Definition of the Term Inclusion and Its Success - Essay Example

Problem with the Definition of the Term Inclusion and Its Success in England Client Inserts His/her Name Client Inserts Grade Course Client Inserts Tutor’s Name 14/12/2011 Both special education and mainstream education as a whole purpose is to prepare children to live productive lives both as citizens and as members of the community. Students with disabilities would often need special education skills so as to develop skills that would enable them to participate in the community as productive and contributing citizens. While no legal definitions of inclusion or inclusive education exist, many organizations as well as advocacy groups have developed their own definitions (Vlachou 1997). According to its basic definition, inclusive education means that those students with special education are supported in chronologically age-fitting general education classes in their home schools where they receive the specialized instruction defined by their individual education programs and within the background of the core curriculum and general class activities. Inclusion is aimed at making sure that students with disability are able to go to school along with their friend and receive at the same time specially designed instruction and support needed to achieve high values and succeed in their academics (Gibson & Blandford 2005). Inclusion has always been confused with mainstreaming or integration but their difference is worth noting. Mainstreaming is aimed at moving students from special education classrooms to regular education classrooms given that they are able to keep up with their normally developing peers in the absence of a specially designed instructions or support. Integration on the other hand provides inclusion in part-time only thus preventing these students from becoming full members of the classroom community. It is therefore clear that some problems do exist with the definition of the term inclusion. The adoption of inclusive education in England has also been successful in one way or another and this can be squarely related to contemporary research evidence (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson 2006). Inclusion is a much older concept in education than most people imagine. Mainstreaming, normalization, integration, deinstitutionalization, regular education initiative, and least restrictive environment are some but just a few of the terms related to inclusion. Several of these terms are used by people interchangeably while others are still able to make out distinctions. It can however be admitted that there still exists much confusion over the use of the word inclusion. The confusion issue seem to arise from the careless usage of several of these related terms while important differences in meaning clearly exist. This is especially common among the terms mainstreaming, inclusion, integration, and full inclusion (Thompkins & Deloney 1995). Just as it’s mandated by federal legislation, the term “inclusion” has been incorrectly viewed by many professionals who view it as a synonym for the least restrictive environment. Inclusion is however not defined by legislation as the same case applies for unified educational system just as the term mainstreaming is not included. Inclusion instead is regarded as one of the several alternatives within a continuum. Definitions of the term inclusion that do exist differ based on the interest groups that foster the definition (Norwich 2008). Explicit definitions of the term inclusion are often omitted from publications thus leaving it upon the readers to infer the meanings it is being given for themselves. Inclusion definitions can either be descriptive or prescriptive. A descriptive definition of inclusion suggests the variety of ways in which inclusion is used in practice. On the other hand, prescriptive definition of inclusion indicates the way the concept is intended to be used and how other people should go about it. Experience shows that different views on inclusion do exist with more than one perspective on inclusion within a single school or country (Gibson & Blandford 2005). Inclusion is used by different people to refer to different issues or rather situations. This has been one of the underpinning reasons for confusions involved in the term. Inclusion has mostly been concerned with disability and special education needs. The common assumption has been that inclusion is primarily about educating disabled children or those with other special needs, in mainstream schools. This has however been criticized by some stakeholders stating that the context of inclusion should be geared towards enabling the school to increase their capacity to respond to diversity; “learning without limits” (Lunt & Norwich 2008). Inclusion has also been associated to disciplinary exclusions. Given that inclusion is most commonly associated with children having special educational needs, then it is connected to some extend to bad behaviour. Within the Education Act of 1986, the term was used to refer to the temporary or permanent exclusion of children with disciplinary issues from school premises. Inclusion has at times been about all groups vulnerable to exclusion. The increasing trend for exclusion in education can be viewed as a means to overcome discrimination and disadvantage that might affect those groups vulnerable to exclusionary pressures (UNESCO 1994). Socialists would think of inclusion as the opposite of the term social exclusion. To them, social exclusion refers to a situation whereby an individual, household, group of individuals, or a community is limited in one way or another to access resources or they happen to be victims of unequal distribution of resources. Therefore, the term can be confusing when used by those who lobby for special education as well as those pressure groups lobbying for social justice and equal distribution of resources (Harry 2006). The confusion is also present in the government documents that give a broader perspective of this term. According to the Cabinet office, social inclusion refers to the interventions put in place so as to reduce poverty and fortify dilapidated neighbourhoods. However, the educational context of social inclusion would refer to those individuals or groups whose access to educational facilities is under threat (Soan 2005). Early childhood inclusion exemplifies the values, practices, and policies that support the right of every infant and young child and its family, regardless of ability, so as to participate in a wide range of activities and framework as typical members of families, communities and society. According to the UN, inclusion is basically concerned with the provision of appropriate solutions to the broader spectrum of learning needs both in formal and in-formal educational settings. It does not focus on the marginal issue on how some students can be integrated in mainstream education, rather inclusive education focuses on transforming education systems and other learning environments in an attempt to respond to the diversity of learners (UNESCO 1994). The English government legislation over the last two decades has lead to an increased focus on inclusive education. This has mainly been achieved though the stress on inclusive mainstream schools whereby all those pupils with special educational needs and disabilities are brought on board and catered for. In England, educational authorities and schools are required to come up with practices, cultures and policies that are targeted towards achieving an inclusive educational environment. Special Education Needs and disability Act 2001 requires that schools make reasonable adjustments to ensure that children with special needs are not disadvantaged as compared to their peers. The schools’ authorities and staff are required to adopt processes and attitudes that will ensure all the children in their institutions have an equal access to the curriculum (MacBeath et al. 1999). In England, the integration of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools continues even at the present. This is after the realization by all the stakeholders involved i.e. the education department, school authorities, staff, and parents, realize that it is for the benefits of these children with any form of disability thus enabling them to live a productive life just their peers. This has been proved by many individuals with special educational needs who after being enrolled into mainstream schools have performed just as much better as their peers and are living comfortable and competitive lives (Hodkinson & Vickerman 2009). Just to underpin the success of inclusive education in England, the approach of “a whole school” has been embraced. Here, the whole staff has the responsibility for and commitment to pupils with special educational needs. The teachers work hand in hand with the parents and other stakeholders to ensure that each individual with special educational needs is given the attention he/she deserved (MacBeath et al. 1999). This approach has however faced some challenges especially for the teachers to re-adjust their aims and behaviours so as to accommodate this special group of students. Also some parents have this feeling that they cannot contribute as much as they wish when their children are integrated into mainstream schools. Hence, a few of them are not in support of the idea of inclusive education (Vlachou 1997). According to the Warnock report of 1978, pupils regardless of their special needs or learning disabilities, belong together with their same age in the educational mainstream. Prior to Warnock pupils with special educational needs were categorised and labelled which seemed inaccurate. At that time, the survey of SENCOs revealed that all was not well regarding those with special educational needs. This was defined by a shortage in the number of professional support particularly speech therapists and educational psychologists, further worsened by the fact that there existed limited training opportunities (Soan 2005). The concept of special educational need in England was a development on educating those children with disabilities which as a matter of policy was done mostly in separate special schools. This number has been seen to rise from 2% when the concept was initiated to 20% forcing the development of inclusion programmes. Inclusive schools were developed and designed with an idea and attitude that believe in the culture of social justice, equity, and rights. It believes in the uniqueness of each individual and appreciates the diversity recognising it as strength rather than a problem. The pedagogy that children learn altogether in different ways is also what the idea of inclusion believes in (INTC, 2002). The society not surprisingly will generally demand much attention usually paid on the outcomes of investments made in education hence making the parents behave like clients and start “market thinking.” The schools are made accountable for their academic achievement and are judged on the basis of their academic outputs. In such a situation, it is worth noting that vulnerable students (those with special educational needs) are exposed to significant dangers. Here, the idea to achieve higher academic output and that of including students with special educational needs is seen as being mutually exclusive. This however might not be the case as revealed current studies (Harry 2006). Insufficient teacher training and less positive teacher attitude are some of the challenges faced by the success of inclusive education especially in England. The teachers’ attitudes depending on their experiences with those children with special educational needs are generally seen as decisive for achieving inclusive education (Jha 2002). The support available, their training, and conditions like workload and class sizes will come handy in their attitudes and decisions regarding this whole issue of inclusion. Especial when inclusion is introduced within the secondary education phase, teachers are mostly less willing to include students with special educational needs in their classes. They believe that this surely needs dedication and sensitivity towards needs for those with special educational needs to be effectively accommodated in the mainstream classrooms (Hodkinson & Vickerman 2009). Perceptions on inclusion have changed over the past few years not only in England but also the entire United Kingdom. This can partly reflect the development of social policy and social justice in the UK. The government has been so supportive of the programme by the formation of various policies and publishing of numerous ACTs in light of inclusive education. This includes the Special needs and Disabilities Act 2001, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Children 1989, Human rights Act 2000 e.t.c. Funding has also been set aside by the various governments’ departments as well as the stakeholders in the private sector to ensure a smooth running and support of the inclusive education (Soan 2005). In conclusion, even though ambiguity still exists in the term inclusion, this has been addressed at present times by being specific i.e. education inclusion, social inclusion, e.t.c. however, there still remains no universally accepted definition for inclusion when referring to those with special educational needs. This is further aggravated by the fact that most people confuse the term with mainstreaming, full inclusion, and integration (Jha 2002). It could be said however that the most convincing definition of the term “inclusion” is: “a term which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students).” (WEAC). It can also be observed that the current state of inclusive education in England is nothing but a success story despite the numerous challenges faced. The government however still has to come up with more supporting measures and strategies due to the ever increasing number of students with special educational needs. The government has to increase the funding to the institution and at the same time come up with incentives to motivate the teachers involved in the programme. List of References Gibson, S., and Blandford, S., 2005. Managing Special Educational Needs. London: Paul Chapman. Harry., B., 2006. The disproportionate placement of ethnic minorities in special education. In: L., Florian, ed. 2006. The SAGE Handbook of Special Education. London: SAGE pp. 66-83. Hodkinson, A., and Vickerman, P., 2009. Key Issues in Special Educational Needs and Inclusion. London: Sage. INTC, 2002. Supporting Special Education in the Mainstream School, [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 14 December 2011]. Jha, M. M., 2002. Barriers to Access and success: Is Inclusive Education an Answer? [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 13 December 2011]. Lunt, I., and Norwich, B., 2008. Inclusive and Effective Schools: challenges and tensions. In: P. Hick, R. Kershner, and P. Farrell, 2009. Psychology for Inclusive Education. Abingdon: Routledge pp. 96-107. Ainscow, M., Booth, T., and Dyson, A., 2006. Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. Wolverhampton: The Cromwell Press. MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, and Page, C., 1999. The Cost of Inclusion, [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 12 December 2011]. Norwich, B., 2008. What future for special schools and inclusion? Conceptual and professional perspectives. British Journal of Special Education, 35 (3), p. 136-142. Soan, S., 2005. Primary Special Educational Needs. Exeter: Learning Matters. Thompkins, R., and Deloney, P., 1995. Inclusion: The Pros and Cons, About Change, 4 (3) [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 14 December 2011]. UNESCO, 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. Vlachou, A. D., 1997. Struggle for Inclusive Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION COUNCIL, Special Education Inclusion, [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 13 December 2011]. Read More