Special schools at the crossroads of inclusion: do they have a value, purpose, and educational responsibility in an inclusive education system?

Abstract

A philosophy of inclusion, based on the fundamental principles of human rights and equal opportunities for all, has become central to the education of students with special educational needs (SEN) in an inclusive education system, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (UN, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html, 2006). However, the role of the special school, in terms of its value and purpose in an inclusive education system, is currently challenged in international policy, which fundamentally supports the practice of inclusion in mainstream school settings. This paper is based on a study which sought to capture the voice of the special school principal in the dialogue on inclusive education in Ireland. In considering a definition of inclusive education as ‘a process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners’ (UNESCO, Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris: UNESCO, 2009, 8), the key finding of this study is that inclusive education must firstly acknowledge and be defined as the response of the entire education system, including the special school sector, in reaching out to all learners. The voice of the special school sector must be included in the dialogue on inclusive education, in order to challenge the conceptual misinterpretation and architectural symbolism of inclusion.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusion
• inclusive education
• special education
• role of special schools
• special educational needs

Introduction

Internationally, the term ‘inclusion’ has become central to the education of students with special educational needs (SEN) and has emerged as a ‘key international educational policy issue’ (Frederickson et al. 2004, 37), since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) which called on international governments to ‘adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise’ (UNESCO 1994, ix).

In 2006, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and specified that States shall ensure ‘an inclusive education system at all levels’ (UN 2006, Article 24[1]). The UNCRPD called on member States to ensure that persons with disabilities shall have access to inclusive education ‘ … on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live … (and) … receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education’ (UN 2006, Article 24[2]). UNESCO (2009, 8) described inclusive education as ‘a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all children and reducing and eliminating exclusion within and from education’. It further explained that inclusion involves ‘a process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners’ (UNESCO 2009, 8). More recently, the UN Committee’s General Comment No.4 (UNCRPD 2016), in its response to Article 24 of the UNCRPD (UN 2006), defined inclusion as ‘a process of systemic reform … to provide all students … with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences’.

However, the ideological stance of inclusive education proposed in international educational policy has created a sense of vulnerability among the special school sector in defining its role within a ‘radically altered environment’ (Shevlin, Kenny, and Loxley 2008, 149) and ‘challenges the role and very existence of the special school’ (Day and Prunty 2010, 3). Concerns within the special school sector internationally have been centred on ‘where they fit into the jigsaw of the educational system, if at all’ (Ware et al. 2009, 29), while Hornby (2015, 234) contends that ‘the most controversial issue currently regarding the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities is that of inclusion’. Florian (2019, 699) argues that ‘it must be recognised that inclusive education assumes that the mainstream is a good place’ and poses a key question which should be central to the debate, ‘inclusive education: has it delivered on its promise to provide for everyone?’.

As highlighted by the NCSE Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes: Progress Report (NCSE 2019, 4), the Government of Ireland ratified the UNCRPD (UN 2006) in 2018 and is now required to submit its first report to the UN in 2021, thereby examining educational provision in Ireland ‘in light of their obligations and responsibilities under the UNCRPD’. The NCSE (2019, 4) has stated that,

… it is now timely to review whether special schools and classes should continue to be offered as part of the continuum of educational provision for students with more complex special educational needs or whether greater inclusion in mainstream classes offers a better way forward.

Therefore, this paper explores the value and purpose of special schools in inclusive education at a critical time in Irish education. Based on a study which examined the emerging role of the special school on the continuum of educational provision, the paper begins by examining four key areas arising in the literature: (1) the conceptualisation of inclusion (2) the architectural symbolism of space in inclusive education, (3) the concept of normalisation in inclusive education and (4) the role of the special school in inclusive education. The mixed methods research design underpinning the study is then described. The paper explores the conceptualisation of inclusive education from the perspective of the special school and challenges the perception that inclusive education is synonymous with the space represented by mainstream education. It promotes the value and purpose of the special school sector in strengthening the capacity of the education system to become truly inclusive and captures the views of an educational sector which is often side-lined on the margins and represented as ‘other’.

