European Journal of Psychology of Education

2006. Vol. XXI, n°3. 23I-23S

6.1.S.P.A.

Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca:

Setting the agenda
Mel Ainscow
University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Margarida Cesar
University of Lisbon, Portugal

The articles in this special edition focus on what is, arguably, the biggest challenge facing
school systems throughout the world, that of educational inclusion. In economically poorer
countries this is mainly about the millions of children who are not able to attend formal
education of any kind (Bellamy, 1999). Meanwhile, in wealthier countries many young people
leave school with no worthwhile qualifications, whilst others are placed in various forms of
special provision away from mainstream educational experiences, and some simply choose to
drop out since the lessons seem irrelevant to their lives (Ainscow, 2005; Cesar & Oliveira,
2005).
Faced with these challenges, there is evidence of an increased interest in the idea of
inclusive education. However, the field remains confused as to what actions need to be taken
in order to move policy and practice forward. In some countries, inclusive education is
thought of as an approach to serving children with disabilities within general education
settings. Internationally, however, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that
supports and welcomes diversity amongst all leamers (UNESCO, 2001). It presumes that the
aim of inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion that is a consequence of attitudes
and responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability (Vitello
& Mithaug, 1998). As such, if starts from the belief that education is a basic human right and
the foundation for a more just society.
Just over ten years ago the Salamanca World Conference on Special Needs Education
endorsed the idea of inclusive education (UNESCO, 1994). Arguably the most significant
intemational document that has ever appeared in the field of special education, the Salamanca
Statement argues that regular schools with an inclusive orientation are "the most effective
means of combating discriminatory attitudes, building an inclusive society and achieving
education for all" (p. iv). Furthermore, it suggests that such schools can "provide an effective
education for the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-
effectiveness of the entire education system" (UNESCO, 1994, p. iv).
During the subsequent years, there have been considerable efforts in many countries to
move educational policy and practice in a more inclusive direction (Freire & Cesar, 2002;
Mittler, 2000). In the articles in this special edition, authors from a range of countries present
232 M. AINSCOW & M. CESAR

and refiect on research carried out during that period in order to consider what needs to be
done to build on the progress that has been made so far.

The development of special education

The development of special education has involved a series of stages during which
education systems have explored different ways of responding to disabled children and others
who experience difficulties in leaming. Special education has sometimes been provided as a
supplement to general education provision, in other cases it has been totally separate.
An analysis of the history of special education provision in many countries suggests
certain pattems (Reynolds & Ainscow, 1994). Initial provision frequently took the form of
separate special schools set up by religious or philanthropic organisations. This was adopted
and extended as part of national education arrangements, often leading to a separate, parallel
school system for those pupils seen as being in need of special attention. There is some
evidence of similar trends in developing countries (Mittler, 2000).
In recent years, however, the appropriateness of separate systems of education has been
challenged, both from a human rights perspective and from the point of view of effectiveness
(Ainscow, Booth, Dyson, Farrell, Frankham, Gallannaugh, Howes, & Smith, 2006). It is
argued that perspectives which assume that the sources of difficulties in leaming are within the
leamer ignore the environmental influences on leaming. Yet there is strong research evidence
to suggest that home and school infiuences explain the quality of leaming and that educational
difficulties can arise from sources other than impairments (Dyson, Howes, & Roberts, 2002).
It is now increasingly argued that reorganising ordinary schools within the community
(through school improvement) is the most effective way of ensuring that all children can leam
effectively, including those categorised as having special needs (Sebba & Sachdev, 1997).
Integrated placement has, in some cases, involved a 'transplantation' of special education
practices into the ordinary mainstream (Meijer, Pijl, & Hegarty, 1997). In this way, integrated
programmes have sometimes taken the form of special classes within ordinary schools. As a
result, this trend towards ordinary school placement has not been accompanied by changes in the
organisation of the ordinary school, its curriculum and teaching and leaming strategies. This lack
of organisational change has proved to be one of the major barriers to the implementation of
inclusive education policies (Dyson & Millward, 2000; Freire & Cesar, 2003).
A problem reported from a number of countries is that despite national policies
emphasising integration, there is evidence of a significant increase in the proportions of pupils
being categorised in order that their schools can eam additional resources (Booth & Ainscow,
1998). For example, an analysis of policies in Australia, England, Scandinavia and the United
States, carried out by Fulcher (1989), suggested that the increased bureaucracy that is often
associated with special education legislation (and the inevitable struggles that go on for
additional resources) have the effect of escalating the proportion of children who come to be
labelled as disabled. As an illustration she described how - in Victoria, Australia during the
1980s - some students in regular schools came to be described as 'integration children'. She
notes that over 3.000 children came to be regarded in this category (which had not existed
prior to 1984), and that often schools would argue that these students could not be taught
unless extra resources were made available. It is because of situations such as this, of course,
that changes over time in the reported numbers of 'integrated' children with special needs
must be treated with caution.
Dissatisfaction with progress toward integration has caused demands for more radical
changes in many countries (Booth & Ainscow, 1998). One of the concems of those who adopt
this view is with the way in which students come to be designated as having special needs.
They see this as a social process that needs to be continually challenged. More specifically
they argue that the continued use of what is sometimes referred to as a 'medical model' of
assessment - within which educational difficulties are explained solely in terms of a child's
 INCLUSIVE EDUCATION TEN YEARS AFTER SALAMANCA 233

