Comp 1 - What Is Inclusion Patti Edits

Running head: WHAT IS INCLUSION?
What is Inclusion? Exploring the philosophy, process and practice
Melissa Garrett
University of New Brunswick

WHAT IS INCLUSION? 2
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO INCLUSION ...................................................................................... 4
1.1 The Development of the Idea of Inclusion (History) ............................................................. 4
1.2 Common definitions ................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Perspectives ............................................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Rights-based Philosophy ........................................................................................................ 13
1.5 The Heart of Inclusion (Student-centered) .......................................................................... 15
2.0 INCLUSIONARY THEMES AND ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................... 17
2.1 Theory...................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Wellbeing................................................................................................................................. 21
2.3 Social Emotional Learning .................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Strength-based (Personalized Learning) .............................................................................. 25
2.5 Autonomy Support /Self-determination ............................................................................... 27
3.0 FRAMEWORKS/MODELS .................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Index for inclusion .................................................................................................................. 29
3.2 Universal Design for Learning .............................................................................................. 31
3.3 Three Block Model ................................................................................................................. 35
3.4 Positive Behavior Intervention & Support ........................................................................... 37
3.5 Heart-Based Model................................................................................................................. 39
3.6 Comprehensive School Health............................................................................................... 40
3.7 Canada and International Contexts...................................................................................... 42
4.0 INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES ........................................................................................ 43
4.1 Features of an Inclusive Classroom ...................................................................................... 43

4.2 Evidence-based Practices ....................................................................................................... 46
4.3 Training and Preparedness ................................................................................................... 51
5.0 CHALLENGES AND REFLECTIONS ............................................................................... 54
5.1 Teacher Perception................................................................................................................. 54
5.2 Successful Inclusion ................................................................................................................ 56
6.0 RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 59
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO INCLUSION
1.1 The Development of the Idea of Inclusion (History)
Inclusion within the global education system has sparked great discussion
and debate in recent years: yet, the idea of inclusion is not a novel one.
Researchers and philosophers alike have been examining the various elements
involved in creating and sustaining an inclusive education system for decades.
Research began in the 1940s and has continued throughout the decades that
followed with well-known academics such as social constructivist theorists Lev
Vygotsky (1978) and Etienne Wenger (1998), as well as Jean Piaget (1936) and
Albert Bandura (1996) within their respective theories of cognitive development
and social learning. It wasn’t until UNESCO held an international conference
where the Salamanca Declaration was signed by over 90 countries in 1994
(UNESCO, 1994) that the world took notice, and education systems around the
world began the vast undertaking of applying their individual versions and
interpretations of inclusion within the classroom and school environment.
Within Canada, particularly in the province of New Brunswick, the Porter
Report published in 2012 prompted a shift in the way the New Brunswick
Department of Education, school districts, administrators and educators viewed
and strove to implement inclusive practices within their schools and classrooms.
The review of the current state of inclusion within the province at the time and the
numerous recommendations that were strongly encouraged to be implemented
within a short period of time drew the attention of all stakeholders within the
education system. The report received much attention from the media and plans
were put into place to implement the Action Plan for Inclusion in New Brunswick
(Department of Education and Early Childhood Education, 2013).
1.2 Common definitions
The difficulty with the application of an authentically inclusive education
system is that there are varying definitions used throughout the literature to justify
current practices and validate beliefs on the subject of inclusion in different
countries around the world. Throughout the review of recent literature, variations
in terms of defining “inclusion” could easily explain the inconsistencies being
examined and practiced globally, encompassing individual classrooms within the
same schools. Paju et al. (2017) explained these inconsistencies in defining
inclusive education to be a result of the fact that these definitions, and by
extension, practices are developed from governmental policy and cultural-driven
interpretations. In exploring the various existing definitions offered throughout
current literature, it is important to note what education and inclusion are not.
Walker and Musti-Rao (2016) stated that inclusive education is not advocating for
resources, infrastructure, technology or equipment. It is also not a matter of
simply adjusting the curriculum to make learning easier or providing updated
professional development to current and pre-service teachers. These are quite
often used as excuses to explain why inclusive education is not possible, practical
or presently being done effectively. Educators, administrators and the general
public need to move away from these preconceptions to develop a globally
unified definition of inclusion as well as a framework from which to work within

allowing stakeholders to make inclusive education not only possible, but the new
mainstream approach to education around the world.
The main themes that come from attempts to define inclusion primarily
reflect a deficit-based assumption that it is the students with physical, cognitive
and learning disabilities who need to be included within the mainstream
classroom. This limited view of inclusion eludes to it as merely a shared physical
space among students with various needs (Kershner, 2016). In this way, students
are moved out of their specialized schools and into locally zoned mainstream
schools, placed in classrooms with peers of the same age (Schwab et al., 2015)
with little consideration to the individual needs of the learner or appropriate
teaching approaches that would yield the best results. With this model students
are physically included but often still segregated from their peers through various
pull-out and specialized classes. Goransson & Nilholm (2014) also stated that
while placement is a crucial element of inclusion, it is only one of many methods
towards inclusive education rather than the successful holistic practice of
inclusion itself. Perspectives in other parts of the world continue along this same
mindset. Pearson and Tan (2015) studied the views of educators in Brunei,
finding that inclusive education is about schools ensuring that all students,
regardless of social, physical and economical differences receive learning
experiences that include a non-differentiated sense of belonging, nurturing and
education. While the content of this particular definition is a step in the right
direction, differentiation in instruction is often necessary for many students in
order for them to succeed.

