International Developments in Inclusive Schooling ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library] On: 04 February 2012, At: 04:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cambridge Journal of Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccje20

International Developments in Inclusive Schooling: mapping the issues a

Judy Sebba & Mel Ainscow

b

a

Institute of Education, University of Cambridge

b

School of Education, University of Manchester

Available online: 04 Jun 2009

To cite this article: Judy Sebba & Mel Ainscow (1996): International Developments in Inclusive Schooling: mapping the issues, Cambridge Journal of Education, 26:1, 5-18 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764960260101

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1996

5

International Developments in Inclusive Schooling: mapping the issues JUDY SEBBA Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:16 04 February 2012

Institute of Education, University of Cambridge

MEL AINSCOW School of Education, University of Manchester

This introductory overview attempts to map out the rationale and scope of this edition of the journal, focusing on international developments in inclusive schooling. We describe some of the debate surrounding the search for an appropriate definition of inclusion and clarify the way in which we are using this term. Consideration is given to some of the main issues emerging from the literature on developing inclusive schooling which indicates the recency of this particular field of work and the need to bring together areas such as 'special needs', school improvement and teacher development in order to begin to identify the territory that research on inclusion might explore. ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION For many years the field that is currently known as special educational needs has been alive with disputes as to how best to proceed in responding to children who experience difficulties in school, including those who have disabilities. Indeed, it has been noted that there is a crisis of thinking within the field (Skrtic, 1991). An analysis of the development of provision in many Western countries suggests certain patterns (Reynolds & Ainscow, 1994). Initial provision frequently takes the form of separate special schools set up by religious or philanthropic organisations. This is then, eventually, adopted and extended as part of national educational provision, often leading to a separate, parallel school system for those pupils seen as being in need of special arrangements. There is also some evidence of similar trends in so-called developing countries (see, for example, various chapters in Mittler et ah, 1993). In recent years, however, the appropriateness of having such a separate system has been challenged both from a human rights perspective and, indeed, from the point of view of effectiveness. This has led to an increased emphasis on the notion of integration. As an idea this can take a variety of forms and in 0305-764X/96/010005-14 © 1996 University of Cambridge Institute of Education

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:16 04 February 2012

6 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow itself remains a topic of considerable debate (see for example Norwich, 1990). Nevertheless, recent international surveys give strong evidence that the integration of pupils said to have special educational needs is seen as being a matter of priority in many countries in both the developed and developing worlds (see for example Hegarty, 1990; O'Hanlon, 1995). Now, however, we see the emergence of another orientation, that of inclusive schooling. This adds yet further complications and pressures to the disputes that already exist. Driven, in part at least, by ideological convictions, the idea of inclusive schooling challenges much of existing practice in the special needs field, whilst, at the same time, offering a critique of general education. Put simply, many of those who are supporting the idea are raising the question why is it that schools throughout the world fail to teach so many pupils successfully? It is interesting, and perhaps significant, that this interest in inclusive schooling is something of an international trend. This may, of course, be simply as a result of improvements in communication that have occurred, such as the increased use of fax machines and electronic mail. It does mean that the debate can be informed and enriched by voices representing different cultures, traditions and experiences of schooling in different parts of the world. Certainly, the various authors in this special edition of the Cambridge Journal of Education bring a genuinely international flavour to the discussion. Whilst we do not pretend that they are in any sense representative of developments and thinking in different parts of the world, they are certainly diverse in a number of ways. Their accounts provide us with insights into a range of experiences and positions that can help define a map of possibilities as we explore the meaning and potential of inclusive education. In this introductory chapter we attempt to provide some 'signposts' for readers as they consider the territories that are mapped out in the articles that follow. Here we are particularly concerned to address the needs of readers who do not have a background in special needs and who, on first sight, may feel that this edition of the journal is somewhat peripheral to their interests. This is, of course, part of the problem that the world of special educational needs has created for itself. For too long it has given the impression that it is a separate field of endeavour largely unconnected to the agenda of the general education community. As a result, by separating itself from mainstream thinking and practice, it has encouraged a climate that precludes any real consideration of the potential for collaboration between the two fields. In this respect, moves towards inclusive education necessitate the abolition of this traditional gulf. It requires that all those involved in schooling, whatever their roles, should join together in pooling their energies and resources in order to help create schools that can educate all pupils effectively. In the context of this ambitious aspiration the signposts we offer in this paper point to four broad issues. These are to do with definitions, the development of inclusive school organisations, classroom processes and teacher development.

