Inclusive Education: International Policy & Practice


Ann Cheryl Armstrong, Derrick Armstrong & Ilektra Spandagou

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    About the Authors

    Dr Ann Cheryl Armstrong is Director, Division of Professional Learning in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. Ann Cheryl has worked in inclusive education and professional development at an international level for 23 years and has extensive experience as a teacher, teacher educator, research manager, project manager and programme leader. She has worked in countries throughout the Caribbean, the UK, Australia and Asia. Before emigrating to Sydney in February 2005, she was employed with the University of Sheffield, UK, in the School of Education as Director of the Caribbean Distance Education Programme. Ann Cheryl has held senior positions in two national World Bank projects and has acquired extensive experience in networking with government and non-government agencies for the provision of educational and social services and training. She has presented at numerous national and international conferences and contributed on various committees and panels. At present she is on the University of Sydney Indigenous Education Advisory Committee as well as on the Sydney Region (Schools) Planning Group for Aboriginal Education and Training.

    Professor Derrick Armstrong was appointed Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Registrar in December 2008. His responsibilities at the University of Sydney include all aspects of the Student Experience: Learning and Teaching, Student Administration and Support, Indigenous Education, Student Recruitment and Social Inclusion. Prior to this he was Dean of the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. His research has focused on issues of social inclusion and exclusion in education and the ways in which disadvantage and ‘deviance’ are identified and managed by professionals, social agencies and institutions working with children and young people. Derrick is author, co-author and editor of eight books and more than a hundred journal articles, book chapters and international conference papers.

    Dr Ilektra Spandagou is a lecturer in inclusive education in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She worked as a special teacher in inclusive settings before completing her PhD at the University of Sheffield, UK. She has been involved in pre-service and postgraduate teacher education and teacher training, retraining and specialization programmes in the area of inclusive and special education in Greece and Australia. Her research interests include inclusive education, disability studies and classroom diversity and pedagogy. Her work currently focuses on teacher education for inclusion and the role of teachers' attitudes.


    Inclusive education has become fashionable. Like all fashions its origins lie in the haute couture imagination, and from there has spread out, first into mass production for the high street and, thereafter, rapidly into the world of cheap replicas and reproductions. The world of high fashion is a strange world of creativity and abstraction, a world of extreme self-confidence and banal triviality. Unwearable and unaffordable for most people, it nonetheless, through translation and adaptation, finds its way into wardrobes across the world, often without us knowing anything about the history of the garments we have bought: neither the fashion houses that have created them nor the sweatshops that produced them. What we do know is that clothes are functional and for many of us looking smart or chic or simply sharing a common identity with those with whom we want to belong is a way of giving individual or group expression to that functionality.

    Inclusive education has its origins in debates between academics and in the emerging politics of disability which questioned the construction of ‘normality’ through the everyday interactions of cultural, social, economic and institutional life. In the face of an increasingly monolithic special education sector that primarily served the needs of twentieth-century mass education by isolating and removing from the mainstream those children who disrupted the assembly line, the early developers and advocates of inclusive education challenged the fundamentals of modern education. The critiques that underpinned inclusive education were focused not on children with special educational needs but on the mainstream education system. It was argued that mainstream systems of education established ‘norms’ that served to reinforce conformity in the modern world. Systems for the demarcation and institutionalization of ‘failure’, ‘inadequacy’ and ‘disaffection’ are products of nineteenth and twentieth-century systems of mass production. The ‘inclusive’ critique of special education has essentially been a critique of education as mass production.

    The irony of the inclusive education critique is that it has been unable to build a socio-political base from which to challenge seriously the social interests that underpin modern systems of educational production, especially in the developed world. For this reason the analogy with fashion is correct. The success of haute couture depends upon translation into production, not upon a radical rethinking of the processes of production themselves. Indeed the sweatshops are its lifeblood. They feed the industry that makes haute couture not only possible but meaningful. In other words ideas operate within a context that makes their realization possible only within certain parameters. Ideas can challenge those parameters, and such challenges can contribute to change but they do not make change except on those rare occasions when they align with broader social upheavals. Thus, in the developed world at least, we have seen the haute couture of inclusion translated into the high street of policy and practice where they continue to keep the wheels of the existing system turning smoothly. At their crudest, they are copied in ways that dress up the existing systems of segregation and exclusion with the rhetoric of reform. At their best they disrupt and challenge everyday practices and suggest possibilities for new forms of social relations, new ways of understanding difference, new ways of valuing humanity. But fundamental change in the way in which education is organized and the purposes it serves has always been at the core of the inclusive education movement, and with respect to this we will argue that in the developed world the inclusive movement has been distorted, colonized and reinscribed by the traditional purpose of special education as a system for managing potential disruptions to the smooth flow of educational production.

