INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR

ALL AS A SPECIAL INTEREST

WITHIN THE COMPARATIVE

AND INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATION RESEARCH

COMMUNITY

Florian Kiuppis and Susan Peters

ABSTRACT

Inclusive Education promotes access to quality education, as well as par-ticipation and achievement opportunities for all learners in heterogeneoussettings, particularly for those who are vulnerable, have been margina-lized, discriminated against, labeled, and segregated in separate schoolsfor “special needs.” Key issues include equal opportunity, and systemicchange to accommodate diversity. This discussion essay addresses thequestion of how comparative and international education researchadvances understanding of these issues. As a key strategy for school

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2014

International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 25, 53�63

Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-367920140000025005

53

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

reform adopted by UNESCO for its millennium development goal of uni-versal education, implications for research and professional developmentof inclusive education policy and practices are discussed.

Keywords: Inclusive Education; special needs education; education forall; disability; diversity; analysis of meanings

The Inclusive Education “Special Interest Group” (SIG) of theComparative and International Education Society (CIES)—the context inwhich we met five years ago—began as a small group of scholars interestedin mainstreaming the rights of children with disabilities into internationaldevelopment cooperation, and particularly advancing the educationalrights of this group. Not only in that organizational context, InclusiveEducation (IE) was an idea promoted by special education professionals,mainly from North America (e.g., Stainback & Stainback, 1990), advocat-ing the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream general educa-tion classes and schools. Until a few years ago, contributions groupedtogether in highlighted paper sessions or panels of this SIG covered primar-ily disability-related issues. Subsequently, newer submissions encompassedother topics (e.g., multiculturalism), focused on different groups of margin-alized minorities (e.g., migrant children and refugees), or dealt non-categorically with heterogeneous populations of learners (cf. Opertti,Brady, & Duncombe, 2009; Peters, 2004).

IE gained international recognition and cachet with the SalamancaStatement of 1994 (Kiuppis & Sarromaa Hausstatter, 2014). It emergedin the 1990s in connection with a “new thinking” in Special NeedsEducation (Kiuppis, 2014), arguably distinct from Education for All(Peters, 2007). Today, policy statements emphasize IE as a major compo-nent of reform conceptions in education. As both an attitude and a newapproach to education, IE is widely recognized and internationallyregarded as innovative. In fact, this model was chosen as the theme ofthe last ministerial “International Conference on Education” (held inGeneva, in 2008), presently one of the foremost international fora foreducation policy dialogue among stakeholders in education. On thatoccasion, IE was celebrated as “The Way of the Future” (InternationalBureau of Education, 2008). Accordingly, nearly all UNESCO member

54 FLORIAN KIUPPIS AND SUSAN PETERS

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

states, as well as organizations and professionals in education, appearedto have answered IE in the affirmative. They currently share the globalaim to implement the model in respective education systems. As a result,currently “there is no serious national educational agenda organizedaround exclusive principles in place anywhere” (Ramirez, 2006, p. 440;italics: the authors).

DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF IE

Beyond the collective aim to implement IE, there is, however, no sharedinterpretation of this model (Kiuppis, 2013b). In actuality, the way IE istranslated into public policies, reform conceptions, and teaching practices,differs significantly between countries. It is evident, that upon examiningthe reception of IE on the local level, there remains little consensus regard-ing the term. Conformity prevails only regarding the vision to reduce bar-riers to learning and participation.

Even regarding the basic question, who are the intended recipients of IE,a wide variety of answers exists: First, some studies consider IE as a non-categorical, all-embracing approach characterized by “ensuring a basicminimum standard of education for all” (Ainscow, 2012, p. 290) and deal-ing with heterogeneous student populations in which individual differencesare not classified according to categories like race, religion, gender, or dis-ability (Dyson & Millward, 2000).

Second, some contributions frame IE as a concept directed to all, but infact focus especially on particular groups that are either considered mostvulnerable, marginalized, or with special educational needs, that tradition-ally have been attributed to people with disabilities (see, e.g., Jahnukainen,2001).

