One unified definition of inclusion is not practically possible as this would not consider the social, cultural, historical and geographical contexts of each country and region (Hodkinson and Williams-Brown, 2022).
Definitions of inclusion need to take into consideration local rather than global knowledge value and belief systems (Artiles and Dyson, 2005). There is also a dominance of Global North concepts that exclude older and richer knowledge bases and a lack of consideration to different cultural contexts (Hodkinson and Williams-Brown, 2022).
Inclusion in some countries in Africa and Asia has been influenced by local cultural values that include strong family relationships, collaborative learning and responding to individual needs by using natural resources and flexible physical or social spaces (Kisanji, 1995).
Across countries inclusion is influenced by contexts that include:
Differing uses of terminology
Perceptions of disability
Religion
(Devarakonda, 2023, in Hodkinson and Williams-Brown, 2023).
Case Study 1/4: England
There has been a drive to implement inclusion in schools since the late 1990’s (Brown, 1996). However, there remains separate mainstream, special school and specialist provision.
The education system has been dominated by the standards agenda since the 1970’s, which is based on accountability, assessment and performativity (Hodkinson, 2019).
Objectives include a national curriculum, Statutory Assessment Tests (SATs), league tables used to rank school success and inspections (Brown, 2016). The system did not change when inclusion was introduced.
Williams-Brown, Hodkinson and Jopling (2022) found that in two studies almost a decade apart teachers experienced significant difficulties including children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities at the same time as trying to operationalise the objectives of the standards agenda.
The Baltic States, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania until the late 1980’s was in the Soviet Union. Estonia was introduction to international policies when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Baltic States were reestablished (Van Elsewhere, 2008).
Estonia became part of the United Nations in 1991 and the EU in 2004.
The right for all children to be educated was included in the 1992 Estonian constitution (Republic of Estonia, 1992).
Whilst there was an acknowledgement that adjustments of mainstream content was needed, since 2010, policy has been aimed at integration and the placement of children with Special Educational Needs into mainstream settings (Republic of Estonia, 2010, 2016 and 2018).
All citations cited in chapter written by Van Kessel and colleagues (2020)
In recent years, support for inclusion has increased and has meant large numbers of children with Special Educational Needs are now educated in mainstream schools (Al-Mousa et al. 2008; Al-Mousa, 2010).
However, this does not include children with severe intellectual disabilities who continue to mostly be educated in special schools or private institutions (Alanzi, 2012).
Challenges in implementing inclusion are as follows:
Teachers’ attitudes to inclusion
Need to revitalise teacher education
Difficulty recruiting Special Educational Needs teachers
There is no reference to people with disabilities in the Holy Quran (Alothman, 2014), but in Islam people are seen as equal.
All citations above cited in chapter written by Alzamaia and Jopling (2023).
Finland has a basic education system that educates 7–15-year-olds with a large sector of segregated education.
There is a steady decrease of special schools, but the portion of children transferred to special education classrooms mostly from mainstream schools is one of the greatest in Europe (EADSNE, 2012).
Special classrooms are however usually in mainstream schools. Separate special schools are now rare (Alnahdi, Saloviita and Elhadi, 2019).
There has been no official policy changes yet to respond to this and inclusive education is ‘lacking’ in school legislation (Act on Basic Education, 1998).
In the Finnish context the description of children with Special Educational Needs has changed to ‘a child with a need for special support’.
All citations except for Alnahdi, Saloviitta and Elhadi (2019) are cited in Saloviita (2020).
Please reflect on practice Ukraine as your own case study. How is inclusion practically implemented in Ukraine?
How does practice compare to the above case studies?
What cultural, social, historical and geographical contexts do you think influence practice in Ukraine?
Do you believe inclusion is possible?
Recommended Activities
Read into inclusion in Ukraine in preparation for week two’s content.
Recommended resources to start your exploration of literature that can be found on google scholar:
Budnyk, O., Sydoriv, S., Serman, L., Lushchynska, O., Tsehelnyk, T. and Matsuk, L., (2022). Inclusive education in rural schools of Ukraine or how to ensure quality inclusive education in rural schools in Ukraine?. Revista Brasileira De Educação Do Campo, 7, pp.e13940-e13940.
Derkachova, O., Ushnevych, S. and Tytun, O., (2020). INCLUSIVE SPACE IN THE LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN (On the base of the tale “Non-jumping Bunny and his Brave Mother” by Oksana Drachkovska). Mountain School of Ukrainian Carpaty, (22), pp.182-188.
Kozibroda, L.V., Kruhlyk, O.P., Zhuravlova, L.S. and Chupakhina, S.V., (2020). Practice and Innovations of Inclusive Education at School. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(7), pp.176-186.