International Developments 7

TOWARDS A DEFINITION As we have noted, the idea of inclusive education has recently emerged as an aspect of international discussions about how best to respond to pupils experiencing difficulties in school. Indeed, this inclusive orientation is a strong feature of The Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs


Education, agreed by representatives of 92 governments and 25 international organisations in June 1994 (UNESCO, 1994). Specifically the Statement argues that regular schools with an inclusive.orientation are: the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system, (p. ix) This provides an excellent starting point for considering national legislation, a highly contentious area, as noted by many of the authors in this journal. However, the appeal of such rhetoric must not disguise the uncertainty about what terms such as 'inclusion', 'inclusive education' and 'inclusive schooling' mean. As part of our own research we recently carried out a national survey in order to locate secondary schools that are attempting to become inclusive. For this purpose, we formulated a working definition as follows: 'An inclusive school works from the principle that all students in the community should learn together.' We used this definition in a letter to education authorities and other interested agencies requesting that they notify us of any schools in their area to which it might apply and with whom we might undertake some collaborative research. This drew out the inadequacies of our definition, since the replies indicated a vast range of interpretations, from schools with special units attached for pupils with a particular disability, through to link arrangements between special and ordinary schools. The definition also appeared to be too static, in that it assumes a school can reach a point of becoming inclusive, beyond which no further development is needed. Booth, in this volume, reiterates this emphasis by suggesting that inclusion is an 'unending set of processes' rather than a state. Hence, we need a more active definition implying ongoing development. In this respect, Ballard provides useful guidance when he states: There is no such thing as an inclusive school, there is a process of inclusion that has no limits. (Ballard, 1995) This implies that all schools can continue to develop greater inclusion whatever their current state. It also means that the debate is relevant to all phases and types of schools, possibly including special schools, since within any educational provision teachers face groups of students with diverse needs and are required


8 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow to respond to this diversity. Furthermore, any provision can extend the range of needs met, by including (or no longer excluding) pupils who have needs that are not currently met within the school. However, reviews of current provision in this country (see for example OFSTED, 1995) suggest that many schools are failing to meet the diverse needs of the pupils currently on roll. We prefer a definition which focuses on inclusion as a process rather than a state or event and regard it as relevant and applicable to all schools. The value of such a position is well illustrated in the paper by Yunying Chen, where she explains the struggles that are necessary in order to provide basic education for all children in countries such as China when low economic resources and large populations have to be taken into account. The second point we wish to take into account in formulating a useful definition of inclusion is Booth's (1995; this volume) emphasis on the connections between inclusion and exclusion. Schools developing more inclusive practices may need to consider both if they are to reduce exclusion as a crucial part of developing inclusion. Schools may exclude pupils, or fail to include them at admission, for a wide variety of reasons, such as perceived medical needs, lack of access to buildings, perceived curricular needs or lack of appropriate staffing support. Exclusion can also result from more subtle or hidden processes of discrimination related to factors such as socio-economic circumstances, gender or race. Most commonly, pupils become temporarily or permanently excluded for reasons relating to their behaviour, although it is clear that behaviour tolerated by one school can lead to exclusion in another. This issue is developed by Roger Slee in his paper, not least in terms of recent interest in the concept of attention deficit disorder. It seems to us that taking exclusion into consideration in our definition of inclusion may assist research into the processes in schools which appear to increase their capacity to meet diverse needs. Indeed, it seems particularly pertinent in the climate of England, within which externally imposed reforms appear to have increased the number of exclusions (Department for Education and Employment, 1995) whilst at the same time extending curricular access within the most segregated provision (OFSTED, 1995). Furthermore, focusing on exclusion is consistent with our desire to see inclusion as a process rather than a state or event, and is applicable and relevant to all schools. Finally, any definition of inclusion needs to make a clear distinction between 'inclusion' and 'integration', since the latter term has been, and continues to be, extensively used, sometimes synonymously with inclusion. Ware (1995, p. 127), for example, suggests that, Inclusive education describes the restructuring of special education to permit all or most students to be integrated in mainstream classes through reorganisation and instructional innovations (e.g. co-operative learning, collaborative consultation and team teaching). However, use of the term 'integrated' is somewhat confusing here if we are suggesting that Ware is describing the process of inclusion and, therefore, not


