lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education forinclusive education

Lani Florian*, Martyn RouseUniversity of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 5UA, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 August 2008Received in revised form31 January 2009Accepted 4 February 2009

Keywords:Initial teacher educationInclusive educationTeachers’ beliefs

* Corresponding author. School of Education, UniveBuilding, King’s College, Aberdeen AB24 5UA, UK

E-mail address: l.florian@abdn.ac.uk (L. Florian).

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003

a b s t r a c t

While differences in national contexts are associated with variations in how teachers are trained andschool systems are organised, the conceptual and philosophical problems of equity and inclusion inschooling are shared concerns. This paper describes how the structure and content of an initial teachereducation programme for primary and secondary teachers has been revised to ensure that social andeducational inclusion is addressed within the core programme. A rationale is presented for the devel-opment of ‘inclusive practice’, followed by a discussion of the reforms and an outline of the effects thatare expected in the classroom practices of teachers in schools.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Differences in educational opportunities for children dependnot only on their individual cultural, economic, health or disabilitycircumstances, but also on where they live and the ways in whicheducational systems are structured, regulated and supported intheir home country. Regardless of these differences, there iswidespread acknowledgement that teachers play a crucial role inproviding quality education. In developed countries that have longhistories of compulsory school attendance, concerns about accessand equity in schooling, and teacher quality remain relevant. Evenin these countries, not all children are in school, and even whenthey are, they do not necessarily have positive experiences ofeducation, nor do some have much to show for their time in school.Most school systems have children who are excluded, who do notparticipate in meaningful learning, or who underachieve, givinga new impetus to the call for more inclusive education (Black-Hawkins, Florian, & Rouse, 2007). Scotland is no exception. The so-called ‘achievement gap’ between those who achieve most andthose who achieve least, is a major concern in many places, espe-cially in the countries of the United Kingdom (UK) (OECD, 2007).

Each of the four countries of the UK (England, Northern Ireland,Scotland and Wales) has its own different educational systems. Andwhilst there have been strong similarities and links in the past

rsity of Aberdeen, MacRobert

All rights reserved.

between the English and Welsh systems, Scotland and NorthernIreland have always had separate and distinctive systems. Althoughthere are fundamental differences between the countries in theways in which teachers are trained, many of the concerns aboutinadequate preparation for inclusion are relevant across all of thecountries of the UK as well as internationally. While differences innational context may produce variation in how teachers are trainedand school systems are organised, the conceptual and philosophicalproblems of equity and education for all are shared concerns.

Addressing these concerns has focussed on a variety ofapproaches, including the introduction of widespread schoolreforms, sometimes referred to as ‘standards-based’ reforms, toraise attainment in schools, for example, the Education Reform Act1989 in England and No Child Left Behind in the United States (US).These changes began in the mid 1980s when concerns about globaleconomic competitiveness and the efficiency of school systemsresulted in the adoption of marketplace principles in education.These reforms were characterised by new approaches to gover-nance, accountability, funding mechanisms and parental choice(Ball, 1990). Often these changes were associated with the intro-duction of national curricula and standards, together with nationalapproaches to assessment and compulsory testing. In England, forexample, the results of these national tests were widely publishedin ‘league tables’, in the belief that parental choice of school wouldbe better informed by such evidence about the performance ofschools. Policy makers in many countries saw competition betweenschools as a way of raising standards, although national educationpolicies have varied with respect to the extent to which they haveembraced the principles of the marketplace. In contrast to the

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601 595

situation in England, Scotland has retained a largely comprehensivesecondary school system, yet problems of equity persist. Accordingto a 2007 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD), Quality and equity of schooling in Scot-land, the variation between student attainment in England ispredominately a between school phenomenon, whereas in Scot-land it is a within school problem. In both cases the variation inattainment is associated with beliefs about some children’s(limited) ability and potential. These beliefs sometimes get trans-lated into low expectations and organisational responses such asability grouping and setting.

At the same time in many countries, but independent of the‘standards-based’ legislation, there has been a focus on childrenwho have been identified as having disabilities and/or ‘specialeducational needs’ who had been largely ignored in the early effortsto improve standards in schools (McLaughlin & Rouse, 2000). In theUS such children are referred to as ‘children with disabilities’, inEngland as ‘children with special educational needs’, in Scotlandthe current preferred term is ‘children with additional supportneeds’. Terminology is important because language revealsassumptions about why and how people are perceived as havingdifficulty in learning. Scrutiny of what is meant by terms such as‘difficulty’ and ‘disability’ suggests that students so identified arethought to be somehow different as learners from others, thusjustifying the provision of something ‘different’ or ‘additional’, suchas special education or learning support, in the name of educationalequity. But often the students identified as having special needs arethose who do not perform well on standards-based assessmentsthereby exacerbating ‘chicken and egg’ type dilemmas aboutwhether additional support helps or hinders efforts to raise stan-dards for all students. In spite of these efforts to support children’slearning, levels of achievement for many vulnerable children,however they are described, remain problematic.