deficits - prevents progress in the field, not least because it distracts attention from questions
about why schools fail to teach so many children successfully (Trent, Artiles, & Englert
1998).
Such arguments have led to proposals for a re-conceptualisation of the 'special needs'
task. This revised thinking suggests that progress will be much more likely if we recognise
that difficulties experienced by students result from the ways in which schools are currently
organised and from the forms of teaching that are provided. Consequently, it is argued,
schools need to be reformed and pedagogy needs to be improved in ways that will lead them
to respond positively to student diversity - seeing individual differences not as problems to be
fixed, but as opportunities for enriching leaming (Ainscow, 1999; Cesar, 2003). Within such a
conceptualisation, a consideration of difficulties experienced by students can provide an agenda
for reforms and insights as to how such reforms might be brought about. However, it has been
argued that this kind of approach is more likely to be successful in contexts where there is a
culture of collaboration that encourages and supports problem-solving or project work (Cesar,
in press; Courela & Cesar, 2004; Skrtic, 1991). According to this view, the development of
inclusive practices is seen as involving those within a particular context in working together to
address barriers to education experienced by some leamers. It has to be recognised, however,
that such an approach brings yet further challenges.

Defining inclusion

The confusion that exists within the field intemationally arises, at least in part, from the
fact that the idea of inclusion can be defined in a variety of ways (Ainscow, Farrell, & Tweddle,
2000). It is also important to remember that there is no one perspective on inclusion within a
single country or school (Booth, 1996; Booth & Ainscow, 1998; Dyson & Millward, 2000).
A recent analysis of intemational research (Ainscow et al., 2006) suggests a typology of
five ways of ways of thinking about inclusion. These are as follows:

Inclusion as concerned with disability and 'special educational needs'

There is a common assumption that inclusion is primarily about educating disabled

students, or those categorised as 'having special educational needs', in mainstream schools.
The usefulness of such an approach has been questioned, since that, in attempting to increase
the participation of students, it focuses on a 'disabled' or 'special needs' part of them and
ignores all the other ways in which participation for any student may be impeded or enhanced.
The Index for Inclusion, a well known school review instmment, dispensed with the use of the
notion of 'special educational needs' to account for educational difficulties (Booth &
Ainscow, 2002). Specifically, it proposed the replacement of notions of 'special educational
need' and 'special educational provision' with those of 'barriers to leaming and participation'
and 'resources to support leaming and participation'. In this context, support was seen as all
activities, which increase the capacity of schools to respond to diversity. Such a shift
complements the ideas of others, such as Susan Hart in her 'innovative thinking' (Hart, 1996,
2000).
However, in rejecting a view of inclusion tied to special educational needs there is a danger
that attention is deflected from the continued segregation of disabled students, or, indeed,
students otherwise eategorised as having special educational needs. Inclusion can be seen to
involve the assertion of the rights of disabled young people to a local mainstream education, a
view vociferously propounded by some disabled people. Where people see placement in
special schools as a neutral response to 'need' they may argue that some children are best
served in special settings. However, a rights perspective invalidates such arguments. Thus,
compulsory segregation is seen to contribute to the oppression of disabled people, just as other
practices marginalise groups on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation (Corbett, 2001).
234 M. AINSCOW & M. CESAR

