define integration and inclusive education

866.342.1813   |    Email Us

27 Jul Integration vs. Inclusion

Are you familiar with the difference between integration and inclusion when it comes to the classroom environment? The trend in education today is moving away from integration and toward inclusion. While both approaches aim to bring students with disabilities into the mainstream classroom, one system expects students to adapt to the pre-existing structure, while the other ensures the existing education system will adapt to each student.

An integrated classroom is a setting where students with disabilities learn alongside peers without disabilities. Extra supports may be implemented to help them adapt to the regular curriculum, and sometimes separate special education programs are in place within the classroom or through pull-out services. In theory, integration is a positive approach that seeks to help students with disabilities be part of the larger group. In practicality, the differences in the way all people learn can make this system of education less effective overall.

Following guidelines for accessibility makes an inclusive classroom possible. Bridgeway Education can support you in your transition to an accessible curriculum. Contact us for a free accessibility evaluation of a sample of your content, or sign up for The Accessibility Imperative   professional development course to learn about creating accessible learning experiences for all students.

ChatGPT for Teachers

Trauma-informed practices in schools, teacher well-being, cultivating diversity, equity, & inclusion, integrating technology in the classroom, social-emotional development, covid-19 resources, invest in resilience: summer toolkit, civics & resilience, all toolkits, degree programs, trauma-informed professional development, teacher licensure & certification, how to become - career information, classroom management, instructional design, lifestyle & self-care, online higher ed teaching, current events, inclusive education: what it means, proven strategies, and a case study.

Considering the potential of inclusive education at your school? Perhaps you are currently working in an inclusive classroom and looking for effective strategies. Lean into this deep-dive article on inclusive education to gather a solid understanding of what it means, what the research shows, and proven strategies that bring out the benefits for everyone.

What is inclusive education? What does it mean?

Inclusive education is when all students, regardless of any challenges they may have, are placed in age-appropriate general education classes that are in their own neighborhood schools to receive high-quality instruction, interventions, and supports that enable them to meet success in the core curriculum (Bui, Quirk, Almazan, & Valenti, 2010; Alquraini & Gut, 2012).

The school and classroom operate on the premise that students with disabilities are as fundamentally competent as students without disabilities. Therefore, all students can be full participants in their classrooms and in the local school community. Much of the movement is related to legislation that students receive their education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This means they are with their peers without disabilities to the maximum degree possible, with general education the placement of first choice for all students (Alquraini & Gut, 2012).

Successful inclusive education happens primarily through accepting, understanding, and attending to student differences and diversity, which can include physical, cognitive, academic, social, and emotional. This is not to say that students never need to spend time out of regular education classes, because sometimes they do for a very particular purpose — for instance, for speech or occupational therapy. But the goal is this should be the exception.

The driving principle is to make all students feel welcomed, appropriately challenged, and supported in their efforts. It’s also critically important that the adults are supported, too. This includes the regular education teacher and the special education teacher , as well as all other staff and faculty who are key stakeholders — and that also includes parents.

The research basis for inclusive education

Inclusive education and inclusive classrooms are gaining steam because there is so much research-based evidence around the benefits. Take a look.

Benefits for students

Simply put, both students with and without disabilities learn more . Many studies over the past three decades have found that students with disabilities have higher achievement and improved skills through inclusive education, and their peers without challenges benefit, too (Bui, et al., 2010; Dupuis, Barclay, Holms, Platt, Shaha, & Lewis, 2006; Newman, 2006; Alquraini & Gut, 2012).

For students with disabilities ( SWD ), this includes academic gains in literacy (reading and writing), math, and social studies — both in grades and on standardized tests — better communication skills, and improved social skills and more friendships. More time in the general classroom for SWD is also associated with fewer absences and referrals for disruptive behavior. This could be related to findings about attitude — they have a higher self-concept, they like school and their teachers more, and are more motivated around working and learning.

Their peers without disabilities also show more positive attitudes in these same areas when in inclusive classrooms. They make greater academic gains in reading and math. Research shows the presence of SWD gives non-SWD new kinds of learning opportunities. One of these is when they serve as peer-coaches. By learning how to help another student, their own performance improves. Another is that as teachers take into greater consideration their diverse SWD learners, they provide instruction in a wider range of learning modalities (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic), which benefits their regular ed students as well.

Researchers often explore concerns and potential pitfalls that might make instruction less effective in inclusion classrooms (Bui et al., 2010; Dupois et al., 2006). But findings show this is not the case. Neither instructional time nor how much time students are engaged differs between inclusive and non-inclusive classrooms. In fact, in many instances, regular ed students report little to no awareness that there even are students with disabilities in their classes. When they are aware, they demonstrate more acceptance and tolerance for SWD when they all experience an inclusive education together.

Parent’s feelings and attitudes

Parents, of course, have a big part to play. A comprehensive review of the literature (de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010) found that on average, parents are somewhat uncertain if inclusion is a good option for their SWD . On the upside, the more experience with inclusive education they had, the more positive parents of SWD were about it. Additionally, parents of regular ed students held a decidedly positive attitude toward inclusive education.

Now that we’ve seen the research highlights on outcomes, let’s take a look at strategies to put inclusive education in practice.

Inclusive classroom strategies

There is a definite need for teachers to be supported in implementing an inclusive classroom. A rigorous literature review of studies found most teachers had either neutral or negative attitudes about inclusive education (de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011). It turns out that much of this is because they do not feel they are very knowledgeable, competent, or confident about how to educate SWD .

However, similar to parents, teachers with more experience — and, in the case of teachers, more training with inclusive education — were significantly more positive about it. Evidence supports that to be effective, teachers need an understanding of best practices in teaching and of adapted instruction for SWD ; but positive attitudes toward inclusion are also among the most important for creating an inclusive classroom that works (Savage & Erten, 2015).

Of course, a modest blog article like this is only going to give the highlights of what have been found to be effective inclusive strategies. For there to be true long-term success necessitates formal training. To give you an idea though, here are strategies recommended by several research studies and applied experience (Morningstar, Shogren, Lee, & Born, 2015; Alquraini, & Gut, 2012).

Use a variety of instructional formats

Start with whole-group instruction and transition to flexible groupings which could be small groups, stations/centers, and paired learning. With regard to the whole group, using technology such as interactive whiteboards is related to high student engagement. Regarding flexible groupings: for younger students, these are often teacher-led but for older students, they can be student-led with teacher monitoring. Peer-supported learning can be very effective and engaging and take the form of pair-work, cooperative grouping, peer tutoring, and student-led demonstrations.

Ensure access to academic curricular content

All students need the opportunity to have learning experiences in line with the same learning goals. This will necessitate thinking about what supports individual SWDs need, but overall strategies are making sure all students hear instructions, that they do indeed start activities, that all students participate in large group instruction, and that students transition in and out of the classroom at the same time. For this latter point, not only will it keep students on track with the lessons, their non-SWD peers do not see them leaving or entering in the middle of lessons, which can really highlight their differences.

Apply universal design for learning

These are methods that are varied and that support many learners’ needs. They include multiple ways of representing content to students and for students to represent learning back, such as modeling, images, objectives and manipulatives, graphic organizers, oral and written responses, and technology. These can also be adapted as modifications for SWDs where they have large print, use headphones, are allowed to have a peer write their dictated response, draw a picture instead, use calculators, or just have extra time. Think too about the power of project-based and inquiry learning where students individually or collectively investigate an experience.

Now let’s put it all together by looking at how a regular education teacher addresses the challenge and succeeds in using inclusive education in her classroom.

A case study of inclusive practices in schools and classes

Mrs. Brown has been teaching for several years now and is both excited and a little nervous about her school’s decision to implement inclusive education. Over the years she has had several special education students in her class but they either got pulled out for time with specialists or just joined for activities like art, music, P.E., lunch, and sometimes for selected academics.

She has always found this method a bit disjointed and has wanted to be much more involved in educating these students and finding ways they can take part more fully in her classroom. She knows she needs guidance in designing and implementing her inclusive classroom, but she’s ready for the challenge and looking forward to seeing the many benefits she’s been reading and hearing about for the children, their families, their peers, herself, and the school as a whole.

During the month before school starts, Mrs. Brown meets with the special education teacher, Mr. Lopez — and other teachers and staff who work with her students — to coordinate the instructional plan that is based on the IEPs (Individual Educational Plan) of the three students with disabilities who will be in her class the upcoming year.

About two weeks before school starts, she invites each of the three children and their families to come into the classroom for individual tours and get-to-know-you sessions with both herself and the special education teacher. She makes sure to provide information about back-to-school night and extends a personal invitation to them to attend so they can meet the other families and children. She feels very good about how this is coming together and how excited and happy the children and their families are feeling. One student really summed it up when he told her, “You and I are going to have a great year!”

The school district and the principal have sent out communications to all the parents about the move to inclusion education at Mrs. Brown’s school. Now she wants to make sure she really communicates effectively with the parents, especially as some of the parents of both SWD and regular ed students have expressed hesitation that having their child in an inclusive classroom would work.

She talks to the administration and other teachers and, with their okay, sends out a joint communication after about two months into the school year with some questions provided by the book Creating Inclusive Classrooms (Salend, 2001 referenced in Salend & Garrick-Duhaney, 2001) such as, “How has being in an inclusion classroom affected your child academically, socially, and behaviorally? Please describe any benefits or negative consequences you have observed in your child. What factors led to these changes?” and “How has your child’s placement in an inclusion classroom affected you? Please describe any benefits or any negative consequences for you.” and “What additional information would you like to have about inclusion and your child’s class?” She plans to look for trends and prepare a communication that she will share with parents. She also plans to send out a questionnaire with different questions every couple of months throughout the school year.

Since she found out about the move to an inclusive education approach at her school, Mrs. Brown has been working closely with the special education teacher, Mr. Lopez, and reading a great deal about the benefits and the challenges. Determined to be successful, she is especially focused on effective inclusive classroom strategies.

Her hard work is paying off. Her mid-year and end-of-year results are very positive. The SWDs are meeting their IEP goals. Her regular ed students are excelling. A spirit of collaboration and positive energy pervades her classroom and she feels this in the whole school as they practice inclusive education. The children are happy and proud of their accomplishments. The principal regularly compliments her. The parents are positive, relaxed, and supportive.

Mrs. Brown knows she has more to learn and do, but her confidence and satisfaction are high. She is especially delighted that she has been selected to be a part of her district’s team to train other regular education teachers about inclusive education and classrooms.

The future is very bright indeed for this approach. The evidence is mounting that inclusive education and classrooms are able to not only meet the requirements of LRE for students with disabilities, but to benefit regular education students as well. We see that with exposure both parents and teachers become more positive. Training and support allow regular education teachers to implement inclusive education with ease and success. All around it’s a win-win!

Lilla Dale McManis, MEd, PhD has a BS in child development, an MEd in special education, and a PhD in educational psychology. She was a K-12 public school special education teacher for many years and has worked at universities, state agencies, and in industry teaching prospective teachers, conducting research and evaluation with at-risk populations, and designing educational technology. Currently, she is President of Parent in the Know where she works with families in need and also does business consulting.

You may also like to read

• Inclusive Education for Special Needs Students
• Teaching Strategies in Early Childhood Education and Pre-K
• Mainstreaming Special Education in the Classroom
• Five Reasons to Study Early Childhood Education
• Effective Teaching Strategies for Special Education
• 6 Strategies for Teaching Special Education Classes

Categorized as: Tips for Teachers and Classroom Resources

Tagged as: Curriculum and Instruction ,  High School (Grades: 9-12) ,  Middle School (Grades: 6-8) ,  Pros and Cons ,  Teacher-Parent Relationships ,  The Inclusive Classroom

• Online Education Specialist Degree for Teache...
• Online Associate's Degree Programs in Educati...
• Master's in Math and Science Education

Inclusion in education

UNESCO believes that every learner matters equally. Yet millions of people worldwide continue to be excluded from education for reasons which might include gender, sexual orientation, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic condition or ability. Inclusive education works to identify all barriers to education and remove them and covers everything from curricula to pedagogy and teaching. UNESCO’s work in this area is firstly guided by the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960) as well as Sustainable Development Goal 4 and the Education 2030 Framework for Action which emphasize inclusion and equity as the foundation for quality education.

What you need to know about inclusion in education

Global Education Monitoring Report 2020

Resource base on inclusive education

face exclusion from education on a daily basis

live with a disability globally

do not have minimum requirements for water, sanitation and hygiene

at the end of primary education if they learn in their mother tongue 

Monitoring SDG 4: inclusion in education

Resources from UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report.

Inclusion, Exclusion, Segregation, and Integration: How are they different?

The power of social media.

During the early days of Think Inclusive, we posted a photo that demonstrated the differences between inclusion, exclusion, segregation, and integration. The post went viral.

Various Interpretations

It is still unclear who originally created the image. Although it garnered a lot of attention, its meaning was open to interpretation, leading to various reactions from different people. Some people perceived the images of inclusion and integration as being regressive, while others interpreted the different colors as representing various races. Additionally, some individuals modified and edited the photo to suit their own perspectives, with some being humorous and others more serious. Here are some examples of these interpretations.

Guidance from the United Nations

So, what are the correct definitions of these images? Fortunately, we came across an astonishing visual from a document called A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education created by Abt Associates . They envisioned the original image in a much clearer way and included definitions from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – General Comment No. 4 . We have added the image here and encourage you to read both documents referenced above.

The Committee highlights the importance of recognising the differences between exclusion, segregation, integration and inclusion. Exclusion occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form. Segregation occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities. Integration is a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions. Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, for example, organisation, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion. A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education

According to the UN’s definitions, most school districts in the United States are practicing integration rather than the “systematic reform” and “structural changes” that inclusion encompasses. It is no wonder that people are confused when talking about the differences between inclusion and integration.

What do you think? Do you have different interpretations of inclusion, exclusion, segregation, and integration?

Tim Villegas is the Director of Communications for the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education. He is also the founder of Think Inclusive, which is the blog, podcast, and social media handle of MCIE. He has 16 years of experience in public education as a teacher and district support specialist. His focus now is on how media and communications can promote inclusive education for all learners.

What can we help you find?

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Teacher education and inclusivity.

• Sarah L. Alvarado , Sarah L. Alvarado Arizona State University
• Sarah M. Salinas Sarah M. Salinas Arizona State University
•  and  Alfredo J. Artiles Alfredo J. Artiles Arizona State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.278
• Published online: 28 August 2019

Inclusive teacher education (ITE) defines the professional training of preservice teachers to work in learning spaces encompassing students from all circumstances, regardless of race, linguistic background, gender, socioeconomic status, and special education needs (SEN). This preparation includes the content, pedagogy, and formative experiences required for teachers to work in inclusive schools.

To fully understand ITE, it is necessary to examine what is meant by inclusive education (IE). Indeed, it is essential to explore ITE’s definition since scholars and teacher educators have struggled to agree on what is meant by IE. In addition to disagreements about IE’s definition, support for this idea and its implementation may vary due to the cultural, historical, and political differences specific to local contexts. For these reasons, it is necessary to recognize the inclusive policies, practices, and processes that often shape definitions and concepts related to ITE.

Notwithstanding the ambitious meanings of ITE across the globe, researchers, professionals, and policymakers tend to emphasize a vision of teacher preparation for working with students with disabilities (SWD) or SEN. Also, there is no consensus about which particular aspects matter in teacher education programs, primarily based on ideological differences about the core goals of IE. These differences in views and beliefs have resulted in limited understandings and applications of ITE. For instance, a student with an SEN may also come from a family living in poverty, with no access to books in the home, or speak multiple languages, including languages that are not a part of their first (formal) educational experiences. In such circumstances, there is no agreement about whether ITE programs should focus on students’ linguistic, socioeconomic, learning differences, or multiple factors.

We review the research on ITE in various national contexts. We also discuss how scholars have conceptualized the preparation of future teachers and the implications for greater clarity on how teacher preparation can improve IE in an increasingly diverse society.

• inclusive teacher education
• disabilities
• inclusivity
• teacher preparation
• preservice teachers

The purpose of this article is to synthesize the fundamental concepts and core parameters that inform the preparation of teachers for inclusive education (IE) and summarize research on nclusive teacher education (ITE). We assume that ITE programs provide pre-service teachers with the content, pedagogy, and formative experiences to work in inclusive schools and lead inclusive classrooms. We begin by setting the context through a discussion of how scholars have conceptualized IE. Next, we outline the evolution of ITE across national contexts in the past several decades and briefly illustrate controversies and tensions associated with ITE. The core of the article presents an overview of research trends and selected examples of ITE to explain such patterns. We reviewed empirical studies and conceptual pieces based on empirical work published between 2005 and 2017 in peer-reviewed journals, handbooks, or book chapters. We recognize IE’s original intentions were grounded in equity-minded work and began decades before this period (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 ; Ryndak & Fisher, 1988 ), but we narrowed our scope to literature published in the last ten years particularly, after the reauthorization of special education law in the United States. Most of the chosen publications focused on the United States and the United Kingdom since these are the countries with sizable IE literature. However, we also included examples from other nations, such as Canada, Scandinavian countries, and Australia. We conclude with reflections for future scholarship.

Setting the Context

Ie definitions.

It is necessary to contextualize a review of the research on ITE with a brief discussion about IE. Artiles and Kozleski ( 2016 ) characterized IE literature as highly visible yet contentious. While IE has emphasized the physical placement of students in educational settings (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009 ), we highlight IE’s varying definitions and assumptions about whom, where, and what types of inclusion and inclusive practices pre-service teachers might utilize (Booth, Nes, & Strømstad, 2003 ; Forlin, 2010a ). Thus, IE does not constitute a monolithic and even cohesive movement, as scholars have identified various discourses surrounding the conceptualization and evolution of this notion. For instance, the IE literature has focused on the justification for and the implementation of inclusion (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 ; Dyson, 1999 ). In turn, each of these discourses is grounded in alternative views of social justice and focus on different dimensions of the IE movement. This state of affairs contributes to the fragmentation of scholarship on IE and complicates the aggregation of insights and IE research findings.

Scholars have primarily founded arguments over IE’s definition on the physical placement of students with disabilities (SWD) in the general education classroom or as the transformation of educational systems (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 ). Arguments over “what counts as IE” (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 , p. 7) have evolved from mainstreaming to integration , followed by full inclusion . The implementation and progress of IE have been contested and has certainly varied by time and location, often having strong “local flavours” (Artiles & Dyson, 2005 , p. 37), based on how IE proponents or speculators define IE (Graham & Slee, 2008 ). Slee ( 2001 ) and others argued that the obscurity in IE’s definition reflects the robust missing conversation, often based on disagreements over IE’s overall purpose, challenging existing and past views of IE and preventing conversations from extending this discourse into new conceptual territories.

We reviewed the research base to illustrate how researchers have defined and conceptualized ITE. As such, we identified at least two viewpoints: (a) medically oriented IE approaches and (b) systemic IE approaches. An important question to bear in mind is if and how these conceptual perspectives permeate the scholarship on ITE. We return to this point in a subsequent section of this article.

Medical Model Approach

The medical model perspective generally equates IE with special education, which is rooted in the medical model of disability (Artiles, 2013 ). Although some researchers would argue this perspective should not be considered a form of IE, scholars acknowledge how the two terms (IE and special education) are often used interchangeably. To demonstrate this point, we look to Florian’s explanation of how and why these two terms are commonly used interchangeably, particularly in some areas of the world:

In the developing world, where universal access to primary education is not assured, separate special education provision may represent the only educational opportunity available to children with disabilities. Thus, although “special” and “inclusive” education are different concepts, particularly in many countries of the developed world where inclusive educating is seen a part of the larger diversity agenda, rather than a response to a particular group of learners, the terms are used synonymously in other countries. (Florian, 2014 , p. 54)

A core IE principle under the medical model is that correctly identifying a student’s deficit is crucial for the subsequent administration of proper interventions to support students’ learning (Trent, 1994 ). Moreover, the medical model relates to the belief that disabilities reside in the body or mind of the individual and that the principal goal of IE is to provide treatments and interventions that ameliorate, cure, or rehabilitate people’s deficits (Artiles, 2013 ; Trent, 1994 ). Booth and colleagues asserted this perspective as predominantly focused on the dilemma of differences between students with and without special education need (SEN) (Booth, Nes, & Strømstad, 2003 ).

ITE programs based on the medical model of disability prepare specialized educators to provide the treatments, interventions, and strategies that learners with disabilities or other special needs require to enhance students’ educational experiences and outcomes. These interventions may occur inside or outside general education settings. To this end, the ITE literature tends to use the terms general and special education (Allsopp & Haley, 2015 ). Special education services include programs delivered across a continuum of educational placement options ranging from general education classrooms for the entire (or parts of the) school day to special classes where teachers educate students for varying portions of the day.

Systemic IE

The systemic view of IE proposes that systems or institutions must change to serve the needs of students, rather than emphasizing students’ disabilities. In this way, IE is not a program nor a placement “but an approach embodying particular values” (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006 , p. 301). Systemic views of IE support a transformative agenda in which school cultures are reconstructed to increase student access, participation, and achievement, as well as “enhanc[ing] school personnel’s and students’ acceptance of all students” (Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christensen, 2006 , p. 67). Systemic IE pushes beyond what needs to happen to individual students, by focusing on what society and systems can do to address the physical and social stigmas and conditions that create the disabling status and experiences for the individual. As such, it is not the individual’s need or use of a wheelchair that creates the disability; instead, it is the lack of wheelchair accessible buildings and classrooms that impact the inclusivity of the environment. From this view, IE is a “process rather than a destination,” (Mittler, 2000 , p. 12) mainly centered on the pedagogical stances that value diversity beyond specific disabilities. For instance, over the last decade, the discourse of IE is reflective of other emergent concerns and priorities, beyond individual learning differences. A systemic approach emphasizes the need to attend to systemic barriers that prevent youth and persons of all ages from their rights, protections, and access to an education regardless of their citizenship status, gender orientation, or other social markers without marginalization; education as a human right (Artiles, 2011 ). Basically, this perspective emphasizes the transformation of entire educational systems, including technical (e.g., curricula, pedagogy, assessment) and organizational dimensions (e.g., budgets, staffing, space allocation), with explicit attention to the sociocultural, historical, and ideological underpinnings of schooling in society.

Next, we turn to a brief historical overview of IE covering sociocultural and historical processes that have shaped and been shaped by inclusive agendas. Such sociocultural and historical factors, as we will exemplify, have, and continue to produce implications for ITE. We conclude with a discussion of the significant conceptual differences represented in the medical and systemic perspectives of IE, and how those varying inclusive perspectives continue to cause tensions. Besides, differences in conceptualization and implementation of IE have interfered with communications among communities of scholars, professionals, and policymakers around the globe investing in the enactment of ITE.

Brief Historical Overview of IE

Several key developments have advanced the idea of IE to address the educational rights and needs of SWD and other forms of difference. One example is the 1990 World Conference on Education For All (EFA) (Haddad, Colletta, Fisher, Lakin, & Rinaldi, 1990 ). This conference was held in Jomtien, Thailand, for the launching of the EFA movement, and was guided by the objective to “reaffir the long-standing idea of education as a human right . . . and urged all countries to provide for the basic learning needs of all people” (Florian, 2014 , p. 48). The EFA movement has contributed in multiple ways to the establishment of international accountability efforts to measure and track the impact of education for all students. Over time, as the IE movement has gained traction at a global level, the EFA movement has become more closely associated with a human rights issue.

One outgrowth of the connection and expansion of IE and EFA is the concept of inclusion as increasingly applied to other groups of students, especially those historically marginalized from access to education. Developing this argument further, Florian ( 2014 ) explained that the definition of IE

was broadened beyond the education of students with disabilities to encompass Roma children, street children, child workers, child soldiers, and children from indigenous and nomadic groups-in other words, anyone who might be excluded from or hav[e] limited access to the general education system within a country. (p. 48)

Other national and multinational policies have also moved to recognize the validity of concerns for the fundamental human rights of all children to access education. This growing international focus and prioritization on IE as an indispensable human right coalesced in an international event hosted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) event in 1994 in Salamanca, Spain. Participation in this historical event included representatives from 92 governments and 25 international organizations. The 1994 World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality Conference also produced a lasting effect on IE policies through the creation and ratification of the UNESCO/Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education ( 1994 ).

One critique often made about the IE literature is that despite its original aspirations, the bulk of the IE scholarly base in the developed world has emphasized disabilities at the expense of attention to other forms of difference (e.g., social class, gender, language). In the United States, for instance, IE has been highly dependent on federal government policies, which stipulate how to meet the needs of SWD. The precursors of IE in the United States were primarily grounded in the passage of essential laws in the 1970s, such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHC) in 1975 (Labaree, 1988 ; Trent, 1994 ; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2000 ), which mandated the enrollment of SWD in public schools. O’Connor and Ferri ( 2007 ) described such special education policy in the United States as “fundamentally chang[ing] the foundation of special education” (p. 64), which challenged how teacher education programs taught IE to pre-service teachers.

Within the United States, special education policies guaranteed that SWD have the right to a Free and Appropriate Education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) possible (Brantlinger, 2006 ). In the United States, LRE requirements have existed since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) in 1975 and constitute a fundamental element of the nation’s policy for educating SWD. The EHCA was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 , followed by its reauthorization in 2004 (Brantlinger, 2006 ).

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [2004]), the US Department of Education and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) legal code do not use the terms inclusion or IE. Under section 612(a)(5) of the IDEA, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, must be educated with children who are not disabled.

As evident in US national legislation language, the absence of inclusivity terms suggests the definition rests on understandings that students learn together. Further, special classes, separate schooling, or other removals of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only where teachers cannot satisfactorily educate a child in regular classes due to the nature or severity of the disability, even with the use of the supplementary aids and services.

Within the United States’ discourse, LRE has thus been taken by advocates, state, and district organizations to mean inclusion into mainstream education, wherein SWD are physically located and educated in the same room as their nondisabled peers. The concept of mainstreaming, according to Lipsky and Gartner ( 1997 ), emphasized the place in which special education took place, and it assumed “the existence of two separate systems—general and special education—and was applicable to those students who were considered to be ‘normal’” (p. 77). Lipsky and Gartner contextualized the ongoing debate around IE in the United States as follows: “The issue in the United States . . . where students with disabilities should be educated has been inextricably intertwined with the issues of whether and how they should be educated” (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997 , p. 73). Thus, for practitioners and scholars who subscribe to the medical model of disability, definitions of IE may rely more on students’ disabilities and less on other intersecting demographic characteristics (i.e., second language status). Hence, to educate an SWD within the physical realms of a mainstream general education classroom is to comply with US education policy mandates.

IE Policies and Definitions Beyond the United States

Within Europe, the New Labour party influenced government efforts for inclusion, placing IE at the “centre of its educational agenda,” shifting responsibility for meeting student needs to teachers in the “ordinary classroom” (Armstrong, 2005 , p. 140). Just as US federal laws and education policy assumed a supervisory role over the integration of SWD and special education programs into general education classrooms in the latter half of the 20th century , so too did the central government in the United Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s (Hodkinson, 2009 ; Trent, 1994 ). Terzi ( 2005 ) described this era of education policy as “watershed in the educational provision for disabled learners in the United Kingdom, whilst at the same time establishing a new fundamental framework for special education” (p. 443). Changes to education policy in the United Kingdom in this era were informed by the recommendations of the Warnock Committee, which published the Warnock Report in 1978 (Terzi, 2005 ; West, 2015 ).

The significance of the Warnock report comes from what it spurred in terms of IE policy reforms. In all, the Warnock report included an assembled list of over 200 recommendations for education policy reforms that affirmed the education goals for all children, including SWD. Central to the policy recommendations of the Warnock report were changes in the expectations for multiple stakeholder groups in education. Parents of SWD and handicaps formally attained an affirmation of the right of their children (SWD) to be enrolled and educated in mainstream classrooms (Buss, 1985 ). A second critical change in stakeholder expectations involved the expectations and responsibilities of mainstream classroom teachers to ensure the learning of all students in their classrooms, which now included SWD (Buss, 1985 ). With changes in the responsibility of teachers in mainstream classrooms, to teach classes integrated with students of all ability levels, the committee recognized the need to focus and strengthen teacher education programs to prepare teachers for such a change. Buss reported ( 1985 ) teacher preparation was named as one of three areas of top “priority” in the Warnock committee’s report (Buss, 1985 , p. 123).

Due to the committee’s policy recommendations, structural changes in administration and monitoring of local school boards took place. One repercussion of the implementation of the committee’s recommendations was a bureaucratic shift in supervision and management between local and centralized control and oversight of policy implementation and students’ educational outcomes. The shift from local to centralized control was predominantly located in the changes felt by local school boards. Whereas school boards previously functioned with autonomy, and mostly controlled local district issues, the Warnock reforms decreased local school board power and simultaneously consolidated control in the centralized UK ministry office (Buss, 1985 ; Slee, 2001 ; Terzi, 2005 ; West, 2015 ). In addition to the shift from localized to centralized control, central education ministries sought to maintain influence over local school boards by funding stipulations and compliance measures (West, 2015 ) much like the US case. The Warnock report also influenced the educational policy discourse related to disability and inclusion.

Within the committee’s suggestions to “integrate” (Buss, 1985 , p. 122) mainstream classrooms, the committee introduced a shift in the language used to describe special education students. The committee recommended dismissal of the term handicapped and recommended the use of the phrase “students identified with special education needs (SEN)” (Buss, 1985 , p. 123). The terminology change broadened the population of students considered part of the subgroup (Terzi, 2005 ). The term students with a disability was viewed in the United Kingdom as problematic because it suggested a permanence to disability or handicap that did not fit the educational experiences of all students. According to the Warnock committee, such a conceptualization implied that only a small subset of the population would need specialized help (West, 2015 ). Whereas the previous term handicapped could be understood to apply to a learner classified with an identifiable, documented disorder or permanent disability , the new term SEN could apply to any learner who might encounter the need for specialized learning needs at any period during their educational tenure (Slee, 2001 ; Terzi, 2005 ; West, 2015 ). Restructuring this distinction from handicapped , language used to refer to SWD or specialized learning needs became “central to the debate in special and inclusive education, where it is also referred to as the dilemma of difference” (Terzi, 2005 , p. 443). The “dilemma of difference” represents the challenges of IE to acknowledge and support student’s individualized learning needs (Terzi, 2005 , p. 443). The use of difference, in turn, is the process of highlighting dissimilarities while also “accentuating the sameness” (Terzi, 2005 , p. 443), to create and promote commonalities while supporting children’s needs.

A crucial third provision from the policy reforms in the 1970s and 1980s in the United Kingdom addressed the types of training and experiences that teacher preparation programs included. In England, IE’s current character has also been traced back to the 1960s, when issues of segregation became highly debated (Hodkinson, 2009 ). Although IE became a truly global movement, at least in terms of nations embracing its basic tenets, the enactment of this laudable idea has been fraught with controversies and tensions, which have, in turn, spilled over into efforts to create and implement ITE programs.

Consequences of IE’s Ambiguities and Tensions for ITE

All in all, scholars agree there is a “substantial distance between the conceptualization of inclusive education and its implementation” (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 , p. 5). Echoing Srivastava, de Boer, and Pijl ( 2015 ), Artiles and Kozleski illustrated, “given the multi-voiced nature of the inclusion movement, it is not surprising that its bold aspirations traveled across locales and time with disparate meanings and with alternative consequences” (p. 5). Not surprisingly, the lack of conceptual clarity and ambiguity about IE’s definition has had consequences for the implementation of ITE. For instance, tensions between those proponents and those who opposed IE have contributed to a lack of clarity within the primary goals of ITE (Brantlinger, 1997 ). For example, given the dominant discourse on disability-based inclusion, there is limited research on what IE means for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. To wit: “Under the guise of establishing an ‘inclusive’ educational system promoted by national edicts, local interpretation and implementation have in many instances been far from the original intention” (Forlin, 2012 , p. 4). To summarize, ITE in “most regions has been tokenistic at best and non-existent at worst” (Forlin, 2012 , p. 4). As such, due to policy and changing economic demands, teacher educators face challenges to create inclusive programs and models (Sindelar, Wasburn-Moses, Thomas, & Leko, 2014 ). To address this state of affairs, Florian ( 2014 ) offered four strategies that facilitate the implementation of ITE:

[Greater] clarity about what inclusion means in different contexts and the implications for teacher education.

[Advance] high-quality programs of research designed to help answer questions about what teachers need to know and be able to do to implement a policy of inclusive education,

Move away from binary distinctions between special and inclusive education, [and]

[Pursue] new forms of professional collaboration.

(Florian, 2014 , pp. 214–219)

As such, some of the trends and discourses echo Florian’s (and other researchers’) call to advance the implementation of ITE. Next, we outline ITE conceptualizations in the next sections and summarize trends in the ITE research literature.

ITE: Trends and Discourses

In the first section, we delineate our search criteria and explain our categorization of the literature. Next, we present our findings related to two core areas: (1) general conceptualizations of ITE and (2) ITE program components and structure.

General Conceptualizations of ITE

We discuss conceptualizations of ITE by synthesizing the results of 14 empirical studies and seven literature reviews published between 2005 and 2017 . We located publications by conducting keyword searches in our institution’s library system using variations of the terms inclusive education or inclusive teacher education , narrowed by publication type (e.g., empirical or literature review) and publication date. Specifically, we targeted studies that included the preparation of teachers for teaching students with SEN. We eliminated conceptual pieces, as well as articles focused on professional development for in-service teachers. We included publications related to ITE when the study included both pre- and in-service teachers. We included literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals or book chapters published in diverse geographical regions. Some authors explicitly noted a country or geographic area or focus, while others did not specify the limits of the review. One author (Hodkinson, 2009 ), stated the literature review was specific to England, while the other three (Hoffman et al., 2015 ; Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert, & Mangunsong, 2014 ; Orakci, Aktan, Toraman, & Çevik, 2016 ) did not specify if researchers restricted particular studies to specific geographic location. For literature reviews where researchers did not specify the location, we assumed studies were not limited by geographical area since authors pulled from databases that extend beyond national borders (i.e., EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ERIC, MEDLINE, Psycho ARTICLES, Psycho INFO; Soc Index).

We categorized literature reviews and empirical studies into two groups: basic and comprehensive conceptualizations of ITE. Here, we used the term basic conceptualization to refer to texts that defined inclusion limited to pre-service teachers’ training primarily focused on students’ SEN. In contrast to basic conceptualizations of ITE, we used the term comprehensive to specify research that recognized students’ multiple learning needs, work emphasizing teachers’ sociocultural knowledge and critical reflexivity (Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ).

Specifically, publications we categorized as basic did the following: (a) focused on disability only and (b) were based on the assumption that disability is permanent; there was little discussion on how students’ learning needs can change over time. These publications focused on students’ abilities and disabilities and were primarily grounded in the medical model of IE. For instance, studies categorized as basic conceptualizations of ITE emphasized proper interventions to support student learning, presumably due to the existence of a disability. Further, in such publications, researchers emphasized school personnel perceptions of students, stemming from the notion that a disability exists within the body or mind that merits specialized assistance. In these publications, we observed there was little or no discussion about how institutions might address diversity beyond the students’ disability or multiple identity markers (i.e., race, ethnicity, language, gender). Based on authors’ reports, the literature categorized as basic did not recognize that students with SEN may also live in poverty, speak multiple languages, have different gender orientations, or identify from a particular minoritized ethnic group.

Literature reviews and empirical studies based on comprehensive views of ITE focused on factors beyond students’ SEN, not limited to perceptions or attitudes centered on students’ disabilities. Comprehensive conceptualizations of ITE included “sharpening inclusion’s identity, attending to the fluid nature of ability differences and students’ multiple identities, broadening the unit of analysis to systems of activities, and documenting processes and outcomes” (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 , p. 2). We categorized these publications as comprehensive ITE if the authors did one of the following: (a) recognized that SWD have multiple social identity markers (i.e., gender, race, disability) and (b) discussed topics such as diversity, race, ethnicity, or language background in a substantive manner. Likewise, we found authors’ argumentation about ITE was especially attuned to recognizing the social and systemic power structures that contribute to educational disparities. In sum, we defined this trend as recognizing the multiplicity of students’ social identity markers beyond ability, not restricted to a view of disabilities as residing solely in the body or mind, which then requires a fix or cure to their ailments (Artiles, 2013 ; Trent; 1994 ).

Comprehensive conceptualizations of ITE also included studies in which scholars connected the work of ITE to include pre-service teachers’ learning and training to become agents of change for social justice. Pantić and Florian ( 2015 ) summarized this type of work as follows:

Preparing teachers to act as agents of change for inclusion and social justice challenges some of the well-established ways of thinking about teaching as an individualistic teacher-classroom activity. Teacher competence as agents of inclusion and social justice involves working collaboratively with other agents, and thinking systematically about the ways of transforming practices, schools, and systems. (p. 346)

In other words, this view of ITE accounts for the historical and social processes of systems (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 ). Similar to multicultural education, Banks and Banks ( 2010 ) conceptualized inclusion as the “idea that all students—regardless of their gender, social class, and ethnic, racial or cultural characteristics—should have an equal opportunity to learn in school” (p. 1). Salend ( 2010 ) echoed earlier work ( 2008 ), expanding upon the notion of reconceptualizing inclusion, and noted,

thus, in many countries social justice and multicultural education are viewed as being inextricably linked to inclusive education, which has broadened the focus of inclusive education beyond disability to include issues of race, linguistic ability, economic status, gender, learning style, ethnicity, cultural and religious background, family structure, and sexual orientation. (p. 131)

Basic Conceptualizations

Publications classified as basic conceptualizations focused on the exploration of pre-service teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, mainly focused on disability as a single identity marker. We classified texts as basic conceptualizations if authors’ discussions of diversity as related to IE were limited in both substance and content. To illustrate, Orakci, Aktan, Toraman, and Çevik ( 2016 ) differentiated study participants by gender and examined teacher attitudes toward IE. Of 51 studies reviewed, Orakci and colleagues found gender and special education training did not affect teacher attitudes toward IE, but they found the focus of teacher training (i.e., preschool, special education) made a significant difference. Orakci and colleagues ( 2016 ) also included a minimal number of pre-service teachers (n = 7) and a much larger number of in-service teachers (n = 44). We emphasized Orakci and colleagues’ work since their work illustrates the need to focus on training, rather than seeking to attribute teacher preparation to teachers’ sociocultural characteristics (e.g., gender). In another review examining pre-service teacher beliefs and attitudes about IE, Hoffman and colleagues ( 2015 ) found pre-service teachers had limited opportunities to engage in critical discussions with their mentor teachers. The authors found that mentor teachers dominated speaking time, were more focused on technical aspects of teaching, rather than dispositions, and minimally engaged in thoughtful discussions (Hoffman, 2015 ) related to students’ intersectional differences (e.g., language and SEN).