While there has been significant progress in understanding therelationship between teaching, curriculum and learning, in manyschools the education of children who are perceived as having‘difficulties’ is often still the sole responsibility of special needsexperts rather than being shared with classroom and subjectteachers. This form of provision is historical, having its roots in thenotion of ‘diagnostic-prescriptive’ teaching where interventions arebased on discredited ideas about remediating the underlyingdeficits within individuals (Ysseldyke, 2001). While understandingdifferences between learners has been a central interest of researchand practice in special needs education, the emphasis on studyinghuman differences has perpetuated a belief that human differencesare predictive of difficulties in learning. This is a view that hasbecome self-reinforcing and has sustained deficit-based categoricalapproaches to the provision of educational services in most coun-tries (Florian & McLaughlin, 2008). Yet the frequently used medicalcategories of disability have not proved useful in determiningeducational interventions.

Since the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) there have been effortsacross the UK to abandon categorical and deficit thinking aboutchildren who experience difficulties in learning but with limitedsuccess (Norwich, 2008). In part this is because of deeplyembedded assumptions about the nature and distribution of ability,which is often informed by a hegemonic belief in bio-determinism(Gould, 1996), and the idea that intelligence is fixed and normallydistributed throughout the population (e.g. Herrnstein & Murray,1994). As a consequence, expectations and achievement levels forsome children, including those who are perceived as having specialeducational needs, or who are from certain social, cultural or ethnicbackgrounds, are still too low in many schools (Gillborn & Youdell,2000). Such uneven outcomes are seen as expected and predicableby the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (QCA, 2000). Indeed,

in England advice from government encouraged ability grouping inschools as can be seen in the White Paper ‘Excellence in Schools’(Department for Education and Employment, 1997):

‘. unless a school can demonstrate that it is getting better thanexpected results through a different approach, we do make thepresumption that setting should be the norm in secondaryschools.’ (p. 38)

It is hardly surprising then that many schools continue toorganise learning groups on the basis of perceived ability. Settingand ability grouping remains a common organisational structure inschools despite the research evidence that it does not lead toimproved outcomes (Ireson, Hallam, & Huntley, 2005) and that itcould be the single most important cause of the unacceptably lowlevels of achievement in mathematics in Great Britain (Boaler,William, & Brown, 2000). The argument put forth here is thatpractices associated with ability grouping are divisive and maycontribute to the levels of underachievement that are apparent inmany schools. We suggest that new approaches to inclusion arenecessary, because attempts to raise attainment of the lowestachieving groups have been largely unsuccessful (OECD, 2007).

In recent years the concept of educational inclusion haswidened to incorporate broader issues of social inclusion. It was thetheme of the 2008 United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organisation (UNESCO) 48th International Conference onEducation), and it has been embraced by many governments (e.g.Scottish Executive, 2005) as a strategy for achieving access andequity in education for all (Peters, 2003). There is now greaterawareness of the exclusionary pressures associated with migration,mobility, language, ethnicity and intergenerational poverty. Thereciprocal links between poverty, disability, special needs andunderachievement in schools are now clearer, but these linksmanifest themselves differently in different places and at differenttimes, for cultural as well as policy reasons. Given the competingpolicy agendas of standards-based reforms, and moves towardsgreater social and educational inclusion, the development ofinclusive education, is a daunting prospect. This is relevant not onlyfor teachers, but also for those who prepare teachers to work inschools.

2. To what extent are teachers being prepared to meet thechallenges of inclusive schools?

The European Agency on the Development of Special NeedsEducation (2006) reports that dealing with differences and diver-sity is one of the biggest problems faced by schools across Europe,with behaviour, social and/or emotional problems presenting thebiggest challenges for inclusion. Barriers to learning and partici-pation arise from inflexible or irrelevant curricula, inappropriatesystems of assessment and examination. It is argued that thesebarriers are exacerbated by inadequate preparation of teachers,particularly in the area of ‘special educational needs’ and forworking in inclusive schools (Forlin, 2001). But criticisms of theways in which teachers are educated to work in inclusive schoolsare not new, concerns were raised by Her Majesty’s Inspector ofSchools (HMI, 1990) suggesting that there were many approachesto training teachers to work with students with special educationalneeds, few of which were successful. Nor are these concernsconfined to the UK.

Preparing teachers for inclusive education has been a long-standing but elusive goal of teacher education in the US (Blanton &Pugach, 2007). Hardman (2009) attributes this in part to hisobservation that teacher education programs in the US with theiremphasis on the differences between sectors and different kinds oflearners (e.g. early childhood, primary, secondary, and special

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601596

education) have ‘led to the development of separate teachereducation programs with different curricula focused on knowledgeand skills unique to each disciplinary perspective’. Sarason (1990)observed that in the US school personnel are graduates of univer-sities where they learn that there are at least two types of humanbeings, and if you choose to work with one of them you renderyourself legally and conceptually incompetent to work with others.This situation leads to a perpetuation of the belief that teachers canand should be prepared to work with particular groups of childrenon the basis of age and/or some type of special need. This in turnreinforces the divisions that are thought to create barriers toinclusion, and teacher educators are caught in an unwitting butfamiliar trap of telling prospective teachers one thing while prac-tising another.