The conceptualisation of inclusion

Fundamentally, the term ‘inclusion’ has given rise to an international educational debate, encompassing a variety of diverse and contradictory perspectives (Liasidou 2012). As highlighted by UNESCO (2020, 12), the UNCRPD (UN 2006) did not provide a ‘precise definition of inclusion in education’ and therefore the term ‘inclusion’ ‘remains contentious, lacking a tight conceptual focus’. Due to the diverse range of multiple and contradictory meanings, interpretations and discourses associated with the term, and the educational debate surrounding it, ‘inclusion’ can be described as a ‘semantic chameleon’ (Liasidou 2012, 5), with a range of different meanings in a variety of contexts.

While ‘special education’ was often understood to be ‘the place where special needs education occurred’ (Florian 2019, 694), ‘inclusive education’ is based on ‘the idea of education as human right’ (697) and therefore, ‘distinctions between special and inclusive education remain inextricably linked to concerns about disability’. However, as Florian (2019, 696) further contends, ‘not everyone agrees that inclusive education is a solution to the problem of special education or that special education is a problem in need of a solution’. Hornby (2015, 234) highlights that both concepts are ‘increasingly regarded as diametrically opposed in their approaches’ and proposes a new theory of ‘inclusive special education’ which ‘comprises a synthesis of the philosophy, values and practices of inclusive education with the interventions, strategies and procedures of special education’.

Graham and Slee (2008, 278) argue that there is ‘an implicit centred-ness to the term inclusion’, which is further supported by MacRuairc (2013, 12), who states that inclusion ‘implies a bringing in and therefore carries within it a presupposition of a centre/an ideal centre or a place worthy of being brought into’. In examining the concept of inclusion in education, the issue of placement comes to the forefront and the ‘centre/ideal centre’, referred to by MacRuairc (2013), is perceived to be the mainstream school. In addressing the issue of placement, Baroness Warnock (2005, 36; 2010) postulated that ‘inclusion should mean being involved in a common enterprise of learning, rather than being necessarily under the same roof'. Therefore, ‘the rights-based idea that all children should be able to learn together raises many questions: Can they? Do they? How? And how do we know?’ (Florian 2019, 698).

UNESCO (2020, 6) states that ‘education for all is the foundation of inclusion in education’ and that ‘inclusion in education is not just a result; it is a process’ (10). As postulated by Liasidou (2012, 17), the conceptualisation of inclusion as a human rights issue ‘raises the question of whose rights and under what conditions’, which should be at the forefront of the debate on inclusive education. Warnock (2010) argues that emphasis should be placed on the human right of the child to learning and quality education, regardless of the educational setting where this takes place. In this context, as outlined by Liasidou (2012, 17), ‘inclusion is conceptualised in terms of students’ participation in common enterprises of learning that can be either in special or mainstream settings’.

While UNESCO (2020, 14) states that ‘inclusive education involves a process that contributes to the goal of social inclusion’, social inclusion can be defined as ‘being concerned with far more than where children with special educational needs receive their education’ (Dyson 2001, 27). Graham and Slee (2008, 278) are critical of an inclusive education system that ‘shifts students around on the educational chessboard (which) is not in or of itself inclusive’ and this is supported by UNESCO (2020, 14) who propose that ‘moving students from special to mainstream schools is not automatically a solution, unless the requisite human and financial resources exist to provide inclusive education effectively’. Norwich (2008b, 14) proposes that specials schools are ‘a more economic use of resources’ in the education system, with the potential to provide professional and school specialisation.

When inclusion is viewed as a special educational subsystem (Liasidou 2012), this gives rise to a twin track system of support, including both mainstream and special school provision. Those in support of the twin track system, such as Warnock (2010), argue that there is a growing need for both types of educational provision and ‘denounce inclusion on the grounds that it is axiomatically difficult, if not impossible, to meet a wide spectrum of abilities within a single educational setting’ (Liasidou 2012, 22). Florian (2019, 692–693) states that,

there are disagreements about how to provide for everyone in an inclusive education system … debates about the extent to which a parallel system of special needs education is a problem or a solution to the challenge of providing an equitable education for diverse groups of learners.

