed, by the local

authority Secondary Strategy service to develop of a team of Transition

Learning Mentors, whose role would be to provide a support programme to

2
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

pupils as they transferred from primary to secondary school. After leading the

work of the transition learning mentors for three years, the author was

promoted to a position within the cross phase Inclusion Service, undertaking

strategic responsibility for a wider range of areas, including providing a

programme of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for those

employed within a mentoring role. Within this context, school based

colleagues were almost unanimous in their concerns that they face enormous

challenges to convert the ideals of inclusion, particularly for pupils with SEBD,

into day to day practice. It has therefore been possible to look at the issue of

policy and practice in the area being explored both from an in school and local

authority strategic position.

So what is meant by the term ‘Inclusion’ within the context of education? It

can be argued that there is no one single definition of inclusion or inclusive

education and that this can add to the ambiguity that appears to exist in this

area of education. The Commons Education and Skills Committee (2006)

called for the government to work harder to define exactly what it means when

it refers to inclusion or the inclusion agenda. In the quest to unpick the

definition of inclusion within education, It is of interest to note that this is often

referred to quite specifically in relation to strategies for SEN whereas it can be

argued that it is a much wider issue relating to diversity, equality and

participation. Farrel and Ainscow (2002) describe inclusion as:

“the extent to which a school or community welcomes pupils as full

members of the group and values them for the contribution that they

make”

3
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

(Farrel and Ainscow, 2002:3)

Lloyd (2008) provides an interesting metaphorical angle from which to view

the challenge of providing a fully inclusive education system by referring to the

difficulties faced by newcomers to a well established game, played at a high

level by those who have been successful for a long time. The newcomers,

with little or no experience of the game and, perhaps, needing additional

coaching to access the game at all, are likely to struggle to master all aspects

of the game, thereby leading to frustration and failure affecting all players,

both established and new. Therefore, the challenge should be for those in

charge to create a new and exciting game that involves all players

participating equally with a new concept of success being the desired

outcome. Ainscow et al (2006) also allude to this ideal by suggesting the need

to reframe the concept of ‘achievement’ to be underpinned by inclusive

values, to address the notion that there must be a tension between the

inclusion and standards agendas.

It is also useful, at this point, to make the distinction between inclusion and

integration. Inclusion, as described above, places the emphasis on schools /

communities to ensure that all members are equally valued and this, by

implication, suggests that the institution is responsible for adapting to a

diverse range of needs. Integration, by its own definition, implies that the

pupil will be expected to ‘fit in’ with existing structures. UK policy has moved

through the practice of integration referred to by Warnock (1978) and into the

arena of inclusion as a wider concept, in line with international developments.

4
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

There have been various key policies that refer to inclusion over the past few

decades in the United Kingdom following the Warnock report (1978) that is

widely recognised as putting the issue on the national agenda. There followed

a succession of Acts and policies, both at national and international levels,

aimed at developing inclusive education as the way forward. The rights of

disabled pupils to be educated as part of the mainstream were highlighted on

a world stage via the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

(UNCRC, 1989) and then referred to once again within the United Nations

Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities

(rule 6). However, the most notable international movement towards

promoting inclusive education opportunities is the United Nations Educational

and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Salamanca Statement

1994, an agreement between 92 governments and 25 international

organisations to adopt and embrace an inclusive ethos relating to

philosophical, practical and strategic development of educational opportunities

for all children. The Statement takes the human rights approach, viewing

inclusive education as a basic equal opportunity and a powerful tool to combat

discriminatory attitudes across society as a whole. Key UK policies relating to

inclusion that followed the Salamanca agreement include the Education Act of

1996, the Green Papers of 1997 and 2003, the SEN and Disability Act 2001

and the Children Act 2004.

MacBeath et al (2006) refer to the three worlds of inclusion as that of policy

maker, aspirational classroom practice and today’s classroom. This

perspective, it could be argued, gives credence to the suggestion that there is

5
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

a tension between policy and practice and would be a useful starting point

from which to explore this issue.

Perhaps the most striking argument that appears, in the first instance, to

question inclusive policy and practice, is that provided by the person who is

widely believed to have been a major player in promoting it, some 32 years

ago. Baroness Warnock suggests that

“possibly the most disastrous legacy of the 1978 report, the concept of

inclusion (formerly known as integration).”