At the same time, there is concern about the significant effect that categorisation of
students within education systems. The practice of segregation within special schools,
involves a relatively small number of students (for example, approximately 1.3% in England),
yet it exerts a disproportionate influence within the education system. It seems to perpetuate a
view that some students 'need' to be segregated because of their deficiency or defect.
The special educational needs view of educational difficulty remains the dominant
perspective in most countries (Mittler, 2000). It absorbs difficulties that arise in education for
a wide variety of reasons within the frame of individual defect.

Inclusion as a response to disciplinary exclusions

If inclusion is most commonly seen as associated with children categorised as 'having

special educational needs', then in many countries its connection to 'bad behaviour' comes a
close second. Thus, at the mention of the word 'inclusion', some within schools become
fearful that it means that they are to be immediately asked to take on disproportionate numbers
of behaviourally 'difficult' students.
It has been argued that disciplinary exclusion cannot be understood without being
connected with the events and interactions that precede it, the nature of relationships, and the
approaches to teaching and leaming in a school (Booth, 1996). Even at the level of simple
measurement, the figures for formal disciplinary exclusion mean little when separated from
numbers for informal disciplinary exclusions, for example by sending children home for an
aftemoon, truancy rates and the categorisation of students as having emotional and behavioural
difficulties. In this respect the informal exclusion of school-age girls who become pregnant,
who may be discouraged from continuing at school, continues to distort perceptions of the
gender composition in the official exclusion figures in some countries.

Inclusion as about all groups vulnerable to exclusion

There is an increasing trend for exclusion in education to be viewed more broadly in

terms of overcoming discrimination and disadvantage in relation to any groups vulnerable to
exclusionary pressures (Mittler, 2000). In some countries this broader perspective is associated
with the terms 'social inclusion' and 'social exclusion'. When used in an educational context,
social inclusion tends to refer to issues for groups whose access to schools is under threat,
such as girls who become pregnant or have babies while at school, looked-after children (i.e.,
those in the care of public authorities) and gypsy/travellers. Yet commonly, the language of
social inclusion and exclusion comes to be used more narrowly to refer to children who are (or
are in danger of being) excluded from schools and classrooms because of their 'behaviour'.
This broader use of the language of inclusion and exclusion is, therefore, somewhat fluid.
It seems to hint that there may be some common processes which link the different forms of
exclusion experienced by, say, children with disabilities, children who are excluded from their
schools for disciplinary reasons, and people living in poor communities (Cesar & Oliveira,
2005). There seems, therefore, to be an invitation to explore the nature of these processes and
their origins in social stmctures.

Inclusion as the promotion of a school for all

A rather different strand of thinking about inclusion relates it to the development of the
common school for all, or comprehensive school, and the construction of approaches to
teaching and leaming within it. In the UK, for example, the term 'comprehensive school' is
generally used in the context of secondary education and was established as a reaction to a
system which allocated children to different types of school on the basis of their attainment at
age 11, reinforcing existing social-class-based inequalities.
 INCLUSIVE EDUCATION TEN YEARS AFTER SALAMANCA 235

The comprehensive school movement in England, like the Folkeskole tradition in

Denmark, the 'common school' tradition in the USA and in Portugal with the unified compul-
sory education system, is premised in the desirability of creating a single type of 'school for
air, serving a socially diverse community. However, the emphasis on one school for all can be
double edged. In Norway, for example, the idea of 'the school for all' was as much about cre-
ating an independent singular Norwegian identity as it was to do with the participation of peo-
ple within diverse communities. So while, in Norway, the strong emphasis on education for
local communities facilitated the disbanding of segregated special institutions, it was not fol-
lowed by an equally strong movement to reform the common school to embrace and value dif-
ference. As in some other countries, there was an emphasis on assimilating those perceived to
be different into a homogeneous normality rather than transformation through diversity.

Inclusion as Education for All

The issue of inclusion is increasingly evident within international debates. The

'Educational for AH' (EFA) movement was created in the 1990s around a set of intemational
policies, mainly eo-ordinated by UNESCO, to do with increasing access to, and participation
within education, across the world. It was given impetus by two major international
conferences held in Jomtien, 1990, and Dakar, 2000 (UNESCO, 2000). While many within
this movement appear to identify education with schooling, thinking about education within
some of the poorest regions of the world provides an opportunity to rethink schools as one
amongst a number of means for developing education within communities.
In response to the failure of many countries to meet the targets set a decade earlier, the
organisers of the Dakar conference sought to emphasise particular areas where progress might
be made, and focused attention, in particular, on the disproportionate numbers of girls around
the world denied educational opportunities. Disabled people and their allies were very
concemed about the way they appeared to be pushed down the priority order for participation in
the Educational for All declaration (UNESCO, 2000). This was despite the apparent progress
that had been made in drawing attention to the possibilities for an education system inclusive of
all children, specifically including disabled children, within the Salamanca Statement.
The authors of the papers in this joumal provide evidence of how the confusion between
these different views of inclusion influences the development of thinking, polieies and
practices in different parts of the world. In particular, the papers illustrate the on-going debates
between those who see inclusion as being about finding ways of responding to vulnerable
groups of learners within existing arrangements, and those who argue for a more
transformative approach.

Setting the agenda

Given the confusion and uncertainties that exist, advancing towards the implementation
of inclusive education is far from easy and evidence of progress is limited in most countries.
Moreover, it must not be assumed that there is full acceptance of the inclusive philosophy
(Brantlinger, 1997; Freire & Cesar, 2002; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Not only are many
mainstream educationalists resistant to the idea, but some disability-focused organisations
argue for separate, 'specialist' services. For example, some organisations of deaf people argue
that ehildren with hearing impairments have to be educated separately in order to guarantee
their right to education in the medium of sign language and access to deaf culture (Freire &
Cesar, 2003). Also, there are those who believe that small specialist units located in the
standard school environment can provide the specialist knowledge, equipment and support for
which the mainstream classroom and teacher can never provide a full substitute.
Consequently, as we consider the way forward for developing educational systems that
encourage and support the development of schools that are effective in reaching all children in
236 M. AINSCOW & M. CESAR

the community, it is necessary to recognise that the field itself is riddled with uncertainties,
disputes and contradictions. However, what can be said is that throughout the world attempts
are being made to provide more effective educational responses for all children, whatever their
characteristics, and that, encouraged by the Salamanea Statement, the overall trend is towards
making these responses within the context of general educational provision. As a consequence,
this is leading to a reconsideration of the future roles and purposes of practitioners throughout
the education system, ineluding those who work in specialist provision.
Bearing in mind these complexities, the papers in this special edition analyse and reflect
on some of these developments. In particular, they use evidence from research carried out
during the post-Salamanca period in order to consider questions such as:
- How can schools and classrooms be made more inclusive?
- What forms of teacher education are needed to support such developments?
- What are the implications for specialist support staff?
- What forms of research are needed in respect to this agenda?
- What might be the contributions of psychology to developments in the field?

The authors were chosen in order to provide a range of different perspectives. They
provide papers that include both conceptual and empirical-based arguments that are intended
to challenge thinking within the field. The papers by Singal, Engelbrecht, Forlin, and
Kugeimass explore systemic issues in relation to developments in particular countries. In
contrast, the papers by Farrell, Messiou, Humphrey and Ainscow, Cesar and Santos, and
Deppeler focus on themes that are much nearer to practice and practitioners.
A striking feature of all of the texts is the extent to which they conclude that it is
necessary to examine particular contexts in order to find ways of moving thinking forward.
This leads the authors, in varying degrees, to see policies and practices as arising from
assumptions that exist within social contexts. This means that an idea such as inclusion is
imbued with particular meanings constmcted by particular communities (Burrell & Morgan,
1979; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Researchers who adopt sueh perspectives tend to distrust the idea that organisations
emerge as rationally-designed responses to self-evident problems and tasks. Instead, their
research seeks to analyse the ways in which organisations emerge within particular sets of
social conditions, refiecting the assumptions, values and power relations which characterise
those conditions. These post-fiinctionalist perspectives play a powerful role since they help us
to call into question the inevitability and rationality of traditional forms of schooling that
result in practices that make some students feel marginalised. What these perspectives add is
an analysis not only of the way in which purposeful activity is shaped by the eultural resources
(understandings, values, tools and so on) which particular social groups can bring to bear on
their tasks, but also of the social processes through which such resourees are developed and
deployed. The implication is that if we are to understand how inelusive education can be
encouraged, we need to understand more about both the cultural resources that exist in
particular educational contexts and, indeed, the wider relations and structures of society as a
whole.