Third, some approaches understand IE as a concept directed first andforemost to people with disabilities—which, when looking at the history ofIE, makes sense because it arose in the mid-1990s out of the SpecialEducation unit of UNESCO. This third approach is supported by contribu-tions arguing in line with the UN “Convention on the Rights of Personswith Disabilities” (2006)—primarily with reference made to Article 24—suggesting that inclusion conceptually advances integration and thus firstand foremost is intended for people with disabilities (e.g., Lei & Myers,2011).

55Inclusive Education for All

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

THE WAY FROM SPECIAL EDUCATION TO

IE FOR ALL

UNESCO initially developed IE as a theme in a program context with pri-mary focus on disability (see, e.g., Kiuppis, 2014). UNESCO then estab-lished further momentum for IE when it adopted it as a key strategy for itsEducation for All initiative, especially with respect to its MillenniumDevelopment Goal of universal primary education. To further the goal ofuniversal primary education, the 2010 Global Monitoring Report had as itstheme, Reaching the Marginalized, in which it further specified and opera-tionalized strategies for inclusion. At its heart, IE addresses the need toprovide access and equity for marginalized students. Its basic goals arerespect for diversity, equal opportunity, and systemic change to meet thesegoals. In the process of universally adopting this concept, reaching the mar-ginalized through IE has embraced not just students with disabilities, butall students who experience discrimination. The focus of IE has also shiftedfrom the learner to systemic barriers to learning.

Responding to these developments, the IE SIG of CIES has grown, ashas its membership, “to provide CIES members with a forum in which theresearch of Inclusive Education, Education for All, as well as SpecialNeeds Education take center stage” and has as its goal “to elicit the partici-pation of scholars dealing with the heterogeneity of learners, and interestedin educational issues specific to (but not limited by) children who are mar-ginalized due to special education needs, including disabilities, second lan-guage acquisition, poverty, racial and ethnic discrimination, socialexclusion, etc.” This widened focus on the heterogeneity of learners wasmainly inspired by academics from the United Kingdom who decontextua-lized the term “inclusion” from US-based research on disabilities, andtransferred it to their research on school improvement in connection with a“new thinking” in Special Needs Education. In this context, “inclusion”contrasted with “integration” as a non-categorical approach according towhich it avoids distinguishing learners on the basis of particular character-istics attributed to them prior to the educational situation (e.g., being dis-abled). “Inclusion” often replaces the term “integration” although thecontent of the term remains the same.

In essence, in the United States, debates around IE form part ofDisability Studies (cf., e.g., Baglieri, Bejoian, Broderick, Connor, & Valle,2011), while Disability Studies in the United Kingdom barely deal witheducation and debates on IE form part of a discourse on school improve-ment (cf. Kiuppis, 2013a, 152ff.). However, the focus of IE on marginalized

56 FLORIAN KIUPPIS AND SUSAN PETERS

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

learners, barriers to their participation and opportunities to learn, situatesIE squarely in the sites of research to promote and advance teacher educa-tion and professional development, as well as research to influence policyand reform relative to these issues. Qualified teachers significantly influencestudent achievement. Teachers are the front line in promoting quality edu-cation, leading to the questions, what practices make them successful, andwhat policies support their work?

DIVERSITY OF AMBITIONS CONNECTED WITH

RESEARCH ON IE

Studies conducted so far on IE and education for all can be roughlydifferentiated by their different ambitions. Some contributions are quitedescriptive (e.g., Miles, 2002); others are explanatory by seeking—somewith rather rhetorical use of theory—to clarify the term and put emphasison a certain way to perceive it (e.g., Hinz, 2004); and yet others are moreemphatic, developing concrete ideas for implementing it (e.g., Ainscow &Cesar, 2006; for a critique of “finished solutions” cf. SarromaaHausstatter, 2013) or writing in an ideological tone (for an overview see,e.g., Brantlinger, 1997).

