See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312724641

From Inclusion and Special Education to Inclusive Special Education

Chapter · July 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1483-8_2

CITATIONS READS

7 14,859

1 author:

Garry Hornby
University of Plymouth
150 PUBLICATIONS   2,674 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An investigation of the use of CL in teaching EFL with tertiary education learners in China View project

Special Issue of Education Sciences on Special and Inclusive Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Garry Hornby on 26 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

bs_bs_banner

INCLUSIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION

Inclusive special education:

development of a new theory for
the education of children with
special educational needs
and disabilities
Garry Hornby

Inclusive education and special education are based on different phi-

losophies and provide alternative views of education for children with
special educational needs and disabilities. They are increasingly
regarded as diametrically opposed in their approaches. This article pre-
sents a theory of inclusive special education that comprises a synthesis
of the philosophy, values and practices of inclusive education with the
interventions, strategies and procedures of special education. Develop-
ment of inclusive special education aims to provide a vision and guide-
lines for policies, procedures and teaching strategies that will facilitate
the provision of effective education for all children with special educa-
tional needs and disabilities.

Key words: inclusive education, special education, special educational

needs, disabilities

The most controversial issue currently regarding the education of children with
special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is that of inclusion (Farrell,
2010; Kauffman & Badar, 2014a; Slee, 2011). Theories of inclusion and inclusive
education have important implications for special education policies and practices

© 2015 NASEN
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12101
in both developed and developing countries (Artiles et al., 2011; Singal &
Muthukrishna, 2014).

Inclusive education is generally considered to be a multi-dimensional concept that

includes the celebration and valuing of difference and diversity, consideration of
human rights, social justice and equity issues, as well as of a social model of
disability and a socio-political model of education. It also encompasses the
process of school transformation and a focus on children’s entitlement and access
to education (Kozleski et al., 2011; Loreman et al., 2011; Mitchell, 2005; Slee,
2011; Smith, 2010; Topping, 2012).

Salend (2011) distils from the literature on inclusive education four key principles
through which the philosophy of inclusion is put into practice. These are, firstly,
providing all learners with challenging, engaging and flexible general education
curricula; secondly, embracing diversity and responsiveness to individual
strengths and challenges; thirdly, using reflective practices and differentiated
instruction; and fourthly, establishing a community based on collaboration among
students, teachers, families, other professionals and community agencies. Inclu-
sive education, therefore, aims to provide a facilitative and constructive focus for
improving the education of children with SEND.

In stark contrast to the above views, some writers have argued that inclusive
education results in the sacrifice of children for the sake of misplaced ideology
(Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005) and others that:

‘Ironically, the promotion of the delusion that being present in a school

equates with being socially and educationally included, is one of the most
dishonest and insidious forms of exclusion.’
(Cooper & Jacobs, 2011, p. 6)

Others have suggested that inclusion has become a fashionable term (Armstrong
et al., 2010) and that, like high fashion, the genuine article is often considered
impractical and unaffordable for most people in the world.

Despite these negative views, the vision of inclusion still exerts a major influence
on the education culture of many countries. Recently, Norwich (2013) has stated
that, ‘Inclusion as a concept and value is now recognized as complex with
multiple meanings.’ Armstrong et al. (2010) are in agreement and point out
that the term inclusion is used in so many different ways that it can mean
different things to different people, or all things to all people, so unless it is

2 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

clearly defined it becomes meaningless. Therefore, it is important to clarify the
meaning and implications of inclusion with regard to the education of children
with SEND.

It is now widely recognised that the policy of ‘full inclusion’, with its vision of all
children being educated in mainstream classrooms for all or most of their time at
school is impossible to achieve in practice. This is because it is considered that
there will always be some children with SEND who cannot be successfully
included in mainstream classrooms, which sets a limit to the proportion of
children who can be effectively educated in mainstream schools (Evans & Lunt,
2002; Hansen, 2012; Kauffman & Badar, 2014a; Thomas & Loxley, 2007).

Since the vision of full inclusion is therefore unachievable and that of inclusive
education is unclear, it is considered that what is now needed is a new vision for
the education of children with SEND to replace those of inclusive education and
special education. It is proposed that this will best be achieved by developing a
theory of inclusive special education which synthesises philosophies, policies and
practices from both special education and inclusive education in order to present
a clear vision of effective education for all children with SEND.

The term inclusive special education has been previously used to describe the
special education system in Finland, in which around 22% of children receive
part-time special education and 8% are in full-time special classes (Takala et al.,
2009). This special education system has been considered to be one of the possible
reasons for the high overall levels of academic achievement gained by children in
Finland in international surveys. For example, Finland was ranked first in science
and second in reading and mathematics of all the countries involved in the
Programme for International Student Assessment survey published in 2006
(Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007). The theory of inclusive special education proposed
in this article includes some elements of the special education system in Finland,
but is more comprehensive in addressing the education of all children with SEND
in mainstream schools, special schools and special classes within mainstream
schools.

In this article the need for developing the theory of inclusive special education,
comprising a synthesis of special education and inclusive education, is explained.
Currently these two fields provide contrasting views about ways of meeting the
needs of children with SEND. This article presents a model for integrating the two
approaches and elaborates on strategies for providing effective education for all
children with SEND, wherever they are educated.

