A Framework for Inclusion

Introduction

Written from a United Kingdom (UK) perspective, informed by international practice, this article will consider how inclusion – policy and practice might be defined. The second articleAre We Included? summarises the work of Sharma and his colleagues (2012¹, 2016², 2018³ 2021⁴, 2022⁵) across several international contexts primarily aimed at examining students’, teachers’, and parents’ views on being included and how this could be further developed in the UK.

The final article Mutuality introduces a relatively new interpretation of inclusive policy and practice developed in England from 2018⁶.

To be included

As a starting point, inclusion is a term that infers that we all must have equal access to opportunities or resources. Inclusion is much more than just placement of a student in a class. When a student is ‘included’, the student attends regular classroom; participates in all activities offered to other students; is accepted by the rest of the school community; achieves in all learning domains; has a strong sense of belongingness and feels happy to be part of the school community.

In inclusive schools, educators invest heavily in systematically identifying barriers that a student may face to fully participate in schooling activities and work collectively to addressing the barriers. Put simply, ‘we are included’, whether that be through participation or observation, we have the chance or choice⁷ to be equal to others. Inclusive schools care about voices of all students but more specifically about voices of those students who could be frequently excluded because of their diversity and differences.

These schools care about listening to parents’ voices and change schooling practices to ensure that all students are fully included. Leaders in inclusive schools understand that without their commitment inclusion won’t last for very long and they show their commitment not just through words but also through their actions. They support the teachers by providing all the necessary resources required to include all. These leaders understand that excellence in their schools cannot be achieved without inclusion.

A broad interpretation of inclusion should be welcomed in a diverse society that educates its population, not limiting or defining education provision according to need. This is the opposite to exclusion, often experienced by marginalised or minority groups. Inclusion in education policy and practice cannot be defined without identifying what it is to be excluded.

To be excluded

Exclusion has been a feature of global education since schools and schooling began. Look back to Victorian times in England and we will see social segregation driven by class, socio-economic status or poverty, race and special educational needs and disability, themes prevalent today8,9,10,11. Add to these gender identity, domestic violence, and disadvantage placed within the context of a global pandemic, levelling up, attendance, homelessness, and children in care there are significant issues that require attention if children and young people are to participate in inclusive schooling in England in 2022.

When speaking about exclusion or considering those groups within society who experience regular forms of exclusion, we can engage with the concept – intersectionality. Intersectionality refers to the various components that make up our identity, who we are- whether that be our ‘race’, gender, social class, age, disability, etc. Unpacking this further, certain intersections are linked more readily to the experience of disadvantage and exclusion resulting in those particular groups experiencing life in socially and economically challenging circumstances, with less security (housing, health), food, clothing, social, educational, post 16 and cultural opportunities than their more advantaged peers.

We can link this to those families, increasing in number, who find themselves living in poverty. Also, many in our Black and Minority Ethnic population, Special Educational Needs and Disability, those subject to domestic violence, those missed off the LA or school registers and or electing to home educate without effective inclusive support, homelessness and those excluded from school.

An example of the way in which exclusion impacts upon these intersections can be seen in the mismanagement of Social Care and how many children or young people are provided with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)¹². For example- in 2021, the Commission on Young Lives reported that children were being moved from their local areas to live in unregulated accommodation now targeted by criminals. It said the system was "unfit for purpose" and was letting down the rising number of over 16s in care¹³.

Furthermore, Homelessness, an estimated 200,000 children are currently at risk of being left homeless in the UK, a poll carried out by YouGov for Shelter¹⁴ found that 104,000 families in privately rented homes received eviction notices in December 2021 or were behind on their rent and were in danger of losing their homes. Shelter estimated that 55,000 children, along with their families, have already been evicted in the last three months.

Shelter’s research also showed that 71% of renting families would struggle to find another home this winter, and 21% say their children knew they were struggling to pay the rent. Of those surveyed, 11% said their children worried about becoming homeless.

The number of disadvantaged children and young people in the UK have been compounded by COVID-19, which began as a global pandemic in December 2019. The impact of the pandemic in the UK since the initial lockdown in March 2020, has been reported in Department for Education commissioned research (DfE, 2022)¹⁵ as ‘large differences in progress among pupils […] Disparities in pupils’ social, emotional and academic progress increased, with pupils having increasingly complex and variable needs […]

Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who did not attend school and/or engage well online during home-schooling seem to have been most profoundly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic’. It is self-evident that disadvantage can also be experienced through ongoing exclusion from schooling, which will impact on educational outcomes for all excluded students.