Simona D’Alessio and Steven Cowan fueled the discourse on recommen-dations for research on these issues with their article contributed to lastyear’s Annual Review of Comparative and International Education (2013).They claim that the two most important issues facing IE—and indeed edu-cation writ large—are diversity (of students) and access (equal opportunityto learn). One of the key issues pertaining to diversity has been the identifi-cation, classification, and categorization of special needs learners. In thisconnection, D’Alessio and Cowan maintain the “resilience of special needseducation in current discourses of inclusive education,” provide an analysisof the problems inherent in classifying disabilities, and conclude that thereis a need “to find a system of classification that does not label and stigma-tize some learners as ‘others’ in order to provide them with the same rightsof other learners.” They claim that “different conceptualizations of disabil-ity indicate that international and cross-cultural studies of inclusive educa-tion and special needs education struggle to identify a common ‘targetgroup’ of their studies. Depending on the different conceptualizations ofthe same phenomenon, the target group can be represented by learnerswith disabilities (medical/individual model and bio-psycho-social model),

57Inclusive Education for All

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

societal barriers (social model), discriminatory policies and practices(human rights).”

However, we would rather see the diverse meanings of IE in differentanswers to the question if the target group is people with disabilities, mar-ginalized minorities and vulnerable groups (in line with Education for All(EFA), or literally all, understood in the sense of the heterogeneity of learn-ing populations, not classified according to categorical differences. Firstand foremost, classification and labeling based merely on differences identi-fied on the level of the body does in our view not inform a teacher concern-ing appropriate practices for learning. Second, labeling on that basisimplicitly puts the onus on the student, assuming the characteristic of thestudent as the cause of difficulties in learning, rather than environmentalbarriers and teacher practice. Third, classifying students according toattributable features only leads to classifying educational professionals—special education and general education teachers being a prime example.One must ask, if mono-causal classification is so important, why have wenot labeled and classified students by level of poverty or ethnic minoritystatus in order to provide an appropriate quality education? Why do wenot have teachers labeled as specializing in poverty or ethnicity? Fourth,classifying students as disabled just on the basis of impairments ignores thefact that children have multiple identities (such as gender, ethnicity, lan-guage). Classification as disabled independently from situations fails torecognize the full complement of diversity that children bring to the educa-tional setting and thus reinforces the myth of homogeneity regarding thosechildren that are not disabled. Here, the bio-psycho-social model of disabil-ity offers itself as a useful tool (cf. World Health Organization, 2001). Thismodel connects classification of health components in a “pentagon” con-taining five components used to conceptualize disability starting with ahealth condition: (1) activity; (2) body structures and functions; (3) partici-pation; (4) environmental factors; (5) personal factors (Kiuppis, 2013a;for use of this framework in education cf., e.g., Hollenweger & Moretti,2012). “Functioning” is, next to Disability and Health, the central term ofthis framework—i.e., as a whole “[not] only about people with disabilities;in fact, about all people” (WHO, 2001, p. 7). In light of the InternationalClassification of Functioning, Disabiliy and Health (ICF) one couldeven argue that in certain contexts people without impairments could beconsidered disabled, however. According to the ICF, disability isneither predominantly a biological issue (as the phrase “people with a dis-ability” would suggest) nor mainly a social phenomenon (which the British“Social Model” in its pure form with focus on oppression suggests) but the

58 FLORIAN KIUPPIS AND SUSAN PETERS

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

interaction between health conditions and environmental and personalfactors.

It can be argued that in writings that deal with people who “have adisability” (e.g., D’Alessio & Cowan, 2013), the treatment of the social-contextual side of disability seems to be too subtle (cf. Kiuppis, 2013a,p. 154). Accordingly, the human rights approach applied in the United Statestends to overemphasize the impairment side of the disability phenomenon.For this reason, UNICEF’s recent statement “See the child � before thedisability” (UNICEF, 2013) is not acceptable in the academic and politicalcontext of Disability Studies within the United Kingdom. One example canbe seen in the reaction to a similarly sounding UK government campaign inthe 1990s, with the slogan “See the person [and not the disability],” whichwas opposed by disability activists largely because in their view the term“disability” referred to physical impairment (e.g., Findlay, 1999, p. 7).

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON ADVANCING

RESEARCH WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF IE

Research on teacher education and professional development that recog-nizes the importance to appreciate the diversity of learners and how to suc-cessfully teach them, critically advances the IE agenda (Florian, 2014). Theway, how, and the extent to which research on professional developmentand teacher preparation has brought classification into focus mainly servesto perpetuate the idea that some learners are so “special” that they needspecialized teachers and specialized training. A shift in research perspectivefrom focus on diverse learners per se, to focus on the practice of teachingdiverse learners, as well as removing classroom and systemic barriers tolearning, is needed to advance our understanding of teacher education andprofessional development.

