evidence for policy and practice information and co ......information and co-ordinating centre the...

i

EvidenceforPolicyandPracticeInformationandCo-ordinatingCentre

TheEPPI-CentreispartoftheSocialScienceResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon

NOTESFORREVIEWGROUPS

Ifyouarefamiliarwithusing‘styles’inWord,pleaseformatallthetextusingonlystylesbeginningwith‘EPPI’.

Ifyouarenotfamiliarwithusing‘styles’inWord,pleaseformatyourdocumentinthesimplestwaypossible,whilemakingsurethatitisclearwhereheadingsfitwithinthehierarchyofthedocument.

Asspaceisautomaticallyleftbetweeneachline,soyoudonotneedtoaddinextralinebreaksbetweeneachparagraph.

PleasedivideupchapterswithPageBreaks,notSectionBreaks.OnlyuseSectionBreaksifyouneedtoalternatebetweenportraitandlandscapepages.

StructureforaprotocolMaintitle How is social exclusion assessedwithin education systems in Low

andMiddleIncomeCountries?Subtitle How is social exclusion understood and defined with regards to

educationinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries?Reviewgroup ParulBakhshi(PI)

JeanFrancoisTrani(co-I)KatherineKristensen(RA)

Section TECHNICALREPORTAuthorsINORDEROFCREDIT

1. ParulBakhshiPhD.WashingtonUniversityinStLouis2. JeanFrancoisTraniPhD.WashingtonUniversityinStLouis3. KatherineKristensen,WashingtonUniversityinStLouis

EPPI-Centrereferencenumber [TobecompletedbyEPPI-Centre]Month/yearofpublication [TobecompletedbyEPPI-Centre]Thisreportshouldbecitedas… Contactdetails

Parul Bakhshi, Assistant Professor, Program in OccupationalTherapy,Washington University, 4444 Forest Park Ave., St. Louis,MO63108,USA.+(1)314-286-2970,bakhship@wustl.edu

Institutionalbase WashingtonUniversityinStLouisReviewGroupforProtocol

1. Dr.Maria Kett, Assistant Director, Leonard Cheshire DisabilityandInclusiveDevelopmentCentre,DepartmentofEpidemiology&PublicHealth(UCL),m.kett@ucl.ac.uk

2. Dr.NidhiSinghal,SeniorLecturerinInclusiveEducation,FacultyofEducation,UniversityofCambridge,sn241@cam.ac.uk

3. TechnicalAdvisor(EPPI-Centre)Advisorygroup(withinstitutions)

FlorenceMigeon,UNESCO,ParisElaineUnterhalter(UCL)NoraGroce(UCL)UNICEF,NewYork(LieveSebbeTBC)ScotDanforth,ChapmanUniversity

Conflictsofinterest(ifany) NONEAcknowledgements

ii

ContentsListofabbreviations....................................................................................................iii

Abstract......................................................................................................................iv

1. Background.........................................................................................................11.1 Aimsandrationaleforreview....................................................................................11.2 Definitionalandconceptualissues.............................................................................2

1.2.1. SocialExclusion:anovelperspectivetodecipherinequalitiesineducation............21.2.2. Socialjustice,humandevelopmentandtheCapabilityApproach(CA)....................31.2.3. Educationininternationaldevelopment..................................................................4

1.3 Policyandpracticebackground.................................................................................51.3.1. Post-2015challengesforeducation:NeedforaParadigmShift..............................5

1.3.2. Educationforvulnerablegroups:InclusionandExclusion.............................................61.3.3. ImpactandTheoryofChange..................................................................................7

1.4 Researchbackground................................................................................................71.4.1. SocialExclusionandVulnerability.............................................................................71.4.2. Educationpolicies:focusonaccessassynonymousofinclusion..............................81.4.3. Limitationsofcurrentassessmentsofqualityeducation.........................................81.4.4. Previoussystematicreviews.....................................................................................8

1.5 Purposeandrationalforreview................................................................................91.6 Authors,funders,andotherusersofthereview......................................................101.7 Reviewquestionsandapproach..............................................................................11

1.7.1. Specifyingthescopeoftheprimaryquestion.........................................................111.7.2. SpecificSearchstrategy..........................................................................................11

Appendices.......................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

iii

Listofabbreviations

Abstract

iv

Abstract(1pagemaxsameasonepagesummary)

Whatdowewanttoknow?

Theoverarchinggoalof the researchwithinwhich this review isembedded is todevelopan innovativeframeworkforanalysisoftheprocessesthatleadtosocialexclusion,inequalityandthushinderqualityofeducation.The reviewwillmapexisting studiesonassessmentof socialexclusionandwill thusprovidecrucialevidenceforstructuringtheconceptualframeworkaswellasidentifymethodsforanalysisofthephenomenonofsocialexclusiontobefurthertestedinsuccessivephases.Inclosecollaborationwiththeusersof the review (UNICEF,UNESCOandotherNGOs), findingswillbuildan innovative framework foranalysis that combines relevant theoretical foundations as well as methods/tools that decipher socialprocessesthatsustainsocialexclusion.

Whowantstoknowandwhy?

The present review will strongly contribute to on-going debates on quality of education inacademia but also in the field of policymaking aswell as implementation and evaluationofeducationprogrammes.Liaisingwithpartnersfromvariousbackgroundswillbestrategictoouraimof stronglybuilding inuser-involvement fromtheveryonsetof the research.ThePIandCo-Iwill leverageextensivepastexperience inordertoensurethatall stagesof theresearcharedefinedsuccessivelyinaparticipatorymanner.Ouruserinvolvementstrategywillcompriseof settingupanAdvisoryGroupthatbrings togetherpartnersofdifferentprofiles toprovideadvise ad feedback on the research. The users of this research include UNESCO, UNICEF,LeonardCheshireDisabilityandHandicapInternational.

Whatdidwefind?

Whataretheimplications?

Howdidwegettheseresults?

Wheretofindfurtherinformation

[TobecompletedbyEPPI-Centre]

1

1. Background

1.1 Aimsandrationaleforreview

As theMDGs come to a close, their critique of their scope aswell as achievement has beenprominent in termsof limited focusonquestionsofaccess toprimaryschools.There isbroadagreement that there is a need for a profound paradigm shift to define and evaluate whatconstitutes a ‘good’ education. The discussion preceding the elaboration of the SustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGS)-inparticularSDG4relatingto“qualityeducation”-thatwillserveas benchmarks to assessing success in education strongly advocate for a more prominentrecognition of the links between questions of equity, inclusion and quality (Unterhalter andDorward2013).SDGGoal4embodies theparadigmshift thatcountrieswillneedtonavigate:“ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong opportunities for all”.Although the targets that are proposed to monitor progress towards achievement ofeducationalgoalsdofocusonquestionsofequalityandfocusofspecificvulnerablegroups,theymayconstitutefurther impediments ifcrucialandcomplexquestionsofdynamicandsystemicsocialexclusionarenotgivencentralattentionintermsofassessment.Ifeducationaimstobeinclusivetowardsallvulnerablegroupsinagivensociety,itwillhavetocrosshurdlesthathaveimpededprogressinthepastby:(i)movingfromviewsofclassificationofvulnerabilitytowardsaddressing its complexity and multidimensionality; (ii) shifting analyses from capturing staticsnapshotstowardsdecipheringthecomplexityandvariationofphenomena;(iii)notattemptingtofinda“onesizefitsall”andsetupadaptablemechanisms.Inordertoprogresstowardstheseidealisticgoalsandtriggertherequiredparadigmshift,educationandlearningframeworkswillneed to not just re-affirm the theoretical groundings but also to challenge policies andprogrammesthatreflectage-oldbeliefsaswellascriticallyanalysetheimplicationsofthenewmantraofstandardisedtestsastheprimary indicatortodefiningwhatconstituteseducationalsuccess.Thereisastrongpushintheglobalarenaforreorientingeducationsystemsbyurgingnationalgovernmentsandorganisationstotargettheprocessofsocialexclusiondifferently:bynolongerviewingexclusionintermsofsilosofvulnerabilitybutbyrecognisingandaddressingthe continuity between exclusion mechanisms in education and those inherent to the socialfabric of a community (UNESCO 2012). Going beyond analyses of the inherent links betweenqualityandequity,thepresentreviewwillscopetheevidencepertainingtounderstandingandassessingSocialExclusionwithinthe fieldofeducation inordertoconstructa frameworkthatdeciphers how education contributes to structural inequalities by maintaining status quo ofpowerdynamics or how, on theother hand, it contributed to combating inherent systemsofbeliefsandfunctioningthatleadtoexclusion.

Thepresent reviewwill criticallyexamine theconceptof socialexclusionas it isassessed inthefieldofeducation.Socialexclusionoriginallygainedprominenceinthefieldofemploymentandhastraditionallybeenanalysedfromawelfareperspective(Atkinson1998,Levitas2005).Inthe field of development it constitutes an integrated lens for comprehending discrimination(Kabeer2006,Stewart,Saithetal.2007,Betts,Watsonetal.2010);healthinequalitiesarealsobeingviewedasresultingfromcomplexsocialdeterminants(Mathieson,Popayetal.2008).Ineducation,exclusionhasbeenapproachedintermsofdenialofaccessof identifiedvulnerablegroups (Harttgen and Klasen 2011). However, the dynamics and systemic nature of themarginalisation process within learning structures has not been approachedwith aims of re-

2

thinkingpolicyprioritiesandimplementationmechanisms(Curcic2009,ErtenandSavage2012,Ballard 2013). In education, questions of exclusion have mainly focussed on exclusion fromlearning systems and analyses have followed a process of identifying (by labelling) vulnerablegroupsandfindingstrategiestogetchildrenintoformal/informallearningsystems.However,inrecentyears,socialexclusionasshapedbyeducationalexperienceshasbeenviewedasacrucialhurdlethatneedstobeaddressed[(Mitchell2005,Kabeer2011).While it isundisputablethatexclusionfromeducationmaintainspersonsinpoverty,thereisaneedtofullyunderstandtherole thateducationplays incontributing to fightingmechanismsof socialexclusionnot just inschoolbut alsobeyond the learning years (Sparkes1999, SparkesandGlennerster2002). TheGuidetoAssessingEducationSystemstowardsmoreInclusiveandJustSocieties(UNESCO2012)urgedallactorsofeducationtoshiftthefocusfromconditionsforinclusiontowardsdecipheringthe mechanisms of exclusion. Policy makers are increasingly recognising the need to bettergrasptheseprocessesinordertounderstandthe“WHY”offailureofeducationinitiatives.Itisclearthatexistingmeasuresofachievementneedtogobeyondacquisitionofmereskillssuchasbasic literacyandnumeracy.TheconceptofSE iscrucialnot justtogaugethecommitmenttoequality of policies but also to assess what constitutes quality of curriculum, relevance ofteacher training and acquisition of evasive “soft skills” (beliefs, attitudes, etc.)within a givencontext.

In national policy documents, education is charged with improving knowledge, transmittingculture, and providing human capital to support economic structures. As a historicalconsequence of colonialism, Western educational systems have been highly influentialthroughouttheworldandplacehighvalueoninstructionandrigorousassessmentinthebasicsof reading,writing, andmathematics (Gutek1997)based in tests suchasPISA. In the fieldofInclusive Education, research has widely discussed the issues of access (Mitchell 2005)evaluation as well as policy (Booth 1996, Peters 2003, Alur 2007, Raffo, Dyson et al. 2009).However, a 2010 cross-country comparison on quality indicators in OECD countries stated,“processesattheclassroomlevelarerarelyconsidered”p2(Poliandri,Cardoneetal.2010).Thereport also confirmed that most indicators that are currently used to inform policy “have adescriptive value” and “ (do not) form a basis for any particular judgement”; the authorsconclude by advocating for the requirement for a system of indicators. In agreement withauthorswearguethatanysuchsysteminLMICswillneed“atheoreticalframeofreference(…)an explanation of the connections between the features described by the indicator and theprocedures and techniques of data collection”. The present review will aim to map existingmethodologiesthatdecipherSocialExclusionprocesseswithineducationandidentifythegapsthatexistinassessmentofeducationqualityandequity.

1.2 Definitionalandconceptualissues

1.2.1. SocialExclusion:anovelperspectivetodecipherinequalitiesineducation

Discoursesofsocialexclusion(SE)gainedprominenceinFrancewiththenotionof“lesexclus”orthe“personswhohadslippedthroughthenetofthesocialinsurancesystemandwerethusadministratively excluded by the State” (Levitas 2005). The idea that there are sections ofsocietythatarenotbeingtakenintoaccountinthepoliciesiscentraltothisperspective.TheconceptofSEinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturywasusedmainlybysociologistsandpoliticalscientists intheEuropeancontexttodefineexclusionfromemploymentandhousinganddenialofcivicrights.AgeneralandwidespreadunderstandingoftheconceptofSEfocusesonthenon-participationinsociety.TheCentrefortheAnalysisofSocialExclusion(CASE)ofthe

3

London Schools of Economics has carried out research focusing on policies in the UK. Thefindings have highlighted the dynamic nature of the process of exclusion that is alwaysmultifaceted and complex. “It is conceptually differentiated from poverty and deprivation,primarilybyhavingafocusontheprocessofdisengagement.Indeed,tracingthisprocessfromsource to outcome emerges as a key issue (Room, 1995), and as a result social exclusionperspectivesrecognizethedynamismofindividuals’trajectoriesovertime.Inadditionthetermmoves the unit of analysis from the individual, to socially structured disadvantage” (Sparkes1999).Inthefieldofeducation,theanalysesanddiscourseswithregardstoexclusionhavefocusedonaccess/non-accesstoschooling.Policiesandprogrammeshavebeenframedmainlyaroundtheconcept of ‘inclusion’ and participation. However, there is an urgent need to look at theinherent links, and re-enforcing feedback loops between equality, equity and poverty. As aresult there isaneedto focusnot justonexclusion fromeducation,butalsotoanalysehoweducation can maintain or combat inherent systems of beliefs and functioning that lead toexclusion and discrimination within the classroom. “Inclusion” unfortunately often becomessynonymousofpresenceofvulnerablegroupsinclassrooms,“bumsonchairs”.However, it isclearthatthisdualdimensionofexclusion–fromschool,butalsofromlearningwithinschools– needs urgent attention. “Addressing Exclusion in Education” (UNESCO 2012) lays out theguidelinesto“reorientingtoday’seducationsystems”byurgingpolicymakerstobecomemoreawareof thedynamicsofexclusionby recognizing that“exclusion ineducationcan feed intosocial exclusion”. In order to do this, it is imperative to understand the various facets thatexclusion can take. The review will aim to identify any initiative/analyses of education ofchildrenthatspecificallyaddressquestionsofexclusionwithineducationsystems.

1.2.2. Socialjustice,humandevelopmentandtheCapabilityApproach(CA)

Social Justicetheorieswillconstitutethecross-cuttingtheoretical frameworkthatwillsustainourinterpretationsoftheevidenceidentifiedinthereview.Socialjusticetheories,withalltheirvariations, have shaped the vision of equality, equity, freedoms aswell as the human rightsframeworks and conventions that are in place in the United Nations (UN) system and thatdefineandholdaccountablecountriesandgovernments.Mostspecifically,thepresentreviewwill refer to thevariousUNconventions thathave impactededucationofchildren ingeneraland children with disabilities in particular. These international frameworks include generalHuman Rights conventions (UN Declaration of HR, Convention for the rights of Children),conventionsfortherightsofpersonswithdisabilities(UNCPRD),TheSalamancaStatementandFramework for Action on Special Needs Education Salamanca) as well as frameworks thatimpactrightstoeducation(EducationforAllEFA).More recently, theories of Human Development in general and frameworks related to theCapabilities Approach have contributed to the human rights discourse by providing a morenuancedandmultidimensionalperspectivewithinwhichqualityofhuman lifecanbegaugedandunderstood.TheHumanDevelopmentFrameworkthathasledtotheHD-ReportsandtheHD-Indexproposesan idea thatprogressofnationsandsocietiesneeds to take intoaccountnot justmeasures of income but also aspects of education aswell as health. Amartya Sen’sCapability Approach, proposes the concept of human “freedoms” that comprise of“capabilities”aswellas"functionings”andarecloselydefinedbythenotionof“agency’ofanindividual(Sen1999).Theterm“agency”givestheindividualacentralroleindeterminingtheconditionsandthemeanstoachievewell-being.“Functioningsarethevaluableactivitiesandstatesthatmakeuppeople’swellbeing–suchasahealthybody,beingsafe,beingcalm,havinga warm friendship, an educated mind, a good job. Functionings are related to goods and

4

incomebut theydescribewhataperson isable todoorbeasa result.”Capabilitiesare“thealternative combinations of functionings that are feasible for [a person] to achieve.” Putdifferently,theyare“thesubstantivefreedomsheorsheenjoystoleadthekindoflifeheorshehasreasontovalue.”(Sen1999).Thisapproachwillspecificallyserveasananalysisgridtoviewthe evidence on social exclusion in which we will identify documents that go beyondconsideringeducationas a serviceanddeliverableand look tounderstand the complexityofthevariousaspectsthatconstitutethequalityofeducationbyviewing itascentralcapabilityandhavinganintrinsicaswellasaninstrumentalvalue(Terzi2007).

1.2.3. Educationininternationaldevelopment

Inthepasttwodecades,theeducationpolicyagendahasmovedfromprogrammesthatfocuson functional literacy towards quality education thatmakes a real difference in the lives ofchildrenandadults.However,ofconcern is the fact thatdespite theconsiderableamountoffundingbeingmadeavailable foreducationprogrammes forvulnerablechildren,evidenceoftangibleresults isstill rare.Theaimofthissystematicreviewisto identifyfromtheavailableliteraturethetoolsandmethodsthatarebeingused,oftenasproxies,forassessingeducationqualityandequity.Theconceptof inclusionandmorespecifically thatof“universalizingaccess”and“promotingequality”wereatthecoreoftheEFAmovementthatwasspearheadedbyUNESCOsince1990andoftheWorldDeclarationonEducationforAll,inJomtein,Thailand.Theideaofinclusionineducation originated within the field of disability and was formally put forward in theSalamancaStatement(UNESCO1994)whichstatedthateducationsystemsneededtochangeinordertowelcomeALLchildrenwithrespectfordiversity.Thefactthatchildrenwithvariousforms of disabilities were easily identifiable in many cases, made the concept immediatelyrelevantand functionalwithin this field.However,over the lastdecade,on-goingdebatehasexpandedtheconceptofIEbeyondtherealmsofdisabilitybypromotingitasaframeworktocomprehend and address issues ranging from gender inequality, ethnic or indigenousminorities,conflict,internallydisplacedpopulations,migrants,peoplelivingwithHIV/AIDS,etc.Various documents from UNESCO that have focused on Inclusive education over the pastdecadehaveshedlightonnumberofissuesthatarestillinherenttotheconceptitself.A2003documents,referringtotheworkofBooth1996,stipulatedthat“inclusionisseenasaprocessof addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasingparticipation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion within and fromeducation”(p7).In2008,intheimpetusofaninternationalconferenceineducation–InclusiveEducation:theWayoftheFuture-theconceptwasstronglylinkedtothatofqualityeducation(UNESCO,2008).The2008EFAGlobalMonitoringReportalsopresentedanumberofanalysesbased on background papers that deciphered the facets ofmarginalization and exclusion invariouscountries. Asa result, the2009PolicyGuidelineson Inclusion inEducation,after re-iteratingpreviousdefinitions,stronglylinkedinclusionandquality:“inordertorealizetherightto education (…) the EFA movement is increasingly concerned with linking IE with qualityeducation. (…) Quality education frameworks incorporate two important components – thecognitivedevelopmentofthelearnerononehandandtheroleofeducationinpromotingvaluesandattitudesof responsiblecitizenshipand/orcreativedevelopmentontheother” (p10).Thefive dimensions that are defined as being central to quality education process “(1) learnercharacteristics; (2) contexts; (3)enabling inputs; (4) teachingand learning; (5)outcomes”areundeniablyessentialtotheimplementationandassessmentofthepromiseofinclusion.Finally,the2009policyguidelinesalsomakeacaseforthecost-effectivenessofinclusioninthelong-term.Thereishoweveralackofcoherentdatawithregardstothisissue.

5

In 2012, there was an impetus to shift the focus from conditions for inclusion towardsdeciphering themechanisms forexclusion (UNESCO2012).TheGuide toAssessingEducationSystemsTowardsmore Inclusiveand JustSocieties calls fornational levelactionon issuesofinclusion, quality and equity in education. It presents a comprehensive checklist that can beused for an in depth analysis of the dynamics of exclusions that are prominent within thecountry and calls for a critical scrutiny of how education systems are fighting/perpetuatingthesemechanisms.Italsopromptsnationstatestoworktowardsaccountabilityonpromisesofinclusion,goingbeyondaccesstoschools.

1.3 Policyandpracticebackground

Areviewthatattemptstomapouttheevidencethatcanberelevantforpolicymakinginthefieldofinclusiveeducationrequiresaframeworkthatcanhelptopiecetheevidencetogetherin order to map the research/studies/policies that are currently being referred to. Mostsystematicreviewsthatarecarriedoutonthepeer-reviewedliterature,especiallyinthefieldofhealth,haveastrongfocusontheinternalvalidityofthefindings,thescientificrobustnessof the evidence. However, it is clear that for policy, the external validity of the evidence orwhatitdemonstrateswithreferencetoreplicationindifferentcontextsor“generalisability”ofknowledgeistheprimeobjective:whatworks?Itisclearthatfocusingonoutcomesdoesnotsuffice to achieve this. This calls for the identification of the causal links as well as of themechanismsthatshedlightonwhatworks,butalsohow,whyorwhynot.“Inordertoidentifycausal connections, we need to understand outcome patterns, rather than seek outcomeregularities” (p22 Pawson 2006). In order to grasp the “process” or thedynamic chain thatleads to social impact and positive change we need to scrutinize the evidence to identifygeneral models of explanation. This in turn requires a clear definition of the theoreticalframeworks that will form an analysis lens through which the body of evidence can beorganized and understood. This review is at the crossroads of different theories as well asconceptualframeworks.

1.3.1. Post-2015challengesforeducation:NeedforaParadigmShift

The role of education as a process for fighting discrimination, promoting social justice andovercomingpovertyhasbeenundisputable(CaillodsandHallak2004,Raffo,Dysonetal.2009).The 2008 UNESCO Global Monitoring Report focused on marginalization and ‘educationalpoverty’ and its links to well-being and human development (Unterhalter 2009). In manycountries, education constitutes a fundamental tool to fight poverty (from a human rightsperspective) or to promote economic growth (from a utilitarian perspective), and has beenrecognizedintheWorldBank’sMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),inUNESCO’sEducationfor ALL initiatives (EFA) as well as in number of national policies. However, as the 2015deadlineapproaches,expertsareunanimoustosaythattheMillenniumDevelopment(MDG)Goal2pertainingtoUniversalPrimaryEducationandGoal3 (topromotegenderequality)aswellastheEFAgoalssetover2decadesagoarenotontracktobemet;thereare69millionchildrenofschool-goingagethatarenotinschoolandover750millionadultshavenoliteracyskills(UNESCO2005).The roleofeducation is crucial in termsofachieving social impactand long-termchanges. Itseemsthatdevelopmentisfailingthemostvulnerablegroupssuchasgirlsbyfallingshortonpromises of equity and social justice (UNESCO 2012b). For long now, various policies andprograms in general, and those pertaining to education in particular, have been analysedthroughspecificsilosofhigh-middleor low-incomecountries.Withcurrenttrends in literacy

6

andpovertyrates,itisbecomingclearthatfundamentalchallengesaresimilaracrosscountriesand contexts. Social exclusion as shaped by educational experiences is a crucial hurdle thatneedstobeaddressedinvariouscontexts(Kabeer2005;Mitchell2005).Thereisurgentneedto focus on who is receiving what education. It is clear that low levels of performance inschools lead to a lackof participation in society. Education is thusperceived as indicativeofexclusionfromdifferentdomainsoftheadultlife(employment,political,community).Whileitisundisputablethatexclusionfromeducationmaintainspersonsinpoverty,thereisaneedtounderstandfullytherolethateducationplays incontributingto-orfighting-mechanismsofsocial exclusion beyond the learning years (Sparkes 1999; Sparkes & Glennerster 2002).Weargueherethatthecapabilityapproachdefinedinprevioussections,offersausefulframeworktoanalysethesemechanisms.Thisapproachisofcrucialimportancefordesigningprogrammesandevenmoresoforassessingimpactasitfocusesnotsolelyonwhatapersonactuallydoes(functioning)buttherangeofpossibilitiesthathe/shechoosesthatspecificfunctioningfrom–thecapabilitiesset((Sen1999).TheimplicationsoftheCAinthefieldofdefiningandassessingeducation are essential. Firstly, rather than trying to ‘label’ whether a person with a givenvulnerability (disability, gender, minority ethnicity or religion, etc.), it focuses on whethervulnerability leadstodeprivationofcapabilitiesresultinginlowerwellbeing;secondly,theCAhasthepotentialto lookattheimpactofvulnerabilitybeyondtheindividualby includingtheeffecton the familyand the community (in termsof coping strategies, lossof resourcesandsharedburden)whichiscrucialindevelopingcountries;thirdly,itfocusesontheagencyoftheperson,totakethedecisionsthats/hehasreasontovalue.

1.3.2. Educationforvulnerablegroups:InclusionandExclusion

Thereapproachesthataimtoenableallchildrentoaccesseducationvaryaccordingtocountry,context, funding availably, policy and legislations. As the term indicates, inclusive education,promotestheaccessofchildrenwithdisabilitieswithinformalschoolsystems.Incontinuationwiththemainstreamingimpetus,IEgoesonestepfurthertoconceiveaccessnotjustasmakingroomforchildrenwithdisabilitiesbuttrulyensuringthatalltheelementsareinplacetoensurethat they benefit from learning and realize their potential. The Enabling Education Network(EENET)definesIEasaprocessthat:acknowledgesthatallchildrencanlearn;recognisesandrespects differences (age, gender, ethnicity, language, disability, HIV status, etc.); enableseducationstructures,systemsandmethodologiestomeettheneedsofallchildren;ispartofawider strategy to promote an inclusive society; is a dynamic process which is constantlyevolving; need not be restricted by large class sizes or shortage of material resources1.However, IE programmes struggle on the cusp of theoretical expectation and field realities.Certain definitions attempt to reconcile these two aspects by introducing nuances in thedefinitions.AccordingtoUNESCO:“Inclusiveeducationisasystemofeducationinwhichallthepupilswith special educational needs are enrolled in ordinary classes in their district schools,and are provided with support services and an education based on their forces and needs.Inclusiveschoolsarebasedonthebasicprinciplethatallschoolchildren inagivencommunityshouldlearntogether,sofarasispracticable,regardlessoftheirhandicapsordifficulties.”2Despitethedifficultiesfacedwithimplementation,withitsstronggroundinginhumanrights,IEconstitutesarelevantpolicyandadvocacytool(Peters2003).Itbringsissuesrelatedtosocialcohesionandjusticeintosharpfocusandconstitutesatoolformoreefficientlyaddressingtheneeds of childrenwith disabilities, especially in formal settings.However, as suggested from

1 EENET Website accessed July 2015: http://www.eenet.org.uk/EENET_def_of_IE.php 2 UNESCO website accessed September 2011: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en//ev.phpURL_ID=7499&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

7

thedefinitionsgivenabove,theconceptremainsvagueatthetheoreticallevel,whichresultsindifficultiesinimplementingcoherentandsustainableprogrammes.Manydevelopingcountrieshaveinitiatedmechanismstoensurethatchildrenwithdisabilitiesareincludedinmainstreameducation programmes. Despite these efforts, schools do not always mainstream allimpairment groups. This leads to ahierarchyof theexcluded;with some impairment groupsbeing further marginalised and excluded (Kalyanpur 2007). Furthermore, initiatives that aresometimeswell-definedatthepolicy levelareoften ineffectively implementeddueto lackofresources and expertise, as well as persistence of negative social attitudes leading todiscrimination and exclusion (Jonah Eleweke and Rodda 2002). Finally, IE remains inherentlylinked to the field of disability at the level of implementation in LMICs. We argue that totrigger therequiredparadigmshift to improvequalityandequityofeducationtheneedtopresentananalysisofthesocialexclusionprocessiscrucialinordertoaddressthemultiplevulnerabilitiesofchildrenandgobeyondthefocusondisability.

1.3.3. ImpactandTheoryofChange

AlthoughtheTheoryofChange(ToC)discourseoriginatedintheevaluationfieldiswidespreadininternationaldevelopment,thereisnogenerallyaccepteddefinitioninpractice(Vogel2012).However, the guiding principle of ToC is the imperative to tackle complexity through socialanalyses and decipher dynamic processes in order to understand how and why a givencombinationof initiativescanleadtodesiredchangewithinagivencontext,which“isvital inrelation toattributing cause”p441 (BlameyandMackenzie2007) . Inorder toeffectivelydothis,itisessentialtohaveagreementoverwhatchangeisdesired,especiallybylocalactors,togaugeifthisdesiredchangeisreflectedinthebroaderpolicyframeworksaswellasengagedindiscussionat the local level todesign initiativesand identify theentrypoints thatcantriggerthemechanismsofchange.ThechallengeofToCistotakeaproceduralapproachthatallowsforfine-tuningwhichinturnallowsascrutinyoftheeducationcontextaswellasensureslocalownershipandaccountability.SuchanapproachiscrucialtobetterunderstandhowSEoccurswithinlearningsystems,beyondsimplequestionsofequityinaccessandbasicskills.

1.4 Researchbackground

Educational policies and structures across various contexts adhere to a central tenet of theflourishing of the child and recognize links between learning and building peaceful societies(UNESCO 2000). However, education processes and outcomes are universally organised intermsof standardized levelsofachievementof cognitive skills that,bynotbeingsensitive todifferences inchildren’sabilities (particularlychildrenwithdisabilities(Dart2007,CoatesandVickerman 2010), create processes of exclusion and failure and ultimately jeopardize theoverarchinggoaloffosteringholisticwellbeing.Thereviewwillscopetheexistenceofnewandinnovativewaystolookatdiscriminationwithineducationbyusingasocialexclusionlensgoingbeyond the sole focus of establishing equitable access for certain pre-labelled groups, withlittle, if any attention to equality of process and quality of education, and to the ability ofprogrammestoachieveanyrealsocialimpact.

1.4.1. SocialExclusionandVulnerability

Forthepastdecades,theinclusiondiscoursehasbecomeprominentinthefieldofeducationpolicy.Inthisfield,inclusionhasbeenmostoftensynonymousofaccessintolearningsystems.Similarly, vulnerabilityhasbeendefined in termsof various labels inorder todetermine thepopulations that arenothaving access toeducation. Theprocessof labellingwho shouldbeincludedisapoliticalone,whichinevitablyleadstocertain,oftenthemoststigmatisedsections

8

ofsociety,beingleftaside(MoncrieffeandEyben2013).Labellingisalsoawayofsimplifyingtheapproachtoprogramming foractorswhooftendonothave theresources toadequatelyevaluate appropriately the needs of the population they are targeting. In contexts whereresourcesareoftenmorelimited,socialpoliciesaredefinedintermsofwhoandhowmanythevulnerableare.

1.4.2. Educationpolicies:focusonaccessassynonymousofinclusion

ItisundeniablethattheconceptofInclusiveEducation(IE),withitsstronggroundinginhumanrights,constitutesarelevantpolicyandadvocacytool.Itbringsissuesrelatedtosocialcohesionand justice into sharp focus within educational systems ((Miles and Singal 2010). IE is alsoviewed as a means of fighting stigma and discrimination in societies where prejudice iswidespreadandwhereresourcesarerestricted.However,initsattempttoencompassvariousforms of vulnerable groups, the concept seems increasingly unclear.More concerning is thefactthatdespitetheconsiderableamountoffundingbeingmadeavailableforIEprogrammes,tangible results are still rare and within a new implicit hierarchy of the excluded, somevulnerablegroups,suchaschildrenwithdisabilitiesareoncemoreatriskofbeingrelegatedtothebottomofthepile.

1.4.3. Limitationsofcurrentassessmentsofqualityeducation

This inabilitytoovercomecertaincrucialchallenges linkedtothecomplexityofassessment isreflectedinthefactthatevaluationofqualityeducationisover-focussedonconsiderationsofaccess/non-access and attendance/non-attendance of children with disabilities. As aconsequence, despite theoretical advances and policy breakthroughs, inclusive qualityeducationcontinuestobeaservicetobedelivered,andonthefieldinseparablefromdisabilityconcernsandviewedassynonymousofissueslinkedtoaccesstoschoolsandclassrooms.Asaresult access, which only constitutes a first step, is often perceived as the objective ofeducational programmes for childrenwith disabilities.What are the effortsmade to look atprocesses, and even completion of school? Beyond this, are there any attempt to assessqualitativeoutcomesandimpactintermsofsocialchange?

1.4.4. Previoussystematicreviews

VariousreviewshavebeencarriedoutwiththeEPPI-Centre,Campbelland3ieoneducationofvulnerable groups. The present review differs from these and will add to some of therecommendationsmadebypreviousstudies.

1. The scope and objectives of our review call for a realistic perspective and on-goingdiscussionwithfutureusersofthereview.Asaresult, the“intervention”(programmeorpolicy)isnottheonlyunitforanalysis.

2. Wehavedefinedthequalityappraisal tool forscrutinizing theevidencebasewith theaimofidentifyingpatternsthatleadtoexclusionwithinlearning.

3. Thepastreviewshavefocussedcloselyoncertainaspectsofinclusiveeducationmostlyinrelationtochildrenwithdisabilitiesandspecialneeds:

• Reviewsthathaveastrongfocusonchildrenwithdisabilities (Nind,Wearmouthetal.2004);

• Reviewsthathaveastrongfocusonacertaintypeofintervention(Rix,Halletal.2006);• Reviews thathavea strong focuson impactevaluationor cost-effectiveness (Bakhshi,

Kettetal.2013).4. The present reviewwill be a strong continuation of a review, thatwas carried out in

2002 that looks specifically at the “effectivenessof school-level actions forpromoting

9

participation by all students” (Dyson, Howes et al. 2002), However the review onpromotingparticipation:• Was published in 2002. As a result our review will scope evidence that was

publishedafterthereview;• Identified a majority of studies and interventions that were from High Income

Countries;• Focussedonthevariousactionswithoutstronglylookingatprocessanalysesorlack

ofthese,withinthestudiesidentified;• Didnotfocusonquestionsofdefinitionofinclusionandtheoreticalframeworkson

whichinterventionsarecarriedout.Ourreviewwillbecloselyinlinewithoneoftherecommendationsmadebythe2002review:“The systematic review process has proved powerful in enabling us to identify trustworthyempirical evidence in a field where such evidence tends to be embedded in conceptualdevelopment, advocacy and illustration. It should therefore becomemore firmly establishedamongsttheresearchmethodologiesineducation.However,itshouldnot,initscurrentform,beseenastheonlywaytoengagelegitimatelywithresearchliterature.Inparticular,narrativereviewsandnon-empiricalformsofinquiry(suchastheoreticaldevelopmentandconceptualanalysis)whicharenotreadilyaccessedthroughthesortsofsystematicreviewprocessesinwhichweengagedareimportantinadevelopingfieldsuchasinclusiveeducation.Moreover,the development of policy and practice cannot always wait for evidence from systematicreviews”(p5).

5. Inordertodefinethekeywordingtoolwewillrefertoconceptsandtoolsdefinedbyasystematicreviewongirls’education(Unterhalter2015).Inlinewiththisreview,wewillplace importanceon identifying theroleof thecontextwithinwhichexclusionoccurs,focus on questions of policy and changes in norms and behaviours and focus on thetriggersofsocialchange.Wewillalsoborrowelementsofthecodingframeusedinthisstudyforthemappingofevidence(p83).

6. A Campbell review is currently being conducted on “Education Interventions forImprovingtheAccessto,andQualityof,EducationinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries:A SystematicReview” (Snilstveit,Gallagheret al. 2014). “Theprimaryobjectiveof thisreview is to identify, assess and synthesise evidence on the effects of educationinterventionsonchildren’saccess toeducationand learning in lowandmiddle incomecountries” (p5). This review focuses on interventions and their impact by looking atexperimental and quasi-experimental designs.We believe that there could be strongsynergiesbetweenthisstudyandoursandwillbecontactingtheauthors togetmoreinformationontheirsearchterms.

