Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 21 December 2014, At: 08:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of InclusiveEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Northern Ireland head teachers’perceptions of inclusionLesley Abbott aa UNESCO Centre, School of Education , University of Ulster ,Coleraine, UKPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Lesley Abbott (2006) Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion,International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10:6, 627-643, DOI: 10.1080/13603110500274379
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110500274379
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Inclusive EducationVol. 10, No. 6, November 2006, pp. 627–643
ISSN 1360–3116 (print)/ISSN 1464–5173 (online)/06/060627–17© 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13603110500274379
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusionLesley Abbott*UNESCO Centre, School of Education, University of Ulster, Coleraine, UKTaylor and Francis LtdTIED_A_127420.sgm10.1080/13603110500274379International Journal of Inclusive Education1360-3116 (print)/1464-5173 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis0000000002005LesleyAbbottUniversity of UlsterSchool of EducationRoom B114, Cromore RoadColeraineCo. LondonderryBT52 [email protected]
Inclusion has been a central educational issue for well over a quarter of a century, with continuingemphasis worldwide on initiatives by governments, Higher Education Institutions and schools thatrespond to the needs of children and young people with learning difficulties, disabilities or otherdisadvantage. This paper reports how Northern Ireland head teachers interpret inclusion in thenursery, primary, post-primary and special sectors. Those in mainstream schools showed whole-hearted commitment to the philosophy and practice of inclusion, and could critically examine whatthey have achieved so far. However, they recognized persistent and varied constraints both withinand beyond their schools. Head teachers in the special sector perceived their schools to have a multi-ple role in providing for pupils with the greatest need, reintegrating those on placement into theirregular schools, and offering outreach support to mainstream colleagues. The implications for allaspects of teacher education were identified, for beginning teachers, for more experienced practitio-ners and for the head teachers themselves. A number of key factors were suggested to makeinclusion work.
Background
Setting the scene for this paper on head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion withineducation requires a definition of the term itself. Despite the widespread and unprec-edented popularity of ‘inclusion’ in official documents, and the apparent shift fromthe use of integration to inclusion, there has been criticism of the absence of clarityand consistency in defining the concept (Booth, 1999). Booth believed that the ‘twolinked processes’ of inclusion and exclusion had to be kept in mind:
It is the process of increasing the participation of learners in and reducing their exclusionfrom the curricula, cultures and communities of neighbourhood mainstream centres oflearning.
(p. 164)
*UNESCO Centre, School of Education, University of Ulster, Cromore Road, Coleraine BT521SA, UK. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
628 L. Abbott
In seeking definitions, however, a distinction must be made between those that simplyreflect ‘good schools’ and others where inclusive education is genuinely ‘reported tobe thriving’ (Giangreco, 1997, cited in Hegarty, 2001), the features of which, accord-ing to Giangreco, might be expected to include collaborative team work, clear rolesamong professionals, effective use of support staff and a family involvement (p. 244).Other identifiable features of ‘good schools’ with an inclusive approach to educationcomprise, for example, a climate of high expectation, valuing a broad range of abilitiesand achievements, removing barriers to learning and promoting a positive apprecia-tion of the diversity of individuals (HMIE, 2002).
Although the terms inclusion and integration can be used interchangeably,‘integration’ has currently been interpreted as placing pupils with special educa-tional needs (SEN) in ordinary schools on a full- or part-time basis, on supportedplacement (in special schools), or in special classes or units within the mainstreamsector (Armstrong, 1998, p. 53), the ultimate goal, where possible, being successful‘re-integration’ into regular classes or schools. The Inclusion Charter, first written in1989 and revised in 2002, supported (among other things) an end to all segregatededucation on the grounds of disability or learning difficulty (CSIE, 1989). It agreedwith additional, appropriate support for pupils in separate settings ‘provided it [was]time-limited, for a specified purpose and based on a goal-oriented plan’ (Thomas &Vaughan, 2004, p. 137). But such placements may not always meet the specificneeds of some children because ‘integration as a process does not imply a restruc-turing of the educational environment to accommodate the needs of a smallnumber’ (Avramidis et al., 2000, p. 191, citing Thomas, 1997). There has now beena move away from integration towards inclusion (Ainscow, 1999, p. 148) ‘often forphilosophical reasons pertaining to the students’ human rights, as well as because ofarguments concerning students’ social growth’ (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002, p. 114).Therefore, whereas integration has tended to describe a process of assimilationwithin which individual pupils with particular needs receive support to participate inan existing school programme, inclusion suggests a transformation of schools torespond to pupil diversity. Inclusive practices, therefore, must include a process ofgrowth and the development of a language of practice (Ainscow, 1999, p. 14):‘Inclusive education is an unabashed announcement, a public and political declara-tion and celebration of difference (Corbett & Slee, 2000, p. 134, citing Branson &Miller, 1989). Indeed, schools must not merely interpret inclusion as making addi-tional provision for children with special educational needs: ‘It is now time … toshift the focus to individual learners and the range of learning opportunities thatmight be created and sustained to help all learners realize their potential’ (MacBeath& Mortimore, 2001, p. 207, author’s emphasis).