In terms of policy and reform, D’Alessio and Cowan (2013) discuss thetheoretical underpinnings of comparative and international educationresearch. A primary concern of theirs is the tension between universalhuman rights and the localized cultural context of policy and reform. Theyargue that cross-country comparisons and promotion of universal policiesare dangerous, in that they stifle country and culture-specific needs. In thisregard, CIES researchers have produced a rich body of research on culturalcontexts that do much to advance understandings of policy and reform inIE. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

59Inclusive Education for All

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

promulgated in 2007 and endorsed by numerous nations, came into beingbecause these rights had been ignored. Following this convention, decentra-lization and localization of policies that support IE must be accompaniedby central government policies that provide incentives for innovative andpromising practice, build on local strengths, while at the same time safe-guard and ensure that universal right of access and participation in IE areapplied equally to all learners. To the extent that research on policy andreform has the same goals of access and participation for learners with spe-cial needs, IE agenda may be advanced. In respect of these goals, researchagendas would do well to incorporate the mandates of Article 24 of theUN Convention, according to which states parties shall ensure that:“Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primaryeducation and secondary education on an equal basis with others in thecommunities in which they live (2b)” and “Effective individualized supportmeasures are provided in environments that maximize academic and socialdevelopment, consistent with the goal of full inclusion (2e).”

School reform also depends on teachers’ ability to work with and learnfrom colleagues. The research methods used to study teacher practice makea significant difference to whether or not the results are used in the class-room. D’Alessio and Cowan discuss three strands of research in their 2013article: single-case studies, small-scale studies, and large-scale studies. Theyargue that the best way to promote transformative change in policy andpractice is through single-cases and small-scale studies that avoid unhelpfulcomparisons among countries with different needs and cultural contexts.This is a valid point, especially for studies of IE that focus on diversity andlocal barriers. However, further examination of research methods shouldtake into consideration the particular methods used to perform case studiesand small-scale research.

Specifically, two types of contemporary research on professional devel-opment that have proven effective for transformative policy and practice,are participatory action research (PAR) and Professional LearningCommunities (PLCs) (Pugach & Blanton, 2014). PAR that includes tea-chers (and students) in all aspects of the research is empowering, emancipa-tory, and furthers social activism, increasing the chances for adaptation ofpractices found to be effective. PAR has also proven an excellent methodfor developing youth leadership and citizenship. Research developedthrough and by PLCs is especially fruitful in IE because it provides anopportunity for specialists to work together with classroom teachers tosolve mutual problems of teaching and learning. PLCs have proven parti-cularly useful in this regard in relation to inclusive practice and improving

60 FLORIAN KIUPPIS AND SUSAN PETERS

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

the literacy skills of learners. PLCs also provide a necessary platform forthe intersection between organizational change and individual teacherchange, especially when new teacher skills are embedded in program leveleducational goals.

Overall, research in IE has been used in context of systematic programchange, with its emphasis on a philosophy of inclusion, and removing bar-riers to the participation of diverse, marginalized students. The goals ofComparative Education research and IE research are highly compatibleand mutually reinforcing. For the future, it is expected that research on tea-cher professional development, policy, and practice will:

1. make IE a guiding central tenet and philosophy;2. insure that considerations of marginalized students, including those with

disabilities and impairments, are included in research questions;3. recognize cultural, economic, social, and demographic diversity as not

only a given in contemporary schools but also an asset to be cultivated;4. provide opportunities for emancipatory and PAR on the part of all

stakeholders working together.

Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals are rich areasfor research in comparative and international IE. These areas require inves-tigation and investment in professional development and systematic schoolreform. We leave our readers with this thought: Some children start schoolwith more advantages than others—advantages of wealth and healthamong the most influential. Children in poverty and children with impair-ments, and all marginalized students (whether due to language, religion,race, ethnicity, or gender) do not have to be disadvantaged by their treat-ment in schools or by their exclusion from schools. If children are deniededucational opportunities, then it is the lack of education and not theircharacteristics that limit them.