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 3

The article first sets the scene by defining special education and inclusive educa-
tion and identifying several confusions surrounding inclusive education. Consid-
ering each of these confusions leads to clarification of the theory of inclusive
special education and the development of a model that combines aspects of both
inclusive education and special education in order to form inclusive special
education, the goal of which is to ensure that all children with SEND are effec-
tively educated in special or mainstream facilities from early childhood through
secondary school education.

Salend (2011) defines special education as characterised by:

• individual assessment and planning;

• specialised instruction;
• intensive instruction;
• goal-directed instruction;
• research-based instructional practices;
• collaborative partnerships;
• student performance evaluation.

In contrast, Salend (2011) defines inclusive education as characterised by:

• a philosophy of acceptance and belonging within a community;

• a philosophy of student, family, educator and community collaboration;
• celebration of the diversity and value of all learners;
• valuing educating learners in high-quality schools;
• valuing educating learners alongside their age peers;
• valuing educating learners in mainstream classrooms;
• valuing educating learners in schools in their local community.

So it is clear from the above that inclusive education and special education are
based on different philosophies and provide alternative approaches to the educa-
tion of children with SEND. In fact, they are now increasingly regarded as
diametrically opposed in their approaches to providing education for children
with SEND. This is a confusing situation for professionals in the field of education
as well as for parents of children with SEND.

Therefore, it is considered that what is needed is a new theory that integrates

theory and research from both approaches in order to provide effective education
for all children with SEND. This article, and the book on which it is based
(Hornby, 2014), proposes to do this by developing a theory of inclusive special

4 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

education that will comprise a synthesis of the philosophy and values of inclusive
education with the practices and procedures of special education. In this way
inclusive special education will provide the philosophy and guidelines for poli-
cies, procedures and teaching strategies that will facilitate the provision of effec-
tive education for all children with SEND. In order to aid the development of this
new theory, it is useful to consider current confusions about inclusive education.

Confusions about inclusive education

Several important confusions about inclusion and inclusive education that have
been highlighted in the literature are discussed below. These are about definitions,
rights, labelling, peers, aetiology, intervention models, goals, curricula, reality,
finance, means and ends, and research evidence. Following clarification of each of
these confusions, it is made clear how this will be addressed within inclusive
special education.

Definitions
There is confusion about what is meant by inclusion, as noted by Norwich when
he states, ‘its definition and use are seriously problematic’ (quoted in Terzi, 2010).
The term ‘inclusion’ is used in various ways, for example, to refer to inclusive
schools or an inclusive society. Many sources (for example, DfEE, 1997; MoE,
2010) refer to advancing ‘inclusive education’ as meaning increasing the propor-
tion of children with SEND in mainstream schools, while maintaining special
schools for those who need them. In contrast, other sources (for example, CSIE,
1989, 2002) use the term ‘inclusion’ to describe a state of affairs in which all
children are educated in regular classrooms within mainstream schools with only
temporary withdrawal from this situation for purposes such as individual or group
work or therapy.

The most serious issue about the meaning of inclusion is that caused by the
confusion of social inclusion with inclusive education for children with SEND
(Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2012). The term social inclusion is typically used to
refer to the goal of bringing about an inclusive society, one in which all individ-
uals are valued and have important roles to play. Social inclusion in education
refers to the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with a wide diversity of
differences and needs. This has a much broader focus than inclusive education for
children with SEND, but is often used by proponents of full inclusion as if it
meant the same thing. In addition, many supporters of inclusive education speak
of it as a process that involves whole-school re-organisation in order to develop
inclusive schools. Implicit in this process, however, is the eventual goal of full
inclusion (Slee, 2011).

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 5

Therefore, since the word inclusion is used in so many different ways, it is
important, in order to avoid confusion, to be clear about what is meant by each
specific use of the term. In this article the term ‘inclusive education’ is defined as
focusing on the inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools.

The definition of inclusive special education encompasses a synthesis of the

philosophies and practices of both inclusive education and special education. It
involves educating children with SEND in the most inclusive settings in which
their special educational needs can be met effectively, using the most effective
instructional strategies, with the overarching goal of facilitating the highest level
of inclusion in society post-school for all young people with SEND (Kauffman &
Badar, 2014a).

The definition of inclusive special education also encompasses a process of

ongoing whole-school organisation and development in order to assist main-
stream schools to effectively educate as many children with SEND as possible.
This includes ensuring that special school, resource room and special class teach-
ers assist mainstream schools in implementing effective education for children
with SEND, while at the same time effectively providing for those children with
higher levels of SEND who need to be educated in these special education
settings.

Rights
A key confusion concerns the rights of children with SEND. A typical argument
put forward in favour of full inclusion is that it is a basic human right of all
children to be educated alongside their mainstream peers. To segregate children
for any reason is considered by many supporters of inclusion to be a denial of their
human rights. However, there are two confusions here. First of all there is con-
fusion between human rights and moral rights. Just because someone has a human
right to a certain option does not mean that it is an obligation or that it is morally
the right thing for them to do (Thomson, 1990). Thus, although their human rights
allow children with SEND to be educated alongside their mainstream peers, for
some of them this may not, morally, be the right or best option. As Warnock puts
it, ‘What is a manifest good in society, and what it is my right to have . . . may not
be what is best for me as a schoolchild’ (quoted in Terzi, 2010).