    This may seem to be a pretty depressing picture. Not entirely so we will argue. But for the inclusive ambition to be recaptured it is necessary to reassert its critique of mainstream education. In this respect there are real possibilities, not least because in the developed world the purpose of education is being rethought in so many fora. Traditional forms of schooling are themselves questionable in terms of the more fluid, globally interactive world in which we live. Opportunities for learning are to be found well beyond the traditional classroom. Also the mass production of human skills is no longer relevant in the same way as it once was, or at the very least the nature of the skills, attributes and identities which are valued (and the social mechanisms through which such valuing takes place). Education has the potential to be transformed through the enhanced opportunities for interaction that now exist. The closed social systems of class, gender and ethnicity which have been reproduced and reinforced by educational policy and practice in the service of nineteenth and twentieth-century modes of industrial production are increasingly outdated and irrelevant in today's world. Yet in saying this we should not forget that for many millions of children in the world there are no accessible educational services at all, and the sharp contrast between universal but outdated systems in the richer parts of the world and the complete absence of education in the most impoverished parts of the world is just as striking and as horrifying as the extreme differences in wealth and poverty that characterize our human community.

    If we turn to the developing world we see an even more complex picture in relation to ideas of social inclusion and inclusive education. First, it needs to be recognized that the everyday experiences of people in the developing world are marked by the history of colonialism. The end of the colonial period towards the end of the twentieth century certainly did not eradicate the impact of that domination. In the post-colonial world those countries start from a position of economic disadvantage. They frequently lack the resources, the infrastructure and, as their educated children leave for highly paid jobs in the North, they so often also lack the skills base and leadership to challenge the new world order. Global power remains firmly in the hands of the former colonial powers. Even countries such as China, who clearly are driving forward on to the world stage through their economic revolution, have some way to go before they will match the advantages of the developed countries of the world.

    Education as a commodity for export is nothing new. Colonial education systems have largely been built upon models taken from the colonial powers, and little has changed in the post-colonial world. The yoke of colonialism has perhaps been replaced by the ‘aid’ dollar, but a yoke it so often remains. Debt, the distortion of national educational priorities and the imposition of neo-liberal educational fads, each have characterized educational development in the post-colonial era. The transfer of ideas from the North to the South has been commonplace. Sometimes this transfer is based upon an intellectual colonialism which sees innovation and reform grounded in the schools systems of the North translated into the schools of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Often this has been promoted by funding agencies in the North who use educational reform as a vehicle for driving broader social and economic reconstruction, in recent times in particular around the decentralization and marketization of education. At other times we see a more benevolent intervention from educators from the developed world, as is the case with the use of the Index for Inclusion developed in the UK by Mel Ainscow and Tony Booth and widely used as a tool for supporting whole-school change in both the developed and developing worlds. The latter may bring some improvements in educational practice but such approaches hardly challenge the balance of power in respect of education and its outcomes between the North and the South. More home-grown initiatives, such as that developed in inclusive education by local special educators together with the teachers union in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1990s, described in Chapter 9 of this book, suggest more empowering processes of change and could provide the political impetus from which interventions around the Index for Inclusion could have more scope to contribute towards system-level changes.

    The countries of the developing world have also been far more radical in their conceptualization of inclusive education than is generally found among the countries of the North. Operating through the agencies of the United Nations, educators from the South have led a movement to expand understanding of inclusion. They have, in particular, conceptualized inclusion in terms of the role of education in relation to poverty reduction, gender equality and social and economic development. There are many challenges facing these educators, not least that of confronting the continuing dependency on the North that these policy changes require if they are to have successful outcomes. Mass education systems in the South now produce workers in the developing world with the basic skills necessary to support cheap mass production for the North. But educational opportunity also creates new spaces for developing countries and, in particular, local educators' and teachers' organizations, to take ownership of the development agenda for their own countries.

