Taking an inclusive turn
Mel Ainscow
University of Manchester
key words: inclusion, organisational paradigm, school culture.
This special edition of the journal focuses on what is, arguably, the biggest challenge facing education systems, that of developing practices that will
reach out to those learners who are failed by existing arrangements. Specifically, the papers look at ways of using the views of stakeholders in order to
move schools and other centres of learning in a more is, arguably, the biggest challenge facing education system, that of developing practices that will
reach out to those learners who are failed by existing arrangements. Specifically, the papers look at ways of using the views of stakeholders in order to
move schools and other centres of learning in a more is, arguably, the biggest challenge facing education system, that of developing practices that will
reach out to those learners who are failed by existingarrangements. Specifically, the papers look at ways of using the views of stakeholders in order to
move schools and other centres of learning in a more inclusive direction.
My own contribution is to provide an overall context for the ideas presented by the authors. I do this b first reflecting on what inclusion in education
means and then outlining my own thoughts on what research suggests about strategies for moving thinking and practice forward. This leads me to stress
the importance of evidence as a ‘lever for change’ (Ainscow, 2005, p. 111).
The inclusive turn
what this implies. Indeed, Slee (2004) argues that the idea has travelled so much that it has become ‘jet lagged’.
In many countries, inclusive education is still thought of as an approach to serving children with disabilities with general
education settings. However, internationally, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes
diversity amongst all learners (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2001). It
presumes that the aim of inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion that is a consequence of attitudes and
responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability (Vitello & Mithaug, 1998).
education settings. However, internationally, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes
diversity amongst all learners (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2001). It
presumes that the aim of inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion that is a consequence of attitudes and
responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability (Vitello & Mithaug, 1998).
Traditionally, the main response to difficulties experienced by learners has been through special education. In recent
years, this field has gone through a crisis of thinking about its guiding assumptions. As a result, the appropriateness of
separate systems of education has been challenged, both from a human rights perspective and from the point of view
of effectiveness (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996; Thomas & Loxley, 2001). Dissatisfaction with progress towards greater
inclusion has led to demands for more radical changes in both the developed and developing world (e.g. Ahuja, 2002;
Ballard 1995; Booth & Ainscow, 1998; Fulcher, 1989; Kisanji, 1998; Slee, 1996). One of the concerns of those who adopt
inclusion has led to demands for more radical changes in both the developed and developing world (e.g. Ahuja, 2002;
Ballard 1995; Booth & Ainscow, 1998; Fulcher, 1989; Kisanji, 1998; Slee, 1996). One of the concerns of those who adopt
this view is with the way in which students come to be designated as having special educational needs. They see this as a
social process that needs to be continually challenged. More specifically, they argue that the continued use of what is
sometimes referred to as a ‘medical model’ of assessment – within which educational difficulties are explained solely in
terms of a child’s deficits – prevents progress in the field, not least because it distracts attention from questions about why
schools fail to teach so many children successfully.
Such arguments have led to proposals for a re-conceptualisation of the task. This revised thinking, has been characterised
by some scholars as the ‘organisational paradigm’ (Dyson & Millward, 2000). In general terms it involves moves away
social process that needs to be continually challenged. More specifically, they argue that the continued use of what is
sometimes referred to as a ‘medical model’ of assessment – within which educational difficulties are explained solely in
terms of a child’s deficits – prevents progress in the field, not least because it distracts attention from questions about why
schools fail to teach so many children successfully.
Such arguments have led to proposals for a re-conceptualisation of the task. This revised thinking, has been characterised
by some scholars as the ‘organisational paradigm’ (Dyson & Millward, 2000). In general terms it involves moves away
from explanations of educational failure that concentrate on the characteristics of individual children and their families
towards an analysis of the barriers to participation and learning experienced by students within school system (Booth &
Ainscow, 2002). In this way, those students who do not respond to existing arrangements come to be regarded
Ainscow, 2002). In this way, those students who do not respond to existing arrangements come to be regarded
as ‘hidden voices’ who, under certain conditions, can encourage the improvement of schools (Ainscow, 1999).