There are other definitions in which the numerous benefits of inclusion are
recognized when used to teach all students within the classroom in the way in
which they learn best (Kershner, 2016). Goransson & Nilhom (2014), stated it
more simply by defining inclusion as meeting the needs of all students. Research
shows the various qualities - empathy, acceptance and tolerance – that many
students acquire through the successful practice and implementation of a truly
inclusive classroom environment. In line with value-based ideology. Williamson et
al. (2016) defined inclusion as a concept and value involving the belonging of all
students. Their research involved exploring the new inclusion policies being
initiated by the province of Alberta in Canada in recent years. Their mandate was
to embrace learner differences, create equal opportunities for all learners and to
ensure that educators took collective responsibility for all learners. In much the
same way, Veck (2014) defined inclusion to be when “specialized instructional
practices and settings are eliminated in education” (p.452). Biamba (2016) too
noted that there was little consensus in terms of a common definition which
ultimately affects effective and consistent inclusive practices. While his research
determined that inclusion should “occur within the framework of the ordinary
class, social feelings of solidarity and time together are prioritized and differences
between children are accepted and respected” (p.120). This indicates that all
students, not only those with a learning deficit or disability, are to be included and
considered during instruction. He also concluded that administrators and
educators were often apt to rely on the policies requiring inclusion “to the
maximum extent appropriate” (Biamba, 2016) as a way to validate moments

when students were not being included in activities or lessons with their like-aged
peers. Similarly research conducted by Hakala and Leivo (2017) found that the
definitions being embraced within Finnish schools that have been identified as
slower to progress towards a more inclusive model were ones where “inclusive,
participatory teaching is an educational experience for the whole generation: no
one is excluded due to a disability or any other quality” (p.288). Paju et al. (2017)
offered a vague definition of inclusion in terms of its broadness in Finland as a
response to 167 questionnaires completed by educators. They asserted that the
“basic aim of inclusive education is to guarantee the right of every child to attend
school and to ensure that the individual characteristics of the child do not limit
school attendance” (p.11).
More progressively are the definitions by various researchers such as
Kershner (2016) and Movkebayeva et al. (2016) who have seen the impact that
an involved and inclusive community presence can have on students (Kershner,
2016). Throughout the various research reviewed for this paper there was
mention of community in the sense of a school sharing a common vision and
working collaboratively to achieve it. Also, members of the surrounding
community coming into the school and acting as mentors, building meaningful
and relevant relationships with the students was an important element.
Movkebayeva et al. (2016) stressed the need to establish an educational
environment within the education system and its individual schools where children
could be allowed to realize their full potential and feel connected to the
community and larger world around them.

Unfortunately, in defining inclusion there seem to be two branches of
thought. There are the philosophical, idealist definitions of what inclusion could
and should be and then there are the more limited views of inclusion which focus
on what inclusion generally looks like in practice. Though there are many
inconsistencies in terms of defining inclusion, it is clear through the various
definitions that the key values are present and shared among educators
worldwide. Sanagi (2016) stated most adeptly that inclusion is “a process that
allows expansion of the scope of inclusion so as to include diversity in individual
education needs” (p.103). The idea of inclusion being a process rather than a
program is a promising notion that can allow continued growth within the
education system globally.
1.3 Perspectives
Lost among the confusion of the varying definitions of inclusion, there are
also varying perspectives on the subject of inclusion as well. These perspectives
have been found to be shared among educators, administrators, parents,
students and society as a whole. There are those who see inclusion as a
philosophy. The root ideas of bringing inclusion into the education system,
including and maximizing the quality of education for all students, stem from the
various philosophies surrounding development and learning such as those found
in the works of theorists such as Lev Vygotsky (1978) and Jean Piaget (1936).
There are, however, other elements necessary to provide a truly inclusive system.
It is here that Biamba (2016) brings the perspective of inclusion as a practice.

There are many efficient practices that can lend themselves to an inclusive
classroom, or better still, a school community. Kozleski et al. (2015) echoed the
opinion that inclusion is a never-ending journey. They viewed inclusion as a
principle of practice and that effective practices were to be at the heart of
inclusion itself (Kozleski et al., 2015). These practices will be discussed later in
this paper.
Another common perspective is that inclusion is a process rather than a
practice. Inclusion is not one-size fits all (Lilley, 2015). For this reason, there is
not an algorithm in which inclusion can be implemented for every student. Each
school, and each student within these schools, has a variety of different needs to
be met. For this reason, it is important to view inclusion as a continual process
that is never ending (Sanagi, 2016). Schools must take steps to implement
inclusive processes and continually review and change these processes as the
needs of their students’ change as well.
Yet another perspective exists in which inclusion must be an evolution and
not a revolution (Pavlovié, 2016). As ideas and mandates have been presented
globally since the signing of the Salamanca Declaration in 1994 (UNESCO,
1994). Notions of inclusive education are not completely novel. Schools at various
stages of the implementation process of inclusive education practices do not
need to change in entirety overnight. As mentioned above, inclusion is a process
that must evolve with its ever changing clientele, the students entering the
schools. This evolution must also occur within the belief systems and educational
philosophies of the educators.

