Inclusion versus full inclusion: implications for progressing inclusive education

ABSTRACT

Inclusive education is a contentious concept with opposing opinions on what constitutes inclusion. This paper examines the concept of inclusive education, focusing on the distinction between inclusion and full inclusion, with a view to contributing to the ongoing discussion about the future direction of the Irish educational system. As a result of the 2018 ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), inclusive education in Ireland is at a pivotal juncture. The paper proposes that key to successful development of inclusive education is a pragmatic understanding of full inclusion, which supports the inclusion of students with their peers in the mainstream classroom setting but, critically, does not limit where specialised interventions and supports can occur in the school setting.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive education
• inclusion
• full inclusion
• irish educational system

Introduction

Inclusion is a concept that reflects the desire of a society to respect the human rights of all and refers to the right of all people to be fully involved in all aspects of community life (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2008). Therefore, to create inclusive societies children should be educated together rather than separately based on their needs or disability (National Council for Special Education 2019. Inclusive education is contested, with tensions evident between rhetoric and practice. The paper focuses on the concept of inclusive education, highlighting the distinction between inclusion and full inclusion. This discussion is particularly relevant to the Irish educational system at this time, as inclusive education is currently at a pivotal juncture. Following the 2018 ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2006), Ireland is exploring its vision of inclusive education, including its stance on inclusion and full inclusion. In the paper, positions which support and challenge both inclusion and full inclusion are presented. The Irish context is then outlined with specific reference to this debate. Finally, a pragmatic suggestion in relation to re-conceptualising full inclusion is advanced to support the future development of inclusive education.

Inclusive education, inclusion and full inclusion

Inclusive education is seen as ‘a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion from education and from within education’ (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2013). UNCRPD interprets inclusive education as educating all children together in mainstream classes within their local school (National Council for Special Education 2019). Central to inclusive education is the understanding that all children can learn together in the same school, which involves removing all barriers that could limit participation and achievement.

However, inclusive education is a contentious term that lacks a tight conceptual focus (Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) 2013), with a lack of understanding, and indeed misuse of the term, affecting its realisation (Slee 2018). Colley (2020) notes that for some inclusive education is simply about place whereas others see it 'in terms of equitable outcomes (Ayres et al. 2012) or social opportunities (McRuer 2005)' (725). Anastasiou, Kauffman, and Di Nuovo (2015) discuss the tension that exists between ‘right to education’ and ‘right to inclusive education’, as set out in Article 24 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2006), stating that this tension arises because the ‘right to education’ is presented as inclusion, not as effective or appropriate education, with no reference included to alternative settings or services (for example, special schools and special classes).

Moreover, on a fundamental level, there is growing recognition that inclusive education cannot be founded on deficit-based views and practices (Cologon and Thomas 2014) and needs to be open and responsive to the complexity of human diversity (Cologon 2019). Therefore, inclusive education cannot be achieved until ableism is addressed, that is, society’s acceptance of a system that places value on individuals based on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, intelligence and excellence (Hehir 2002). Florian (2019) argues that education must take place in ‘systems that do not marginalise some learners because of organisational and curricular structures that categorises learners on the basis of pre-determined judgements about who they are and what they can and should learn’ (701). This implies a radical rethinking of how students are identified and supported in inclusive education settings, and crucially, how to put diversity at the core of an educational system to ensure that it is truly inclusive.

Therefore, distinguishing between inclusion and full inclusion is essential to developing a clear vision of inclusive education. Within inclusive education, inclusion can be considered to mean meeting the needs of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream education when possible, with separate settings considered as an option when appropriate in a continuum of services (Hornby 2015). Within this understanding of inclusion, special schools and special classes are synonymous with greater support for the students who are educated in these settings. While this interpretation is intended to ensure the right to education for all, it also creates dilemmas of inequality within the system. It offers access to education, but it also promotes discrimination as it is underpinned by a deficit view of education that relies on the identification and assessment of individual need. The issue of ‘place’ is central here, with placement in specialised settings implicitly linked to ableism.

On the other hand, full inclusion, can be understood to mean inclusion of all students, including those with complex needs,¹ in mainstream education (Kanter, Damiani, and Ferri 2014). Here, the existence of segregated settings is seen as exclusionary and education outside of the mainstream classrooms is not considered legitimate. Those who believe in a fully inclusive education system maintain the possibility of developing this is compromised by the very existence of special schools and special classes (Ferguson 2008). Advocates of full inclusion argue that by its very nature it disestablishes ableism, and places diversity at the centre of an education system, thereby, promoting the development of inclusive societies.

However, full inclusion is not accepted by all, and it is questioned whether full inclusion as the sole service delivery model for students with SEN (for example, complex needs) in mainstream schools is appropriate. Some feel that full inclusion is ‘delusion’ (Kauffman, Ward, and Badar 2016, 72) and will not provide the support that students need (Hornby 2015). A concern evident in the literature is that inclusion can result in a reduction of the continuum of services for students. It is argued that while access and involvement in education alongside peers is important, this should not come at the expense of eliminating opportunities for intense, individualised, and explicit instruction and interventions provided by specialists (Zigmond, Kloo, and Volonino 2009). Anastasiou, Kauffman, and Di Nuovo (2015) suggest that ‘there may be some level at which the focus on full inclusion becomes ineffective, if not counterproductive, in providing appropriate education to students with disabilities’ (440). This debate reflects the divide between the philosophical rhetoric and the practice of inclusive education. Italy, which is reported to have an education system most closely approximating to full inclusion, is critiqued by Anastasiou, Kauffman, and Di Nuovo (2015). They contend that in practice, full inclusion cannot not fully meet the needs of students with SEN and result in ‘local’ arrangements occurring at practice level in schools, which are in fact contrary to full inclusion.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised above, the importance of inclusive education as a moral imperative is widely acknowledged (Cologon 2019). It is considered essential for education in and for achieving inclusive societies which are based on justice and equity (Slee 2020). It is certainly challenging; inclusive education involves systemic reform where educational structures, curricula and policies, as well as teaching methods and approaches, undergo a process of change so as to overcome the barriers that prevent all students experiencing an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2016).

The Irish educational system, inclusion and full inclusion

The debate outlined above is particularly relevant to the Irish education system at this time, as it is at a crucial juncture in its development of inclusive education. By ratifying the UNCRPD in 2018 (though it was signed in 2007), the Irish government recognised the right of the child to education and accepted its obligations to ensure ‘an inclusive education system at all levels and life-long learning’ (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2006). It agreed to recognise the right of persons with SEN to education and committed to realising this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity (Article 24, 1) and to facilitate the inclusion of all students, including those with complex needs, in mainstream classrooms in future.

Currently, the Irish educational system reflects the understanding of inclusion as outlined earlier in the paper. While the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) (2019) acknowledge that children should be educated together rather than separately, an inclusive education is currently interpreted as providing a continuum of educational provision. Prior to ratifying UNCRPD, a legislative framework already enshrined the right to an appropriate education for all under the Education Act (Government of Ireland 1998), with the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (EPSEN) (Government of Ireland 2004), setting out the right to inclusive education. Under the latter legislation, exclusion from mainstream provision is regarded to be the exception rather than the norm (Shevlin. and Banks 2021), which is in line with UNCRPD. However, EPSEN is still not fully enacted, with crucial components of it not implemented, for example, mandatory individual education plans, which has impacted on the realisation of inclusive education. Furthermore, the presence of the phrase ‘wherever possible’ in EPSEN does not align fully with UNCRPD or the concept of full inclusion. This phrase ‘wherever possible’ supports the continuation of the current structure, that is, a continuum of educational provision involving a parallel system, which includes a mainstream educational system and a separate special education system that exists on the periphery of the general education system. UNCRPD suggests that the existence of this continuum of provision is a form of segregation, as education is being provided for students with SEN in separate environments apart from their peers without SEN. A decision to embrace full inclusion will potentially significantly alter existing structures in Irish education.

The implications of the ratification for the future development of inclusive education in Ireland are currently been considered. Existing provision is being reviewed with the aim of signalling future policy intent. To date, this has included a consultation on provision and the publication of a progress report by the NCSE in 2019. A focus on ‘place’, that is, the future role (if any) of special settings in the continuum of educational provision for students is central to this. In the consultation, stakeholders reported that ‘ideally all students could, and perhaps should, be educated together with their peers in mainstream classes’ (36). However, mixed views about whether full inclusion in mainstream classes is a ‘desirable change’ (35), and whether schools and parents are ‘ready for the changes necessary’ (37) to bring about fully inclusive schools, were reported.

To drive the debate forward, the NCSE has posed a number of questions, one of which relates directly to full inclusion, that is, ‘can the most complex needs of students, i.e. medical, learning and behavioural needs, ever be met in mainstream classes with thirty other students, some of whom might also have special educational needs?’(National Council for Special Education 2019, 69). By posing the question directly, the NCSE is to be congratulated as it requires stakeholders to consider this multifaceted, challenging aspect of inclusive education. However simultaneously, the inclusion of the word ‘ever’ in the question throws doubt on whether full inclusion is attainable.

To date, there is no doubting the commitment to progressing inclusive education in mainstream settings that is evident in the Irish educational system at an economic and policy level with a view to enhancing inclusion. On an economic level, considerable resources are channelled into the provision of special education every year, with special education receiving €2 billion out of a total €8.9 billion education spend in the 2020 budget (Department of Education and Skills 2020). Since signing UNCRPD in 2007, a raft of policy documents and guidelines were introduced to support progress. Recently, the Special Education Teaching Allocation (Department of Education and Skills 2017) replaced the General Allocation Model (Department of Education and Science 2005) in response to concerns about the reliability and validity of the SEN/disability categories which underpinned that model (Banks and McCoy 2011). The Special Education Teaching Allocation model allocates special education teaching resources directly to mainstream schools based on their educational profiles and gives schools greater autonomy to allocate teaching resources flexibly, based on students’ needs, without the requirement for a diagnosis of disability. This is positive move in terms of beginning to disestablish ableism in the system.

Recent developments also signify significant progress towards a more ‘fully’ inclusive education system in Ireland. A new model of support for schools, the School Inclusion Model (SIM) (Department of Education and Skills 2019) was piloted, which focuses on removing barriers to participating in school life for students with SEN and aims to build on mainstream schools’ capacity to include all students. It incorporates many developments including, for example, introducing a national nursing service for children with complex medical needs in mainstream schools for the first time. While SIM is a welcome development, it was paused due to the Covid pandemic and, therefore, the evaluation of the pilot is ongoing.

Another noteworthy development is the In-School and Early Years Therapy Support Demonstration Project (2018–2019), which began before SIM (but is considered part of it). It established a tiered model of therapy services delivery in schools. Lynch et al. (2020) who evaluated the project, state that it indicates a paradigm shift in therapy provision in educational settings in Ireland by delivering effective care and supports using a needs-based model. Significantly, relationships between education and care professionals in schools were established, and this, along with capacity development, resulted in effective delivery of speech and language and occupational therapy support for students in the pilot schools. The development and success of this project bodes well for the future development of full inclusion in the Irish educational system.

Nevertheless, robust challenges and contradictory practices remain. These include attitudinal barriers on the part of all stakeholders (from parents to teachers to the wider community); insufficient support to facilitate fully inclusive education at school level; and inadequate education and professional development for all, particularly mainstream class teachers. Additional impediments include the ‘soft’ barriers to enrolment of children with SEN in their local schools that continue to exist despite the introduction of the Education (Admission to Schools) Act, 2018; the inadequate therapeutic supports in mainstream schools; the concerns about creating over dependency with individualised SNA support, and transition difficulties (Scanlon, Kamp, and Cochrane 2020). Currently, a general lack of awareness of ableism and the role that people and institutions play in constructing disability remains a stringent barrier to the development of inclusive education in Ireland.

Going forward

No decision has been made about the direction of inclusion in Ireland as yet, with the National Council for Special Education (2019) acknowledging that the future direction of inclusive education requires careful consideration. It is to be noted that the NCSE’s final position is yet to be published and the NCSE has committed to further consultations and deliberations to progress this matter in Ireland. Policy advice to date has stated that the future direction of the Irish educational system will be underpinned by the value that all children should be educated together, with the appropriate supports in place, unless there is a strong evidential basis to support an alternative approach (National Council for Special Education 2019). This is a positive stance. It is acknowledged that Irish schools, as currently organised, are not ready and that inclusion in mainstream, while it could be achieved, would require considerable change to the current system (National Council for Special Education 2019). This view is pertinent; the type of reform necessary to achieve fully inclusive education will take time. Placing students with SEN, particularly those with complex needs, within mainstream classes without the necessary attitudinal change and the accompanying structural changes to organisation, curricula, as well as teaching and learning strategies will not constitute inclusion (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2016).

Bridging the divide between the inclusion and full inclusion is necessary to support the development of greater inclusive education. Writing in 1998, Fuchs and Fuchs captured the essence of this issue, stating that proponents of inclusion believe that the mainstream classroom can and should accommodate diversity, but acknowledge that there is a limit to what can be realistically achieved in the mainstream classroom, whereas those who advocate for full inclusion believe ‘that all things are possible’ (312). Commenting on full inclusion, Anastasiou, Kauffman, and Di Nuovo (2015) argue that only a high-quality, specialised education can empower the right of persons with SEN to a better quality of life, and ‘that instruction is more important than place for students’ right to effective education’ (440). To ensure participatory and inclusive education, there is need for specialist, individual interventions for students, some of which are not appropriate or possible in the mainstream classroom. Therefore, it is unhelpful to limit the education of students to the mainstream classroom alone.

However, this does not imply that a parallel system of education is required. All students can be educated together, however, the understanding of full inclusion must allow for specialist provision outside the mainstream classroom to be factored into the practice of inclusive education. While such provision may not necessarily occur in the mainstream classroom, it should be available in the one educational setting. This is in line with inclusive education in New Brunswick, Canada, as highlighted by the National Council for Special Education (2019). Ideally, the future goal for the Irish education system is that the support which is presently synonymous with special schools and special classes becomes integral in mainstream education.

By acknowledging and legitimatising such specialist provision outside the mainstream classroom, that is, adapting the understanding of full inclusion in the short-term, then progressing towards full inclusion becomes more possible in the long-term. However, caution is necessary here. What is conceived is not a form of locational integration. The focus remains on authentic participation and inclusion of all students who are educated with their peers in the same classroom, with the proviso that specialised individual education needs can also be met, where necessary, outside the mainstream classroom. This could be termed ‘pragmatic full’ inclusion.

Conclusion

Inclusive education is complex and is secured by principles and actions of fairness, justice and equity (Slee 2020). However, it can be argued that the rhetorical debate around the place of inclusion and full inclusion within inclusive education is impeding development. Inclusive education in Ireland is currently at a crossroads as it considers the future directions (Shevlin. and Banks 2021) and clarity around what is understood as inclusive education is necessary. Key to successful development of inclusive education is a pragmatic understanding of full inclusion, which supports the inclusion of students with their peers in the mainstream classroom setting, but critically, does not limit where specialised interventions and supports can occur in the school setting.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1. The term complex needs can encompass both breadth and depth of need (Rosengard et al. 2007). In terms of breadth, students with complex needs may have several different needs, none of which may be of particularly severe when considered individually, but which cumulatively result in support being required from several different services. In terms of depth, complex needs can also refer to individual students who have a severe or profound level of disability, for example, students with severe or profound general learning disability (GLD).