This approach, which I see as an ‘inclusive turn’, is more likely to be successful in contexts where there is a culture of
collaboration that encourages and supports problem-solving (Skrtic, 1991). It involves those within a particular context in
working together to address barriers to education experienced by some learners. As the papers in this volume suggest, it
also necessitates new relationships between teachers and learners.
also necessitates new relationships between teachers and learners.
Moving forward
research carried out in collaboration with schools over many years. Whilst much of this research has been carried
out in England, it has also involved projects in countries as diverse as Brazil, China, India, Romania, Spain and Zambia
(Ainscow, 2000). At the same time, through the work of the Enabling Education Network (EENET), we have encouraged
links between groups around the world that are trying to promote the development of inclusive education (further
details can be obtained from http://www.eenet.org.uk).
Much of this research has involved the use of collaborative action research, an approach that involves processes of
development and inquiry, usually carried out in partnership with groups of schools as a means of developing better
responses to the challenges they face (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2004). Kurt Lewin’s dictum that you cannot understand
an organisation until you try to change it is, perhaps, the clearest justification for this approach (Schein, 2001). In
practical terms, we believe that such understanding is best developed as a result of ‘outsiders’, such as researchers,
working alongside practitioners, policy makers and other stakeholders as they seek practical solutions to the problems
they face. An overall framework for these activities is provided by
an organisation until you try to change it is, perhaps, the clearest justification for this approach (Schein, 2001). In
practical terms, we believe that such understanding is best developed as a result of ‘outsiders’, such as researchers,
working alongside practitioners, policy makers and other stakeholders as they seek practical solutions to the problems
they face. An overall framework for these activities is provided by
The Index for Inclusion
(Booth & Ainscow, 2002). The Index, which emerged from our earlier research, is arguably the most detailed explanation
available about what an inclusive school looks like (details can be obtained from http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/). It takes
the form of review materials that enable schools to draw on the knowledge and views of staff, students, parents and
community members about barriers to learning and participation that exist within their existing ‘cultures, policies and
practices’ in order to identify priorities for change. In connecting inclusion with the detail of policy and practice, the
Index encourages those who use it to build up their own view of inclusion, related to their experiences and values, as they
work out what policies and practices they wish to promote or discourage (Ainscow, 2002; Rustemier & Booth, 2005).
Contextualised within the framework provided by the Index, our research confirms the views of others which
suggests that developments of practice, particularly amongst more experienced teachers, are unlikely to occur without
some exposure to what teaching actually looks like when it is being done differently, and exposure to someone who can
help teachers understand the difference between what they are doing and what they aspire to do (Elmore, Peterson &
McCarthy, 1996). It also suggests that this has to be addressed at the individual level before it can be solved at
the organisational level. Indeed, there is evidence that increasing collaboration without some more specific
attention to change at the individual level can simply result in teachers coming together to reinforce existing practices
rather than confronting the difficulties they face in different ways (Lipman, 1997).
At the heart of the processes in schools where changes in practice do occur is the development of a common language
with which colleagues can talk to one another and, indeed, to themselves about detailed aspects of their practice
(Huberman, 1993). Without such a language teachers find it very difficult to experiment with new possibilities.Frequently
when observers report to teachers what they have seen during their lessons they express surprise (Ainscow, 1999). Much
of what teachers do during the intensive encounters that occur is carried out at an automatic, intuitive level. Furthermore,
there is little time to stop and think. This is why having the opportunity to see colleagues at work is so crucial to the
success of attempts to develop practice. It is through shared experiences that colleagues can help one another to articulate
what they currently do and define what they might like to do (Hiebert, Gallimore & Stigler, 2002). It is also the means
whereby taken-for-granted assumptions about particular groups of students can be subjected to mutual critique.
Writing about similar processes, Timperley and Robinson (2001) explain how teachers’ existing understandings
influence the way evidence is interpreted, such that they perceive what they expect to perceive. Consequently, new
meanings are only likely to emerge when evidence creates ‘surprises’. The role of school principals and other senior
staff is crucial in encouraging such rethinking amongst their colleagues. So, for example, Lambert et al. (1995) seem to
be talking about a similar process in their discussion or what they call ‘the constructivist leader’. They stress the
importance of leaders gathering, generating and interpreting evidence within a school in order to create a ‘inquiring
stance’. They argue that such information causes ‘disequilibrium’ in thinking and, as a result, provides a challenge to
existing assumptions about teaching and learning (Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper, Lampert, Gardner & Szabo,
1995).
Our own research has shown how the use of evidence to study teaching can help foster the development of more
inclusive thinking and practices (Ainscow, Howes, Farrell & Frankham, 2003). Specifically, it can help to create space
for reappraisal and rethinking by interrupting existing discourses, and by focusing attention on overlooked possibilities for
moving practice forward. A particularly powerful technique in this respect is the use of mutual observation, sometimes
through video recordings (Ainscow, 1999, 2003). As the papers in this journal illustrate, evidence collected from students
about teaching and learning arrangements can also be an effective means of interrupting taken-for-granted assumptions
(Ainscow & Kaplan, 2005; Messiou, 2006; Miles & Kaplan, 2005). Under certain conditions such approaches provide
that help to make the familiar unfamiliar in ways that stimulate self-questioning, creativity and action. In so
doing, they can sometimes lead to a reframing of perceived problems that, in turn, draws the teacher’s attention to
overlooked possibilities for addressing barriers to participation and learning.
Here my argument is informed by the work of Robinson (1998) who suggests that practices are activities that solve
problems in particular situations. This means that to explain a practice is to reveal the problem for which it serves as a
solution. So, in working closely with practitioners, we have found that we can make inferences about how school staff
have formulated a problem and the assumptions that areinvloved in the decisions made. We have also observed how
is not in itself a straightforward mechanies for the development of more inclusive practices. To move practice in the
direction of greater inclusion, interruptions must be welcomed and they must follow an invitation to engage in dialogue
(Ainscow, Booth, Dyson, Farrell, Frankham, Gallannaugh, Howes & Smith, 2006). They must also be principled,
introducing values as a motive for action, or allowing connections to such motives that have previously been hidden.
Of course, any space that is created may be filled according to conflicting agendas. We have documented detailed
examples of how deeply held beliefs within schools may prevent the experimentation that is necessary in order to
foster the development of more inclusive ways of working (Ainscow & Kaplan, 2005; Howes & Ainscow, 2006). This
reminds us that that it is easy for educational difficulties to be pathologised as difficulties inherent within students.
This is true not only of students with disabilities and those defined as ‘having special educational needs’, but also of
those whose socioeconomic status, race, language and gender renders them problematic to particular teachers in
particular schools. Consequently, it is necessary to explore ways of developing the capacity of those within schools to
reveal and challenge deeply entrenched deficit views of ‘difference’, which define certain types of students as ‘lacking
something’ (Trent, Artiles & Englert, 1998). This involves being vigilant in scrutinising how deficit assumptions
something’ (Trent, Artiles & Englert, 1998). This involves being vigilant in scrutinising how deficit assumptions
may be influencing perceptions of certain students.
School cultures
Through our research we have been able to show how, as a result of engaging with various forms of evidence, staff
within some schools reconsidered their assumptions and, as a result, were able to develop new ways of working
(Ainscow, Booth, Dyson, Farrell, Frankham, Gallannaugh, Howes & Smith, 2006). In some cases this led to significant
changes in the way problems were defined and addressed.
We saw these as examples of the way norms of teaching are socially negotiated within the everyday context of the
schools (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). In this sense, they are evidence of how the culture of the workplace impacts
upon how teachers see their work and, indeed, their students (Skidmore, 2004). It underlines the idea that the
development of more inclusive approaches does not arise from a mechanical process in which any one specific
organisational restructuring, or the introduction of a particular set of techniques, generates increased levels of
participation. Rather, the development of inclusive practices requires processes of social learning.