There is also a cultural perspective that needs to be considered when
discussing inclusion. There is a persisting opinion that seems to have been
transferred from earlier generations that inclusion exists for students who are not
“normal” (Paju et al., 2018). This persisting opinion has proved to be difficult to
dispel and overcome. Thomazet (2009) wrote that our “modern society tends to
medicalize its problems: it is no longer the education system which is ill, but the
children” (p.559). According to Statistics Canada (2012), the proportion of
elementary aged students with learning disabilities was 20% higher than students
without learning disabilities. The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario
(http://www.ldao.ca/) cited that in the 2015-2016 school year, it was reported that
this percentage increased to 40% in the province of Ontario alone. Often children
with a diagnosed learning disability, while receiving educational supports, are also
being medicated. This is particularly true of those with comorbid diagnoses of a
Learning Disability alongside Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. With the help
of these medications and their subsequent effect on student learning and
behavior. I believe this is what Thomazet (2009) was referring to when he
suggested that we are medicating our children to succeed in inclusion.
Another cultural aspect to be considered is that there are various cultures
around the world who place extremely high value on academic performance and
achievement. Research completed by Walker & Musti-Rao (2016) found that
cultures such as Singapore were not as receptive to the practice of inclusion. This
was less to do with teacher opinion but rather a cultural perspective of the
parents. Walker & Musti-Rao (2016) asserted that while Singapore is one the
world’s best performing educational systems, achieving high academic scores in
mathematics, science and language in comparison to its global counterparts,
these statistics are slightly skewed due to the fact that Singapore continues to
practice a dual education system. Within this dual system students with special
needs are taught in a separate learning environment from those without learning
disabilities (Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016). Review of current inclusive practices in
the country of Jordan found that parents with students needing various inclusive
supports would often opt to send their child to a school far away from their
community or keep them home, not receiving an education at all, for fear of being
socially ostracized due to their cultural climate and social perceptions (Amr et al.,
2016). There is evidently still a cultural stigma surrounding the idea of exceptional
learners as well as the practice of true inclusion. This is something that is being
seen globally. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) began taking steps towards
inclusive education in 2010 to bring cultural awareness, teacher training on
effective differentiation and practical strategies to be used in an inclusive
classroom (Alborno, 2017).
One perspective that has been a focus in the media of late is the belief that
the inclusion model does not apply to second language learners. As a French
Immersion teacher I have been witness to the reality that there is limited resource
support available for individual student programming and intervention in second
language programs. However, studies consistently show that inclusion has a
place in all education programs including that of second language learning.
Scholars such as Cobb (2015) argue that Immersion programs being

implemented in Canada in provinces such as Alberta, Ontario and New
Brunswick have developed loopholes within their individual education systems in
terms of their inclusionary mandates. An argument, or perhaps misconception,
about the Immersion program is that certain students, particularly those with
cognitive or other types of learning difficulties, cannot be part of an Immersion
program. This belief is brought about due to the reality of the lack of support as
well as the belief that students would have struggled succeeding in this second
language, and that they would be missing out on essential learning in their first
language, where they might have more success. Wise (2011) has spent her
career as a consultant and scholar fighting for equity and supports within French
Immersion programs in Canada, arguing that there are interventions available
within the classroom, if not from the resource team itself. In their book Access for
Success, Arnett & Bourgoin (2018) provide various practical suggestions for
interventions that can be easily applied in class by the classroom teacher to
ensure the success of struggling learners in a second language program.
1.4 Rights-based Philosophy
The fact remains that regardless of individual educator, administrator,
parent or student perspectives, all individuals have the right to an education and
to be included in all areas where they can be. Global documents supported by
UNESCO such as the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO, 1994), have made
inclusion, in whatever way school boards and governments around the world
decide to interpret and define it, to be mandatory. Regardless of the definition, the
purpose of the document was to allow access to all students to inclusive
education with peers of their age (Biamba, 2016). An element of the rights-based
philosophy approach to inclusive education is that ultimately someone needs to
take responsibility to ensure that inclusion is being implemented properly within
the schools. Hakala et al. (2017) stated that this responsibility should fall under
one of the roles government already has in terms of education.
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms acknowledges the right for
all children to attend their own zoned mainstream schools with other students of
their own age. It is Canada’s independent provincial and territorial governments
who are responsible for the overseeing of education policies and practices. The
Department of Education for the province of New Brunswick has a document
dedicated solely to the policy surrounding inclusive education within its system.
The document defines the various terms and roles of stakeholders related to
inclusion within the province. The policy states the requirements and standards
for common learning environments, necessary supports and personalized
learning plans for struggling students. Unfortunately the policy also focuses on
the deficits of individual students rather than focusing on strength-based
approaches and personalized learning plans for all students. In more recent years
Porter (2012) was tasked to research, write and publish a document assessing
New Brunswick’s current inclusive practices and provide recommendations
suggesting how New Brunswick should strive to implement and sustain superior
inclusionary practices within the education system.