In the UK, there are not the same requirements for separatecertification and accreditation for teachers preparing to work inspecial education as in many other countries, in part becausecreating a separate cadre of special teachers was seen as a barrier toinclusion in that it absolved the rest of the education system fromtaking responsibility for all children’s learning. However, there hasbeen an on-going debate since the Warnock Report (DES, 1978)about what all teachers need to know and should be able to dowhen children experience difficulties in learning (Fish, 1985; Ofs-ted, 2008). Currently, across the UK, there are no nationallymandated qualifications for teachers of pupils with additionalsupport needs, with the exception of teachers of the blind and thedeaf, despite attempts of many voluntary societies and pressuregroups to extend the requirement for mandatory qualifications totheir area of interest. Except for autism and dyslexia, where thepressure groups and voluntary associations have succeeded inconvincing many parents that teachers of their children shouldhave undertaken a specialist course approved by the variousassociations, there are few nationally approved higher qualifica-tions for working with children who have additional support needs,but even here it is not a mandatory requirement. The additionalfunding to support courses of professional development for expe-rienced teachers has been reduced over time and the numbers ofteachers taking advanced qualifications have not increased sinceJulian and Ware (1997) highlighted the problem about the shortageof expertise in the teacher workforce. Thus the current context isone where there is a lack of agreement about the nature andusefulness of specialist knowledge, a reduction in the availability ofaward bearing continuing professional development opportunitiesin the field of special needs, together with a widely held belief thatteachers are not being properly prepared to work in schools that areincreasing diverse but are attempting to be more inclusive.

Teacher education has also been undergoing significant reform.In many countries, the content and balance of courses leading toqualified teacher status were changed to reflect the new standards-based agenda and in response to directives from government oraccreditation and professional registration agencies. In England,one aspect of these changes, saw the amount of time available tocover issues of inclusion and special educational needs reduced asstudent teachers spent more time in schools and courses focusedon content areas of the school curriculum. This resulted in therelocation of responsibility for covering much of the content ofinitial teacher education to placement schools, particularly ontopics such as inclusion and special educational needs. Dyson,Crowthar, and Millward (2001) pointed out that in primary schoolsin England, it was unlikely that any member of staff had thenecessary skills and qualifications for this task. The messages thatstudent teachers receive in schools about inclusion and childrenwho experience difficulties in learning may conflict with themessages they receive in the university. A recent report in England,How well new teachers are prepared to teach pupils with learning

difficulties and/or disabilities carried out by the Office for Standardsin Education (Ofsted, 2008) was critical of many aspects of initialteacher education, particularly the quality of the input that studentteachers receive while on school placements, because the schoolsdo not have the necessary expertise and wide perspectives on thiswork.

It was of little surprise therefore when the House of ParliamentEducation and Skills Committee stated that current systems fortraining teachers to work within inclusive schools was inadequate.They claimed that.

It is unrealistic to expect teachers and other members of theworkforce to be able to meet the needs of children with SEN, ifthey have not received the appropriate training. (2006, p. 77).

Internationally, criticisms of teacher preparation courses havetwo distinct, but often overlapping strands. First, there are thosewho claim that there is a specific body of knowledge and a set ofskills for working with ‘special’ children and that initial trainingcourses do not adequately cover these matters (Hodkinson, 2005;Jones, 2006) and beginning teachers do not have the necessaryknowledge, skills and attitudes to carry out this work in inclusiveschools (Forlin, 2001). The second argument (Slee, 2001), claimsthat because inclusion is not only about ‘special’ children, teachereducation should focus on improving teaching and learning andshould help young teachers to reduce the barriers to learning andparticipation. The argument here is that modules on specialeducation in initial teacher education courses only reinforce thesense of separation that characterises special education and leadsto the belief that such children are the responsibility only of thosewho have undertaken specialist courses. Many beginning teachersdo have positive attitudes and believe in the principle of inclusion(Lambe & Bones, 2006), however, their experiences in schools oftenconvince them that the principle cannot work in practice.

It is important to move beyond the debate about whetherbeginning teachers only need to know how to improve teachingand learning or whether they need more specialist knowledgeabout disability and children’s learning needs. In the short time thatstudent teachers are in initial training it is impossible to anticipateevery type of difficulty they might meet in their professional lives.The task of initial teacher education is to prepare people to entera profession, which accepts individual and collective responsibilityfor improving the learning and participation of all children. Withthis task in mind the School of Education at the University ofAberdeen in Scotland has begun reforming the Professional Grad-uate Diploma in Education, a one-year initial teacher educationcourse.

3. The Scottish context

Currently, the Scottish educational system, like many others, isundergoing a series of fundamental changes, not only in responseto globalisation, migration, economic change and internationalcomparisons, but also in response to concerns about the relevanceand balance of the curriculum and its associated systems ofassessment. Attempts to tackle the chronic underachievement ofcertain groups of children are at the heart of many of these changes(OECD, 2007). These developments can be seen in national initia-tives such as the ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (Scottish Executive,2004), ‘Assessment is for Learning’, the ‘Additional Support forLearning (Scotland) Act 2004’ and ‘Getting it Right for Every Child’(Scottish Executive, 2006a).

The intention of a ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ is to alter thebalance between a process that is heavily dependent on contentand learning and teaching approaches, to one that will improvepupils’ understanding of what is being taught (Scottish Executive,

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601 597

2004). The aim is to replace the emphasis on ‘knowing what’ with‘knowing how’ so that students become, in the words of thecurriculum: ‘successful learners’, ‘confident individuals’, ‘respon-sible citizens’ and ‘effective contributors’.

An important element of the reform of the curriculum is theintroduction of new approaches to assessment. ‘Assessment is forLearning’ (AifL) (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2005) is a policythat attempts to link assessment more closely to the curriculum, toincorporate the principles of formative feedback to help pupils tolearn about learning and to put teachers at the centre of theassessment process.