    In this book we set out to challenge some of the directions that inclusive education has taken, both in policy and practice. Our critique examines inclusive education in the developed world and in the developing world. A lot of what has been written, and the great majority of the research in this area, has focused on the developed countries of the North. Our view is that one of the outcomes of globalization over the past 50 or so years is that education systems across the world are interconnected and that to fully understand the development of education and its relation to the broader society, international interconnectedness needs also to be understood. Yet this is not a relationship of equals. Power, both political and economic, is not distributed evenly across the world. Educational policy and practice in developing countries continue in many ways to be framed by the broader relations between countries in the geopolitical world. So often educational policy is ‘grown’ in the developed world and exported in due course to developing countries. But in each case the local context of policy and practice allows us to examine the particular pressures for change within national education systems and the tensions that they can give rise to both nationally and internationally.

    The Structure of the Book

    In Chapter 1 we explore key issues that are framing current debates worldwide about inclusive education and, in particular, we introduce a developing world perspective on the study of inclusive education, a perspective that has commonly been disregarded in much that is written on inclusive education.

    In Chapter 2 we step back from current developments to consider the history of special education out of which the movement for inclusive education has arisen. We argue that a form of inclusion in the sense of assimilation to a common identity (the identity of a workforce for mass production) characterized the education systems of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the developed world. However, in the transition from industrial to post-industrial systems of education in the North a new space for thinking about inclusive education systems has arisen. This reflects and emphasizes the uncertainty with regard to purpose and outcomes expected from education in the North. Yet the traditional drivers of educational production clearly operate to contain fundamental change and to re-create inclusive forms of education within more traditional modes of operation.

    Chapter 3 brings us to reflect on the current state of inclusive education. We consider different definitions of inclusion and discuss the slippery nature of this concept in an attempt to move from the rhetoric to a deeper understanding of problems to which inclusive education is seen as being the answer. In the end it might be argued that inclusive education means all things to all people, but we argue that it can equally mean nothing and that this dilemma reflects both differences of perspective and intent among advocates of inclusion as well as tensions within education systems in the developed world where uncertainty of purpose in social and economic terms is causing loss of policy focus.

    Education systems in the developing world face challenges around inclusion that for developed countries have largely been overcome many years ago, namely, basic access and participation. The United Nations policy of Education for All (EFA) has been a major focus for thinking in the South about inclusive education. With over 100 million children lacking basic access to education the scale of the challenge is immense, but in facing this challenge the developing world faces also the dual burden of support and control that emanates from the funding prescriptions of the North, from where much of the investment resource is controlled. Chapter 4 describes the history of the EFA movement, its challenges and constraints in promoting inclusion through education.

    Chapter 5 examines case studies of sponsored interventions by United Nations policy agencies and international funding agencies into educational development in countries of the South. Chapter 6 looks at the European Union. Here we have seen significant rhetoric around inclusion as the nations of Europe have sought greater integration, founded upon the idea of the importance of social cohesion. However, in the educational sphere not only does there continue to be considerable difference and even fragmentation between national education systems, but also the idea of a common European identity struggles to find meaning within the new Europe. Chapter 7 takes us to England for a detailed critique of the absorption of inclusive educational rhetoric into national policy for special education. In England, we argue, we have seen a classic case of the reconstruction of a special education system in the clothes of an inclusive rhetoric. This is not to deny that there have been major steps towards inclusive schooling in some areas but the broader framework within which educational policy sits is one that by its nature exclusively emphasizes outcomes that inhibit the development of a truly inclusive school practice.