However, a philosophy of inclusion is only likely to be successfully translated intopractice where a respect for individuality and a culture of collaboration exist (Skirtic,1991, p. 35) for ‘even those teachers whose work is characterized by grace and fluid-ity, are only able to continue to grow in strong, supportive and collaborative schoolcultures’ (Ainscow, 2000, p. 1). Schools with a culture of this kind not only enableteachers to avoid a sense of professional isolation, but facilitate the enhancement of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 629
practice (Hopkins et al., 1996, p. 45). Those that set out to nurture the learning of allchildren demand that teachers become more reflective, and see enquiry and reflectionas ‘forces for improvement’ (Ainscow, 1995, p. 71). They are able and empowered towork together as critical practitioners or ‘problem-solving teams’ (Clark et al., 1999,p. 158). The Index for Inclusion, a set of materials launched in England in 2000 andnow adapted for use in some 25 countries (http://www.eenet.org.uk), was initiallyfunded by the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education. Is a valuable tool for headteachers and teachers to share, review and explore their inclusive school cultures,policies and practices, identifying both priorities and barriers. Its authors insist,though, that inclusion is not merely another name for SEN, conferring, as it can, ‘alabel than can lead to lowered expectations’ (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13).
It is now over a quarter of a century since the first attempt to have children andyoung people with special educational needs included in mainstream classes, withspecial schools still making provision for those with the most complex difficulties.Subsequent influential UK legislation (DfEE, 1997) included an endorsement for thecontinued role of the special schools to cater for pupils presenting ‘the most significantchallenge’ (Tilstone & Rose, 2000, p. 35), and to develop as centres of expertise (Croll& Moses, 2000, p. 2). Governmental structures in Northern Ireland largely, but donot entirely, reflect those in the UK and a framework for inclusion was establishedthrough the Education (Northern Ireland) Order (1996). The Code of Practice forSEN (DENI 1998a) followed that established earlier in the UK (DfE, 1994) and, in2002, a Children’s Commissioner was appointed for Northern Ireland. All fourUK nations now have a commissioner installed, the most recent being in England(http://www.byc.org.uk/cypcomiss.html). This is a well-developed concept in Austra-lia, New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries, and the role is to ensure that thereis greater awareness of children’s rights within the wider community, and that parentsare better informed and empowered as they pursue these rights (http://www.allchil-drenni.gov.uk). The proposed new legislation in the form of the Special EducationalNeeds and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order (2004) will again mirror provision inEngland, Scotland and Wales, and will have a major impact on schools, pupils andparents, with the new law planned for September 2005. The Human Rights Act(1998) has addressed a further dimension by making the rights and freedoms of theEuropean Commission on Human Rights enforceable here. Work by the HumanRights Commission to consider the scope for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland willfurther help to develop a culture where respect for rights becomes second nature(http://allchildrenni.gov.uk/consultation/chapter2.htm).
Recently, the UK Government’s Strategy for Special Educational Needs (DfES,2004) set out a vision for the education of children with special needs and disabilitiesin four key areas: early intervention, removing barriers to learning by embeddinginclusive practice in every school and early years setting, raising expectations andachievement by developing teachers’ skills and strategies to provide for SEN children,and delivering improvements in partnership so that parents can be confident thattheir child will get the education they need. Concerning the barriers to inclusion, theiremergence has been described as endemic rather than exceptional ‘even where there
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
630 L. Abbott
were avowedly inclusive policies and where teachers were genuinely committed toinclusive approaches’ (Howes et al., 2005, p. 134). They can take many forms(Ainscow, 1999) and ‘may be found in all aspects of the system: within schools,communities, and local and national policies’ (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13). Althoughthe following list does not claim to be exhaustive, barriers in schools include largeclasses, a curriculum not properly related to children’s experiences and, as Croll &Moses (2000) highlighted, poor physical resources. There is a lack of time to preparedifferentiated materials and to plan with learning support teams, inadequate availabil-ity of external specialists and insufficient regular in-service training for teachers(Avramidis et al., 2000). There can be inappropriate teacher expectations andteacher–pupil interaction that, in subtle ways, discourage pupil participation andlearning, resulting in greater marginalization (Ainscow, 1999, p. 61) and, thus,exclusion.
A perhaps more serious constraint lies in professional attitudes towards inclusion(Avramidis et al., 2000) as many mainstream teachers feel ill-equipped to meet thewide range of learning difficulties in today’s classrooms and negative feelings persist— ‘a sense of fear … about their ability to deal with pupils who have certain charac-teristics’ (Ainscow, 1999, p. 60), or a belief that the education of such pupils ‘isprimarily the responsibility of a specialist’ (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13). Thus, thereare significant implications for all aspects of teacher education (Ainscow, 1999;Slee, 2001). Avramidis & Norwich (2002), indeed, referred to studies showing thatacquiring the appropriate qualification from pre- or in-service courses meant lessresistance to inclusive practices, for example in the USA (Buell et al., 1999), inAustralia (Center & Ward, 1989) and in the UK (Avramidis et al., 2000). It wouldalso mean that ‘teachers are not so spooked when different students enter theclassroom’ (Slee, 2001, p. 173). As Marshall et al. (2002, p. 212) put it:
If we are to change attitudes and move towards inclusive education for all students, wehave much work to do at the level of teacher training. All teachers need to be confidentthat they can teach all children.
A more positive view of difference is needed, therefore, and implementing the Codeof Practice means that mainstream teachers must develop their capacity to deal effec-tively with pupil diversity (DENI, 1998b).
