Inclusive education in complex landscapes of stakeholders, agendas and priorities

KEYWORDS:

• Assessment
• education policy
• inclusive education

Introduction

Across the globe, education today is shaped by different policies, agendas, and priorities that intersect and have reciprocal impacts, constantly reshaping the educational space, in terms of both policy and practice. The seminal Salamanca Statement of 1994 endorsed the idea of inclusive education and advocated universalism and international standards of social justice for all individuals (Ainscow, Slee, and Best 2019). However, inclusion remains an extremely complex goal and is often side-lined in favour of other policy agendas and priorities (Best, Corcoran, and Slee 2018; Engsig and Johnstone 2015; Hardy and Woodcock 2015; Morton et al. 2013).

Drawing on the findings of two large research projects¹ and their collaborative partners, this special issue presents international and interdisciplinary perspectives on the paradoxes, challenges, and possibilities of enacting inclusive education in complex landscapes of stakeholders, agendas, and priorities.

A good example of these complexities and ambiguities arises in the intersections between inclusive education and the powerful trend of assessment that fundamentally raises tensions between standards and excellence versus equity and inclusion (Dorn 2007; Ydesen et al. 2022). Although international large-scale assessments and the increasing use of national large-scale assessments have reframed education policies to be primarily concerned with the outcomes of these assessments (Grek 2020; Sellar and Lingard 2014; Smith 2016; Verger, Parcerisa, and Fontdevila 2019), testing has often been promoted as a tool to objectively secure meritocracy, that is, to identify the appropriate educational trajectory for every individual (Richardson 2022; Ydesen 2011).

Generally, inclusion supports diversity and suggests that everybody can make a valuable contribution to their learning environment (Best, Corcoran, and Slee 2018). By contrast, assessment, with its capacity to differentiate, demarcate, and deselect, implies that education and society are principally for those who can (be brought to) contribute the ‘right knowledge’ in the ‘right way’ (Stobart 2008). Although considerable effort has gone into reconciling this schism in terms of recommendations for policy and practice (Hegarty 2020), the ambiguities persist.

Furthermore, worldwide school closures and the shift to distance and digital learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have underscored existing educational school exclusions. In fact, the widespread cancellation or postponement of standardised assessments, have highlighted further the weaknesses in current models of student evaluation and, ‘the importance of reviewing and developing curricula and assessments that can be adapted to meet diverse academic and social needs, and are culturally responsive, in order to foster a sense of connectedness’ (Porter et al. 2020, 5).

At stake, therefore, are not simply assessment mechanisms or an inclusion/exclusion policy; rather, it is the very definition of the Other, room for – and the construction of – human diversity in schooling activities and the notion that otherness can stem from a wide range of disparities that limit full participation in school and wider society (Øland et al. 2019; Thomas-Olalde and Velho 2011). Thus, while inclusion policies might posit improved social mobility as the ultimate educational outcome, they are created in wider socioeconomic contexts in which educational success can be determined by family income, parental educational background, material resources, and home learning environments. Thus, rather than improve life chances, these policies might actually reproduce these inequalities.

The special issue: themes and key takeaways

In this special issue, we present studies based on a variety of approaches, methodologies, and geographies and that seek to (i) understand the ways in which difference and exclusion are formed in complex landscapes of stakeholders, agendas, and priorities, as well as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; (ii) raise questions and draw conclusions about the complexities that everyday schools navigate within, not least because of overlapping agendas that shape inclusion enactment; and (iii) explore the paradoxes, challenges, and possibilities that these complexities offer in terms of inclusive policies and practices.

The special issue is unique in the sense that it brings together the fruits of the two parallel research projects mentioned above, which were strongly facilitated by a joint workshop held at Oxford University on 28–29 June 2022. The workshop brought together all the contributors of the special issue and engaged them in cross-project, cross-context, and cross-thematic discussions about approaches, theory, and methodology.

To a very large extent, the themes and research questions treated in the contributions of this special issue were reflected in or emerged from the workshop. One recurring theme was how practices of educational differentiation tend to work with a logic of deficiency (i.e. that there is something wrong with someone). For instance, Tawell’s article demonstrates how problems in schooling contexts are often individualised ‘with the child being seen to need to fit within the constraints of the “mainstream”’. Using posthuman theory, Spangsberg’s article uncovers how this mechanism of deficiency hinges on negotiation about which pupils to include in the notion of ‘not fully schoolchild’. Spangsberg’s analysis indicates that children on the outskirts of the notions of normality ‘are deemed not only ineducable, but also at risk of contaminating the rest of the children and destroying the teachers’ opportunities for success’. The contribution of Baird et al. calls for a flexible approach of ‘putting learners first and responding to societal demands to embrace diversity rather than standardisation as the main principle for fair assessment’.