    We now turn to the question ‘what future does inclusion have?’. We consider the ways in which policy has been translated into practice and how this has impacted upon the ways in which schooling is experienced for students and for teachers. In Chapter 8 we argue that the inclusive potential of an approach to education depends on whether it represents an orchestrated attempt to make schools more inclusive or whether it is primarily a way of managing students by minimizing disruption in regular classrooms. The question of how schools can become more inclusive cannot be seen in isolation from the question of whether the educational systems in which they are located are becoming more inclusive. Chapter 9 looks at the ways in which models of inclusive educational practice have been ‘exported’ to the South and discusses both the consequences of this for the development of local educational practice and the ways in which resistance to educational colonialism can transform practice within school systems in the South. In Chapter 10 we draw together the conclusions from our examination of the inclusive education phenomenon. In an epilogue we also take the opportunity to reflect on the themes of this book from the personal experience each of us as had in dealing with these issues over our careers in education.

    Throughout the book we set out to engage the reader by identifying key discussion questions for each chapter and providing opportunities to explore case studies and guided reflection on our topic. At the end of each chapter are suggestions for specific reading for those who wish to follow up these issues with more in-depth study.

    The term ‘disabled people’ is used in this book. ‘Disabled people’ is the preferred term for the social model of disability since it acknowledges that people are disabled by the environment, attitudes and stereotypes. We recognize that for readers in some countries the ‘person first’ concept is considered more appropriate but in making our choice of language, we hope that the book will contribute to this debate on the language of disability and inclusion.

    A Note on Authorship

    This book is the product of a collaborative process. Each of the authors took a lead in developing the major themes of the book across the three sections and responsibility for drafting particular chapters. However, this book reflects a collective understanding and common position built upon our work together over the past 10 years.


    We wish to acknowledge the importance of the work of the University of Sheffield's Inclusive Education group, which brought us together, the support of the University of Sydney, which has allowed us to continue our collaboration, and the contribution to our thinking of our students from across the world.

    We also wish to acknowledge the support of our parents for making any of this possible: Beryl and O'Hanley, Doris and Peter, and Katerina and Yiannis.

  • References

    Abberley, P. (1996) ‘Work, utopia and impairment’, in L.Barton (ed.), Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. London: Longman.
    Abbott, W.K. and Snidal, D. (2000) ‘Hard and soft law in international governance’, International Organization, 54(3): 421–56.
    Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A., with Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A. and Smith, R. (2006) Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London: Routledge.
    Alexander, R. (2003) ‘For Blair 1997 is year zero’, Times Educational Supplement (Friday Magazine), 19 September, p. 11.
    Allan, J. (2008) Rethinking Inclusive Education: The Philosophers of Difference in Practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
    Appadurai, A. (1993) ‘Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy’, in P.Williams and L.Chrisman (eds), Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Armstrong, D. (1995) Power and Partnership in Education; Parents, Children and Special Educational Needs. London: Routledge.
    Armstrong, D. (2005) ‘Reinventing “Inclusion”: New Labour and the cultural politics of special education’, Oxford Review of Education, 31(1): 135–51.
    Armstrong, D. and Namsoo1, A.C. (2000) ‘New Markets or New Alliances? Distance Education, Globalisation and Post Colonial Challenges.’Distance Education in Small States: Conference Proceedings, Jamaica (WI) 27–28 July, 2000. Jamaica, University of the West Indies Distance Education Centre (UWIDEC). pp. 207–212.
    Australian Commonwealth (2005) Disability Standards for Education (2005). Canberra: Australian Commonwealth.
    Australian Commonwealth (1992) Disability Discrimination Act. Canberra: Australian Commonwealth.
    Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2004) Disability. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Barton, L. (1995) ‘The politics of education for all’, Support for Learning, 10(4): 156–60.
    Barton, L. (1997) ‘Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or realistic?’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3): 231–40.
    Bateman, B. (1995) ‘Who, how, and where: special education's issues in perpetuity’, in J.Kauffman and D.Hallahan (eds), The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon. Austin, TX: ProEd.
    Bauman, Z. (1990) Thinking Sociologically, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Beecher, G. (2005) ‘Disability Standards: the challenge of achieving compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act’, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 13(2): 139–70.
    Berliner, D. and Biddle, B. (1995) The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America's Public Schools. New York: Longman.