In addition to the research included in these reviews on teacher candidates’ beliefs and attitudes, we identified other studies in this category that delved into discussions about IE and methodological considerations in this area of inquiry. Robinson’s ( 2017 ) action-research project conducted in the context of a university-school partnership intended to “promote positive discourse of diversity (celebration of the richness of human variety)” (p. 21). Including instructional assistants, experienced teachers, and student teachers, Robinson sought to determine which practices and beliefs could produce effective inclusive practices. Robinson explained, “the concept ‘inclusion’ would trigger diversity discourses (which celebrate diversity and uniqueness), but ‘SEN’ would trigger disparity discourses (where diversity is associated with pathologisation, differential treatment and different expectations)” (p. 31). Robinson’s study included four significant findings: (a) school personnel varied in their feeling of adequacy and disposition to teach [SEN] students (i.e., some feeling more positive, versus feeling amateur or panic); (b) contrasting discourses, which included school personnel operating alongside deficit discourses; (c) development of collaborative skills and a deeper understanding of the “value of teamwork” (p. 38); and (d) the value of including other school personnel, such as instructional assistants for the work of IE. We noted that, while topics of diversity were a crucial part of the study, discussions centered on attitudes and perceptions toward students’ disabilities and abilities, or they included limited discussions about what was meant by diversity.

In a study focused on preparing physical education teachers toward inclusion, Taliaferro, Hammond, and Wyant ( 2015 ) examined pre-service physical education teachers’ self-efficacy toward the integration of SWD in the general education classroom. Similarly, Taliaferro and colleagues mentioned the word diversity, but there was little discussion about what was meant by diversity. Likewise, Tangen and Bentel ( 2017 ) examined the perceptions of 46 pre-service educators enrolled in a graduate entry teacher education program in Australia. Tangen and Bentel investigated pre-service teachers’ theoretical understandings and perceptions of themselves toward IE. Tangen and Bentel found pre-service teachers failed to have a “sophisticated insight into the nuances in differentiating between the terms of diversity and inclusion” (p. 67) since pre-service teachers conceptualized inclusive practices in varying ways. For instance, some pre-service teachers found IE as not entirely possible, since often many other factors (ill-prepared teachers, large classroom sizes) contributed to student outcomes. Tangen and Bentel briefly commented, “during the semester . . . [pre-service teachers] recounted how they or students were marginalized if they were ‘different,’ such as if a student had a visible disability or had limited English proficiency” (p. 70), yet teachers failed to provide sophisticated understandings of what was meant by diversity. Again, since Tangen and Bentel maintained the focus on diversity (not explaining why this mattered), we categorized the study as basic. In sum, studies categorized as basic largely failed to acknowledge more “fluid and nuanced” (Harry & Lipsky, 2014 , p. 446) notions of diversity (beyond one identity marker) or the social power structures that contribute to disparities within ITE. Next, we turn to studies categorized as encompassing more holistic conceptualizations of ITE.

Comprehensive Conceptualizations of ITE

We categorized publications as comprehensive conceptualizations if authors defined students’ learning needs as not exclusive to disability. This approach recognizes students’ multiple needs, such as the intersections of language and disability. We highlight a few publications that illustrated the various ways that researchers conceptualized ITE beyond disability.

Our first example covered studies published between 1990 and 2003 , based on Brownell and colleagues’ analysis of 64 publications and their discussion of the concept of diversity beyond students’ ability differences (Brownell, Ross, Colón, & McCallum, 2005 , p. 245). Of interest was how Brownell and colleagues’ review defined diversity as related to cultural factors, beyond a student’s disability status. Brownell and the research team found that in 84% of the programs they analyzed, cultural diversity was mentioned as a topic, although the authors of those studies did not always elaborate on pedagogical training that could help pre-service teachers learn essential skills for ITE. Brownell and colleagues also found that in 28% of the articles reviewed, authors described methods intended to address cultural or linguistic needs of students. Brownell and associates also found that in 50% of the programs, authors addressed both inclusion and cultural diversity, “reflecting a broader focus on diversity that included children with disabilities as well as those with diverse cultural and linguistic needs” (p. 246). Brownell and colleagues’ review stands out because they specified what was meant by diversity, such as social or linguistic needs.

Similarly, Harry and Lipsky ( 2014 ) reviewed the empirical base to examine the relationship between research methods used and the types of inquiry projects on ITE. Harry and Lipsky identified 41 reports, of which 25 used qualitative or mixed methods, and 14 relied on quantitative methods. Interested in investigating the shift toward embracing constructivist approaches within ITE, Harry and Lipsky identified four categories, which illustrated understandings of ITE as “inclusion and collaboration; field experience; specialized competencies program philosophy; and conceptual change (where conceptual change is sometimes related to program philosophy and at other times related to multicultural diversity)” (p. 450). Harry and Lipsky identified two studies that focused on conceptual change regarding philosophical approaches in ITE programs, specifically, whether participants had positivist or constructivist orientations. Since Harry and Lipsky emphasized the need for conceptual change in the field of ITE, we identified their work aligned with comprehensive orientations. Harry and Lipsky found an overall pattern, “whereby the more constructivist the question, the greater the reliance on qualitative methods,” which were “more consistently used in studies on social process” (p. 458). Harry and Lipsky clarified these findings did not necessarily suggest the need for more qualitative methods, but, instead, future research should explore the use of direct observational methods (e.g., video, audio recording), rather than continuing to use more limited, self-reported data. We concluded this work highlights essential methodological and theoretical implications for ITE.

Pugach, Blanton, and Boveda ( 2014 ) reviewed research on teacher preparation intended to “foster inclusive educational practice” (p. 144) and focused on collaborative efforts across general and special education. Pugach and colleagues reviewed research published between 1997 to 2012 and included 30 studies examining pre-service teacher education program components and design, which focused on collaborative approaches. They discussed students’ intersectional needs (e.g., special education and second language needs), in addition to examining pre-service teacher identity development, program redesign, and evaluation. Pugach and colleagues noted overall trends:

program evaluations have not focused on student identity development as a result of program completion, or the relationships between various parts of the curriculum such as those between teaching English Language Learners and teaching students who have disabilities, or the specific ways that strands of content about disability have been integrated into the content. (p. 154)

Thus, these discussions pointed to authors’ recognition of students’ intersectional needs, something apparently limited in the research base. Further, Pugach and colleagues noted hopeful results related to observing teacher educators working in collaborative ways between general and special education teachers. They did warn, however: “In light of the willingness to engage in such joint inquiry . . . more complex designs could be developed and more complex issues problematized around this important pre-service program trend” (Pugach et al., 2014 , p. 154). Further, the authors also remarked on a “gap in the way researchers addressed social identity markers in addition to disability” (Pugach et al., 2014 , p. 154). Additionally, Pugach and colleagues’ observation noted researchers’ tendency to reference participant demographics inconsistently within studies included in their review. By highlighting collaboration and training in ITE, the authors stressed the importance of recognizing learning as a shared experience. Not only did researchers discuss the importance of students’ identity markers beyond SEN, but additionally, they expanded on how systems might address students’ needs beyond special education factors.

To summarize, it is vital that ITE programs recognize and prepare teacher candidates to understand that teaching must be designed to address students’ multiple needs, beyond their SEN. As such, broader conceptualizations of ITE can be very potent for the support of students who have SEN, due to a specific learning disability and who are identified as second language learners or have other learning needs.

ITE Program Components

ITE program structure includes different components, such as curriculum, coursework, field-based learning experiences, and dispositions (Salend, 2010 ; Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ; Pugach et al., 2014 ). Salend ( 2010 ) argued that ITE program components include “core beliefs” (p. 130), and constitute additional essential elements; these beliefs may influence pedagogical practices, learning activities, and quality of ITE. These program components are informed by how ITE program staff and administrators define the purpose of inclusion (Salend, 2010 ).

Beyond coursework and curriculum, field-based learning experiences are also significant for the formative development of inclusive pre-service teachers (Salend, 2008 , 2010 ). An essential component of ITE programs is field placement since it affords opportunities for exposure to the complex realities of student learning and classrooms. Field-based internships typically include teacher candidate assignment in the field with the goals of offering interactive teaching experiences and mentorship by veteran teachers. For instance, researchers have shown that debriefing, reflective sessions by department faculty and in-service teachers, is essential in shaping the mindsets and attitudes of pre-service teachers toward inclusion (Arthur-Kelly, Sutherland, Lyons, Macfarlane, & Foreman, 2013 ).

We categorized studies and reviews into two core areas, identified as limited and dynamic program structure. We identified limited program considerations of IE when publications met one of two criteria: (1) a focus on one aspect of program structure or (2) a basic conceptualization of ITE (e.g., focused on disability). Moreover, we found that while researchers commonly referenced the technical parts of ITE program structure, not all IE scholars used the term “competencies” (Salend, 2008 ; 2010 , p. 131) in the same way, or viewed a programmatic emphasis on competencies as uniformly beneficial. For example, Salend ( 2010 ) presented an argument that “core beliefs” (Salend, 2008 ; 2010 ) are grounding points that impact “curriculum, courses, and competencies” as well as “pedagogical practices [and] learning activities” (p. 131). In contrast, Harry and Lipsky ( 2014 ) posited that when ITE programs focused on mastery of competencies, there was less emphasis on constructivist learning and critical development of reflective dispositions amongst pre-service teachers.

On the other hand, we classified texts as dynamic ITE work (Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ) when authors reported core beliefs interwoven across coursework and field-based experiences. Dynamic ITE programs explored and supported pre-service teacher learning and dispositions toward comprehensive views of inclusion that included disability, encompassing social and cultural knowledge (Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ). Further, we considered dynamic ITE programs provide opportunities for teacher candidates to observe teachers and practice pedagogical skills within their field-based experiences in inclusive classrooms (Salend, 2010 ). Salend ( 2010 ) stated these types of experiences are critical, as they are intended to help link theory to practice. These practices also offer opportunities for teachers to “think critically about their values and beliefs and practices” (Salend, 2010 , p. 132). In sum, dynamic ITE programs support pre-service teacher development of skills beyond students’ SEN, to include multiple factors, emphasizing students’ sociocultural and learning needs.

Examples of Limited ITE Programmatic Components . In this section, we highlight a few examples of ITE literature we categorized as limited program components. For example, Hodkinson found there was little evidence that classroom practices have changed significantly since the 1970s, particularly regarding the preparation of special education teachers. Hodkinson called upon Winter’s ( 2006 ) work, which explained the lack of training on SEN and inclusion as limited preparation:

which indicate[s] that trainees can receive as little as 10 hours of training on SEN issues, it appears that mandatory and discrete training in SEN and inclusion is seemingly not favoured as an approach to the training of pre-service teachers within England. (p. 285)

Relatedly, Hoffman and colleagues’ ( 2015 ) studied the impact of coaching interactions between cooperating teachers (mentor teachers) and pre-service teachers in field-based experiences. In their review of 46 empirical studies, Hoffman and colleagues found ITE programs heavily relied upon mentor teachers’ feedback for the development of teacher candidates’ dispositions. However, problems arose when authors reported few mentor teachers had professional training on how to formally mentor pre-service teachers. As a result, Hoffman and colleagues found few mentoring teachers engaged in practices that included critical reflexivity, an essential aspect for teaching responsive to students’ multiple sociocultural needs.

Similarly, Kurniawati, De Boer, Minneart, and Mangunsong ( 2014 ), examined multiple program components, but only focused on disability-related needs. In their review, the authors located 13 studies used to analyze program structure and content. In their analysis, Kurniawati and colleagues found, the majority of training programs focused on “attitudes, knowledge, and skills” (p. 130) limited to SWD. Similarly, we noted these publications illustrated limited discussions of the multiple components needed to train pre-service teachers in ITE programs and the dispositions needed in preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms.

We categorized a small number of studies as limited ITE programming if researchers’ projects focused on attitudes or beliefs about disability (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003 ; Orakci et al., 2016 ; Taliaferro et al., 2015 ; Tangen & Bentel, 2017 ). In this small number of studies, researchers focused on one key aspect of programmatic structures (e.g., dispositions), but did not connect the work to other essential program components. Since discussions to other program components were somewhat limited, we did not expand on study reports. Mainly, because researchers did not relate findings across program structures, we found it difficult to argue their results have implications for ITE program components. We clarify, the purpose of the classification scheme is not to disparage ITE scholarship, but to illustrate the different approaches in how researchers have conceptualized factors that matter within ITE program components.

Examples of Dynamic ITE Programmatic Components . We identified the literature as dynamic when ITE scholars drew upon comprehensive definitions of IE, and researchers examined connections across program components. For example, dynamic conceptualizations challenged teacher candidates previous assumptions about inclusion through ongoing, mediated discussions about pedagogical stances or professional dispositions. In their review of ITE programs, Harry and Lipsky ( 2014 ) noted some department programming was unique in its focus on multicultural education and bilingual special education. In turn, dynamic program components offered the opportunity to end the siloed training of general and special education teachers (Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ).

In literature categorized as dynamic program structure, authors reported preparation curricula designed to support teacher candidate learning related to students’ social, cultural, and SEN (Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ). For example, Brownell and colleagues ( 2005 ) reviewed 64 ITE program descriptions and evaluations between 1990 and 2003 . Brownell and colleagues found in 22 (34%) program descriptions, authors mentioned “cultural diversity as program topics” (p. 246). Brownell and colleagues highlighted the importance of “collaboration, between faculty, school personnel, and pre-service and in-service teachers” (p. 246). They emphasized the need for “early, extensive, and collaborative field experiences” (Brownell et al., 2005 , p. 245), which could help shape pre-service teachers’ learning about inclusive practices. Brownell and colleagues ( 2005 ) also concluded four essential characteristics of programs that could impact teacher’s understandings of inclusive practices and teaching, which included:

(a) the use of pedagogy that helps pre-service teachers to examine their beliefs, (b) a strong programmatic vision that fosters program cohesion, (c) a small program size with a high degree of faculty-student collaboration, and (d) carefully constructed field experiences in which university and school faculty collaborate extensively. (p. 245)

Researchers also reported studies that we categorized as evidence of dynamic program structure through field experiences in Australia (Carrington, Mercer, Iyer, & Selva, 2015 ). Using a social and critical theoretical framework, Carrington and colleagues investigated a “critical service learning” approach, with the goals of instilling values “suitable to inclusive practices and appreciation of diversity in schools” (p. 2). Carrington and colleagues suggested that field placements were critical in shaping pre-service teacher values, attitudes toward disability, inclusive education, and acceptance of SWD in their classes, with a focus on “social justice-oriented model[s]” (p. 4). Such opportunities were useful in preparing teacher candidates to see the complexities of the social, cultural, and political contexts of learners with SEN, similarly noted by Robinson ( 2017 ). Additionally, according to Harry and Lipsky’s ( 2014) review, O’Brian, Stoner, Appel, and House ( 2007 ) examined the relationships between mentor teachers and pre-service teachers. O’Brian and colleagues found “pre-service teachers relied greatly on the development of a trusting relationship with their cooperating teachers, and that relationships were dynamic, developing in gradual process in which the roles of both parties were negotiated and became clearer” (as cited in Harry & Lipsky, 2014 , p. 455). In another example of dynamic ITE programs, Hanline ( 2010 ) utilized weekly reflective journals and semester evaluations in pre-service early childhood special education teachers (as cited in Harry & Lipsky, 2014 ). According to Harry and Lipsky, in Hanline’s study, pre-service and mentor teachers kept journal entries that included observational notes and self-reflection, producing 182 journal entries and 45 supervision observations and “end-of-semester practices as codes” (p. 455). Based on analyses of this data, we noted intervention strategies within field experiences, which provided pre-service teachers opportunities to become comfortable teaching in inclusive classrooms. We interpreted these programmatic components as optimal for reflecting on students’ multiple needs, critical for IE.

Grounded in the notion of inclusivity and collaboration, Pugach and colleagues ( 2014 ) also explored the empirical base with the goals of advancing inclusion. Their goal was to explore how teacher education research might bring special and general education closer together. In their study, Pugach and colleagues extended the idea that field-based experiences matter. For example, they found “adding content, an activity, or an experience to the curriculum” (p. 148) enriched teacher candidates’ field-based experiences. At the same time, while Pugach and colleagues found both pre-service and mentor teachers shared the value of collaboration, without “intentionality,” these experiences may have resulted in “diminished opportunities for student teachers to create a sense of independence and autonomy” (p. 148).

Drawing from Barbara Keogh and colleagues’ previous work (e.g., Keogh, Major, Reid, Gandara, & Omori, 1978 ), Pugach and colleagues ( 2014 ) illustrated the need for ITE to use “marker variables” to “create some level of common understanding of and comparability in sample characteristics across studies to advance more meaningful research on the definition of learning disabilities” (p. 157). Pugach and colleagues explained the reasoning behind marker variables as,

Proposing such a set of marker variables at this point in time might serve… to begin to foster discussion about some of the gaps in how the research is conceptualized. Asking researchers to think about variables that have been relatively absent to date might foster intentionality. (p. 157)

Emphasizing the need for intentionality as a “lens for developing future research agenda” (p. 155), Pugach and colleagues’ concluded by emphasizing future research should continue to explore the relationship between intentionality and ITE.

We located one publication in which the author examined textbooks as a part of ITE. Brantlinger ( 2006 ) argued against the use of mainstream special education textbooks. For instance, Brantlinger made a case for changes in ITE to transcend the traditional introduction to special education courses and their corresponding textbooks. She asserted researchers have traditionally designed ITE programs around the use of a particular kind of introductory textbook in courses that focused on the medical model of disability. These courses were often meant to “socialize pre-service teachers to adopt restrictive dominant special education viewpoints and scripts for teaching” (Brantlinger, 2006 , p. x). Brantlinger analyzed 14 college textbooks designed for special education programs, with three of the eleven texts, focused on conceptualizations of inclusion that were “substantially different” (p. 46) from the rest of the texts.

Brantlinger argued that through the use of these textbooks, children become “categories and curriculum becomes techniques aimed at remediating the deficits of particular categories of learners” (Brantlinger, 2006 , p. x). Although Brantlinger concluded that textbooks are “distant and objective” and more “hazard[ous] and [serve as] barriers in terms of teachers eventually providing a democratic, just, and humanistic education for all children” (Brantlinger, 2006 , p. x), she did recognize the creators of textbooks have improved texts with touches of personalization. Brantlinger did emphasize, however, such changes may still hold “normalizing” (p. 64) discourses and continue to do more harm to the adequate preparation of inclusive teacher candidates, and ultimately, children. In response to these findings, Brantlinger proposed ITE programs and teacher educators should seek to create learning experiences for pre-service teachers that use a more extensive array of sources, rather than solely relying on textbooks. As we have attempted to illustrate, researchers have provided varying examples (e.g., collaboration, internships), which might move the field forward without extensive reliance on textbooks. As Brantlinger argued, and we agree, faculty members teaching IE courses might consider if textbooks attend to students’ multiple identity markers (e.g., ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status). As we have noted, Brantlinger’s review of textbooks illustrates the dynamic work of ITE, which accounts for students’ learning needs beyond the focus on SEN; that is, to focus on students’ multiple needs within inclusive classrooms.

The work of ITE is complex and multifaceted. Rouse ( 2010 ) argued that just because a country has implemented IE policies does not mean that educational systems are inclusive or that teachers have been well-prepared. The promises of IE and ITE are monumental, but progress has been mixed as we have suggested in this article. Although the implications and challenges are multifarious, we argue two fundamental needs must be addressed in future scholarship on ITE. First, future studies must situate ITE in the ever-changing conditions of schooling in which teachers face contradictions and dilemmas. Second, researchers must account for the intersectional lives (multiple social identity markers) of learners with SEN and their families in the design and studies of ITE. As the reviewed research suggested, there have been some developments regarding the latter point, but more attention is needed in the scholarly literature.