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M. (2012). Moving knowledge around: Strategies for fostering equity within educa-

tional systems. Journal of Educational Change, 13(3), 289�310.

Ainscow, M., & Cesar, M. (2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: Setting the

agenda. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 231�238.

Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). [Re]Claiming

“Inclusive Education” toward cohesion in educational reform: Disability studies unra-

vels the myth of the normal child. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2122�2154.

61Inclusive Education for All

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

Brantlinger, E. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of nonrecognition of the politics of research and

practice in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 425�459.

D’Alessio, S., & Cowan, S. (2013). Cross-cultural approaches to the study of “inclusive” and

“special needs” education. In A. W. Wiseman & E. Anderson (Eds.), Annual review of

comparative and international education 2013 (Vol. 20, pp. 227�261). Bingley, UK:

Emerald Group Publishing.

Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (2000). Schools and special needs: Issues of innovation and inclusion.

London: Sage.

Findlay, B. (1999). Disability rights and culture under attack. Disability Arts in London, 149,

6�7.

Florian, L. (2014). Preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities. In

L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Hinz, A. (2004). From segregation to inclusion in Germany. In V. Heung & M. Ainscow

(Eds.), Inclusive education: A framework for reform? (pp. 135�145). Hong Kong: Hong

Kong Institute of Education.

Hollenweger, J., & Moretti, M. (2012). Using the international classification of functioning,

disability and health children and youth version in education systems: A new approach

to eligibility. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 91(13), 97�102.

IBE (International Bureau of Education). (2008). Inclusive education: The way of the future.

General presentation of the 48th International Conference on Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/General_

Presentation-48CIE-English.pdf. Accessed on February 14, 2014.

Jahnukainen, M. (2001). Social exclusion and dropping out of education. International

Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 1, 1�12.

Kiuppis, F. (2013a). “Pedagogikkens pentagon” revis(it)ed: Considerations on emancipation

from a disability studies and inclusive education perspective. In J. Steinnes &

S. Dobson (Eds.), Pedagogikk under livets tre (pp. 147�160). Trondheim: Akademika

forlag.

Kiuppis, F. (2013b). Heterogeneous inclusivity, including heterogeneity: On changes in meanings

of pedagogical concepts in the course of their development in the institutional environment

of international organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (in German).

Humboldt-University, Berlin.

Kiuppis, F. (2014). Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing

connections from the start of the ‘Salamanca Process’. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 18(7), 746�761.

Kiuppis, F. & Sarromaa Hausstatter, R. (Eds.). (2014). Inclusive education � 20 years after

Salamanca. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lei, P., & Myers, J. (2011). Making the grade? A review of donor commitment and action on

inclusive education for disabled children. International Journal of Inclusive Education,

15(10), 1169�1185.

Miles, S. (2002). Learning about inclusive education: The role of EENET in promoting inter-

national dialogue. In P. Farrell & M. Ainscow (Eds.), Making Special Education

Inclusive (pp. 51�62). New York: David Fulton.

Opertti, R., Brady, J., & Duncombe, L. (2009). Moving forward: Inclusive education as the

core of education for all. Prospects, 39(3), 205�214.

Peters, S. J. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children. Washington, DC:

World Bank.

62 FLORIAN KIUPPIS AND SUSAN PETERS

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing

Peters, S. J. (2007). “Education for all?” A historical analysis of international inclusive educa-

tion policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2),

98�108.

Pugach, M. C., & Blanton, L. P. (2014). Inquiry and community: Uncommon Opportunities

to enrich professional development for inclusion. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE hand-

book of special education (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Ramirez, F. O. (2006). Beyond achievement and attainment studies � Revitalizing a compara-

tive sociology of education. Comparative Education, 42(3), 431�449.

Sarromaa Hausstatter, R. (2013). In support of unfinished inclusion. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research. doi:10.1080/00313831.2013.773553

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Inclusive schooling. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback

(Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education

(pp. 3�23). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

UN. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: United

Nations.

UNICEF. (2013). The state of the world’s children. Report on children with disabilities.

UNICEF, New York, NY.

WHO (World Health Organization). (2001). International classification of functioning, disability

and health. Geneva: WHO.

63Inclusive Education for All

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing