Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Developing inclusive schools: changing teachers’ attitudes and practices through critical professional development

Dr Elias Avramidis
University of York, York, UK
ea13@york.ac.uk

Inclusive education is now firmly established internationally as the main policy imperative with respect to children with special educational needs or disabilities. In this chapter I intend to consider the recent policy initiatives promoting inclusion in the UK and examine the extent to which they have resulted in the development of a more inclusive educational system. In so doing, I highlight the tension between the widespread expressions of support for the principle of inclusion and the continuing maintenance of special segregated provision as portrayed within the on-going ideological debates between commentators in the field. I shall also discuss the two main barriers to promoting inclusion, namely the competitive policy environment, which renders mainstream schools unfavourable places for vulnerable pupils, and the inadequate preparation of teachers to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. In addressing these issues, I shall consider an alternative perspective which argues that inclusion requires a shift away from pathological-deficit models of “need” and a discourse of “expertism” towards “productive pedagogies” in which issues of social justice and equity are foregrounded. Such pedagogical practices are, in turn, dependent on reflective professional development which results in sustainable “communities of knowledge” constantly engaging in systemic changes conducive to the needs of all pupils.

Developments in education policy and enduring debates

The achievement of an inclusive education system is a major challenge facing countries around the world. Such efforts form part of a broad human rights agenda which can be traced back to the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). This was proclaimed by delegates representing 92 governments and 25 international organisations in June 1994 for the World Conference on Special Needs Education. The declaration asserts the fundamental right of every child to education and advocates the development of inclusive mainstream schools which “……are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all” (Clause 5, 2 nd paragraph).

In the UK, the Green Paper, Excellence for All Children, published in October 1997, (DfEE, 1997) and its subsequent Programme of Action – Meeting Special Educational Needs (DfEE, 1998) vigorously support the principle that children with SEN should wherever possible be educated in mainstream schools and demonstrate the Labour Government’s commitment to place inclusive education at the heart of a policy addressing the wider agenda of social inclusion. Most recently, the Government has also issued statutory guidance to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) detailing ways of removing barriers to learning and participation that hinder or exclude pupils with SEN (DfES, 2001a). The principles upon which this document is framed are further strengthened through the new Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES, 2001b) and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (DfES, 2001c). The latter anti-discrimination legislation, which came into effect in January 2002, has marked a major sea change in provision as it makes it unlawful to discriminate against pupils on the basis of their disability, and thereby makes real the right to education in mainstream schools for all pupils.

However, as Farrell (2001), Evans and Lunt (2002) and Lindsay (2003) have all noted, the development of policy towards inclusion in the UK is well advanced, but not all-encompassing. Specifically, the ambiguities contained in the Green Paper (DfEE, 1997) and in subsequent documents over whether ‘inclusion’ refers to all or simply most students have resulted in a variety of interpretations and applications. For example, the series of surveys by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (Norwich, 1997; 1999; 2002a) has shown a slow but steady trend towards inclusion but remarkable variation between the extent of segregated provision across local authorities. Such variation essentially means that there have been many instances of children being educated in mainstream schools who, if they lived in another area, would be in a special school. In 2001, for example, a disabled pupil in Manchester was more than seven times as likely to be placed in a segregated special school than a child in the London Borough of Newham; Manchester had 2.64 per cent of 5-15 year olds in special schools, whereas Newham, which has actively pursued a policy of inclusion for 18 years, had just 0.35 per cent (Norwich, 2002a). Other research has also identified different policies and practices across different local education authorities which are at different stages of development regarding inclusion (Ainscow et al., 2000; Croll & Moses, 2000a); some LEAs have promoted inclusive education, while in others the pace of change has been slow. A critical view of this variation between LEAs might suggest that the promotion of a policy of inclusion is still insufficiently strong and that an absolute commitment to total inclusion is necessary.