International Developments 9

that of integration. The latter part of her statement provides the key elements we would prefer to see in the process of inclusion—reorganisation and instructional innovations. In our view, it is the reconsideration and restructuring of teaching approaches, pupil groupings and use of available support for learning that appear to be the key features of the inclusion process. In our minds, this is distinct from integration, which more usually involves focusing on an individual or small group of pupils for whom the curriculum is adapted, different work is devised or support assistants are provided. Integration does not necessarily challenge or alter in any way the organisation and provision of the curriculum for all pupils. Inclusion, therefore, is conceptualised not as how to assimilate individual pupils with identified special educational needs into existing forms of schooling but, instead, as how schools can be restructured in order to respond positively to all pupils as individuals. As Ballard notes in his paper, inclusion values diversity not assimilation. Thus support for the process of inclusion comes from the whole school community and can be of benefit to many pupils, rather than focusing on one pupil or category of pupils who are defined as having 'special needs'. As Udvari-Solner & Thousand (1995, p. 147) suggest: Inclusive education is seen as a process of operating a classroom or school as a supportive community. Thus, it is different from integration and mainstreaming which focus upon how to help a particular category of students to fit into mainstream. So our best attempt at a definition of inclusion at this stage takes account of the three criteria we have discussed. It describes inclusion as a process rather than a state, considers the process of exclusion as informative and emphasises the reconstructing of curricular provision in order to reach out to all pupils as individuals. It looks like this: Inclusion describes the process by which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as individuals by reconsidering its curricular organisation and provision. Through this process, the school builds its capacity to accept all pupils from the local community who wish to attend and, in so doing, reduces the need to exclude pupils. One implication of such a definition is the clear connections made between inclusion and overall school effectiveness, a theme addressed directly by Florian & Rouse and Slee in their papers in this journal. DEVELOPING INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS The exploration of links between inclusion and effectiveness provides a context within which much of our own recent work on school improvement has been conducted. Specifically, we have been working in collaboration with a number