In considering inclusion as education for all, Norwich (2008a) argues that the recognition of difference creates a significant dilemma. In recognising difference, the practice of labelling, stigmatisation and exclusion may occur, yet in failing to recognise the difference, a lack of acknowledgement for individual needs may arise. In order to promote an inclusive education system that recognises difference, Wedell (2008, 128) suggests that it is important to create flexibility within the education system, particularly in terms of educational provision for students with SEN, which has traditionally been viewed as ‘additional to or  …  different from  …  provision made generally in schools’, and raises a key question in the debate on inclusive education,

Is it possible to envisage the contrary – an education system which starts from the recognition of the diversity of learning needs among all learners, and which offers a corresponding continuum of flexible provision?

The architectural symbolism of space in inclusive education

Space can be defined as ‘the medium in which people act, intersect, move, and locate themselves’ (Freund 2001, 694) and, as a medium, is ‘socially produced and interpreted’ (Morgan 2000, 276). In explaining the concept of the ‘spatiality of disability’, Ypinazar and Pagliano (2004, 428) refer to the symbolism and significance of architectural space in education, particularly in relation to the field of special and inclusive education. They suggest that the physical spaces of special education have been significantly influential in representing and reinforcing the boundaries that exist between ability and disability and have contributed to produce a disabling identity associated with such physical space. Devine (2003, 114) views ‘the architectural composition of space as an important aspect of disciplinary power, communicating messages about values and norms’, while Kitchin (1998) proposes that space is socially produced to exclude people with disabilities. By exploring the architectural symbolism of space in special and inclusive education, it is possible to trace the historical origins of a social interpretation of special schools as spaces of segregation and exclusion. However, an exploration of the symbolism of space in education is often neglected in research (Ypinazar and Pagliano 2004).

A fundamental issue regarding the architectural symbolism of space in education is whether inclusion is currently defined in terms of the location of a student’s educational placement. Stevens and O’Moore (2009, 58) suggest that full inclusion in mainstream educational settings does not necessarily constitute ‘the best possible learning environment for all children with special educational needs’, which explains why ‘a continuum of educational provision has remained in place in practically all countries’. In considering the architectural symbolism of space in education, the concept of normalisation must be examined in the context of inclusion.

The concept of normalisation in inclusive education

McDonnell (2000, 22) states that there is an underlying assumption in education that ‘what happens in mainstream schooling is ‘normal’ and therefore ‘unproblematic’. In an inclusive education system, the challenge to the stereotype of ‘normal’ is ‘based on the notion of disability as representing a difference, not a deficit’ (McDonnell 2000, 25). According to Liasidou (2012, 23), the development of special educational provision, such as the special school sector. has been historically based on a ‘normalising judgement (which) has construed disabled students as ‘abnormal’ and ‘deviant’'.

In describing the terminology used in education, Mittler (2008) postulates that the term ‘special’ is often equated with ‘exclusionary’, while Ypinazar and Pagliano (2004, 435) suggest that the label ‘special education’ is ‘laden with spatial overtones and societal value judgements’. However, Florian (2019, 695) raises a key issue in the inclusion debate by highlighting that special education ‘is positioned at the margin of education’s normative centre’ and, as a result, ‘this structural positioning is a key barrier to inclusion and equity in education’. When critiquing special educational provision, Florian (2019, 695) suggests that consideration must be given to ‘what happens in education’s normative centre’ but argues that a ‘practice-gap’ exists between those inclusive schooling practices ‘that result in positive outcomes for everyone and those that reproduce exclusion within schools for some’ (698).

The role of the special school in inclusive education

The international debate surrounding the role of the special school has been ‘a hotly contested issue’ (Day and Prunty 2010, 3), which is ‘often fraught with emotion’ (Ware et al. 2009, 26). The debate centres on the role of the special school in an inclusive education system, while balancing the tension between ‘educational provision to meet individual needs and instilling a sense of belonging and acceptance in ordinary schools for all children’ (Norwich 2008b, 138). Internationally, ‘the outcomes vary by country, depending on whether special schools are the exception or the rule’ (UNESCO 2020, 132). However, while the UNCRPD (UN 2006) ‘endorsed actions that could lead to enrolment in mainstream schools, it did not suggest that special schools violated the convention’ (UNESCO 2020, 12–13).