1.5 Purposeandrationaleforreview

Theoverarching goal of the researchwithinwhich this review is embedded is todevelopaninnovativeframeworkforanalysisoftheprocessesthatleadtosocialexclusion,inequalityandthushinderqualityofeducation.Theresearchwillallowustocarryoutthescopingstudiesanddevelopuserinvolvementthatwilllaythefoundationfortheconceptualframeworkaswellasidentifymethods for analysis of the phenomenon of social exclusion to be further tested insuccessivephases.ThesystematicreviewwillbecarriedoutwithinthescopeofSpecificaim1: To reviewmethods, tools and analyses, which have been used to assess social exclusionwithinteachingandlearningprocessesatthegloballevel.Specificaim2willprovideevidencefromdata collected in LowandMiddle IncomeCountries (LMICs) that supports theneed for

10

viewing learning outcomes beyond indicators currently being defined to determine qualitylearning.Thefindingsofthesystematicreviewwillfeedintospecificaim3thatwillbuildaninnovative framework for analysis that combines relevant theoretical foundations aswell asmethods/toolsthatdeciphersocialprocessesthatsustainsocialexclusion.Thepresentreviewwillaimto:1. Map themethods and tools that are used to evaluate the process of social exclusionwithineducation;2. ComprehendhowsocialexclusionprocessesarebeingviewedwithineducationinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries;3. Systematically identifyingknowledgegapsthatexist inevaluationofsocialexclusionineducationinLMICs;

1.6 Authors,funders,andotherusersofthereview

Theconclusionsdrawnby this reviewwillhave relevance fordonors,practitionersaswell asresearchers.Authors

• Parul Bakhshi, lead PI, a social psychologist, specialises in education programmes forpersonswith disabilities. She has conducted systematic reviews on questions of adultliteracyprogrammesandmentalhealthforLCDIDC.Shehasalsocarriedoutevaluationsand assessments of education programmes for Save the Children-UK, as well as forUNICEF.

• Jean-Francois Trani has undertaken a range of policy-linked, qualitative, action-basedreviewsthatanalysethesocialandpoliticalimplicationsofpoliciesformarginalisedandexcluded groups. He has also worked on access to education for children withdisabilitiesinhumanitariancontexts.

• ResearchAssistant: Katherine Kristensen is aMasters Student at theBrown School ofSocialWorkatWashingtonUniversityinStLouis.

ReviewGroupAdvisors

• NidhiSinghal(contentexpert)• MariaKett(Contentexpert)• Methodologyexpert(TBDbyEPPI-Centre)

FundersThisreviewispartofaresearchfundedbyDFIDESRCEDUCATIONandDEVELOPMENT:RaisingLearningOutcomesinEducationSystems,Call2013-2014.OtherUsersofthereviewAt each stage of the research, results, findings and conclusions will be provided in variousformatsinordertobedisseminatedwithintheacademicfieldaswellasbemadeaccessibletovariousotherpotentialusersand futurepartnersof this research (policymakers,NGOs).Thefindingsandconclusionsofthereviewwillbemadeavailabletodifferentaudiencesinvariousformats:

• Peerreviewedpublication(1)onconclusionsofthesystematicreview;• ProtocolandfinalreportmadeavailableontheEPPI-Centrewebsite;• Executive summary made available through websites (DFID, Washington University,

WSISCommunityForum).

11

1.7 Reviewquestionsandapproach

InitialReviewQuestion:

HowissocialexclusionassessedwithineducationsystemsinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries?

Supportingconcernsthatwillframethesystematicreview:

• WhichdefinitionsofSocialExclusionareprominentinthefieldofeducation?• Issocialexclusionregardedassynonymousofinclusionandaccess?• Whatmethodologiesarebeingusedfortheanalysisofsocialexclusionineducationasa

dynamicprocess?• Issocialexclusionbeingusedtodeterminequalityof,andequitywithineducation?

1.7.1. Specifyingthescopeoftheprimaryquestion

Theperspectiveofsocialexclusionineducationofthepresentreviewwillbebasedonthepolicydocument:DefinesocialexclusionineducationwithreferencetotheUNESCOguideline2012(UNESCO2012).Inordertodeterminethescopeofthesearchonsocialexclusionwewillreferto the document on exclusion within education, which goes beyond exclusion from learningsystems to examine howprocesses of prejudice anddiscrimination operatewithin education.Mostanalysesof inclusionhavefocussedonthefirst2aspectsofexclusionasspecified inthedocument,namely:

1. Exclusionfromhavinglifeprospectsneededforlearning2. Exclusionfromentrytoschoolsoreducationprogrammes

In order to identify information pertaining specifically to the process of social exclusion asdefined in the previous sections our review will focus more specifically on the following 4aspects:

3. Exclusionfromregularandcontinuingparticipationwithinaschoolprogramme;4. Exclusionfrommeaningfullearningexperiences;5. Exclusionfromrecognitionoflearning;6. Exclusionfromcontributingthelearningacquiredtothedevelopmentofcommunity

andsociety.Thereviewwillincludevarioustypesofanalysesandinterventionsatvariouslevels.Thesemayrangefrominternationalframeworks,nationalorregionalpolicies,large-scaleprogrammesorspecificprojects, largeor small. Inorder tomap theevidencewith theaimofunderstandingtheprocessof socialexclusionwewilldetermine thekeywording toolaswell as thequalitycriteria with reference to dynamic process of SE. Education systemswill include formal andnon-formal,primaryandsecondary.

1.7.2. SpecificSearchstrategy

PrimaryResearchQuestionThesearchwillbecarriedoutinsuccessivestagesinordertoanswerthereviewquestionsinacoherentandsystematicmanner,andinlinewiththeconceptsstatedisprevioussectionswewillproceedinthefollowingmanner:

1. Identifythestudiesthataddresstheprocessofsocialexclusionineducation;2. Screenthebodyofevidenceidentifiedtoidentify:

a) Thetoolsandmethodologiesthatareusedtoassessandevaluatesocialexclusionwithintheclassroomorthewiderlearningenvironment;

b) Identifyinitiativesthatfocusoncomplexandcontextualanalyses;

12

c) The prevalent definitions used to understand social exclusionmechanisms withineducation.

Wewillhowever,excludestudiesthatrefersolelytoquestionsofaccessintolearningsystemssuchasaccessibilityofthelearningenvironment(physicalaccessibility,water,toilets,teachingmaterials,etc.).

LookingatcomplexanalysesInlinewiththeaimsoftheoverarchingresearchquestion,wewillidentifystudiesthatpresentcomplex and dynamic analyses of the process of social exclusion within the classroom anddecipher the mechanisms that lead to marginalisation of vulnerable groups. These couldinclude:• Direct educational indicators (enrolment rates, retention and transition rates, completion

rates, interruption and dropout rates, literacy rates)when these rates are discussed andcompletedbyanalysesofthecontextwithinwhichtheyoccur.

• Qualitative outputs that help understand the process of social exclusion (views andopinionsofthechildren,parents,teachersandcommunitymembersregarding).

• Studiesthatfocusonvariouselementsoftheteachingprocesssuchasteachertrainingandthe curriculumwith the aim of understanding social exclusion linked with beliefs andattitudeswiththelearningsystem;

• Studies/interventions that address social exclusion through awareness raising andsensitisationwithrelationtoeducationofvulnerablegroups;

LevelsandtypesofInterventionVarious types of interventionswill be includedwithin the review: projects and programmes,regional,nationaland internationalpoliciesand initiatives.Thesystematicreviewwill includeinterventionsatallthefollowinglevels:• Childlevel;• Schoollevel;• Statelevel;• Countrylevel;• Internationallevel

13

2.Methodsusedinthereview2.1 TypeofreviewA systematic review of social exclusion in education is taskedwith identifying, screening andcriticallyappraisingaconsiderableanddiversebodyofevidencetoanswerthecrucialquestionofhowtheprocessofsocialexclusionisbeingunderstoodandassessedwithinlearningsystems.Inordertoachievethis,itisimperativetodeterminetheframeworkforthereviewnotonlyintermsofinclusioncriteriabutalsoinviewofwhatthemaintheoreticalconceptssignify.Wehavedesignedamulti-stagereviewwherethefindingsfromeachstagewillbediscussedwiththeadvisorygroupinordertoidentifytheprioritiesofthesuccessivestages.• Thefirststagewillmaptheexistingliteratureonassessmentofsocialexclusionand

educationinLMICs;• Thebodyofevidencewillthenbescreenedwithadual-focus;

− Identifymethodologies/toolsthatarebeingusedtoassesssocialexclusion;− Identifydefinitionsofsocialexclusionineducationthatareprominentinlowand

middleincomecountries;• Afterdiscussionwiththedonorsandthereviewgroupandinviewofthesizeofthebodyof

evidenceidentified,wewillre-focusouranalysis inordertoaddressthespecificquestionslikely to bemost useful and define future avenues that require further investigation (i.e.focusthereviewononeoraselectednumberoflowandmiddleincomecountries).

2.1.1 ScreeninglimitationsFindingandappraisingrelevantevidenceAsstated,theaimofthepresentreviewistoseekoutevidencethatwouldallowforthemuchneededparadigmshift in the fieldofeducationqualityandequity.The systematic reviewwilllead to the identification and screening of relevant evidence; however the relevance of theevidence in order to contribute to the overall researchwill entail defining innovative criteria,going beyond considerations of methodological clarity and robustness. The designing of thequalitycriteriaitselfwillbeamajorachievementofthisreview.ScreeningwithadualobjectiveThe body of evidencewill be scrutinized to not just identifymethodologies that assess socialexclusion in education but also to constitute a theoretical framework within which socialexclusionwithineducation canbeanalysedandassessed. Thisdualobjective (methodologicaland theoretical) is ambitious and will require fine-tuning of the review steps as the reviewadvances. We will draw on expertise from the advisory group in order to help redirect thereviewasandwhenrequired.ScrutinizingthegreyliteratureThemainchallengeofthisreviewwillbetodefineasearchstrategythatallowsthescreeningofaverywideandversatilebodyofworkinthegreyliterature.Thisincludesanumberofworkingdocuments, policy documents, white papers, technical documents, project and programmereports as well as website information of various organisations, which we hope to identifythrough searching relevant websites, and contacting authors and on-going projects. As thesedocumentsdonotgothroughapeer-reviewprocesstheyalsodiffergreatlyintermsofquality.