    1 Publications prior to 2002 are in the name of Namsoo. Ann Cheryl's surname is now Armstrong.

    Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
    Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L. and Rouse, M. (2007) Achievement and Inclusion in Schools. London: Routledge.
    Bloomberg News (2000) ‘World Bank to Stop Pushing Poor to Pay for Health Care, School’, Bloomberg News, 25 October.
    Booth, T. (1995) ‘Mapping inclusion and exclusion: concepts for all?’, in C.Clark, A.Dyson and A.Millard (eds), Towards Inclusive Schools?London: David Fulton.
    Booth, T. (2003) ‘Views from the institution: overcoming barriers to inclusive teacher education?’, in T.Booth, K.Nes and M.Strømstad (eds), Developing Inclusive Teacher Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
    Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for Inclusion. Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: CSIE Ltd.
    Brine, J. (1999) Undereducating Women: Globalizing Inequality. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Carr, W. and Hartnett, A. (1996) Education and the Struggle for Democracy: The Politics of Educational Ideas. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Carr-Hill, R. (2004) Book review on ‘Education for all; is the world on track? EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002, Paris: UNESCO’, International Journal of Educational Development, 24: 330–2.
    Chossudovsky, M. (1994) ‘Global impoverishment and the IMF-World Bank economic medicine’, MNC Masala. Available from: and (accessed 5 November 2000).
    Clements, L. and Read, J. (2008) ‘Introduction: life, disability and the pursuit of human rights’, in L.Clements and J.Read (eds), Disabled People and the Right to Life: The Protection and Violation of Disabled People's Most Basic Human Rights. London: Routledge.
    Connell, R. (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
    Corbett, J. (2001) Supporting Inclusive Education: A Connective Pedagogy. London: Taylor & Francis.
    Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008) Education and Training Statistics for the United Kingdom (additional information – schools). Available from:
    Department for Education (DfE) (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. London: DfE.
    Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1997a) Excellence in Education. London: DfEE.
    Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1997b) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE.
    Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2001) Special Educational Needs: Code of Practice. London: DfES.
    Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003) Every Child Matters. London: The Stationery Office.
    Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government's Strategy for SEN. London: DfES Publications.
    Department of Education and Science (DES) (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. The Warnock Report. London: HMSO.
    Dessent, T. (1987) Making the Ordinary School Special. Lewes: Falmer Press.
    Dyson, A. (1999) ‘Inclusion and inclusions: theories and discourses in inclusive education’, in H.Daniels and P.Garner (eds), Inclusive Education: Supporting Inclusion in Education Systems. London: Kogan Page.
    Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (2009) Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities. Brussels: EACEA and Eurydice.
    European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE) (2003) Special Needs Education in Europe: Thematic Publication. Brussels: EADSNE.
    European Commission (EC) (2000) Key Data on Education in Europe 1999–2000. Luxembourg: European Commission.
    European Commission (EC) (2002) Key Data on Education in Europe 2002. Luxembourg: European Commission.
    European Commission (EC) (2005) Key Data on Education in Europe 2005. Luxembourg: European Commission.
    European Parliament (2009) Fact Sheets on the European Union. Strasburg: European Parliament. Available from: (accessed 6 April 2009).
    Eurydice (2004) Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
    Eurydice (2006) Specific Educational Measures to Promote all Forms of Giftedness at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
    Florian, L., Hollenweger, J., Simeonsoon, R., Wedell, K., Riddell, S., Terzi, L. and Holland, A. (2006) ‘Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities; Part 1. Issues in the classification of children with disabilities’, Journal of Special Education, 40(1): 36–45.
    Foucault, M. (1967) Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Tavistock.
    Fulcher, G. (1989) Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Educational Policy and Disability. London: Falmer Press.
    Gamble, A. (1988) The Free Economy and the Strong State. London: Macmillan.
    Giangreco, M. (1997) ‘Key lessons learned about inclusive education: summary of the 1996 Schonnell Memorial Lecture’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44(3): 193–206.
    Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Graham, L. and Slee, R. (2008) ‘An illusory interiority: interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2): 277–93.
    Harvey-Koelpin, S. (2006) ‘The impact of reform on students with disabilities’, in E.Brantlinger (ed.), Who Benefits from Special Education? Remediating (Fixing) Other People's Children, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates.
