In contrast his definition of inclusion (2002) is:
… “valuing all children irrespective of their type or degree of impairment, or reconstructing the institution to remove barriers so teaching and learning take place so all children can be valued for who they are, participate, interact and develop their potential”. (p 132)
I agree with the CSIE (1996) that,” inclusion is an ongoing process, not a fixed state”, and also with Oliver in Swain et al., (2004) who view "the social model of disability as a practical tool, not a theory". (p11)
Inclusivity is an ethos, which embraces the individuality and diversity of all its students and provides a safe secure environment in which each students’ needs are identified and met without detriment to each other, and that all students are fully participant within lessons: in essence diversity should be embraced and celebrated, not held in contempt and ridiculed.
President George Bush was an advocator of inclusion and in his address at the Republican National Convention (2000) urged, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down”. We must all unite in continuing to break down the barriers to participation and learning and provide all children with their basic human right to a high quality enriching and inclusive education.
It is not sufficient, however, for an educational establishment to declare they are inclusive; they must ensure that they have a fully working social model in place, which encompasses the true definition of inclusivity.
As Reiser (2002) as cited in Swain et al. (2004: 169) states it is simply not enough to place an individual in a mainstream setting, provide additional support in respect of a support assistant, and assume that they are an inclusive institution. Inclusivity is a scheme for social improvement, which commences with the improvement of schools.
Liz Flavell (Sept 2007) believes that schools should be the heart of the community providing a caring, nurturing and supportive environment for the students and their family. I firmly agree with these ideas and also believe that a whole learning community should be created within an educational establishment in order to deliver a clear mission statement in a profoundly caring fashion with the needs of all the students at it’s heart. Inclusiveness is a concept to which everyone should subscribe in order to create a strong environment in which students, and parents feel empowered via a process of self-evaluation and betterment, to increase their self-esteem and feelings of value and worth.
There is a strong ethos of inclusivity amongst the students within the College I am employed, as they are actively encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and their relationships with staff and their peers. Part of this encouragement is implemented via the Interform games held by the P. E department termly. Each form is responsible for selecting and organising a team to participate in the Interform netball tournament. Out of a total of ten forms one particular form in year 8 has a student with Downs Syndrome. Without intervention or prompting from the P.E staff, the form or myself, this particular student was incorporated within the team due to her sheer enthusiasm for the game. She was very much made to feel a part of them team as she was asked to select her preferred position and was
included in the ‘team talks’ which took place during registration time. The student took great pride and pleasure from her involvement, as she is very aware of occasions when she is excluded or considered differently from her peers, however in this instance she felt very much ‘included’ and a valued member of the team.
Swain et al., (2006: 22) state that where disability can often be uncovered as a type of social oppression and exclusion, the above example highlights that:
…“the disabling ‘social barriers’ in the lives of people with impairments can be identified and challenged because socially created barriers can be dismantled”, (Swain et al., 2006: 22)
By dismantling these barriers it:
… “would help ensure that children with physical, sensory or intellectual impairments would gain the chance to develop knowledge and skills that would help them gain access to employment”. (Swain et al., 2006: 43)
Inclusion, ideally, should be an environment in which the students are given the tools and knowledge to encourage themselves and their peers to have a direct impact on their own education. This example espouses that fact that the students within the college are taught the value of themselves and other people, and that each of us, irrelevant of our abilities or disabilities has an important part to play in society.
This ideal scenario however can often be mismanaged and can all too easily lead to a discriminatory situation being created deliberately, accidentally or simply by ignorance. Some establishments blame a lack of funding, as directly contributing to preventing an educational environment of being fully inclusive. Liz Flavell (2007) however, disagrees with this school of thought and believes that there is sufficient funding available to schools, but that a more imaginative way of distributing those
funds and resources, as well as a more inspirational ways of teaching is the key to success.
It is a lack of such vision and inspiration that has been instrumental in leading to a discriminatory practice being highlighted within my workplace. A cohort of ten Year 10 students placed in the bottom tier of the year group are timetabled to follow ‘suitable’ courses to cater for their academic abilities. Due to their academic weakness, these students are not given the opportunity to ‘opt’ for the subjects they would prefer to study as are their peers: in essence their freedom of
choice has been taken away from them. As a result instead of being able to select a more traditional Science course they are timetabled to follow a BTEC course in Agriculture and Animal Care. The students feel very strongly that they have been discriminated against as they are following an alternative course, which they are unable to identify with, rather than a suitably differentiated Science course suited to their academic needs. They believe they have been unfairly ‘labelled’ and singled out by the way the option procedure is structured, which results in them being ridiculed and mocked by their peers.
This example clearly illustrates the problems created by applying a pre-defined learning ability label to students who are classified as having learning difficulties. A practice, which Aspis cited in (French and Swain 1999: 14) rejects wholeheartedly alongside (French and Swain 1999: 328) who state: “Nobody has got learning difficulties, everyone is clever”.
Whilst it is important that all students follow academic appropriate courses, the CSIE (1996) in response to the Tomlinson Report state:
… “it is important students feel actively included, fully engaged and are able to participate effectively within their learning experience”.
The report sees:
… “an individually designed learning environment or ‘learning eco-system’ as the best way of securing a match between provision and individual learning styles and goals”.