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act(Scottish Executive, 2005) introduced a new concept of ‘additionalsupport needs’ to refer any child or young person who, for whateverreason, requires additional support for learning. Though the Actreplaces the old system for the assessment and recording of chil-dren with special educational needs, and introduces a new systemfor identifying and addressing the additional support needs ofchildren and young people who face a barrier to learning, carefulreading of its provision has raised concern that it does little morethan replicate the previous system (Allan, 2006). Indeed the defi-nition in the legislation of additional support, as that ‘which isadditional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provisionthat is generally provided to their peers’ (Scottish Executive, 2005)is the same as the definition of special educational needs provisionthat it replaces.

Finally, these developments also need to be understood in thecontext of attempts to reform the workforce in order to improvemulti-agency working and develop integrated children’s services inresponse to the agenda that has been set by ‘Getting it Right forEvery Child’ (Scottish Executive, 2006a). This ambitious policyattempts to bring together education, health and social services toensure that children will get help when and where they need it andthat everyone who works with children uses fair and consistentapproaches. Central to this policy is that adults should takepersonal responsibility whilst also working collaboratively. Gettingit Right for Every Child, like many of the other new policies aresupportive of an inclusion agenda, but they do present majorchallenges. It is clear that there are significant implications forteachers and other adults who work with children, not only relatingto their knowledge, skills and attitudes, but also for their roles,responsibilities and professional identities. Moreover, there is workto do in terms of understanding how these distinct initiativesarticulate with each other. Teacher education and professionaldevelopment are crucial in this regard and, as in many othercountries, changes have been taking place in Scotland.

A review of initial teacher education carried out by the ScottishExecutive in 2004/05 called for a review of the competencies andvalues required by newly qualified teachers. Subsequently, ‘TheStandard for Initial Teacher Education’, ‘The Guidelines for InitialTeacher Education Courses (Scottish Executive, 2006a, 2006b) andthe standards for teacher registration (General Teaching CouncilScotland (GTCS), 2007), all were revised in line with the attentionbeing placed on the reform of teacher education. The preparationand qualification of new teachers in Scotland require the successfulcompletion of an approved course (a four-year full time Bachelor ofEducation (BEd) degree or the one-year full time ProfessionalGraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE)). In addition, the currentnational Teachers’ Agreement in Scotland ensures a one-yearprobationary placement prior to the final award of qualified teacherstatus (QTS) and registration with the General Teaching CouncilScotland (GTCS).

The Revised Standards for Registration (GTCS, 2007) articulatesa clear description of the professional qualities and capabilitiesteachers are expected to develop. These are professional knowledge

and understanding; professional skills and abilities; and profes-sional values and personal commitment. But what do such state-ments mean for initial teacher education? What is involved inacquiring these skills? By what standards should they be assessed?And in the context of this discussion, what do they mean if schoolsare to be better at meeting young people’s additional support needsand developing inclusion?

4. The inclusive practice project

As a result of the foregoing debates and discussions, the ScottishGovernment has funded the University of Aberdeen School ofEducation Inclusive Practice Project (IPP) to develop newapproaches to training teachers to ensure that they:

- have a greater awareness and understanding of the educationaland social problems/issues that can affect children’s learning;and

- have developed strategies they can use to support and dealwith such difficulties.

To this end, the PGDE, a thirty-six week (full time, one-year, ortwo years part-time) course of initial teacher training offeredjointly by the University and associated schools was revised duringthe academic year 2006–2007 to ensure that social and educationalinclusion is addressed within the core programme rather thanbeing an elective selected by only a few student teachers. Workinggroups of School of Education staff, local authority representatives,classroom teachers, and recent course graduates were formed toconsider how the course structure, content and activities might beorganised to provide shared learning experiences for prospectiveprimary and secondary teachers, and to align combined degreeprogrammes more effectively. While the impetus for change isdriven in part by the reform agenda described above, as well as thenew professional standards for teachers in Scotland, there is alsorecognition that more flexible approaches to training teachers forthe 21st century are needed as working practices across humanservice sectors become more integrated.

4.1. Rationale and structure of the Professional Graduate Diplomain Education

The rationale for the new PGDE programme, launched in theacademic year 2007–2008 is based on an acknowledgement of theimportance of partnership – the idea that students becometeachers by working in schools. However, in Scotland, the univer-sity supports the learning that occurs in schools with a curriculumincorporating professional and theoretical knowledge. Mindful thattheoretical knowledge can be inconsistent with practice in schools,the curriculum is also designed to support students to engage incritical and reflective practice.

Students spend 18 weeks in school experience placementssupported by 18 weeks of university-based learning (see Table 1).The university-based programme is made up of a number of inte-grated elements (Professional Studies, Further Professional Studies,Learning through the Curriculum and School Experience) thatcohere around a set of programme aims in the form of two coursesthat are split equally into two components:

� Beginning to Teach which focuses on learning and learners andbeginning as a teacher.� The Developing Professional which focuses on generic issues

related to professional development, learning and teaching,and social justice, within the context of different curriculumareas.

Table 1Structure of PGDE.

Exiting with primary named PGDE Full-time route Distance learning routea

Learning and Teaching in Schools:Beginning to Teach

Semester 1 – Late August to mid Decemberon campus in Aberdeen

Year 1 – through distance learning methods and network days.

Learning and Teaching in Schools:The Developing Professional

Semester 2 – Early February to mid Juneon campus in Aberdeen

Year 2 – through distance learning methods and network days.

School Experience 1: 1 week in September 9 weeks during year 1 – split into two blocks of 4 weeksand 5 weeks in length4 weeks in November

4 weeks in JanuarySchool Experience 2: 5 weeks in February/March 9 weeks during year 2 – split into two blocks of 4 weeks

and 5 weeks in length4 weeks in May/June

a Source: PGDE Prospectus www.abdn.ac.uk/prospectus.

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601598

The programme aims are designed to:

� prepare students for making a contribution to the developmentof pupils in the full range of contexts within the inclusiveschool;� enable students to become effective teachers of the curric-

ulum; and� enable students to attain high standards of professional

practice.

Prospective primary and secondary school teachers arecombined for lectures and professional studies tutor groups. Thelectures are designed to follow tutor group and self-study activitieswithin 4 units of study that focus on ‘the active professional’, ‘socialjustice and inclusion’, ‘learning and learners’, and ‘emotional andeducational literacies’. A required additional option, FurtherProfessional Studies (FPS), allows students to undertake in-depthstudy of a selected topic, for example, citizenship, literacy, crea-tivity, and so on. Student teachers have curriculum studies sessionswith their subject specialism group (e.g. maths, modern languages,geography, drama, English) if they are prospective secondary schoolteachers, while primary teachers attend a series of lectures andtutorial sessions that cover all of the aspects of the curriculum thatthey will be teaching.

The school-based element of the programme comprises a seriesof school placements in two different schools with scheduled visitsfrom university staff (school experience tutors) where lessons areobserved and examined. Additionally, two 5000-word assign-ments, an integral part of which involves reflections on schoolexperience are required. The assignments focus on how childrenand young people learn and inclusive practice. As discussed below,key theoretical ideas inform the course content and the assign-ments provide students with an opportunity to engage directlywith these ideas. All students keep a school experience file thatcontains information about the school placement such as schoolpolicies and resources as well as information about course targetsfor each placement linked to the Standards for Initial TeacherEducation (SITE).

The development of a professional portfolio is encouraged as anessential professional development tool enabling students toorganise and articulate their personal and professional learningjourney from starting PGDE to the induction year and beyond. It isintended to reflect and inform professional development and helpsstudents to make overt links between university and school expe-rience. Evidence included in the professional portfolio is taken fromcourse related tutor directed activities, school-based enquiry tasks,self-study, reflective accounts and critical incidents. Portfolios mayalso include other material such as inspiring quotes, photographs,extracts from pupil work, selected lesson plans, or extracts ofevaluations that illustrate how they are working towards long-termtargets. Students are encouraged to consider the professional

portfolio a live working document rather than an archive. They mayshare the portfolio with the school experience tutors and othersupporting school colleagues and peers to form the basis of‘learning conversations’. Students draw on evidence from theportfolio and/or their school experience file to support assignmentsubmissions and in writing the personal statement for the finalprofile.

4.2. Theoretical underpinnings of the PGDE

It has been suggested that inclusive education should not bethought of as a denial of individual differences, but an accommo-dation of them, within the structures and processes that areavailable to all learners (Florian, 2007). In other words, it should bea normal part of a school’s response when pupils experience diffi-culties. The IPP embraces this view starting from an assumptionthat all learners are not the same and human difference should notbe ignored or denied. The task as articulated by Florian (2007) is notto defend the need to accommodate learner differences by theprovision of something ‘different from’ or ‘additional to’, as definedin the legislation, but to challenge complacency about what is‘generally available’. It is argued that extending what is ‘generallyavailable’ reduces the need to provide support that is ‘differentfrom’ or ‘additional to’ that which is otherwise available. Thisnotion is similar to the architectural concept of ‘universal design’that focuses on not creating physical and other environmentalbarriers in the first place, but rather anticipating solutions that willimprove access for everyone.

Extending what is generally available to learners requiresreplacing some long-standing notions about learning and learners(for example, the idea that ability is fixed) with ideas about learningand learners that do not impose such limits such as the concept of‘transformability’ (Hart, Dixon, Drummond, & McIntyre, 2004): theidea that ‘all children’s capacity to learn can change and be changedfor the better as a result of what happens and what people do in thepresent’ (p. 166).

Further, extending what is generally available does not neces-sarily require the identification of certain ‘types’ or groups oflearners, such as disabled students, ethnic minorities or non-nativelanguage speakers in order to improve learning and plan teaching,although there may be other reasons for so doing. The assumptionthat there are individual differences that should not be ignored ordenied means that teachers must consider these differences for alllearners. As Alexander (2004) has argued, pedagogy is multi-faceted involving many decisions that constitute teaching,including the individual characteristics, development andupbringing of children.

It is also crucial to recognise the learning that takes placeoutside school and it is necessary to build on previous knowledge,experiences and interests. In order to extend what is generallyavailable, three ideas have to be given particular attention.

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601 599

First, the approach begins with the assumption that teachereducation must take difference into account from the outset asa central concept of human development. A pedagogy that isinclusive of all learners is based on principles of teaching andlearning that reject deficit views of difference and deterministicbeliefs about ability but sees individual differences as part of thehuman condition. Pupils may be identified as having impairmentssuch as autism or dyslexia for example, and may encounter diffi-culties in learning that require teachers to seek specialist supportand advice. However, in so doing, the teacher does not relinquishresponsibility for the pupil or his or her learning. Rather than sendthe student to the specialist, the specialist is called upon to supportthe teacher in enabling the student to have a meaningful learningexperience in the context of the classroom community.

Such a view demands a broad and multi-faceted view oflearning. To this end, the second idea that must underpin thecourse is a socio-cultural perspective on learning.

Sociocultural theory offers a productive way of thinking abouthow to understand and respond to the complexities inherent ineducating diverse groups of students in different contexts.Oneof the main principles of sociocultural analysis is to take accountof what happens in different contexts when people participatein activities, develop knowledge together and generallycontribute to the development of the cultural beliefs, practicesand artefacts which are valued in the immediate and widercontexts of social life. Individuals learn and change throughtheir contacts with other people and they, in turn, becomecapable of changing what is understood and valued in the othersocial and cultural settings where they participate. (Florian &Kershner, 2009, p. 174).

This is particularly important as socio-cultural theory offers aninteractive way of thinking about learners and learning rather thansomething that develops according to a biologically determinedsequence (de Valenzuela, 2007). Elsewhere it has been argued thatwhen learning is viewed as a result of a dynamic process of socialinteraction that occurs over time and within specific contexts, itleads to ‘inclusive pedagogy’ because it offers a way of thinkingabout how to understand and respond to the complexities inherentin teaching diverse groups of students (for an extended discussionsee Florian & Kershner, 2009).

If learning, as the socio-cultural approach suggests, occurs in aninteractive cultural and historic context, then it is incumbent uponclassroom teachers to consider how the decisions they make effectpupils’ learning experience. As Hart et al. (2004) remind us:‘nothing is neutral’ (p. 170). In structuring the PGDE, therefore,deliberate decisions were made to teach about issues of diversityand social justice in education at the beginning of the course inorder to make the point that difference is part of the humancondition. In addition, attempts have been made to use languagethat supports this position, for example; ‘when children experiencedifficulties in learning’, rather than ‘children with additionalsupport needs’.

However, as Hart et al. (2004) point out, daily life in schoolsprovides many opportunities to learn a different message. Realequity in learning opportunities, they suggest, only ‘becomespossible when young people’s school experiences are not organisedand structured on the basis of judgements of ability’ (p. 3), and thisis made explicit in the rejection of what they have termed ‘deter-ministic’ views of ability. Inclusive practice is a process: the chal-lenge is to teach prospective teachers to explore their assumptions,to challenge themselves, to support change from within schools.This requires beginning teachers to think about the things they cando to strengthen and enhance learning capacity. But changinglanguage and thinking does not guarantee action or change in

practice. As Hagger and McIntyre (2006) have pointed out, it isnaı̈ve to expect newly qualified teachers to take on the role ofchange agents in schools. If anything, the pressure is on them toconform rather than to challenge school practice regardless of whatthey learn on courses in university. Thus, the third idea involvesa focus on collaborative ways of working with and through others(Scottish Executive, 2006a; Thousand, Nevin, & Villa, 2007), usingthe ideas about learning, pedagogy and inclusion discussed above,and these permeate the course in lectures and tutor groupdiscussions (for a discussion see Florian & Linklater, 2009).

4.3. University and school-based learning

An essential challenge for the IPP is to work out where the so-called new ‘ways of working’ that are hallmarks of inclusive prac-tice intersect with school policies and practices that reinforcea different approach. How can teacher educators know where thesespaces are and how can they be used to support change? The IPPhas begun by considering the partnership arrangements withschools within the practical activities of the course and the researchagenda for the project. In Scotland, the partnership arrangementswith schools are particularly challenging as placements are madeadministratively and the government assumes that all schools andteachers should participate in preparing future teachers. As a result,the School of Education has very little role in determining theschools and classrooms where student teachers observe, experi-ence and learn about inclusive practice. Yet, Hagger and McIntyre(2006) have argued that as students prepare to become teachersthe most powerful learning occurs during the school experience.

Given the contested nature of the concept of inclusion and themany interpretations of inclusion as practice, it is impossible tocontrol for the range of experiences and situations students willinevitably encounter. Therefore, the university-based experiencesmust be structured in ways that support students to acquirea critical view of practice without criticising the practice theyexperience. The idea is to take a reflective problem-solvingapproach to the work, guided by Brookfield’s ideas of criticalreflection (Brookfield, 1995), and Hart’s ‘interpretive moves’ asexamples of such an approach (Hart, 2000). Here teachers areguided to ask a series of questions of themselves that help them tothink pedagogically about the difficulties students experience inlearning rather that to assume that the difficulty arises fromsomething that is wrong with the child.

Clearly, the university-based side of the course has a heavyresponsibility in terms of helping prospective teachers to understandinclusion as a process, to know what counts as good practice and toknow what their responsibilities are when their students encounterdifficulties in learning. Moreover, as noted above, the course isfounded on the idea that primary and secondary teachers have muchto offer and learn from each other. The programmes is structured togive prospective primary and secondary teachers opportunities toreflect together after lectures, and during workshops and tutor groupactivities. The university-based learning opportunities can focus ona discussion of the general insights of inclusive education in thepractical context of classroom teaching. The emphasis here is onissues common to students as developing professionals that havedirect implications for action in the classroom.

4.4. Effects expected in the classroom practices of teachersin schools

As new teachers complete the course and enter the proba-tionary year of teaching, follow up visits and focus groups areenabling an exploration of the links between project objectives and

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601600

practice. A key challenge is to articulate for observers what theyshould expect to see in practice.

The first project objective, developing an approach to initialteacher training in which teachers have a greater awareness andunderstanding of the educational and social problems/issues thatcan affect children’s learning, is underpinned by a socio-culturalapproach to learning that emphasises the transformative power ofteachers to support the learning of all children. This perspectivepermits a consideration of individual differences as something tobe expected and understood in terms of the interactions betweenmany different variables rather than fixed states within individuals.The second project objective focuses on developing strategiesteachers can use to support and deal with the difficulties childrenexperience in learning. Here the IPP is informed by research onteaching strategies in inclusive schools as well as work that hasbeen undertaken on the question of whether some children requirespecialist teaching methods. Advances in understanding childrenand the difficulties they experience in learning, regardless ofcategories of ‘need’ have not diminished the reliance on categoriesas a mechanism for understanding human differences or forobtaining additional resources. What is important to get across toprospective teachers is that, reviews of ‘what works’ in specialneeds education show that the teaching strategies used in main-stream education can be adapted to assist students identified ashaving difficulties in learning. In fact, attempts to define what is‘special’ about special education generally acknowledge thateffective practices in special education often originate in generaleducation, and effective practices in special education are oftenfound in general education (Hegarty, 2007). It is more productive tothink about learning in terms of the development of expertise andhow novices differ from experts (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,2000), rather than to differentiate groups of learners on the basis ofperceived limitations.

Thus, inclusive practice should reflect teaching decisions thatconsider how to include rather than exclude learners who expe-rience difficulty. This will inevitably reflect an engagement withpupils that value them as partners in learning and consider theirviews. Classrooms will be organised in ways that offer studentschoices without relying solely on ability grouping. Inclusive prac-tice will reflect actions that are collaborative, drawing on theexpertise of specialists without relinquishing responsibility forteaching all learners. Most importantly it will, wherever possible,aim to reduce the reliance on hierarchical ideas of ‘development’that require judgements to be made about what it is possible tolearn. While this is not an exhaustive list, it is a beginning. Theseare practices that can be observed although some of theirelements, such as the thinking that informed a teacher’s peda-gogical decision, may be invisible. However, it is possible to discernevidence of an inclusive approach to teaching from the ethos andartefacts that characterise the classroom. Teachers’ beliefs will bereflected in the ways they speak about their work and theirstudents.

5. Conclusion

New policies and practices intended to raise standards for all,whilst simultaneously promoting the inclusion of all students inthe culture, curriculum and community of mainstream schools areemerging (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, & Shaw, 2000).However, attempts to raise standards at the same time as movingtowards greater educational inclusion, have been questioned bysome as being incompatible policy goals (Lunt & Norwich, 1999),and many schools struggle with reconciling the tensions betweenexcellence and equity in education. It also could be argued thatthere is a gap between the rhetoric of these policies and the reality

of practices in schools, which in many cases remain largelyunchanged. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that many schoolshave been able to be both inclusive and high achieving. Suchschools not only have pro-inclusion policies, but they are staffed byteachers whose pedagogical practices are based on beliefs that allchildren can learn (Hart et al., 2004) and they accept the respon-sibility for educating all children in the classes they teach (Black-Hawkins et al., 2007; Jordan, 2007). This understanding thatinclusion and standards are not mutually exclusive but mutuallybeneficial has guided the thinking that led to the theoreticalrationale for the reforms of the PGDE at Aberdeen.

Three key assumptions about teaching all children as articulatedby Florian (2007) have informed the theoretical approach to thereform of the PDGE programme: (1) teachers need to understandthat difference must be accounted for as an essential aspect ofhuman development in any conceptualisation of learning; (2) theymust be disabused of the notion that they are not capable ofteaching all children; but in so doing, (3) they must understandhow to incorporate helpful information about human differences intheir practice as teachers and learn new strategies for working withothers. To this end, the PGDE programme at the University ofAberdeen has been restructured so that the university-based aspectof the course emphasises specific course content based on keyideas: anti-determinism, a socio-cultural view of learning andcollaborative ways of working in the form of lectures, tutor directedactivities, self-study activities, and discussions posted on theintranet.

As with any new project, there are a number of practical andmethodological challenges in taking these ideas forward and indeveloping ways of documenting, evaluating and studying them.A series of observable practices have been identified and it isanticipated that if the essential elements of inclusive practice canbe modelled, then teachers can be convinced that they are capableof teaching all children, even those who have been identified ashaving ‘additional needs’. The task for teacher educators is to helpprospective teachers to think about the difficulties children expe-rience in learning as opportunities for teaching. Inclusive practiceinvolves an understanding of the interactive socio-cultural factorsthat produce individual differences, rather than explanations thatstress a single cause. Inclusive practice involves understanding howto sort out the relative contribution of each of these factors indetermining appropriate responses when children experiencedifficulty. The key point is that the difficulty itself does not prevent,or limit the learning that is possible.

As the implementation of the course reforms moves forward,McIntyre’s (2005) guidance on how educational researchers andteachers might work together is being used to guide a researchagenda intended to test some of the ideas that have driven thereforms. The strategy has been to work simultaneously in twodirections – from the bottom up in terms of the reform of theteacher education courses offered in the University, and from thetop down through links with other colleagues who are alsoinvolved in the reform of teacher education. The aim is to developa network for sharing practice to support the reform of teachereducation in ways that ensure the principles of social and educa-tional inclusion are addressed as core elements of professionaltraining and development. While the extent to which this goal isachieved will become more apparent as the findings from thedifferent strands of the programme of research related to theproject begin to emerge, there is also scope for further theoreticaland conceptual work relating to the link between theoretical ideasand how they are conveyed in professional training, the uptake ofthese ideas in practice, and their effects. This paper outlines oneproject that is beginning to engage directly with the relationshipbetween the content of teacher education courses and educational

L. Florian, M. Rouse / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 594–601 601

equity. The reform of initial teacher education is a first step in thisdirection.