While the retention of separate special school provision does not sit comfortably with efforts to promote inclusion, prospects for its abolition seem highly improbable in the immediate future (Norwich, 2002b; Lindsay, 2003). This tension in education policy has sparked theoretical debates between commentators in the field adhering to antithetical ideological stances. Whereas some authors have been critical of a ‘full’ or ‘purist’ model of inclusion embracing a more ‘cautious’ and ‘responsible’ form of it (Croll & Moses, 2000b; Hornby, 1999; Wilson, 2000), others firmly entrenched within a human rights discourse have challenged not only the moral-ethical basis of special schooling but also the evidence in support of retaining segregated provision (Gallagher, 2001; Slee, 2001; Thomas & Loxley, 2001). In their comprehensive critique of the intellectual foundations of special education, Thomas and Loxley (2001), for example, have cogently argued that much of the knowledge about special education is misconceived, if not erroneous. More importantly, over-reliance on such traditional frameworks has at best, distracted attention from alternative understandings for children’s failure to thrive, at worst, necessitated segregated provision for a significant minority of children since their education supposedly requires specialist knowledge and expertise not available in mainstream environments.

Without losing sight of the theoretical debates about the ‘necessity’ of segregated provision for pupils labelled as having SEN, it is generally agreed that the move towards a more inclusive education system requires substantial reform of mainstream schooling. Indeed, a large body of research has sought to identify organisational structures and practices which may be associated with facilitating or impeding the development of inclusion (Ainscow, 1999; Clark et al, 1999; Florian & Rouse, 2001). These research efforts have identified common features of schools where inclusion has succeeded (i.e. collaborative teamwork, effective use of support staff, parental involvement and opportunities for training, to name but a few) and obstacles to be surmounted. It is towards discussing two recurring in the literature barriers to inclusion that we turn next.

Major barriers to the implementation of inclusion

Perhaps the most often cited barrier in the inclusion literature is the competitive policy environment in which schools are operating. Several commentators (Evans & Lunt, 2002; Lloyd, 2000; Loxley & Thomas, 2001) have argued that the legislative and policy framework of the 1990s, which was underpinned by a market-place philosophy based upon principles of academic excellence, choice and competition, is at odds with a policy of educational and social inclusion. Indeed, in today’s competitive atmosphere where schools are expected to raise their standards and vie with each other for students and funding it should not be surprising if they become unfavourable places for pupils considered by many teachers as challenging. The continuing trend for increased numbers of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties to be excluded (DfES, 2004) is indicative of the reduced tolerance of mainstream schools.

The clash between the principles that underpin market-based reforms and the principles that underpin the development of inclusive forms of schooling has clearly produced a set of tensions between such notions as ‘equity’ and ‘excellence’. Schools are expected to become more ‘inclusive’ or ‘equitable’, at the same time as they pursue a standards agenda based on narrowly defined notions of ‘excellence’ within a context of increased public accountability and government control. Here, however incompatible the concepts of ‘equity’ and ‘excellence’ might appear, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the literature contains examples of schools that have been able to become more inclusive while achieving high academic standards. Florian and Rouse (2001), for example, reflecting on their earlier work note: “….many schools committed to the development of inclusive practice have been able to mediate these tensions and work creatively and successfully in the current climate. These schools do not see the tensions as bipolar, either/or opposites from which they have to choose one extreme or the other. Instead they have found pragmatic ways to mediate the potential for conflict” (p.403).

Notwithstanding these exceptions, it is generally agreed (Dyson et al, 2003; Farrell, 2001) that most schools continue to resist the pressure to become more inclusive because they are concerned that to do so will have a negative effect on the academic progress of other pupils and/or lower academic standards. Their concern is reinforced by the findings from a study by Lunt and Norwich (1999) who found that schools with higher percentages of pupils with special educational needs also had lower GCSE performance levels. Views reflecting similar preoccupations were also elicited in a large-scale study by Croll and Moses (2000b) investigating professionals’ views of inclusion in the primary sector; interviews with teachers and headteachers revealed support towards inclusion as an ideal but considerable reservation about the feasibility of inclusion based on the types and severity of children’s difficulties and the insufficient capacity of mainstream schools to address them.