Also at the heart of this paper must lie the issue of UK national policy on the stan-dards agenda that seems to contradict the principles of inclusion. The definition ofschool success based only on the publication of league tables, whereby schools arejudged predominantly on the basis of pupils’ academic performance, has given riseto concern (Attfield & Williams, 2003). An important study of 25 English schoolsby Howes et al. (2005) found it to be a major barrier to the development of inclusivepractices. Features such as ‘the narrowing of the curriculum, the focus on targetsand … the categorization of pupils in terms of a narrow conceptualization of attain-ment’ were said to embody ‘values which run counter to a greater or lesser extent tonotions of inclusion and make it difficult for teachers to act in an inclusive way’(p. 137). However, Dyson et al. (2004) showed that, despite schools’ fears that their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 631
performance might be damaged if they were ‘too’ inclusive, only a very small andnegative statistical relationship was found between the level of inclusivity and pupilattainment (p. 11). Nonetheless, policies for raising standards, like the emphasis oncompetition and choice, can discourage the kind of teaching approaches that allowfor student diversity (Ainscow et al., 2004).
Northern Ireland has had a system of academic selection since 1947, the impact ofwhich has been intense pressure for teachers and for pupils entered for the TransferTests that determine whether they will proceed to a selective (grammar) or non-selective (secondary) school (Gallagher & Smith, 2000). Selection has resulted inteachers focusing on a narrow curriculum for the minority (some 20 percent who goto selective schools), with ‘some suggestion that [they] devoted less consistent atten-tion to the educational needs of [those not entered for the tests]’ (Gallagher & Smith,2000, p. 3.2.3). However, the strenuous attempts to abolish selection (Departmentof Education, 2001), with the last Transfer Tests to be taken in 2008, will helpsupport the rationale behind inclusion and lead to a much greater focus on the poten-tial of all pupils. Moreover, the fact that league tables are not published in NorthernIreland means that schools are not competing with each other, and there is not thesame pressure on head teachers to exclude.
A greater understanding is required, then, of how educational contexts can widenaccess and participation and reduce exclusionary pressures, posing the researchquestions: what are head teachers’ current perceptions of inclusion in mainstreamand special schools in Northern Ireland? What difficulties do they encounter? Whatdo they see as the way forward?
The study
It is against this backcloth that head teachers must attempt to make the vision ofinclusion a reality and they ‘still exert substantial influence’ (Ryan, 2003, p. 45).Ryan’s Canadian research suggested that those interested in promoting inclusiveleadership practices must advocate for inclusion (not see difference as a threat), mustconvince others of its merits (reading, talking and writing about inclusion), and mustengender dialogue within and beyond the school (developing ‘a critical conscious-ness’). Crucially, they must foster a whole-school approach (involving teachers,heads, students and parents): ‘In other words, inclusion needs to become integratedinto the culture of the school community’ (p. 56).
Concerning leadership opinions on the appropriate educational placement forchildren with SEN, an English study of primary and special school heads showedthat, whilst the principle of including all children in mainstream neighbourhoodschools was supported by those in special schools, those in the primary sector weremore likely to argue that ‘some children presented difficulties which it was impossibleor unreasonable to expect them to deal with in regular settings’ (Croll & Moses, 2000,p. 6). Special school heads generally held the view that children with moderate learn-ing difficulties should be in the mainstream, and primary heads found coping withemotional and behavioural difficulties too demanding on staff and unfair to other
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
632 L. Abbott
children. In keeping with other research cited above, both sets of head teachers agreedthat the lack of appropriate resourcing in the mainstream environment was why manychildren were in the special sector.
The role of the special schools and their head teachers was redefined in the UKGovernment Green Paper (DfEE, 1998): ‘[to work with] mainstream schools tosupport greater inclusion’ (p. 43), although such links were by then already estab-lished (e.g. Fletcher-Campbell, 1994). Attfield & Williams (2003, p. 31) spoke ofleaders whose ideal was described as ‘a sort of reciprocal inclusion’ and who, with theunique skills and knowledge found in special schools, could provide outreach servicesfor mainstream classes, clusters of geographically dispersed centres, or centres ofexcellence providing consultancy and advice (p. 30). This collaborative, inter-sectorapproach included a shared moral purpose in spite of schools’ very different startingpoints and a need to revisit definitions of inclusion, with head teachers working flex-ibly to ‘demystify the language of special schools’: ‘Partnership [with mainstream],based on commitment and responsibility, must be central to the development ofinclusive practice’ (p. 31).
The empirical data presented here are from a one-year study commissioned by theNorthern Ireland Department of Education to investigate the views and experiencesof head teachers in relation to the development of inclusion within their schools. Theaims of the study were to examine existing practices that increase the motivation,participation and achievement of children and young people in mainstream andspecial schools in Northern Ireland; to identify characteristics of organizationalculture and conditions that promote and contribute to enhanced opportunities andattainment for all pupils; to identify and evaluate the barriers to pupils’ participationand learning; and to consider key factors for a model of good practice that couldinform policy-making at strategic and operational levels.
Methodology
A qualitative approach was used and, in consultation with the Department ofEducation, the respondents were deliberately selected from 28 schools identifiedas actively pursuing inclusion. Whilst this might be a limitation of the study (Avra-midis et al., 2000), the sample was felt to be fully representative of NorthernIreland as a whole in terms of the variables considered, namely, sector, size andgeographical location (schools were distributed throughout the five local educa-tion authorities).
Seven schools were selected in each case from the nursery (N), primary (P), post-primary (PP) and special (S) sectors. In respect of the seven special schools, fourprovided for severe learning difficulties (SLD), two for moderate learning difficulties(MLD) and one was an outreach support service (OSS) for Key Stage 2 pupils (7–11years) with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) (see Table 1).
Semi-structured interviews were designed and piloted with one head teacher ineach sector, then conducted on a one-to-one basis with each respondent in their ownsetting. The interviews lasted approximately one hour. They were tape-recorded and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 633
transcribed. The purpose of the research and their role in it were explained to theparticipants, and complete anonymity was assured in keeping with the British Educa-tional Research Association’s (2004) ethical guidelines. Because of the relativelysmall sample size, raw figures only are used to show response patterns, and it isrecognized that the findings cannot easily be generalized. Selected vignettes exemplifyinter-sector experiences.
Findings
The findings are reported under the following headings:
● Promoting a culture of inclusion at whole-school level.● Developing inclusive practices at classroom level.● Barriers to inclusion.● Teacher education to promote inclusive schooling.● Key factors to make inclusion work.
Promoting a culture of inclusion at whole-school level
Without exception, all 28 head teachers believed their whole-school culture to beinclusive. This was understandable, but the interviews were to show that they couldsee their own progress, the constraints being met, and the means of improvingpractice in both their own context and in the broader sense. The main features of awhole-school philosophy of inclusion were said to be catering for individual difference(all 28 heads), and treating all children the same regardless of ability, social class orcultural background (25: 6N, 5P, 7PP, 7S). Inclusion also meant valuing staff,developing a spirit of collaborative working, encouraging children to be accepting ofdisability in others, involving parents and the wider community, and anticipatingpupils’ longer-term needs.
Two primary schools in the sample had children whose fathers were stationedlocally in the armed forces. As well, in their case, inclusion involved different nation-alities, English as a second language, the variable duration of the pupils’ time inNorthern Ireland, and the difficulty of obtaining feed-forward about learning diffi-culties from previous schools elsewhere in the UK, the last two hampering continuityof educational experience. Special school heads spoke of catering for the most
Table 1. School size by sector (n = 28)
Sector Range Mean
Nursery (7) 52–104 75Primary (7) 43–630 280Post-primary (7) 160–1060 674Special (7) 79–209 131
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
634 L. Abbott
vulnerable and challenging pupils, preparing those on placement for reintegration tomainstream education, and providing outreach support for their teachers.
Inclusion is very much part of our strategy … working in partnership with mainstream andother special schools, with the local education authority and with the Department ofEducation. (S)
Inclusion means treating all children the same regardless of their difficulty, whether it’slanguage, behaviour or physical problems. In the case of the little boy with cerebral palsy,it’s including him in classroom activities and it’s also getting the other children to playalongside him. (N)
Our philosophy of inclusion is irrespective of the children’s socio-economic status, of abil-ity, of where they come from. We endeavour to ensure that all children are given an oppor-tunity to be included in all aspects of education. (P)
We not only cater for all children in school, high achievers to low achievers, but we haveteachers with their own specialisms as the special needs pupils must have a champion fortheir cause. (P)
We don’t accept that there are any rejects in society or any rejects in this school. (PP)
In support of inclusion, all but one of the 21 head teachers in mainstream schoolsunconditionally accepted the full range of ability, including EBD (20: 6N, 7P, 7PP).A third said that they did so provided that they could meet their needs (7: 1N, 1P,5PP).
We take the full range of pupil needs, we don’t exclude and there is no issue about ‘wecan’t deal with that’. (N)
We have invested a lot of time and effort into looking after those children for whom theschool day is slightly different. We’ve had dyslexia and dyspraxia, Tourette’s syndrome,aspects of autism, Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, Asperger’s, ADHD, dwarfism [acon-droplasia], and many with major speech and language problems and moderate learningdifficulties. We look at their educational needs as well as their behaviour problems. (P)
I would only accept somebody if I truthfully believed that the school could meet theirneeds [although] we have at least two children who were initially deemed unable to dealwith mainstream education and have settled well. At that outer edge of moderate learningdifficulties, we’re always probing what mainstream can do. (PP)
We have the full ability range: MLD and some borderline SLD. Their predominant needis EBD, but we take those with medical conditions, visual impairment or epilepsy. We runan Education Other Than At School Service (EOTAS) for children who can’t be managedhere — their needs are too complex or too difficult or they’re too violent. (OSS)
Most head teachers considered the role of the special school to have changed as aresult of the greater number of children with specific learning difficulties now inmainstream settings (25: 6N, 7P, 6PP, 6S). Because of the limitations of their ownknowledge and skills with regard to special needs, great importance was placed on theexpertise shared with them by colleagues in the special sector. The special schoolhead teachers agreed that this exemplified the main shift in their own role and, whilstall seven provided an outreach service, there were differing views on the willingnessand ability of staff to take it on even though, as one said:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 635
Our mission is to return children to mainstream school. We see ourselves more as a referralcentre, a centre of excellence, a support to the mainstream school. (S)
The majority of heads believed the teachers in their schools fully understood theconcept of inclusion (21: 7N, 5P, 3PP, 6S). Although this response could beexpected, the inherent problems of putting it into practice were recognised. Teachersknew they had to learn extremely quickly about difficulties or disabilities, someadapted to special needs pupils better than others, and some schools matched ateacher with a particular specialism to a child. One nursery head commented that herstaff were ‘very conscious of not making a child feel excluded’ — the other side of thecoin. However, five heads thought their teachers did not fully grasp the concept (1P,3PP, 1S) and two said it was ‘in their own terms’ (1P, 1PP).
I think staff fully understand the term, but it can be difficult because certain aspects ofspecial needs we learn basically on our feet. (N)
It’s definitely not a case of every child can go to every teacher. The reality is that you haveto match the special needs child with someone who can meet those needs. (P)
You’re always going to get some teachers with better tolerance levels and greater empathythan others with difficult pupils. (PP)
The importance of leadership was emphasized:
Like everything else, [understanding] depends on the management of the school becauseit’s leadership that drives inclusion. (S)
Most agreed that a language of practice had developed in relation to inclusion (24:6N, 6P, 5PP, 7S). When probed, the heads said that this was by promoting a strongcollegial atmosphere to foster peer support — ‘so that the language used is under-stood by all staff’ (N) — discussion, critical reflection and forward planning — ‘Inclu-sion has to be ingrained, welcomed and done naturally’ (P). Teachers observed eachother’s practice and, in the primary and post-primary schools, learned from theSpecial Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) ‘who can reach out to all yeargroups’ and pinpoint the needs of ‘any child including the gifted’ (PP). The languageof practice also had to traverse the different sectors to avoid ‘fragmentation’ (S), andmost head teachers appeared satisfied that their staff worked collaboratively to put itto good use and promote inclusion (23: 6N, 6P, 5PP, 6S). Four thought this wasbeing achieved ‘as well as they can’ or ‘by and large’ (1N, 1P, 2PP). Constraints layin the greater number of children with a myriad of special needs, and the resultantincreasing and different demands now placed on teachers.
In Northern Ireland and in this school, we’ve got a body of highly professional, trainedteachers who really react to the duty of care as well as to the educational needs of the wholechild, even though they’re now dealing with a big range of difficulties. (P)
I think the teachers here have managed inclusion to a reasonable degree but, if you’re askingis it perfect, no, it is not. There’s a tendency under the umbrella of inclusion always to lookat the academically low achievers … so within our school development plan we incorpo-rated the specific aim of trying to move people out of [their] comfort zone and getting themto challenge the most able pupils to strive towards higher level examination entry. (PP)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
636 L. Abbott
Teaching strategies, while obviously influenced by resources, are in line with what thechild should be experiencing if they were in mainstream, and the teachers do a good jobof that. (S)
The efforts of schools, as reported by the head teachers, were commendably good,although the preoccupation with SEN was much in evidence within the wider agendaof inclusion.
Developing inclusive practices at classroom level
There was consensus among the head teachers on the main approaches to developinginclusion in the classroom. They consisted of assessment, curriculum adaptation,planning for individual needs and putting differentiation into practice, providingspecific support (particularly with reading, concentration and fine motor control),and critically reviewing and evaluating progress. Most said that individual targetswere set for pupil learning outcomes (21: 4N, 7P, 3PP, 7S) and appropriate resourcesidentified (16: 7N, 2P, 7S). Half mentioned extra literacy and numeracy support (14:2P, 5PP, 7S), 11 the appropriate use of classroom assistants (2P, 3PP, 6S), and aboutone-third (mostly special schools) stressed the need for an appropriate physical envi-ronment (9: 1N, 1P, 2PP, 5S).
You adapt the curriculum — it’s constantly in motion — and plan for specific outcomes,but you must keep reviewing to see that you’re delivering. Staff regularly evaluate targets— that’s teamwork. (N)
Each child has an individual education plan with curriculum, social and life skills objec-tives, and these are very, very specific and measurable. They receive the same curriculumas the mainstream child at a level appropriate to them. (S)
Ten mainstream head teachers stressed that, as far as possible, pupils with partic-ular learning difficulties should not feel segregated or marginalized when receivingadditional support, to improve and sustain self-esteem (4N, 2P, 4PP).
Specific help can be given in a group situation where skills can be practised and it’s part ofstructured play for everyone. We target the children without them knowing and nobodyfeels excluded. (N)
We’re conscious of how the child feels about themselves, and that in providing appropriatework, we don’t want to segregate them in their own minds. (P)
There is a high level of differentiation in our teaching and learning strategies, not just forspecial needs but for all pupils. We try to take any stigma away and ask, ‘Are we treatingall the kids in a consistent fashion?’ Then the expectation factor comes in: is it too high ortoo low? (PP)
We have a series of critical skills within the curriculum that children need, then we decideon the teaching method. (S)
Most head teachers felt that they could offer an effective education to all children intheir schools, one that enabled them to reach their potential (24: 6N, 6P, 6PP, 6S).From the four who disagreed (one in each sector), one spoke of the demands ofmaking provision for all children considering the multiple barriers to inclusion, two
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 637
referred to the lack of resources, and one to parental attitudes, in this case thereluctance of some parents to move their children out of the secure special schoolenvironment, even though deemed appropriate by the staff.
We’re frustrated by the barriers to inclusion, plus we have to remember the needs of allchildren — we’re not just focusing on those with special needs. (N)
Sometimes the child’s needs just cannot be met in mainstream. I’m thinking of severedisability. We have a special needs unit but there are five steps up to it, so what about thechild who can’t walk? Some mainstream schools don’t lend themselves to inclusion veryeasily, have not been physically prepared for inclusion. (P)
I don’t feel that we’re properly resourced considering what they’re asking us to do. (PP)
Hand on heart, no. Some of our children here, I believe, should be in mainstream schools,but their parents don’t want them to go. There are some for whom I believe, yes, this isthe best possible environment. (S)
Barriers to inclusion
The main barrier to inclusion across the four school sectors was said to be a shortfallin human resources in terms of external agencies — professionals who providetherapeutic or other services — the main implications of which were the long delaysin pupils being assessed by an Educational Psychologist and in getting specialistsupport that often proved to be of insufficient frequency and duration (18: 5N, 4P,3PP, 6S) — ‘The system is very unwieldy and slow. It’s working against inclusivepractices’ (N). Mentioned in each case by about one-third of head teachers were theshortage of teachers that meant large classes with too few classroom assistants prop-erly trained in special needs (9: 4N, 3P, 2S); insufficient money to manage inclusionat both local authority and school level (9: 4P, 1PP, 4S); and attitudes that related tothe negative mindset of some mainstream teachers towards special needs, or that wererooted in a deficit model that failed to appreciate the inherent potential of every child(9: 1N, 1P, 1PP, 6S).
Physical resources likely to be lacking were specialist items of equipment andschool design did not always facilitate disabled access (7: 1N, 3P, 3PP), such as thecase of an older primary school pupil whose larger wheelchair could barely fit into analready overcrowded classroom, or the nursery school with no appropriate room forstaff to discuss privately with parents their child’s special needs — ‘very distressingissues, particularly for first-time and young mothers, or for any mother’.
None of those interviewed saw a conflict between inclusion and the standardsagenda, even those with an ethos of long-established academic success following theTransfer Tests at age eleven, partly explained by the absence in Northern Ireland ofleague tables unlike elsewhere in the UK.
Inclusion doesn’t necessarily mean a dilution of standards and the school has to be veryhonest in setting targets for the children not in the academic band. I always emphasize thatalthough we’re immensely proud of the academic success of the school, we take equalpride in some children reaching a lower level. (P)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
638 L. Abbott
Teacher education to promote inclusive schooling
When asked if they thought that Initial Teacher Education (ITE) fully preparedstudents for inclusive classrooms, most head teachers said ‘no’ (21: 3N, 6P, 5PP, 7S),although they warmly praised their motivation and enthusiasm to learn. Beginningteachers had to understand pupil diversity, albeit overwhelming at first, and learn howto teach with this in mind, taking a holistic view of the child. It was suggested thatTeaching Practice should entail student placement in a range of settings that includednon-selective and special schools.
I’m not sure that learning difficulties, the disruptive child, the dysfunctional family and thesocial context in which education operates are given much attention in ITE. (PP)
If something hasn’t been covered during ITE we do it here, but I’m concerned that there’sa gap between the teacher trainers and ourselves. (PP)
Every teacher should be a teacher of special needs with a background in child develop-ment, particularly EBD. It’s the one area that today is still crying out for training, forpreparation, for resourcing, and it’s the one that causes the most problems. (S)
There are implications for teacher trainers, therefore, in respect of inclusion withinthe three phases of teacher training — initial, induction and early professionaldevelopment — in respect of its scope and depth.
All 28 head teachers provided induction for beginning teachers that spelled out theinclusive culture, ethos and organization of their own school, assigning a teacher tutorand sometimes a mentor too. Most made use of specialist expertise amongst staff toinitiate new teachers into inclusive practices and, in the primary and post-primarysectors, the SENCO had a highly significant part to play as, for example, had YearHeads. External help came from the local education authorities’ inductionprogrammes and their behaviour support teams. Of increasing importance werefostering critical reflective practice and inculcating the interpersonal skills needed todeal with parents, the latter often daunting for new teachers.
We found it necessary to get a much tighter hand on inclusion [in our induction policy]and have a much clearer role to fulfil with the young teachers. (P)
We put great emphasis on new teachers reviewing their own work as part of personal andprofessional development, and we make that explicit. (S)
The majority saw a need for more in-service support to promote inclusion focusing onteaching and learning strategies that embraced individual needs and appropriate expecta-tions (22: 6N, 7P, 5PP, 4S) — ‘Teachers need to be educated themselves to know whatdemands to make or not to make’ (PP).
You have children with different experiences, levels of maturity and home backgrounds …added to that are the learning difficulties and physical disabilities. Managing your class-room, staff and resources is the biggest challenge. (N)
We all need more INSET — head teachers included — if inclusion is going to come onboard. (P)
The Regional Training Unit (RTU) in Northern Ireland, with responsibility forsenior management training, is now producing ‘a coherent strategy for leadership
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 639
training in relation to the inclusion agenda’. The intention is to develop collaborativeworking models between mainstream and special schools, and across the externalagencies to improve the performance of all pupils (http://rtuni.org/section).
Key factors to make inclusion work
The key factors believed to support a model of best practice in inclusive schoolingwere as follows:
● Catering for individual difference in an accepting, valuing atmosphere (23).● Establishing partnerships between staff, parents, other schools and outside profes-
sionals (19).● Developing better interagency collaboration, including improved and quicker
access to therapists (14).
Equally crucial were nurturing a whole-school culture of inclusion with opennesstowards learning difficulties and disabilities, having adequate human and physicalresources, and proper training for staff. Additionally, all seven nursery school headshighlighted the need for early intervention, one commenting, ‘The more help you cangive special educational needs children in the early years, the better the prognosis.Prevention is better than cure. It’s also cheaper’. Other perceptions of inclusionworking were:
The first thing is the ability to treat all children as human beings with individual rights.Second, look at how you can meet their needs, not get drawn into pre-judgements andclassifications; give everybody at least one go, but be honest, open and don’t promise whatyou can’t deliver. (S)
I think inclusion works for us because we can cope with what we have. Inclusion is theideal, but the practicalities can sometimes be difficult. I’m not in favour of total inclusionto the point where a mainstream school like mine would be creaking. (PP)
We need to be aware that in large mainstream classes, the teacher hasn’t got the time theyhave in special schools and some children are better to be educated in a special environ-ment. But when a child leaves here and hugs you before he goes, that’s where you get thewages! (P)
Conclusions
Returning to the research questions, first, what are head teachers’ perceptions ofinclusion in mainstream and special schools in Northern Ireland? The interviewsplainly showed a strong engagement with such a culture, reflecting the belief that theinclusive school is different from the non-inclusive school, not simply in terms of itspursuit of inclusion, but also its internal structures and practices (Clark et al., 1999).It was to be expected that the head teachers wanted to portray their schools aspromoting and developing inclusion, but it was also clear that they recognized howfar this was being achieved as well as the challenges of putting it into practice. Whileseemingly committed to a broad view of inclusion, the responses in the main reflected
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
640 L. Abbott
a preoccupation with special needs, but — returning to the definition at the outset —an equal undertaking to reduce exclusion in any form.
By accepting the full range of learning difficulties (including EBD), the schoolsinvested time and effort in facilitating curriculum access and building pupils’ self-esteem. The special schools provided for those with the most profound needs whileendorsing a policy of reintegrating pupils to mainstream wherever possible. Whileactive in the outreach aspect of their work and willing to share their expertise withmainstream colleagues, there was some concern that not all special school teacherswere disposed to teach other adults, or felt sufficiently skilled to do so. The transfer-ence of their practice into mainstream could present difficulties, an area in which littleresearch has been done (Farrell, 2000) and one that INSET, too, must address.
At whole-school level, most head teachers believed inclusion to be understood bytheir teachers. If, as some claimed, it was conceptualized more ‘in their own terms’,then there are strong implications for leadership from the head teacher and from otherkey staff that demonstrates wholehearted respect for diversity, and that is clearlycommunicated to all (HMIE, 2002). In the classroom, heads stated that wideningparticipation and responding to individual needs meant high levels of adaptation anddifferentiation, as well as setting the right expectations to provide effective learningexperiences for all (MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001). Again, strategies were in place inall four sectors to ensure that measures taken to support learning difficulties did notprove counter-productive by generating any sense of exclusion.
Second, what difficulties do head teachers in Northern Ireland face in promotinginclusive schooling? Barriers were numerous and reflected those experienced in thewider arena, the most frequently cited being a shortfall in resources (Croll & Moses,2000). Surprisingly, too, the physical design of some school buildings could fall shortof enabling access for all. A further limiting factor was the attitude of some mainstreamteachers towards making provision for particular learning needs and recognizing pupilpotential, a point forcibly made by some in the special sector. With the legislation onspecial needs and disabilities imminent, though, such a mindset cannot be justified.
The schools in the study had comprehensive induction programmes to supportbeginning teachers, but heads did not feel that students were being fully prepared toteach in inclusive classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Although ITE per se isnot the responsibility of head teachers, all phases of the teacher education continuumimpact on the culture of a school. Indeed, in the absence of a coherent plan extendingfrom initial to in-service training in SEN, it is difficult to see how inclusion can fullysucceed. This, together with continued outreach support from special schoolcolleagues, could help teachers welcome, value and cope more confidently withdiversity.
Last, what do head teachers see as the way forward? Those interviewed wereindisputably committed to inclusion, but still believed that the enrolment of pupilswith particular educational needs should be contingent upon a school having not onlythe right culture and leadership, but also the appropriate human and physicalresources (limited and stretched as they are) as well as prompt, sustained supportfrom external agencies. It is argued, therefore, that policy-makers should consider the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 641
implications of the head teachers’ perceptions for, as Avramidis et al. (2000, p. 209)stated: ‘with the provision of more resources and extensive opportunities at both pre-service and post-service levels, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion can become morefavourable’. They warned, however, that successful inclusion was not only dependenton more human and material resources, but on how they were used, and that trainingshould foster critical thinking.
The evidence here has compellingly captured the efforts of some head teachers todevelop inclusive schools, albeit not always in ideal circumstances, by widening partic-ipation for those at risk of being marginalized. What is more, it reflects the four mainelements of the DfES (2004) strategy: early intervention, removing barriers to learn-ing, raising expectations and achievement, and developing improvements in partner-ships. It is also in keeping with the conclusions reached by the Office for Standardsin Education (Ofsted) (2003) on schools’ efforts to be inclusive although, as in anyhuman system, there is a degree of frailty. To echo Rouse & Florian (1996), there isa need for purpose and a context-specific perspective, for policies and philosophiesthat create a climate conducive to learning with well defined strategies, for the involve-ment of multiple agencies, and for support within and beyond the school community.
Inclusion is about embracing the bigger educational values of equity, diversity andjustice, not simply a term to describe the practice of including children and youngpeople with learning difficulties and disabilities in mainstream schools. It is a processof reducing barriers to learning for all children, and is about cultures that are receptiveto, and value, diversity and that espouse the notion of social equity for all. Workingtowards inclusion should involve critically examining barriers created by individualsand schools, and, once identified, ways must be sought to minimize them (Boothet al., 2000, p. 14). There should be a strong focus on student achievement in caring,inclusive classrooms, and sound parental links.
Schools in Northern Ireland have made considerable progress in promotinginclusion, although much of the discussion has been around the integration of childrenwith special educational needs into regular classes. But in the context of a trueinterpretation of the term and the definition of inclusion used here — increasingparticipation and reducing exclusion — there is still a long way to go.
Acknowledgements
The paper was based on a report commissioned by the Department of Education forNorthern Ireland. The willing participation of the head teachers in the study is grate-fully acknowledged.
Note on contributor
Lesley Abbott is a Research Fellow at the UNESCO Centre, School of Education,University of Ulster. Her research interests include the professional needs ofnewly qualified teachers, cross-national cooperation through Information andCommunications Technology, inclusive schooling and teacher education.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
642 L. Abbott
References
Ainscow, M. (1995) Special needs through school improvement: school improvement throughspecial needs, in: C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds) Towards Inclusive Schools?(London, David Fulton), 63–77.
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools (London, Falmer).Ainscow, M. (2000) Reaching out to all learners: some lessons from international experience,
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 1–19.Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2004) Understanding and developing inclusive practices in
schools: a collaborative action research network, International Journal of Inclusive Education,8(2), 125–139.
Ainscow, M., Farrell, P. & Tweddle, D. (2000) Developing policies for inclusive education: astudy of the role of local education authorities, International Journal of Inclusive Education,4(3), 211–229.
Armstrong, F. (1998) Curricula, ‘management’ and special and inclusive education, in: P. Clough(Ed.) Managing Inclusive Education — From Policy to Experience (London, Paul Chapman), 48–63.
Attfield, R. & Williams, C. (2003) Leadership and inclusion: a special school perspective, BritishJournal of Special Education, 30(1), 28–33.
Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002) Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review ofthe literature, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000) A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudestowards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary classroom inone local education authority, Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191–211.
Booth, T. (1999) Viewing inclusion from a distance: gaining perspective from comparative study,Support for Learning, 14(4), 164–168.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. & Shaw, L. (2000). Index forInclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in School (Bristol, Centre for Studies onInclusive Education).
Branson, J. & Miller, D. (1989). Beyond integration policy — the deconstruction of disability, inL. Barton (Ed.) Integration: Myth or Reality? (Lewes, Falmer), 144–167.
British Educational Research Association (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research(Southwell, BERA).
Buell, M., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M. & Scheer, S. (1999) A survey of general and specialeducation teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion, International Journalof Disability, 46(2), 143–156.
Center, Y. & Ward, J. (1989) Attitudes of school psychologists towards the integration of childrenwith disabilities, Exceptional Child, 34, 41–56.
Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (1989) The Inclusion Charter (Bristol, CSIE).Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A. & Robson, S. (1999) Theories of inclusion, theories of schools:
deconstructing and reconstructing the ‘inclusive school’, British Educational Research Journal,25(2), 157–177.
Corbett, J. & Slee, R. (2000) An international conversation on inclusive education, in: F. Armstrong,D. Armstrong & L. Barton (Eds) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and ComparativePerspectives (London, David Fulton), 133–146.
Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000) Ideologies and utopias: education professionals’ views of inclusion,European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(1), 1–12.
Department for Education (DfE) (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment ofSpecial Educational Needs (London, HMSO).
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1997) Excellence in Schools (London,Stationery Office).
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs: AProgramme for Action (London, Stationery Office).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion 643
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Removing Barriers to Achievement (London, DfES).Department of Education (2001) Education for the 21st Century: Report by the Post-primary Review
Body [Burns Report] (Bangor, DE).Department of Education for Northern Ireland (1998a) Code of Practice on the Identification and
Assessment of Special Educational Needs (Bangor, DENI).Department of Education for Northern Ireland (1998b) Practice in Mainstream Schools for Children
with Special Educational Needs (Bangor, DENI).Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F. & Hutcheson, G. (2004) Inclusion and Pupil Achievement. Research
Report RR578 (London, Department for Education and Skills).Farrell, P. (2000) The impact of research on developments in inclusive education, International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 153–162.Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1994) Special Links? Partners in Provision? Collaboration between Ordinary
and Special Schools (Slough, NFER).Gallagher, T. & Smith, A. (2000) The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern
Ireland — Main Report (Bangor, Department of Education).Giangreco, M. F. (1997) Key lessons learned about inclusive education: summary of the 1996
Schonell Memorial Lecture, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1,323–336.
Hegarty, S. (2001) Inclusive Education — a case to answer, Journal of Moral Education, 30(3),243–249.
H. M. Inspectorate of Education (2002) Count Us In — Achieving Inclusion in Scottish Schools(Edinburgh, HMIE). Available online at: http://www.hmie.gov.uk
Hopkins, D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (1996) Improving the Quality of Education for All: Progressand Challenge (London, David Fulton).
Howes, A., Booth, T., Dyson, A. & Frankham, J. (2005) Teacher learning and the developmentof inclusive practices and policies: framing and context, Research Papers in Education, 20(2),133–148.
MacBeath, J. & Mortimore, P. (2001) School effectiveness and improvement: the story so far, in:J. MacBeath & P. Mortimore (Eds) Improving School Effectiveness (Buckingham, OpenUniversity Press), 1–21.
Marshall, J., Ralph, S. & Palmer, S. (2002) ‘I wasn’t trained to work with them’: mainstreamteachers’ attitudes to children with speech and language difficulties, International Journal ofInclusive Education, 6(3), 199–215.
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2002) Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice (London, Paul Chapman).Office for Standards in Education (2003) Special Educational Needs in the Mainstream. HMI511.
Available online at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/indexRouse, M. & Florian, L. (1996) Effective inclusive schools: a study in two countries, Cambridge
Journal of Education, 26(1), 71–85.Ryan, J. (2003) Leading diverse schools: headteachers and inclusion, Improving Schools, 6(2), 43–62.Skirtic, T. M. (1991) Students with special educational needs: artifacts of the traditional curriculum,
in: M. Ainscow (Ed.) Effective Schools for All (London, David Fulton), 20–42.Slee, R. (2001) Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: the case of
inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167–177.Thomas, G. (1997) Inclusive schools for an inclusive society, British Journal of Special Education,
24(3), 103–107.Thomas, G. & Vaughan, M. (2004) Inclusive Education — Readings and Reflections (Maidenhead,
Open University Press).Tilstone, C. & Rose, R. (2000) Do special schools have a role in supporting the process of inclu-
sion? Tizard Learning Disability Review, 5(4) 35–43.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
8:51
21
Dec
embe
r 20
14