In order to strive for my model of Inclusivity I have rallied on behalf of this discrete group and made a plea to the Science Department requesting that they consider delivering a more general science course to these students. One, which would have more relevance to them, increases their self-esteem and thus their sense of belonging within the College. I have been assured that there are plans to deliver a more general science course, which will have greater relevance to the students it is aimed at, and will also help to reduce the shame and humiliation these students feel at having to study ‘unconventional’ subjects.
The dynamic approach to deal with situations such as these would be to produce ‘barrier-free’ policies for everyone rather than ‘special case’ policies which simply result in labelling people as the above example illustrates. Ideally all educational establishments should implement a
mission statement, such as my proposition, (paragraph 2 page 4) which encourages educators to remove barriers to learning and meet a diversity of learners’ needs.
The government presented a strategy for SEN (DfES 2004) that had the purpose and intention of Removing Barriers to Achievement (RBA). It recognised that in order for Mainstream schools to be successful in integrating and including a more diverse population of students, teaching staff needed specific guidance, information and resources. RBA also acknowledged that positive attitudes towards children who experience difficulties within school and a greater awareness of their individual needs were critical in eliminating discriminatory practice. (DfES 2004m: 2,7) as cited in Cheminais (2006:38).
In 2002 the DfES set out the initial principles for and inclusive education service which focused principally on children with SEN, however, Hayward (2006: 2) confirms that in more recent years this agenda has moved to encompass children with a full range of barriers to learning. I firmly believe this is an important step in addressing children’s needs as all children experience special needs at some stage in their lives.
Inclusion should be a collaborative process involving all parties and although as Hopkins (1997) comments in Lorenz (2002: 52) it can be a painful process altering existing conventions of thinking. It is essential that clear leadership and support is given throughout this challenging process. A clear vision of where the school is heading is vital and this can be achieved by striving for a ‘culture change’ and devising policies which seek to give relevant academic and enriching educational experiences to all. Organisation and curriculum provision are key components to a schools ethos and it is already well known through the work of Sukhnandan and Lee (1998) as discussed by Lorenz (2002: 63):
…”that grouping pupils by ability leads to those in bottom groups feeling less valued, and as a consequence, encourages them to adopt disruptive behaviours as a way of disguising their academic failure”.
My earlier example highlights this observation perfectly, proving that there is a real need to move away from the overly prescriptive and academic curriculum to a more diverse one offering vocational courses and courses with alternative methods of accreditation.
It is apparent that in order for a school to achieve inclusivity a succinct inclusion policy must be designed and a clear strategy framework developed. I believe a good place to start when developing an inclusion policy is around the five key outcomes of the Every Child Matters Agenda (2003), which I feel have strong links with Maslow’s Human Hierarchy of Needs (1964) and the well-being concept of PISCES (physical, intellectual, social, cultural, emotional and sexual).
These ideas embrace the basic needs of all human beings and only by meeting each of these needs can an individual achieve self-actualisation and realise their full potential.
Any strategies should have clear objectives and state why there is a need for them. With reference to my work-based example of discrimination, I would recommend a policy, which offered a more realistic and accessible curriculum at the year 8-option stage, offering more personalised learning and life skills courses as well as academic ones, a view which Hayward concurs, (2006: 44). The aim of the policy would be to offer a relevant academic timetable, which results in an enriching educational experience for all students. To enable such a timetable to be offered analysis of the current provision should be carried out via a SWOT analysis
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). Current national legislation and requirements should also be taken into account as well as links to other existing school policies, to ensure they complement each other and are standardised.
Hayward (2006: 45) believes that a number of key principles underlying the strategy should be set within the context of the school, these include;
- A more holistic, multi-agency, approach to meet the real needs of the students.
- A student-centred approach where the needs of the students are at the heart of the decision-making.
Once a policy has been completed it should be publicised to the whole school, reviewed and updated regularly. However as Haywood (2006: 53) states: “creating a policy is only part of the creation of a fully inclusive school”, as I propose in my definition inclusivity should be an ethos, a community sharing cultures, values and practices in order to facilitate an enriching, diverse environment in which all students can thrive, flourish and achieve their full potential.
Reference List
Barnes, C. Mercer, G. Shakespeare, T. (1999), Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction, Cambridge: Polity
Bush G. Address at the Republican National Convention (2000), <> (accessed 24/09/07)
Cheminais, R. (2006) Every Child Matters: A practical guide for teachers, London: David Fulton
CSIE, (1996), Summary of report of Further Education Funding Council Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee chaired by Professor John Tomlinson <http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/tmlnsn.htm> (accessed on 13/09/07)
DfES (2002), < > (accessed on 01/10/07)
Disability Act 2001, <> (accessed on 01/10/2007)
Every Child Matters (2003), <http://> (accessed on 25/09/07)
Howard, M. “Howard Pledge on special schools,” <> (accessed on 10/10/2007)
Hayward, A. (2006), Making Inclusion Happen a practical guide, London: Sage
Kaufman, J. “The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush Education Policy: A Trickle-Down Theory of Education of the Hard-to-Teach”. Journal of Special Education (1989: 3)
Lorenz, S. (2002), First Steps in Inclusion A Handbook for parents, teachers, governors and LEAs, Glasgow: David Fulton Publishers
Maslow, A. Hierarchy of Human Needs (1964), <> (accessed 24/10/07)
Swain, J, French, S., Barnes, C & Thomas, C. (2004), Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments, London: Sage.
Swain, J., French, S., & Cameron, C. (2003), Controversial Issues in a Disabling Society, Maidenhead: Open University Press.