In a review of special educational reforms in Ireland, Kenny, McCoy, and Mihut (2020, 2) state that, ‘Like many countries, policy in Ireland has been seeking to shift provision for students with special educational needs (SEN) from segregated to mainstream provision’. However, Ireland has ‘a distinct and complex history’ regarding the education of children with SEN, whereby special schools and mainstream schools ‘while connected … developed separately and appeared to run along parallel lines’ (Kenny, McCoy, and Mihut 2020, 2). Historically in Ireland, the SERC Report (Government of Ireland 1993, 22) laid the foundation for the establishment of a continuum of educational provision and fundamentally ‘envisaged a system in which there will be a place for both ordinary and special schools’. In examining the current and future role of the special school in an Irish context, Ware et al. (2009) identified two central themes,

 …  clear international agreement that part of the future role of special schools will be to cater for pupils with severe and complex needs  …  a second clear role envisaged for special schools into the future in the international literature is in supporting mainstream schools.

In relation to the role of the special school in supporting the mainstream sector, the research highlighted that ‘special schools are an important part of the continuum of educational provision’ (Ware et al. 2009, 7). The research identified a ‘changing pupil population’ (116), with trends indicating an ‘increasing complexity, diversity and severity of pupil need in special schools’ (7), along with ‘pupils who have attended mainstream primary schools but are unable to cope in post-primary’ (119). In addition, it highlighted that there is an ‘expectation that special schools will accommodate those pupils who are unwanted by mainstream schools or those who the mainstream setting finds impossible to cope with’ (118), which raises an important issue regarding the perception of special schools as ‘a placement of last resort’ (7).

Since the publication of the NCSE’s first policy advice paper, The Future Role of Special Schools and Classes in Ireland (NCSE 2011a), specialist settings, such as special schools and special classes, have featured strongly in NCSE policy advice (NCSE 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019). Throughout the policy advice, the NCSE has consistently recommended a flexible and fluid approach to educational provision for students with SEN and has acknowledged that special schools should continue to play a role on the continuum of educational provision, in line with the commitment of the EPSEN Act (Government of Ireland 2004) to inclusion.

As stated in the Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes – Progress Report (NCSE 2019), at present, the focus of the NCSE and the Government of Ireland is on examining how best to move forward with the education of students with special educational needs, enrolled in special schools and special classes in particular, in an inclusive education system.

Methods

Ethical approval for the current study was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee, University College Dublin. The study used a mixed methods research design, with an emphasis on qualitative research design for the purpose of data collection from three cohorts, as summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Overview of research design and data collection

Cohort	Design and data collection
1.	Postal survey of 135 special school principals in Ireland (n = 59; 44% response)
2.	Face-to-face interviews with six special school principals (n = 6)
3.	An in-depth phenomenological special school case study (n = 9 participants)

This paper discusses the research design and findings in relation to Cohorts 1 and 2 of the study and reflects the voice of a purposive sample of 65 principals from a variety of special school designations. The rationale for selecting the six principals for Cohort 2 from a distinct designation of special school arose as the Department of Education and Skills (DES) had previously piloted and officially sanctioned the first Special School Outreach Educational Support programme in a special school for children with Physical Disabilities. This programme had not been previously piloted or sanctioned by the DES in any other special school designation. Therefore, a deeper exploration of the role of the special school in facilitating this programme could be gathered from principals within Cohort 2.

The study sought to capture the voice of the special school principal in the dialogue on inclusive education and to explore their views and experiences, with regard to the key research question: What is the emerging role of the special school in an inclusive education system? The key themes explored with principals in Cohorts 1 and 2 are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Key themes explored

	Theme
1.	Inclusive Education from the Perspective of the Special School
2.	Public and Parental Perception of Special Schools
3.	Current and Future Role of Special Schools
4.	Collaborative Practice between Special and Mainstream Schools
5.	Feasibility of Special School Outreach Programmes

Cohort 1: survey of special school principals

In Cohort 1, postal surveys were distributed to 135 principal teachers across 13 special school designations in Ireland yielding a response rate of 44% (n = 59). The survey was selected as a research instrument due to its scope and ‘breadth of view’ (Denscombe 2003, 6) and to provide ‘a snapshot of how things are at the specific time at which the data are collected’, over a wider geographical area. Survey questions included dichotomous, multiple choice, rank order, rating scale, ratio, and open-ended design regarding the role of the special school in inclusive education (Table 3).