References

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer.

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational
Change. (5(2), 109-124

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A., & Smith, R. (2006).
Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge.
 INCLUSIVE EDUCATION TEN YEARS AFTER SALAMANCA 237

Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., & Tweddle, D. (2000). Developing policies for inclusive education: A study of the role of local
education authorities. International Joumal of Inclusive Education, 4(3), 211 -229.

Bellamy, C. (1999). The state of the world's children: Education. New York: UNICEF.

Booth, T. (1996). A perspective on inclusion from England. Cambridge Review of Education, 26(1), 87-99.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.) (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London:
Routledge.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). The index for inclusion (2nd Ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Brantlinger, E. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of non recognition of the politics of research and practice in special
education. Review of Educational Research, (57(4), 425-459.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.

Cesar, M. (2003). A escola inclusiva enquanto espafo-tempo de diilogo de todos e para todos. In D. Rodrigues (Ed.),
Perspectivas sobre a inclusao: Da educagao a sociedade (pp. 117-149). Porto: Porto Editora.

Cesar, M. (in press). Come away with me: Statistics leaming through collaborative work. In ICME 10 Proceedings.
Copenhagen: Roskilde University [CdRom]

Cesar, M., & Oliveira, I. (2005). The curriculum as a mediating tool for inclusive participation: A case study in a
Portuguese multicultural school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XX{\), 29-43.

Corbett, J. (2001). Supporting inclusive education: A connective pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Courela, C , & Cesar, M. (2004). Adult education and development of environmental literacy: Contributions of a project
of pedagogic innovation. In W. Leal Filho & M. Littledyke (Eds.), International experiences in environmental
education (pp. 209-222). New York: Peter Lang.

Dyson, A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting
participation by all students (Inclusive Education Review Group for the EPPI Centre, Institute of Education,
London (http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/inclusion/review_one.htm).

Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (2000). Schools and special needs: Issues of innovation and inclusion. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.

Freire, S., & C^sar, M. (2002). Evolution of the Portuguese education system. A deaf child's life in a regular school: Is
it possible to have hope? Educationai and Chiid Psychoiogy, 19(1), 76-96.

Freire, S., & C^sar, M. (2003). Inclusive ideals/inclusive practices: How far is dream from reality? Five comparative
case studies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(3), 341-354.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1994). Inclusive schools tnovement and the radicalisation of special education reform.
Exceptionai children, 60(4), 294-309.

Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disabiiity. London: Falmer.

Hart, S. (1996). Beyond special needs, enhancing children's learning through innovative thinking. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.

Hart, S. (2000). Thinking through teaching. London: David Fulton.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated leaming: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge
University Press.

Meijer, C.J.W., Pijl, S.J., & Hegarty, S. (Eds.). (1997). Inclusive education: A global agenda. London: Routledge.

Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education. London: Fulton.

Reynolds, M.C., & Ainscow, M. (1994). Education of children and youth with special needs: An international
perspective. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The internationai encyclopedia of education (2nd Ed).
Oxford: Pergamon

Sebba, J., & Sachdev, D. (1997). What works in inclusive education? Ilford: Bamardo's.

Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61,
148-206.
238 M. AINSCOW & M. CESAR

Trent, S.C, Artiles, A.J., & Englert, C.S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory,
research and practice in special education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277-307.

UNESCO (1994). Final report- World conference on speciai needs education: Access and quality. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2000). Inclusive education and education for all: A challenge and a vision. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2001). The open file on indusive education. Paris: UNESCO.

Vitello, S.J., & Mithaug, D.E. (Eds.). (1998). Inclusive schooling: National and international perspectives. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.