Teachers in the 21st century work in educational systems in which they face “standardized” (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 , p. 78) educational programs and practices. As a result, ITE must prepare teachers to utilize inclusive practices in which considerations about the unique needs of learners are paramount. At the same time, ITE programs are also pressed with preparing future teachers to be proficient with standardized practices—that is, enabling teachers to homogenize learners and teaching practices. Indeed, the commitment to enhance educational opportunities for all learners in an increasingly diverse world collides with the neoliberal demands of the 21st century’s economic and political regimes. Such collisions include the withdrawal of the state from social intervention and the privatization of social supports to citizens; an emphasis on public accountability, economic efficiency, productivity, and profitability, and the free flow of global capital, labor, and resources (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 ; Castells, 1996 ; Rizvi et al., 2005 ).

ITE must focus on these contradictions and generate knowledge about how pre-service teachers make sense, grapple, and resolve the myriad tensions and contradictions that stem from this state of affairs. The knowledge base on this issue is very thin and seems to encompass psychological, contextual, and organizational considerations (Waitoller & Kozleski, 2013 ). Future ITE studies must examine what happens to IE definitions and practices amid multiple and simultaneous agendas, contradictory policies, and ideological messages. Documentation of processes and outcomes will be critical.

If we are to meet the goal of universal IE, teacher education programs need to continue preparing pre-service teachers for the transformation of educational systems. Of significance, this work must be done while notions of IE, disability, exclusion, belongingness, and othering remain in states of flux (Artiles, Kozleski & Waitoller, 2011 ). Since students’ diverse needs are not limited to their abilities, ITE programs with transformative agendas must systematically rely on nuanced understandings of the intersections of disability with other “key dimensions” (Artiles, 2013 , p. 331).

IE and ITE scholars have critiqued narrow notions of inclusive teacher preparation that do little to end the stigma, practices, and processes of reifying notions of disability grounded solely in SEN (Brantlinger, 2006 ). A more “expansive version” of IE could be “purportedly concerned with all forms of difference,” that “regularly traverses race, gender, language, sexual orientation, social class, and nationality” (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016 , p. 13). Thus, a more expansive view of ITE is one that recognizes disabilities may exist within the child, yet instruction is not limited to SEN but accounts for sociocultural as well as systemic factors, which often contribute to the educational disparities many students face. Concurrently, broader conceptualizations of ITE acknowledge the possibility of deeper understandings of diversity, one in which individuals are not identified (only) by a disability identity. Indeed, individuals inhabit multiple identities across times and contexts. In this sense, identities are dynamic and historically situated (Artiles, 2015 ; Rogoff, 2003 ). Consequentially, ITEs will need to prepare a new generation of inclusive teachers who possess a nuanced understanding of their students’ identities to understand their “socio-cultural characteristics . . . and localized needs” (Forlin, 2012 , p. 86).

Acknowledgments

The first and second authors acknowledge the support of grant #H325D130065, from the US Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs. The third author acknowledges the support of the Equity Alliance at Arizona State University.

• Ainscow, M. , Booth, T. , & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion . London, UK: Routledge.
• Allsopp, D. H. , & Haley, K. C. (2015). A synthesis of research on teacher education, mathematics, and students with learning disabilities. Contemporary Journal , 13 (2), 177–206.
• Armstrong, D. (2005). Reinventing “inclusion”: New Labour and the cultural politics of special education. Oxford Review of Education , 31 (1), 135–151.
• Arthur-Kelly, M. , Sutherland, D. , Lyons, G. , Macfarlane, S. , & Foreman, P. (2013). Reflections on enhancing pre-service teacher education programmes to support inclusion: Perspectives from New Zealand and Australia . European Journal of Special Needs Education , 28 (2), 217–233.
• Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability . Educational Researcher , 40 (9), 431–445.
• Artiles, A. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disability models . DuBois Review , 10 (2), 329–347.
• Artiles, A. J. (2015). Beyond responsiveness to identity badges: Future research on culture in disability and implications for response to intervention . Educational Review , 67 (1), 1–22.
• Artiles, A. , & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education (pp. 37–62). London, UK: Routledge.
• Artiles, A. , & Ortiz, A. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special needs: Identifications, placement, and instructions . Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
• Artiles, A. J. , Harris-Murri, N. , & Rostenberg, D. (2006). Inclusion as social justice: Critical notes on discourses, assumptions, and the road ahead. Theory into Practice , 45 (3), 260–268.
• Artiles, A. J. , & Kozleski, E. B. (2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea . Educational Policy Analysis Archives , 24 (43).
• Artiles, A. J. , Kozleski, E. B. , Dorn, S. , & Christensen, C. (2006). Learning in inclusive education research: Re-mediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda . Review of Research in Education , 30 (1), 65–108.
• Artiles, A. J. , Kozleski, E. B. , & Waitoller, F. R. (Eds.). (2011). Inclusive education: Examining equity on five continents . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
• Artiles, A. J. , Rueda, R. , Salazar, J. S. , & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children , 71 (3), 283–300.
• Avramidis, E. , & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature . European Journal of Special Needs Education , 17 (2), 129–147.
• Bagley, C. , & Beach, D. (2015). The marginalization of social justice as a form of knowledge in teacher education in England . Policy Futures in Education , 13 (4), 424–438.
• Banks, J. A. , & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Bhopal, K. , & Rhamie, J. (2014. Initial teacher training: Understanding “race” diversity and inclusion . Race Ethnicity and Education , 17 (3), 304–325.
• Bisol, C.A. , Valentini, C. B. , & Rech Braun, K. C. (2015). Teacher education for inclusion: Can a virtual learning object help? Computers & Education , 85 , 203–210.
• Booth, T. , Nes, K. , & Strømstad, M. (Eds.). (2003). Developing inclusive teacher education . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Boyd, D. J. , Grossman, P. L. , Lankford, H. , Loeb, S. , & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 31 (4), 416–440.
• Brantlinger, E. A. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of non-recognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. Review of Educational Research , 67 (4), 425–459.
• Brantlinger, E. A. (Ed.). (2006). Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other people’s children . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Brownell, M. T. , Ross, D. D. , Colón, E. P. , & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. Journal of Special Education , 38 (4), 242–252.
• Buss, W. (1985). Special education in England and Wales. Law and Contemporary Problems , 48 (1), 119–168.
• Campbell, J. , Gilmore, L. , & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teacher’s attitudes towards disability and inclusion . Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability , 28 (4), 369–379.
• Carrington, S. , Mercer, K. L. , Iyer, R. , & Selva, G. (2015). The impact of transformative learning in a critical service-learning program on teacher development: Building a foundation for inclusive teaching . Reflective Practice International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives , 16 (1), 61–72.
• Castells, M. (1996). Rise of the network society . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
• Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment . London, UK: University of California Press.
• Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know . Journal of Teacher Education , 56 (4), 301–306.
• Conroy, M. A. , Alter, P. J. , Boyd, A. , & Bettinni, E. (2014). Teacher preparation for students who demonstrate challenging behaviors. In P. T. Sindelar , E. D. McCray , M. T. Brownell , & B. Lingnugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 320–333). New York, NY: Taylor, & Francis.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future . Journal of Teacher Education , 61 (1–2), 35–47.
• Davis, L. J. (2006). The disability studies reader . New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
• Department for Education and Science . (1978). Special education needs (The Warnock Report). London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
• DeLuca, C. (2012). Promoting inclusivity through and within teacher education programmes . Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy , 38 (5), 551–569.
• Devore, S. , Fox, R. , Heimer, L. , & Winchell, B. (2015). Meeting in the circle: Examining identity, attitudes, and pedagogy in the context of an early childhood education program in the United States . Early Years : An International Research Journal , 35 (4), 394–410.
• Dyson, A. (1999). Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), World yearbook of education 1999: Inclusive education (pp. 36–51). London, UK: Kogan Page.
• Ellins, J. , & Porter, J. (2005). Departmental differences in attitudes to special education needs in secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Studies , 32 (4), 188–195.
• Eriks-Brophy, A. , & Whittingham, J. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of children with hearing loss in general education settings . American Annals of the Deaf , 158 (1), 63–97.
• Florian, L. (2008). Special or inclusive education: Future trends . British Journal of Special Education , 35 (4), 202–208.
• Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education , 29 (3), 286–294.
• Florian, L. , & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all . Cambridge Journal of Education , 40 (4), 369–386.
• Florian, L. , & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive education . Teaching & Teacher Education , 25 (4), 594–601.
• Forlin, C. (2010a). Teacher education reform for enhancing teacher’s preparedness for inclusion . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 14 (7), 649–653.
• Forlin, C. (Ed.). (2010b). Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Forlin, C. (Ed.). (2012). Future directions for inclusive teacher education: An international perspective . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Forlin, C. , Loreman, T. , Sharma, U. , & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing pre‐service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusive education . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 13 (2), 195–209.
• Graham, L. J. , & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 40 (2), 277–293.
• Haddad, W. , Colletta, N. , Fisher, M. , Lakin, R. , & Rinaldi, R. (1990). World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, World Conference on Education for All, Jomtien, Thaliand, March 5–9, 1990. New York, NY: Inter-Agency Commission, WCEJA (UNPD, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank).
• Hanline, M. F. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of field experiences in inclusive preschool settings: Implications for personnel preparation . Teacher Education and Special Education , 33 (4), 335–351.
• Harry, B. , & Lipsky, M. (2014). Qualitative research on special education teacher preparation. In P. T. Sindelar , E. D. McCray , M. T. Brownell , & B. Lignugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 445–460). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hodkinson, A. (2009). Pre-service teacher training and special educational needs in England, 1970–2008: Is government learning the lessons of the past, or is it experiencing a groundhog day ? European Journal of Special Needs Education , 24 (3), 277–289.
• Hoffman, J. V. , Wetzel, M. M. , Maloch, B. , Greeter, E. , Taylor, L. , DeJulio, S. , & Vlach, S. K. (2015). What can we learn from studying the coaching interactions between cooperating teachers and preservice teachers? A literature review . Teaching and Teacher Education , 52 , 99–112.
• Jones, K. , & Tymms, P. (2014). Ofsted’s role in promoting school improvement: the mechanisms of the school inspection system in England . Oxford Review of Education , 40 (3), 315–330.
• Jones, P. (2006). They are not like us and neither should they be: Issues of teacher identity for teachers of pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Disability & Society , 19 (2), 159–169.
• Jordan, A. , Glenn, C. , & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The supporting effective teaching (SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers’ beliefs about disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education , 26 (2), 259–266.
• Keogh, B. K. , Major, S. M. , Reid, H. P. , Gándara, P. , & Omori, H. (1978). Marker variables: A search for comparability and generalizability in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 1 (3), 5–11.
• Killoran, I. , Woronko, D. , & Zaretsky, H. (2014). Exploring preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 18 (4), 427–442.
• Kurniawati, F. , De Boer, A. A. , Minnaert, A. E. M. G. , & Mangunsong, F. (2014). Characteristics of primary teacher training programmes on inclusion: A literature focus . Educational Research , 56 (3), 310–326.
• Labaree, D. (1988). The making of an American high school: The credentials market and the Central High School of Philadelphia , 1839 – 1939 . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Lee, D. , & Carpenter, V. M. (2015). “ What would you like me to do? Lie to you?” Teacher education responsibilities to LGBTI students . Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 43 (2), 169–180.
• Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity . New York, NY: NYU Press.
• Lipsky, D. K. , & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms . Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
• Mady, C. A. , Arnett, K. , & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2017). French second-language teacher candidates’ positions towards Allophone students and implications for inclusion . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 21 (1), 103–116.
• Magnus, C. D. , & Mattias, L. (2016). Challenging norms: University student’s views on heteronormativity as a matter of diversity and inclusion in initial teacher education . International Journal of Education Research , 79 , 76–85.
• Maloch, B. , Mosely Wetzel, M. , Hoffman, J. , Taylor, L. A. , Pruitt, A. , Vlach, S. K , & Greeter, E. (2015). The appropriation of the coaching with CARE model with preservice teachers: The role of community . Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice , 64 (1), 339–358.
• McCray, E. C. , & Alvarez McHatton, P. (2011). “Less afraid to have them in my classroom”: Understanding preservice general educator’s perceptions about inclusion, Teacher Education Quarterly , 38 (4), 135–155.
• Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusion: Social contexts . London, UK: Fulton.
• Moran, A. (2007). Embracing inclusive teacher education . European Journal of Teacher Education , 30 (2), 119–134.
• O’Brian, M. , Stoner, J. , Appel, K. , & House, J. J. (2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of preservice and cooperating teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education , 30 (4), 264–275.
• O’Connor, D. J. , & Ferri, B. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society , 22 (1), 63–77.
• Orakci, S. , Aktan, O. , Toraman, Ç. , & Çevik, H. (2016). The influence of gender and special education training on attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Instruction , 9 (2), 107–122.
• Pantić, N. , & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice . Education Inquiry , 6 (3), 333–351.
• Pugach, M. C. , Blanton, L. P. , & Boveda, M. (2014). Working together: Research on the preparation of general education and special education teachers for inclusion and collaboration. In P. T. Sindelar , E. D. McCray , M. T. Brownell , & B. Lingnugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 319–356). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Rizvi, F. , Engel, L. , Nandyala, A. , Rutkowski, D. , & Sparks, J. (2005). Globalization and recent shifts in educational policy in the Asia Pacific: An overview of some critical issues. Occasional Paper Series APEID , 4 .
• Robinson, D. (2017). Effective inclusive teacher education for special education needs and disabilities: Some more thoughts on the way forward . Teaching and Teacher Education , 61 , 164–178.
• Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Rouse, M. (2010). Reforming initial teacher education: A necessary but not sufficient condition for developing inclusive practice. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 47–55). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Ryndak, D. L. , & Fisher, D. B. (1988). The foundations of inclusive education: A compendium of articles on effective strategies to achieve inclusive education. Baltimore, MD: TASH.
• Salend, S. J. (2008). Determining appropriate testing accommodations: Complying with NCLB and IDEA . Teaching Exceptional Children , 40 (4), 14–22.
• Salend, S. J. (2010). Evaluating inclusive teacher education programs: A flexible framework. In Forlin, C. (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 130–140). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Salend, S. J. , Whittaker, C. R. , & Garrick Duhaney, L. M. (2006). Preparing special educators to work with migrant students with disabilities and their families. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners , 9 (1), 185–195.
• Sindelar, P. T. , Wasburn-Moses, L. , Thomas, R. A. , & Leko, C. D. (2014). The policy and economic contexts of teacher education. In P. T. Sindelar , L. Wasburn-Moses , R. A. Thomas , & C. D. Leko (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Slee, R. (2001). “ Inclusion in practice”: Does practice make perfect ? Educational Review , 53 (2), 113–123.
• Sosu, E. M. , Mtika, P. , & Colucci‐Gray, L. (2010). Does initial teacher education make a difference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers’ attitudes towards educational inclusion . Journal of Education for Teaching , 36 (4), 389–405.
• Srivastava, M. , de Boer, A. , & Pijl, S. J. (2015). Inclusive education in developing countries: A closer look at its implementation in the last 10 years . Educational Review , 67 (2), 179–195.
• Taliaferro, A. R. , Hammond, L. , & Wyant, K. (2015). Preservice physical educator’s self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusion: The impact of coursework and practicum. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly , 32 (1), 49–67.
• Tangen, D. , & Bentel, D. (2017). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of self as inclusive educators . International Journal of Inclusive Education , 21 (1), 63–72.
• Taylor, S. J. (2006). Forward. In S. Danforth , & S. L. Gabel (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Terzi, L. (2005). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and special education needs . Journal of Philosophy of Education , 39 (3), 443–459.
• Trent, J. (1994). Inventing the feeble mind: A history of mental retardation in the United States . Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Turnbull, H. R. & Turnbull, A.P. (2000). Free and appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (6th ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
• The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education . Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, June 7–10, 1994.
• UNESCO .(2009). Education for All: Global Monitoring Report . Regional Overview: East Asia and the Pacific . Office of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics Regional Advisor—Assessment, Information Systems, Monitoring and Statistics (AIMS) Unit.
• Waitoller, F. R. , & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program . Review of Education Research , 83 (3), 319–356.
• Waitoller, F. R. , & Artiles, A. J. (2016). Teacher learning as curating: Becoming inclusive educators in school/university partnerships . Teaching and Teacher Education , 59 , 360–371.
• Waitoller, F. R. & Kozleski, E. B. (2013). Working in boundary practices: Identity development and learning in partnerships for inclusive education. Teaching & Teacher Education , 31 , 35–45.
• West, A. (2015). Education policy and governance in England under the Coalition Government (2010–2015): Academies, the pupil premium, free early education. London Review of Education , 13 (2), 21–36.
• Winter, E. C. (2006). Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms. Support for Learning , 21 (2), 85–91.

Related Articles

• Evidence-based Practices in Special Schooling
• Evidence-based Practices for Teaching Learners with Multiple Disabilities
• Disability Studies in Education and Inclusive Education

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 23 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

Inclusion vs. Integration

What's the difference.

Inclusion and integration are two approaches aimed at promoting diversity and equality in society. Inclusion focuses on creating an environment where everyone feels valued and respected, regardless of their differences. It emphasizes the active participation and involvement of individuals from diverse backgrounds, ensuring that their voices are heard and their needs are met. Integration, on the other hand, refers to the process of incorporating individuals from different backgrounds into existing social structures. It aims to bridge the gaps between different groups by promoting interaction and mutual understanding. While inclusion emphasizes acceptance and celebration of diversity, integration focuses on fostering social cohesion and unity. Both approaches are important in creating a more inclusive and equitable society, but they differ in their strategies and objectives.

Further Detail

Introduction.

In today's diverse society, the concepts of inclusion and integration play crucial roles in promoting equality and fostering harmonious relationships among individuals from different backgrounds. While both inclusion and integration aim to create inclusive environments, they differ in their approaches and outcomes. In this article, we will explore the attributes of inclusion and integration, highlighting their key differences and examining their respective benefits.

Definition and Approach

Inclusion refers to the active and intentional effort to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their differences, are fully and equally involved in all aspects of society. It emphasizes the value of diversity and seeks to eliminate barriers that may prevent certain groups from participating fully. Inclusion focuses on creating a sense of belonging and acceptance for everyone, promoting equal opportunities, and valuing the unique contributions of each individual.

Integration, on the other hand, involves the process of incorporating individuals from diverse backgrounds into existing systems or structures. It often implies assimilation into the dominant culture or group, with the expectation that individuals will conform to the norms and practices already established. Integration aims to bridge the gaps between different groups but may not necessarily address the underlying issues of inequality or discrimination.

Benefits of Inclusion

One of the key benefits of inclusion is the promotion of diversity and the recognition of the value that different perspectives and experiences bring to society. By embracing inclusion, organizations and communities can tap into a wider range of talents, ideas, and creativity, leading to innovation and growth. Inclusive environments also foster a sense of belonging and psychological safety, allowing individuals to express themselves authentically and contribute to their fullest potential.

Inclusion also plays a vital role in promoting social justice and equality. By actively addressing systemic barriers and biases, inclusion seeks to create a level playing field for all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, disability, or other characteristics. It challenges discriminatory practices and strives to ensure that everyone has equal access to opportunities, resources, and services. Inclusion empowers marginalized groups and helps dismantle the structures that perpetuate inequality.

Benefits of Integration

Integration, although different from inclusion, also offers certain benefits. By integrating individuals from diverse backgrounds into existing systems, it can help foster understanding, tolerance, and cooperation among different groups. Integration can facilitate the exchange of ideas and cultural practices, promoting a more cohesive and harmonious society.

Furthermore, integration can provide individuals with opportunities to learn and adapt to new environments, enhancing their skills and knowledge. It can help individuals develop a sense of belonging and identity within the broader community, enabling them to participate more fully in social, economic, and political spheres. Integration can also contribute to the preservation and celebration of cultural diversity, as individuals bring their unique traditions and customs into the larger society.