References

Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance inprimary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7–33.

Allan, J. (2006). The repetition of exclusion. International Journal of InclusiveEducation, 10(2–3), 121–133.

Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education. London: Routledge.Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in

schools. London: Routledge.Blanton, L., & Pugach, M. (2007). Collaborative programs in general and special

teacher education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Boaler, J., William, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping

– disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British EducationalResearch Journal, 26(5), 631–648.

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for inclusion.Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Department for Education and Employment. (1997). Excellence in schools. London:The Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Science (DES). (1978). Report of the committee ofenquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people. [TheWarnock report]. London: HMSO.

Dyson, A., Crowthar, D., & Millward, D. (2001). Supporting pupils with specialeducational needs: issues and dilemmas for special needs coordinators inEnglish primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16, 85–97.

European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education. (2006). Inclu-sive education and classroom practice. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from. http://www.european-agency.org/iecp/iecp_intro.htm.

Fish, J. (1985). Special education: The way ahead. Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.

Florian, L. (2007). Reimagining special education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGEhandbook of special education. London: Sage.

Florian, L., & Kershner, R. (2009). Inclusive pedagogy. In H. Daniels, J. Porter, &H. Lauder (Eds.), Routledge companion in education. London: Routledge.

Florian, L., & Linklater, H. Enhancing teaching and learning: towards a curriculum ofteacher education for inclusive education. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2009, February,Chicago.

Florian, L., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds.). (2008). Disability classification in education.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.Educational Research, 43(3), 235–245.

General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2007). The revised standards for full regis-tration. Edinburgh: Author.

Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform andequity. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. [Revised edition]. London: Penguin Books.Great Britain Parliament, House of Commons Education and Skills Committee.

(2006). Special educational needs: Third report of session 2005–2006. London:Stationery Office.

Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realising thepotential of school-based teacher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hardman, M. (2009). Redesigning the preparation of all teachers with the frame-work of an integrated program model. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25(4),583–587.

Hart, S. (2000). Thinking through teaching. London: David Fulton.

Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits.Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hegarty, S. (2007). Special education and its contribution to the broader discourseof education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education. London:Sage Publications.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI). (1990). Special educational needs in initial teachertraining. London: DES.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure inAmerican life. New York: Free Press.

Hodkinson, A. J. (2005). Conceptions and misconceptions of inclusive education:a critical examination of final year teacher trainees’ knowledge and under-standing of inclusion. International Journal of Research in Education, 73, 15–29.

Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Huntley, C. (2005). What are the effects of ability grouping onGCSE attainment? British Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 443–458.

Jones, P. (2006). They are not like us and neither should they be: issues of teacheridentity for teachers of pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties.Disability & Society, 19(2), 159–169.

Jordan, A. (2007). Introduction to inclusive education. Ontario: John Wiley & Sons.Julian, G., & Ware, J. (1997). Specialist teachers for pupils with learning difficulties?

A survey of teachers in schools and units. British Journal of Special Education,25(1), 28–32.

Lambe, J., & Bones, R. (2006). Student teachers’ perceptions about inclusive class-room teaching in Northern Ireland prior to teaching practice experience.European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 167–186.

Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2005). Assessment is for learning. RetrievedDecember 18, 2008, from. http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/assess/index.asp.

Lunt, I., & Norwich, B. (1999). Can effective schools be inclusive schools? London:Institute of Education, University of London.

McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. CambridgeJournal of Education, 35(3), 357–382.

McLaughlin, M., & Rouse, M. (2000). Special education and school reform in GreatBritain and the United States. London: Routledge.

Norwich, B. (2008). Perspectives and purposes of disability classification systems:Implications for teachers and curriculum and pedagogy. In L. Florian, &M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Disability classification in education (pp. 129–152).Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2008). How well new teachers areprepared to teach pupils with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. London:Author.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). Qualityand equity of schooling in Scotland. Paris: Author.

Peters, S. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including thosewith disabilities and special educational needs. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2000). Curriculum guidance for thefoundation stage. London: QCA/DfEE.

Sarason, S. (1990). The Predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change coursebefore it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Scottish Executive. (2004). Curriculum for excellence. Edinburgh: Author.Scottish Executive. (2005). Supporting children’s learning: Code of practice. Edin-

burgh: Author.Scottish Executive. (2006a). Getting it right for every child. Edinburgh: Author.Scottish Executive. (2006b). The standard for initial teacher education. Edinburgh:

Author.Slee, R. (2001). Inclusion in practice: does practice make perfect? Educational

Review, 53(2), 113–123.Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A. I., & Villa. (2007). Collaborative teaching: Critique of the

scientific evidence (pp. 417–428. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of specialeducation. London: Sage.

de Valenzuela, J. S. (2007). Sociocultural views of learning. In L. Florian (Ed.), TheSAGE handbook of special education. London: Sage.

Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Reflections on a research career: generalizations from 25years of research on assessment and instructional decision making. ExceptionalChildren, 67(3), 295–309.