Another important point that emerged very strongly in the workshop was the elusive nature of understanding inclusion and exclusion mechanisms. Nurse’s paper demonstrates how children and parents generally struggle to minimise the risk of exclusion to achieve and experience a sense of belonging. In this sense, inclusion and exclusion mechanisms are entirely contextual and dependant on the school setting, the social divisions in school, and the conditions of being recognised and appreciated in each context. Here, intersectionality, culture, group dynamics, values, and even personalities are important factors in how inclusion and exclusion mechanisms play out. Therefore, a dynamic system must be built that responds to diverse human interests and needs and – as argued by Daniels, Thompson, and Emery – offers a nuanced understanding of vulnerability.

Walton’s Bernsteinian analysis also relates to this theme and concludes that ‘the possibility of change comes first with an acknowledgment of the identities that classification constructs and the defences that individuals build to sustain categories’. Relating to this perspective, Ruan, Liu, and Zhuang offer an analysis of the policy enactments in Chinese elite schools. They find that inclusion in China can be understood in the intersections between two broad categories. One concerns even development and equal access to educational opportunities between regions of different economic development, while the other regards the equal rights and education opportunities between students with special educational needs and students in regular classrooms. However, when it comes to inclusion criteria, prestigious schools substantively exert their influence to exclude certain students due to their self-image of excellence.

A third theme emerges from analyses of bureaucracy and governance in education. While inclusion and exclusion mechanisms are often two sides of the same coin – a ‘double gesture’, as denoted in Popkewitz’s contribution to the special issue – the prevalent bureaucratic setting and governance structure may determine which mechanism may be overriding the other. For instance, Milner’s article demonstrates how, despite their courage to promote equity of opportunity, English headteachers are ‘restricted by government cuts to public expenditure, a high-stakes accountability system focused on students’ academic performance and the limited political capital of students and headteachers’.

In this sense, one of the central dimensions in this theme is the extent to which policies, enactments, and experiences are aligned or decoupled. For instance, exclusionary practices may be cloaked in narratives of doing good while claiming to adhere to policy goals of creating an inclusive education system. Here, schools’ reputation, market position, funding structure, and economic incentives, as well as the accountability structure determining what and who is held to account, are pivotal.

Reflecting this theme, Acosta’s article demonstrates how political aims of extending and improving the population’s inclusion within the educational system through the extension of secondary education have led to qualitative differences between schools that translate into distances and symbolic hierarchies. In addition, in a comparative analysis of two Israeli education reforms focusing on the interactions between assessment concerns and inclusive education, Aderet-German demonstrates how Israeli integration and inclusive education policies actually shape definitions of the Other and of those to be proactively included in mainstream education.

Also connecting with this theme, Engsig, Johnstone, and Schuelka, in their complex educational systems analysis comparing the United States and Denmark, identify and discuss four policy scenarios based on the three criteria of access, quality experience, and policy utility. Walton’s contribution powerfully argues that ‘because of different classification logics, inclusive education is, in many ways, incompatible with the current system. This incompatibility gives rise to limited or distorted instantiations of inclusive education, as policymakers and practitioners try to patch inclusion into the system’.

A fourth theme relates to public debates often characterised by discursive struggles over problem identification and definitions to gain momentum and pave the way for political agendas. In this respect, the definition of dangers and risks is a constant battleground. The history of education is filled with concerns about problem children, underachievers, and ineducable and backward children² and the risks they would pose for society.

Similarly, as argued by McIntyre, Dixon, and Walton, immigrant and refugee children have also been identified as problematic and conducive to undermining the education system. The narrative has often been the trope of the swarm, which poses a danger and risk for society. Sarker’s contribution demonstrates how priorities about standardisation and ‘Bell-curve thinking’ induce a ‘pathologizing lens toward children’. This point connects with the narrative about learning gaps and learning loss, which became ubiquitous in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Baird et al. show how policies have compounded preexisting patterns of inequality in England, while Vigevano and Mattei reveal the implications of distance learning in the Italian context.

Gomez Caride’s analysis of the situation in Argentina reveals how the disconnected student is described as at risk or as dangerously outside the protective arm of schooling. On a more fundamental level, Popkewitz explores how the very lens of science, as expressed in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment, has instituted a global infrastructure that reinscribes inequalities as its method to correct social wrongs. In this sense, Popkewitz argues that schooling is essentially about creating kinds of people (i.e. the kind of person who can exist under a given political regime).

Concluding reflections

The four themes identified above are all of pivotal importance for understanding how inclusion and exclusion mechanisms materialise in schooling practices, and they are meticulously and innovatively analysed and discussed in the diverse contributions of this special issue.

Of perhaps overarching relevance is to reflect on education as an inherently societal activity whose regulative practices (matters of order, identity, and social relations) shape the preparation for the development and maintenance of future communities and societies. If we want to achieve inclusive communities and societies, succeeding with an inclusive education becomes an imperative task. This argument gains in significance in an era where polarisation, echo chambers, and antagonism seem to become ever more widespread, in the global, national, and local arenas. Some of the drivers behind this development are conflicting geopolitical interests, the dearth of resources, climate catastrophes, social media algorithms, cultural struggles (e.g. woke versus traditional culture), and policies ostensibly catering to the improvement of social conditions but that, in reality, serve other ends and priorities.

