This is better said than done, since in practice, there have been progressively increasing social diversities (DfES, 2001, 1-33). This poses a challenge on the practitioners as well as the state, since they are committed to provide an appropriate education for all. It is well known that factors such as ethnicity, disability and material deprivation are associated with inequality, social exclusion and the risk of low educational attainment, due to diversity of the condition and the candidates. By diversity, it is not only meant the different grades of disabilities or challenging behaviours in these people, it also reflects divergent cultural values and norms. To promote and enforce equal access to education, the current trend is to acknowledge the rights of inclusion of these people. Following lots of argument, now most agree inclusion describes a process where the pupil with special needs may be educated in an inclusive school build within the mainframe of the ordinary schools, in order to gradually accept them in the mainstream (Croll and Moses, 2000, 1-12).
The nature of provision for special educational needs has changed drastically over the last few years following the Warnock Report and the 1981 Education Act. Ideally, all education, special or ordinary should look at implementation of principles of social justice in education, as deployment of "what is good for the common interest where that is taken to include the good of each and good for all" (Griffiths, 1998, 95 in Quicke, 2007, 2-15). This implies improvement of education of all and specially of those with special needs. This should, therefore, follow certain principles guided by the code for practitioners (QCA/DfEE, 2001). In a broader sense, the inequality in education of those identified to have special education needs, can only be demolished by inclusion (DfES, 2001, 1-13) due the fact that all children, special or ordinary, have the rights to experience relationship