Warnock, 2005

Although Warnock’s ‘new look’ has been criticised as lacking substance upon

which to make such statements and has also been described as arrogant and

naïve (Barton, 2005), critics of aspects of inclusion present arguments that

can be viewed as pointing towards a tension, both between policy and

practice and between policies that are thought to be conflicting. Norwich

(2002) suggests that arguments against inclusion usually centre around the

detail and level of inclusive practice and the perceived difficulties that full

inclusion would present – indeed, it is rare to find an argument amongst

educationalists against inclusion per se but the sense of what is ideal against

what can be achieved is often the centre of the debate. Following concerns

raised by members about issues relating to inclusion and SEN, the National

Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)

commissioned a literature review in 2008 that found that although principles of

inclusion were generally endorsed by teachers, more concern is expressed

regarding the inclusion of pupils with SEBD. The author has experienced

6
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

tension at local authority level, with a sense of pressure to ensure that a group

of pupils with SEBD transferred successfully to a mainstream secondary

school. Within the group, a number of pupils had previously been excluded

from primary school and were educated in the special provision for pupils with

SEBD whilst others had a difficult final year at primary school with prolonged

periods of time placed in the Primary Pupil Referral Unit. Whilst clear that the

consensus from colleagues within the local authority supported the aim of

educating the pupils within the mainstream setting, the challenge faced by

school staff to be able to meet their needs was clearly felt, both by the

transition mentors and the school senior leadership teams. Competing

priorities including the pressures of market forces, standards and increased

parental choice are recognised as a challenge to promoting effective

inclusion. This can be particularly true in relation to pupils with SEBD and, for

a variety of reasons, the majority of the pupils mentioned were due to attend

one secondary school with a local reputation as having good inclusive

practice but comparatively poor academic outcomes and league table

‘ratings’. Whilst supporters of full inclusion, such as the Centre for Inclusive

Education (CSIE) adopt a no-compromise approach to alternatives to

mainstream schooling, other groups, such as the Social, Emotional and

Behavioural Difficulties Association (SEBDA) maintain that:

“Where occasionally mainstream schools are unable to address the

needs of some young people with SEBD and the latter do not feel

included, then inclusion can be better promoted in special schools,

units and other 'alternative' forms of education and training.'

7
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

SEBDA © Copyright 2003

The author developed a concern that there was a pressure to achieve

‘inclusion at all costs’ with a danger of not recognising individual needs.

The very issue of identifying pupils and placing them into a ‘group’ is, in itself,

open to contention. The revised SEN Code of Practice (2004) recognises

distinct categories of learning difficulties and disabilities, that pupils with a

statement of SEN are classified by. Pupils are therefore ‘labelled’ according

to their needs and this can be interpreted as a form of deficit model, with

connotations of inequality linked to it. As previously discussed, it is argued

that the aim of inclusive education is to ensure that all learners are valued

equally in an environment that celebrates diversity. The question must be

raised, however, as to how a school can ensure that individual needs are met

if these needs are not identified and recognised. Norwich (2008) refers to the

Dilemma of Difference – should all learners within the diverse group be

treated the same with a focus on what they have in common, at the risk of not

providing adequately for their differing needs, or should these needs be

highlighted to ensure that any potential barriers to learning can be addressed,

at the risk of labelling the pupils as different, or in some way, deficient?

It is also possible to explore the pressures that, it is argued, arise from

agendas and policies that could be viewed as conflicting. Standards, parental

choice and the market forces in operation within education in the UK today

can be viewed as contradictory to the ideal of inclusive education. Tomlinson

(2000, cited in Frederickson and Cline, 2002:22) refers to the issue of pupils

8
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

with SEBD being further disadvantaged at the point of admission to schools

as they could be seen to be “undesirable customers” in the market place

environment that schools appear to operate within. The tension between the

inclusion and standards agendas is well researched and in a climate whereby

schools are judged, to a large extent, by academic performance and league

tables, there is unquestionably the potential for policy clashes (Benjamin,

2002).