14

Moreover,withinthisliterature,theterms‘impact’and‘cost-effectiveness’areoftenover-usedwithoutreferringtoaprecisestudyorassessment.2.1.2 ApplyingInclusion/ExclusionCriteriaAn exhaustive and comprehensive search strategy will be developed using a two-stageapproach.Thefirstandprincipalstageofthesearchstrategywillbeascopingstudy,enablingustoproduceamapoftheevidencebase,describingthebodyofworkinthisarea.Themappingwill identify theoretical evidence on social exclusion in education on one hand and themethodologiesusedtoassesstheprocessontheother.Fortheinitialsearchtheinclusioncriteriawillbeappliedbroadlytoenableidentificationoftheevidencebase:• Country where policy/programme is implemented: We will include if the document

addressedatleastonecountryfromthelistofLMICs.• Type of education:Wewill include documents that refer to specific formal or non-formal

educationalstructures.Excludehome-basededucationaswellasadulteducation.Informallearningsystemswillbeexcluded.

• Education level:Wewill include documents referring to children aged between 2 and 18(early childhood, primary and secondary education levels). We will exclude documentspertainingtouniversityandpostsecondaryeducation.

• Typeofdocument:Wewillexcludedissertationsandchapterofbooksandbooks.• Subject:Wewillexcludedocumentsthatdonotaddressquestionsofeducationandlearning

Followingtheinitialsearchthebodyofevidencewillbedividedinto2sections:• Studiesthatpresentananalyses/assessmentofSocialExclusion:analysesmayincludemixed

methods or qualitative methods. Studies that only present quantitative data linked toenrolment, access and completion without any contextual or process discussion will beexcluded. Specific attentionwill bepaid to identify studies that contribute strongly to theToC andpresent analyses that decipher the causal factors or correlations between social,cultural,historicandreligiouscontextsandteachingcontent.

• Documents thatdefine theprocessof socialexclusionbeyondquestionsofaccess:Wewillinclude documents that view social exclusion as a multifaceted and on-going processbeyond merely defining specific vulnerable groups that do not have access to learningsystems.

2.1.3 CharacterisingIncludedStudies:KeywordingForstudiesthathavebeenincludedfollowingthefirstscreening,wewilluploadthefulldocumentsintoEPPI-Reviewer4.0fortheelectronicdatabasesearch.Ateamofreviewerswillthencodethedocumentsaccordingtovariouscriteriadefinedinthekeywordingtool.Thekeywordingtoolwillbedefinedkeepinginmindthedualobjectiveofthisreview:

1. Identifymethodologiesandtoolsusedforassessingprocessesofsocialexclusionwithineducation;

2. Identifythevariousdefinitionsthatarecurrentlyusedtounderstandsocialexclusionwithineducation,specificallyinlowandmiddle-incomecountries.

3. Identifythevariousissuesrelatedtosocialexclusionprocesses(gender,ethnicgroups,disability,etc.).

2.1.4Identifying/DescribingStudies:qualityassuranceprocess

15

Reportswillbeidentifiedfromthreedifferenttypesofsourcesthatwillrequireadaptationofthe overall search strategy: electronic search engines to identify research papers, electronicsearch of databases of organisations and networks working in the field of disability andeducation, gaining access to NGO field documents through partners and experts/other keyinformants.Descriptionandmappingof studieswillbedoneusing thekeywording tool.Thequality assurance processwill be determinedbasedon the Theory of Change defined above(seeAppendix).Theaimofthepresentreviewistoprovideinformationforanalysisofsocialexclusionwithineducation.Theevidencebasethatwillbescrutinizedforansweringthereviewquestionwillbeextremely largeanddivers, ranging frompeer-reviewedpapers todocumentsobtained fromNGOnetworks.Basedonprinciplesandtheoryofchangeandtakingarealisticperspectivethataim todecipher themechanismsofhow initiatives impactbehavioural change,wewill focusouranalyseson:(1)Questionsofexternalvalidityofinformationprovidedbytheevidence;(2)Identifying the situational triggers by deciphering the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO)processes in the evidence base. In doing this we will attempt to seek out the “patternsbetween interventions and their outcomes, on the generative mechanisms by which therelationshipisestablished”p450(BlameyandMackenzie2007).The defined aims of the review also call for a determining of what will constitute QUALITYcriteria inourscreeningandanalysis.Thescalesthatarecurrentlyuses insystematicreviewsplacehigh emphasis on internal validity and scientific robustness.Our screeningprocesswilltakea realistic approachof “Digging forNuggets” (Pawson2006).Weagreewith theauthorthat the“study isnot theappropriateunitofanalysis forqualityappraisaland (…) indicatorsarenotdecisionpointsbutinvitetheappraisertoexaminerathermorecomplexpropositionsas“possiblefeaturesforconsideration””(p131).Ourqualityappraisalwillneedtobringintolightthe“assumptionsthatunderlieprogrammeinterventions(p134)”.WedesignedaqualitygridusingtheUNESCO2012documentthatdetailsthevarioustypesofevidence that areneeded tounderstand social exclusion related to educationwithin a givencontext.We added a process analysis that focuses on uncovering the patterns of exclusionthrough a Context-Mechanism-Outcome approach. Through this perspective a study will beconsidered of “good” quality if the links between context-mechanisms and outcomes havebeenarticulated,orsuggested.Wewilldefineascoringmethodologytobeabletoassesstheweightofvariousdocumentsaccordingtothevariouselements.Questionsthrownupbythisanalysiswillbediscussedwiththeadvisorygrouporputouttothenetworksassociatedwiththisstudy(seeAppendixforAnalysisGrid).2.2 Userinvolvement2.2.1 ApproachandrationaleThe proposed research project will strongly contribute to on-going debates on quality ofeducation in academia but also in the field of policymaking aswell as implementation andevaluationofeducationprogrammes.Liaisingwithpartners fromvariousbackgroundswillbestrategic to our aim of strongly building in user-involvement from the very onset of theresearch.TheframeworkforanalysisofSocialExclusionwithinEducationthatwillresultfromthe researchwillbepresented to inclusiveeducationunitsatUNICEFandUNESCO.Theywillalsobeshared throughpolicybriefswithNGOpartners.Academicaudienceswillbe reachedvia per review publication, as well as conference presentations (including the HumanDevelopmentandCapabilityAssociationConferenceinSeptember2015and2016,andtheCEISconference2016inVancouver).

16

2.2.2 UserinvolvementindesigningthereviewThePIandCo-Iwillleverageextensivepastexperienceinordertoensurethatallstagesoftheresearcharedefinedsuccessivelyinaparticipatorymanner.OuruserinvolvementstrategywillcompriseofsettingupanAdvisoryGroupthatbringstogetherpartnersofdifferentprofilestoprovide advise and feedback on the research. The group will consist of academics (UCL,UniversityofSanDiego)aswellasinternationalpolicymakers(UNESCOandUNICEF).2.3 Identifyinganddescribingstudies2.3.1 Identificationofpotentialstudies:Searchstrategy

ElectronicsearchesofacademicdatabasesAcademic databases in the fields ofmedicine, education, psychology, anthropology, and thesocial sciences will be searched. Subject librarians of education and anthropology wereconsultedinordertodeterminethemostappropriatedatabasestosearchforthosedisciplines.Apreliminarysearchof fifteendatabaseswasconductedwithawiderangeofkeyword (freetext) and subject (thesaurus) terms. The first 40 results of each search were reviewed andbasedonthenumberofrelevantresultsanddatabasefeatureswhichrefinedthesearchandlimited results (e.g. ability to search by title/abstract rather than full-text, ability to usetruncation symbol), 9 databases will be selected for use in this review. Databases to besearchedinclude:

• ERIC

17

• Eldis• BritishLibraryofDevelopingStudies(BLDS)• PsychINFO• SocialScienceResearchNetwork• WebofScience• PsychLit

SearchTermsWehavedesignedthesearchtoidentifythepapersthatrefertothefollowingconcepts:a. Education,b. Exclusionc. Inclusion,d. Low–middleincomecountries,

ExampleofsearchtermsdefinedinERICusingtheThesaurus(thisstrategywillbefollowedandadaptedtotheotheracademicsearchengines)a. Education

Primary Education OR "Elementary School*" OR "Kindergarten*" OR "Elementary SecondaryEducation"OR"ElementaryEducation"OR"PrimaryEducation"OR"SecondaryEducation"OR"Compulsory Education"OR "Elementary Secondary Education"OR "Secondary Education"OR"GradeSchool*"OR"elementarystudent*"OR"Primarygrade*"OR"HighSchool*"OR"MiddleSchool*"b. Exclusion"Exclusi*"OR"Exclusion"OR"SocialExclusi*"OR"Social isolation"OR"Isolati*"OR"Isolation"OR "climate of exclusi*" OR "climate of inclusi*" OR "exclus* and integrat*" OR "exclus*approach*"OR "exclus*attitude*"OR "exclus* classes"OR "exclus* classroom*"OR "exclus*

Educauon

Low-middleincomecountries

Exclusion

Inclusion

18

curricul*" OR "exclus* educat*" OR "exclus* in education*" OR "exclus* environment*" OR"exclus*inschool*"OR"exclus*instruction*"OR"exclus*learning"OR"exclusi*pedagog*"OR"exclusi*placement*"OR"exclusi*polic*"OR"exclusi*practice*"OR"exclusi*program*"OR"exclusi* reform*" OR "exclusi* school*" OR "exclusi* setting*" OR "exclusi* strateg*" OR"exclusi* student*" OR "exclusi* style of teaching" OR "exclusi* teach*" OR "exclusi*elementary"OR"exclusiongeneral"OR"exclusionhighschool*"OR"exclusionkindergarten*"OR"process*ofexclusi*"OR"school*exclusion"OR"socialcohesion"

c. Inclusion/Exclusion

"climateofinclusi*"OR"inclusi*andintegrat*"OR"inclusi*approach*"OR"inclusi*attitude*"OR"inclusi*classes"OR"inclusi*classroom*"OR"inclusi*curricul*"OR"inclusi*educat*"OR"inclusi* in education*" OR "inclusi* environment*" OR "inclusi* in school*" OR "inclus*instruction*" OR "inclusi* learning" OR "inclusi* pedagog*" OR "inclusi* placement*" OR"inclusi* polic*" OR "inclusi* practice*" OR "inclusi* program*" OR "inclusi* reform*" OR"inclusi* school*" OR "inclusi* setting*" OR "inclusi* strateg*" OR "inclusi* student*" OR"inclusi* style of teaching" OR "inclusi* teach*" OR "inclusive elementary" OR "inclusivegeneral"OR"inclusivehighschool*"OR"inclusivekindergarten*"OR"mainstream* inclusion"OR "practice* of inclusi*" OR "process* of inclusion" OR "provid* inclusi*" OR "school*inclusion"OR"social*inclu*"OR"inclus*teen*"

d. Low-middle income countries: World Bank list of Economies (2015 listing of lowerincomeandlowermiddle).“economiccondition”OR“poorcountries”OR“low incomecountries”OR“LMIC”OR“Middleincome countries” OR “underserved countries” OR “poor nation” OR “underdevelopedeconomy”OR“developingeconomy”OR“LowincomeCountr*”OR“MiddleincomeCountr*”OR“lowermiddleincome”OR“Afghanistan”OR“Albania”OR“Algeria”OR“AmericanSamoa”OR “Angola” OR “Armenia” OR “Azerbaijan” OR “Bangladesh” OR “Belarus” OR “Belize” OR“Benin” OR “Bhutan” OR “Bolivia” OR “Bosnia” OR “Botswana” OR “Brazil” OR “Bulgaria” OR"Burkina Faso” OR "Burundi” OR “Cabo Verde” OR "Cambodia” OR “Cameroon” OR “CentralAfrican Republic” OR “Chad” OR "China” OR “Columbia” OR “Comoros” OR “Congo” OR“Dominican Republic” OR “Congo Republic” OR “Costa Rica” OR “Cuba” OR “Djibouti” OR“Dominica” OR “Cuba” OR “Ecuador” OR “Egypt” OR “Arab Republic” OR “El Salvador” OR“Eritrea” OR “Ethiopia” OR “Fiji” OR “Gabon” OR “Gambia” OR “Georgia” OR “Ghana” OR“Grenada”OR“Guatemala”OR“Guinea*”OR“Guyana”OR“Haiti”OR“Honduras”OR“India”OR “Indonesia” OR “Iran” OR “Islamic Republic” OR “Iraq” OR “Jamaica” OR “Jordan” OR“Kazakhstan” OR “Kenya” OR “Kiribati” OR “Korea” OR “Kosovo” OR “Kyrgyz Republic” OR“Lebanon” OR “Lesotho” OR “Liberia” OR “Libya” OR “Macedonia” OR “Madagascar” OR“Malawi” OR “Malaysia” OR “Maldives”OR “Mali” OR “Marshal Islands”OR “Mauritania”OR“Mauritius” OR “Mexico” OR “Micronesia” OR “Moldova” OR “Mongolia” OR “Sub-SaharanAfrica”OR“SubSaharanAfrica”OR“SubsaharanAfrica”OR“SouthAsia”OR“SouthernAsia”OR“EastAsia”OR“EasternAsia”OR“MiddleEast”OR“NorthAfrica”OR“CentralAsia”ScrutinizingthegreyliteratureAsnotedabove,oneofthekeychallengesofthisreviewwillbetodefineasearchstrategythatallowsthescreeningofaverywideandversatilebodyofworkinthegreyliterature.Afterapreliminarysearchofinternationalorganisations’aswellasNGOs’websiteswedeterminedanumberofportalstobehandsearchedusingvariouscombinationsofsearchtermsadaptedto

19

eachwebsite’s’searchpossibilities.Websitesofrelevantinternationalportalsofinstitutionsandresearchbodies:

• Websitesofinternationalagenciesandconsortiumworkinginthefieldofeducation(UNESCO,UNICEF,WorldBank);

• Websitesofnetworksandconsortiumsworkingoneducationanddisability(EducationInternational,EENET);

• Websitesofdevelopmentthinktanksandinstitutesworkingineducation(IIEP,IDS,ODI).

• BritishEducationIndex• AustralianEducationIndex

Contactingexpertsandkey-informantsThePIandCo-Iwillleveragepastexperienceinthefieldofinclusivedevelopmentinordertoidentifydocumentsthatfocusonsocialexclusionwithineducation.

• WehavesentaninitialquerytoorganisationsworkinginthefieldofeducationtorequestdocumentsonassessmentofIE.

• WehavelaunchedadiscussiongroupopentoexpertsoninclusiveeducationontheWSIS-Community-UNESCOportal;

• WearealsocontactingthefieldofficesofLeonardCheshireDisabilityaswellasHandicapInternationaltoobtaindocumentsonIE.

2.3.2 MappingtheEvidenceAllresultsoftheelectronicsearchofjournalswillbeenteredintotheEPPI-Reviewer4database.Fortheportalsofinstitutionsandorganisationsadatabasewillrecordthedetailsofeachsearch(date of access, process for keyword searching, number of documents identified, number ofdocumentsincludedinthesearch).Thedocumentsincludedinthesearchwillthenbemanuallyscreened using the same inclusion criteria as those used for the electronic database search.Finally,weareawareofthefactthatwemayreceivetheinformationfromthekeyinformantsover a long period of time and in an unpredictable format. We will keep a record of thedocumentsreceivedandprovidecopiesoftheonesthatpasstheinclusioncriteriamanually.Theelectronicacademicdatabases

• Firstly,wewillapplythekeywordsearchtothevariouselectronicdatabasesinordertoidentifythefirstseriesofdocumentsrelevanttooursearch;

• Secondly, followingthekeywordsearch,wewillapplythe inclusioncriteriatothetitleand abstract identified through the electronic search. The PI will screen all thedocuments, removing the duplicates and broadly applying the inclusion criteria. Theretaineddocumentswillformthebodyofevidencetobescreened.Documentswhoserelevanceisquestionablewillbemarkedas‘tobediscussed.’

• At a third stage, the PI and Co-I will apply the inclusion criteria to the remainingdocumentsandthedisagreementswillbediscussed.

• Attheendofthisscreening,documentswillberetainedforfurtheranalysisanddividedinto2categories:documentsthatpresentmethodologiestoassesstheprocessofsocial

20

exclusionanddocumentsthatpresenttheoreticalperspectivesofsocialexclusionwithineducation.

ThegreyliteratureInordertoefficientlyidentifyrelevantdocumentsfromthegreyliteraturewewill:

• Hand-search the websites states above. We believe that this constitutes the mostefficient strategy in order to include documents that are cited and used in the greyliterature. Due to very different structures of thewebsites,wewill have to tailor oursearchtoeachwebsite.Oncethedocumentsidentifiedthroughthekeywordsearch,theinclusion/exclusioncriteriawillbeappliedmanuallytothedocumentsinordertoselecttherelevantstudies.ArecordofthesesearcheswillbeincludedasanAnnexinthefinalreport.

• Request technical experts from the field as well as those working within specificorganisations to identify studies that may have been carried out within theirprogrammesorreferredtooverthepastdecade.Ashortquestionnairewillbesentoutinorder to identifyanydocuments thatarebeingusedon the field,aswellas impactassessmentsthathavebeencarriedoutinrecentyears.

2.3.3 CharacterizingincludedstudiesusingEPPI-CentretoolsThemappingofthestudiesremainingafterapplicationofthecriteriawillbekey-wordedusinganadaptedversionof theEPPI-CentreCoreKey-wordingStrategy.Additionalkeywords,whichare specific to the context of the review, will be added to the template. All the key-wordedstudieswillbeaddedtothelargerEPPI-Centredatabase.2.3.4 Identifyinganddescribingstudies:qualityassuranceprocessInviewofthesizeofthebodyofevidenceselectedforanalysis,thereviewteamwillscrutinizetheliteratureinordertopresentaprecisemappingoftheexistingstudies.Twomembersofthereviewteamwillcodeeachstudybyapplyingthekeywordingtoolindependently.Discrepancieswillbediscussedandresolved,withathirdreviewerifnecessary.Thekeywordingtool,whichcomprises of closed questions that pertain to the characteristics of the study is sufficientlyprecisetocarryoutthemappingexercise.Thestudieswillbedividedbetweenthemembersofthe review team;whenever reviewers are ‘unsure’ of the appropriate coding, studieswill bediscussedandcodingsettledbeforeanalysis.2.3.5 MappingtheliteratureThe body of evidence will be mapped according to various criteria determined in the key-wordingtool.Thesewillinclude:

• Thegeographicalcontext:thecountrysetting,urbanorrural;• Research methods used: qualitative research, observational studies or experimental

designs;• Research participants: their age, gender, ethnicity, impairment, education or other

characteristics,andtheirsocialandeconomiccircumstancesorhealthstatus;• Typeofstudy,level,outcome,impact.