The teachers’ resistance voiced in the Croll and Moses (2000b) study could be attributed to the respondents’ lack of confidence both in their own instructional skills and in the quality of support available to them. Indeed, another frequently cited barrier in the inclusion literature is the inadequate preparation of teachers to meet the needs of a wide range of pupils with special educational needs. Research indicates that many newly qualified teachers entering the professional arena perceive themselves as ill-equipped to teach these pupils (Avramidis et al, 2000a; Garner, 1996). This is partly due to the increased school-based element in initial training which does not normally allow adequate consideration of approaches to the teaching and learning of these pupils. Experienced teachers have also been reported in the literature as lacking the necessary knowledge and teaching skills to support the inclusion of pupils with complex needs while working effectively to raise standards for all pupils (Avramidis et al, 2000b; Rose, 2001). Further, the limited opportunities for professional development have resulted in the perpetuation of negative attitudes towards pupils with special educational needs and scepticism towards the feasibility of a fully inclusive education system (see Avramidis & Norwich, 2002, for a comprehensive review of studies examining teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion).

However, as it transpires from the relevant literature on inclusion there is a strong demand on the part of teachers for more training with a narrower focus on specific or distinctive groups of learners. This is fundamentally paradoxical in the absence of sufficient empirical evidence to substantiate the existence of distinctive special pedagogies. This was reflected in a recent literature review conducted by Lewis and Norwich (Norwich & Lewis, 2001; Lewis & Norwich, 2005) which examined whether differences between learners (by particular special educational needs group) can be identified and systematically linked with learners’ needs for differential teaching. In challenging the claim that distinctive teaching strategies are needed for children with special needs, the authors concluded that the notion of ‘continua of teaching approaches’ is useful as it captures the appropriateness of more intensive and explicit teaching for pupils with different degrees of learning difficulties. This notion also makes it possible to distinguish between the 'normal' adaptations in class teaching for most pupils and the greater degree of adaptations required for those with more severe difficulties in learning, those designated as having SEN. These are adaptations to common teaching approaches and have been called specialised adaptations, or 'high density' teaching.

Despite the scarce empirical evidence to substantiate a specific pedagogical distinction for pupils labelled as having SEN (see also next chapter by Kershner & Florian), the latter continue to be seen by mainstream teachers as ‘someone else’s problem’. My research in primary (Avramidis, 2001) and secondary settings (Avramidis et al, 2002) has identified a culture where teachers pressurised by a ‘standards agenda’ feel that they are responsible only for the learning outcomes of 80 percent of the children in their classes, the remaining 20 per cent being the responsibility of the SEN teacher. Such a culture also reported in the work of others (Skidmore, 2004), emanates from an ideology of “expertism”, which relates “needs” to notions of personal pathology, disorder or deficit that require a “specialist” pedagogy not readily available in mainstream schools. In such cases, the underlying assumption has been that children defined as having special needs belong to a different pedagogical category and thus cannot be taught by ordinary teachers. The ideology of expertism serves to relieve mainstream schools of the pressure to respond to diverse students and consequently perpetuates and even strengthens a divisive ideology that impinges upon efforts to create more inclusive schooling environments (Troyna & Vincent, 1996).

In the remainder of this chapter I address the critical changes needed to transcend the discourse of expertism and to move towards the development of genuinely inclusive forms of schooling. In so doing, I will briefly refer to Allan’s (2003) appeal for the adoption of “productive pedagogies”, before outlining in detail my recommendations for the kind of professional development required to support such systemic changes.

The way forward: critical professional development and the formation of communities of knowledge.

In exploring the challenges of developing an inclusive education system, I have come to agree with Julie Allan (2003) who advocated the need for a significant shift in thinking away from notions of including particular individuals or groups of children towards constructing environments that include all children. Her argument draws on recommendations from two large-scale studies undertaken in Queensland, Australia, and Scotland which critically examined the respective education systems. The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (Luke et al, 1999) identified a set of “productive pedagogies” in which issues of social justice, equity and inclusion are placed at the centre. Similar changes aimed at establishing an education system for all were recommended by the Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry into Special Needs (Scottish Parliament, 2001). In reviewing this research, Allan notes that both studies identified as one main obstacle to achieving an inclusive education system the continuing emphasis on individual deficits which distracts attention from structural and attitudinal barriers within institutions and society at large. Such “destructive” practices can only be overcome through the adoption of “productive pedagogies” involving major systemic changes in schools.