Table 3: Profile of special school sample (Cohort 1)

Official designation of special school	Number of schools surveyed	Number of school responses	% of total sample responses
Moderate General Learning Difficulty (Mod GLD)	33	17	52
Mild General Learning Difficulty (MGLD)	30	15	50
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD)	19	6	32
Youth Encounter Projects/Children at Risk/Young Offenders	13	3	23
Severe Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD)	11	5	45
Severe and Profound General Learning Difficulty (SPLD)	10	4	40
Hospital Schools	7	3	43
Specific Learning Difficulty (SLD)	4	3	75
Hearing Impairment	3	1	33
Travelling Community	2	0	0
Visual Impairment	1	1	100
Multiple Disabilities	1	0	0
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD)	1	1	100
Total Number of Special Schools	135	59	44

The sample of special schools in Cohort 1 included schools that were located in both urban and rural areas, including cities (51%; n = 30), towns (32%; n = 19) and villages/rural (17%; n = 10). The schools represented were predominantly located in the province of Leinster (63%; n = 37), followed by Munster (18%; n = 11), Connaught (12%; n = 7) and Ulster (7%; n = 4). Each survey was given a numerical code and the respondents’ data was coded and entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, in order to produce descriptive statistics in the form of frequency distributions.

Cohort 2: interviews with special school principals

In Cohort 2, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, involving open-ended questions which further explored the five key themes, were conducted with six principals of special schools with an official designation for children with Physical Disabilities. Semi-structured interviews were chosen in order to elicit a rich and contextualised insight into participants’ experiences regarding inclusion (Nathan, Newman, and Lancaster 2018). This method helps researchers to gain a detailed insight into participants’ perspectives as expressed in their own words (Taylor, Bogdan, and DeVault 2016) in a way that postal and other self-administered surveys cannot. Semi-structured interviews are guided by open-ended questions that are structured around a set of topics (Glesne 2016). As highlighted by Robson (2011, 280), ‘face-to-face interviews offer the possibility of modifying one’s line of enquiry, following up interesting responses and investigating underlying motives’.

Following written consent, the audio recorded semi-structured interviews with participants in Cohort 2 were conducted individually, face-to-face on each school premises for approximately one hour. Each participant was given a pseudonym and each school an alphabetical code. In order to protect the anonymity of one male principal, each participant was given a female pseudonym. Interviews were transcribed and stored separately to consent forms.

Reflexive thematic analysis (TA) was used to analyse the data. Reflexive TA is an analytic method situated within a qualitative paradigm that emphasises a flexible and organic approach to coding and theme development, as well as the active role of the researcher in the knowledge production process (Braun et al. 2019;). An inductive and data-driven orientation to coding was primarily used and succinct labels were attached to specific segments of the dataset to organise the data around meaning-patterns in relation to the research question and research themes outlined in Table 2.

While recognising the limitations of the study due to the small sample size, which does not reflect the voice of all special school principals or other key stakeholders including children, teachers, and parents, generalisations from this study cannot be made to the entire special school sector. However, the strength of the study is that it provides an insight into the special school sector and a voice that is often not represented or included in the inclusive education debate.

Results

This section reports a selection of the findings in relation to three of the five key themes explored from the perspective of the special school principals in Cohorts 1 and 2.

Inclusive education from the perspective of the special school

The term ‘inclusion’, as conceptualised by the special school sector, was defined in the case of 58% (n = 34) of principals as a ‘philosophy’, rather than a matter of location. The majority (86%; n = 51) of principals ‘disagreed’ that inclusion in mainstream schools is always in the best interest of a student with SEN, while 92% (n = 54) ‘agreed’ that inclusion involves a continuum of educational provision.

Inclusion was essentially defined as ‘participating fully in the life of the school’ as contended by Bairbre (School B), regardless of whether the educational setting was a mainstream or special school. As highlighted by the principal of School No.117 (Moderate GLD), the special school could be viewed as the essence of inclusive practice,

Inclusion from our perspective describes the process which avoids exclusion from involvement in activities and experiences. It relates to climate and attitude rather than location.

The need for a clear distinction between the terms, ‘inclusion’ and ‘education in mainstream’, was also emphasised by all principals in Cohorts 1 and 2. When referring to the placement of students with SEN in mainstream schools, the term inclusion may be used, for example as, ‘just a phrase, a title, a token’ (Ciara, School C). All principals in Cohort 2 unanimously shared the view that inclusion may be viewed as ‘very locational’ and that there is a danger of ‘physically locating a child in a mainstream school and calling that inclusion’ (Áine, School A). As explained by Fiona (School F), there exists a misinterpretation of the term ‘inclusion’ in education,

Inclusion is often misrepresented I think as having to mean that the child is included in their local mainstream school. A special school could be just as inclusive as any other school.

