One size fits all?
Approaches to inclusive education

The concepts of social inclusion and exclusion are used in many debates around injustice and inequality. These concepts have found their way into mainstream discussions of education policy through the influence and experience of disabled people’s movements and ‘special needs schools’. For example, in July 2001 the South African Ministry of Education issued a White Paper on inclusive education arguing for mainstreaming. Yet there are a number of concerns about efforts to increase social inclusion.

Social inclusion and exclusion are thought of in various ways, reflecting the different experiences and local contexts out of which a demand for more inclusion stems and resulting in a different set of policy approaches and priorities.

Common ways of thinking about inclusion and exclusion are:

Inclusion as a right: since the 1950s there has been increasing dissatisfaction, amongst educators in many countries, with the practice of ‘special education’ which separates so-called ‘disabled’ or ‘different’ children from the rest of society and educates them in different schools. Special education is seen as simply reinforcing problematic inequalities and exclusion.

Inclusion as effective: this argues that inclusive schools are more cost-efficient, socially beneficial and educationally effective than segregated special schools. Proponents criticise ‘special education’ programmes such as remedial teaching of reading as unsuccessful.

Inclusion as political: marginalised groups, such as scheduled tribes or castes in India or indigenous peoples, view the inclusion of their special interests and needs within mainstream education as a political priority. Inclusion is a means to redress power imbalances and to secure a greater share of resources, representation and involvement in society.

The approaches are all concerned with establishing or increasing equality and equity within society. However, the concerns behind efforts to increase social inclusion are not unproblematic and policy-makers need to reflect deeply on them before implementing social inclusion policy:

• Firstly, any attempt at inclusion will necessarily involve some form of exclusion, thus it is important that the potential exclusionary influences and outcomes are thought about in advance. For example, caste-based power institutions and traditions may be affected by new inclusion policies, resulting in a degree of social destabilisation or political unrest.
• Secondly, efforts to address social exclusion should take into account that some groups or individuals may consciously choose to exclude themselves from certain processes and may opt to occupy alternative spaces and modes of participation.
• Thirdly, social policy thinking about inclusion and exclusion often operates with an over-simplified and idealised understanding of what ‘normal’ society is, in relation to which ‘other’ non-normal groups, communities and individuals are identified, positioned and the level of their inclusion or exclusion assessed. By viewing society as made up of collections of groups and communities, this way of thinking also tends to ignore the differences of individuals within each of those normal/non-normal groups.
• Finally, one of the main critiques of social exclusion is its ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach which assumes that social inequality can be overcome by providing the same opportunities equally for all citizens. While this would go a long way towards correcting historic imbalances and injustices, it is short-sighted. One size does not fit all simply because citizens are not all the same, neither are they located in identical and stable social, economic and political positions.

The fact that there is a dominant articulating principle of exclusion does not or should not undermine the prevalence of other levels of injustice. To do so would risk the introduction of further modes of exclusion through, for example, homogenisation of differences, or the dangerous ignorance of vested interests. An example of this can be seen in critiques of some forms of multicultural education in the ways in which they emphasise aspects of difference but in the last resort assert the legitimacy of a dominant cultural order. In these approaches, social exclusion initiatives operate around somewhat crude categorisations of various social groups in relation to power and access to goods and services.

When thinking about social inclusion in education and developing policy to aid it, it is necessary to consider the highly complex ways in which race, class, gender and other categories intersect and inter-relate to produce unique individual and group experiences.

Yusuf Sayed
Senior Education Advisor
DFID
1 Palace Street
London, SW1E 5HE
UK

T: +44 (0)207 023 0190
F: +44 (0)207 023 0287

y-sayed@dfid.gov.uk

See also: ‘Education inclusion and exclusion: Indian and South African perspectives’, IDS Bulletin, Vol 34, No.1, January 2003, edited by Ramya Subrahmanian, Yusuf Sayed, Sarada Balagopalan and Crain Soudien

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.