In this document there are recommendations for various changes to be put
in place within a very specific time frame. There were recommendations made to
include and improve the various elements, both physical and educational, of the
learning environment as well as the multiple roles and responsibilities of the
numerous stakeholders involved within the inclusionary process. While this report
is still referenced frequently when planning and discussing the current state of
inclusion and ways to continue moving forward, there are many remaining
obstacles making several of the recommendations still unattained to date.
Increased behavior challenges within the public school systems requires
members of the Educational Support Services Team (ESST) to be on call at a
moment’s notice to intervene or remove a student from their classroom in a
moment of escalation or crisis. Increased administrative duties being added to the
roles and responsibilities of resource teachers takes away from their time that
could be better used coaching, collaborating and team-teaching with their
colleagues, a valuable practice that would have a more significant impact on
student learning.
1.5 The Heart of Inclusion (Student-centered)
Most importantly education is about the students. There is a lot of current
literature that is beginning to come to the forefront of academic research detailing
how strength-based approaches and personalized learning plans are the most
effective ways to meet the needs of all students. Through the lens of love,
Mooney & Lashewicz (2015) looked at the concept of praxis which was first
mentioned by Paulo Freire in the late 1960s. Praxis is the act of equally engaging
in continuous action and reflection of practices in order to effect change and
achieve goals (Freire, 1970). Mooney & Lashewicz (2015) agreed with this
cyclical practice of action and reflection but saw it as rooted in the courage to
love. Freire stated that “it is impossible to teach without the courage to love,
without the courage to try a thousand times before giving in” (Freire, 2005, p.5).
The question of love is not one that would be unknown to the dedicated educator.
The formal academic recording of it, however, shows an element of humanity and
understanding on the topic of inclusion. Love in itself is also a pedagogy that
consists of committing to others. Love is a means, and also an end, to this type of
educational pedagogy (Mooney & Lashewicz, 2015). Howard (2018) echoed this
statement in her book Good to Great where she asserted that you cannot give up
on a student if you haven’t tried to teach them one hundred different ways. While
there are various departmentally mandated programs and curriculums to be
covered, it is important to recognize that all students have different learning styles
as well as different levels of preexisting knowledge bases, and thus require
different methods of teaching to learn and master new skills and concepts. When
an educator focuses on the individual student and not the class as a whole, it is
there that we can begin to see a glimpse of truly inclusive practices. In Beckett’s
review of John Dewey’s work from 1912, Dewey’s conception of education: found
common ground with R.S. Peters and Paulo Freire (2018), questioning that if
student growth was not the goal of education, what was? What value could be
found in the variety of activities and teaching approaches if not for student
progress? (Beckett, 2018). We are teaching children, not simply a curriculum.
2.0 INCLUSIONARY THEMES AND ASSUMPTIONS
2.1 Theory
Social Constructivist theorists have played a large role in the development
of various inclusionary models. There are several in particular recognized by
current scholars in the field for their contributions to what we now know as
inclusion within the educational system. Vygotsky is mentioned frequently in
literature and referenced by modern researchers for his theories that contributed
to many of the elements that are considered to be within an inclusive education
system. Vygotsky is widely recognized in particular for his theory surrounding the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). In this theory, he stated that all learners
exist within a specific zone where they, as individuals, are currently located in
terms of development and ability to acquire skills and knowledge. It is here, within
each student’s individual ZPD, which teachers should strive to meet their
students, and build knowledge and understanding moving forward from that point.
Unfortunately, this is not always the practice within the public school system. The
result of these practices is the development of knowledge gaps, grade retention
and other social-emotional implications. In this way, Vygotsky focused on the
importance of interaction between the individual learner and their environment.
The development of an individual’s learning abilities, and more specifically to
Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD, is dependent on their conditions at home and access

to meaningful learning environments and experiences (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathanban, 2016).
Vygotsky is also recognized for his belief that individuals are co-
constructors of their own knowledge based on their experiences and interactions
within their environment (Tanyi, 2016). The practice of any newly introduced
concept, argued Vygotsky, helps learners to internalize skills and strengthen
understanding as a cognitive process (Sunardi et al., 2016).
Wenger is another theorist who added to the social constructivist
conversation. Wenger believed that an individual’s learning was not limited to
their education but enhanced through daily life experiences. Wenger laid out a
process of learning and self-identification in four elements: identity, meaning,
practice and community.
Part of this process in developing identity is in participating in a community
of practice. The members of this community, as is referred to in various ways
throughout other literature, are often considered to be the multiple stakeholders