2.3.6 In-depthreview

21

Thesecondstageofthereviewwillconsistofsynthesisingstudiesrelevanttothesub-questionsdevelopedabove.Relevantstudieswillbeidentifiedthroughananalysisofthemappingstudy.Extractionofstudiesandreportsscreenedaccordingtoinclusion/exclusioncriteriaAfter the first stageofmapping the studies, andafterdiscussionwith the stakeholders, somerelevantsub-questionswillbeselectedandrelevantcriteriadeveloped inorder toanswerthequestions pertaining to this systematic review. In view of the extent of the review, wemaypresent a more detailed mapping of the evidence; focusing on studies relating to a specificregion,etc.QualityappraisalandanalysisofextractedstudiesThedocumentsscreenedthroughthesuccessivephasesofthesearchstrategywillberecordedusingtheEPPI-CentreKeywordingStrategyforclassifyingeducationresearchversion0.9.7.Analysiswillpresentanunderstandingofimpactintermsofthetypeofeducationalapproachestaken; the characteristics of the intervention; the typeof impairments that are addressed, aswellasintermsoftheuseofresourcesathand.Theextractedstudieswillbecriticallyappraisedbytheresearchteaminordertodeterminetheirrelevanceforinclusioninthereview.Inviewofthequalityappraisal,thesynthesiswillfollowdiscussionswithpartnersoftheresearchinordertodeterminewhattypeofinformationwouldberelevantanduseful.

Derivingconclusionsandimplications

Aswehavestatedthroughoutthedescriptionoftheprocess,thesize,contentandextentofthebodyofevidencethatthisreviewwillneedtoexamineisconsiderable.Afterthefirstscreeningprocesswewill provide a precisemap of the evidence that addresses the research question.Thiswillrevealsomeimmediateknowledgegapspertainingtoimpactofapproachestoincreaseaccessibility to education for children with disabilities. Following this, and in view of theresources (time and financial), and after discussion with stakeholders, we will choose theappropriate critical appraisal andmethods for synthesising thebodyof literatureavailable to:Provide guidelines on further avenues for investigation in order to obtain more targetedinformationthatcaninformpolicyandprogrammingforstakeholders.

22

1. Alur,M. (2007). The lethargyof anation: Inclusiveeducation in Indiaanddeveloping systemicstrategies for change. Policy, experience and change: Cross-cultural reflections on inclusiveeducation,Springer:91-106.

2. Atkinson,A.B.(1998).Socialexclusion,povertyandunemployment,CASEpaper.4.3. Bakhshi,P.,M.KettandK.Oliver (2013).Whatare the ImpactsofApproaches to Increase the

AccessibilitytoEducationforPeoplewithaDisabilityAcrossDevelopedandDevelopingCountriesandwhat is Knownabout theCost-effectivenessofDifferentApproaches?: SystematicReview,EPPI-Centre,SocialScienceResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.

4. Ballard, K. (2013). "Thinking in another way: ideas for sustainable inclusion." InternationalJournalofInclusiveEducation17(8):762-775.

5. Betts,J.,S.WatsonandC.Gaynor(2010).DFIdGlobalSocialExclusionStocktakeReport,Citeseer.6. Blamey,A.andM.Mackenzie(2007)."Theoriesofchangeandrealisticevaluationpeasinapod

orapplesandoranges?"Evaluation13(4):439-455.7. Booth, T. (1996). "A perspective on inclusion from England." Cambridge Journal of Education

26(1):87-99.8. Caillods, F. and J. Hallak (2004). Education and PRSPs: A review of experiences, UNESCO,

InternationalInstituteforEducationalPlanning.9. Coates, J. and P. Vickerman (2010). "Empowering children with special educational needs to

speakup:experiencesofinclusivephysicaleducation."DisabilityandRehabilitation32(18):1517-1526.

10. Curcic, S. (2009). "Inclusion in PK-12: An international perspective." International Journal ofInclusiveEducation13(5):517-538.

11. Dart,G.(2007)."ProvisionforLearnerswithSpecialEducationalNeedsinBotswana:ASituationalAnalysis."InternationalJournalofSpecialEducation22(2):56-66.

12. Dyson,A.,A.HowesandB.Roberts (2002).Asystematic reviewof theeffectivenessofschool-level actions for promoting participation by all students, EPPI-Centre, Social Science ResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.

13. Erten,O.andR.S.Savage(2012)."Movingforwardininclusiveeducationresearch."InternationalJournalofInclusiveEducation16(2):221-233.

14. Gutek,G.L.(1997)."Philosophicalandideologicalperspectivesoneducation."15. Harttgen,K.andS.Klasen(2011)."AHumanDevelopmentIndexbyInternalMigrationalStatus."

JournalofHumanDevelopmentandCapabilities12(3):393-424.16. Jonah Eleweke, C. and M. Rodda (2002). "The challenge of enhancing inclusive education in

developingcountries."InternationalJournalofInclusiveEducation6(2):113-126.17. Kabeer, N. (2006). "Poverty, social exclusion and the MDGs: A the challenge of 'durable

inequalities'intheAsiancontext."IdsBulletin-InstituteofDevelopmentStudies37(3):64-+.18. Kabeer,N. (2011). "Gender, schooling and global social justice." Comparative Education47(2):

283-284.19. Kalyanpur,M.(2007)."Equality,qualityandquantity:challengesininclusiveeducationpolicyand

serviceprovisioninIndia."InternationalJournalofInclusiveEducation:1-20.20. Levitas,R. (2005). The inclusive society?: socialexclusionandNewLabour,PalgraveMacmillan

Basingstoke.21. Mathieson, J., J. Popay, E. Enoch, S. Escorel,M. Hernandez, H. Johnston and L. Rispel (2008).

"Social Exclusion Meaning, measurement and experience and links to health inequalities." AReviewofLiterature.

22. Miles, S. andN. Singal (2010). "The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict,contradictionoropportunity?"InternationalJournalofInclusiveEducation14(1):1-15.

23. Mitchell, D. (2005). Contextualising Inclusive Education: Evaluating old and new internationalparadigms,Routledge.

24. Moncrieffe,J.andR.Eyben(2013).Thepoweroflabelling,Earthscan.

23

25. Nind,M., J.Wearmouth, J.Collins,K.Hall, J.RixandK.Sheehy (2004)."Asystematic reviewofpedagogical approaches that can effectively include childrenwith special educational needs inmainstreamclassroomswithaparticularfocusonpeergroupinteractiveapproaches."

26. Pawson, R. (2006). "Digging for nuggets: How ‘bad’research can yield ‘good’evidence."InternationalJournalofSocialResearchMethodology9(2):127-142.

27. Peters,S.(2003).EducationforAll:IncludingchildrenwithDisabilities,WorldBank.28. Poliandri, D., M. Cardone, P. Muzzioli and S. Romiti (2010). "Dynamic Database for Quality

IndicatorsComparisoninEducation."IstitutoNazionaleperlaValutazionedelSistemaEducativodiIstruzioneediFormazioneWorkingPaper(04).

29. Raffo, C., A. Dyson, H. Gunter, D. Hall, L. Jones and A. Kalambouka (2009). "Education andpoverty:mappingtheterrainandmakingthelinkstoeducationalpolicy."InternationalJournalofInclusiveEducation13(4):341-358.

30. Rix,J.,K.Hall,M.Nind,K.SheehyandJ.Wearmouth(2006)."Asystematicreviewofinteractionsin pedagogical approaches with reported outcomes for the academic and social inclusion ofpupilswithspecialeducationalneeds."

31. Sen,A.K.(1999).DevelopmentasFreedom.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.32. Snilstveit,B.,E.Gallagher,D.Phillips,M.Vojtkova,J.Eyers,D.Skaldiou,J.Stevenson,A.Bhavsar

and P. Davies (2014). "Education Interventions for Improving the Access to, and Quality of,EducationinLowandMiddleIncomeCountries:ASystematicReview."

33. Sparkes, J. (1999). "Schools, education and social exclusion." LSE STICERD Research Paper No.CASE029.

34. Sparkes, J. and H. Glennerster (2002). Preventing social exclusion: education's contribution.UnderstandingSocial Exclusion. J.Hills,D.Piachaudand J. LeGrand.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress:178-201.

35. Stewart, F., R. Saith and B. Harriss-White (2007). Defining poverty in the developing world,PalgraveMacmillan.

36. Terzi, L. (2007). The capability to be educated. Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and SocialJusticeinEducation.M.WalkerandE.Unterhalter:25-44.

37. UNESCO (2000). The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: Meeting Our CollectiveCommitments:IncludingSixRegionalFrameworksforAction.Paris,UNESCO.

38. UNESCO(2005).LiteracyforLife:EFAGlobalMonitoringReport2006.Paris,UNESCO.39. UNESCO (2012). Addressing Exclusion in Education: A guide to assessing education systems

towardsmoreinclusiveandjustsocieties.Paris,UNESCO:25.40. Unterhalter,E. (2009). "JusticeandEquality inEducation:ACapabilityPerspectiveonDisability

andSpecialEducationalNeeds."JournalofHumanDevelopmentandCapabilities10(3):445-447.41. Unterhalter,E. (2015)."Educationand internationaldevelopment: theory,practiceand issues."

ComparativeEducation51(2):293-295.42. Unterhalter, E. and A. Dorward (2013). "New MDGs, Development Concepts, Principles and

ChallengesinaPost-2015World."SocialIndicatorsResearch113(2):609-625.43. Vogel,I.(2012)."Reviewoftheuseof‘TheoryofChange’ininternationaldevelopment."Report

commissioned by the Department for International Development. Draft–review report andpracticalresources.