Taking the Initiative: Perspectives on Policies and Practices on Inclusion

Inclusion – a historical perspective

Professor Brian Boyd

The Warnock Committee of 1978 began the move towards Inclusion when it called for a broadening of the concept of special educational needs. The Report argued that 'the emphasis was to be on the child's educational need and not on his or her disability' (in Swann, 1998, p180). In Scotland, in the same year, the publication by HMI of 'The Education of Pupils with Learning Difficulties in Primary and Secondary Schools in Scotland' began a similar shift towards the provision of an appropriate curriculum for all learners.

The 1990s in Scotland saw the most radical move towards what became known as Inclusion. Nationally, the Committee on Special Educational Needs (COSPEN) was proactive in promoting inclusive policies. Strathclyde Regional Council produced an influential policy document 'Every Child is Special'. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 saw the emergence of the twin policies of raising attainment and tackling social exclusion.

These substantial shifts had their roots in a changing view of young people with special educational needs. The abandonment of labelling, of separate provision and of categorisation was driven in part by the human rights movement. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children (Scotland) Act of 1995 were the forerunners of more recent legislation which has changed the terminology to Additional Support Needs.

The concept of Integrated Children's Services is now well established in Scottish local authorities and every school in Scotland will be an Integrated Community School by 2007. Inclusion as a concept goes much further than the idea of 'integration', common in the 1980s. The Centre of Studies in Inclusive Education in 1996 described an inclusive school as one that 'is community-based, barrier-free and promotes collaboration and equality'.

Conditions for inclusion

The literature suggests that inclusion is a complex issue. The curriculum is a powerful tool (Swann, 1988) and may be part of the problem. However, Solity (1993) suggests that devising a truly inclusive curriculum is not easy. Other important factors are ethos and culture. The creation of what HMI called 'an ethos of achievement' (1993) can be problematic if staff in schools perceive that 'raising attainment' - as measured by examination results - is the principal means of gauging effectiveness.

Boyd and Simpson (2000) have tried to describe the 'learning classroom', emphasising the need for challenging teaching, the avoidance of labelling and the adoption of teaching methods which promote 'deep' learning. Some writers have taken the view that anything other than inclusion is culturally deviant and morally wrong (Hall, 1997) while others caution against the adherence to ideology over the needs of children.

Towards an inclusive theory of learning

Internationally, one of the most influential voices in the debate has been that of Reuven Feuerstein whose optimism is encapsulated in the phrase 'chromosomes do not have the last word'. However, his views on inclusion are challenging for policy makers everywhere. He argues that there are three prerequisites:

• the preparation of the child
• the preparation of the receiving school
• the preparation of the parents.         

It would have to be said that the opposition to Inclusion from some teachers and some parents arise out of a perceived failure on the part of those promoting inclusion to do any of these adequately.

Teacher perspectives on inclusion

Between 1999 and 2003, Hamill and Boyd undertook three research projects in different local authorities in Scotland looking at Inclusion. In all three projects, the views of all staff in the schools involved were surveyed using a detailed questionnaire which they completed during time provided by the school. As a consequence, the return rate was almost 100%.

The emerging themes suggest that Inclusion is accepted in principle but the majority of teachers believe that it is unachievable in practice. These teachers believe that raising attainment and tackling social exclusion are opposing, not complementary, pressures. They believe that class sizes are too high, that the pressure to improve examination results are too great and that the lack of training for them simply mean that Inclusion is not achievable under the present circumstances. Indeed, they complain that they were not included in the formulation of the policy on Inclusion.

Challenges for policy makers

The very concept of Inclusion is contested and before commitment to its achievement can be expected there needs to be an open debate on what it means. It is clear from recent Scottish research (Hamill and Boyd, op cit) that young people can be in a mainstream school but not necessarily be included. It may be, also, that the corollary is true, and that some young people need more specialist accommodation and care than a mainstream school can provide.

In 2005, the phrase 'bottom 20%' was used by HM Senior Chief Inspector of Education Graham Donaldson and the (then) Education Minister, Peter Peacock, to describe the biggest challenge facing the education system in Scotland. Around the same time, a BBC Radio Scotland Investigations programme suggested widespread disquiet within schools about young people designated as having SEBD (Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties).

A question of values?

One of the fundamental questions raised by the policy of inclusion is 'are all young people, including those with additional support needs, equally valued by the education system?' Does an over-emphasis on examination results mean that those young people who conform, behave well and achieve academically are regarded as more important or more deserving of attention than those who don't? If some communities, because of poverty and disadvantage, have become detached from the values promoted by the education system, how do we re-engage them? And if some schools are successful in breaking the generational link between poverty and underachievement, can we learn lessons from them?

The challenge is one facing society as a whole, not simply the education system. Most people want to live in an inclusive society. This leads to important questions such as:

• Do we believe that all young people have the potential to be successful learners?
• Are we prepared to put the resources in to ensure that no child is left behind in our education system?
• Are politicians prepared to accept that Inclusion will only be achievable when economic, social and educational policies are aligned?