10 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow of schools, in this country and abroad, in order to consider how they might move forward in developing more inclusive practices. This has also involved a consideration of the wider impact of such developments. Specifically, these experiences suggest that when schools are successful in moving their practice forward this tends to have a more general impact upon how teachers perceive themselves and their work. In this way the school begins to take on some of the features of what Senge (1990) calls a learning organisation, i.e. 'an organisation that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future' (p. 14). Or, to borrow a useful phrase from Rosenholtz (1989), it becomes 'a moving' school, one that is continually seeking to develop and refine its responses to the challenges it meets. It seems that as schools move in such directions certain cultural changes occur that may impact upon the ways in which teachers perceive pupils in their classes whose progress is a matter of concern (i.e. those nowadays referred to as having special needs). What may happen is that as the overall climate in a school improves, such children are gradually seen in a more positive light. Rather than simply presenting problems that have to be overcome or, possibly, referred elsewhere for separate attention, such students may be perceived as providing feedback on existing classroom arrangements. Indeed they may be seen as sources of understanding as to how these arrangements might be improved in ways that would be of benefit to all members of the class. How, then, can schools be helped to organise themselves in ways that encourage the development of such a culture? By and large the evidence is that schools find it difficult to cope with change, particularly where this requires modifications of classroom practice (Fullan, 1991). Where such changes are attempted they often seem to lead to organisational turbulence. From the experience of schools that we have observed making tangible progress towards more inclusive practices, it is possible to note the existence of certain organisational arrangements that seem to be helpful in dealing with periods of turbulence (Ainscow et ah, 1994). These provide structures for supporting teachers in exploring their ideas and ways of working whilst, at the same time, ensuring that day-to-day maintenance arrangements are not sacrificed. More specifically they seek to support the creation of a climate of risk taking within which these explorations can take place. Udvari-Solner (in this issue) provides some useful examples of this process by illustrating that teachers who are willing to take risks may be more responsive to a wide range of learners. Having said that, it remains clear that developing more inclusive schools is not an easy task. What is required, it seems, is a fairly significant redirection of resources and effort in order to shift organisations that are structured to facilitate maintenance of the status quo towards ways of working that will support development activities. The creation of arrangements that encourage development provides opportunities for teachers to become clearer about purposes and priorities, leading to a greater sense of confidence and empowerment and an increased willingness to experiment with alternative responses to problems experienced in the classroom.


International Developments

11

Seeing moves towards inclusion in this way places a strong emphasis on overall school development. This raises questions about what should be the roles of special needs staff within such a formulation. In some schools that have been successful in moving towards a more inclusive policy (see for example Gilbert & Hart, 1990) such staff have been seen as a form of learning support, working with staff to develop the school's range of responses. In these schools one method used to allocate support time is to invite departments to bid for the resources of learning support. Staff from the learning support team may then work with a department for, say, half a term in order to plan, increase the range of teaching strategies and develop materials that enable a wider range of needs to be met. This encourages all teachers to take responsibility for all the pupils in their classes and not to see the responsibility for some pupils as resting with the learning support department. Indeed, this type of collaborative planning appears to be at the heart of the process of inclusion. The impact of financial resources on provision is explored in Vislie & Langfeldt's paper in which they note that the quality of the organisation seems to influence the delivery of the service as much as the overall level of resources. In our own experience this is illustrated by the various models of support provided in schools developing inclusion. Increasingly, as educational budgets have tightened in England and Wales, learning support assistants have been employed in the place of support teachers (see for example Vincent et ah, 1995). The status, qualifications and contractual arrangements of these assistants vary across schools (Fletcher-Campbell, 1992) and are important indicators of the way in which support is provided. The 1993 Education Act in England and Wales extended the system by which additional funding for pupils with identified special educational needs follows the individual pupil. Unfortunately, this tends to reduce the school's capacity to use support creatively, since it encourages teachers and parents to see assistants as being attached to individuals rather than as a resource for the class or school. In some instances this contributes to exclusion, since the mainstream teacher may exclude the pupil if their allocated support assistant is absent. On the other hand, we have observed excellent examples of teachers working closely with learning support assistants without additional levels of resourcing, in order to increase the flexibility of the classroom and, in so doing, provide learning experiences that take much greater account of the individuality of all members of their classes. It is to the issue of classroom life that we now turn.

CONSIDERING CLASSROOM PROCESSES Much of the debate on inclusive schooling has been conducted predominantly at the philosophical, sociological and political level. More recently, and illustrated by the paper by Vislie & Langfeldt in this journal, it has also begun to address administrative dimensions. However, there is very little of an evaluative nature which addresses curriculum organisation and provision or pupils' learn-