Inclusive policies

Since the second World War, UK government policy and subsequently mainstream schooling structures and practises have emphasised two core priorities - firstly to rebuild and enhance the economy making the UK a market leader on the global stage and secondly to achieve social equality via welfare reform rooted in the development of an education offer that enables all to succeed and flourish. The challenge that the UK faces, and which is also experienced in other countries is that policies only articulate what needs to be done; they remain unclear about how it should be done.

When referring to Inclusion the authors are representing those intersections of human identity where ‘failure’ and ‘exclusion’ are regular occurrences. We argue these occurrences happen due to ingrained social and educational practices alongside established cultural norms, which serve to reinforce the exclusion of minority groups and benefit those already ahead.

As alluded to above, our work aims to engage with the following minority groups or intersections: Children identified with Special Educational Needs, Disability,Poverty (Free School Meals, Ever 6, Children with no recourse to public funds (NRPF)), Ethnic Minority (BAME), LGBTQ+, Homelessness, Children Looked After, Adopted Children, Young Carers, Travellers, Armed Forces, in sum those distinctive identities that are currently linked to the label ‘Diversity’ in Education.

The most significant and recent UK policy and statutory initiative working to establish a more inclusive society is the 2010- Equality Act¹⁶, which resulted in many subsequent policies and gave statutory recognition to a list of 9 protected characteristics including:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation.

The specific duties of the Equality Act aim to create an inclusive environment in the workplace, education, and society at large. It replaced former equality legislation such as the Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act and Sex Discrimination Act, creating changes that education institutions, including schools, needed to engage with and incorporate into related policies, e.g., SEND, pupil behaviour, anti-bullying safeguarding etc.

The related Equality Strategy¹⁷ was published in 2011 setting out a vision for a strong, modern, and fair Britain. Thereafter, with a change in government, the Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018-2025¹⁸ was published. Key emphasis in these policies and strategies is to achieve an equal space, to enable all to thrive, developing practices that create, represent and maintain a modern UK.

This can be reflected in the 2014 SEND Code of Practice19 which made clear that education providers had a statutory duty to implement the Equality Act 2010 alongside the Children and Families Act Part 320. However, research has shown that for many school communities – that link and combination of policy drivers has not occurred, resulting in many families being locked out from choice in effective inclusive education, contributing to the current crisis in UK SEND provision²¹.

Many now await the soon to be published SEND review and new policy plus implementation proposals in the promised DfE Green Paper. There is hope this new directive will engage with a more social model view/definition of disability, incorporating the language and progressive practice of reasonable adjustments thus enabling mainstream schools to be fully inclusive of disabled children and young people.

The contemporary UK space sees education communities and schools emerging from a pandemic, with many national and local directives plus significant funding emphasising Building Back Better²² and Levelling Up²³. Thus, LAs and schools will need to be supported in translating this work to fit with their immediate priorities, whilst at the same time enabling their staff and community to progress as per the changing education landscape and a growing diversity of learner need. If done successfully, this will reduce the pressure on parents to seek alternative provision, it will enable the successful academic and social progression of all our learners, it will encourage the growth of new post 16 opportunities for young people and it will grow a more collaborative and community-based model of education.

The alternative is a continuing growth in the divide between rich and poor, further regression regarding social mobility and the stalling of social and educational inclusion. As recently published by the Nuffield foundation (2021)²⁴ More than one in three (36%) children in families with a child under five in the UK are living in poverty, amounting to 2.2 million children. For children in families with three or more children, this figure rises to more than half (52%). Writing a critique on how the SEND review might achieve the SEND reforms original aims of 2014, Lamb (2021)²⁵ makes the case for a systemic change in culture:

There is a large overlap between SEND and disadvantage […] While additional funding and training are crucial this is also about a change in the culture of the system so that parents and CYP voices are heard, aspirations are increased, and provision wraps around the individual child to achieve their potential. This is still the challenge for the SEND system and for the SEND review 10 years after Support and Aspiration was published. We would add to Lamb’s case the word ‘leadership, i.e., there is now a clear need for a systemic change in culture and in leadership – leadership’s origin, style plus practise.

