Inclusive Education from Policy to Practice

Introduction

The inclusion of children with special educational needs in

mainstream classes and schools has been a controversial issue

in the U.K for the last forty years. The current assignment

will firstly consider the term inclusion and how it has been

interpreted and defined by different scholars and

organisations. It is emphasised that there are still

ambiguities embedded in it and discrepancies between the

researchers about the explicit meaning of the term. Secondly,

the legislation to date that has formed the current policies

in schools will be reviewed and critically appraised. Thus,

the policies which have made inclusion possible from the

Wornock report (1978) onwards will be examined and the main

issues that have been raised will be assessed. The assignment

will further delve in the ongoing and vivid debate of

inclusion. The humanitarian rights that have been raised by

the inclusionists and the malpractice, practical difficulties

and the negative outcomes associated to the practice of

inclusion will be thoroughly examined. A separate chapter will

analyse the emotional and academic outcomes for the children.

Thus, studies that have evaluated inclusion in comparison to

exclusion will be appraised. Lastly, this essay will review

two practices that have been linked to inclusion, Teaching

Assistants (TA) and the Individual Educational Plan (IEP). The

disputable opinions about the effectiveness of the TAs within

the classroom will be viewed and the controversies surrounding

the boundaries of her/his role will be evaluated. The IEP and

the opinions about its values will be explored.

The term inclusion

Inclusion is a complex concept and the definition of the term

is excluded from a considerable number of publications because

of the ambiguities embedded in it (Ainscow, 2006). In other

words, although there are common principles that underlie the

notion, there is not a single agreed definition and the

practices can vary even between the same culture and

educational system (Dyson, 1999). It has also been argued that

it is not solely associated to children with SEN but to all

pupils (Booth & Ainscow, 2002).

The view that inclusion is merely the education of children

with special educational needs in regular school alongside

their peers is simplistic and pivotal features are not taken

into consideration (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). As Farrell (2000)

has emphasised, a location other than mainstream school does

not necessarily mean non inclusive education. Onus should not

be put on where the education takes place but rather on the

individual's experience of being included.

Furthermore, in order to better comprehend inclusion it can be

compared to the notion of integration. Although the two terms

have been used interchangeably, in the latter onus is put on

the individual's differences and it is expected from the

student to assimilate in a mainstream school that is not

obliged to change. Hence, it is assumed that children with SEN

will adapt to a school that is not prepared to cater for their

needs (Mittler, 2000). In contrast, the crucial feature of

inclusion is that it is a process in which it is expected from

the school to change and adapt curricula, methods and material

in order to be more responsive to the children's diverse and

additional needs (Frederickson & Cline, 2009). In other words,

focus is moved away from individual and the challenges he/she

may encounter and put on the learning environment and the

school resources and how they could be flexible and adjusted

to meet the needs of all children. Furthermore the kernel goal

of inclusion is to eliminate the barriers of achievement and

participation and concurrently create a sense of belonging.

Hence, inclusion is not efficiently achieved until all members

feel they belong within the school society (Friederickson et

al., 2007). Therefore the well-being and achievement of every

student matters (Ofsted, 2000). In light of the

aforementioned, inclusion is a process which requires re-

organisation of the culture and ethos of the schools (Hornby,

2011). The Salamanca Statement of Special Needs Education

(UNESCO, 1994) justly refers to “equalisation of opportunity”

within the mainstream school. Thus, Moreover, as Aiscow and

Booth have pointed out that inclusion in schools is associated

to the wider social inclusion policy, thus the participation

of all in society and education by decreasing the exclusionary

and discriminatory practices (Backer, 2007).

Inclusive legislation

In this chapter a brief critical review of the inclusive

legislation to date will be sought and emphasis will be put on

the pivotal policies that have made it possible to move away

from segregation and towards inclusion.

In the UK the Warnock report in 1978 (DES, 1978) radically

changed the educational provision for pupils with SEN and

commenced the process of integration, thus laid the

foundations of inclusion. One should merely consider the

terminology that was used before the report to grasp the leap

that was taken. “Handicapped by disabilities of body or mind”

was replaced be term “special educational needs”. Furthermore,

it recommended that the educational needs of the children

should be evaluated and pupils should not merely be abolished

for fitting into the disabled category. The main focus of the

report was that children with special educational needs,

whenever possible, should be taught alongside their peers in

mainstream schools. Moreover, categories of special needs were

abandoned.

The educational act of 1981was essentially the translation of

the Warnock report into legislation and there have only been

minor changes ever since (Welton & Evans, 1986). It

recommended the integration of children with special

educational needs providing that their needs could be met and

the education of other children would not adversely be

affected by the use of the resources. It further changed the

conceptualisation of special educational needs by shifting the

identification of SEN to the assessment of the child. Thus,

special educational needs exist if a student has greater

difficulty in learning than his/her peers or a disability that

hinders him from using the educational facilities that are

available in mainstream schools. Furthermore, the

responsibility to identify the needs was given to local

authorities (LA) and parents had the right to be consulted

about the decision and to appeal against it.

However, the definition of SEN has been criticised because it

is manly based on reference to others (Goacher et al. 1988).

In other words, the term special or additional support for

some students implies that the educational system is still

based on long- held utilitarian structure that intelligence is

normally distributed (Florian, 2008). This bell shaped model

suggests that while the needs of the “normal” students are

being met, the ones at the tails end are going to need

something additional or different. Furthermore, it has been

suggested that by giving the local authorities (LA) the power

to identify the needs they have the jurisdiction to provide

the child with as much or as little provision as they want. In

other words the children could be sacrificed economic cuts and

reduced resources (Welton & Evans, 1986). Furthermore, the

definition of normal and respectively of learning difficulties

is detached to the level of performance of a school. Hence, in

schools where average performance is high children with

moderate learning disabilities are more likely to stand out

than in low performance schools where they may never be

assigned to a SEN programme (Keslair, Maurin, McNally, 2012).

The appropriateness of the Warnock report that laid the

foundation of the education structure was questioned by the

chair of the committee herself after nearly forty years

(Warnock, 2005). In her 2005 report she suggested that the

idea of inclusion was possibly the most deleterious concept of

the 1978 report. It further suggested that the current

educational system denies support to middle disadvantaged

children. The main focus however is that it is not possible

for all pupils due to behavioural, emotional or cognitive

reasons to flourish within the mainstream school. Bullying and

other traumatic experiences for children have been highlighted

and it has been pointed out that inclusion may jeopardise the

“mainstream children's” chance of learning.

The special education needs code of practice of 2001 (DfES,

2001) is based on the value that all children's needs will be

met in mainstream schools or settings and is in accordance

with the Warnock report (Spooner, 2006). In contrast to the

1981 law the child's placement does not depend on the

available resources. It gives great emphasis to the

contribution of the child and the parents in the decision

making process and recommends a graduated approach to meet the

needs of the individual with SEN. Thus, school Action and

School Action Plus. It further suggests the deficits within

the child are not the only factors that should be taken into

consideration. Hence, except for the characteristics of the

learner, focus should also be put on the learning environment,

the task and the teaching style that the school is providing

(DfE, 2001). However, the process of the statement has been

criticised because it is time consuming process that could

take up to six months. The Disability Discrimination Act of

2005 had highlighted the right for children with special needs

to be included.

The 2012 Green paper even more power is placed on the parents,

thus they are bestowed the right to control the funding of the

children. Furthermore, the duties of the LA expand. School

Action and School Action Plus will be replaced by a single

category, the Education Health and Care Plan (EHC), which is

available for pupils up to 25 years old. It is a document that

brings together all the services offered by the teachers,

practitioners and social workers (DFES, 2012).

Although the legislation exhibits a commitment to inclusion at

a national level, it has been argued that the current

educational system itself is averse to implementing inclusion.

More specifically, a series of policies from the 80's onwards

by the Conservative and Labour governments have placed onus on

encouraging competition in order to achieve better academic

outcomes (Ball, 2001). These objectives are in contrast to the

main aims of inclusion and emphasise that controversial

concepts exist on what an improved school is and what

achievements are and the way to raise them (Aiscow, 2006). In

other words, the demands that are made on the schools are

paradoxal. Their inclusive responsibilities are inconsistent

to the performativity expectations they put on the students

(Sage, 2007).

The debate about inclusion

Equal rights opposed to equal opportunity

Inclusion has long been a subject of debate among scholars.

The party that has strongly argued for the integration of

children with Special Educational Needs in mainstream schools

has mainly based their arguments on humanistic, moral and

educational reasons (Peterson, 2010). On the contrary, the

opponent party places onus on the unsatisfactory educational

and social outcomes of the children with SEN within the

mainstream schools (Warnock, 2005).

The inclusionists have suggested that children with SEN are

entitled to attend mainstream schools and have put forward

arguments that are based on human rights, justice and

compassion to support their views. Thus, it has been argued

that segregated education is discriminatory and it violates

the pupils' basic rights to be taught alongside their peers in

their local community. By denying them the opportunity to

attend a mainstream school in close proximity to their home,

it reduces their social importance and denies them their human

dignity by making them feel less socially visible (Stainback &

Stainback, 1996).

The advocates of inclusion have further underlined that

segregation is underpinned by a malign motivation. Thus,

although separate schools exist for boys and girls and for

different religious groups, the term segregation implies

mandatory marginalisation to students with SEN (Farrell,

2004).

The scholars who view inclusion with scepticism have suggested

that equal treatment should not be the focus of interest if it

overshadows equal opportunity. Indeed, history has

demonstrated that without special facilities students with SEN

are denied equal chances (Winzer, 2007). Indicatively, Liu

(1995) has argued that the social and cultural needs of deaf

children are not being met in mainstream schools. Therefore,

an appropriate education that takes into consideration the

diverse abilities and specific needs is more important than

their right to be educated alongside their peers. In other

words, their personal needs counterbalance their moral right

to attend a mainstream school.

The corresponding argument that has been put forward by the

advocates of inclusion is that there is no reason why personal

provision should be offered in a separate setting (CSIE,

2009).

It has been asserted by the inclusionists that the whole

structure of segregation is based on the supposed inferiority

and weakness of the individuals with special needs (Peterson,

2010). More specifically society has viewed people with

impairments as frail and powerless and therefore not bound to

fulfil the obligations that are put on the “normal” members of

the society. This model suggests that the exclusion of

individuals with special needs from mainstream society is a

natural and inevitable process. Their disadvantages are better

facilitated and met in a different environment and a special

school. It has been argued by the supporters of the particular

model that this is not a form of discrimination but rather a

natural result of an individual's differences from society's

norms (Hayer, 2007). This model that has been endorsed for

many centuries which sets the foundations for integration

within the educational system has emotionally impacted

children with SEN in an negative way according to the

inclusionists (Peterson, 2010).

The model of society

The inclusionists have further suggested that school may be

perceived as a model of society. Thus, in order for society to

integrate children with special needs this must start at a

young age in the society of school (Frederickson & Cline,

2009). However, as Warnock (2005) has argued, this picture is

not precise and tainted . On the contrary in order for equal

opportunities for all pupils to be ensured in the future, the

student may be obliged to be taught under separate settings.

This means that for an inclusive society to be created all

children should be schooled within an environment where they

experience a sense of belonging and achievement.

The teachers' training

The advocates of segregation have argued that mainstream

teachers are inadequately prepared to meet the needs of

children with SEN. They do not acquire the necessary training

and therefore are not equipped to work in a more inclusive

school system (Sakelaridis, 2012). However, the inclusionists

suggest that although some teachers may lack the confidence to

teach children with learning difficulties (DCSF, 2010), all

have sufficient skills to support all their students. Indeed

the literature to date suggests that the approaches and

pedagogical strategies that are recommended for children

mainstream pupils apply for children with SEN. Thus,

emphasises should not be placed on inventing new approaches

but on how the same strategies should be modified and applied

in a different manner in order to be more effective within a

inclusive environment. Furthermore, it is essential to point

out that during their careers teachers encounter all kind of

educational differences among students that are irrelevant to

SEN. Learning styles vary among pupils and educators are

obliged to make decisions on how to better facilitate the

students' inconsistent needs. Therefore, without espousing the

notion that one size fits all, the teachers have the

fundamental knowledge to cater for the needs of SEN (Florian,

2010). However, there are no studies to date that compare the

abilities of special educational teachers to the ones of the

mainstream teachers. Furthermore, the literature to date has

omitted to evaluate the differences as far as the outcomes for

the children with SEN are concerned. The answers to these

questions could help us understand the fundamental differences

between the quality of teaching between the trained in special

needs and not trained educators.

The financial issue

The financial issue has been vividly debated amongst the two

opposing parties. The inclusionists invoke the great amount of

money that have been used for special educational schools.

Indicatively, one must solely consider the cost of transport

that is being spent in order to transfer children from

different communities to the closest special school available.

Furthermore, it has been argued that that the funds that are

being used for special schools could facilitate inclusive

education in mainstream schools (Sakellaridis, 2012).

The proponents of segregation on the other hand have argued

that although inclusion may appear to be the cheapest option,

the benefits are only short- term. Hence, if the goals of the

educational system are not being met, thus if the children do

not develop independence and are not equipped to cater their

own needs, the society will inevitably have to support them.

In other words, the unemployment and welfare benefits will

cost the society much more in the long run than the seemingly

expensive SEN provision of special educational schools

(Hornby, 2011). However, no longitudinal studies exist that

trace the later life of the children with SEN after they have

been educated with their peers in mainstream schools. Such

studies could be crucial in determining the longitudinal

effects of inclusion.

Academic and emotional outcomes for children with Special

Educational Needs in mainstream schools

Both parties have heightened focus on the potential beneficial

outcomes for all the individuals involved in both segregation

and inclusion. More specifically, inclusionists have suggested

that the individuals with special educational needs have the

opportunity to develop meaningful relationships with peers of

their own age who may become role models for them (Maccarthy,

2006). Thus, they develop greater social skills than children

who are confined to interact solely with children of special

needs. They have the chance to become a part of a greater

student body and make friends that are different from them.

Furthermore, the “mainstream” students develop an

understanding and empathy towards students with special

educational needs and except them as part of their community

(Frederickson et al. 2007). Controversially, the opponents of

inclusion have put forward the argument of stigmatisation and

a painful kind of exclusion within the mainstream schools for

children with SEN. As Warnock (2005) has emphasised the

negative social outcomes for children with SEN may over weigh

the positive ones. Thus, bullying and social rejection

prohibits them from flourishing. Indeed a number of studies

suggests that pupils with SEN are more rejected and less

accepted by their classmates (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Thus, in

the review of the published studies to date that compare the

emotional status of children with SEN in mainstream and

special schools it was acknowledged that the vast majority has

reported negative outcomes for children in mainstream schools.

In particular, in only one out of five studies the children in

mainstream school seamed to score higher in emotional matters

compared to the control group who were taught in separate

classes for some time (Wienner & Tardiff, 2004). Furthermore,

they have a lower social status, fewer friends and a lower

self-esteem (Friederikson et al. 2007). Moreover, because of

their differences they are more commonly victims of bullying

compared to their typically developed peers.

As far as the academic achievements of children with SEN are

concerned, inclusionists suggest that children experience

programs with superior quality in mainstream classrooms that

have focused onus on scholastic attainment (Myklebust, 2007).

Furthermore, the mainstream children may benefit

scholastically by the presence of children with SEN within

their classroom. Thus, the teaching quality may improve

(Keslair, Maurin & McNally, 2012). On the contrary, the

opponents of inclusion have regarded children with SEN as a

threat to the education of their mainstream peers because the

may hold them back (Keslair, Maurin & McNally, 2012).

Ruijs & Peetsma (2009) systematically reviewed the existing

studies on the academic achievements of students with mild to

moderate learning disabilities in mainstream schools. The vast

majority suggest that children achieve better in inclusive

settings in comparison to children who are placed in special

schools. The underlying reason that could explain this

progress could be that the mainstream schools focus more on

achievements. However, studies exist that have shown adverse

results. The study of Rogers & Thiery (2003) observed the

reading progress of five American students with mild learning

disabilities in mainstream and special school settings. It was

suggested that the reading abilities of the children

deteriorated when they were pulled out of their special

classes and stayed in their regular classes. The negative

results were reinforced by the opinion of the children

themselves that contained that they preferred to be taught in

their special classes.

However, all the aforementioned studies use a limited number

of participants with specific difficulties. Broader surveys

with a larger number of subjects need to be conducted in order

for more conclusive results.

In this section of the essay only the basic arguments of the

debate have been mentioned. Both sides have contributed to a

holistic understanding of this controversial issue and

contribute to evaluating both theory and practice of

inclusion.

Practices linked to inclusion

Inclusion has been underpinned by a plethora of practices. In

this chapter the role of the Teaching assistants (TA) and the

Individual education plan (IEP) will be appraised in terms of

the substantial support they provide to children with SEN in

order for them to be successfully adapted in mainstream

schools.

Teaching Assistants

Although the inclusion of children with SEN in mainstream

schools is a relatively new concept in education, in the UK

TAs have been present within the classrooms since the

Victorian times (Morgan, 2007). They have gone under different

titles through the years and their responsibilities have

undergone changes (Vincett, Cremin & Thomas, 2005). However

they are a pivotal part of the structure of the educational

system in the UK (Morgan, 2007).

During the last decades the number of teaching assistances

within the classroom of the special and mainstream schools has

steadily increased. Indicatively, from 1992 to 2000 the number

of supporting staff in the primary schools has increased by a

hundred and twelve percent (DFES, 2000; DfES, 2002). In 2004

there were 133.440 full time teaching assistants which means

that the ratio of teaching assistants to teachers were 2.08

(Vincett, Cremin & Thomas, 2005).

Although the presence of TAs has been inextricably associated

to special educational needs during the last decades, it

appears there are still discrepancies regarding their exact

duties within the school and the classroom. As Clayton (1993)

has pointed out their role has evolved from a domestic helper

to providing teaching under the guidance of the teacher.

Nevertheless, it has been emphasised that their remit is still

vague and ambiguous and mainly determined by the needs of the

school (Lindsay, 2007). The abstract definition of their

duties allows them to teach life and vocational skills to

students but also permits them to take over the role of the

teacher. Hence, they may provide personal care as feeding and

toileting to students but they may also support them in

acquiring the necessary literacy and numeracy skills. Because

of the latter duties there seem to be indefinite and equivocal

boundaries between the role of the TAs and the one of the

teacher (DfES, 2009). More specifically, it has been

maintained that in many schools the TAs are obliged to

undertake the role of the classroom teacher as far as the

children with SEN are concerned (Cajkler et al., 2007). It has

been pointed out by the study of Giangreco et al. (2001) that

the teachers often view the TAs as the person who is in charge

of handling the instructions and supervision of children with

SEN. Thus, a lot of the teacher's time is deducted from the

students with SEN and substituted by the presence of the TA.

This concept highlights the paradoxical practice in which the

less equipped and trained staff of the school are responsible

for the children with the most need of educational support

(Blatchford et al., 2007).

The Department of education (DfES, 2000) has attempted to

illustrate the duties of the TAs by emphasising four main

responsibilities that are embedded in their role. TAs have to

provide support for the teacher and all students that are in

need of it. Furthermore, they are obliged to support the

curriculum especially in the subjects of literacy and

numeracy, as well as the whole school. However these vague

responsibilities do not determine the exact role of the TA and

further permit the assumption that ineffective support is

provided to pupils with SEN.

Indeed scholars have pointed out the risks that the support of

a teaching assistant could conceal. Firstly, an emotional

dependency over the TA could be created that prohibits the

child from fully participating in the classroom. Furthermore,

it could endanger the communication the pupil has with his/her

peers. As Gerschel (2005) suggest a velcro model is commonly

being created. Thus, the TA is always attached to a single

student to whom he/she develops a feeling of possessiveness

and the student respectively develops a sense of helplessness

without her/him. Furthermore, studies have illustrated a

negative relationship between the amount of support a pupil

receives and the progress he makes (Blatchford, 2009).

IEP

The Individual Educational Plan is a provision that was

initially introduced to the UK through the 1994 Code of

Practice (DFEE, 1994). It is an official document that

identifies the pupils additional or different needs and

recognises areas of particular difficulties. Furthermore, it

includes the objectives of the pupil with SEN. More

specifically, it should contain the learning targets of a

pupil and the facilities and resources that are essential for

reaching these goals. The fundamental purpose of the IEP is to

ensure that all students with SEN progress and they receive

tailored interventions that cater their specific needs. It is

designed and assessed by a team which include the parents and

the child itself who identify the students strengths and

weaknesses (DfES, 2001).

The 2001 Code of Practice suggests that the IEP should be

written in an unambiguous language and ought to focus on the

long term goals and short term targets of the child. It should

place onus on three to four key targets and re-evaluated and

renewed regularly (DfES, 2001).

Although the IEP is not required by law, the English School

Inspectorates have praised its use and emphasised the fact

that it is the sole document in which additional or different

procisions are recorded in (Pawley & Tennant, 2008). However,

the literature to date reveals equivocal opinions about the

effectiveness of its use and scholars have questioned the

potential outcomes for the children. More specifically, it has

been argued that the IEP does not promote inclusion but is

rather an ineffective product of the bureaucratic structure of

the educational system (Frankl, 2005; Tennant, 2007).

Furthermore, opponents of the IEP have implied that although

the aim of it might be sincere, in practice it limits the

restricted time and resources the children do have (Tennant,

2007 Moreover, it has been suggested that they are redacted

for the sole purpose of their evaluation by the inspectors and

not to better cater the needs of the children.

however despite the controversy on the benefits the IEP could

produce, it is acknowledged that through the equal

participation of all parties in the IEP meetings the results

could be ameliorated. Thus, it has been emphasised that

through the students participation in the meeting crucial

skills could be developed which do not only affect the

outcomes of the IEP but the future of the individual. In other

words, by understanding and identifying theira own weaknesses

and strengths the child becomes more self- aware. Furthermore,

they develop skills which make them capable to advocate for

themselves and their rights (Mason et al. 2004). Moreover,

through participating in the solving process the child

understands that his opinion is taken into consideration and

valued. Therefore, he/she develops self – determination

skills. This skill, which allows the individual to make

decisions about ones own life without external interferences,

is essential not only for school but for success and future

happiness.

Conclusion

In the current assignment the main points concerning inclusive

education have been discussed. Thus, firstly the term

inclusion has been examined as it has been interpreted by

different ways by many different scholars. Secondly, the

legislation concerning the inclusion of children with SEN in

the UK has been reviewed and critically appraised. Thirdly,

the main points of the debate on inclusion versus segregation

have been analysed. Lastly, practices that have been linked to

inclusion, thus teaching assistant and IEP have been

critically analysed.

Bibliography

Ainscow, M. Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2006) Improving Schools,

Developing Inclusion. London : Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.

Ball, S.J. (2001) “Labour, Learning and the economy: A policy

sociology perspective” In M Fielding (ed) Taking Education Seriously.

Four years Hard Labour. London : Routledge.

Blatchford, P. Bassett, P. Brown, P. & Martin, A. (2007) “The

role and effects of Teaching Assistants in English Primary

Schools (Year 4 to 6) 2000-2003. Results from Class size and

Pupil – Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 Project” British Educational

Research Journal, 33, pp. 5-26.

Blatchford, P. Bassett, P. Brown, P. Koutsoubou, M. Martin, C.

Russell, A. Webster, R. & Rubie -Davies, C. (2009) Deployment and

impact of support staff in schools : Results from Wave 2, Strand 2. London DCSF.

Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for inclusion: developing learning

and participation in schools (2nd edn) (Bristol, Centre for Studies on

Inclusive Education).

Cajkler W, Tennant G, Tiknaz Y, Sage R, Tucker S, Taylor C

(2007) “A systematic literature review on how training and

professional development activities impact on teaching

assistants’ classroom practice (1988-2006)” In: Research Evidence

in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research

Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Clayton, T. (1993) “From domestic helper to assistant teacher:

the changing role of the British classroom assistant” Europe

Journal of Special Needs Education. 8(1), pp. 32-44.

DES (1978) Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report) London :

HMSO.

DfEE (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special

Educational Needs. London: HMSO.

DfES (2000) Working with Teaching Assistants: A Good Practice Guide.

London: DfES.

DfES (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. London : DfES

DfES (2002) Time for Standards: Reforming the School Workforce. London:

DfES

DfES(2009) Lamb Inquiry. Special educational needs and Parental Confidence.

London : DfES.

DFES (2012) The Green Paper on Special Educational Needs and Disability.

London : DFES.

Dyson, A. (1999) “Inclusion and inclusions: theories and

discourses in inclusive education”, in H. Daniels and P.

Garner (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education.

London: Kogan Page.

Farrell, P (2000) “The impact of research on developments in

inclusive education” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4 (2),

pp. 153-162.

Farrell, M. (2004) Inclusion at the Crossroads. Special Education : Concept

and values. London : David Fulton Publishers.

Florian, L. (2008) “Inclusion: Special or inclusive education:

future trends" British Journal of Special Education, 35 (4), pp. 202-208.

Florian, L. (2010) “Special education in inclusion : The end

of special education or a new beginning?” The Psychology of

Education Review, 34 (2), pp. 22-29.

Frankl, C. (2005) “Managing Individual Education Plans:

reducing the load of the special educational needs

coordinator" Support for Learning, 20 (2), pp. 77-82.

Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., Soulsby, C., &

Chris. (2007). Assessing the social and affective outcomes of

inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105-115.

Frederickson, N. & Cline, T. (2009) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion

and Diversity. 2nd edn. Buckingham : Open University Press.

Hornby, G. (2011) “Inclusive education for Children with

Special Educational Needs : A critique” International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education, 58 (3), pp. 321-329.

Giangreco, M.F., Edelman, S.W., Broer, S.M. & Doyle, M.B.

(2001) “Paraprofessional support of students with

disabilities: literature from the past decade" Exceptional Children,

68(1), pp. 45–63.

Gerschel, L. (2005) “The special educational coordinator's

role in managing teaching assistants” Support for Learning, 20 (2),

pp. 69-76.

Goacher, B. Evans & J. Wedell, K. (1988) Policy and Provision for

Special Educational Needs. London : Cassell.

Keslair, F. Maurin & E. McNally, S. (2012) "Every child

matters? An evaluation of "special educational needs"

programmes in England" Economics of Education Review 31, pp. 932-

948.

Lindsay, G. (2007) “Educational psychology and thee

effectiveness of inclusive education/ mainstreaming” British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, pp. 1-24.

Liu, A. (1995) “Full inclusion and deaf education – redefining

equality” Journal of Law and Education 24(2), pp. 241–66.

Mason, C. Y. McGahee-Kovac, M. & Johnson, L. (2004). “How to

help students lead their IEP meetings” Teaching Exceptional Children,

36(3), pp. 18-24.

Mittler, P. (2000) Working towards inclusive education: Social context.

London: Fulton

Morgan, J. (2007) How to be a Successful Teaching Assistant. London :

Ashford Colour Press Ltd.

Myklebust, J. O. (2007). “Diverging paths in upper secondary

education:Competence attainment among students with special

educational needs” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11, 215–

231.

OFSTED (2000) Evaluating Educational Inclusion. London :

OfSTED

Pawley, H. & Tennant, G. (2008) “Student perception of their

IEP targets” Support for learning, 23 (4), pp. 183-186.

Peterson, R. (2010) "The persistence of low expectations in

special education law viewed through the lens of therapeutic

jurisprudence” International Journal of law and psychiatry, 33, pp. 375-

397.

Rogers, D.P. & Thiery, (2003) “Does an inclusive setting

affect reading comprehension in students with learning

disabilities?”Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Mid-South Educational Research Association.

Ruijs, N.M & Peetsma (2009) "Effects of inclusion on students

with and without special educational needs reviewed" Educational

Research Review, 4 (2), pp. 67-79.

Sakellariadis, A. (2012) “Inclusion and special educational

Needs- a dialogic inquiry into the controversial issues” in

Peer, L. Reid, G. (ed) Special Educational Needs. A guide for inclusive

practice. London : Sage, pp.35-50.

Spooner, W. (2006) The SEN Handbook for Trainee Teachers, NQTs and TAs.

Oxford : Routledge.

Stainback S. & Stainback, W. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators.

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Tennant, G. (2007) “ IEP's in in mainstream secondary

schools : an agenda for search” Support for learning, 22 (4), pp.

204-208.

UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special

needs education. Available online at:

http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF (accessed 7

August 2013).

Vincett, K. Cremin, H & Thomas, G. (2005) Teachers and Assistants

working together : A handbook. Maidenhead : Open University Press.

Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: A new look, Impact No 11.

London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

Welton, J. & Evans, J. (1986) “The development and

implementation of special education policy : where did the

1981 act fit in?” Public administration, 64 (2), pp. 209-227.

Wiener, J. & Tardif, C. Y. (2004). Social and emotional

functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does

special educational placement make a difference?” Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 19,pp. 20–32.

Winzer, M.A. (2007) Confronting difference: An excursion

through the history of special education. In L. Florian (Ed.),

The Sage Handbook of Special Education London: Sage, pp.21–33.