12 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow ing. The social benefits of inclusion have been considered by, for example, interviewing pupils (see for example Tisdall & Dawson, 1994; Whitaker, 1994), but in the current climate of concerns about standards and quality there is a need to consider the effects of inclusion on the quality of learning of all pupils. Baker et al. (1995) looked specifically at the effects of inclusion on pupils identified as having special needs. Their meta-analyses demonstrated a small to moderate positive effect of inclusive education on the academic and social outcomes of pupils with special needs. Standard achievement tasks were used to measure academic benefits and self, peer, teacher and observer ratings were used to evaluate social effects. Secondary analyses according to age or type of special need revealed no consistent differences. The shortcomings of metaanalyses should be acknowledged. In particular, their dependence on the quality of the studies included, the tendency for some journals to favour research with positive outcomes, thus creating an overall bias, and the assumptions made in the statistical procedures (Robson, 1993). Studies using control groups to compare progress of children who are not disabled in classrooms said to be inclusive with those in classrooms that do not include children with disabilities are reviewed by Staub & Peck (1995). They note that no significant differences in academic progress (using standardised measures of cognitive, language and social development) were found between pupils in the two settings. Furthermore, the presence of children with disabilities had no effect on either the time allocated to instruction or the levels of interruption. These latter studies involved predominantly pre-school or primary school children, but are critical in focusing on the pupils not considered to have disabilities. Our own view (see for example Ainscow & Hart, 1992), echoed by Meyer & Eichinger (1994), is that the presence of pupils who experience difficulties in learning provides opportunities for teachers to challenge their current teaching in ways that are likely to benefit all pupils in that setting. These studies, as yet, provide only limited support for this but parents and teachers may be reassured by the findings that the academic progress of all pupils is no worse in inclusive settings and that the social benefits are better established (Staub & Peck, 1995). If inclusion does provide an opportunity to challenge current instructional practices, research on the process of inclusion should begin to help describe forms of teaching which are effective in helping all pupils to learn. Research on specific curricular organisation and provision in schools developing inclusive practices is limited, but some common themes appear to be emerging. For example, the grouping of pupils across year groups and within classes provides one area of interest to those developing more inclusive practices. At the classroom level, previous research on co-operative group work (for example Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Slavin, 1995) demonstrates the value of heterogeneous groupings in terms of ability. However, effective co-operative group work requires detailed planning and access to a variety of approaches in order to ensure that 'positive interdependence' is developed, enabling each pupil to



13

achieve more (in terms of the tasks or the social/communicative skills) than they would have done alone. Certainly, the teaching styles most closely associated with inclusion appear to be those which utilise co-operative group work and active learning which may reach more pupils and create further opportunities for social inclusion, as noted by Udvari-Solner in this journal. However, as Booth et al. (1995) note, more traditional, didactic teaching styles may also be effective if, for example, the teacher starts the lesson by ensuring pupils' prior experience is built upon. The most important factors appear to be flexibility and awareness of pupils' reactions that enable teachers to switch approaches when a strategy is unhelpful to all or some of the class. Meeting this challenge contrasts with the reservations expressed by Fuchs & Fuchs (1995, p. 24) about the 'one-size-fits-all approach observed in many regular classrooms'. Certainly, systems of setting, banding or streaming based upon pupil characteristics seem to be largely incompatible with developing inclusion. In some schools these systems inevitably result in a predominance of the pupils with identified difficulties (even if of a behavioural nature) in the 'lower' groups. This seems unlikely to provide the role models or self esteem with which developing inclusion is associated. Furthermore, the benefits of these systems for pupils' learning remain unclear (Gamoran, 1992). Most of the case studies of inclusive practices in the literature appear to describe schools in which grouping on the basis of 'ability' is not extensively practised.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER DEVELOPMENT In recent years UNESCO has organised an international project that has thrown some light on ways in which teachers can be supported in developing more inclusive practices (Ainscow, 1994). This project, known as 'Special Needs in the Classroom', set out to examine ways of preparing teachers to respond to pupils who experience difficulties in learning, including those with disabilities. However, action research in over 50 countries provides strong evidence that the teacher education approaches developed within the project can be significant in making schools and classrooms more responsive to the needs of all pupils, whatever their previous levels of attainment. In general terms this research indicates that two major strategies seem to be powerful in helping teachers to develop ways of working that encourage the participation of a wider range of students and facilitate their learning. The first of these strategies involves providing teachers with opportunities to consider new possibilities that may extend their repertoires. In encouraging teachers to explore ways in which their practice might be developed in order to facilitate the learning of all their pupils, we may well be inviting them to experiment with ways of working that appear alien, given their previous experience. Consequently, it is necessary to employ strategies that will enhance confidence and support a degree of risk taking. A powerful strategy in these


