Emma Dillon

Inclusion is a latitudinous term. In recent years, inclusion has become a ‘global agenda’ (Pijl

et al, 1997). The universal concept underlying all of them is the human right to equal

education without discrimination (Tilstone et al, 1998). There are numerous opinions on what

inclusive education means. Booth and Dyson (Booth and Dyson, 2006, as cited in Florian &

Spratt, 2013) maintain that the term inclusion refers to ‘the processes of increasing the

participation of students in, and excluding their exclusion from, the curricula, cultures and

communities of local schools’ (pp. 122). Inclusion is a ‘continuous holistic process’ that

‘allows all pupils, irrespective of difference, to follow a comprehensive curriculum in

school’. (Shevlin, Winter & Flynn, 2013, p. 1124). This research paper will first look at how

the term inclusion came to be, from exclusion to integration and on to inclusion, exploring

the distinctions that are made between ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’ and develop an

understanding of how these terms evolved. Next the development of inclusive education in

Ireland will be explored with a review of the relevant policies and legislation. Next there will

be a discussion based on inclusion literature considering opinions and arguments from those

who are both for and against inclusion, both in Ireland and on a wider scale. This will also

involve the scrutinizing of various elements that promote or hinder the inclusion of children

with learning difficulties in mainstream classrooms. To conclude, the evidence gathered will

be compared to findings of a case study carried out in a Dublin secondary school.

“Every aspect of society that effects the treatment of disabilities and learning

difficulties has changed radically and continues to evolve”. (Frederickson & Cline 2002, p.

4). Throughout recorded history, people with disabilities have been marginalized in society as

they were often viewed as ‘other’ and as a threat to the well-being of the community.

(Shevlin & Griffin 2007, p. 11). In the 19th century in Ireland, as elsewhere, children with

physical and mental disabilities were frequently left uneducated and sometimes abandoned to

1

Emma Dillon

orphanages, institutions and asylums. Mistreatment and abuse of residents was commonplace.

Evidence shows that eminent doctors, scientists and politicians amongst others were

supportive of the eugenics movement, which reached its greatest popularity in the early

decades of the twentieth century. This had a huge influence on attitudes towards people with

disabilities causing them to be labelled as monsters and seen as a threat to the purity of the

gene pool. (Shevlin & Griffin 2007, pp. 12-13). This group of marginalized people would

remain neglected until the 1970s when the government would finally take responsibility for

its citizens. Segregation in education was the norm not only in Ireland, but around the world,

until the middle of the last century. If children with physical and intellectual disabilities were

educated, this took place in special schools. As noted by Thomas & Loxley (2007), it was a

received opinion that special schools provided a sensible way of meeting the needs of a

minority of children while at the same time safeguarding the efficient education of the

mainstream (p.37). This view of segregation shifted over time and it became “internationally

recognised as discriminatory and damaging to individuals and to society as a whole”.

(O’Brien, J. & Forest, M., 2004, p.23).

In the 1960’s demands emerged for efforts to integrate students with special needs

and disabilities into mainstream schools. Various studies on the effectiveness of segregated

schools were conducted and the analysis of their outcomes in different settings found no

major academic advantages in special education settings (Colfer, Farrelly, Grealy & Smith

2000; Lindsay 2003). Such findings fuelled the motivation of educational reformists and

human rights activists who demanded that changed be implemented. A broader range of

abilities became more evident in secondary schools, which saw the appointment of remedial

teachers to provide tuition for students struggling with literacy and numeracy. (Shevlin &

Griffin 2007 p. 42).

2

Emma Dillon

In Britain, the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped

Children and Young People, also known as The Warnock report (1978), advocated a range of

special education options, including integration. “The Warnock Committee distinguished

between three main forma of integration: ‘locational’ integration occurs when special units or

classes are attached to, or share a site with, ordinary schools; ‘social’ integration refers to

situations where the units pupils ‘eat, play and consort with other children, and possibly share

organised out of classroom activities’; and ‘functional’ or the fullest form of integration is

achieved if, in addition to social contacts, those with special educational needs join the

regular school classes on a full or part time basis”. (DES 1978: PAR 7.6 – 7.11). (Beveridge

1998, p. 57). The Warnock Report would prove to have a significant influence in Ireland and

elsewhere. The 1970s saw the educational rights of children with disabilities become

enshrined in law right across Europe. (Shevlin & Griffin 2007, p. 43).

In Ireland, the Report of the Special Education Review Committee (SERC), published

in 1993, which was to become the corner-stone of special educational needs provision in the

country favoured ‘as much integration as was appropriate and feasible’. However it also

provided for the continuation of special schools by proposing ‘a continuum of placement

provision, matching a continuum of need.’ (SERC 1993). The report was the most significant

and comprehensive policy document in special education that the state had ever produced

(Spelman & Griffin, 1994) and has provided a blueprint for the development of special

education that continues to influence policy decisions up to the present day. (Shevlin &

Griffin 2007, p.45).

3

Emma Dillon

The major shift from integration to inclusion is noted by O’Brien & Forest (2004)

describing how the discussions and subsequent actions by a group of fourteen people from

North America in July 1988 formed a key turning point in the history of inclusive education.

The group who were concerned about the slow progress of integration in education came up

with the concept of inclusion to formally describe better the process of placing those with

disabilities or learning difficulties into mainstream schools. The switching of thinking quickly

caught on across the U.S and Canada. It took a few years for inclusion to be accepted more

readily in the U.K and elsewhere (p. 89). Through this process of inclusion a “school attempts

to respond to all pupils as individuals by reconsidering and reconstructing its curricular

organisation and provision and allocating resource to enhance equality of opportunity”.

(Frederickson & Cline 2002, p.66). The ideal was enacted into law in America with the

Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1976 which was later refined in the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. In 1992, delegates from 92 governments,

meeting under the aegis of UNESCO, adopted the Salamanca Statement on special needs

education (UNESCO, 1994), a document which has gone on to exert a powerful influence on

education policies across the world (Artiles & Dyson 2005, p.39), described by Riddell

(2007) as “been accepted as orthodoxy in many parts of the world” (Florian & Spratt 2013,

p.119).

“…regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of

combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive

society and achieving education for all”. (UNESCO 1994) pp. viii-ix. (Artiles, A. & Dyson,

A., 2005, p.39). It became evident that many countries were committed to inclusive education

as the key principles of the statement have been reinforced by international bodies,

governments and advocacy groups across the globe. (O’Toole & Burke 2013, p.239).

4

Emma Dillon

Since the 1990’s the Republic of Ireland has experienced significant changes with

regards to special education provision. Significantly influenced by international and

European policy practice, a combination of litigation, legislation and parental advocacy have

radically altered the landscapes of special education. (Shevlin, Kenny & Loxley 2008, p.141).

Several major documents emerged on education, equality and special education needs, and

inclusive education in Ireland began to evolve. “At the heart of the idea of inclusive

education lie serious issues concerning human rights, equal opportunities and social justice”

(Armstrong, Armstrong & Barton 2000, p. 1). An example of this is the Green Paper on

Education (1992). As McDonnell (2000) suggests, in terms of inclusive education, a

significant and positive aspect of the Green Paper on Education: Education for a Changing

World (1992) is the way in which it addresses disability as an equality issue, placing

emphasis on the need for greater equality in the education system.

In response to growing concerns about the implications of integration, both nationally

and internationally, the Department of Education and Science (DES) established the Special

Education Review Committee (SERC) in 1991 to examine existing special education

provision and to make recommendations for the future. (Shevlin & Griffin 2007, p.50). The

Special Education Review Committee Report (1993) recommended the allocation of

substantially increased resources for the education of children and young people who have

special educational needs. (Shevlin, Winter & Flynn 2012, p.1120). The findings of the report

suggested that the current system in place would need to be changed dramatically,

documenting serious shortfalls in provision, inadequate curricular provision, constraints on

integration in schools and the lack of specialist training for teachers. Serious concerns were

raised and intervention was seen as a matter of urgency. (Shevlin & Griffin 2007, p.52).

5

Emma Dillon

The Strategy for Equality: Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities

(1996) highlighted many of the barriers that prevent the full participation of people with

disabilities within Irish society. There was serious concern about the failure to provide

adequate education for people with disabilities and how this results in their being denied

equal opportunities as those available to people without disabilities. It states that “each school

plan must strive to make schools inclusive institutions. To facilitate inclusive education, due

recognition must be given to the rights and needs of teachers for resources, initial education

and continuing professional development”. (Shevlin & Griffin 2007, p.54).

Parents of children with special education needs feeling frustrated and failed by the

education system attempted to obtain better provision by taking court cases against the state.

Along with these families of children with special education needs, support organisations and

equal rights groups were increasingly successful at winning public support and legal

arguments for their agenda (McDonnell 2000). In land-mark cases, such as O’Donoghue

1993 and Sinnott 2000, the courts supported parents’ efforts to have children with severe

disabilities included in the education system and criticised the DES for failing to provide

adequately for them. These cases in particular resulted in significant changes in educational

provision for children special education needs. (Shevlin & Griffin 2007, p.54).

The Education Act (1998) was a significant landmark in the Irish education system.

The Act states that inclusive education should take place in a mainstream school unless there

as specific reasons why this cannot be achieved. The Department of Education would provide

extra teaching hours to students with special needs. Each student would receive this extra

assistance from a resource teacher, the number of hours being based on the level of need of

6

Emma Dillon

the individual students. The support of a special needs assistant (SNA) would also be

provided where necessary. With this provision in place, and with the legal backing of the

1998 Education Act, the enrolment and identification of children with SEN in mainstream

schools around the country jumped dramatically. DES figures indicate that the number of

resource teacher posts increased and shows also that the the number of SNA’s increased 300

to 5,250 over a six year period. (DES, 2004 – Annual Report, p.16). Shevlin and Griffin

(2007) emphasise the importance of these previous documents in paving the way for the

EPSEN Act (2004) and the Disability Act (2005). (Rose 2010, p. 363).

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (EPSEN 2004)

mandated the creation of inclusive learning environments and enshrined in law, the right of

all students to attend mainstream schools. A five year phased implementation of the

provisions of the EPSEN Act (2004) was envisaged. At the current time there are aspects of

the Act, such as the introduction of individual education plans (IEPs), which have not been

fully enacted and have been shelved due to financial constraints. This in turn has caused an

effect of some schools completing what is directed in the Act whereas others have not.

(O’Toole & Burke 2013, p.240). The Disability Act (2005) defines disability as “a substantial

restriction in the capacity of the person to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the

State or to participate in social or cultural life in the state by reason of an enduring physical,

sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment”. The terms of the Act support the provision

of an education assessment to determine the educational needs of people with disabilities.

(Shevlin & Griffin, 2007, p.61).

7

Emma Dillon

As described by Alexander (2004), inclusive education requires that children are not

only present in school but that they have opportunities to participate in meaningful learning.

(Florian & Spratt 2013, p.121). In recent decades Ireland has seen a series of significant

government sponsored reports highlighting inadequacies in special education provision and

ground-breaking legislation guaranteeing curricular access for children and young people

with SEN. (Rose, Shevlin, Winter & O’Row 2010, p.359). The question remains, just how

effective have these changes been in the classrooms? Yes, by law students with disabilities or

special educational needs now have automatic entitlement to resource hours if required and

could attend mainstream schools. Findings would suggest that inclusion can be a successful

practice in schools, however, various factors contribute to inclusive education ultimately

being a struggle and ineffective. “While substantial progress has occurred in a comparatively

short space of time, many issues remain unresolved in the education of students with

disabilities and special educational needs”. (Shevlin, Kenny, & Loxley 2008, p.149). As the

title of this paper suggests, the inclusion of students with disabilities is fine in theory, but the

implementation of inclusive education in the real world is simply put, not that simple.

One must first consider those who are responsible for creating and ensuring that they

provide an inclusive education for all students, the teacher. Teachers need to be first and

foremost accepting of all students into their classroom, regardless of whether one has a

disability, learning difficulties or SEN. Teachers must be confident in their knowledge and

ability to provide a fulfilling education for all students and also be prepared to make whatever

changes are required in order to meet the demands of their students’ individual needs whilst

at all times ensuring equal learning opportunities. A teacher must be committed to accept the

responsibility for the learning of all students. This concurs with Rouse (2009), who suggests

that inclusion depends on teachers ‘knowing’ (about policy and legislative issues),’doing’

8

Emma Dillon

(turning knowledge into action) and ‘believing’ (in their capacity to support all students).

Teachers are encouraged to view difficulties in learning as dilemmas for themselves as

teachers. (Florian & Spratt 2013, pp.121-122). Teachers’ attitudes are likely to be influenced

by their feelings of confidence about their professional competence to meet the special

education needs of their students. Berveridge (1998) refers to a study of the attitudes of

teachers who had been trained as SEN co-ordinators (Sugden et al. 1989) which found that

provided in-service opportunities were made for school staff, the vast majority were in favour

of inclusive provision for students with learning difficulties. (p.59-60). On the other hand, a

series of international studies reveal that school leaders and principals do not fully embrace

inclusion. (Curcic, Gabel, Zeitlin, & Cribaro 2011, p.123). In order for a student to participate

in an inclusive education in an inclusive environment, serious issues need to be addressed

concerning the attitudes and perceptions of teachers and school staff. If they are not accepting

of those students with disabilities and special educational needs then there is no inclusive

education available to these students. Adequately put by Stainback and Stainback (1990),

inclusive learning environments are those in which “everyone belongs, is accepted, supports,

and is supported by his or her peers and other members of the school community in the

course of having his or her educational needs met”. (Williams 2000, p.4). Similarly the view

of Yanoff (2000) being that is the teacher feels good about inclusion, the special needs

student will thrive. If the teacher feels resentful about the extra work then the student will

suffer (p.3). The unwillingness on the part of school personnel to engage in, collaborative

problem-solving relating to the effective inclusion of pupils with special educational needs

can be severely damaging to inclusive practice. (Drudy & Kinsella 2009, p.657).

An effort needs to be made to combat stereotypes of student with disabilities or

special educational needs. One such stereotypical view of students who receive special

9

Emma Dillon

education supports, held by a male school teacher is expressed in Curcic, Gabel, Zeitlin &

Cribaro (2011):

“…these kids should be working on what they are going to need in real life…not

Shakespeare. They need to learn how to interview, do applications, things that are going to

get them a job. I have a few special educational needs students in my class. They do not have

the slightest idea of what we are talking about. It would be better if I had them all in a group.

I am expected to teach to the middle of the group; high kids get bored and the low kids get

lost”. (p.127-8).

As discussed by Shevlin, Winter & Flynn, various factors marginalize students such

as ethnicity, language and inter-generational poverty, all which are constraints on inclusive

practice. Inadequacies in training, time funding for resources, external supports, increased

behavioural challenges, teacher resistance and falling standards in literacy and numeracy are

all limiting factors in creating inclusive learning environments (pp. 1121 & 1128). The failure

of education as a social institution to eliminate social class-related inequalities is well

documented in Ireland. Nolan & Smeeding (2005) argue that due to the fact that Ireland has a

relatively high level of income inequality that these issues are particularly serious in their

consequences for young people and for the education system. Income inequalities are also

reflected in residential patterns in Ireland which in turn place barriers to the capacity of the

school system to be fully inclusive. Research on the Irish school system has shown that, when

it comes to second level schooling, those who have resources can exercise choices and those

without resources generally cannot, or have relatively restricted choices depending on where

they live. If certain social classes are excluded from a school through these kinds of

sociological mechanisms, it is difficult to see how they can be inclusive. (Drudy & Kinsella

2009, p.649). As commented on by Curcic, Gabel, Zeitlin & Cribaro (2011), if what students

10

Emma Dillon

bring to school (their background) is perceived as not belonging to school, and in fact, if what

they bring to school is assumed to be interfering with school, then building inclusive school

communities is close to impossible. Inclusion is more than just access to the same education.

Inclusion could mean increasing the diversity of options for students in proportion to the

increase in diversity of students themselves. (p.125-126).

Drawing on a variety of readings, a substantial amount of factors are found to hinder

inclusive practice for students with disabilities and special educational needs and also for

students without either. These findings will be compared to findings of a case study based on

a north Dublin school. The rationale for conducting this case study is to investigate the

effectiveness of the inclusion programme in operation and to discuss the positive aspects and

limitations of inclusive practice focusing on students with disabilities or special educational

needs, to determine whether or not inclusion of such students is fine in theory or practice, or

both.

The study was undertaken in a mainstream boy’s secondary school in Dublin’s north-

side. The school is a designated DEIS school, which stands for Delivering Equality of

Opportunity in Schools. Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) the Action

Plan for Educational Inclusion, was launched in May 2005 and remains the Department of

Education and Skills policy instrument to address educational disadvantage. The action plan

focuses on addressing and prioritising the educational needs of children and young people

from disadvantaged communities, from pre-school through second level education

(www.education.ie). Schools under this scheme can apply for grants and avail of extra

funding for such supports as textbook grant scheme, Home School Liaison officer, school

11

Emma Dillon

meals programme, school completion programme and access to Leaving Certificate Applied

and Junior Certificate schools programme. This is granted to schools, whose student intake in

a mixed socio-economic backgrounds are in middle to lower class, with many parents

unemployed or students come from a one parent family. The intake of students is currently

500. There is a teaching staff of 46 including five completing Higher Diploma in Education,

6 SNAs. The school runs Junior Certificate, Junior Certificate Schools Programme, Leaving

Certificate and Leaving Certificate Applied. The school also offers an optional transition year

programme. Each year is streamed with the top 24 to 28 students being placed in a class

group together. The last 10-14 students are also placed in a lower ability class, in which extra

time and resources can be put into assisting and supporting this class. The remainder are

placed in 2 or 3 mixed ability class groupings. There are varying disabilities within the school

population – Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Oppositional

Defiant Disorder, Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Mild General Learning Difficulty

(GLD) and speech and language and physical difficulties. Each student is allocated hours

under General Allocation Model for high incidence disabilities such as Dyslexia, GLD’s,

which is called Learning Support for the child. Students with a diagnosis of a low incidence

disability such as Emotional Behaviour Disorder, ASD are allocated specific hours to the

child. These range from 3 hours to 5 hours. An application can also be sought for access to an

SNA. (All information about school obtained from vice-principal and main resource teacher).

I conducted an interviews with the resource team to gain a greater insight into the

inclusive practices of the school. Information about supports offered by the school for

students with disabilities or special educational needs, difficulties or issues that arise with

regards to access, attitudes among staff and students. My findings suggest that the DEIS

programme has a positive effect on tackling education at the school. Without the DEIS status

the school would not have a substantial amount of computers, book rental scheme, school

12

Emma Dillon

lunches or after school study. It was also mentioned that much of the sport provided by the

school would also cease to exist. It is the opinion of those interviewed that these amenities

are retaining a significant amount of students and is also encouraging students to continue on

with their studies after the Junior Certificate. It appears there is a new culture coming in

where parents are actually pushing their children to stay on in school and complete the

Leaving Certificate. The school over all appears to be quiet inclusive, accepting any student

that applies, all disabilities and special needs and all backgrounds. Due to the school being a

recognised DEIS school there is a very high percentage of the school population that require

extra support. Figures show that 60% of students in DEIS schools have speech and language

difficulties. The main reason suggested for this is due to the variations between the language

that students are opened up to in their lives outside of school compared to what they get in

schools. There is a huge mix of students in the school, some coming from middle class

families and others coming from lower and working class and unemployed families that

would have no cycle of ever succeeding in education. It is estimated that a high number of the

student population come from families whose parents never went to school. This issue of

language is a gap not only between teachers and students but also between the students

themselves. It is estimated that 30% of the student population at the school have special

educational needs.

The needs of students at the school are identified in a variety of ways. Students are

ranked based on results of an entrance exam. Approximately the bottom 12 students are

placed in a special needs class. Teachers go to the primary schools that the students attended

and carry individual reports to gain more information. The school carries out two

standardised tests, in maths and English. These results are compared to reports from the

English and maths teachers in the secondary school. This allows teachers to determine

13

Emma Dillon

whether or not each student is in the correct class. It was noted to be the norm at the end of

the first term to have a significant amount of students that need help in some way. Students

that are struggling are taken out in small groups, usually 6-8, to complete spelling and maths

programmes. Special educational needs students have a reduced timetable and complete ten

subjects in the Junior Certificate. A major problem appears to be timing. It was noted that

SPHE is the only subject that students can be taken out of as everything else is an exam

subject. There is a spelling and grammar waiver for special needs students in exams. The

resource team explained that if often happens that special educational needs will not be

noticed until the student has reached secondary school. Surprisingly there a student in the

Leaving Certificate Applied programme that cannot read or write, this went unnoticed until

the student was in second year. This apparently is quiet common.

In terms of inclusive practice, students with a disability or special educational needs

are placed into smaller classes for certain subjects such as maths, English and science. For

example, a group of 28 is split into two smaller groups of 14. This way the resources can be

used in the class, instead of taking students out, ensuring that everyone will gain something

from it. Resource is more personalised for students with autism, emotional behaviour

disorders and Asperger’s. The case study also reports findings about the attitudes of teachers

and how this can affect inclusive practice in the classroom. Differentiation is an important

strategy but findings suggest that this is highly dependent on the teacher. Younger teachers

are more open to accepting students with special educational needs. Older teachers appear to

be stuck in their “chalk and talk” teaching style. This is a difficult thing to change in a

secondary school environment due to the daily structure of different teachers for different

subjects, trying to get the strategies equal across the board is a difficult task. Findings also

suggest that many teachers unfortunately view the role of the support teachers very different

14

Emma Dillon

to what is actually is. Teachers view the role of support teachers, resource teachers, SNAs

being responsible for catering to special educational needs. This is untrue, it is the

responsibility of the teachers to educate the SEN students and the role of the others is to assist

this learning. It is suggested that this unfortunately is a problem in a vast amount of schools.

In terms of supports and funding and how this can limit inclusive practice, findings of

the case study suggests that an inclusive learning experience is not provided for all students.

Approximately 100 students at the school have an individual education plan (IEP), about 20%

of the student body. These plans can be behavioural or educational. Two teachers alone carry

this demanding work load. There is no extra time given to these teachers which means that

the plans are not done. One of these teachers has 33 classes per week and simply does not

have the time to complete the extra workload as with SEN there is a large amount of testing

involved, correcting tests, working out scores, creating graphs, meeting parents and so on.

One teacher stated that “time is a serious problem, there is no time to plan, you are constantly

being pulled in different directions”. Findings show that there is adequate resources for

teachers but not nearly enough trained teachers in SEN. Some teachers doing resource are not

actually qualified and do not have the proper training, so therefore technically should not be

doing it. There is also very little additional professional input. There is some language

support, speech and language occupational therapy available to SEN students, but it is very

minimal. For the special needs students in the resource unit there is a HSE service called

Beech Park. It was noted how Beech Park used to attend the school up to five times a year to

assess the students to determine what support they may need, and provide them with

occupational therapy. Now, due to government cuts, this has been changed to a referral basis

only. This means that the resource teachers must assess the students and then refer their needs

to Beech Park. One teacher stated, “It’s pointless, you wouldn’t even bother contacting them

15

Emma Dillon

at this stage”. A benefit worth mentioning here for students attending a DEIS school is the

Higher Education Access Route (HEAR) Scheme. Due to being viewed as socially

disadvantaged students may receive a reduced number of points required to get into college.

“Last year one boy got into a course and the points had been dropped by 80”. This is means

tested but is a major advantage for all students to avail of. This adds to the creation of an

inclusive environment for students with SEN.

Overall the findings of the case study suggest that the school is inclusive in terms of

accepting all students regardless of disability or special educational needs. However,

inclusion should be seen as an ongoing process and should be reviewed and revised on an

ongoing basis. It is one thing to say we are an inclusive school and another to ensure that the

correct framework and policies are in place to ensure that each and every student is receiving

the extra support that they may need. Inclusive learning in an inclusive environment.

An inclusive school should provide identical experiences for all (Florin 2010).

Following legislative breakthroughs and the development of policy and provision for children

with SEN in Ireland, children with SEN are predominantly enrolled in mainstream schools

and supported as required by resource teaching. (Shevlin, Kenny & Loxley 2008, p.141). “…

to provide that people with SEN shall have the same right to avail of, and benefit from,

appropriate education as do their peers who do not have such needs”. EPSEN Act (2004).

This research paper has shown how inclusion evolved from integration after years of

exclusion. The effects of worldwide policy changes and how these influenced policy change

in Ireland. As discussed various factors prevent inclusive education and practice, thus

supporting the statement that inclusion of students with learning difficulties in mainstream

16

Emma Dillon

schools is fine in theory only. Such factors include issues arising due to attitudes held by

teachers and school staff, lack of adequately trained teachers and time constraints faced by

teachers. A lack of funding, and other barriers such as access, funding and extra professional

support and input.

However, when a school does create a positive inclusive learning environment all

students can benefit, not just those who have learning difficulties. Such benefits are outlined

by Shevlin et al. (2008), SEN students have increased self-esteem and a greater sense of

belonging to the local community while students without SEN can benefit by becoming more

aware of the disabilities faced by others which in turn makes them more accepting (p.145).

Inclusion is vital as classrooms and communities are not complete unless children with all

needs and all gifts are welcome. It is the mark of a civilized society that supports its weakest

member rather than following its strongest. (Shaw & Forest in O’Brien & Forest 2004,

pp.147 & 160). Teachers should be supported to carry out their job to the required standard

without an unnecessary overload of work. Teachers need to be responsible for the learning of

all students and should be encouraged and supported to participate in professional

development initiatives in order to promote inclusion and confidently face the diversity of

students sitting in their classrooms. (Bourke 2009, p.818). In keeping with the definition of an

inclusive school by Curcic et al. (2011), the demands are evident: we conceptualize inclusive

schools as those that adhere to democratic principles, including collaborative decision making

and practice, celebration of diversity, engagement with the broader community, a curriculum

relevant to students’ lives and flexible learning contexts (p.119). Good communication and

collaborative relationships are required. Although great advances have been made to provide

for people who have SEN or a disability in theory, the range of needs to be met remains

seriously demanding to implement effective inclusion in the classroom. Shevlin et al (2008)

17

Emma Dillon

identifies this gap between the spirit of legislation and its implementation. The inclusion of

children with learning difficulties in mainstream classrooms is fine in theory but demanding,

ever-evolving, ever-changing and challenging in reality. With the appropriate measures and

resources combined with positive attitudes and necessary reforms it is achievable to provide

an inclusive education for all.

18

Emma Dillon

References

Artiles, A. & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: the promise of

comparative cultural historical analysis.

Beveridge, S. (1998). Special educational needs in schools. Oxon: Routledge.

Booth, T & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation

in schools, 3rd Edition. UK: CSIE.

Bourke, P. E. (2009). Professional development and teacher aides in inclusive education

contexts: Where to from here? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13:8, pp. 817-

827.

Brandon, T. & Charlton, J. (2011). The lessons learned from developing an inclusive learning

and teaching community of practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15:1, pp.

165-178.

Curcic, S, Gabel, L., Zeitlin, V., Cribaro-Difatta, S., & Glarner, C. (2011). Policy and

challenges of building schools as inclusive communities. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 15:1, pp. 117-133.

Ferguson, D. L. (2008) International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge

to teach each and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23:2, pp. 109-120.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (1993). Report of the Special Education Review

Committee (SERC). www.education.ie Retrieved on 10th January 2014.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2004). Annual Report 2004. From

www.education.ie Retrieved 10th January 2014.

19

Emma Dillon

Dessent, T. (2004). Making the ordinary school special. In Thomas, G. & Vaughan, M.

Inclusive education: Readings and reflections (pp. 78-83). Berkshire, England: Open

University Press.

Drudy, S. & Kinsella, W. (2009). Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing

European society. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13:6, pp. 647-663.

Florian, L. & Spratt J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive

practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28:2, pp. 119-135.

Frederickson, N. & Cline, T. (2002). Special Educational Needs, inclusion and diversity: A

textbook. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special

Education, 30, 3-12.

Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational Psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive

education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, pp. 1-24: The

British Psychological Society.

McDonnell, P. (2000). Inclusive education in Ireland: Rhetoric and reality. In Armstrong, F.,

Armstrong, D., Barton, L. (Eds.) Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative (pp.

1-22). London: David Fulton Press.

O’Brien, J. & Forest, M. (2004). Action for inclusion. In Thomas, G. & Vaughan, M.

Inclusive education: Readings and reflections (pp. 89-90). Berkshire, England: Open

University Press.

O’Toole, C. & Burke, N. (2013). Ready, willing and able? Attitudes and concerns in relation

to inclusion amongst a cohort of Irish pre-service teachers. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 239-253.

20

Emma Dillon

Pijl, S.J., Meijer, C.J.W., & Hegarty, S. (1997). Inclusive education: a global agenda.

London: Routledge.

Rose, R., Shevlin, M., Winter, E. & O’Raw, P. (2010). Special and inclusive education in the

Republic of Ireland: Reviewing the literature from 2000 to 2009. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 25:4, pp. 359-373.

Shaw, L. & Forest, M. (2004). Ontario: From Integration to inclusion. In Thomas, G. &

Vaughan, M. Inclusive education: Readings and reflections (pp. 147-160). Berkshire,

England: Open University Press.

Shevlin, M. & Griffin, S. (2007). Responding to Special Educational Needs, An Irish

Perspective. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

Shevlin, M., Kenny, M. & Loxley, A. (2008). A time for transition: Exploring special

educational provision in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Research in S.E.N. Volume 8,

Number 3, 141-152.

Shevlin, M., Winter, E. & Flynn, P. (2013). Developing inclusive practice: teacher

perceptions of opportunities and constraints in the Republic of Ireland. International Journal

of Inclusive Education, 17:10, pp. 1119-1133.

Tilstone, C., Florian, L., &Rose, R. (1998). Promoting inclusive practice. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2007).Deconstructing special education & constructing inclusion.

Second Edition. England: Open University Press.

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., McLoughlin, V. L. & Williams, B. T. (2000).

Collaboration for inclusive education – Developing successful programs. U.S.A: Allyn &

Bacon.

21

Emma Dillon

Yanoff, C. J. (2000). The classroom teachers inclusion handbook: Practical methods for

integrating students with special needs. Illinois: Arthur Coyle Press.

22