    Heung, V. and Grossman, D. (2007) ‘Inclusive education as a strategy for achieving education for all: perspectives from three Asian societies’, in D.P.Baker and A.W.Wiseman (eds), Education for All: Global Promises, National Challenges. International Perspectives on Education and Society, vol. 8.
    HMSO (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. London: HMSO.
    Hoogvelt, A. (1997) Globalisation and the Postcolonial World: A New Political Economy of Development. London: Macmillan.
    Itkonen, T. and Jahnukainen, M. (2007) ‘An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1): 5–23.
    Jones, P. (1992) World Bank Financing of Education: Lending, Learning and Development. London: Routledge.
    Jones, P.W. and Coleman, D. (2005) The United Nations and Education: Multilateralism, Development and Globalization. New York: Routledge Falmer.
    Kapur, D., Lewis, J. and Webb, R. (eds) (1997) The World Bank: Its First Half Century. History. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
    Law 3699/2008 [Greek] (2008) Special Education Law for Ensuring Equal Opportunities for People with a Disability and Special Educational Needs. Athens: Government Gazette.
    Lawson, J. and Silver, H. (1973) A Social History of Education in England. London: Methuen.
    Leo, E. and Barton, L. (2006) ‘Inclusion, diversity and leadership: perspectives, possibilities and contradictions’, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 34(2): 167–80.
    Lipsky, D.K. and Gartner, A. (1997) Inclusion and School Reform: Transforming America's Classrooms, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
    Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. London: Macmillan Press.
    Mabbett, D. (2005) ‘The development of rights-based social policy in the European Union: the example of disability rights’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(1): 97–120.
    Marcuse, H. (1968) Negations; Essays in Critical Theory, London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press [with translations from the German by J.Shapiro].
    Marge, M. (1984) Report on the Survey of the Incidence of Handicapping Conditions in Children between the Ages of 3 and 16 in Trinidad & Tobago. Commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, sponsored by the Organisation of American States.
    Mayo, P. (1999) Gramsci, Freire and Adult Education: Possibilities for Transformative Action. New York: Zed Books.
    McCulloch, G. (1994) Educational Reconstruction: The 1944 Education Act and the Twenty-First Century, Ilford, Essex: Woburn Press.
    McMichael, P. (1995) ‘The new colonialism: global regulation and the restructuring of the interstate system’, Contributions in Economics and Economic History, 1(164): 37–55.
    Ministry of Education, Government of Trinidad and Tobago (1985) Education Plan 1985–1990. Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
    Minow, M. (1985) ‘Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: bilingual and special education’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(2): 157–211.
    Mundy, K. (2007) ‘Education for All: paradoxes and prospects of a global promise’, in D.P.Baker and A.W.Wiseman (eds), Education for All: Global Promises, National Challenges, International Perspectives on Education and Society, vol. 8.
    National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
    Norwich, B. (2008) Dilemmas of Difference, Inclusion and Disability. London: Routledge.
    Nussbaum, M. (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
    OECD (2003) Education Policy Analysis. Paris: CERI-OECD.
    Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2000) Evaluating Educational Inclusion: Guidance for Inspectors and Schools, e-document available from
    Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan Press.
    Priestley, M. (2007) ‘In search of European disability policy: between national and global’, European Journal of Disability Research, 1(1): 61–74.
    Pritchard, D.G. (1963) Education and the Handicapped 1760–1960. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Rawls, J. (1999) A Theory of Justice.
    Revised edition
    . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Rose, N. (1999) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self.
    2nd edition
    . London: Free Association Books.
    Rutter, M., Maughn, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. and Smith, A. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Pupils. London: Open Books.
    Sardoč, M. and Shaughnessy, M.F. (2001) ‘An interview with Iris Marion Young’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(1): 95–101.
    Sen, A. (2003) The Importance of Basic Education in, 28 October. Available from: (accessed 18 March 2009).
    Shakespeare, T. (2006) Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.
    Silvers, A. and Francis, L. (2005) ‘Justice through trust: disability and the “Outlier Problem” in social contract theory’, Ethics, 116: 40–76.
    Sindelar, P.T., Shearer, D.K., Yendol-Hoppey, D. and LiebertT.W. (2006) ‘The Sustainability of inclusive school reform’, Exceptional Children, 72(3): 317–31.
    Slee, R. (1996) ‘Clauses of conditionality: the “reasonable” accommodation of language’, in L.Barton (ed.), Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. London: Longman.