14 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow respects involves teachers participating in experiences that illustrate and stimulate a consideration of new possibilities for action. Within the UNESCO project considerable emphasis is placed on learning through experience. With this in mind, workshop sessions are led by teams of resource people who are highly skilled in organising sessions during which participants have opportunities to experience a variety of active learning approaches. In this way, they are encouraged to consider life in the classroom through the eyes of learners and, at the same time, to relate these experiences to their own practice in school. These workshop sessions emphasise three key factors that seem to be important to the creation of more responsive classrooms. The first of these relates to the importance of planning for the class as a whole, with an emphasis on making all activities inclusive. Secondly, it is helpful to encourage teachers to recognise and use more effectively those natural resources that can help to support pupils' learning. In particular, there is a range of resources that is available in all classrooms and yet is often poorly used, that of the pupils themselves. Within any classroom the pupils represent a rich source of experiences, inspiration, challenge and support which, if utilised, can inject an enormous supply of additional energy into the tasks and activities that are set. However, all of this is dependent upon the skills of the teacher in harnessing this energy. This is, in part, a matter of attitude, depending upon a recognition that pupils have the capacity to contribute to one another's learning; recognising also that, in fact, learning is to a large degree a social process. It can be facilitated by helping teachers to develop the skills necessary to organise classrooms that encourage this social process of learning. Here we can learn much from certain developing countries, where limitations of resources have led to a recognition of the potential of 'peer power', through the development of 'child-to-child' programmes (Hawes, 1988). The recent interest in co-operative group work in a number of Western countries has also led to the development of teaching specifications that have enormous potential to create richer learning environments (see for example Johnson & Johnson, 1994). The introduction of such approaches, however, seems to require more than a knowledge of techniques. What is important is the responsiveness of teachers to the feedback provided by the pupils as the activities within a lesson take place. This takes us to a third key factor in creating more inclusive classrooms, i.e. improvisation; in other words, the ability to be able to modify plans and activities whilst they are occurring in response to the reactions of individuals within the class. It is largely through such processes that teachers can encourage active involvement and, at the same time, help to personalise the experience of the lesson for individuals. This orientation is in line with much of current thinking in the teacher education world, where there is increasing acceptance that practice develops through a largely intuitive process by which teachers 'tinker' with their classroom plans, arrangements and responses in the light of feedback from members of their classes (Huberman, 1993). Changes in practice, where they do occur, often seem to involve small adjustments, as teachers