Challenges of Inclusion

While inclusion offers numerous benefits, it also presents challenges that need to be addressed. One of the main challenges is the need for systemic change. Inclusion requires a shift in attitudes, policies, and practices to ensure that all individuals are genuinely included and their voices are heard. This may involve dismantling existing structures that perpetuate discrimination and creating new frameworks that promote equity and accessibility.

Another challenge is the potential for tokenism or superficial inclusion. It is not enough to simply have diverse individuals present; true inclusion requires creating an environment where everyone feels valued, respected, and empowered. This necessitates ongoing efforts to address unconscious biases, promote cultural competence, and foster inclusive leadership.

Challenges of Integration

Integration also faces its own set of challenges. One of the main concerns is the potential for assimilation and the loss of cultural identity. When individuals are expected to conform to the dominant culture, their unique traditions and practices may be marginalized or erased. This can lead to feelings of alienation and a loss of self-esteem.

Additionally, integration may perpetuate power imbalances and reinforce existing inequalities. If the dominant group sets the norms and standards, individuals from marginalized backgrounds may face barriers to full participation and may be subjected to discrimination or bias. Integration should strive to create an inclusive environment that values and respects the diversity of all individuals, rather than imposing a single cultural or social framework.

Inclusion and integration are both important concepts in promoting diversity, equality, and social cohesion. While inclusion focuses on creating environments where all individuals are valued and have equal opportunities, integration emphasizes the incorporation of diverse individuals into existing systems. Both approaches have their own benefits and challenges, and a combination of both may be necessary to create truly inclusive societies. By understanding the attributes of inclusion and integration, we can work towards building a more equitable and harmonious world for all.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Quality Education pp 451–463 Cite as

Inclusive and Exclusive Education for Diverse Learning Needs

• Satine Winter 6  
• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2020

1146 Accesses

2 Citations

1 Altmetric

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals ((ENUNSDG))

Diverse learning ; Diversity ; Elite ; Exceptionality ; Exclusion ; Exclusive ; Inclusion ; Inclusive ; Integration ; Least restrictive environment ; Segregated ; Selective ; Special needs

Definitions

Inclusive education refers to the education of all students, regardless of ability, in mainstream classrooms and involves the use of appropriate supports, adjustments, and resource delivery to ensure the successful inclusion of students at a whole-school level, which is supported by inclusive education policy and/or legislation. A key aspect of inclusive education is the philosophical approach underpinning the inclusion of all students in the education environment based on inclusive attitudes, beliefs, and values of all stakeholders and founded on principles of social justice and human rights.

Exclusive education refers to the education of students by selective merit or exclusion and may or may not involve discrimination by educational authorities, representatives, or other stakeholders....

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Ainscow M, Sandill A (2010) Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organisational cultures and leadership. Int J Incl Educ 14(4):401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903

Article   Google Scholar  

Alchin G (2014) Is reasonable adjustment a deficit ideology? Spec Educ Perspect 23(1):3–6. http://aase.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/documents/SEP-Contents-Vol-23-No-13.pdf . Accessed 13 Mar 2019

Google Scholar  

Al-Shabatat A (2014) Gifted teachers’ stages of concerns for integrating e-learning in the gifted schools in Jordan. Turk Online J Educ Technol 13(2):80–87. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1022908.pdf . Accessed 30 Mar 2019

Armstrong A, Armstrong D, Spandagou I (2010) Inclusive education: international policy and practice. SAGE, London

Ashman A (2019) Education for inclusion and diversity, 6th edn. Pearson Australia, Melbourne

Booth T, Ainscow M (2002) Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, Bristol

Brownell MT, Smith SJ, Crockett JB, Griffin CC (2012) Inclusive instruction: evidence-based practices for teaching students with disabilities. The Guilford Press, New York

Chitiyo J, Brinda W (2018) Teacher preparedness in the use of teaching in inclusive classrooms. Support Learn 33(1):38–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12190

Christian LG (2006) Understanding families: applying family systems theory to early childhood practice. Young Child 61(1):12–20

D’Alessio S, Watkins A (2009) International comparison of inclusive policy and practice: are we talking about the same thing? Res Comp Int Educ 4(3):233–249. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.3.233 . Accessed 15 July 2018

Degener T (2016) Disability in a human rights context. Laws 5(3):35–59. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030035

Edyburn D (2010) Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learn Disabil Q 33:33–41

Farrell P (2000) The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. Int J Incl Educ 4(2):153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/136031100284867

Fitzgerald P (2016) Differentiation for all literacy levels in mainstream classrooms. Lit Learn Middle Years 24(2):17–25. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=041587236073899;res=IELHSS . Accessed 2 Feb 2019

Florian L (2008) Special or inclusive education: future trends. Br J Spec Educ 35(4):202–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00402.x

Francis GL, Fuchs E, Johnson AD, Gordon S, Grant A (2016) Developing parent-professional partnerships in a postsecondary education program for students with disability. Psychol Sch 53(10):1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21974

Francis GL, Blue-Banning M, Haines SJ, Turnbull AP, Gorss J (2018) Building “our school”: parental perspectives for building trusting family-professional partnerships. Prev Sch Fail 60(4):329–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1164115

Giangreco M (2013) Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: research, practices and alternatives. Australas J Spec Educ 37(2):93–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.1

Gilliam WS, Reyes CR (2018) Teacher decision factors that lead to preschool expulsion. Infants Young Child 31(2):93–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000113

Greenwood J, Kelly C (2017) Implementing cycles of assess, plan, do, review: a literature review of practitioner perspectives. Br J Spec Educ 44(4):394–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12184

Hardy I, Woodcock S (2015) Inclusive education policies: discourses of differences, diversity and deficit. Int J Incl Educ 19(2):141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116/2014.908965

Ho C (2017) Angry Anglos and aspirational Asians: everyday multiculturalism in the selective school system in Sydney. Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1396961

Horner R, Sugai G, Anderson C (2010) Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behaviour support. Focus Except Child 42(8):1–14

Hyde M (2015) Creating inclusive schools. In: Hyde M, Carpenter L, Conway R (eds) Diversity, inclusion and engagement, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp 353–364

Ingólfsdóttir JG, Egilson ST, Traustadóttir R (2018) Family-centred services for young children with intellectual disabilities and their families: theory, policy and practice. J Intellect Disabil 22(4):361–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629517714644

Jahnukainen M (2011) Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of the inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scand J Educ Res 55(5):489–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010537689

Keen D (2007) Parents, families, and partnerships: issues and considerations. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 54(3): 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701488855

Kieran L, Anderson C (2018) Connecting universal design for learning with culturally responsive teaching. Educ Urban Soc 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124518785012

Kuhn M, Marvin CA, Knoche L (2016) In it for the long haul: parent-teacher partnerships for addressing preschool childrens challenging behaviors. Top Early Child Spec Educ 37(2):81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416659053

Kyriazopoulou M, Weber H (eds) (2009) Development of a set of indicators – for inclusive education in Europe. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Odense

Lilley R (2013) It’s an absolute nightmare: maternal experiences of enrolling children diagnosed with autism in primary school in Sydney, Australia. Disabil Soc 28(4):514–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717882

Loreman T, Forlin C, Chambers D, Sharma U, Deppeler J (2014) Conceptualising and measuring inclusive education. Int Perspect Incl Educ 3:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620140000003015

Mackenzie M, Cologon K, Fenech M (2016) ‘Embracing everybody’: approaching the inclusive early childhood education of a child labelled with autism from a social relational understanding of disability. Australas J Early Childhood 41(2):4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911604100202

Matavire M, Mpofu V, Maveneka A (2013) Streaming practices and implications in the education system: a survey of Mazowe district, Zimbabwe. J Soc Sci Policy Implic 1(1):60–70. http://ir.buse.ac.zw/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11196/613/streaming%20practice.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y . Accessed 30 Mar 2019

Meo G (2008) Curriculum planning for all learners: applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Prev Sch Fail 52(2):21–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.52.2.21-30

Meyer A, Rose DH, Gordon D (2016) Universal design for learning: theory and practice. Cast Professional Publishing, Wakefield

Miles S, Singal N (2010) The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? Int J Incl Educ 14(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802265125

Mukherjee M (2017) Global design and local histories: culturally embedded meaning-making for inclusive education. Int Educ J Comp Perspect 16(3):32–48. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/view/12169/11454 . Accessed 15 Nov 2018

Nelson L (2017) Out of the institution, into the classroom: legal challenges to the use of restraint and seclusion in school settings in the United States. Int J Law Psychiatry 53:97–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.05.013

Peter SJ (2007) Education for All?: A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. J Disabil Policy Stud 18(2):98–108

Pope C (2002) Plato makes the team: the arrival of secondary school sport academies. Waikato J Educ 8:89–100. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v8il.448

Razer M, Friedman VJ (2017) From exclusion to excellence: building restorative relationships to create inclusive schools. UNESCO International Bureau of Education/Sense Publishers

Richardson T, Jindal-Snape D, Hannah E (2017) Impact of legislation on post-school transition practice for young people with additional support needs in Scotland. Br J Spec Educ 44(3):239–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12178

Sands DJ, Kozleski EB, French NK (2000) Inclusive education for the 21st century. Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Belmont

Selvaraj JA (2015) Inclusive education in New Zealand: rhetoric and reality. Hist Educ Rev 45(1):54–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/HER-04-2014-0029

Shyman E (2015) Toward a globally sensitive definition of inclusive education based in social justice. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 62(4):351–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1025715

Skipper Y, Douglas KM (2016) The impact of a selective entry examination on children’s feelings as they approach the transition to secondary school. Br Educ Res J 42(6):945–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3242

Slee R (2011) The irregular school: exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Slee R (2018) Defining the scope of inclusive education. Paper commissioned for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report, inclusion and education. http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/handle/MINEDU/5977/Defining%20the%20scope%20of%20inclusive%20education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y . Accessed 15 Sept 2018

Smith DD, Tyler NC (2011) Effective inclusive education: equipping education professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects 41:323–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9207-5

Stanford B, Reeves S (2009) Making it happen: using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, and universal design for learning. Teach Except Child Plus. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967757.pdf . Accessed 12 Feb 2019

Stiefel L, Shiferaw M, Schwartz AE, Gottfried M (2017) Who feels included in school? Examining feelings of inclusion among students with disabilities. Educ Res 47(2):105–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17738761

Tomlinson C (2014) The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners, 2nd edn. ASCD, Alexandria

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014) Civil rights data collection. Data snapshot: early childhood education. Author, Washington, DC. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-early-learning-snapshot.pdf . Accessed 25 Mar 2019

United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html . Accessed 17 Nov 2018

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF . Accessed 17 Nov 2018

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2000) Education for All: meeting our collective commitments. Notes on the Dakar Framework for Action. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001202/120240e.pdf . Accessed 17 Nov 2018

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017) A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf . Accessed 17 Nov 2018

VanderDussen Toukan E (2017) Expressions of liberal justice? Examining the aims of the UN’s sustainable development goals for education. Interchange 48(3): 293–309. https://eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fdx.doi.org%2f10.1007%2fs10780-017-9304-3 . Accessed 18 Nov 2018

Woodcock S, Woolfson L (2019) Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers towards inclusion. Int J Educ Res 93:232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.004

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2016) General comment No. 4. Article 24: Inclusive education. Retrieved from https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/GC/4&Lang=en . Accessed 10 Aug 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia

Satine Winter

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satine Winter .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

European School of Sustainability Science and Research, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Walter Leal Filho

Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Institute for Interdisciplinary Research, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Anabela Marisa Azul

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Passo Fundo University, Passo Fundo, Brazil

Luciana Brandli

Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey

Pinar Gökçin Özuyar

University of Chester, Chester, UK

Section Editor information

Journal of Advanced Cognitive Engineers, Society of Cognitive Engineers, MELBOURNE, USA

Olivia A. M. Freeman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Winter, S. (2020). Inclusive and Exclusive Education for Diverse Learning Needs. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T. (eds) Quality Education. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_24

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_24

Published : 04 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-95869-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-95870-5

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Reference Module Physical and Materials Science Reference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol
• PMC10401587

Applicability of the model of inclusive education in early childhood education: a case study

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Despite the development of policies and research supporting it, inclusion remains a challenge in contemporary education. We have developed a theoretical model for implementing inclusive education, thereby supporting early childhood education quality. It is necessary to establish the applicability of this model in order to apply it to improve the practices for adopting inclusive education. We conducted a case study, which showed that all levels and key characteristics of the theoretical model were also relevant in practice. However, as a result of the case study, the features describing the key characteristics were modified compared with the initial model. Additionally, the case study revealed that some of the features did not appear in practice. Those undetected features were mostly related to understanding the concept of inclusive education and the philosophy of inclusion. There appeared a need for a clearer understanding of inclusion on both the institutional and state level. The implementation of inclusive education does not in itself always increase inclusion or reduce exclusion. Therefore, when implementing inclusive education, it is necessary to think carefully about what is being done to allow all children to be meaningfully involved in the same classroom and by their teachers.

1. Introduction

The implementation of inclusive education remains a challenge in contemporary education systems despite having been a major area of interest in educational research during the last three decades ( Ainscow, 2020 ; Haug, 2020 ; Lesar and Mihelič, 2020 ) and the basic idea in most international education policy documents ( UNESCO, 2008 ; European Commission, 2014 ; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019 ; Schleicher, 2019 ). There seems to be a gap between formulations and realizations of inclusive education ( Haug, 2017 ). Therefore, we need a clear concept of inclusive education and an understanding of the factors that affect the implementation of inclusive education in order to provide quality early childhood education.

When creating favorable conditions for implementing inclusive education, one should consider both the holistic context and the key characteristics that occur in this context. The diversity of key characteristics across early childhood settings points to a need for research into the practical implementation of inclusive education in contextualized and multifaceted ways. Such research would provide a better understanding of how inclusive education could be differentially implemented across multiple early childhood contexts while maintaining the quality of its key features ( Love and Horn, 2021 ). Several models and approaches have been used to systematically describe the key characteristics for implementing inclusive education ( Odom et al., 2004 ; Fyssa et al., 2014 ; Pelatti et al., 2016 ; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017 ). However, these models have a number of shortcomings. For example, they are not sufficiently operationalized for implementation and seem to focus on characteristics implemented only at the classroom level. Also, none of the models define inclusive education ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). A model that includes the concept of inclusive education and evidence-based practice on all levels of the education system could fill this gap in the field of inclusive education. Based on a systematic literature review, we propose a model that involves the general definition and key characteristics of inclusive education in early childhood education ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). In this model, contemporary inclusive education is operationalized by 14 key characteristics on five levels. Next, we introduce both the definition and model used in the current study.

1.1. Concept of inclusive education

Since the Salamanca Statement ( UNESCO, 1994 ), an international consensus has existed concerning the need to provide equal educational rights to all people with varied special education needs. The most frequent discussion points related to the concept or definition of inclusive education are its narrow and broad definitions ( Haug, 2017 ). The narrow definition includes only children with special needs ( Haug, 2017 ; Ainscow, 2020 ). This approach is concerned with placing children with special needs into mainstream settings, making them full members of regular groups. At the same time, it has been argued that inclusive education should not focus only on placement but also on meaningful participation and personalized support that would allow each child to realize their full potential ( Love and Horn, 2021 ). The broad definition includes all marginalized groups ( UNESCO, 1994 ; Haug, 2017 ), meaning that all children who might otherwise be excluded because of their diversity (special needs, gender, ethnicity, culture, social background, etc.) should be focused on and included in mainstream settings. Leijen et al. (2021) also indicate two narratives in contemporary inclusive education: “inclusion for some” and “inclusion for all.” They find that these two discourses can be bridged in the sense that one of them advocates for what ought to be long-term goals for the implementation of inclusive education, whereas the second verbalizes practical constraints and barriers that need to be overcome to make inclusive education real. In this study, we used the narrow concept of inclusive education. This concept is also adopted in the Estonian National Curriculum for Pre-School Child Care Institutions, where it is defined as education for children who need adjustments in their environment (playing and teaching aids, rooms, methods, etc.) or in the activity plan of the group due to their development needs, which arise from their abilities, state of health, linguistic or cultural background, or other personal characteristics.

In order to support inclusion and reduce exclusion, various aspects of the education context should be noted ( Booth and Ainscow, 2002 ; Slee, 2005 ), for example, knowing the specifics of all marginalized groups. On the one hand, this makes the literature and practice in this field rich but, on the other hand, difficult. Legislation and the language we use to talk about inclusive education could lead to exclusion rather than inclusion. Some critics have argued that because people with disabilities are automatically included in universal human rights instruments, no separate initiatives are necessary and that specific campaigns may, in fact, have the opposite effect ( Slee, 2005 ). Although the language of special educational needs can be a barrier to the development of inclusive practice, it remains part of the culture and policy framework and influences a variety of practices ( Booth and Ainscow, 2002 ). For example, rather than using the term “special educational needs coordinator,” alternative terms such as “learning support coordinator,” “learning development coordinator,” or “inclusion coordinator” would be more appropriate. The use of such terms supports the inherent approach of inclusion of supporting all learners with difficulties rather than solely focusing on learners with special needs—which actually contributes to exclusion. Barriers also exist in students’ interactions and what and how they are taught. Barriers to learning and participation can prevent access to learning or limit participation within it ( Booth and Ainscow, 2002 ).

Different authors ( Slee, 2005 ; Ballard, 2013 ; Ainscow, 2020 ) have, over time, focused on the discourse on special needs as one of the obstacles to implementing inclusive education. As long as the discourse on inclusion is used to protect the professional interests of special needs education, full inclusion is at skate. As long as teachers keep to the concepts of mainstream and special needs students, implementation of the concept of inclusive education is not supported ( Slee, 2005 ). Both Andrews et al. (2021) and Brown (2005) also suggest that labeling children with special needs leads to exclusion because it emphasizes the need for professionals and may be why teachers claim that they are not adequately prepared to teach those children. In addition, the need for professionals refers to the expectation that those children require individual activities carried out separately from other children. Individualization applied in this way results in excessively distinguishing and separating the special needs child. In this context, individualization becomes synonymous with exclusion. Ballard (2013) suggests that to reduce exclusion and create more inclusive ways of living, we need to think differently and consider alternative ideas that would support the development of fairer and more democratic practices. New ways of thinking must be justified and understood in terms of philosophy, evidence, and values. Otherwise, they will be readily assimilated into traditional structures, just as the field of special education now uses the language of inclusion to modify itself in an effort to maintain control of policy and practice ( Ballard, 2013 ).

Overall, this brings us back to the conceptualization of inclusive education and indicates the need for a universal definition of inclusive education and its interpretation in a way that increases inclusion and reduces exclusion. According to Haug (2017) , despite a formal normative consensus, finding one universal definition of inclusive education is impossible. Florian (2014) has pointed out that, although no definition of inclusion has been universally accepted, developing a universally accepted definition may represent a positive step toward developing an inclusive practice. Mitchell (2015) has interpreted inclusion as a concept with multiple underlying values and processes. They provide a more realistic interpretation that considers the school’s complexity and the multiple mutually influential values underlying the concept. We have provided a definition that includes both the philosophical and practical sense of inclusion and involves aspects that have appeared in different definitions in the theoretical literature, thus aiming for a rich and universal approach ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). Based on an extensive systematic literature review, inclusive education can be defined in a philosophical and a practical sense. The philosophical sense has been described in terms of four aspects: access, belonging and membership, social integration, and human rights. The practical sense has been described in terms of three aspects: participation, support, and development of every child. As a result of this study, a new definition of inclusive education has been provided:

An educational approach that takes into account human rights and provides all children with access to high-quality education in a learning environment where children feel social integration and belongingness in their wider social network despite their diversity; it is achieved by meaningful participation of all children and personalized support in the development of each child’s full potential ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 , 162).

In interpreting this definition, we can first point out that inclusive education is an approach to education. Secondly, the subjects of inclusive education are children—or, in a wider context—learners who perceive themselves in a specific way, whereas realizing each child’s (learner’s) full potential is the goal. Thirdly, it refers to the methods—active, meaningful participation and personal support—by which the approach, perception, and potential are realized. The current study is based on this definition.

1.2. Contemporary model for the implementation of inclusive education

Another basis for the current study is the model describing different key characteristics of inclusive education. We have used a model (see Figure 1 ) that includes the general definition and key characteristics of inclusive education based on a systematic literature review ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). In this model, contemporary inclusive education is operationalized by 14 key characteristics on five levels: child level , teacher level , family level , institution level , and state level . The first version of the model has been modified. The changes are explained below.

The model for the implementation of inclusive education in early childhood education (based on Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ).

The model consists of three circles. The definition of inclusive education is at the center. This circle is divided into two parts showing the two dimensions of the definition: the philosophical and the practical sense ( Lundqvist et al., 2015 ), accompanied by their specific features. Both dimensions of the definition should be understood and interpreted in the same way by all related stakeholders. It is highly recommended that a similar understanding of inclusive education be reached; this supports the implementation of inclusive education ( Sukumaran et al., 2015 ; Florian et al., 2017 ). Effective and high-quality implementation starts from the approach and mindset toward inclusive education, requiring discussion, cooperation, and inclusion within and between different levels of the model.

Two other circles represent how the key characteristics of inclusive education in early childhood education are operationalized. At the center of each level is the subject related to the key characteristics or responsible for providing access and ensuring the quality of the key characteristics on a particular level, thereby influencing the implementation of inclusive education.

The arrows illustrate relatedness and influence between different levels of the model. On child level, the middle circle of the model, the outcomes are achieved through the implementation of inclusive education. All the other levels should consider the child’s attributes and provide physical, psychical, and social inclusion of each child (e.g., deaf children need one type of support, children with a lower level of cognitive abilities need another type of support, and handicapped children yet another type). Child level is directly influenced by family, teacher, institution and state levels. The key characteristics of teacher level influence the child, family, and institution levels. Teacher level is influenced by family, institution, and state levels. The key characteristics of family level are essential for implementing inclusive education in early childhood education, influencing child, teacher, and institution levels. Family level is influenced by state, teacher, and institution levels. The key characteristics of institution level influence child, teacher, and family levels and are in turn influenced by teacher, family, and state levels. The key characteristics of state level influence all other levels and are influenced by all other levels.

Compared to the first version of the model, we have changed the arrows on state level. In the first version, the arrows on state level were unidirectional. In the improved model, they are bidirectional because other levels on the outer circle provide input to state level, thereby influencing the key characteristics of state level. In addition, the texts in the middle circle were moved so that it would be clearer that the arrows from the outer circle apply to all elements in the middle circle.

In conclusion, this model demonstrates the responsibility of each stakeholder and could therefore support the implementation of inclusive education. As the model is theoretical and developed based on the literature, this study focuses on the applicability of this model and improving it using wider feedback collected from practitioners in empirical studies.

1.3. The purpose of the study and research questions

The theoretical overview describes and explains the concept of inclusive education and the key characteristics of inclusive education according to the model developed based on the literature. The formulation of a new, broader definition provides a shared understanding and interpretation of inclusive education. The key characteristics presented in the model help us understand what should be done to support the implementation of inclusive education to achieve increased inclusion and reduced exclusion. As the model has been developed based on a literature review, research into inclusive education needs to establish the applicability of the model in practice in order to foster the implementation of inclusion in early childhood education. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the model’s applicability by using a case study and to explore to what extent the case study results reflect increasing inclusion and reducing exclusion. Two research questions were formulated:

1. How are the practice and policy of inclusive education expressed in the Estonian kindergarten based on the theoretical model of inclusive education?

2. To what extent do the results of the case study illuminate the processes of inclusion and exclusion in the Estonian kindergarten?

For the purposes of this paper, we chose the case study format. In the case study, we explored the implementation of inclusive education through detailed, in-depth data analysis involving multiple data collection methods characteristic of a case study, such as questionnaires, observation, semi-structured focus group interviews, and document analysis ( Miles and Huberman, 1994 ). The case study was carried out in the context of Estonia. In Estonia, early childhood education is characterized by a decentralized education system where kindergartens have great autonomy ( Koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus, 1999 ), state-level legislation, and qualified kindergarten staff. The main principles of the schooling and education process are a high-quality child-centered learning approach (learning through play and child-initiated activities) and an individualized service model ( Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava, 2008 ). Each kindergarten prepares and develops its own curriculum based on the national curriculum for pre-school childcare institutions considering the specific nature of the kindergarten. All children at least 18 months old are granted a place in an early childhood education and care institution (if the parents request it). Traditionally, there have been two teachers per group plus one assistant. Since 2015, it has been possible to have one qualified teacher, one assistant teacher, and one assistant per group.

2.1. Research approach

In our study, we provide a holistic description and better insight into the implementation of inclusive education. We conduct hermeneutic research, which strives to understand the wholeness of experiences within a context ( Patterson and Williams, 2002 ). We opted for an exploratory case study to explore the phenomenon and provide depth to understanding it using a qualitative study design ( Creswell, 2003 ). Additionally, hermeneutic research encourages researchers to outline their self-awareness of their role to understand how they interpret participants’ meanings and experiences; it also considers researchers to be primary instruments in the interpretative process ( Patterson and Williams, 2002 ). The first author of this article has 17 years of experience in four kindergartens in several roles. The second author, an educational researcher, has 15 years of teaching experience from schools but has also served for several years as head of the board of trustees of the kindergarten (this is the body of the kindergarten management that includes a representative of teachers, representatives of parents of each group, and a representative of the rural municipality or city). The third author, a special educator, has 3 years of teaching experience in schools and 4 years in kindergartens: two as a support person in a special group and two as a support specialist in a kindergarten.

2.2. Participants

Purposeful sampling was used in this case study, whereby participants were chosen if they could purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in the study. One kindergarten was selected for the study based on the following criteria:

• existence of support specialists in the kindergarten (at least a speech therapist or a special educator);
• readiness to apply the principles of inclusive education in kindergarten; and
• voluntary request to participate in the training course on inclusive education for kindergarten teams (the team had to include 1–2 representatives from the management, 1–2 support specialists, and up to five teachers).

These criteria were chosen because they support the implementation of inclusive education in kindergarten and are related to the purpose of this study. We selected one kindergarten that best met the selection criteria for the case study. The motivation of the kindergarten, as well as the fact that the implementation of inclusive education was their priority, was a decisive aspect of this selection. The selected kindergarten had already taken several steps to implement inclusive education: creating positions for additional staff, integration groups of children with special needs with other children and, introducing smaller groups. The participants from the kindergarten were selected by the kindergarten, and all participants were included in the study on a voluntary basis. To this end, kindergarten employees participating in the study and the parents of children participating were asked to sign an information and informed consent form. In the form, participants were informed of the purpose and all procedures of the study and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. The study was approved by the university’s ethics committee named “Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu” on 6th April 2021.

The selected kindergarten is a municipal kindergarten with a total of 165–175 children and 39 employees (18 pedagogical employees, including one principal, one head teacher, 15 teachers, and one speech therapist, as well as 18 employees who assist the teachers or manage the institution). The kindergarten has eight groups (see Table 1 ).

Overview of groups in the kindergarten.

The number of participants in the study differed due to the data collection method. A total of 14 completed questionnaires were received out of 18. Seven kindergarten employees [principal (P 1), director of studies (P 2), four kindergarten teachers (P 3, P 4, P 5, P 6), and a speech therapist (P 7)] participated in the focus group interview. The moderator was the first author of this article. The observation was carried out in one kindergarten group, including one teacher, one teacher assistant, and 17 children.

2.3. Data collection

To ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the study, we used triangulation of methods, where data are collected by several methods. This is natural in case studies in general, as it allows one to collect in-depth data on and conduct an in-depth study of the case ( Miles and Huberman, 1994 ). We used a questionnaire, semi-structured focus group interviews, observation, and document analysis for data collection. The anonymity of all participants was granted, and we did not ask for any information that would reveal the participants’ identities.

2.3.1. Questionnaire

The questionnaire identified aspects of the definition and key characteristics of inclusive education that are important for implementing inclusive education. The questionnaire was developed on the basis of the model of inclusive education in the context of early childhood education that was created based on the results of a systematic literature analysis ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). It consisted of six sections. First, respondents were asked for background information (age, work experience, education, and knowledge of inclusive education). Second, respondents were asked to what extent were the key characteristics and features describing the key characteristics of (1) child level, (2) teacher level, (3) family level, (4) institution level, and (5) state level taken into account in the kindergarten. We used a five-point Likert-type scale, where all scale values were described as follows: 1 = to a very small extent; 2 = to a small extent; 3 = so-so; 4 = to a large extent; and 5 = to a very large extent. The online survey was then carried out via email invitations to the participants in April–May 2021.

2.3.2. Focus group interview

The aim of the focus group interview in this study was to collect data on the key features and opportunities related to inclusive education that are used and/or followed in the implementation of inclusive education in kindergarten. The focus group interview was semi-structured. The interviewer used a script containing questions about the following subject blocks: organizational culture, organizational structure of the kindergarten, characteristics of teaching in an inclusive group, cooperation with parents, cooperation with non-kindergarten institutions, and policy and legislation. In addition, we focused on interpersonal relationships and participants’ culture of communication and behavior. The focus group interviews were carried out in May 2021. The interview was audio recorded. Before the interview, participants’ consent for recording was again requested. The length of the focus group interview was 111 min.

2.3.3. Observation

The aim of the observation in this case study was to find which features of inclusive education occur in the kindergarten’s schooling and education process and physical environment. The observation was carried out in May 2021. The observation was recorded with two video cameras placed on a tripod to record the entire group and all activities. The length of the observation was 2 h. The video recordings were stored on the IRIS Connect (2022) platform, which allows secure storage and analysis of video files in a password-protected environment. During the observation period, the researcher observed activities during the schooling and education process and other activities, such as getting dressed for going outside. The observation protocol was based on the Nelis and Pedaste model of inclusive education ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). The observation protocol included the key characteristics of the child level and teacher level of the model and related features of these key characteristics. All features in the protocol were described in such a way that it was possible to understand which activity was associated with the features during the observation. For example, the key characteristic of the child level “physical inclusion” meant that the space, furniture, tools, and teacher-child ratio ensure every child’s active and meaningful participation in the regular group regardless of special needs. This was described in the protocol with reference to the following features: (1) organization of the physical environment, including tools and materials that meet the needs of children, (2) teacher-child ratio, and (3) meaningful participation of all children in an inclusive learning environment (active participation and engagement of all children, including mental and linguistic inclusion). During the observation and later when reviewing the video recordings, the researcher (first author of this manuscript) noted the activities that met the description of the features in the protocol.

2.3.4. Document analysis

We used document analysis because it allows a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents ( Yin, 1994 ). Documents provide data on the context within which research participants operate, information and insights derived from documents can be valuable additions to a knowledge base, and documents provide a means of tracking change and development ( Bowen, 2017 ). The document analysis involved two documents, the curriculum and development plan of the kindergarten, chosen to acquire an overview of the features of inclusive education contained in them compared with the model of inclusive education.

2.4. Data analysis

The study employed a within-case analysis, meaning that a detailed case description was produced. The results of the questionnaires were analyzed using a quantitative analysis method—descriptive statistics. We calculated the frequency of the respondents’ answers to each question. In analyzing the interview, observation, and documents, we used qualitative deductive content analysis. In this theory-driven analysis, there is a framework behind the deductive approach of analysis where the system of categories is established before coding the text. The categories were built based on the Nelis and Pedaste model of inclusive education ( Nelis and Pedaste, 2020 ). Two strategies were used to increase the study’s trustworthiness. First, two researchers (the first and the third author) assessed the appearance of 46 features of the model based on the focus group interview transcription. Code 1 and code 0 were used for this purpose. Code 1 means that the feature appeared in the interview. For example, code 1 for the feature “philosophy of inclusion” indicates a shared understanding of inclusion that includes clear principles and forms of inclusion. Code 0 means that the feature did not appear in the interview. The Cohen’s Weighted Kappa for assessing inter-rater reliability was not acceptable (Kw = 0.443). Therefore, the two coders discussed all cases where they had different opinions until they reached a consensus. The second strategy adopted to increase trustworthiness was peer examination. Specifically, the first author discussed the results of the analysis with the third author as well as interpretations of the data gathered.

The data were collected anonymously, and the participants cannot be identified based on the responses. Therefore, the results are not associated with any person or kindergarten. The results are presented in a generalized form.

The results related to both research questions are presented on the basis of the five levels of the model in this chapter. The findings are presented based on data gathered with the questionnaire, focus group interview, observation, and document analysis. Results show that all key characteristics on five levels of the theoretical model—child level, teacher level, family level, institution level, and state level (see Figure 1 )—are also evident in the case study. Each level comprises key characteristics and features that describe the key characteristics in greater detail. Below, we describe the results of each level based on the data collection method used. To answer the second research question, we looked at each level for examples in the data that describe inclusion and those that could promote exclusion.

3.1. Results of child level

At child level, all key characteristics presented in the theoretical model occurred in the case study. All features occurred as well, but differed depending on the method used. Different methods allowed us to see different aspects of the features, while some did not reveal some features at all. While the questionnaire and the focus group interview allowed us to see all key characteristics, the observation and document analysis only partially revealed the key characteristic physical inclusion . This meant that not all features described in the theoretical model occurred in this case study in relation to physical inclusion (see Table 2 ).

Results of the child level by method.

Quest, questionnaire; FG int, focus group interview; Obs, observation; Doc an, document analysis; x, mostly occurred; V, partially occurred; -, did not occur.

The questionnaire showed that all four key characteristics of child level were considered in the implementation of inclusive education. The respondents rated the extent to which key characteristics and features of child level were considered in the kindergarten. According to most respondents, child personal attributes and features related to social and psychical inclusion were considered to a large extent (value 4) or to a very large extent (value 5). Some features of psychical inclusion – such as considering children’s opinions and giving them equal attention – were considered so-so (value 3). At the same time, the results showed that the features of the child’s physical inclusion , such as the number of children in the group, teacher-child ratio , and the specifics of the room , were considered to a smaller extent (values 3 and 2; see Figure 2 ).

Results about key characteristics and features of child level. CL_ch_att, Child level, child attributes; CL_Ph_in_room, Child level, Physical inclusion, room; CL_Ph_in_furn, Child level, Physical inclusion, furniture; CL_Ph_in_mat, Child level, Physical inclusion, materials; CL_Ph_in_te-ch-ratios, Child level, Physical inclusion, teacher-child ratios; CL_Ph_in_numb_ch, Child level, Physical inclusion, number of children in group; CL_So_in_pos_rel, Child level, Social inclusion, positive relationships; CL_So_in_friend, Child level, Social inclusion, friendships; CL_So_in_pos_at, Child level, Social inclusion, positive attitude; CL_So_in_par, Child level, Social inclusion, participation; CL_Ps_in_acc, Child level, Psychical inclusion, acceptance; CL_Ps_in_pos_at, Child level, Psychical inclusion, positive attitude; CL_Ps_in_em_sup, Child level, Psychical inclusion, emotional support; CL_Ps_in_well-b, Child level, Psychical inclusion, well-being; CL_Ps_eq_at, Child level, Psychical inclusion, equal attitude; CL_Ps_in_opin, Child level, Psychical inclusion, opinions of a child.

As respondents could include their opinions in the questionnaire, some commented that a child with special needs, such as a child with a behavioral disorder or autistic traits, often required and received more attention than other children. In addition, according to respondents, dealing with a child with special needs requires more specific training from the teacher.

The focus group interview and observation showed that all key characteristics— child attributes, physical inclusion, social inclusion , and psychical inclusion —were important in the implementation of inclusive education by the participants of this case study.

Regarding child attributes , a child’s personal attributes , as well as special needs , were mentioned in the focus group interview. Participants mentioned a variety of special needs that they had encountered. There was a specific plan for child screening in case any problems were noticed. During the observation, it was apparent that some children acted faster, some needed more time, some were more modest and spent more time watching others, some were active and wanted to talk constantly, some needed more attention and guidance from the teacher, and so on. There was one child with special needs in the group who needed more attention from the teacher.

Regarding physical inclusion , participants mentioned in the focus group that the number of children and teacher-child ratios were important features in implementing inclusive education. Participants indicated that having a smaller number of children in the group supports the meaningful participation of every child , especially with special needs children. The participants themselves emphasized:

“The more adults in the group, the better. Adult-child ratio. We no longer have twenty-four children in a group. That twenty-four is still too big a number to include all children, and in this sense, the first thing is still the number of children in the groups.” (P 3)

The teacher can then consider each child’s developmental level and personal attributes and give children much more personal attention. Related to physical inclusion , an appropriate environment turned out to be crucial for inclusion. Observation made it possible to see that there were two different rooms, which allowed for activities in different groups. There were also places for a child to be alone and possibilities for individual work with children, working with smaller groups, and working with the whole group.

The focus group brought out that social inclusion means that all children are included in the games and activities during the whole day. However, special needs children were not always included in the games. One of the participants said:

“I have the experience that other children do not really want to include a child with special needs in their games. They don’t push them out directly, but they find other ways to exclude this child.” (P 5)

They The focus group also revealed that it was the teacher’s responsibility to find a solution and support friendship and positive interaction with peers in the group. Observation showed that teachers’ attitudes and behavior supported social inclusion . Friendly communication with and support for all children was evident during the observation. Also, adults in the group supported children’s friendships. For example, when dividing children into groups, the teacher considered the child’s wish to be in the same group as her friend.

Based on the focus group, getting to know the child was regarded by participants as important for psychical inclusion . Teachers considered the specifics of each child when designing and conducting the activities and made sure that all children could take an active part in the joint activities. The teachers treated all children equally and preferred no one. If necessary, a child with special needs was assisted. Psychical inclusion was also evident during the observation. All children were welcome in the group. Adults paid attention to each child and personally welcomed each child as they arrived in the room. They also checked that all children were welcomed into the games by other children. If necessary, they intervened and supported the child in finding a game. The teacher supported all children’s active participation in activities and teacher guided all children during the activities, if needed—including the child with special needs.

In document analysis, the key characteristics of child level were only partially detectable because some features were missing from the documents. Regarding child attributes , the kindergarten curriculum contained the principle that the personal attributes of all children would be considered. The concept of a child with special needs was also defined in the curriculum. According to the definition, “a child with special needs is a person whose developmental needs due to their abilities, state of health, linguistic and cultural background, and personality require changes or adjustments to the child’s growth environment or group action plan.” In addition, the documents also included the principles and organization of the schooling and education process for a gifted child. Regarding physical inclusion , only the feature participation in an inclusive classroom appeared in the documents. The general principles of the kindergarten’s curriculum supported the active and meaningful participation of every child. In the schooling and education process, the teacher’s responsibility was to consider the child’s individuality and development potential. At the same time, the features environment management and teacher-child ratios did not appear in the documents. The feature social inclusion appeared in the documents. The principles and organization of the schooling and education process and expected results of children’s development outlined in the kindergarten’s curriculum showed that positive social integration and a positive attitude toward children with special needs were important. For example, the curriculum called for increasing attention to be paid to group work skills in kindergarten and children learning to work and play together with their peers. The key characteristic psychical inclusion and features related to this key characteristic appeared in the documents. Tolerance, care, inclusion, and cooperation were presented as the main values of the kindergarten. Considering the specific attributes of each person was stated as one of its main principles – referring to the endeavor to make all children feel accepted and full members of the community. In addition, the kindergarten had joined the “Bullying Free Kindergarten” program and the Network of Health Promoting Kindergartens, which help to ensure children’s well-being in kindergarten.