All of this points to the importance of cultural factors. Schein (1985) suggests that cultures are about the deeper
levels of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organisation, operating unconsciously to
define how they view themselves and their working contexts.
The extent to which these values include the acceptance and celebration of difference, and a commitment to offering
educational opportunities to all students, coupled with the extent to which they are shared across a school’s staff,
relate to the extent to which students are enabled to participate (Kugelmass, 2001).
Hargreaves (1995) argues that cultures can be seen as having a reality-defining function, enabling those within an
institution to make sense of themselves, their actions and their environment. A current reality-defining function of
culture, he suggests, is often a problem-solving function inherited from the past. In this way, today’s cultural form
created to solve an emergent problem often becomes tomorrow’s taken-for-granted recipe for dealing with
matters shorn of their novelty.
Changing the norms that exist within a school is difficult to achieve, particularly within a context that is faced with
so many competing pressures and where practitioners tend to work alone in addressing the problems they face
(Fullan, 1991). On the other hand, the presence of children who are not suited to the existing ‘menu’ of the school can
provide some encouragement to explore a more collaborative culture within which teachers support one another in
experimenting with new teaching responses. In this way, problem-solving activities gradually become the reality-defining,
taken-for-granted functions that are the culture of a school that is more geared to fostering inclusive
taken-for-granted functions that are the culture of a school that is more geared to fostering inclusive
ways of working.
The implication of all of this is that becoming more inclusive is a matter of thinking and talking, reviewing and refining
practice, and making attempts to develop a more inclusive culture. Such a conceptualisation means that we cannot divorce
inclusion from the contexts within which it is developing, nor the social relations that might sustain or limit that
development (Dyson, 2006).
practice, and making attempts to develop a more inclusive culture. Such a conceptualisation means that we cannot divorce
inclusion from the contexts within which it is developing, nor the social relations that might sustain or limit that
development (Dyson, 2006).
Our explorations have convinced us that it is in the complex interplay between individuals, and between groups and
individuals, that shared beliefs and values exist, and change, and that it is impossible to separate those beliefs from the
relationships in which they are embodied. Nias (1989, p. 20) describes a ‘culture of collaboration’ developing as both the
product and the cause of shared social and moral beliefs. Our work would suggest that what happens as a consequence of
the involvement of schools in processes of collaborative action research, with the opportunity it provides to work with
outsiders committed to promoting inclusion, is that it provokes discussion about social and moral beliefs.
relationships in which they are embodied. Nias (1989, p. 20) describes a ‘culture of collaboration’ developing as both the
product and the cause of shared social and moral beliefs. Our work would suggest that what happens as a consequence of
the involvement of schools in processes of collaborative action research, with the opportunity it provides to work with
outsiders committed to promoting inclusion, is that it provokes discussion about social and moral beliefs.
In turn, consideration of these beliefs and values, and their connections with curricular and extracurricular activities, can
contribute to a growing commitment to inclusion.
Concluding remarks
This paper has addressed what I see as the biggest challenge for education systems around the world, that of responding to
learner diversity. The approach I have outlined is not about the introduction of particular techniques or organisational
arrangements. Rather it requires a new way of thinking, what I have rereferred to as a feflective turn Engaging with
evidence, particularly the views of children, is a key strategy. As Copland (2003, p. 394) suggests, inquiry can be the
‘engine’ to enable the distribution of leadership that is needed in order to foster participation,
learner diversity. The approach I have outlined is not about the introduction of particular techniques or organisational
arrangements. Rather it requires a new way of thinking, what I have rereferred to as a feflective turn Engaging with
evidence, particularly the views of children, is a key strategy. As Copland (2003, p. 394) suggests, inquiry can be the
‘engine’ to enable the distribution of leadership that is needed in order to foster participation,
and the ‘glue’ that can bind a school community together around a common purpose.
and sustained efforts by whole staff groups around the idea that changing outcomes for students is unlikely to be achieved
unless there are changes in the behaviours of adults. Consequently, the starting point must be with staff members: in
effect, enlarging their capacity to imagine what might be achieved, and increasing their sense of accountability for
bringing this about. This may also involve tackling taken-for-granted assumptions, most often relating to expectations
about certain groups of students, their capabilities and behaviours.
My argument is, then, based on the assumption that and that the logical starting point for development is with a detailed
analysis of existing arrangements. This allows good practices to be identified and shared, whilst, at the same time,
drawing attention to ways of working that may be creating barriers to the participation and learning of some students.
However, as I have stressed, the focus must not only be on practice; it must also address and sometimes challenge the
thinking behind existing ways of working and that the logical starting point for development is with a detailed analysis of
existing arrangements. This allows good practices to be identified and shared, whilst, at the same time, drawing attention
to ways of working that may be creating barriers to the participation and learning of some students. However, as
Manchester M13 9PL,UK.
Email: mel.ainscow@manchester.ac.uk.
unless there are changes in the behaviours of adults. Consequently, the starting point must be with staff members: in
effect, enlarging their capacity to imagine what might be achieved, and increasing their sense of accountability for
bringing this about. This may also involve tackling taken-for-granted assumptions, most often relating to expectations
about certain groups of students, their capabilities and behaviours.
My argument is, then, based on the assumption that and that the logical starting point for development is with a detailed
analysis of existing arrangements. This allows good practices to be identified and shared, whilst, at the same time,
drawing attention to ways of working that may be creating barriers to the participation and learning of some students.
However, as I have stressed, the focus must not only be on practice; it must also address and sometimes challenge the
thinking behind existing ways of working and that the logical starting point for development is with a detailed analysis of
existing arrangements. This allows good practices to be identified and shared, whilst, at the same time, drawing attention
to ways of working that may be creating barriers to the participation and learning of some students. However, as
I have stressed, the focus must not only be on practice; it must also address and sometimes challenge the thinking behind
existing ways of working and that the logical starting point for development is with a detailed analysis of existing
arrangements. This allows good practices to be identified and shared, whilst, at the same time, drawing attention to ways
of working that may be creating barriers to the participation and learning of some students. However, as I have stressed,
the focus must not only be on practice; it must also address and sometimes challenge the thinking behind existing ways of
working.
Address for correspondence. Mel Ainscow. University of Manchester, School Of Education, Oxford Road.
existing ways of working and that the logical starting point for development is with a detailed analysis of existing
arrangements. This allows good practices to be identified and shared, whilst, at the same time, drawing attention to ways
of working that may be creating barriers to the participation and learning of some students. However, as I have stressed,
the focus must not only be on practice; it must also address and sometimes challenge the thinking behind existing ways of
working.
Address for correspondence. Mel Ainscow. University of Manchester, School Of Education, Oxford Road.
References
Ahuja, A. (2002) ‘Teacher training for inclusive education in developing countries: the UNESCO experience.’ In
S. Hegarty & M. Alur (eds), Education and Children with Special Needs: From Segregation to Inclusion
Education and Children with Special Needs: From Segregation to Inclusion, pp. 77–96. New Delhi, India: Sage
Publications. Ainscow, M. (1999)
Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer. Ainscow, M. (2000)
‘Reaching out to all learners: some lessons from international experience.
development of inclusive practices.’ In P. Farrell &
Making Special Education Inclusive, pp. 25–38. London: Fulier.
Developing Inclusive Teacher Education
, London: Routledge. Ainscow, M. (2005) ‘Developing inclusive education
systems: what are the levers for change?’
Journal of Educational Change, 6, pp. 109–24. Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2004)
‘Understanding and developing inclusive practices in schools: a collaborative action research network.’
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 (2),pp. 125–40.