A second aspect of the rights confusion concerns priorities. As well as their right
to be included, children also have a right to an appropriate education suited to their
needs. ‘It is their right to learn that we must defend, not their right to learn in the
same environment as everyone else’ (Warnock, quoted in Terzi, 2010). That is, the

6 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

right to an appropriate education which meets children’s specific needs is more
important than the right to be educated alongside their mainstream peers. There-
fore, it cannot be morally right to include all children in mainstream classrooms
if this means that some of them will not be able to receive the education most
appropriate for their needs (Kauffman & Badar, 2014a).

Although it is clear that their human rights allow children with SEND to be
educated alongside their mainstream peers, for some of them this may not be the
best option. Therefore, inclusive special education considers that the right to an
appropriate education that meets children’s specific needs must be the priority.
This is considered more important than the right to be educated alongside their
mainstream peers, which must be taken into account, but in the final analysis must
be superseded by the right to receive an appropriate education.

Labelling
Inclusive education is regarded, by its proponents, as preferable to special edu-
cation, because it enables avoidance of some practices that are central to special
education, such as the identification of SEND and the setting up of individual
education programmes (IEPs). According to supporters of inclusive education,
this is because such practices can result in labelling children with SEND, thereby
stigmatising them, and therefore should be avoided. There is then a dilemma,
since if children are identified as having SEND, there is a risk of negative
labelling and stigma, while if they are not identified, there is a risk that they will
not get the teaching they require and their special needs will not be met. This
confusion is referred to as the ‘dilemma of difference’ by Norwich (2013).

However, it is considered that this concern is the product of confused thinking as

it is clear that children with SEND attract labels from other children and teachers
even when they are not formally identified as having SEND. So being stigmatised
is not necessarily a result of the identification or labelling but is related to the fact
that having a special educational need/disability marks them out as different from
other children in some way. Therefore, avoiding identifying and labelling children
with SEND will not prevent them from being stigmatised, but it may prevent them
from getting the education that they need (Kauffman & Badar, 2014b).

Inclusive special education regards the identification of SEND, and the setting up
of procedures such as IEPs and transition plans, as essential components of
providing effective education for children with SEND in order to facilitate their
inclusion in their communities post-school. Therefore, these are key features of
inclusive special education.

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 7

Peers
Another confusion is related to the use of the term ‘peers’. One of the hallmarks
of inclusive education is that children with SEND are educated alongside their
peers in mainstream classrooms. However, as Warnock points out, ‘Inclusion is
not a matter of where you are geographically, but where you feel you belong’
(quoted in Terzi, 2010). Children in general are more comfortable with peers who
have similar interests to themselves, so for many children with SEND it may be
more important to be with peers with shared interests and similar abilities or
disabilities to themselves, than peers of the same chronological age. So for these
children being educated ‘alongside their peers’ means being with other children
who have similar SEND. Also, being in close proximity to typically developing
peers does not necessarily result in meaningful interactions (Kauffman & Badar,
2014a). Therefore, for some children with SEND, a sense of belonging and being
included in a learning community is more likely to result from placement in a
resource room, special class or special school than a mainstream classroom.

Inclusive special education acknowledges that many children with more severe
SEND are more comfortable with peers who have similar interests, difficulties,
abilities and disabilities to themselves, so this must be taken into account when
considering educational placements. In this way a sense of belonging and being
included in a learning community is emphasised, whether children with SEND are
educated in special classes, resource rooms, special schools or mainstream
classrooms.

Aetiology
An important confusion related to inclusive education concerns theories about the
aetiology of special educational needs and disabilities. Until around four decades
ago it was assumed that SEND resulted entirely from physiological or psycho-
logical difficulties inherent in children themselves. Since this time awareness has
grown concerning just how much social and environmental factors can influence
children’s development and functioning. However, some supporters of inclusive
education have taken this social perspective to its extreme and have suggested that
SEND is entirely socially constructed. Both Warnock and Norwich (cited in Terzi,
2010) consider that it is going too far to deny the impact that impairments can
have on children’s learning. They consider it important to acknowledge the role of
physiological and psychological factors as well as social factors in the aetiology
of SEND (Kauffman & Badar, 2014b).

Inclusive special education acknowledges the role of physiological, psychologi-

cal, environmental and social factors in the aetiology of SEND. A psycho-social

8 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

model involving an ecological view of the aetiology of SEND and of the inter-
ventions needed to address these is an essential component of inclusive special
education.

Intervention models
Inclusive education is also regarded, by its proponents, as being preferable to
special education because it is suggested that the latter is based on a medical or
deficit model of intervention, as opposed to focusing on students’ needs and
strengths. This is a confused and inaccurate view, for several reasons. Special
education interventions have been influenced by medical, psychological and
several other treatment models, as clarified by Farrell (2010), who concludes,
‘The knowledge base of special education includes a wide range of disciplines
and contributions supplemented by related research and methods informing
evidence-based practice’.