3.1.1. Inclusion and exclusion on the child level

On the child level, there were good examples of inclusion (e.g., teachers consider each child’s attributes, fewer children in the group, supporting friendship, and positive interaction with peers in the group), but the results also showed possible exclusion. For example, regarding social inclusion, the data showed that children with special needs were sometimes excluded from other children’s games. According to teachers, this type of exclusion occurred less in the group with fewer children. At the same time, respondents pointed out that how children are involved in the activities tends to depend on the teacher’s attitude and professionalism. There were some good examples of inclusion, specifically psychical inclusion. Respondents mentioned that the teacher paid equal attention to all children. According to them, inclusion was also supported in the kindergarten by considering the specific attributes of all children, as long as the child with special needs was not given too much special attention.

3.2. Results of teacher level

At teacher level, both key characteristics presented in the theoretical model appeared in the case study. All features appeared, but different methods allowed us to find different features on different generalization levels. In addition, one new feature, professional development , was added to the key characteristic teacher attributes (see Table 3 ) based on the case study results.

Results of the teacher level by method.

The questionnaire results indicate the relevance of all key characteristics and features of teacher level. According to the respondents, the personal attributes and qualifications of the teacher are essential in implementing inclusive education. Teachers carry out a variety of inclusive education activities to a very large extent (value 5) or to a large extent (value 4; see Figure 3 ).

Results about key characteristics and features of teacher level. TL_Te_att_pers_att, Teacher level, teacher attributes, personal attributes; TL_Te_att_qual, Teacher level, teacher attributes, qualification; TL_Tech_earl_id, Teacher level, teaching, early identification; TL_Tech_goals, Teacher level, teaching, goals differentiation; TL_Tech_pos_cl, Teacher level, teaching, positive climate; TL_Tech_dif, Teacher level, teaching, differentiation; TL_Tech_goals_ach, Teacher level, teaching, goals achievement assessment; TL_Tech_ass_devel, Teacher level, teaching, assessing development of a child; TL_Tech_feedb, Teacher level, teaching, feedback; TL_Tech_indiv, Teacher level, teaching, individual tasks; TL_Tech_gr_work, Teacher level, teaching, group work; TL_Tech_joint_act, Teacher level, teaching, joint activities; TL_Tech_refl, Teacher level, teaching, reflection.

The respondents added that the teacher’s values, skills, and commitment affect the quality and management of inclusion. Calmness, positivity, and concreteness were reported as the essential attributes of an early years teacher.

The focus group, observation, and document analysis showed that all key characteristics and features of the teacher level were relevant to implementing inclusive education. Both features of the key characteristic teacher attributes—personal attributes and competence (values, attitudes, knowledge, and skills) —were named by the participants. Flexibility, adaptability, responsibility, and a degree of self-criticism were considered important personal attributes of a teacher by the participants in the focus group. They said:

“Today’s teacher must be very flexible and react quickly. You assess the situation, you notice, and then you have to be able to rethink something several times a day.” (P 4)

Teacher competence is crucial in implementing inclusive education. Participants pointed out that teamwork and cooperation skills, as well as specific knowledge and skills related to special needs, are important for coping in an inclusive learning environment. Participants emphasized teachers’ professional development , for which several possibilities were mentioned: in-service training courses, literature for independent reading, online groups for discussions, sharing experiences and ideas for dealing with complicated situations and recommendations for literature, co-visions, learning in learning communities, and developmental discussions.

Teacher’s personal attributes and teacher’s competence were manifest in the teacher’s communication and behavior during the observation. The teacher communicated with the children in a friendly and supportive manner. She listened to them and answered their questions, explained the task clearly, and repeated the instructions if needed. She seemed positive and cheerful and stayed calm when one child refused to participate in the joint activities and started crying. She sat on the floor next to the child and talked to him until he calmed down and agreed to join the activities. The goals and activities were designed and conducted in accordance with the children’s age and developmental level.

The features teacher’s personal attributes, competence , and professional development were present in the documents. The kindergarten’s development plan contained a general principle that the employees have required relevant qualifications and that their attitudes correspond to the values of the institution. At the time, six teachers had senior teacher qualifications (according to the teachers’ professional standard). The kindergarten supported the professional development of its staff: attendance in higher education programs and in-service training courses was provided, and the amount of team training was increased. In addition, the kindergarten planned to develop the staff’s cooperation skills through various forms of teamwork and the introduction of best practices: teacher-to-teacher training, observation of teaching activities, and holding development discussions.

Features that describe the key characteristic classroom practices were mentioned during the interview. Although the quality of the learning process is a separate feature in the theoretical model, it was not specifically mentioned in the focus group interview. However, all the activities and features that the participants talked about referred to the quality of the teaching process: identifying special needs early on and creating an individual development plan for those children, setting individual learning goals to meet the needs of all children working in smaller groups and working individually with a child if needed, differentiating and adapting learning materials and activities, and giving additional time to children who need it. The participants explained:

“Some children need more time, and even if you differentiate the tasks, they may need twice as long as other children. Well, we have also made it so that if others have a task, a child with a special need is a part of that task so that he can do it calmly.” (P 3)

Assessment of children’s development is viewed as important. The teachers carry out observations and regularly take notes about children, and they reflect on their work individually or with another teacher. At the end of the school year, they write an analysis of the schooling and education process.

Observation revealed that the classroom practices involved features directly related to the teaching process: positive classroom climate and personalized activities . The teacher considered children’s specific attributes and planned manageable activities for all children. She gave tasks at different difficulty levels and guided the children if needed. The teacher engaged in a variety of activities: singing, discussing, listening, and practical activities. A positive classroom climate was created where children asked a lot of questions, worked together, helped each other, and gave positive feedback to each other. Assessment of children’s development and reflection on teaching were not visible during the observation process.

Classroom practices appeared in the documents. The development plan and curriculum outlined the principles and organization of the schooling and education process, including setting of learning outcomes and goals, positive classroom climate , and personalized activities . For early identification of special needs , a cooperation network had been set up, and, if necessary, teachers, in cooperation with support specialists and parents, would draw up an individual development plan. When planning and conducting the teaching and education process, the child’s level of development and specific attributes were taken into account by teachers. Assessing the child’s development was part of the daily schooling and education process. The latter involved various types of activities and methods, allowing the child to be an active participant. The child could learn through imitation, observation, research, experimentation, communication, play, practice, and so on. Teachers’ reflection on teaching was part of classroom practice, and by the end of the academic year, teachers would prepare an analysis of the schooling and education process. The quality of teaching was assessed through filming, observations, and the analysis of open activities.

3.2.1. Inclusion and exclusion on the teacher level

At teacher level, the principle of considering the specific attributes of each child in the planning and implementation of the schooling and education process can be seen as a positive example of inclusion. Inclusion occurs when the teacher follows this principle and refrains from applying any extra activities that distinguish one child from another. Distinguishing between children through individual work, additional support, or individual activities can promote exclusion. In addition, the results revealed that teacher’s competence and professional development were interpreted only as teacher’s knowledge and skills related to special needs children—highlighting the needs of one specific group of learners, which does not support inclusion.

3.3. Results of family level

At family level, both key characteristics presented in the theoretical model— family involvement with features and family support— were evident in the case study. Unlike other methods, observation did not allow us to see the key characteristics of the family level (see Table 4 ). As for the features, all of these were present, but different methods revealed different aspects of the features or showed the features to differing degrees of comprehensiveness.

Results of the family level by method.

According to the questionnaire, both key characteristics were important for the implementation of inclusive education. Fourteen respondents answered the question about family involvement and support . The results showed that activities intended to involve parents were mostly implemented to a large extent (value 4) or to a very large extent (value 5). An interesting result was that five people gave vague (so-so, value 3) answers about cooperation. At the same time, the expectations and needs of parents were considered to a large extent (value 4) or to a very large extent (value 5). In terms of parental support, the results were average (value 3). Some respondents felt that the kindergarten applied activities for family support to a small extent (value 2; see Figure 4 ).

Results about key characteristics and features of family level. FL_Fam_inv_coop, Family level, family involvement, cooperation; FL_Fam_inv_expect, Family level, family involvement, family expectations; FL_Fam_inv_needs, Family level, family involvement, family needs; FL_Fam_inv_pers_incl, Family level, family involvement, family perceptions of inclusion; FL_Fam_sup_educ, Family level, family support, parent education; FL_Fam_sup_ind_serv, Family level, family support, individualized family service plan.

Respondents added that discussions with parents and development discussions enabled them to support the families.

The focus group interview and document analysis allowed us to detect both key characteristics of family level: family involvement and family support . In the focus group, family involvement included family-professional partnerships, family needs , and expectations . The partnership between the family and professionals started with active communication in different forms in the kindergarten: daily face-to-face communication and giving feedback about the child, multiple meetings during the academic year, individual discussions whenever difficulties occurred, development discussions, meetings between parents and support professionals, involving parents in the schooling and educational activities, and using parents’ knowledge of special needs to support the child with a specific special need. During the individual discussions, teachers discovered family needs and expectations for the kindergarten. Sometimes, cooperation was hampered by the fact that the parent would not see or recognize the problem.

Document analysis revealed that family involvement , such as family-professional partnerships and family needs and expectations , were valued in the kindergarten. The curriculum outlined the principles and organization of cooperating with parents, with several planned activities: daily discussions with parents, info boards, sharing information using email, kindergarten’s website, electronic schooling and education information system ELIIS, open days, and meetings and development discussions. Parents were also represented on the board of trustees. Although present in the theoretical model, the feature family’s perception of inclusive education was not mentioned in the focus group interview or revealed in the documents.

In the focus group, the participants pointed out that family support is important because parents often lack the knowledge and skills to manage their child’s special needs. On the other hand, they also added that sometimes the family is, in fact, well-prepared and aware of the matter. According to them, this is often the case when the child has been diagnosed at a very early age or before starting kindergarten. Training courses, literature, and recommendations for relevant groups outside of the kindergarten were offered by the kindergarten for parent education , as well as an individualized family service plan consisting of the services of a special educator and/or speech specialist, counseling by support specialists, and games and materials designed to support the child’s development.

In the documents, family support involved two features: parent education and individualized family service plan . These included the services of the speech therapist and, if necessary, an individual development plan for the child. There were different possibilities for parent education. Counseling in the schooling and education process took place through meetings with parents, daily conversations, and development discussions about the child. In order to raise parents’ awareness, workshops, training courses, round tables, events, etc., were organized in cooperation with the local government.

3.3.1. Inclusion and exclusion on the family level

On the family level, there were many examples of increasing inclusion and reducing exclusion, for example, working with parents to identify the needs of each child and support each child’s development to help them reach their full potential. Development interviews were conducted with all families and their expectations were clarified. Several possibilities were used when cooperating with families: daily face-to-face communication and giving feedback about the child, multiple meetings during the academic year, individual discussions when difficulties occurred, development discussions, etc. The results revealed that exclusion may occur if cooperation is hampered by the fact that the parent does not see the problem with the child or does not recognize it. Here, participants considered it important that the teacher behaves and talks to the parents in the right way to prevent them from feeling excluded. The feature family’s perception of inclusive education did not appear in this case study, which could well be one of the factors contributing to exclusion because of unrealistic expectations from both family and kindergarten.

3.4. Results of institution level

At institution level, both key characteristics presented in the theoretical model— organizational culture and organizational structure —were present in this case study. As opposed to other methods, observation allowed us to only partially see the key characteristics of the institution level. With respect to the features, one feature related to organizational culture — philosophy of inclusion —was not evident in this case study. In addition, contrary to the theoretical model, the focus group interview indicated that—where staff-related activities were presented in a generalized way—more detailed features related to staff should be presented (see Table 5 ).

Results of the institution level by method.

The questionnaire revealed that both key characteristics clearly appeared in the kindergarten. Also, all features related to the key characteristics were considered. According to most respondents, the institution-level features of inclusive education were considered to a large extent (value 4) or, according to some, to a very large extent (value 5). However, most respondents felt that there were additional staff-related issues regarding the key characteristic organizational structure . According to most respondents, these features were considered to a small extent (value 4) or, according to some, to a very small extent (value 5; see Figure 5 ).

Results about key characteristics and features of institution level. IL_Org_cult_underst_incl, Institution level, Organization culture, creation of shared understanding of inclusion; IL_Org_cult_values, Institution level, Organization culture, shared values; IL_Org_cult_socio_cult, Institution level, Organization culture, socio-cultural approach; IL_Org_cult_doc, Institution level, Organization culture, inclusion in the documents; IL_Org_cult_cur, Institution level, Organization culture, inclusion in the curriculum; IL_Org_cult_sup_sys, Institution level, Organization culture, support system; IL_Org_str_lead_man, Institution level, Organizational structure, leadership and management; IL_Org_str_add_pers, Institution level, Organizational structure, additional personnel; IL_Org_str_sup_spec, Institution level, Organizational structure, support specialists.

According to one of the respondents, the use of additional staff was related to resources. They also reported that the kindergarten had had five assistant teachers and one support person in past years but had to cut positions the previous year. At the time of the questionnaire, there were two assistant teachers and one support person. The kindergarten had reportedly created positions for support specialists but could not always fill them.

The focus group interview and document analysis revealed the relevance of both key characteristics of institution level in the kindergarten. During the observation, both key characteristics were only partially visible. In the group we observed, observation allowed us to see only the features sociocultural values and beliefs and work organization related to staff-related issues . Teamwork and cooperation between adults in the group seemed very good. The teacher and the teacher assistant did not share any information during the activity as they had previously discussed the whole activity and their roles in it. The collaboration worked well, and both knew what they had to do. The requirements for children were similar (both adults reminded them of the group agreements, e.g., putting things back where they belong).

In the focus group, the respondents found its organizational culture to be rather supportive of the implementation of inclusive education . Sociocultural values and beliefs were crucial and, according to respondents, shared responsibility among all kindergarten staff, a shared vision with explicit goals toward inclusive education, and working collaboratively were also important in the kindergarten. A supportive attitude toward inclusion was expected from all staff members and various types of support were implemented. The principles of a learning organization were also important in the kindergarten. There were peer-to-peer training sessions and teacher-led workgroups:

“Each teacher has his or her own so-called trust teacher with whom concerns and problems are shared.” (P 1)

There was cooperation between the groups. For example, there was a system of each group “being friends” with another group, with whom they would interact more and have various events together. New employees were assigned a mentor to support their integration into the organization. However, the focus group interview did not provide any information about the philosophy of inclusion : the participants did not discuss what inclusion meant for them or what they had in mind when talking about inclusion. They only talked about the inclusion of children with special needs.

The document analysis showed that the kindergarten’s organizational culture included socio-cultural values like kindness, tolerance, inclusion, and cooperation. The kindergarten’s development plan stated the aim to have a pleasant culture with shared values and orientation toward cooperation. Whereas socio-cultural values were described in the documents, philosophy of inclusion was still missing. Various activities for support and cooperation were mentioned in the documents. Supporting the development of a special needs child—including a gifted child—was seen as a team effort. The support team of a special needs child included teachers of the group, support specialists (physical and music teachers and speech therapists), a head teacher, and a parent.

According to respondents in the focus group, features related to organizational structure , such as leadership and administrative issues , were relevant to the kindergarten’s practices. Dealing with teachers’ workloads, extra staff, salaries, and benefits contributed to the successful implementation of inclusive education. While staff-related activities were generalized in the theoretical model, data from the focus group interview revealed that more detailed features could be presented separately here: structure of employees (positions, number of employees, additional workforce); work organization (work schedules, workload, work tasks); and benefits (benefits, bonuses, rest time and holidays) . The structure of the employees received a lot of attention in the kindergarten. Some groups had two teachers and one non-pedagogical employee. Other groups had one teacher, one teacher assistant, and one non-pedagogical employee. If necessary, the kindergarten could use additional workforce in order to support children with special needs. A lot of attention was paid to the organization of work. For example, non-pedagogical staff members were more involved in the schooling and education process in the group rather than cleaning or other tasks in the room. Teachers had flexibility in preparing their work schedules, giving them more autonomy and responsibility. As to the various forms of inclusion , most groups were so-called ordinary groups in the kindergarten, which include both normally developed children and those with special needs. There were also so-called integration groups. These also include both normally developed and special needs children but have a reduced number of children based on the principle that one child with special needs fills three places.

Based on the document analysis, organizational structure was apparent in the documents. There was inclusive leadership and management in the kindergarten. Various working groups had been set up to support development and teaching activities, and staff members were actively involved in development activities. Transmission of information and feedback was fast, with modern information technology possibilities used for this purpose. Structure of the employees was described in the documents as well as work organization and benefits . The kindergarten wished to create the positions of special education teacher and psychologist. The duties of each employee were specified in the job description. The kindergarten had developed its own recognition system. Regarding various forms of inclusion , description of different types of groups were outlined in the documents (see also Table 1 ).

3.4.1. Inclusion and exclusion on the institution level

At the institution level, there were examples of both inclusion and exclusion. Values like tolerance and inclusion related to organizational culture that favored cooperation were supportive of inclusion. Cooperation and teamwork were common principles in the kindergarten. This kind of socio-cultural approach increases inclusion. The kindergarten’s curriculum also contained principles supporting the inclusion of all children, such as considering children’s specific attributes when planning and carrying out the schooling and education process. To increase inclusion, the principles of the kindergarten’s curriculum are discussed and shared by all teachers and have been meaningfully incorporated into the curriculum. The organization of teachers’ work also contributed to inclusion, with overlapping working hours encouraged—meaning that two teachers and a teacher assistant were working in the group simultaneously, thus supporting all children based on their specific attributes. The agreement to form groups of up to 20 children, four children less than the maximum number allowed by the state, also supported inclusion in the kindergarten. In addition, integration groups, which are even smaller, had been formed to increase inclusion in the kindergarten. At the same time, the main concerns regarding organizational structure, such as additional positions, were related to extra staff for children with special needs, indicating exclusion because of emphasizing one marginal group. If a support specialist supported all children, inclusion would be increased. The work organization of a speech therapist also referred to exclusion because a speech therapist deals with a child mainly outside the group, separately from other children.

3.5. Results of state level

At the state level, the theoretical model involves four key characteristics: policy and legislation; cooperation; resources; and monitoring and evaluation . The observation did not reveal any key characteristics of the state level, whereas document analysis revealed two key characteristics: policy and legislation —which was partially visible, as the feature state/local context was implicit in the documents—and cooperation —which was visible (see Table 6 ).

Results of the state level by method.

Quest, questionnaire; FG int, focus group interview; Obs, observation; Doc an, document analysis; x, mostly occurred; V, partially occurred; -, not occurred.

Based on the questionnaire, all the key characteristics of state level were crucial for implementing inclusive education. Regarding state-level key characteristics, we asked to what extent they supported the implementation of inclusive education in kindergarten. Most respondents rated as so-so (value 3) the extent to which the features related to key characteristics at state level supported the implementation of inclusive education in kindergarten. Some felt that state-level features supported implementing inclusive education to a very large extent (value 5) or to a large extent (value 4). The majority felt that working with external partners supported inclusion. At the same time, most reported that financial resources supported inclusion to a small extent (value 2; see Figure 6 ).

Results about key characteristics and features of state level. SL_pol, State level, policy; SL_pol_leg, State level, legislation; SL_coop, State level, cooperation; SL_resources, State level, mater; SL_fin_resources, State level, financial resources; SL_mon_eval, State level, monitoring and evaluation.