15

refine their existing repertoires in response to unusual circumstances, i.e. what Schon (1987) refers to as 'surprises'. Wholesale changes rarely occur, whilst teachers are understandably reluctant to give up ways of working that have proved to be helpful on previous occasions. As noted earlier, significant change represents an enormous risk for any teacher and, of course, it is a risk that has to be taken in front of an observant and potentially threatening audience, the class. In a more positive sense, however, it is the reactions of this same audience that can be the stimulus for the tinkering that seems to be an important and necessary factor in the development of practice. In addition to an emphasis on providing teachers with opportunities to consider new possibilities, the other strategy that has been found to be effective involves providing support for experimentation in the classroom in forms that encourage reflection on these activities. The key to this seems to be in the area of team work. Within the UNESCO project teachers are encouraged to form teams and/or partnerships within which the members agree to assist one another in exploring aspects of their practice. In the main it has been found to be preferable that such teams involve groups of teachers who work with the same age group of pupils or teach the same subject. For example, they may be asked to select a forthcoming unit of work or topic and consider how it might be planned in order to incorporate approaches that have been discussed during previous workshop sessions. They are also encouraged to form teaching partnerships that can assist one another during the process of implementing what has been planned. The role of the partners is to be together in the classroom during periods of experimentation, sometimes team teaching or occasionally observing one another more systematically in order to provide feedback and 'coaching' as new possibilities are explored. These forms of in-class support have proved to be a highly effective means of facilitating the development of classroom practice, confirming similar evidence from other studies (see for example Joyce & Showers, 1988). Throughout all these processes of teamwork and partnerships a strong emphasis is placed upon what Gitlin (1990) calls 'dialogues'. These go well beyond simple discussion in order to create forms of interaction that encourage a consideration of alternative ways of addressing particular tasks or problems. It leads to what Aoki (1984) has called 'critical venturing', where a community of teachers involved in a development activity use their multiple perspectives as a means of providing opportunities for a reciprocity of interpretation. Through such dialogues teachers are stimulated to engage in forms of reflection that go beyond a simple consideration of whether or not what they are doing with their pupils is successful. Rather they can help teachers to consider why they do what they do, what influences have led to these responses and, as a result, what other possibilities for improvements in practice have been overlooked. The use of these strategies for helping teachers to develop more inclusive practices has pointed to the importance of locating teacher development activities within schools and classrooms. In particular, the experience of the UNESCO project indicates that the search for ways of achieving education for

16 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow all must include a consideration of how schools can be organised to support such efforts, thus confirming the emphasis we have already placed on overall school development.


CONCLUSION In this paper we have tried to map out some of the key issues in international developments in inclusive schooling. We have focused in particular on four themes which might be kept in mind while reading the other papers in this journal. First, in order to discuss and research inclusive schooling we need to develop a shared understanding of a working definition of what we mean by inclusive. We have suggested that any definition should take account of criteria which include the need to emphasise a process rather than a state, to consider exclusion processes as informative and to clarify the distinction between inclusion and the traditional use of the term integration. The second theme highlighted schools as organisations, noting that schools wishing to become more inclusive may be required to adopt the 'culture' of a learning organisation characterised, for example, by collaborative planning. The third theme focused on the classroom and emphasised the need for flexibility in pupil groupings and teaching styles in developing classrooms that meet diversity. Finally, we considered the role of teacher development in inclusive schooling and noted the advantages of locating developments in schools and classrooms. Many of the issues we have raised are addressed in the following papers. Inevitably, what emerges from all the papers is more questions reflecting the relative recency of this area of research.

Correspondence: Judy Sebba, University of Cambridge Institute of Education, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2BX, UK. REFERENCES M. (1994) Special Needs in the Classroom: a teacher education guide (London, Jessica Kingsley/UNESCO). AINSCOW, M. & HART, S. (1992) Moving practice forward, Support for Learning, 7, pp. 115-120. AINSCOW, M., HOPKINS, D., SOUTHWORTH, G. & WEST, M. (1994) Creating the Conditions for School Improvement (London, Fulton). AOKI, T. (1984) Towards a reconceptualisation of curriculum implementation, in: D. HOPKINS & M. WIDEEN (Eds) Alternative Perspectives on School Improvement (London, Falmer). BAKER, E.T., WANG, M.C. & WALBERG, H.J. (1995) The effects of inclusion on learning, Educational Leadership, 52, pp. 33-35. BALLARD, K. (1995) Inclusion in practice: a case study of metatheory and action, paper delivered at the symposium Inclusion and Exclusion, University of Cambridge, July 1995. BOOTH, T. (1995) Mapping inclusion and exclusion: concepts for all?, in: C. CLARK, A. DYSON & A. MILLWARD (Eds) Towards Inclusive Schools? (London, Fulton). BOOTH, T., AINSCOW, M. & DYSON, A. (1995) Tales of innocence and experience from Richard AINSCOW,


International Developments 17 Lovell Community High School, paper delivered at the symposium Inclusion and Exclusion, University of Cambridge, July 1995. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1995) Exclusions from School (London, HMSO). FLETCHER-CAMPBELL, F. (1992) How can we use an extra pair of hands?, British Journal of Special Education, 19, pp. 141-143. FUCHS, D. & FUCHS, L.S. (1995) Sometimes separate is better, Educational Leadership, 52, pp. 22-24. FULLAN, M.G. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change (London, Cassell). GAMORAN, A. (1992) Is ability grouping equitable?, Educational Leadership, 50, pp. 11-17. GILBERT, C. & HART, M. (1990) Towards Integration (London, Kogan Page). GITLIN, A.D. (1990) Educative research, voice and school change, Harvard Educational Review, 60, pp. 443-466. HAWES, H. (1988) Child-to-Child: another path to learning (Hamburg, UNESCO Institute for Education). HEGARTY, S. (1990) The Education of Children and Young People with Disabilities: principles and practice (Paris, UNESCO). HUBERMAN, M. (1993) The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional relations, in: J. W. LITTLE & M. W. MCLAUGHLIN (Eds) Teachers' Work: individuals, colleagues and contexts (New York, Teachers' College Press). JOHNSON, D.W. & JOHNSON, R.T. (1986) Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies, Exceptional Children, 52, pp. 553-561. JOHNSON, D.W. & JOHNSON, R.T. (1994) Learning Together and Alone (Boston, Allyn & Bacon). JOYCE, B. & SHOWERS, B. (1988) Student Achievement through Staff Development (London, Longman). MEYER, L.H. & EICHINGER, J. (1994) Program Quality Indicators (PQI): a checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with disabilities (Syracuse, Syracuse University School of Education). MITTLER, P., BROUILLETTE, R. & HARRIS, D. (Eds) (1993) Special Education (World Yearbook of Education) (London, Kogan Page). NORWICH, B. (1990) Reappraising Special Needs Education (London, Cassell). OFSTED (1995) The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (London, HMSO). O'HANLON C. (Ed.) (1995) Inclusive Education in Europe (London, Fulton). REYNOLDS, M.C. & AINSCOW, M. (1994) Education of children and youth with special needs: an international perspective, in: T . HUSEN & T . POSTLETHWATTE (Eds) The International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edn (Oxford, Pergamon). ROBSON, C. (1993) Real World Research (Oxford, Blackwell). ROSENHOLTZ, S. (1989) Teachers' Workplace: the social organisation of schools (New York, Longman). Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass). SENGE, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline (London, Century). SKRTIC, T . (1991) Behind Special Education: a critical analysis of professional culture and school organisation (Denver, Love Publishing). SLAVIN, R.E. (1995) Cooperative Learning: theory, research and practice, 2nd edn (Boston, Allyn & Bacon). STAUB, D . & PECK, C. (1995) What are the outcomes for non-disabled students?, Educational Leadership, 52, pp. 36-40. TISDALL, G. & DAWSON, R. (1994) Listening to the children: interviews with children attending a mainstream support facility, Support for Learning, 9, pp. 179-182. UDVARI-SOLNER, A. & THOUSAND, J. (1995) Effective organisational, instructional and curricular practices in inclusive schools and classrooms, in: C. CLARK, A. DYSON & A. MILLWARD (Eds)

Towards Inclusive Schools (London, Fulton). UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special Needs Education (Paris, UNESCO).

18 J. Sebba & M. Ainscow C , EVANS, J., LUNT, I. & YOUNG, P. (1995) Policy and practice: the changing nature of special educational provision in schools, British Journal of Special Education, 22, pp. 4-11. WARE, L. (1995) The aftermath of the articulate debate: the invention of inclusive education, in: C. CLARK, A. DYSON & A. MILLWARD (Eds) Towards Inclusive Schools (London, Fulton). WHITAKER, P. (1994) Mainstream students talk about integration, British Journal of Special Education, 21, pp. 13-16.


VINCENT,