    Slee, R. (2006) ‘Limits to and possibilities for educational reform’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2–3): 109–19.
    Smith, A. (1998) ‘Crossing borders: learning from inclusion and restructuring research in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the United States’, International Journal of Educational Research, 29:161–6.
    Smith, T. and Motivans, A. (2007) ‘Teacher quality and education for all in sub-Saharan Africa’, in D.P.Baker and A.W.Wiseman (eds), Education for All: Global Promises, National Challenges. International Perspectives on Education and Society, vol. 8.
    Spandagou, I. (2002) ‘Comparative and ethnographic research on inclusion: the case of English and Greek secondary education’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
    Tawney, R.H. (1952) Equality.
    4th edition
    . London: George Allen and Unwin.
    Terzi, L. (2005) ‘Beyond the dilemma of difference. The capability approach to disability and special educational needs’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(3): 443–59.
    The United Nations and Human Rights (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) Department of Public Information. New York: United Nations.
    Thomas, G. and Loxley, A. (2001) Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive School, London: Routledge.
    Tomlinson, S. (1981) Educational Subnormality: A Study in Decision-making. London: Routledge, Kegan and Paul.
    Tomlinson, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge.
    UNESCO (1990) ‘Background document: World Conference on Education for All – meeting basic learning needs’. Available from (accessed 30 October 2008).
    UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Available from (accessed 30 October 2008).
    UNESCO (1996) Education for all: Achieving the Goal-Final Report, Mid-Decade Meeting of the International Consultative Forum on Education for All. Amman: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (1996a) Mid-Decade Review of Progress towards Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (1996b) Education for all: Achieving the Goal – Final Report, Mid-decade Meeting of the International Consultative Forum on Education for All. Amman: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (2000) Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments: Notes on the Dakar Framework for Action. Paris: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (2000) The Americas-Education for All in the Americas: Regional Framework of Action. Available online at:
    UNESCO (2001) Education for All – Background Documents: Information Kit on Education for All. Available from (accessed 15 February 2002).
    UNESCO (2002a) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (2002b) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002. Education for All: Is the World on Track?Paris: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.
    UNESCO (2006) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007. Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. Paris: UNESCO. Available from (accessed on 20 April 2009).
    UNESCO (2007) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008. Education for All by 2015: Will We Make It?Paris: UNESCO. Available from (accessed on 16 March 2009).
    UNESCO, Paris (France) and Ministry of Education and Science, Madrid (Spain) (1994) World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality (Salamanca, Spain, June 7–10, 1994) Final Report.
    UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) with Gretchen Luchsinger (2008) International Development Cooperation Today: Emerging Trends and Debates. New York and Geneva: The United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS).
    United Nations (1993) UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations.
    United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. New York: United Nations.
    United Nations (2008) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2008. New York: United Nations.
    Velaskar, P. (1998) ‘Ideology, education and the political struggle for liberation: change and challenge among the Dalits of Maharashtra’, in S.Shukla and R.Kaul (eds), Education, Development and Underdevelopment. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
    Vislie, L. (2003) ‘From integration to inclusion; focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1): 17–35.
    Vislie, L. (2006) ‘Special education under the modernity. From restricted liberty, through organized modernity, to extended liberty and a plurality of practices’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(4): 395–414.
    Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: A New Look (Impact No 11). London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
    Wedell, K. (2005) ‘Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion’, British Journal of Special Education, 32(1): 3–11.
    Williams, S. (2001) The State of Early Childhood Provision in Dominica. Available from (accessed 20 March 2001).
    Zoniou-Sideri, A. (1996) Disabled People and Their Education; A Psycho-Pedagogic Approach to Inclusion.
    2nd edition
    . Athens: Greek Letters [in Greek].
    Zoniou-Sideri, A., Deropoulou-Derou, E., Karagianni, P. and Spandagou, I. (2006) ‘Inclusive discourse in Greece: strong voices, weak policies’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2–3): 279–91.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website