A critical aspect of the fundamental changes needed in schools relates to the way teachers conceptualise difference and in particular educational failure. In this respect, professional development courses should make room for critical discussion of the concept of inclusion together with a consideration of pedagogic issues at school. What is required here is a radical rethinking of professional development away from low (INSET) level technical responses to specific “needs” or “syndromes” towards longer-term reflective training (Bayliss, 1998; Tilstone, 2003). Such critical self-reflective courses result in the acquisition of ‘generic’ teaching skills that allow teachers to modify their practice in ways which are conducive to meeting the needs of all learners within “inclusive” (holistic) frameworks.

Similarly, Initial Teacher Training (ITT) courses should provide training on the psychological principles of teaching and learning (including, amongst others, topics such as differentiating the curriculum, assessing academic progress, managing behaviour, developing Individual Educational Plans (IEPs), and working collaboratively with colleagues) and knowledge resulting in a critical understanding of the educational process (Robertson, 1999) thus enabling prospective teachers to respond creatively to the challenges of inclusion. The assumption here is that if teachers receive assistance in mastering the skills required to implement an innovation such as “inclusion”, they become more committed to the change (and more effective) as their effort and skill increase.

However, at a deeper level of analysis what underlies this line of thinking is a presumption of “efficiency”. If teachers are more efficient, defined in terms of professional knowledge, expertise and energy, then inclusion can “happen”. This reductionist analysis assumes “super teacher” status, whereby a diverse group of learners can be supported within an ever-increasing range of pupil abilities, learning styles and motivational states, to achieve narrowly defined standards of attainment. Given the current professional context in which teachers are embedded, it becomes problematic that any one teacher can sustain the pressures of performativity while at the same time implementing inclusive forms of schooling. In searching for a way out it is all too easy to rush towards proposing significant shifts in education policy as the first point of departure. However, appealing, such reforms presuppose a substantial if not complete abandonment of current initiatives. In reality, however, it is highly unlikely that governments will entirely abandon the standards-based reforms in which they have invested politically and financially in recent years.

A more pragmatic way forward would start from examining ways of facilitating teachers’ development and learning. The notion of “communities of knowledge” formulated by Olson and Craig (2000) offers such a possibility. Within this framework, transforming teachers’ development and learning includes long-term opportunities for collaboration, autonomy and reflection. As I have argued elsewhere (Poulson & Avramidis, 2003), communities of knowledge can be established by creating sustained opportunities for teachers to make practical knowledge explicit to themselves and others; to make connections between practical and theoretical knowledge; and to engage in activities beyond their own school. Knowledge communities might provide safe places where teachers could constructively share experiences and stories about practice with a critical friend, mentor or colleague (Holden, 1997). This, in turn, creates a rich knowledge base that could inform innovative school practices. More importantly, such communities would encompass teachers, teacher educators, LEA advisers, educational psychologists and researchers working together, allowing theory and practice to mingle and inform one another. Such an arrangement is dramatically different from the prevailing theory-practice relationship where ‘experts’ confront practitioners with ready-made answers or technical solutions to complex problems.

References

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

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

Allan, J. (2003). Productive pedagogies and the challenge of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 175-179.

Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002). Mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion/integration: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 1-19.

Avramidis, E. (2001). Mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Education, University of Exeter.

Avramidis, E. Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000a). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277-293.

Avramidis, E. Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000b). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one Local Educational Authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 193-213.

Avramidis, E. Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2002). Inclusion in action: An in-depth case study of an effective inclusive secondary school in the Southwest of England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(2), 143-163.

Bayliss, P.D. (1998). “Theorising Special Education: Models of Complexity: theory driven intervention practices”. In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward, (Eds.). Theorising Special Education. London: Routledge.

Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000a). Continuity and change in Special School Provision: some perspectives on local education authority policy making. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 177-190.

Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000b). Ideologies and utopias: education professionals’ views of inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(1), 1-12.

DfEE. (1997). Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: HMSO.

DfEE. (1998). Meeting Special Educational Needs: a Programme of Action. London: HMSO.

DfES (2004). Permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England 2002/2003 Available in: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/5000535/index.html

Dyson, A., Gallannaugh, F. & Millward, A. (2003). Making space in the standards agenda: developing inclusive practices in schools. European Educational Research Journal, 2(2), 228-244.

Evans, J. & Lunt, I. (2002). Inclusive education: are there limits? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(1), 1-14.

Farrell, P. (2001). Special Education in the last twenty years: have things really got better? British Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 3-9.

Florian, L. & Rouse, M. (2001). Inclusive practice in English secondary schools: lessons learned. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 399-412.

Gallagher, D. (2001). Neutrality as a moral standpoint, conceptual confusion and the full inclusion debate. Disability and Society, 16(5), 637-654.

Garner, P. (1996). Students' views on special educational needs courses in Initial Teacher Education. British Journal of Special Education , 23, 176-179.

Holden, G. (1997). Challenge and Support: the role of the critical friend in continuing professional development. Curriculum Journal, 8(3), 441-453.

Hornby, G. (1999). Inclusion or delusion? Can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 14(4), 152-157.

Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (Eds) (2005). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lindsay, J. (2003). Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 3-12.

Lloyd, C. (2000). Excellence for all children – false promises! The failure of current policy for inclusive education and implications for schooling in the 21 st century. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 133-151.

Loxley, A. & Thomas, G. (2001). Neo-conservatives, Neo-liberals, the New Left and Inclusion: stirring the pot. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 291-301.

Luke, A., Ladwig, J., Lingard, B., Hayes, D. & Mills, M. (1999). Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study. St Lucia: University of Queensland.

Lunt, I. & Norwich, B. (1999). Can effective schools be inclusive schools? London: Institute of Education.

Norwich, B. & Lewis, A. (2001). A critical review of evidence concerning teaching strategies for pupils with special educational needs. British Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 313-329.

Norwich, B. (1997). A Trend Towards Inclusion : Statistics on Special School Placements and Pupils with Statements in Ordinary Schools, England 1992-1996. Bristol: CSIE.

Norwich, B. (1999). Inclusion 1996-1998: a continuing trend. Bristol: CSIE.

Norwich, B. (2002a). LEA inclusion trends in England 1997--2001. Statistics on special school placements & pupils with statements in special schools . Bristol: CSIE.

Norwich, B. (2002b). Education, inclusion and individual differences: Recognising and resolving dilemmas. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(4), 482-502.

Olson, M.R. & Craig, C.J. (2001). ‘Opportunities and challenges in the development of teachers’ knowledge: the development of narrative authority through knowledge communities’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 667-684.

Poulson, L. & Avramidis, E. (2003). Pathways and Possibilities in Professional Development: case studies of effective teachers of literacy. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (4), 543-560.

Robertson, C. (1999). Initial teacher education and inclusive schooling. Support for Learning, 14(4), 169-173.

Rose, R. (2001). Primary school teacher perceptions of the conditions required to include pupils with special educational needs. Educational Review, 53(2), 147-156.

Scottish Parliament (2001). Official Report of Special Needs Inquiry. Available in: http://www.scottish.Parliament.uk/official_report/session-01/sor0517-02.htm

Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The dynamic of school development. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Slee, R. (2001). Driven to the margins: disabled students, inclusive schooling and the politics of disability. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 385-397.

Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Tilstone, C. (2003). Professional development for staff: steps towards developing policies. In C. Tilstone & R. Rose (Eds). Strategies to promote inclusive practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Troyna, B. & Vincent, C. (1996). The “ideology of expertism”: the framing of special education and racial equality policies in the local state. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds) Disability and dilemmas of education and justice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

UNESCO (1994). The UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Wilson, J. (2000). Doing justice to inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(3), 297-304.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact