Inclusive pedagogy through the lens of primary teachers and teaching assistants in England

ABSTRACT

Inclusion is an expectation of all mainstream schools across England yet research into strategies concerning how teachers and teaching assistants facilitate effective inclusive practice remains limited. This study explores the enactment of Florian and Black Hawkins (2011. “Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy.” British Educational Research Journal 37 (5): 813–828) approach to inclusive pedagogy through the lens of teachers and teaching assistants working with children across year 4 within one primary school in London to redress this balance and identify any challenges they may encounter with this approach. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews revealed several key themes: whole-class approaches; emphasis on learners’ capabilities; flexibility; commitment to ongoing professional development; diversity of needs; TA interventions; and ability-based tasks. While practitioners exemplified inclusive pedagogy on a regular basis it was difficult to implement in all aspects of classroom life, given the complex nature and diverse range of needs they encountered in mainstream classrooms. The importance of acknowledging individual needs was recognised and some key strategies to accommodate these without causing feelings of marginalisation were highlighted. Practitioners voiced positive experiences and placed great value on, working flexibly with one another to create welcoming environments for all children yet the effective deployment of TAs was not consistently realised.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive education
• inclusive pedagogy
• primary teachers
• teaching assistants
• special education needs

Introduction

The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) called upon countries worldwide to uphold their obligation and responsibility to ensure all children learn together irrespective of difference or disability, claiming regular schools delivering inclusive practice are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes and achieving education for all. In recent decades, inclusive education in mainstream schools for all children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) has been advocated within the UK, prohibiting schools from fostering discriminatory attitudes (DfES 2001; DfEE 1997, DfES 2001; SEN Code of Practice DfE/DoH 2015; Children and Families Act Great Britain 2014) and by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for schools: ‘An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learning, achievements, attitudes and well-being of every young person matter. Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools’ (Ofsted 2000, 7).

Since the Warnock Report of 1978, moves towards more inclusive systems has been a priority in England to ensure all children with SEND have equitable learning opportunities within mainstream classrooms (Sikes, Lawson, and Parker 2007; Trussler and Robinson 2015), reflecting the vision that all pupils matter, regardless of circumstance, and schools must be committed to meeting the needs of all children effectively. A whole-school approach to inclusion is essential and teachers should work in professional environments that actively promote inclusion since negative attitudes constitute a barrier (UNESCO 2009). Hosford and O’Sullivan (2016) found positive perceptions of a school’s climate relate directly to teachers’ confidence and ability to teach in inclusive classrooms: teachers who felt well supported demonstrated assurance in managing challenging behaviour, implementing inclusive instruction and engaging collaboratively with peers. This signals why schools should develop cultures and values within communities, so teachers feel supported by the schools and systems they work in (Ainscow and Sandill 2010). To facilitate education for all, Wilde and Avradmidis (2011) further recommend effective leadership should be spread throughout the school.

Adequate resources are vital in facilitating inclusive practice (DfES 2001). All children must be equipped with suitable tools and support mechanisms to be successful in classroom life and for children with SEND, this may include manipulatives, practical tools and equipment and/or specialists and support staff. Woodcock and Woolfson (2019) found teachers value specialist staff working with SEND children yet access to support can be limited, whereas Round, Subban, and Sharma (2016) note although material resources have support value, unease regarding the number of speciality support staff remains significant amongst teachers.

In 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) reported children with SEND receiving mainstream provision in England, which has been on the rise since 2010, accounts for the highest percentage of all children with statements and Educational Health and Care Plans (EHCP). With more children receiving diagnoses and statements, teachers must be prepared, and have a responsibility to accommodate the needs of all learners (Maciver et al. 2018). However, studies reveal daily challenges faced by teachers in successfully implementing inclusive practices to ensure all children learn effectively and make expected progress, alongside multiple pressures when managing diverse classrooms (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019).

Teachers

Teacher attitudes, a key enabler in creating an inclusive environment, ‘reflect feelings and influence behaviours related to a particular object’ (Triandis 1971). Teachers form attitudes toward children with SEND and inclusion, based on certain characteristics of the child, factors within the classroom and prior experiences: attitudes are then reflected in teachers’ behaviours and influence how they make decisions in daily activities (UNESCO 2009). Leatherman and Niemeyer (2005) found teachers with past positive experiences of working with pupils with SEND displayed more feelings of positivity, as they fostered more inclusive and welcoming environments. They conclude teachers must feel adequately trained and display a positive attitude toward inclusion, if this is to be realised in daily classroom life. Brennan, King, and Travers (2019) noted increasingly positive attitudes toward learner achievement after implementing more flexible strategies in the mainstream classroom, following support sessions teacher participants received using the Inclusive Pedagogical Approach in Action (IPAA).

Teachers must also implement and execute highly effective strategies to work flexibly within the environment (UNESCO 2009). As classrooms become more diverse, choices and strategies exemplified by teachers are essential to pupils’ participation in all aspects of learning (Molbaek 2018). These may include flexible grouping strategies, children’s access within the classroom and differentiation through tasks. While much has been documented about teacher attitudes, approaches to teaching, and challenges teachers may encounter, research into specific inclusive strategies and pedagogical approaches proven to be effective in meeting pupil needs is limited (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019; Lindsay et al. 2014).

Teaching assistants

Due to increasing numbers of pupils with SEND receiving mainstream provision (Webster et al. 2010) TA employment has been on the rise and comprises over one quarter of the school workforce in England (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018). TAs have been deployed to facilitate inclusion for children with SEND and as an informal instructional resource for pupils in need (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018). Concerns raised as TAs take on these responsibilities include inadequate preparation and training (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018; Bosanquet and Radford 2019); individual attention and support for pupils with SEND potentially leading to lack of progress and less inclusive opportunities (Webster et al. 2010). The Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) project examined TA support for pupils with SEND (Webster et al. 2010) and revealed such unintentional consequences as greater separation from teachers and the curriculum as a result of missed opportunities, due mainly to separate workstations, and limited inclusive experiences for some children.

Conversely, when TAs are deployed appropriately and deliver high quality, small group or individual support using structured interventions with reliable evidence of effectiveness, the impacts observed are positive (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018). TAs can help pupils develop key independent skills including self-scaffolding, open-ended questions, prompting and encouragement to take risks (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018). They can also form positive relationships with children and demonstrate effective behaviour management (Groom and Rose 2005). When TAs have a direct instructional role, it is critical they add value to the work of the teacher, not replace them, which means schools should organise staff effectively, so they understand their complementary roles within classrooms (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018).

Inclusive pedagogy

Inclusive pedagogy derived from studies concerning effective teacher support for all learners within classrooms, avoiding stigmatisation of difference, (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) premised on the belief that all children have potential to progress and succeed, and none should be excluded from opportunities based upon individual capabilities. It opposes practices delivering education for all by offering inclusive opportunities for most with additional or modified experiences for some (Florian and Spratt 2013) and assists teachers facing challenges, enabling them to address difficulties in responding to differences between learners in non-exclusive ways.

Inclusive pedagogy involves three key tenets. First, there must be a shift in focus away from individuals with needs to that of all children (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) within the community of the classroom. This can be accomplished by creating rich learning opportunities available for everyone, by extending what is ordinarily available to all children, rather than differentiated work and additional strategies for those experiencing difficulties. Teachers must focus on what is to be taught and how, rather than who is to learn it, and eliminate preconceived notions of achievement so all children take responsibility for their own learning through choice (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Second, inclusive pedagogy involves teacher belief in transformability (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019), the notion that children’s academic capabilities are not pre-determined, and all children have potential to progress and succeed. Teachers must focus on each child’s strengths and implement strategies that encourage collaborative work without judgments based on ability (Florian and Spratt 2013). Rejecting pre-determined beliefs about ability is essential and teachers must keep an open-minded view of each child’s potential to learn without labelling (Florian and Spratt 2013). Third, teachers must be flexible and view difficulties in learning as professional challenges, rather than problems within the child (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Teachers are encouraged to find new ways of working by implementing strategies to support all children, which includes working collaboratively with other professionals. Effective communication amongst staff members and creating a school environment where ideas can be shared are key (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019). This involves commitment to ongoing professional development to keep practice current and effective (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019). Regarding support and inclusion of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in mainstream settings, Lindsay et al. (2014) found teachers were committed to attending workshops to deepen their knowledge and understanding of ASD, valued ‘mini workshops’ with peers to learn from one another, especially newly qualified teachers, and discussed the importance of informal training to help them develop successful practices.

Research design and process

Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) approach to inclusive pedagogy was drawn upon to capture the perspectives and experiences of teachers and TAs working in a mainstream primary school in England. We sought answers to four research questions:

Q1: How do teachers create opportunities concerned with the learning of all children within the classroom?

Q2: What strategies do practitioners employ to ensure all children make progress?

Q3: How do practitioners reflect an openminded attitude to develop new ways of working?

Q4: What barriers prevent practitioners from achieving inclusive pedagogy?

A qualitative approach was chosen as this enables researchers ‘to get at the inner experience of participants’ (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 11) and involves ‘careful examination and listening to people in their natural settings’ (Lichtman 2013, 4). This allows for rich, thick descriptions and is relevant to the study of social interactions (Flick 2009). Situated within an interpretivist paradigm, which emphasises ‘analysing meanings people confer on their own actions’ (Lichtman 2013, 323) we sought to ‘explain and demystify social reality’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007, 19) by understanding participants’ perspectives and lived experiences of inclusive pedagogy.

Context and participants

This study was undertaken in a four-form entry primary school located within a London Borough in England with more than 700 pupils on roll, 37 teachers and 28 TAs. The school achieved the Inclusion Quality Mark (IQM 2020) Flagship status and Gold Level Rights’ Respecting School (UNICEF 2019) award in recognition of ongoing commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for all children. All staff promote an inclusive and collaborative ethos: TAs are pivotal in supporting pupils with SEND, trained to deliver interventions and work on specific targets across subject areas.

Purposive sampling was used to identify practitioners with knowledge and experience of inclusive pedagogy, the phenomenon of interest (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017) and convenience sampling to select those easily accessible (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2017). All year four teachers (n = 4) and three TAs variously deployed across years three and four participated (see Table 1). Each year four class had between 28 and 30 children with four receiving individual support for SEN. Across the year four cohort a number of children present with a range of SEND and medical needs, therefore, participants could provide enriching accounts for each research question.

Table 1. Research participant profiles.

Participant pseudonyms	Year Group	Years of Experience	Number of children with SEN in class (EHCP or no EHCP)	Profiles
Alicia	Year 4	3	6	In her third year of teaching. This is her first year at the school. She is a Year 4 teacher and has taught Year 3 previously. She has experience working with children with a range of SEN. Has completed an additional course on Dyslexia.
Beatrice	Year 4	1	3	A newly qualified primary school teacher in her first year of teaching Year 4. This is her first year at this school. 1 allocated TA in her class for general support during core subjects. As an NQT, Beatrice does not hold additional qualifications in SEN however expressed interest in further education.
Greta	Year 4	2	2	In her second year of teaching. She has been a supply teacher in her home country and now shares a Year 4 class with another teacher. She works part time in both Year 4 and Year 2. This is her first year at this school. 2 allocated TAs to her class for children with 1:1 support. Greta does not hold any other qualifications in SEN. Volunteered at an organisation working to support those with ASD and completed a course on Applied Behavioural Analysis for children with ASD.
Jennifer	Year 4	4	4	In her fourth year of teaching. This is her first year teaching Year 4 and prior to this she taught Year 3 for three years. She has been teaching at this school for four years. Her current class has 1 allocated TA for a child requiring 1:1 support working at a Year 1 level. She has experience teaching children with a range of SEN and working with various TAs across the school.
Isabelle	Year 4 and Reception	5	N/A	A teaching assistant working 1:1 with a child with ASD part time. She splits her time also working in Reception as a general TA. She has been a classroom volunteer since 2012 and first became a 1:1 TA in 2015. This is her second year at this school. She completed several additional courses focussing on ASD and speech and language.
Lauren	Year 4 and covers classes throughout school	11+	N/A	A teaching assistant who works 1:1 with a child for 1.5 h daily. She has been a TA for over 11 years. This is the second school she has worked in. She is a Higher Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA) who regularly covers teachers throughout this school. Various experience working as a general TA and working with specific children 1:1.
Andrea	Years 3 and 4	9	N/A	A teaching assistant who works 1:1 with a child with medical needs. She also delivers Speech and Language sessions for lower KS2 and facilitates social skills groups for children with SEN. She has worked at this school for 9 years with experience working 1:1 with specific children and as a general class TA. She holds an additional diploma in SEN and completed a speech and language course through ELKLAN specifically for children with ASD.

Procedure

To explore participants’ perspectives, meanings, understanding of situations and constructions of reality (Punch and Oancea 2014) individual, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were chosen. This enabled interviews to be guided by standardised questions and prompts yet with flexibility to adapt to unexpected discussions and responses through probing (Rubin and Rubin 2005). Question sets for teachers and TAs were crafted and tailored (to cater for each role) to ‘control the line of questioning’ (Creswell 2009, 179) and caution was exercised to ensure questions were neither leading, too broad nor too narrow (Lichtman 2013) but well-focused and relevant (see Appendix A).

All semi-structured interviews were conducted after obtaining consent by the first author of this article to ensure consistency of approach, lasted between twenty and thirty minutes and were audio-recorded using a digital device to ensure accuracy and precision of data. This enabled the interviewer not only to focus on questions and prompts but to fully engage with participants by maintaining eye contact and interest (Lichtman 2013).

Data analysis

We followed the six phases in thematic analysis identified by Braun and Clarke (2006, 87) to sustain sensitivity to the interview data: (1) familiarisation with data; (2) generating initial codes; (3) searching for themes; (4) reviewing themes; (5) defining and naming themes; (6) producing the report. This method offers theoretical flexibility as ‘the search for, and examination of, patterning across language does not require adherence to any particular theory of language, or explanatory meaning framework for human beings, experiences or practices’ (Braun and Clark 2013, 120).

Phase 1 was undertaken during the transcription process and by reading/re-reading the interview data and phase 2 involved generating initial codes from the entire data set in a systematic manner. These codes were collated onto an Excel spreadsheet with relevant narrative excerpts from each participant. Phase 3 enabled us to identify all meaningful text segments from initial codes and generate potential themes and phase 4 to analyse and combine several codes into overarching themes and sub-themes supported by relevant evidence. Phase 5 involved organising and defining themes and sub-themes to capture commonalities and nuances and provide the reader with an immediate sense of what each is about. During phase 6, we selected narrative excerpts to exemplify key themes and sub-themes related to each research question and compared this with relevant literature in our discussion of findings.

Ethics, reliability and validity

This study was undertaken according to the requirements of Brunel University London research ethics committee and guidelines advanced by the British Educational Research Association (BERA 2018). Formal approval was gained from the headteacher and all participants received information sheets explaining the aims/nature of the study in advance, also informing them of their right to withdraw. Signed consent forms were collected; participants’ privacy and anonymity were ensured as interview recordings were saved on a password-protected computer, and once transcribed, pseudonyms were used.

Member checking ensured data accuracy and enabled participants to identify and recognise their experiences in the findings (Rahman 2016), which validates whether ‘the researcher has accurately translated the informants’ viewpoints into data’ (Krefting 1991, 219). To ensure validity both authors collaborated closely throughout the entire study from reviewing relevant literature, discussing/refining the focus of questions, searching for and generating themes to discussions/elaborations of analyses and findings through peer review and examination. This maintains honesty and integrity with the research (Guba and Lincoln 1985) and offsets any biases or subjectivities.

Findings

The profiles of each participant are illustrated in Table 1.

Key themes and sub-themes derived from interview data analysis are presented here in relation to each research question.

Q1 How do teachers create opportunities concerned with the learning of all children within the classroom?

Whole-class approaches

Inclusive learning environments have positive achievement and participation outcomes for all children (Molbaek 2018) and several approaches to whole-class learning were identified, each practitioner offering different strategies to mitigate exclusion.

Environment

Teachers created welcoming and accessible classrooms to make all children feel comfortable and safe as well as the freedom to use what is provided flexibly. Jennifer, in her fourth year of teaching, emphasised the importance of creating an environment where all children, regardless of ability, race or religion, feel valued and comfortable sharing ideas and, justified the significance of whole-class discussion during lessons as a way of children expressing themselves:

… I make sure that everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas and value everyone’s opinions … I can see that it is those lower-ability children that do feel more confident to share … so I guess that’s a result of the comfortable environment they’re in, they feel included, they feel valued, so they’re comfortable [sharing] … (Jennifer)

Greta, in her second year of teaching, echoed the need for an accessible environment and explained pupils were free to use the classroom space, for example, reading corner or practical resources whenever they pleased. Beatrice, a newly qualified teacher (NQT), further discussed the importance of explaining resources in advance so children could access them during tasks, freely of their own choosing. Visual displays throughout the classroom for all children to access were considered essential for all teachers:

I make sure I have visual timetables, I’ve got the ‘how I feel today’ chart so they all can show me how they're feeling, but then they can interact and show each other too … (Alicia)

These strategies provide children with opportunities to form positive bonds and build trusting relationships which are fundamental to an inclusive classroom (Maciver et al. 2018).

Teachers explained the importance of mixed ability seating arrangements for grouping children, which was common for all subjects. Two of the three TAs, Andrea and Lauren, noted the mixed ability arrangements and encouragement of children to work with and support one another, as Andrea elaborates:

I have observed that children aren't segregated into abilities … you don't have the lower ability children sitting together … they’re with their peers and sometimes they're supported by people that may be working at a higher level … I think that's really important (Andrea)

Mixed ability seating arrangements reinforce the rejection of deterministic beliefs (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) affirming that children should not be limited in their achievement based on teachers’ assumptions about their ability. Teachers ensured pupils had opportunities to interact freely with one another, discuss ideas and work co-operatively during tasks so children would not feel segregated. Further, inclusion involves changes to certain structures, which is evident as children are not grouped based on their ability level (UNESCO 2009). This said, Jennifer acknowledged some children must be seated strategically to access the lessons, for example, front of class for hearing impairment.

While teachers considered mixed ability groups important, three children with SEND had their own classroom workspace since they were not accessing the year four curriculum and received individual support for most of the school day. Two were working toward year one targets and teachers felt it inappropriate to seat them with the class during most lessons. The severity of their behavioural and emotional needs was also a factor, and one child demonstrated aggressive behaviour and outbursts. While having a separate workstation is ‘additional’ or ‘different’ teachers extended ‘what is ordinarily available for all learners’ (UNESCO 2009) to ensure children received equitable learning opportunities and were able to succeed:

Maths and English are all done separately with the TA and that's the most appropriate way of doing it. However, if we're doing a multiplication test then he can do one at the same time. I think once or twice we've done an investigation and he's done a simple investigation, but he still felt [included] because he was doing the same kind of activity. (Jennifer)

Similarly, Greta explained why a child with ASD had flexible seating arrangements and often participated in reception activities since they were more practical, and he enjoyed the sensory aspects. She expressed that having his own space when working in class was appropriate due to the nature of his needs as his targets were year one level or below. These scenarios illuminate that inclusive pedagogy can be difficult to accomplish in diverse mainstream classrooms (Lindsay et al. 2014) and there are cases where individualised strategies are necessary (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019).

Practitioners commented positively on the school ethos and supportive attitudes of senior leadership, which are essential for fostering inclusive attitudes, systems and practices (Ainscow and Sandill 2010; Hosford and O’Sullivan 2016). Isabelle expressed a mindset of acceptance concerning the inclusion of children with SEND within all aspects of school life and Beatrice spoke of how the school embraces and celebrates diversity:

… the school really is [inclusive] … all children from all different backgrounds, and they're aware of this but they respect it and I think it’s celebrated. (Beatrice)

Behaviour management

Children should be active participants within the classroom community without being marginalised for individual differences (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) and teachers implemented several whole-class approaches for behaviour management. All used ClassDojo, an interactive reward system to reinforce positive behaviour consistently across the school, yet recognised at times, some children need further reinforcement. If children need a more mature talking to, this would be done in private (Beatrice, Jennifer) whereas increased positive reinforcement could boost confidence helping others to stay motivated:

A lot of positive praise is required for some. The ones that don’t have much self-confidence, I’ll need to be very encouraging … lots of praise, lots of dojo points, to give them that encouragement  …  when they are doing something particularly good then I'll make sure I highlight that to the rest of the class. (Jennifer)

Individualised behaviour approaches were implemented by Isabelle and Lauren for two children with ASD in the same class. As an HLTA with 11 years of experience, Lauren felt she had a range of strategies to choose from to support these pupils. If children became distressed or aggressive within the classroom environment, there was a range of support in place, for example, choice cards, visits to the sensory room, calming station and individual reward systems. Isabelle further explains:

We’ve got a feelings chart, if he feels angry he can move the picture and tell me how he’s feeling  …  we’ve got a behaviour management chart where he’s got strategies  …  if he’s angry he can choose one of the activities to calm him down  …  he’s been quite independent with it and it’s working. (Isabelle)

Although inclusive pedagogy may not consider complexities between learners (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019) and individual strategies do not reflect a whole-class approach, practitioners found them effective when addressing specific behavioural issues, enabling children to be successful and feel valued within the classroom. This aligns with the notion of inclusion involving changes and modifications to be made, based on individual pupil’s needs (UNESCO 2009).

Q2 What strategies do practitioners employ to ensure all children make progress?

Emphasis on learners’ capabilities

Practitioners spoke positively when referring to pupil progress, irrespective of ability, and articulated the importance of success by focusing on capabilities rather than limitations (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Teachers emphasised the need to enhance confidence and independence through implementing specific strategies to embrace diversity (UNESCO 2009).

Autonomy of pupils

The significance of differentiation for supporting children, when implemented flexibly and creatively rather than as a linear way of sorting pupils by ability (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011), was emphasised by all practitioners. Teachers discussed several strategies that enhanced pupil progress, highlighting capabilities without focusing on ability grouping and explained task differentiation for lessons in all subjects through the ‘chilli challenge’ strategy, which moves from lower (Chilli 1) to higher-order thinking skills (Chilli 3) and levels of cognition, as exemplified in Table 2.

Table 2. Differentiation through Chilli challenge.

Topic	Maths: fractions of amounts	English: create a fictional character	Geography: mountains
Chilli 1	Using the cubes practically, show ½, ¼ and ¾ of each number given. Challenge: Draw a picture to show ¼ of 20.	Complete the character profile template to describe a new character. Draw a picture and label key features of their appearance e.g. purple, spiky hair	Write a postcard home using the template and key vocabulary box to tell about your experience climbing Mount Everest. Include a picture on your postcard.
Chilli 2	Draw pictorial representations for ½, ¼ and ¾ each number given. Challenge: Which is greater? ¾ of 24 or 5/6 of 30? Explain your reasoning.	Write a descriptive paragraph to describe your new character. Include details about their personality and what they look like. Use a thesaurus to choose exciting vocabulary. Then, draw a picture of your character.	Design your own postcard and write home about your experience travelling to and climbing Mount Everest using key and exciting vocabulary from the lesson.
Chilli 3	Find the following fractions of amounts for each number below using the written method taught. Then, explain which is greater, using your reasoning skills: 3/5 of 15 or 5/8 of 24?	Write two or more paragraphs describing the features of your new character. Include details about their personality, what they look like, where they live and what role will they play in the story. Use metaphors and similes across your writing and a range of sentence openers.	Write a diary entry explaining your experience climbing Mount Everest. Discuss key moments in detail and use new vocabulary from the lesson. Think about writing several paragraphs and applying proper diary entry format.

During each lesson, all children (other than those working individually with TAs) have the same learning objective to achieve through differentiation by outcome. Each task has options, to complete one of three ‘chilli challenges’ ranging in levels of difficulty. Following lesson input, children select a ‘chilli challenge’ based on their confidence level and what they feel capable of completing. In most instances, children have complete autonomy to choose their own task, as Alicia elaborates:

However, if I feel that they're going for something that is too hard for them or too easy, I'll try and encourage them to try another challenge. (Alicia)

Teachers ensured children felt confident and understood the task, affording to scaffold where necessary. Word banks and support sheets were provided by Jennifer for those in need of extra support yet, as she explained, although children knew to ask for help, they were always encouraged to have a go on their own first.

The ‘chilli challenge’ is an innovative strategy (UNESCO 2009) flexibly responsive to learner needs, which demonstrates inclusive pedagogy for task completion insofar as children develop confidence in choosing an appropriate challenge, whilst being supported when needed without marginalisation (Florian and Spratt 2013). As UNESCO (2009) emphasises, inclusion is the process of addressing and responding to different pupil needs, which is evident in this approach. As this was routine for most tasks in all year four classes, children were familiar with selecting a suitable challenge and practitioners demonstrated positive attitudes toward inclusion as well as inclusive approaches to learning (Leatherman and Niemeyer 2005).

Children were in mixed-ability groups for most group-based work. In most subject areas this strategy was implemented so children could help one another, use the skillset of each child, work together and share ideas (Alicia, Beatrice). Greta facilitated peer-assessment in mixed ability pairs so children could share their work, review different ideas, develop confidence and feel valued by peers. Practitioners acknowledged pupil choice when organising groups for certain tasks and Jennifer felt she could get more from children by mixing the groups or letting them choose. These grouping strategies exemplify ‘provision of choice’ as a shift from deterministic beliefs and thinking (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019) and encourage inclusive peer interaction and positive outcomes for all.

Positive attitudes towards progress

All practitioners expressed a positive outlook on pupil progress and achievement commenting on how all children, regardless of ability could be successful in their own way given the right environment (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011), including those working below age-expected outcomes:

… in the last half term there’s been an acceleration … once they gain confidence in class, they seem a lot happier to contribute and their ideas have more explanation behind them. (Beatrice)

Practitioners offered a flexible curriculum to ensure learning and tasks were centred around the capabilities of children, especially those with SEND (UNESCO 2009) which may not be solely academic. Lauren explained how the teacher provided options for a child with ASD tailored to his needs and interests to keep him motivated during tasks, which resonates with strategies used by Maciver et al. (2018). Greta and Lauren worked together with this child and although he was resistant to schoolwork and expressed negativity toward learning, they maintained a positive outlook on his progress:

All the planning has been thought out for the child … it's all broken down, it's accessible, it gives him a chance to actually feel successful … sometimes [I’ll] take him out for movement breaks … things I find with him … he loves the colour green, he likes animals … he likes Lego, so we’ve got things to make sure that he does his work. (Lauren)

Lauren elaborated that his interest in Lego allowed him to explore other ways (than a highly academic structure) of showcasing his strengths, to work flexibly and successfully meet targets and throughout the year, as his confidence grew so too did his attitude toward schooling.

Q3 How do practitioners reflect an openminded attitude to develop new ways of working?

Flexibility

Practitioners demonstrated flexibility and open-mindedness in seeking new ways of developing inclusive practice to support children (Maciver et al. 2018; Lyons, Thompson, and Timmons 2016) and working collaboratively with other staff to overcome professional challenges within the classroom (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011).

Collaboration with others

Teachers discussed positive relationships and several strategies used with TAs which promoted good communication to ensure children with SEND were supported effectively to meet their targets e.g. a communication book; regular discussions during preparation time; shared planning, problem solving and differentiation strategies; set meeting times to ensure TAs understood how to support children and discussion of any arising issues:

We have a good relationship. I think that's really important …  if there's any worries or concerns we have a chat … the child who she's with has got a communication book which goes home every day … then she'll show me that most days, if there's anything [significant]. So, I know what's going on back home as well. (Jennifer)

Similarly, Beatrice explained how she worked collaboratively with her TA on a daily basis to support children within class as well as outside for intervention groups with children needing additional practice in maths or spellings, to establish a clear understanding of her role in different areas:

… we'll have a discussion beforehand to see where she would be best utilised . … I would say that she wants to make sure that her time is worthwhile and that she’s [being] proactive. (Beatrice)

Andrea affirmed her co-teacher was very organised and thorough, providing her with a timetable of scheduled lessons. Due to their professional relationship, she felt confident asking for guidance to maximise her time within the classroom effectively. When taking children out for interventions she stated this was organised in such a way to ensure children did not feel marginalised, which aligns with inclusive pedagogy insofar as practitioners openly communicated and worked together to avoid marginalising children.

Practitioners spoke about the importance of working together as a team: in addition to regular consultations with the teacher, SENCO and phase leader, TAs would not hesitate to ask for support from senior leadership to overcome challenges involving children. Isabelle elaborates:

… each member of staff is very helpful, so whenever I need help, I come to the class teacher or assistant heads, they’ve always been happy to help. (Isabelle)

These examples reveal how practitioners engaged in meaningful collaboration and ongoing communication to facilitate inclusion within classrooms against the backdrop of a wholly supportive school environment (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019; Lindsay et al. 2014).

Willingness to try new things

Teachers reflected upon their flexibility and open-mindedness to try different approaches to support all learners equitably. Jennifer recognised the need for trying different strategies if something was not working in class and the importance of self-reflection to improve practice and explained how she would use pre-assessments in maths to see what children were capable of and then plan accordingly:

I think the key thing with teaching is flexibility. If something is not working, then you've got to try another way. (Jennifer)

Greta also felt this approach was beneficial to address misconceptions and inform the focus of subsequent lessons whereas Beatrice reported if a lesson did not go as well as planned, the topic would be revisited and lesson adjustments, including the effective use of resources, would be made. As an NQT, she shares an insightful reflection:

… we have a lot of resources; I admit at times I’ve started lessons and wished I had more physical resources but that's about a self-reflection after the lesson … the next time I would think about having these items. (Beatrice)

Alicia additionally tried new strategies for children with SEND in her class which did not result in exclusionary practice. A diabetic pupil had to drink plenty of water throughout the day and rather than singling her out, she encouraged the whole class to drink water and made a game of it. She also explained using different tools for certain children to address behaviour and academic needs that were inclusive and had positive outcomes:

One child has a whiteboard that says, ‘what do I need’ and she'll think what she needs specifically for that lesson or I'll write her a list … I’ve got a child who really struggles to sit down … I’ve got some movement break cards or I’ll give him dice to roll so he can choose an active activity and then can refocus on his tasks. (Alicia)

Aligning with Alicia, Jennifer mentioned she had a laptop available for a child experiencing writing anxiety in the event he needed to use it as an alternative. While these strategies are individualised, they show a willingness to implement equitable ways of supporting pupils. They demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness in trying new ways of working and reducing factors within the physical and social environment of the classroom to facilitate inclusive practice (Maciver et al. 2018). Teachers are proactive in finding solutions to support children rather than seeing challenges as deficits within learners (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011); a hallmark of inclusive pedagogy.

Commitment to ongoing professional development

Several teachers were concerned about limited opportunities to engage with specific training courses on SEND (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019; Brennan, King, and Travers 2019) yet all expressed willingness to undertake professional development to deliver more inclusive practice with greater confidence and positivity (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019; Brennan, King, and Travers 2019). Some had participated in specialist courses for SEND and expressed interest in more training opportunities:

I've been on one training course for dyslexia and the strategies they [provided] to help [children] overcome challenges were brilliant, whereas everyday life for me is trial and error … but if there were more courses to go on it would open up a whole horizon of what we could do. (Alicia)

Not only did all practitioners express an interest in attending courses to develop practice, they articulated which courses would be of interest, particularly focusing on ASD. The importance of having relevant training not focused on diagnosis was also explained:

… different resources to support children as a whole … and being aware of what features to look out for to be able to help … if we started focusing on just individual special needs, we would be looking for diagnosis rather than helping support [them]. I think it's more about having strategies. (Beatrice)

Beatrice’s account aligns with inclusive pedagogy and avoids labelling or marginalising children by focusing on equitable learning opportunities for all pupils. Several practitioners voiced interest in learning more about key resources already available within school, specifically maths and literacy resources to assist pupils in different ways. Although Webster et al. (2010) caution that TAs are not always prepared or certified for the nature of their role, TAs in this study had undertaken additional courses for speech and language and ASD and expressed commitment to further learning.

Q4 What barriers prevent practitioners from achieving inclusive pedagogy?

Diversity of needs

While teachers are pressured in managing diverse classrooms to ensure student success (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019) they must be prepared to work against limitations to ensure educational equity (Florian 2009). Several teachers raised concern about difficulties experienced in managing the range of needs and felt they were constantly having to find ways of supporting all children:

It’s a challenge to have so many different needs because it’s not only the lower ability that need my support, I have children who are really academic but also need time to interact with me … but making that time is quite challenging because I'm spread across [many] children. (Alicia)

Lack of frequent support within classrooms to meet pupils’ diverse needs was another challenge. Several teachers spoke about the inconsistent deployment of TAs, particularly in a class where many children had challenging needs. Jennifer reported since she already had a TA working with one child, no other TAs were deployed to support during lessons. This was problematic as Jennifer felt it was assumed the TA would be able to support other children at the same time. However, due to the nature of the child’s needs, this was not possible unless he was participating in an intervention outside the class:

Yes, I’ve got a T.A. in my class but she's solely there for the 1:1, she's not there for other children, so it’s me being spread in 29 different directions. (Jennifer)

Although teachers implemented several inclusive strategies to manage their classes, the daily challenge of ensuring all pupils received equitable opportunities consistently was found to hinder inclusive practice. This was voiced by all teachers and was noted to be a primary concern. While teachers spoke of successful strategies, ensuring they were consistent and carried out effectively daily was difficult. Teachers acknowledged the value of more support in working against limitations, such as having more TAs to work with different groups of children during tasks (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019; Round, Subban, and Sharma 2016).

TA interventions

Several specialised interventions took place outside the classroom: TAs reported taking small groups of children with and without statements for support with social skills, spellings and maths. Although practitioners felt positive about such interventions, the removal of children from the classroom suggests inclusive opportunities are missed when children with SEND work separately with a TA (Webster et al. 2010) and does not align with inclusive pedagogy (Florian and Spratt 2013). Andrea explained how she facilitated social skills and speech and language therapy for children with SEND across year four in small groups. Although these groups took place separately, teachers felt they had a positive impact on pupils, especially for their independence and social interactions with peers. This resonates with guidance from Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford (2018) concerning positive effects of high quality, structured interventions:

I can definitely see the improvement [from maths groups]  … social skills groups, that's really impacted them and their confidence within class to put their hand up to answer questions. (Alicia)

Although UNESCO (2009) questions the need for separate interventions for different groups of learners, Andrea explained the importance of maintaining interventions to help children with SEND develop communication and interaction skills in school:

I try and think of what life would be like not in a classroom but in a playground or when they go to each other’s houses … we concentrate on those types of skills. (Andrea)

Lindsay et al. (2014) suggest inclusive pedagogy could prove difficult to enact for learners with ASD who need individual strategies and approaches to address certain issues. Practitioners did not report feelings of marginalisation from children and felt they enjoyed coming to interventions, as skills were taught using games. Separate provision beyond the mainstream classroom was deemed valuable by all staff and allowed further progress to be made for certain children. Brennan, King, and Travers (2019) argue that inclusive pedagogy may not support teachers without marking some learners with SEN as different, which is evident in this scenario as individually centred learning opportunities for children with ASD ensured children were equipped to handle social situations with more confidence and remained happy in school.

The interventions led by Andrea contrasts with findings from Webster et al. (2010) since the group proved to be effective: the TA had professional qualifications in SEND and helped children progress with their social skills, aligning with key guidance from Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford (2018).

Ability-based tasks

While teachers spoke about their flexibility and use of mixed ability strategies, they used ability-based grouping when conducting guided reading. This whole school strategy focused on skills related to reading levels and was consistent across the school:

That would be the only thing grouped by ability, so we can work closely with the ones who might not be reading fluently, but the ones who are reading well we can have a more in-depth conversation. (Greta)

Teachers worked closely with pupils in ability-based groups allowing them to focus on critical reading skills daily for thirty minutes. Alicia explained class novels were often quite challenging and some children needed support inferencing texts; smaller group sessions gave them more opportunity to practice key skills:

I need to be able to focus questions for [some] children who won't necessarily be able to infer what something means. (Alicia)

Participants persuasively argued ability-based grouping was essential in supporting the range of reading levels and did not report feelings of marginalisation amongst pupils. Further ability-based support was evident across core subjects like maths and literacy and necessary to ensure children felt supported in completing tasks and helping them develop a thorough understanding of the taught skill. However, Florian and Spratt (2013) note ability grouping infers the presence of some will hold back the progress of others and Boaler, William, and Brown (2000) caution predetermining children’s potential can, for some, undermine their sense of self-worth. In contradiction to inclusive pedagogy, this strategy did label children as different (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019) as they were noticeably working in a group or independently with the teacher, whilst others carried out tasks independently or with others.

Discussion and recommendations

This study explored inclusive pedagogy through the lens of primary teachers and TAs perspectives and lived experiences of working within a mainstream primary school in England. Their narratives reveal several themes for facilitating inclusion: whole-class approaches; emphasis on learners’ capabilities; flexibility; and, commitment to professional development as well as several barriers: diversity of needs; TA interventions; and, ability-based tasks.

Teachers used whole-class approaches within the classroom and for behaviour management, for example, several strategies took the needs of all pupils into account by creating a welcoming environment without causing feelings of marginalisation. This is a central tenet of inclusive pedagogy (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). However, some individualised seating arrangements and behaviour strategies were incorporated to meet the needs of specific children with SEND. While this may be inconsistent with inclusive pedagogy, practitioners stressed the importance of differentiated arrangements to ensure positive outcomes for all pupils, allowing them to work flexibly. Clearly, this resonates with the notion of inclusion as a process that involves adjustments and modifications in approaches to be made (UNESCO 2009).

Practitioners emphasised pupil success and created opportunities for children to take accountability of their own learning. They believed all pupils could make progress and described effective strategies for promoting confidence and independence; stressed the importance of all children feeling valued and successful; and, created strategies tailored to the needs of all individuals. In so doing, teachers’ reflected an innovative and positive outlook by facilitating a pupil-centred environment that did not place emphasis on ability-based learning.

Flexibility was a major theme insofar as practitioners expressed positivity toward working with one another alongside the importance of communication. They worked cooperatively as a team and felt comfortable approaching staff to overcome challenges within the classroom. Teachers experimented with different strategies to support children, and although some were individualised, these were implemented in response to pupil needs (UNESCO 2009) and showcase teachers’ willingness to be proactive in seeking new ways of working. All practitioners indicated commitment and willingness to professional development and training courses in SEND, which reflects the underpinning ethos of the school to promote education for all pupils.

Meeting the diverse needs of all pupils within a mainstream setting was an ongoing challenge. TA interventions played an important role in supporting children with SEND to develop specific skills and although some were conducted separately, as in social skill development, teachers felt they were beneficial and effective, especially for children with ASD. Although this may indicate a clear tension between inclusive and exclusive practices (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) this strategy was justified by all practitioners since having more time to interact and communicate enabled the children to progress in key social skills.

Inclusive pedagogy may seem idealistic and unfeasible in all aspects of classroom life. The diversity of classrooms present major challenges yet individualised strategies for some children are crucial. As all pupils possess different capabilities, it is essential that teachers respond to individual differences to achieve inclusion (UNESCO 2009). While some strategies surfacing from this study are opposite to the principles of inclusive pedagogy, practitioners acted in the best interests of and responded to children with, SEND as they deemed fit. This degree of autonomy was reflected by the collaborative and flexible ways in which both partners not only worked together closely but perspectives and viewpoints were highly valued.

Several recommendations for policy, schools, teachers and TAs emerge from this study. First, the importance of individualised strategies for some children with SEND should not be overlooked. While inclusive pedagogy views this as marginalising, it is imperative to acknowledge the needs of all pupils and implement effective strategies for them to succeed. Practitioners should be open-minded to trialling new strategies which promote inclusion, yet also meet individual needs.

Second, access to professional SEND courses would be beneficial to inform practitioners on using resources more effectively as well as learning additional strategies which promote inclusivity. These sessions should not necessarily focus on diagnosing children but on ways to support them within the classroom environment. More training and development courses should be offered by schools for practitioners seeking to learn more about inclusive practice.

Third, school leaders should compile a policy document to articulate a shared understanding of TA deployment and preparation (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018) which clarifies specific expectations for all teachers and TAs to ensure they understand the complementary nature of their respective roles.

Fourth, this study was conducted across Year 4 and although findings may relate to other classes/schools with similar characteristics, replication within other boroughs and beyond would allow further strategies and challenges to surface and add value in identifying patterns and trends across schools, enabling meaningful and robust comparisons to be made.

Fifth, this approach to inclusive pedagogy is not prevalent within research in the English context and further investigations would contribute to the knowledge base of this important field of study.

Concluding remarks

Inclusive education continues to be a topic of great concern and while teachers and TAs exemplify multiple facets of inclusive pedagogy, it can be complex to facilitate in all aspects of classroom life given the complex, diverse needs prescient within our schools. This study highlights several strategies to overcome challenges without causing feelings of marginalisation and reinforces the importance of recognising individual pupil needs within mainstream settings. It gives voice to positive experiences encountered by practitioners in working flexibly to create welcoming environments for all children. The findings contribute to the literature on inclusive pedagogy and the knowledge base of practitioners working with children presenting with SEND in English primary schools.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jessica Losberg

Jessica Losberg is a Canadian primary school teacher in England, currently in her fifth year of teaching. She studied at Western University in Ontario, Canada and received a degree in Media, Information and Techno culture. She continued her studies in Teacher Education and received her Bachelor of Professional Studies in 2015 specialising in Primary/Junior education. To continue her passion and interest in the field of inclusion, she completed a Master of Arts degree in Education, specialising in Special Educational Needs and Disability and Inclusion graduating with a Distinction. She was the recipient of the James Pitman Special Education Prize in recognition of her formidable research efforts. She acquired an additional qualification in Special Education training from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Within her role as a primary school teacher, she has worked collaboratively with many staff members including the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) in facilitating inclusive practice within her classroom and the school. Her experiences as a researcher and primary school teacher have fostered a deeper interest in the areas of equity within the classroom and inclusive pedagogy.

Paula Zwozdiak-Myers

Paula Zwozdiak-Myers is Programme Director for the Doctor of Education (EdD) at Brunel University London within the Department of Education. She has led the ‘Social Justice, Equity and Inclusion’ pathway for the MA in Education and designed/led the MA in Teaching for early career professionals. As Chair of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) committee for the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) (trustee and member of the Executive) she has liaised with the Department for Education (DfE) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) on national priorities and developments concerning teacher education and CPD in England. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA), a member of the National Network for Directors of Professional Doctorates in Education and an external examiner for EdD programmes offered by two Higher Education Institutions in England. Particular research interests include reflective practice for professional development in teacher education, pedagogical strategies for inclusion and spiritual capital in curriculum design. She has written book chapters/articles on a wide range of subject areas and authored/edited three books.