Inclusive special education promotes the use of special education interventions

that focus on children’s strengths as well as their needs and that have been
influenced by a range of medical, psychological and other treatment models. A
focus on evidence-based practice is a central feature of inclusive special educa-
tion. This involves the selection and implementation of interventions whose
effectiveness is supported by strong bases of research evidence (Hornby et al.,
2013).

Goals
An important confusion that impacts on the issue of inclusive education
concerns the goals of education, as noted by Terzi (2010). This issue is par-
ticularly important for children with SEND. In many countries, in recent
years, there has been an increasing emphasis on academic achievement as the
most important goal of education. Governments in many countries have focused
their attention on the improvement of academic standards, especially in literacy
and numeracy, by various means, including the establishment of national
curricula and national assessment regimes. This has deflected attention away
from the broader goals of education, such as those concerned with the devel-
opment of life skills, social skills, communication skills and independent living
skills.

Including children with SEND in mainstream schools that are driven by the need
to achieve high academic standards results in the goals of education for many of
these children being inappropriate. The major goal of education for children with

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 9

SEND must be to facilitate independence, a sense of well-being and active
participation in the communities in which they live. As stated in the Salamanca
Statement on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994, p. 10):

‘Schools should assist them to become economically active and provide

them with the skills needed in everyday life, offering training in skills which
respond to the social and communication demands and expectations of adult
life.’

Clarity about the goals of education is a key part of inclusive special education
which therefore focuses on the broader goals of education, such as those
concerned with the development of life skills, vocational skills and social skills,
in addition to academic skills such as literacy and numeracy. The major goal of
education for children with SEND, as with all children, is to produce happy and
productive citizens who are included in their communities as much as possible
and have the skills needed to meet the demands of adult life.

Curricula
Another issue has been the confusion surrounding entitlement and the appro-
priateness of curricula for children with SEND. From the time when a national
curriculum was first implemented in England, influential organisations in the
SEND field supported the Government’s intention to include children with
SEND in this curriculum to the greatest extent possible. That all children
with SEND should be entitled to have access to the same curriculum as other
children was seen as being a step forward. This was in fact the case for many
children with SEND, for example, those with severe visual impairment who, in
the past, may have been denied opportunities such as studying science
subjects. However, for the majority of children with SEND, who have various
degrees of learning difficulties, it is considered to have been a backward step
(Terzi, 2010).

National curricula, with their associated national assessments and their conse-
quences, such as league tables of schools, have emphasised academic achieve-
ment much more than other aspects of the curriculum such as personal, social and
vocational education. Having a national curriculum as the whole curriculum
throughout all of their schooling is not appropriate for children with moderate and
severe learning difficulties, as it denies them the opportunity to focus on curricula
that better suit their needs and leads to many of them struggling to keep up, and
as a result becoming disaffected with school.

10 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

Inclusion in an unsuitable curriculum for many children directly contributes to the
development of emotional or behavioural difficulties, or exacerbates existing
problems, which leads them to be disruptive and eventually results in the exclu-
sion of some of them from schools. As argued by Farrell (2010), the priority for
children with SEND must be that they have access to curricula which are appro-
priate for them, not that they are fitted into a national curriculum which was
designed for the mainstream population.

Inclusive special education considers that the priority for children with SEND
must be that they have access to curricula that are appropriate for them throughout
their education. An important issue in inclusive special education is to achieve the
right balance for each child with SEND between an academic or developmental
curriculum, which is focused on the needs of the majority of children, and a
functional curriculum which addresses the specific educational needs of children
with SEND.

Reality
A common confusion occurs among educators influenced by the rhetoric of full
inclusion, despite its contrast with the reality of the situation in schools. The
rhetoric of full inclusion suggests that it is possible to effectively educate all
children with SEND in mainstream classrooms. However, the reality of the
situation in mainstream schools is that many teachers do not feel able or willing
to implement this scenario. The reality is that, in many countries, there is insuf-
ficient input on teaching children with SEND in initial teacher education courses
and limited in-service training on SEND that is available to teachers. This means
that many teachers do not have the relevant attitudes, knowledge and skills
necessary for including children with a wide range of SEND in their classes and
are also concerned that there will be insufficient material and human resources,
and in particular support staff, to effectively implement a policy of full inclusion
(Avramidis et al., 2000; Emam & Farrell, 2009).

Inclusive special education acknowledges the current reality in mainstream

schools, that many teachers do not feel competent to teach children with SEND
because of insufficient input on teaching children with SEND in their training and
inadequate resources. Therefore a key component of inclusive special education
is the provision of effective and ongoing training and support for mainstream class
teachers. With increased levels of training and support, a greater proportion of
mainstream classroom teachers will become more confident and competent to
teach children with a wide range of SEND.

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 11

Finance
A key confusion concerns the funding of children with SEND in general and those
who are included in mainstream schools in particular. A variety of solutions to the
issue of funding have been proposed, but there is still no agreement on what is
the most satisfactory funding model (Terzi, 2010). There is also confusion about
the relative cost of provision for SEND in mainstream or special facilities. At first
sight special schools, special classes and resource rooms appear more expensive,
so inclusive education seems to be the cheaper option. But if the cost of providing
support services such as physical, occupational and speech/language therapy, as
well as psychological, health and social welfare services to children with SEND
in several mainstream schools rather than one special school location is factored
in, there may be little difference.