As the question develops, it is interesting to note that these tensions and

dilemmas arise even before the issue of day to day classroom practice is

raised. Research and evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement Programme,

undertaken in 2005, stated that as part of the wider impact of BIP, inclusive

policies had been successfully promoted (Hallam et al, 2005). However,

initiatives such as EIC and BIP have been criticised as approaches that

appear to embrace inclusive ideals, but conversely, reinforce the perception of

some learners as deficient and in need of a compensatory approach (Dyson,

2001). In practice, the author and colleagues experienced a high level of

tension and challenge to transfer the theory of inclusive education into

practice due to a number of factors including a lack of high quality training and

development opportunities and practical guidance. Ongoing support and the

opportunity to develop as a reflective practitioner is also a key issue when

working with pupils with a high level of need and, once again, tensions can

arise when trying to build this in to an already demanding and challenging

working day. Reflective practice provides an opportunity for practitioners to

use their experience and knowledge as the basis for actions and to analyse

such actions with a critical mindset to inform future practice. Schon (1983)

9
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

describes the key skills of the practitioner who is able to think ‘on their feet’

when confronted with new or unexpected situations and refers to reflection,

both in and on action as a means to develop and learn from experience. In

practical terms, working closely in a school environment with children and

young people with SEBD, the author would argue that this is an essential skill

to develop. The very nature of SEBD can make the actual behaviours that are

displayed highly unpredictable and, in many cases, dangerous for the pupil,

his / her peers and for staff members and the way in which the practitioner

responds to outbursts or episodes of extreme behaviour will have a major

impact upon the outcomes for the young person involved. Reflection in action

allows the person dealing with a challenging situation to draw on experience

and refer to knowledge gained in order to manage the issue with a view to

achieving the best outcome. Reflection on action is also an extremely useful

practice to undertake as it provides the practitioner with the opportunity to

combine knowledge gained through research, study and development with a

practical review of how a situation was handled and the outcomes that

resulted. It is also clear that working closely with, in some cases, young

people with extreme emotional difficulties, the practitioner needs to explore

his / her own feelings in relation to supporting the pupil to promote well being

and build a sense of what constitutes success. An effective reflective

practitioner is one who understands the heart of their practice and this is not

something that can be achieved without taking the time and space to explore

experiences (Pollard et al, 2008). The author would argue that in an area of

education as complex and multi-layered as inclusion, this is a vital area of

practice to develop. However, the issue of policy and practice raises its head

10
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

again here as it is questionable as to how the time for this level of personal

and professional reflection can be built in to a challenging day within the

school context (Copeland et al, 1993 cited in Bolton, 2010). Further, in a

world of education that appears to look at all forms of strategies for evidence

of impact, there is a risk that reflective practice could be described as soft and

unquantifiable (Regan, 2008) and therefore, somehow unworthy of the time

and energy required to undertake it in a meaningful way.

Having referred to the international movement towards inclusive education

and how this has underpinned development in the UK, it is useful to look at

how another country has taken up the challenge of moving in this direction.

One of the criticisms previously highlighted was that progress in this area is

slow and that there is questionable evidence of major change in practice

(Thomas, Vaughan, 2004). The issue of forthcoming challenges in light of a

change of government was also raised. So how is a country that has had

major constitutional change rising to the challenge of promoting inclusive

education? Lithuania was, until 1990, under Communist rule following

occupation by the Soviet Union during World War II. Post-1990, a shift from

the well established policy of segregation for pupils with disabilities and SEN

led to a ten year plan declaring a commitment to focus on turning the ideals of

inclusive education into practice, referring to requirements for schools to

adapt their systems and programmes to meet the needs of all pupils and to

provide additional support for those with SEN. What is most interesting about

movement towards inclusive education in Lithuania, however, is the speed in

which a high percentage of pupils have transferred into mainstream education

in a relatively short time. Data compiled by the European Agency for

11
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

Development in Special Needs Education in 2008 indicates that Lithuania,

along with Estonia, has the highest percentage of pupils in the compulsory

school sector recognised as having SEN (>10%) compared with between 2-

4% in England, along with other countries including Ireland and Spain.

Interestingly, when looking at the data relating to the percentage of pupils with

SEN being educated in segregated settings, England and Lithuania fall into

the same group, between 1.01% - 2.0%, whilst Ireland and Spain are in the

group below, with up to 1% of SEN pupils in alternatives to mainstream. This

is, of course, a very broad overview of international movement towards

inclusion and not a direct comparison. Clearly, the number of pupils that

these figures refer to vary immensely from one country to another and no

reference is being made to whether tensions between policy and practice

exist elsewhere. It is, however, interesting to note that despite the move from

totally segregated provision towards inclusion being a comparatively new

concept in Lithuania, there has been a very clear and steady rise in the

number of pupils with SEN being educated in the mainstream, with varying

levels of support (Meijer, 2009).