As noted, many groups, including those with protected characteristics within UK society, have become further disenfranchised due to rising poverty levels, the long-term impact of austerity measures and the impact of the pandemic. Gibson (2006²⁶, 2010²⁷) explored this process of excluding certain voices, ‘silencing’, in education and wider society as stemming from the establishment’s need to maintain the status quo, order and control through legitimate means. Such silencing or avoidance of complex sources of evidence is also reflected in education research (Hall, L. 2014²⁸; Seale, J. Nind, M. and Parsons, S. 2014²⁹; Gibson, S. et al 2016)³⁰.

Where these minority groups/intersections have become disenfranchised with many living in a state of poverty, a world of silencing and disconnect prevails. Statutory policy from Whitehall is one way to attempt challenging this, but it will not be enough. Grassroots engagement, and a leadership that understands, collaborates, and speaks to the communities it leads will be central in moving things forward for success in future UK inclusive education.

The authors are working to address this with their international project- Are We Included? which will see grass roots engagement with parents, children, school leaders and teachers as they explore what it means today to be included, consider how leadership, management and community can work to respond more fully to this regularly changing space in education and find productive ways forward in addressing their current education demands and priorities.

Leading inclusion policies in schools – who leads?

Alexiadou ³¹ (2011, p.582) positioned core leadership policy priorities and their shifting content as reflecting the dominant ideas about public sector management as well as ideas regarding the modernisation of education and welfare systems more generally. Considering this, what has evolved in relation to inclusive education across the UK has varied, pending the government of the day’s ideological perspectives and priorities. The system, structure and the rolling out of policy from central government to the classroom, has been driven by complex multi-layered bureaucracy and processes which, historically have not fully engaged with the perspectives of key education practitioners, school and community leaders.

When considering education leadership in terms of who develops and interprets inclusive policies into practice, a disconnect between inclusive theory/positionality and the system is evident. System leaders have been responsible for the implementation of school effectiveness policies that are disengaged from the more complex realities of school communities in socially disadvantaged contexts (Blandford, 2017³²; Muijs*, Ainscow, Dyson, Raffo, Goldrick, Kerr, CLennie and Mile, 2010³³).

Conducting a study with schools from challenging communities, Muijs et al highlighted (2010, p.151 ) the main factor impacting on leadership in all these schools was the extreme pressure schools were under. In these schools, the standards and accountability agenda combined with the social disadvantage in the area meant that pressure to perform at adequate levels was unrelenting and high stakes. The pressure to ‘build back’, to achieve in an assessment driven context is the antithesis of inclusion at a time when the country is still going through a pandemic and increasing numbers of families are struggling with poverty and a lack of education resources (Smith, A. and Barron, R. 202034 v; Nuffield, 2021³⁵).

Inclusive practice – post Covid 19

Covid-19 Learning Recovery in England - In the recent DfE (2022) report³⁶ schools identified specific groups of pupils who they felt were the priority for further support or interventions going forwards - transition and examination year groups, pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). To date UK government has invested in two forms of learning recovery – technology and tutoring, recent reports are critical of the implementation of both strategies:

During the pandemic children and young people had to adapt to a new remote, virtual way of working within a very different routine, away from their teachers and peers. Parents and carers were faced with supporting their children’s learning at home. An emerging issue was the creation of a digital divide³⁷. Evidence from the Lloyds Bank Group suggests that 12% of those aged between 11 and 18 years (700,000 children) reported having no access at home to a computer or tablet.³⁸ According to digital inclusion charity, The Good Things Foundation, 23% of 5-15-year olds in the poorest households (Goldberg, D&E³⁹) do not have access to both an educationally ideal device (laptop, desktop, or tablet) and broadband⁴⁰.

In September 2021, over 300,000 tutoring courses began, nearing the total figure for the previous academic year. The National Tutoring Programme (NTP) aims to deliver the two million courses in 2021 – 2022 academic year. Of the 302,000 courses which began in September 2021, an estimated 230,000 were provided through the new, school-led tutoring pillar.