A key issue is that, even if mainstream provision seems less expensive in the short
term, it may not be in the longer term. That is, if the education system does not
provide young people with SEND with the knowledge, skills and attitudes they
need to achieve independence and success after they leave school, the cost to
society will be far greater in the long term in terms of unemployment benefits,
welfare payments and the costs of the criminal justice system. Thus, special
provision for a small number of children with SEND may be more costly in the
short term but it is likely to be much less so than the later consequences of not
making suitable provision. This has been illustrated by numerous studies of the
cost-effectiveness of early intervention with children (for example, Currie, 2001;
Temple & Reynolds, 2007).

The focus of inclusive special education is to provide young people who have
SEND with the knowledge, skills and attitudes they need to achieve as much
independence and success as possible after they leave school. Therefore, the focus
is on providing funding to ensure that all children with SEND, whatever the type
or severity of that SEND, have educational provision that is funded sufficiently to
ensure their optimal development, whether this is provided in mainstream class-
rooms or in special schools, special classes or resource rooms.

Means and ends

An important confusion with inclusive education is whether inclusion is in actu-
ality a means to an end or an end in itself. Proponents of full inclusion argue that
segregated SEND placement is wrong because a key goal of education should
be to include children fully in the community in which they live. Therefore,
they ought to be included in their local mainstream schools throughout their
schooling. However, as suggested by Warnock (cited in Terzi, 2010), inclusion in

12 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

the community after leaving school is actually the most important end that
educators should be seeking. Inclusion in mainstream schools may be a means to
that end but should not be an end in itself. For some children with SEND,
segregated placement may be the best means to the end of inclusion in the
community when they leave school. In contrast, inclusion in mainstream schools
which does not fully meet children’s special needs may be counterproductive in
that it is likely to reduce their potential for full inclusion in the community as
adults.

Inclusive special education recognises that inclusion in the community after

leaving school is the most important end that educators should be seeking.
Whereas inclusion in mainstream school classrooms will lead to this end for some
children with SEND, for others placement in resource rooms, special classes or
special schools may be the best means to the end of inclusion in the community
when they leave school.

Research evidence
There is confusion about the research base for inclusive education, with many
supporters of inclusive education appearing to believe that an adequate research
base for inclusion is unnecessary or that it already exists. Perhaps this is not
surprising since Heward (2003, p. 199) considers that:

‘Convention, convenience, dogma, folklore, fashion, and fad – more so than

the results of scientific research – have all influenced theory and practice in
education over the years.’

Lindsay (2007) considers that reviews of the research evidence in support of

inclusion have so far been inconclusive, suggesting that an adequate research base
for inclusive education has not been established. This finding is supported by
more recent reviews, such as that by Kauffman et al. (2011). In addition, Farrell
(2010) cites a raft of relevant studies, many of which report negative findings
regarding the impact of inclusive education. Norwich concludes that there needs
to be more intensive research to provide evidence regarding the policy and
practice of inclusive education (cited in Terzi, 2010). Such research needs to take
a long-term view of outcomes for children with SEND who experience either
inclusive education or segregated schooling.

Inclusive special education supports the need for intensive research to provide
evidence regarding the effectiveness of policy and practice in inclusive special
education. Such research needs to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 13

interventions, programmes and educational placements. Research also needs to be
conducted on post-school and long-term follow-ups of outcomes for children with
SEND who experience either mainstream or special schooling or some combina-
tion of both during their time at school.

Developing a comprehensive system of inclusive special education

In order to address the confusions highlighted above, a new theory has been
proposed that synthesises theory and research from both special education and
inclusive education in order to present a model for providing effective education
for all children with SEND. The theory of inclusive special education comprises
a synthesis of the philosophy and values of inclusive education along with the
strategies and interventions used in special education. The theory of inclusive
special education provides guidelines for policies, procedures and evidence-based
teaching strategies that will support the delivery of effective education for all
children with SEND. The goal of this new approach is to ensure that all children
with SEND are effectively educated in special or mainstream facilities, wherever
is most appropriate, from early childhood through secondary school education.
Thus, the model combines key aspects of special education and inclusive educa-
tion to form inclusive special education.

Inclusive special education is about providing the best possible instruction for all
children with SEND, in the most appropriate setting, throughout all stages of a
child’s education, with the aim of achieving the highest possible level of inclusion
in the community post-school. Its focus is on effectively including as many
children as possible in mainstream schools, along with the availability of a
continuum of placement options from mainstream classes to special schools, and
involving close collaboration between mainstream and special schools. These
elements of inclusive special education are summarised below.

Implementing effective practices from special education and

inclusive education
Inclusive special education involves implementing practices that have established
solid research evidence bases for supporting effective special education (Mitchell,
2014) and inclusive education (Salend & Whittaker, 2012) and therefore focuses
on fostering acceptance of diversity of abilities and the use of strengths-based
approaches. Assessment strategies and IEPs are used to focus on students’
strengths and inform teaching. Well-established systems, including Response to
Intervention (Burns & Gibbons, 2008), Universal Design for Learning
(King-Sears, 2009) and Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (Savage
et al., 2011), are used to manage behaviour and facilitate learning. Interventions

14 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

involving assistive and instructional technologies, peer tutoring, co-operative
learning and the teaching of meta-cognitive strategies are used to optimise the
effectiveness of teaching, as are collaborating closely with parents and other
professionals (Hornby, 2011) and using culturally relevant and responsive inter-
ventions (Habib et al., 2013). As Heward (2003, p. 201) has suggested:

‘The biggest reason we do not teach more children with disabilities better
than we do is not because we do not know enough but because we do not
teach them as well as we know how . . . The same attitudes of science that
helped us discover effective teaching practices can help us learn how to
improve the application of those practices in schools.’

Facilitating the effective implementation of evidence-based practices (Hornby

et al., 2013) is therefore a key element of inclusive special education.

Continuum of placement options from mainstream classes to special schools

Inclusive special education recognises that, although the majority of children with
SEND can be effectively educated in mainstream classes, there are a minority of
children with higher levels of SEND who benefit more from being educated in
resource rooms, special classes or special schools for some or all of the time at
school (Kauffman & Badar, 2014a; NCSE, 2010; Warnock, 2005). Therefore, it is
necessary that a continuum of placement options, from mainstream classes to
special schools, is available. Such continua of options, often referred to as cas-
cades of services (Deno, 1970), have been the reality of special education provi-
sion in most countries for many years and typically include options from
mainstream classrooms with support from specialist teachers or teaching assis-
tants, through resource rooms or special classes within mainstream schools, to
separate special schools. A typical continuum includes the options below:

• mainstream class with differentiation of work by the class teacher;

• mainstream class with guidance for the teacher provided by a specialist
teacher;
• mainstream class with support for the pupil from a teaching assistant;
• mainstream class with some time spent in a resource room;
• special class within a mainstream school;
• special class that is part of a special school but is attached to a mainstream
school;
• special school which is on same campus as a mainstream school;
• special school on a separate campus;
• residential special school on its own campus.

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 15

Education in the most appropriate setting, through all stages of
a child’s education
An important consequence of having a continuum of placement options from
mainstream classes to special schools is that there can be movement between
the various placements in order to ensure that an education in the most appro-
priate setting can be provided throughout all stages of a child’s schooling. Chil-
dren must be able to move between placement options when this is needed in
order to make sure that they have appropriate programmes throughout their time
in education. For example, it is possible that a child may begin his or her
education in an early intervention programme along with other children with
high levels of SEND and when school-age is reached transfer to a mainstream
primary school class, perhaps with support from a specialist support teacher or
teaching assistant. Later, the child may transfer to a resource room or special
class within a middle school and later still transfer to a special school in order
to complete his or her education. Alternatively, a child may spend time attend-
ing a special school and later be transferred to a resource room or special class
within a mainstream school or to a mainstream classroom with specialist
support. The most important issue is to have the flexibility to transfer within a
school system that has a continuum of placement options available, in order to
ensure that children are at all times being educated in the setting that best
facilitates their learning.

Organisation for providing optimal education for all children with SEND
It is necessary to have coherent education policies and procedures in place in
all aspects of the education system in order to provide the best possible edu-
cation for all children with SEND (EADSNE, 2009). There are five key aspects
of this.

First, there needs to be a clear and coherent national policy based on inclusive
special education backed up by legislation that clearly specifies the rights of
children with SEND and their families, such as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (2004) in the USA. There also need to be statutory guidelines
provided by the national ministry of education, or equivalent, in each country,
such as the Code of Practice for SEND (DfE/DoH, 2014) in England. Mecha-
nisms need to be in place to ensure that these are implemented at regional and
local levels, for example, through regular school inspections conducted by agen-
cies such as Ofsted (2014) in England. In addition, there need to be parent
partnership services, as in England, or parent involvement co-ordinators, as in the
USA, which can provide information and guidance to parents of children with
SEND (Hornby, 2014).

16 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

Second, schools need to have policies and practices in place to ensure that the
requirements of national legislation and statutory guidelines are implemented.
They must have procedures in place for identifying and assessing children with
SEND and for providing appropriate interventions, for example, by means of
individualised educational programmes and transition plans (see Hornby, 2014).
They also need to have procedures in place for monitoring and reviewing the
progress of children identified as having SEND and for evaluating the effective-
ness of interventions used with them.

Third, schools also need to have effective organisational procedures for meeting
children’s SEND (Ekins, 2012). These should be implemented by key members of
special education teams or SENCos, who are trained in inclusive special educa-
tion, and who are part of the school staff, as well as specialists such as psycholo-
gists and specialist teachers from outside the school.

Fourth, schools must ensure that school-wide practices are based on research
evidence of effectiveness in facilitating the academic and social development of
children with SEND (Hornby et al., 2013). For example, they must have in place
effective procedures for optimising parental involvement in their children’s edu-
cation (Hornby, 2011). Schools must at the same time ensure that strategies found
to be ineffective, such as between-class ability grouping and facilitated commu-
nication (Hornby et al., 1997; Hornby & Witte, 2014; Kauffman & Badar, 2014b),
are avoided.

Fifth, all teachers must be able to identify children with SEND and ensure that the
teaching strategies and techniques that they use are based on sound practical
guidelines (see Hornby, 2014). Teachers must also, whenever possible, use
evidence-based practices such as cooperative learning and peer tutoring to facili-
tate the optimal learning of all children, including those with SEND. In order for
this to become a reality, all teachers must have thorough training in teaching
children with SEND as part of their initial training, and ongoing professional
development relevant to this throughout their careers.

Focus on effectively including as many children as possible in

mainstream schools
In inclusive special education, there is a major focus on effectively educating as
many children as possible in mainstream schools. In order to achieve this, it is
essential for mainstream school teachers to have a sound knowledge of the
different types of SEND and the practical teaching strategies needed to teach them
effectively in mainstream classrooms. Education systems and schools need to

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 17

have in place policies and practices in all of the aspects of schools discussed in
this article. This is illustrated by consideration of the factors found to be essential
in studies of mainstream schools that have successfully included children with
SEND in the USA (McLeskey et al., 2014) and in England (Farrell et al., 2007).
These were: having high expectations and focusing on meeting the needs of all
students at the school; using collaboration and differentiation to provide high
quality instruction for all students; having high quality ongoing school-centred
professional development; ensuring efficient and flexible use of resources; utilis-
ing distributed leadership and shared decision making; and using comprehensive
data systems to monitor student progress. In addition, mainstream school teachers
must develop the skills necessary to work effectively with parents of children with
SEND and with other professionals, such as psychologists, therapists, social
workers and specialist teachers, in order to implement effective inclusive special
education.

Close collaboration between mainstream and special schools and classes

In inclusive special education there are two roles for special schools. First, they
provide special education for children who have more severe levels of SEND
whose needs cannot be met effectively in mainstream schools. Second, they
provide guidance and support to assist mainstream schools to effectively
educate children with more moderate levels of SEND (Ekins, 2012). Special
schools are well placed to fulfil this second aspect of their role because they
have specialist staff who have expertise in dealing with the higher levels of
SEND that mainstream schools typically do not have. The collaboration
between special and mainstream schools is a key factor in ensuring the effec-
tiveness of education for children with SEND in mainstream schools and is an
important element of the philosophy and practice of inclusive special education.
Therefore, emphasis is placed on teachers developing the inter-personal skills
necessary for effective consultation and collaboration, including counselling
and assertiveness skills, as well as the skills needed for mentoring, empowering
and facilitating the development of colleagues and parents of children with
SEND (Hornby, 2014).

Conclusion
A theory of inclusive special education has been proposed that encompasses the
philosophies, policies and practices of both special education and inclusive edu-
cation. In this theory, aspects of both approaches are combined to form inclusive
special education. The goal of inclusive special education is to ensure that all
children with SEND are effectively educated in either special or mainstream

18 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

facilities from early childhood through secondary school education, in order to
achieve their maximum inclusion and full participation in the community when
they leave school.

It is intended that this presentation of a theory of inclusive special education will

help to generate a new vision which combines key aspects of inclusive education
and special education in order to ensure that all children with SEND receive the
best possible education and thereby obtain optimal preparation for living success-
ful and fulfilled lives after they leave school. It is hoped that this article will spark
a debate that will lead to further development of the theory of inclusive special
education.

References
Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J. M. (2012) ‘Disability as cultural difference:
implications for special education’, Remedial and Special Education, 33 (3),
139–149.
Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D. & Spandagou, I. (2010) Inclusive Education:
international policy and practice. London: Sage.
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B. & Waitoller, F. R. (eds) (2011) Inclusive
Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000) ‘Student teachers’
attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational
needs in the ordinary school’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 16 (3),
277–293.
Burns, M. K. & Gibbons, K. A. (2008) Implementing Response-to-Intervention
in Elementary and Secondary Schools. New York: Routledge.
Cooper, P. & Jacobs, B. (2011) From Inclusion to Engagement. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
CSIE (Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education) (1989) The Inclusion
Charter. Bristol: CSIE.
CSIE (Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education) (2002) The Inclusion Charter
(Revised) [online at http://www.csie.org.uk/resources/charter.shtml].
Currie, J. (2001) ‘Early childhood education programs’, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 15 (2), 213–238.
Deno, E. (1970) ‘Cascade system of special education services’, Exceptional
Children, 37, 229–237.

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 19

DfE/DoH (Department for Education/Department of Health) (2014) Special
Educational Needs and Disability: code of practice [online at https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015].
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997) Excellence for All
Children: meeting special educational needs. London: DfEE.
EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education)
(2009) Key Principles for Promoting Quality in Inclusive Education.
Odense, Denmark: EADSNE.
Ekins, A. (2012) The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs: impact
and implications for SENCOs and their schools. London: Routledge.
Emam, M. M. & Farrell, P. (2009) ‘Tensions experienced by teachers and
their views of support for pupils with autism spectrum disorders in
mainstream schools’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24 (4),
407–422.
Evans, J. & Lunt, I. (2002) ‘Inclusive education: are there limits?’, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 17 (1), 1–14.
Farrell, M. (2010) Debating Special Education. London: Routledge.
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F. (2007)
‘Inclusion and achievement in mainstream schools’, European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 22, 131–145.
Habib, A., Densmore-James, S. & Macfarlane, S. (2013) ‘Culturally and
linguistically diverse students’, Preventing School Failure, 57 (3), 171–180.
Hansen, J. H. (2012) ‘Limits to inclusion’, International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 16 (1), 89–98.
Heward, W. L. (2003) ‘Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that
hinder the effectiveness of special education’, Journal of Special Education,
36 (4), 186–205.
Hornby, G. (2011) Parental Involvement in Childhood Education: building
effective school-family partnerships. New York: Springer.
Hornby, G. (2014) Inclusive Special Education: evidence-based practice for
children with special educational needs and disabilities. New York:
Springer.
Hornby, G., Atkinson, M. & Howard, J. (1997) Controversial Issues in Special
Education. London: David Fulton.
Hornby, G., Gable, B. & Evans, B. (2013) ‘International literature reviews:
what they tell us and what they don’t’, Preventing School Failure, 57 (3),
119–123.
Hornby, G. & Witte, C. (2014) ‘Ability grouping in New Zealand high schools:
are practices evidence-based?’, Preventing School Failure, 58 (2), 90–95.

20 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

Kauffman, J. M. & Badar, J. (2014a) ‘Instruction, not inclusion, should
be the central issue in special education: an alternative view from
the USA’, Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17 (1),
13–20.
Kauffman, J. M. & Badar, J. (2014b) ‘Better thinking and clearer
communication will help special education’, Exceptionality: A Special
Education Journal, 22 (1), 17–32.
Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. (eds) (2005) The Illusion of Full Inclusion:
a comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (second
edition) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Kauffman, J. M., Nelson, C. M., Simpson, R. L. & Mock, D. R. (2011)
‘Contemporary issues’, in J. M. Kauffman and D. P. Hallahan (eds)
Handbook of Special Education. New York: Routledge.
King-Sears, M. (2009) ‘Universal Design for Learning: technology and
pedagogy’, Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 199–201.
Kivirauma, J. & Ruoho, K. (2007) ‘Excellence through special education?
Lessons from the Finnish school reform’, International Review of
Education, 53 (3), 283–302.
Kozleski, E. B., Artiles, A. J. & Waitoller, F. R. (2011) ‘Introduction: equity in
inclusive education: historical trajectories and theoretical commitments’, in
A. J. Artiles, E. B. Kozleski and F. R. Waitoller (eds) Inclusive Education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lindsay, G. (2007) ‘Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
1–24.
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. & Harvey, D. (2011) Inclusive Education: supporting
diversity in the classroom (second edition). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L. & Redd, L. (2014) ‘A case study of a highly
effective, inclusive elementary school’, Journal of Special Education, 48
(1), 59–70.
Mitchell, D. (2005) Contextualizing Inclusive Education. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. R. (2014) What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education:
using evidence-based teaching strategies (second edition). London:
Routledge.
MoE (Ministry of Education) (2010) Success for All: every school, every child.
Wellington, NZ: MoE.
NCSE (National Council for Special Education) (2010) Literature Review of
the Principles and Practices Relating to Inclusive Education for Children
with Special Educational Needs. Trim, Ireland: NCSE.

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 21

Norwich, B. (2013) ‘How does the capability approach address current
issues in special educational needs, disability and inclusive education
field?’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14 (1),
16–21.
Ofsted (2014) The Framework for School Inspection. Manchester: Ofsted.
Salend, S. J. (2011) Creating Inclusive Classrooms: effective and reflective
practices (seventh edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Salend, S. & Whittaker, C. (2012) ‘Inclusive education: best practices in the
United States’, in C. Boyle and K. Topping (eds) What Works in Inclusion?
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Savage, C., Lewis, J. & Colless, N. (2011) ‘Essentials for implementation: six
years of School Wide Positive Behaviour Support in New Zealand’, New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40 (1), 29–37.
Singal, N. & Muthukrishna, N. (2014) ‘Introduction: education, childhood and
disability in countries of the South – re-positioning the debates’, Childhood,
1–15.
Slee, R. (2011) The Irregular School: exclusion, schooling and inclusive
education. London: Routledge.
Smith, P. (2010) ‘Whatever happened to inclusion? The place of students with
intellectual disabilities in general education classrooms’, in P. Smith (ed.)
Whatever Happened to Inclusion? New York: Peter Lang.
Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R. & Törmänen, M. (2009) ‘Inclusive special education:
the role of special education teachers in Finland’, British Journal of Special
Education, 36 (3), 162–172.
Temple, J. A. & Reynolds, A. J. (2007) ‘Benefits and costs of investments in
preschool education: evidence from the Child–Parent Centers and related
programs’, Economics of Education Review, 26, 126–144.
Terzi, L. (ed.) (2010) Special Educational Needs: a new look. London:
Continuum.
Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2007) Deconstructing Special Education and
Constructing Inclusion. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Thomson, J. J. (1990) The Realm of Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Topping, K. (2012) ‘Conceptions of inclusion: widening ideas’, in C. Boyle
and K. Topping (eds) What Works in Inclusion? Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)
(1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special
Needs Education. New York: UNESCO.

22 British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 © 2015 NASEN

Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: a new look. London:
Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

Address for correspondence:

Garry Hornby
28 Violet Row
Sunset Crest
St James
Barbados
Email: [email protected]

Article submitted: August 2014

Accepted for publication: February 2015

© 2015 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume •• · Number •• · 2015 23

View publication stats