In this light, there is a strong need to strengthen young persons’ skills and competences to enter democratic and dialogic processes, to constructively engage with problems that appear locally but which inevitably carry global implications. Some examples of everyday challenges in the schooling context are encounters between students with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and appearances and the arsenal of political priorities and agendas engulfing education (e.g. standards, governance mechanisms, assessments, comparisons, performance measurements, and strongly classified education systems governing and cultivating what is held to be ‘the right kind of knowledge’, ‘the right kind of skills’, and ‘the right kind of attitudes’). An additional example is the negotiations about the green transition that often takes place in closed political arenas where young voices are not heard, such as the recent 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) in Sharm-El Sheik.

In other words, a strong current of normalisation – a division into the attractive and the disdained – is quashing the democratic potential constituted by human diversity. This point resonates well with John Dewey’s idea about social diversity being functionally beneficial, for both society as a whole and individuals. According to Felder (2022, 144),

Dewey sees social diversity as a fact of modern societal life that is also constitutive. He assumes that pluralisation and heterogeneity in the form of diverse perspectives contribute to a society’s ability to solve problems, and he further posits that individuals are supported in their personal development by belonging to a variety of reference groups.

The question of democracy and pedagogic rights was addressed by Bernstein’s (2000) last book. Bernstein argues that people must feel a stake in society and that this implies that they give to and receive from the wider organisation of the worlds in which they live. To a certain extent, this understanding is witnessed in recent work on belonging (e.g. Allen et al. 2018). However, Bernstein adds breadth to the argument and suggests that three interrelated rights need to be in play. The first is the right to intellectual enhancement. Here, the author emphasises critical understanding and possibilities for future development. If this right is ensured, then teachers and students will be able to develop confidence as individuals.

Bernstein’s second right is the right to be included (socially, intellectually, culturally, and personally). Importantly the author distinguishes between inclusion as absorption and inclusion as being able to be autonomous and separate as well as part of the wider social setting. The third right is to be able to participate in the practices whereby order is constructed, maintained, and transformed. Taken together, these three rights constitute a far wider basis for debates about inclusion in a democratic society than many other considerations of the issue.

Clearly education cannot be given the task of engaging with these issues alone. The history of education is far too full of disappointed optimism regarding how education itself can create a better, more harmonious, and sustainable world. Consider, for example, the progressive education movement of the interwar years, which saw education as the vehicle for international understanding, world consciousness, and world citizenship (Brehony 2004). Instead, education cannot be seen as something compartmentalised in terms of schooling activities. The education of young people is a floating task between homes, schools, and communities, and these partnerships must be cultivated by conducive policies that consider this task as their first priority. We argue that such a setting holds good potential to minimise exclusionary tendencies and achieve inclusive education.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond [grant number 8047-00063B].

Notes on contributors

Christian Ydesen

Christian Ydesen, Since January 2022 Christian Ydesen has been a full professor at the Department of Culture and Learning, Aalborg University, Denmark. Since June 2020 he has been an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Education, Oxford University, UK. He is the PI of the project ‘The Global History of the OECD in education' funded by the Aalborg University talent programme and the project 'Education Access under the Reign of Testing and Inclusion’ funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark. He has been a visiting scholar at Edinburg University (2008-2009, 2016), Birmingham University (2013), Oxford University (2019), and Milan University (2021, 2024) and published several chapters and articles on topics such as educational testing, international organisations, accountability, educational psychology and diversity in education from historical and international perspectives. He currently serves as an executive editor of the European Educational Research Journal. From August 1^st, 2024, Christian Ydesen takes up the chair in History of Education and Policy Analysis at the Institute of Education, University of Zürich, Switzerland.

Harry Daniels

Professor Harry Daniels is Professor of Education at Oxford University. He has directed more than 40 research projects funded by ESRC, various central and local government sources, The Lottery, The Nuffield Foundation and the EU. His extensive publications include a series of internationally acclaimed books in socio-cultural psychology. His current research projects concern children who go missing from school and the implications of new school design for children's experience of schooling. Two completed major studies; “Learning in and for interagency working: Multiagency work in Northern Ireland ESRC TLRP” and “Learning in and for Interagency Working ESRC TLRP”, were both rated 'Outstanding'. Follow up work led to significant impact in practitioner/policy making bodies funded by a consortium of The Local Government Association, IdEA and Local Authorities Research Council Initiative. He is: Adjunct Professor, Centre for Learning Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia and Research Professor, Centre for Human Activity Theory, Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.

Notes

1 ‘Excluded Lives’, University of Oxford, UK (http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/research/excluded-lives/) and ‘Education Access under the Reign of Testing and Inclusion’, Aalborg University, Denmark (https://www.kultur.aau.dk/forskning/forskningsgrupper/cfu/education-access).

2 Note that these terms are now considered insulting, hurtful, or offensive. However, they reflect how certain people and segments of the population have been characterised historically.