All principals in Cohort 2 agreed that, to be fully inclusive, special schools must ‘value the child that comes from a poorer background, single parent families, dysfunctional families, ethnic minorities and cultural differences’ (Fiona, School F). However, as argued by Deirdre (School D), ‘how can a special school be inclusive if it is isolated?’, referring to the position of the special school on the continuum of educational provision. The success of inclusion was generally attributed to the attitudes of school staff and, as highlighted by Deirdre (School D), ‘that attitude starts with the principal’s and the staff’s willingness to be inclusive’.

Public and parental perception of special schools

The central defining characteristic of the special school described by all principals in Cohort 2 was ‘the child’. As described by Fiona (School F), ‘I think to some extent what makes us different and special is our children’. In defining the special characteristics of a special school, Fiona (School F) also placed emphasis on meeting the individual abilities and needs of the child in a holistic way and on building their self-esteem,

… we treat each child as an individual and look at their individual needs and try and find a care programme and an educational programme and an all-round holistic package that suits them which wouldn’t always be typical of a mainstream school … 

This perception was echoed by Áine (School A) who highlighted the role of the special school in building the confidence of students who have transitioned from mainstream school settings,

… they are coming here maybe at second level, and they are very demoralised  …  and within a short space of time you just see them blossoming because somebody is finally addressing their actual need.

The public and parental perception of special schools was viewed as being influenced by making value judgements and comparisons with mainstream schools. Fiona (Principal, School F) stated that ‘it’s like it’s a dirty word sometimes, being something other than a mainstream school’. The influence of a negative public perception of special schools on parents was also highlighted by principals. As emphasised by one principal (School No.30, Moderate GLD), parents may be presented with enrolment in mainstream schools as the only option in educational provision,

There are very upset parents and families who were led to believe that special schools are the ‘last option’ and that mainstream education is the only ethical choice for their child. The upset when placements fail has a significant impact on all concerned.

Emer (School E) explained that ‘we would have had parents who wouldn’t even tell their neighbours that their child was coming to a special school, even though they were very happy with the special school’. It was believed that this negative perception and stigma arose from ‘almost being institutionalised … the old fashioned, the old sense of the special school’ and ‘a certain fear about what happens in a special school’. All principals in Cohort 2 highlighted that parents often held a perception of the special school by making a value judgement with the mainstream school, believing that, for example, ‘if my child goes to a normal school, my child is normal’ (Ciara, School C). However, as highlighted by Áine (School A), while some parents may be reluctant to enrol their child in a special school due to the public perception, there are other parents for whom the special school is ‘a wonderful discovery’.

Current and future role of the special school

In the case of 64% (n = 38) of principals in Cohort 1, the current role of the special school was described as providing education for students with a wide range of SEN in a caring and nurturing environment. The value of the special school was also unanimously regarded by principals in Cohorts 1 and 2 as providing a child-centred education which aims to meet the individual needs of students with SEN. Bairbre (School B) explained that ‘we are offering an individual tailor-made service for each individual child’, which is currently not always available in mainstream schools due to large class sizes and student-teacher ratios. Emer (School E) highlighted the role of the special school in providing ‘an appropriate setting’ for ‘children who have particular needs’, by enabling ‘access to an appropriate curriculum’. Similarly, Ciara (School C) expressed that the role of the special school was to prepare students for the future and ‘to educate the child for their life’.

In 36% (n = 21) of responses in Cohort 1, principals stated that the current role of the special school is to primarily educate students with SEN whose needs cannot be met in mainstream schools. As posited by the principal of School No.108 (Mild GLD), the current role of the special school is ‘to cater for ever more complex needs children who can’t easily ‘fit in’ to mainstream or who are ‘disruptive’ in mainstream’, resulting in the special school being perceived as ‘a dumping ground’. As highlighted by 75% (n = 44) of principals in Cohort 1, there has been a significant change in the profile of student enrolments in special schools recently, with an increase in students presenting with a diagnosis of ASD, EBD, challenging behaviour, complex medical needs, and mental health difficulties. As explained by one principal,

In our locality, the special school is often ‘the end of the line’ when all else fails. However, we feel we keep the light shining. No child should lose out by coming to us. (School No.117, Moderate GLD)

The role of the special school as an inclusive model was particularly acknowledged, for example, by principals who stated that special schools ‘are models of inclusion in their own right’ (School No.112, Mild GLD) and ‘are very inclusive educational settings which could be used as models for all schools’ (School No.8, Mild GLD). In considering the role of the special school, a majority (90%;(n = 53)) of principals in Cohort 1 agreed that special schools have a role to play in supporting inclusion in its broadest terms. As explained by Emer (School E), there must be a ‘continuum of educational provision’, which includes both mainstream and special schools on an equal status rather than ‘the notion of the special school as the school of last resort’.

With regard to their future role, a negative public perception, and misunderstanding of the role of the special school in the wider society, was also highlighted as a key issue by principals in Cohorts 1 and 2. As argued by one principal (School No.1, Mild GLD), ‘there is a lack of understanding about the huge positive impact special schools have on the lives of so many students’. This sentiment was echoed by other principals in Cohort 1 who expressed that special schools have a ‘stigma attached to them’ (School No.76, Severe and Profound GLD) and ‘a negative profile that is part of the inclusion debate  …  Does it have to be all or none? People and professionals do not know what goes on in a special school yet judge us unfairly’ (School No.10, SLD).

The public perception of special schools was regarded as an important challenge to overcome in the future, as ‘there is a lack of knowledge and recognition about the work of special schools’ (School No.53, SLD). As stated by one principal (School No.28, EBD), ‘the inclusive model lacks clarity as to the role special schools are to play in the continuum. The inclusive model needs to have a vision for special schools’. Other key challenges facing the future of special schools included ‘an idealistic approach to inclusion’ (School No.105, Mild GLD) in policy development, in addition to a promotion of full inclusion for all students with SEN in mainstream schools. As highlighted by the principal of School No.117 (Moderate GLD),

The issue for special schools is that they may become so peripheral that they will ‘disappear’. They will become special classes attached to mainstream schools. Possibly they should amalgamate so that special classes would all be outreach classes at one regional special school?

Emphasis was also placed on listening to the voice of special schools as ‘the people with the greatest skill and knowledge base are rarely engaged in dialogue and when they are, they are often not listened to due to the ‘inclusion-ist’ ideological stance and financial considerations’ (School No.30, Moderate GLD). As summarised by one principal (School No.20, Moderate GLD),

Parents have misguided opinions that children should be at mainstream and the Government is reluctant to tackle this. The happiness of children and their specific requirements should be paramount but the general feeling out there is that if a child has SEN, there is no problem with him/her being in mainstream. Physical presence in a school is not ‘integration’ and if busy mainstream schools are primarily geared towards mainstream children, the special needs children will always remain on the outside.

At a deeper level, Deirdre (School D) feared for the future existence of special schools and an ‘erosion of their integrity and ethos’. In light of misconceptions about inclusion, the importance of establishing special schools on ‘the continuum of provision’, as suggested by Fiona (School F) was emphasised. Bairbre (School B) argued that a special school should be viewed as ‘a school for children … we should be a school full-stop!’ and that emphasis should be placed on the concept of being a school, rather than on a label or a designation. This was encapsulated in Emer’s comment (School E),

‘We need to change the perception of the special school and of course calling it the special school immediately sets it apart. I mean what else do you call it? … I don’t know, but do we need to call it anything?’.

Discussion

This section summarises the primary findings of the study in the context of three key emerging themes: (1) the conceptualisation of inclusion (2) the architectural symbolism of space in inclusive education and (3) the role of the special school in inclusive education.

The conceptualisation of inclusion from the perspective of the special school

The findings of this study suggest that, fundamentally, there is a conceptual misinterpretation of the term ‘inclusion’ which is equated with the space represented by mainstream schools. This supports the view of MacRuairc (2013, 12), who contends that the concept of ‘inclusion’ ‘implies a bringing in and therefore carries within it a presupposition of a centre/an ideal centre or a place worthy of being brought into’, in addition to international policy discourse that views the ideal centre as the mainstream school. The findings recommend that there is an urgent need for a clear distinction between the terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘education in mainstream’.

It is evident that from the perspective of special school principals in this study, inclusion should be defined essentially as the human right of the child to have an equal opportunity and access to learning and education, regardless of the educational setting where this occurs, in line with Warnock’s (2010) philosophy. In challenging the perception of the term ‘inclusion’, the current study posits the view that a special school could be perceived as the essence of inclusive practice, in terms of educating and including children with a wide variety of abilities and needs. By adopting this perspective, the location of a child’s educational placement becomes less significant in the inclusion debate, with special schools being viewed as an inclusive option on the continuum of provision.

Architectural symbolism of the special school in inclusive education

The architectural symbolism of space was very apparent in the principals’ discussion of the public and parental perception of the space represented by the ‘mainstream school’ as ‘inclusive’. This supports the view held by Ypinazar and Pagliano (2004, 428) who suggest that the physical spaces of special education have contributed to producing a disabling identity associated with such physical space. The findings echo the stance of McDonnell (2000, 22) who suggests that there is an underlying assumption in education that ‘what happens in mainstream schooling is ‘normal’’ and Florian (2019, 699) who argues that ‘inclusive education assumes that the mainstream is a good place’. The concept of a normalising judgement is evident in the principals’ perception of the mainstream school as representing the ‘norm’, while the special school represents the ‘other’. The findings highlight the continuing influence of normalisation on the perception of the special school as ‘other’ in an inclusive education system.

The role of the special school in inclusive education

The findings of this study posit that the current role of the special school is to provide a tailor-made, individual educational programme for students with a wide and increasingly complex range of needs. The findings suggest that the public perception and misunderstanding of the value and purpose of special schools is a key challenge to be overcome in recognising the positive impact that special schools can make in an inclusive education system.

Conclusion

In considering the definition of inclusive education as ‘a process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners’ (UNESCO 2009, 8), the study findings recommend that inclusive education must place emphasis on strengthening and promoting the capacity and responsibility of the entire education system, rather than just the mainstream school sector, in meeting the diverse needs and abilities of all children. In this respect, the special school sector must be viewed as an essential part of the response of the entire education system to inclusion. The conceptual misinterpretation of ‘inclusion’ as ‘education in a mainstream school’ must be challenged and clearly re-defined. By examining the architectural symbolism of space in inclusive education and the negative perception of special schools arising from the inclusion debate, the special school sector may be given an equal position on the continuum of educational provision and may be viewed as a model of inclusive practice itself.

The Government of Ireland is now required to examine educational provision in Ireland ‘in light of their obligations and responsibilities under the UNCRPD’, (NCSE 2019, 4) recognising that ‘the best interests of children and their needs should be fundamental and first’ (69). While the UNCRPD (UN 2006) ‘endorsed actions that could lead to enrolment in mainstream schools, it did not suggest that special schools violated the convention’ (UNESCO 2020, 12–13). It should be emphasised that ‘notwithstanding Ireland’s commitments under the UNCRPD' (UN 2006), the NCSE is of the view that ‘the best interests of children and their needs should be fundamental and first’ (NCSE 2019, 69). This concurs with the views of special school principals in this study who argued that it is the right of the child to education, rather than the location of a child’s educational placement, that is more significant in the inclusion debate. In conclusion, this study posits that a model of inclusive education requires an urgent vision for special schools in Ireland, in terms of their value, purpose and educational responsibility, in order to create an inclusive community of educational provision.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the special school principals who provided invaluable insights into the voice of this sector and thank the children who continue to teach us all what is special about education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Catherine Merrigan

Catherine Merrigan has worked in the area of inclusive and special education, initially as a special school primary teacher, and, thereafter, as a lecturer, academic research supervisor and post-graduate programme director at the School of Education, UCD. Her research interests focus on the area of inclusive and special education, particularly in relation to the role of the special school in an inclusive education system.

Joyce Senior

Joyce Senior is the Director of the Professional Doctorate in Educational Psychology at the School of Education, UCD. Her work as a primary teacher and educational psychologist traversed all sectors of the Irish education system. Her research interests focus on inclusive education, particularly in relation to pupils with complex behavioural and learning phenotypes associated with genetic and neurological conditions.