One respondent added that state level key characteristics are certainly very important and that, if inclusive education is already valued at state level and opportunities are created in the form of resources, it will be much easier for kindergartens to implement these opportunities.

The focus group interview revealed all key characteristics of state level. In the case policy and legislation , the local context was not directly mentioned in the focus group interview. It was implicit, however, as participants talked about unclear policies and parents’ low awareness of inclusive education and its positive effects. Regarding the local policy and laws of inclusion , it appeared that the principles of inclusive education were not sufficiently clear and unambiguously documented or were too rigid to implement inclusion. This, for example, restrains the flexible formation of groups while considering the specific attributes of the children and regulating the number of children in the group. Philosophy of inclusion as a separate feature did not appear in the interview. Cooperation includes interagency support and collaboration between institutions at the state level. Counseling centers at the local government level and Rajaleidja (the support center established by the state) were mentioned as support systems. Cooperation between all parties was seen as important but also a great challenge. Cooperation between the stakeholders in the support system was perceived as not efficient enough, and the whole process of supporting the child’s development in cooperation with different parties was seen as cumbersome and time-consuming. The interview revealed, first, that it is difficult for the parent who must visit various institutions and specialists, and second, that the right information does not reach the kindergarten. The respondents pointed out:

“That the parent goes through different institutions many times and fills out different papers. That it would be nice if a parent could get all the necessary help in one place. That we have the parents run around different places, and in the end the parent can’t get help and we can’t get feedback.” (P 7)

Respondents perceived a need to make the overall system more efficient for both families and kindergarten. According to respondents, resources included financial support and other resources on the state level. Financial support was mainly related to creating support specialist positions, e.g., psychologist, speech therapist, special education teacher, and support person. The low salary of support specialists was considered a bottleneck. Resources also meant better opportunities for supporting the professional development of kindergarten teachers, in the form of co-visions, for example . Monitoring and evaluation was viewed by respondents as a very important key characteristic at state level for ensuring the quality of inclusive education. They also found it a significant challenge because national level systematic data are collected only on the needs of support services in the kindergarten and on filling the positions of speech therapist and special education teacher. The state collects no other data, including information about access to special services in the kindergarten—one of the most critical indicators. No other indicators allow assessing the quality of and overall access to support services and inclusion in society. Stakeholders’ opinions are also missing in the process of state-level monitoring and evaluation.

Document analysis allowed us to find only two state-level key characteristics. First, regarding policy and legislation , the local/state context was apparent in the kindergarten curriculum. The curriculum outlined the principles and organization of the kindergarten’s schooling and education process based on the national curriculum and national pre-school institutions act: e.g., organization of schooling, concept of learning, and principles of schooling and education. The development plan gave an overview of the number of groups, types of groups, and number of children in the groups according to local law. Second, regarding cooperation —also discussed in the documents—the support system outside of the kindergarten included counseling centers at the local government level and state level. Two kindergarten integration groups had been created in cooperation with counseling centers. If necessary, external specialists (special education teacher, speech therapist, psychologist, social worker, etc.) were also involved.

3.5.1. Inclusion and exclusion on the state level

At state level, we also detected efforts to increase inclusion; at the same time, we also found evidence of exclusion. At state level, increasing inclusion is mostly related to attitudes in society, which are reflected in policies and legislation. The results of this case study indicated insufficient awareness of inclusive education and its positive effects. However, this may lead to negative attitudes toward inclusion and encourage the exclusion of certain groups. At the same time, it appeared that the policies and laws of inclusion were not sufficiently clear and unambiguously documented or were too rigid to implement inclusion. Considering the specific attributes of all children (one of the principles of learning and education in the national curriculum) is one example of increasing inclusion. Counseling centers had also been set up at the local government level, and the support center Rajaleidja was established by the state in order to help kindergartens and families support children’s development and meaningful participation in early childhood education settings.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relevance/applicability of the model by using a case study and explore to what extent the results reflect the aim of increasing inclusion and reducing exclusion. Using several methods in the study provided a holistic description and better insight into the implementation of inclusive education, ensuring that all key characteristics and features describing these key characteristics would be detected. Every method had its specificity in the context of the study and allowed us to collect data about different features.

All 14 key characteristics of the theoretical model at the five levels are also relevant in the case study. However, the visibility of the key characteristics varied depending on the method used. All key characteristics were revealed in both the questionnaire and the focus group interview. However, in the observation and document analysis, some key characteristics occurred only partially and some not at all. By partial occurrence, we mean that some features describing the key characteristics did not occur. This was mostly due to the nature of the method. For example, the observation did not allow us to see the key features of the family, institution, and state levels, as the observation was conducted in a group room.

More significant differences from the theoretical model were found in the features describing the key characteristics at each level in more detail. Whereas some features did not appear in this case study at all, some new features were added to the model. At the family level, the study did not allow us to see the feature perception of inclusive education . At the institution and state levels, philosophy of inclusion did not appear, which suggests that the philosophical sense of inclusive education has not received meaningful consideration and has remained unclear. The principal focus is on the practical nature of inclusive education, whereas the definition of inclusive education contains both dimensions—the philosophical and the practical sense. Florian (2014) argues that developing a universally accepted definition may represent a positive step toward developing an inclusive practice. Kivirand et al. (2022) found in their case study that the development activities planned for implementing inclusion depended to a significant degree on how the institution understood the concept of inclusive education. They also focused on how to increase the capacity of the whole institution to put inclusive education into practice. Thus, to raise public awareness, the nature of inclusive education and its positive effects should be discussed much more in society.

We also added some new features to the model based on this case study. At the teacher level, we added the feature teacher’s professional development as a teacher attribute , with teachers’ continuous professional development revealed as an essential prerequisite for the implementation of inclusive education and its quality. Some researchers ( Sharma et al., 2019 ; Chadwell et al., 2020 ) also indicate teachers’ insufficient preparation as a barrier to implementing inclusive education. The study revealed a lack of teachers’ specific skills in supporting special needs children and kindergarten staff’s low awareness of inclusive education. Staff and staff-related resources are very important indicators for implementing inclusive education ( Sharma et al., 2019 ; Locke et al., 2020 ). Therefore, we specified at the institution level the feature presented in the theoretical model as personnel-related activities . The case study indicated that more detailed features could be presented separately here: structure of employees (positions, number of employees, additional workforce); work organization (work schedules, workload, work tasks); and benefits (benefits, bonuses, rest time, and holidays) . These features derived from the local context, and participants perceived these features as problems regarding the implementation of inclusive education.

The case study highlights the state-level challenges of implementing inclusive education, as do several other studies ( Grisham-Brown et al., 2010 ; Schuelka, 2018 ; Magnússon et al., 2019 ; Haug, 2020 ). The main concern concerns policy and the general understanding of inclusion ( Magnússon et al., 2019 ; Haug, 2020 ). Regarding the local policy and laws of inclusion , it was apparent in our study that the principles of inclusive education were not sufficiently clear and unambiguously documented or were too rigid to implement inclusion. Sharma et al. (2019) indicate the lack of resources as a barrier to the implementation of inclusive education. Lack of support specialists such as special education teachers and speech therapists in the society and insufficiency of resources was evident in our study as well. Unlike other studies, however, ours detected ineffective cooperation in the support system outside the kindergarten. State-level monitoring and evaluation that did not include stakeholders’ opinions was also a challenge. As mentioned above, a shared understanding of inclusive education is a prerequisite for its implementation. Therefore, it is important to initiate more discussion on this issue, both in the media and with key persons in the education system. This would help consider stakeholders’ opinions, move toward more inclusive education policies, and create clearer and unambiguously documented laws to support the implementation of inclusive education in the best possible way.

The model of inclusive education consists of key characteristics on all levels of the education system, thereby requiring responsibility at different levels. Thus, it will help to implement inclusion in early childhood education. Although the main idea of inclusive education is to increase inclusion and reduce exclusion, this may not always be the case. Thus, to promote inclusion and reduce exclusion, it is necessary to pay attention to very different aspects of educational contexts ( Booth and Ainscow, 2002 ; Slee, 2005 ). The results of this case study suggest that the concept of inclusive education is mainly referred to in its narrow meaning. When implementing inclusive education, the focus is mostly on special needs children. Children with, e.g., different linguistic or cultural backgrounds tend to remain somewhat unnoticed. This might be traced back to the local context since, in the past, education in Estonia used to be segregated in the sense that children with special needs were taught separately from normally developed children in special kindergartens or special groups. As long as teachers keep to the concepts of mainstream and special needs children, the concept of inclusive education cannot be implemented in its truest intent ( Slee, 2005 ). This case study showed that policy and legislation do not currently support inclusion, as the relevant regulations are not clear and straightforward enough or are too rigid. According to Booth and Ainscow (2002) and Ballard (2013) , legislation and the language used when talking about inclusive education can lead to exclusion rather than inclusion. Therefore, how we organize teaching and learning activities, how we talk about inclusive education, and how we present it in legislation are of crucial importance. Ballard (2013) suggests that to reduce exclusion and create more inclusive ways of living, we need to think differently and consider alternative ideas that would support the development of more fair and democratic practices.

5. Conclusion

The findings from this study have implications with regard to inclusive classrooms in early childhood education. Based on our research, we see that inclusive education, as it has been operationalized in early childhood education, does not always lead to inclusion. Therefore, further studies should focus on describing practices that help to achieve better inclusion and avoid exclusion at every level according to the inclusive education model used in our study. In addition, it might be valuable to study how different interventions could have an effect on teachers’ practices and the inclusion of children.

6. Limitations

There are some limitations to consider. First, the number of participants was small, and therefore, any generalizations should be made with some caution. Secondly, as the results of this case study are relevant in the context of Estonia, one should be careful when interpreting these results in an international context.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

PN contributed to the conception and design of the study, prepared and conducted data collection and analysis, and wrote all sections of the manuscript. MP contributed to the conception and design of the study, the final data analysis process, and the editing and reviewing of the manuscript. CŠ contributed to data analysis as the co-coder and edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was supported by the EEA and Norwegian financial instruments under grant number 36.1-3.4/289.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Ainscow M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences . Nordic J. Studies Educ. Policy 6 , 7–16. doi: 10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews D., Walton E., Osman R. (2021). Constraints to the implementation of inclusive teaching: a cultural historical activity theory approach . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 25 , 1508–1523. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1620880 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ballard K. (2013). Thinking in another way: ideas for sustainable inclusion . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 17 , 762–775. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.602527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Booth T., Ainscow M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools . Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, United Kingdom. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowen G. (2017). Document analysis as a qualitative research method . Qual. Res. J. 9 , 27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown R. C. (2005). “ Inclusive education in middle eastern cultures: the challenge of tradition ” in Contextualizing inclusive education. Evaluating old and new international perspective . ed. Mitchell D. (Oxfordshire: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; ), 258–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chadwell M. R., Roberts A. M., Daro A. M. (2020). Ready to teach all children? Unpacking early childhood educators’ feelings of preparedness for working with children with disabilities . Early Educ. Dev. 31 , 100–112. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2019.1621584 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education . (2017). Inclusive early childhood education. Literature review . (Denmark: Odense; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2014). Proposal for key principles of a quality framework for early childhood education and care. Report of the working group on early childhood education and care under the auspices of the European Commission (European Commission B-1049 Brussels).
• European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Key data on early childhood education and Care in Europe – 2019 edition. Eurydice report (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Florian L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 29 , 286–294. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2014.933551 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Florian L., Black-Hawkins K., Rouse M. (2017). Achievement and inclusion in schools . 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fyssa A., Vlachou A., Avramidis E. (2014). Early childhood teachers’ understanding of inclusive education and associated practices: reflections from Greece . Int. J. Early Years Educ. 22 , 223–237. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2014.909309 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grisham-Brown J., Cox M., Gravil M., Missall K. (2010). Differences in child care quality for children with and without disabilities . Early Educ. Dev. 21 , 21–37. doi: 10.1080/10409280902783491 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haug P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: ideals and reality . Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 19 , 206–217. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haug P. (2020). It is impossible to avoid policy comment on Mel Ainscow: promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences . Nordic J. Studies Educ. Policy 6 , 17–20. doi: 10.1080/20020317.2020.1730092 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IRIS Connect . (2022). Available at: https://www.irisconnect.com/uk/
• Kivirand T., Leijen Ä., Lepp L. (2022). Enhancing schools’ development activities on inclusive education through in-service training course for school teams: a case study . Front. Psychol. 13 :4620. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.824620, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koolieelse lasteasutuse riiklik õppekava . (2008). National Curriculum for pre-school child care institutions. Available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13351772
• Koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus . (1999) Pre-school child care institutions act. Available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/529012018008/consolide
• Leijen Ä., Arcidiacono F., Baucal A. (2021). The dilemma of inclusive education: inclusion for some or inclusion for all . Front. Psychol. 12 :66. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633066, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesar I., Mihelič M. Ž. (2020). Beliefs of university staff teaching in pedagogical study programmes on concept(s) of inclusiveness – the case of Slovenia . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 24 , 739–753. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1488186 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke J., Kang-Yi C., Frederick L., Mandell D. S. (2020). Individual and organizational characteristics predicting intervention use for children with autism in schools . Autism 24 , 1152–1163. doi: 10.1177/1362361319895923, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Love H. R., Horn E. (2021). Definition, context, quality: current issues in research examining high-quality inclusive education . Top. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 40 , 204–216. doi: 10.1177/0271121419846342 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundqvist J., Mara A. W., Siljehag E. (2015). Inclusive education, support provisions and early childhood educational pathways in the context of Sweden: a longitudinal study . Int. J. Spec. Educ. 30 , 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnússon G., Göransson K., Lindqvist G. (2019). Contextualizing inclusive education in educational policy: the case of Sweden . Nordic J. Studies Educ. Policy 5 , 67–77. doi: 10.1080/20020317.2019.1586512 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . 2nd Edn. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell D. (2015). Inclusive education is a multifaceted concept . Center Educ. Policy Studies J. 5 , 9–30. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.151 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelis P., Pedaste M. (2020). Kaasava hariduse mudel alushariduse kontekstis: süstemaatiline kirjandusülevaade. [A model of inclusive education in the context of Estonian pre-school education: a systematic literature review]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian . J. Educ. 8 , 138–163. doi: 10.12697/eha.2020.8.2.06 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Odom S. L., Vitztum W. J. R., Lieber J., Sandall S., Hanson M. J., Beckman P., et al.. (2004). Pre-school inclusion in the United States: a review of research from an ecological systems perspective . J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 4 , 17–49. doi: 10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00016.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson M. E., Williams D. R. (2002). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: Hermeneutic principles, Methods and Case Examples . Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelatti C. J., Dynia J. M., Logan J. A. R., Justice L. M., Kaderavek J. (2016). Examining quality in two pre-school settings: publicly funded early childhood education and inclusive early childhood education classrooms . Child Youth Care Forum 45 , 829–849. doi: 10.1007/s10566-016-9359-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schleicher A. (2019). “ Helping our youngest to learn and grow: policies for early learning ” in International summit on the teaching profession (Paris: OECD Publishing; ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuelka M. J. (2018). Implementing inclusive education. K4D Helpdesk Report. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6eb77340f0b647b214c599/374_Implementing_Inclusive_Education.pdf
• Sharma U., Armstrong A. C., Merumeru L., Simi J., Yared H. (2019). Addressing barriers to implementing inclusive education in the Pacific . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 23 , 65–78. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1514751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slee R. (2005). “ Education and the politics of recognition: inclusive education – an Australian snapshot ” in Contextualizing inclusive education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives . ed. Mitchell D. (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; ), 139–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sukumaran S., Loveridge J., Green A. G. (2015). Inclusion in Malaysian integrated pre-schools . Int. J. Incl. Educ. 19 , 821–844. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2014.981229 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO . (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education (Paris: UNESCO; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2008). Education for all by 2015. Will we make it? EFA global monitoring report 2008 (Paris: UNESCO; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods . 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]

What is integration in education and difference with inclusion and concept

Educational Integration

“Integration is envisaged as a process aimed at taking into account and meeting the diversity of the needs of all students for greater participation in learning, cultural life and community life, and for a reduction in the number of students. that are excluded from education or excluded within education. It involves changing and adapting the content, approaches, structures and strategies, based on a common vision that encompasses all children in the age group contemplated and with the conviction that the ordinary educational system has the duty to educate all children. In this article we will define you that What is integration in education ?

Birch (1974) defines educational integration as a process that aims to unify ordinary and special education with the aim of offering a set of services to all children, based on their learning needs.

Kaufman (1985), defines integration in the educational framework “mainstreaming” as: “referred to the temporal, instructive and social integration of a selected group of exceptional children, with their normal companions, based on educational planning and a process` evolutionary and individually determined programmer. This integration required a classification of responsibilities between the regular and special educational personnel and the administrative, instructor and auxiliary personnel. “

The NARC (National association of Retarded Citizens, USA) defines it as: “integration is a philosophy or principle of offering educational services that is put into practice through the provision of a variety of instructional and class alternatives, which are appropriate to the educational plan, for each student, allowing the maximum instructive, temporal and social integration between deficient and non-deficient students during the normal school day “.

Educational integration assumes that:

• A child who goes to school for the first time and who, due to his characteristics, could have been sent to the special center, is taken into the ordinary center.
• Children who are in special centers go to ordinary centers in one of the integration modalities.
• Children who are full-time in a special education unit of an ordinary center are gradually incorporating it into the ordinary classroom.
• Boys and girls who are in the ordinary classroom that in other circumstances would move to a more restrictive place – a special classroom or a specific center – will now continue in that ordinary classroom.

All this taking into account a series of premises such as:

• This is a difficult and complex process and depends on many circumstances: the child himself or herself, the center and the family. Each case requires a study and a specific treatment.
• There are different situations or forms of integration. It will not always be possible for the student to be integrated into the ordinary classroom of an ordinary school; This is the ideal towards which one should tend, but there will be cases in which, due to various circumstances, their integration modality has to be different.
• The placement of a child in a certain place or environment will not last forever, they are that, through periodic reviews, an attempt will be made to provide them with situations that involve a higher level of integration.
• This integration process begins with the assessment and identification of the student’s special educational needs and is accompanied by the provision of personal aids , materials, curricular adaptations, etc., that enable further development.
• Integration does not imply a simple physical location in the least restrictive environment possible, but it means an effective participation in schoolwork, which provides the differentiated education that it needs, relying on the adaptations and means that are pertinent in each case.

Integration or inclusion?/difference

Semantically, include and integrate have very similar meanings, which makes many people use these verbs interchangeably. However, in social movements, inclusion and integration represent totally different philosophies, even when they have apparently the same objectives, that is, the insertion of people with disabilities in society .

The inclusive school is built on the participation and agreements of all the educational agents that come together in it. It considers the learning process of the students as the consequence of their inclusion in the school. It arises from an educational dimension whose objective is aimed at overcoming the barriers that some students encounter at the time of carrying out the school journey. An inclusive school is about achieving recognition of the right that everyone has both to be recognized, and to recognize themselves as members of the educational community to which they belong, whatever their social environment, their culture of origin, their ideology, sex, ethnicity or personal situations derived from a physical, intellectual, sensory disability or intellectual giftedness.

In this proposed school, the development of coexistence is carried out through dialogue . Conflicts become an opportunity for personal and social development , because it allows the agents in conflict to come together and develop their learning.

We can establish some of the differences between integration and inclusion , as Arnaiz (2003) and Moriña (2002) point out.

Related Articles

Total physical response advantages and disadvantages, what is blended learning approach impact future and e learning, gamification in education examples/benefits/how to gamify, what is grammar translation method/advantages/disadvantages, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please input characters displayed above.

• Similarities of classical and operant conditioning/differences August 9, 2023