In conclusion, the author would concur with the arguments presented in the

text that there is a tension between policy and practice in the area of inclusive

education. The research used to explore the question highlights tensions in

all areas – from the fundamental issue of what inclusion actually means, to

the identification and ‘labelling’ of pupils with SEN, the arguments for and

against alternative provision and the issue of competing priorities as a result

of the issues of market forces, the standards agenda and parental choice.

12
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

The importance of reflection within the context of the quest to transfer policy

into practice was explored. The international perspective of the issue has

been explored through the policies and agreements that have underpinned

policy and practice in the UK, and then developed further by way of an

overview of the implementation of inclusive education in Lithuania. The new

coalition government’s pledge to “remove the bias towards inclusion” throws a

completely different light on the issue and is highly likely to add further fuel to

the fire in an already heated debate around inclusive education.

13
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Inclusion and the Standards

Agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England International Journal of

Inclusive Education 10:4, 295-308

Barton, L. (2005) Special Educational Needs: an alternative look. London

Institute of Education

Benjamin, S. (2002) The Micro-politics of Inclusive Education: an ethnography

Buckingham Open University Press

Bolton, G. (2010) Reflective Practice: writing and professional development

London Sage

Cameron, D. and Clegg, N. (2010) The Coalition: Our programme for

government London © Crown Copyright 2010

CSIE (2002) Inclusion Charter (revised) Internet WWW page at URL:

http://www.csie.org.uk/publications/charter.shtml accessed 14/06/10

DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs

(Green Paper) London DfEE Publications

14
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

DfES (2001) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of

Special Educational Needs London DfES Publications

Dyson, A. (2001) Special Needs in the twenty- first century: where we’ve

been and where we’re going British Journal of Special Education

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education Internet

WWW page at URL: http://www.european-agency.org/country-

information/lithuania accessed 14/08/10

Farrell, B. and Ainscow, M. (2002) (ed) Making Special Education Inclusive

London David Fulton

Frederickson, N. and Cline, T (2002) Special educational needs, inclusion

and diversity: a textbook Buckingham Open University Press

Hallam, S., Castle, F., Rogers, L. with Creech, A., Rhamie, J. and Kokotsaki,

D. (2005) Research and Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement

Programme Institute of Education London

House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2006) Special

Educational Needs, Volume , Third Report of Session 2005-06 London:

HMSO

15
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

Lloyd, Christine. (2008) ‘Removing barriers to achievement: a strategy for

inclusion or exclusion?’ International Journal of Inclusive Education 12:2,

221 – 236, First published on 28 September 2006 (iFirst)

MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., Macbeath, A. and Page, C. (2006)

The Costs of Inclusion, : A study of inclusion in English primary, secondary

and special schools Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of

Education Commissioned by the NUT

Meijer, C. (2009) Inclusive Education: An International Perspective on

Policies and Practices Internet WWW page at URL: www.dgidc.min-

edu.pt/especial/Documents/Cor%20Meijer1.pdf accessed 14/08/10

NASUWT (2008) Special Educational needs and Inclusion: Reflection and

Renewal Birmingham NASUWT

Norwich, Brahm (2002) Education, Inclusion and Individual Differences:

Recognising and Resolving Dilemmas British Journal of Educational Studies,

50:4, 482-502

OFSTED (2004) SEN and Disability: Towards inclusive schools London

OFSTED Publications

16
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

Pollard, A., Collins, J., Maddock, M., Simco, N., Swaffield, S., Warin, J. and

Warwick, P. (3rd Ed.) (2008) Reflective Teaching: Evidence-informed

Professional Practice London Continuum

Regan, P. (2008) Reflective Practice: how far, how deep? Reflective Practice

9:2, 219-229

Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner San Francisco

Jossey-Bass

SEBDA (2003) Inclusion Policy Internet WWW page at URL:

www.sebda.org/resources/InclusionPolicy.pdf accessed 11/07/10

Thomas, G. and Vaughan, M. (2004) Inclusive Education: Readings and

reflections Open University Press Berkshire

UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on

Special Needs Education Paris UNESCO

UN (1993) United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of

Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Internet WWW page at URL:

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=26

Warnock, M. (1978) Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education

of Handicapped Children and Young People London:HMSO

17
Student ID: DET 10310360
EDU020L013S

Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: a new look London.

Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain

18