A further 52,000 courses began through Tuition Partners and an estimated 20,000 pupils started packages through the Academic Mentor pillar of the programme. Evidence suggests that small group tuition can boost progress by an average of two months in secondary schools and four months in primary schools⁴¹. However, NTP reached just 15 per cent of its ramped-up target by the end of 2021– with schools seemingly turning away from the national tutor programme in favour of organising their own provision. The DfE is yet to publish details on how many pupil premium children the NTP is reaching against this year’s 65 per cent National Tutoring Programme (NTP) tutors are running.

Students who repeatedly fail to show up for sessions are allowed to be removed from the programme.

An Alternative View Research carried out by Blandford et al (2020)⁴² found that four ‘pillars’ underpinned inclusive practice:

• Pillar 1: Parents’ and carers’ engagement in a child’s learning is an important factor in improving pupil outcomes and achievements. Parent and carer engagement that removes barriers to learning can drive forward pupils’ perseverance, motivation to learn, and confidence.
• Pillar 2: Provision for closing the gap by developing quality-first teaching through well-differentiated planning, personalised provision and interventions. This will lead to securing the greatest impact on pupil outcomes and support, review and refine provision for vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils that ensures accelerated progress, narrowing the attainment gaps within the school against national outcomes. Intervention and small group catch up should be integrated into the main provision by providing the support that enables even the most challenged to be included daily.
• Pillar 3: Building core strength and resilience for all by helping students re-establish their goals and ambitions and by creating a clear visible curriculum narrative that enables them to be partners in their learning. Re-establishing well- being and optimism is an essential prerequisite to drive social mobility. Create a professional training programme that strikes at the very heart of learning and achievement, at every age and phase, by building on the latest neuroscience and psychological research and addressing all the factors identified by the Education Endowment Foundation [as effective strategies to improve cognitive, non-cognitive development (essential life skills) as well as resilience and self-efficacy.
• Pillar 4: Digital skills: technology is opening new frontiers in terms of accelerating learning and personalising the education experience. Increased understanding of virtual and blended learning in each education setting would transform the progress of all learners. The use of online resource packages

Artificial Intelligence programmes needs to be carefully introduced so they become a part of a wider set of teaching and learning protocols and not bolt on resources and applications

These four Pillars will factor into and inform the work of the authors as they move forward with their international project: Are We Included?

Conclusion

Inclusion policies and practices in our education systems and schools encompass a broad range of diversity that existed prior to COVID-19. For generations educators have embraced children and young people from diverse socioeconomic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds, in addition to gender and sexual orientations, those identified with special educational needs and disabilities, and looked after children. Over time a lack of definition has prevailed, the meaning of inclusion has been lost.

All educators are concerned by the impact of COVID-19 on all children, young people, teachers, leaders, parents, and carers. Defining inclusion in education as, ‘we are included’, whether that be through participation or observation, we have the chance or choice⁴³ to be equal to others, is the solution to prevailing issues impacting on educational diversity and inclusive practice.

Coda – Inclusion, Social Mobility and ‘Levelling Up’

The recent government Levelling Up White Paper⁴⁴ contains strategies that are committed to improving outcomes for children and young people in 55 areas of England, which include a continuation of Opportunity Areas:

• 2030 Targets – Reading, Writing, Maths
• Quality Teacher Retention Payments
• National Youth Guarantee (National Citizen Service, DfE)
• Additional support for SEN
• Skills Training
• Internships
• Cooking and Food Training

However, as this paper has demonstrated, it is time for change, time to consider chances and choices, to ask ‘Are We Included?’ Time to reflect on why we live in a society that is regressing as opposed to progressing with Inclusion and then to act collectively, for systemic and cultural change.

‘In a more socially mobile society, everyone should have a choice, be aware of that choice and be able to exercise it. From birth people should have equal opportunities whether at home, school, further education (FE) college, university or in training…Everyone should be recruited on merit no matter which school or university they attended. The old boys’ network must no longer be a passport to success…those from disadvantaged backgrounds should not be held back because they do not fit in’ UK Government’s Social Mobility Commission, 2019⁴⁵.

‘The continuance of social evils is not due to the fact that we do not know what is right, but that we prefer to continue doing what is wrong. Those who have the power to remove them do not have the will, and those who have the will have not, as yet, the power.’ Tawney, 1912.⁴⁶