who are part of the education system. Wenger identified that for learning to occur,
an individual must practice within a community to develop an identity and, from
this, find meaning (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathanban, 2016). In this way, learning
is internalized and personalized.
Piaget took a cognitive learning theory approach when adding to the
discussion of inclusion. His work was cited in research completed by Sunardi et
al. (2016) focusing specifically on cluster-based instruction of mathematics and its
implications for inclusion. Piaget identified aspects of learning, including thinking
processes such as response to stimuli, memory, problem solving and creativity
(Sunardi et al., 2016). These are all elements that are crucial in the learning of
mathematics but are arguably equally as important and transferable in any
subject matter. As discussed earlier in this review of literature, inclusion is not
one-size fits all (Lilley, 2015) and, as such, these cognitive processing abilities
differ and come at various times for each student. Piaget, like Vygotsky, agreed
that individual learning could be enhanced through practice (Sunardi et al., 2016)
allowing for learning to be internalized with a strengthened understanding of a
concept in various contexts.
Bandura’s social learning theory also contributed significantly to the
discussion of inclusion. His social learning theory viewed the process of learning
as occurring through the observation, modelling and imitation of others. In viewing
this theory it could be said that struggling students, when supported in class
through inclusive practices, can learn faster and benefit from working closely with
their peers (Tanyi, 2016), observing and imitating their activities and discussions.
Tanyi (2016) noted as well that this is not simply limited to inclusion in the
academic sense. Students with behavioral problems can observe and imitate the
expected and appropriate behavior of their classmates as well and mimic it.
Lewin’s change theory encompassed in many ways the varying
perspectives of inclusion that either help or hinder its implementation. Lewin
theorized that all change was the result of a balance between opposing forces.
Driving forces in the case of inclusion those with a growth mindset or a strength-
based focus facilitate change. Restraining forces, on the other hand, are
educators who are closed minded to the idea of inclusion and the changes it
brings, hindering change (Tanyi, 2016). This hindrance, Tanyi found, pushes
learners in the opposite direction. It is this push that has resulted in the various
learning gaps, segregation and tier-three interventions that are becoming more
prevalent in today’s education system.
Murray’s theory of motivation continued to further add to the theoretical
framework being developed for inclusion, focusing on two types of human needs.
Viscerogenic needs focus on the elements needed to survive; such as food, water
and sleep. The second type of need is known as the psychogenic need, which
includes meeting individual human needs such as security, affection, love and the
need to avoid inferiority. Murray theorized that it was these needs that determined
an individual’s behavior as a means of self-actualization (Tanyi, 2016). Inclusion
allows for students with varying needs or disadvantages, as viewed by the current
education system, to be accepted as equals and feel a sense of love, belonging
and acceptance from their teachers and peers.

2.2 Wellbeing
Becoming more prevalent with students attending the public school system
is the concern for student wellbeing. Wellbeing focuses on student development
holistically rather than solely from an academic perspective. Morrison & Peterson
(2013) have focused on this aspect of education for several years and continue to
make an impact across the country, as well as with educators and scholars
worldwide. Their published works are most relevant in terms of student wellbeing
within the school system and will be referenced frequently throughout this section.
The key to the comprehensive wellbeing of all students within the education
system is built upon four pillars that must work cohesively together to be truly
effective. It should be somewhat evident that the physical and social environment
of the school culture must be one that is accessible for and accepting of all
students. It is the students who feel accepted who are in a truly inclusive
environment and system. The second pillar focuses on the teaching and learning
that occur simultaneously within the classroom. Teaching must focus on activities
and content that are developmentally appropriate in terms of the abilities and the
skills of each student in the classroom (Morrison & Peterson, 2013). While this
too may seem obvious, it is not always something that is consistently practiced in
all classrooms. It is for this reason that the concept of strength-based approaches
and the use of Personalized Learning Plans, which will be discussed later in this
paper, are so important in today’s classrooms and schools.
Likewise, Morrison and Peterson contributed to the reconceptualization of
the CAR Approach for Mental Wellness in the workplace, published by the
Province of New Brunswick (2013). This particular theory identifies the three
basic needs of individuals to ensure, improve and maintain their personal
wellbeing. These three elements are Competency, Autonomy/Support and
Relatedness (Morrison & Peterson, 2013). Competency refers to an individual’s
need to feel valued and acknowledged based on the use of their individual
strengths. An individual with a sense of competency also has a sense of self-
achievement and accomplishment. Autonomy/Support refers to an individual’s
need to have freedom of choice and decision-making ability. Finally, Relatedness
is an individual’s sense of connection with family, friends, peers and the greater
community. When an individual has a sense of relatedness they feel supported
and encouraged (Morrison & Peterson, 2013).
The third pillar identified by Morrison & Peterson (2013) is that of
Partnerships and Services. It is here that continued contact and communication
with family are so important (Lyons, 2016). Access outside of the family to various
mentorship and community programs, both within and beyond the school, allows
individuals to feel as though they are an important part of something meaningful.
These programs allow for students to volunteer within their community, make
decisions and demonstrate their leadership skills, coming back to the strength-
based model of inclusion. In 2017, New Brunswick implemented an Integrated
Service Delivery (ISD) Model that allowed different youth advocacy and mental
health professionals from various departments to communicate across branches,
eliminating wait times for students in need of the various external services
available and ensuring the mental wellbeing of all students within the system.
Having this access, with reduced wait times, to external professionals such as
speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists and social
workers, provides further access and support to learners (Lyons et al., 2016).
2.3 Social Emotional Learning
Many researchers throughout the review of literature believe that inclusion
needs to focus on the individual child holistically. So often, school is considered to
be a place of learning, focusing on the academic development of knowledge and
understanding. What is often overlooked is the social-emotional development and
wellbeing of an individual student. A truly inclusive system takes into account
these needs that students may have as well. Various experiences within a child’s
life such as divorce, abuse or trauma can impact the healthy social-emotional
development of a child. Likewise, students in today’s culture are being diagnosed
at a younger age than ever before with social-emotional disorders. These types of
diagnoses continue to be on the rise. Taking into consideration the various
supports that students with social-emotional disorders require to recover or thrive,
it is more important than ever before for classroom teachers, educational
assistants and other members of the student Education Support Services Team
(ESST) to be educated in recognizing and identifying symptoms of the various
social-emotional disorders that are encountered within the school community.
They should also be trained in the use of specific teaching strategies that would
be most effective in building rapport and educating these students in a meaningful
and authentic way.

Through this proactive approach, noted specifically in the Province of New
Brunswick’s newly implemented 10-year Education Plan: Everyone at their Best
(Province of New Brunswick, 2016), objective seven focuses on developing and
strengthening resiliency among students. Studies completed by the New
Brunswick Health Council (2016) identified that New Brunswick youth are
encountering more mental health issues than youth throughout other parts of
Canada. It is therefore the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Education’s goal and plan to provide students with leadership opportunities and
responsibilities which will allow them to have perseverant tendencies and a
stronger sense of resiliency. Students will be provided with strategies which will
allow them to cope with the various challenges and changes that they are
presented with in life (New Brunswick Health Council, 2016). While the physical
aspect of wellness that would lead to strengthened resilience suggests
appropriate levels of sleep, exercise and nutrition, a similar study completed by
the New Brunswick Health Council (2016) focused on the more social-emotional
properties in determining resiliency in youth. Low socio-economic status has
always been identified as a determinant of resilience and wellbeing in youth.
However it was found that social needs are equally important to be met in
determining resiliency in youth. Friends, family, school and prosocial interactions
are much more significant determinants of resilience among youth (New
Brunswick Health Council, 2016).

2.4 Strength-based (Personalized Learning)
As mentioned above, the types of inclusive education policies and
implementations that are being researched and observed around the world focus
primarily on a deficit-based model. This model focuses on students with varying
degrees of academic, physical, cognitive, behavioral and social-emotional
difficulties. Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban (2016) stated that the purpose of
education was to contribute to cultural and moral growth, mastering social skills
and academic learning. These values, knowledge and skill bases allow
individuals to fully realize and utilize their talents and abilities (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathaban, 2016). More current research is being published further delving
into the area of strength-based approaches. While the deficit-based models that
are currently in use clearly identify struggling students in the name of inclusion,
students instead feel unaccepted and inferior to their like-aged peers. Strength-
based approaches, on the other hand, focus on educators getting to know their
students and learning about their individual strengths and personal interests. The
Salamanca Declaration of 1994 (UNESCO, 1994) specified that its education
policy programs were to be individualized. While it was stated that emphasis
should be communal rather than focused on individuals’ requirements, it was also
urged that societies begin focusing on individuals’ strengths (Hakala & Leivo,
2017). By planning learning around students’ strengths, students feel empowered
and have been found to make more progress both socially and academically. It is
here that Personalized Learning enters into the discussion. Huggins & Smith
(2015) stated that “learning that is dictated rather than selected by the learner
contributes to a leach of personalization” (Huggins & Smith, 2015, p.153).
Currently Personalized Learning Plans exist but, much like the current
inclusionary model, hold a negative connotation coming back to students’ deficits.
Tan (2017) stated that Personalized Learning Plans currently focus on specific
learning goals when in reality they should focus on the child (Tan, 2017).The
notion of Personalized Learning should not pertain solely to struggling students
but should encompass the learning potential of all students. Quite often, students
with disabilities are unaware of their strengths and therefore lack certain
motivations allowing them to progress academically and socially (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathaban, 2016). All students have strengths in certain areas which should
be highlighted for them to achieve their fullest potential. Personalized Learning
Plans should then identify the strengths and interests of each individual learner,
building future learning activities and lessons upon those strengths and interests,
motivating students to do their best work (Nunez & Leon, 2015). Further research
has indicated that “students who are actively involved and engaged in planning
and evaluation their own learning are more likely to improve in their academic
achievement” (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016, p.122).
The strength-based approach is not solely beneficial for the students.
Teachers working as a collaborative team within their inclusive schools, capitalize
on their own talents and skills and complement those of others (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathaban, 2016).
2.5 Autonomy Support /Self-determination
As mentioned above, particularly in the work published by Morrison &
Peterson (2013), there are many factors that contribute to wellness among
learners. While it cannot be said that one factor is more important than the other,
the element of Autonomy-Support is one that can be particularly important in
terms of an individual’s self-determination. The self-determination theory
originates in human motivation theory such as the work noted by Murray (Tanyi,
2016). More recent research noted that a student’s attitudes and behaviors can
be impacted by external social factors such as teacher attitude and general
classroom environment (Nunez & Leon, 2015). Above, autonomy was defined as
the ability to think, feel and make decisions for oneself (Morrison & Peterson,
2013). The intrinsic motivation by which this level of autonomy is achieved is
through self-determination. An interesting study conducted by Tan (2017) viewed
strength-based approaches leading to a shift in student thinking to one of a
growth mindset. While the focus of this study was on mathematics, the same
method could be replicated to be applied to all subject areas.
A recent shift in focus within the New Brunswick education system has
been the renewed focus of play-based learning as a means of encouraging
inquiry and problem-solving skills (Tan, 2017) by allowing students to engage
creatively in natural play with their peers. Jay and Knaus (2018) noted that the
dramatic decrease in play among children has become a phenomenon in many
areas around the world. Children are not permitted the same freedoms as those
of their parents and generations before. Children are constantly monitored,

spending little time beyond the watchful eye of their parents. Many children in
North America are also involved in various extra-curricular sports and activities
that take up much of their free time. Jay and Knaus (2018) attributed this, along
with the global pressure to formalize early childhood education, to limiting
students’ abilities to think for themselves and develop many of the social skills
gained through authentic and self-directed creative play. The result of play-based
learning is less “teacher talk” and more self-directed, authentic and engaged
learning by students. As it will be mentioned later in this literature, one of the
important practices in an inclusive classroom is to provide choice. This can be
easily achieved through play-based learning (Sunardi et al., 2016), supporting
curricular elements of learning as well as the basic developmental aspects
mentioned above (Jay & Knaus, 2018). The result of successful play-based
learning is that students develop or strengthen levels of autonomy and self-
determination.
3.0 FRAMEWORKS/MODELS
The current literature discussing inclusion notes various existing
frameworks and models that are being used globally to implement inclusion within
schools, allowing access to education for all students regardless of their needs.
Discussed below are those that came up most frequently. There are various
commonalities among them with certain elements which set one apart from
another.
3.1 Index for inclusion
The Index for Inclusion was created as a result of the review of several
research projects on the topic of inclusion in education. Its creators, Booth and
Ainscow (2002), created the Index to be used when teaching inclusively within the
education system. As it has been addressed several times since the Salamanca
Declaration of UNESCO in 1994, all students have the right to an education
despite physical, cognitive and behavioral challenges. The Index for Inclusion is
laid out identifying three interconnected dimensions -; policies, cultures and
practices -, that are all critical to the successful implementation of effective
inclusionary practices (Booth & Ainscow, 2002).
Creating inclusive cultures according to the Index created by Booth and
Ainscow (2002) means developing relationships within the community as well as
establishing inclusive values. When these values are internalized and accepted
within a community, they provide a culture that is secure, supportive and
collaborative in which everyone feels valued despite, or perhaps because of, their
diversities. Developing and sustaining inclusive policies includes shifting schools’
belief systems to ones which are accepting and inclusive for all. It also includes
developing and providing the supports necessary for these students to succeed.
These policies need to be developed in such a way that there are clear and
precise strategies outlined in achieving the school’s ultimate goal while also
encouraging the participation and engagement of all students and staff (Booth &
Ainscow, 2002). Ensuring the continued evolution of inclusionary practices is the
third dimension of the Index for Inclusion. This is the more practical dimension in
which learning must be carefully planned, utilizing all available tools and
resources.
Within the Index for Inclusion, one dimension cannot exist without the
other. They must all work together to ensure sustainable inclusionary practice
within the school, facilitating success for all learners. The Index, in essence, is a
framework that allows schools to formulate their school improvement plans
around the idea and the practice of inclusion. Schools can establish a committee
that will oversee the larger idea of inclusion and: current practices and
perceptions that are present within their school, and use the various indicators
and questions to facilitate upcoming collaboration with other educators. From
here, a formalized school development plan for inclusion can be made using the
priorities identified by the various stakeholders in the school (Booth & Ainscow,
2002). The fourth phase of implementing these priorities follows the idea of
academics such as Pavlovié (2016) in that inclusionary priorities when put into
practice are an ongoing process that needs to evolve with each individual student
(Pavlovié, 2016). Likewise, the review of the school’s Index process should also
be ongoing. Like much of what has already been discussed and discovered
throughout this review of literature, educators and school communities must
continuously reflect on their current practices to identify strategies that are not
achieving the desired outcome and improve these practices to ensure that the
needs of all students are being met.
The Index for Inclusion, like inclusion itself, has been reworked with new
subtitles since its origin, the fourth edition being entitled: “Index for Inclusion: a
Guide to School Development led by Inclusive Values” (Booth & Ainscow, 2016).
Even more recently, Booth has paired with Higham to add an element of value in
school leadership within the Index (Higham & Booth, 2018). With today’s
educational focus on inclusion, leadership within schools should not be a solitary
mission. Values within a school’s priorities for inclusive practices should be
established collaboratively and leadership should be a process that involves the
entire school community. In this way, stakeholders of a school community take
ownership of the school improvement process and continuously review their
practices to ensure that they are doing “the best that they can”. This research
completed in the United Kingdom was on a voluntary basis, but the value-based
approach was met with appreciation. Schools’ main priorities were ensuring they
had a welcoming environment for all who entered (Higham & Booth, 2018). This
allowed for further discussion to take place about inclusion and how meaningful
community relationships are established. Higham & Booth (2018) felt that it was
the initial Index of Inclusion’s indoctrination in 2002 (Booth & Ainscow, 2002) that
allowed inclusion to come to a place where value-led leadership and development
is accepted and encouraged.
3.2 Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a model that was developed at
Harvard University by David Rose and his team in 2002. It has been implemented
as one type of inclusionary framework in various countries around the world,
particularly in North America. It is this framework that has been embraced by the
province of New Brunswick in Canada. Its purpose was to address learner

differences by removing certain barriers, both curricular and environmental, to
meet the needs of all students within the common classroom setting (Katz, 2016).
It stands to reason that students, regardless of physical, social and academic
abilities, would require learning to happen in a variety of ways within an
environment that promotes these various needs and learning styles. Teachers,
until recently, were not trained professionally to meet all of these needs. This
resulted in several students being left behind. Students require the element of
choice in their instruction to maximize meaningful learning. The framework is
divided into three key principles of education: engagement, representation and
action and expression. Engagement, addresses the “why” of learning.
Representation, in contrast, addresses the “what” of learning (Lowrey et al.,
2017). Finally the principle of action and expression addresses how learners are
able to learn. Within the examination of UDL, Lowrey et al. (2017) focused not
simply on student engagement and achievement but also on the impact this
framework had on the teachers using it. It was reported that teacher perception of
efficacy and their observable ability to reach learners in need increased
dramatically. As well, the promotion of team-work among staff to ensure student
and professional success was heightened. This team-work and collaboration
necessitated the discussion about inclusionary practices available and being used
as well as other possible strategies (Lowrey et al., 2017).
Each of these identified principles: engagement, representation and action
and expression, are separated into the three incremental elements of learning:
access, building and internalizing (CAST, 2018). Within the principle of

engagement, students receive access to learning by being provided options to
develop their individual interests. This not only increases student autonomy and
engagement through personally relevant and valuable learning topics, but also
reduces the risk of distraction. Students begin to build knowledge and
understanding by increasing their efforts and persistence in completing various
tasks. These strategies can be seen in varying the complexity and demands of
tasks, forming heightened goals and encouraging collaboration. Students are able
to internalize their engagement through self-regulation. This can be achieved
through vocalization of clear expectations and beliefs by the educator. Teachers
can also support students in the learning and development of effective coping
skills and strategies as well as the process of self-assessment (CAST, 2018).
Students are able to develop their representation of what they are learning
following the same method of learning. Students access their learning beginning
with their perception of the content they are learning. It is here that teachers can
use some very tangible strategies to allow students access to learning content.
This can be achieved through the visual and graphic way in which lessons are
displayed. This can also be achieved through the use of auditory sound systems
in the class which allow students to hear instructions and content being more
clearly delivered by the teacher. Students build their representation of learning
through the various elements of language: clarifying vocabulary, sentence
structure, decoding of text and developing universal ways to communicate across
language through the use of gestures. Students internalize their representation of
language through comprehension. In this more complex stage of learning

students are able to, with the support of teacher modeling, display abilities for
creative thinking and identifying patterns, ideas and relationships as well as
through generalizing information (CAST, 2018).
One of the many ways to access action and expression of learning is to
provide several options of physical actions or strategies made available by the
classroom teacher. As previously stated several times throughout this document,
students learn in a variety of ways often requiring different ways to respond to the
content being presented. Within the classroom this could be the use of strategies
such as providing increased wait time, allowing students to process and consider
information before responding. It is also important that students have appropriate
access to tools, resources and assistive technology. Students are able to
construct their learning by being given the option to express their learning through
various forms of media: PowerPoint, drawing, music and drama as well as being
provided a variety of supports to help with construction: spell check, text to
speech predictor, calculators and mapping tools. Finally, students are able to
internalize their ability to express their learning by having the teacher provide
options for executive functioning. Teachers can guide students to set appropriate
goals, support planning and management of information and resources (CAST,
2018).
In her review of literature focusing on the UDL framework, Katz (2016)
noted that there was limited research that had been done on the effectiveness of
the use of UDL strategies on learners without disabilities (Katz, 2016). This would
indicate that, while there is a strong sense of inclusion, a deficit-based model is
still at the forefront of UDL.
3.3 Three Block Model
The Three Block Model (TBM) is an extension of the Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) Framework created by Jennifer Katz in 2012. While it maintains
similar principles, it has the added focus of technology and differentiation in an
attempt to explore not only the academic side of learning but the social-emotional
as well (Katz, 2013). The first block of the TBM addresses students’ social-
emotional wellbeing. There are various tools and resources already developed
and available to aid in the implementation of this first block. The Respective
Diversity program allows students to develop the ability to identify their own
strengths and limitations as learners. It also allows students to see the different
strengths and challenges of others and how they can serve as a resource to them
for their own learning (Katz, 2016). Spirit Buddies was another suggestion given
by Katz (2018) as a program to improve students’ sense of belonging and ability
to develop meaningful social relationships. Practices such as classroom meetings
provide a safe and controlled environment where students are able to discuss
and make decisions while improving problem-solving skills.
The second block of the TBM addresses the diversities identified in the first
block through the approach of differentiated instruction. This is an area in which
many classroom teachers report struggling, considering the multiple and various
needs of learners in any given classroom. Taking from the UDL framework,
teachers should give students diverse opportunities to access, process and

represent their learning. This can be achieved using the various strategies
suggested above or by other teaching methods such as diverse grouping, multi-
level grouping and varying forms of formative assessment. It is taking, in
essence, the pedagogy of education that is well understood and tearing down its
barriers to present learning in a way that is accessible for all students.
Finally, the third block of the TBM framework addresses the systems and
structures that need to be in place in order for UDL to be effective. It is often the
system of education that is blamed for the breakdown of learning and the barrier
to inclusive education. Within this block also falls administrative decision-making
which impacts many aspects of school life. It also includes funding and supports.
This funding could be interpreted to be the hiring of qualified teachers and
support staff as well as the design and construction of accessible schools with
learners’ diverse needs in mind, including: physical, social-emotional, cognitive
and academic (Katz, 2016). Support is often considered to be administrative in
terms of facilitating common planning times, supporting and participating in
cooperative teaching practices and timely intervention and evaluation by internal
education student service team members. At the district or departmental level,
this support could be seen in terms of relevant and useful professional
development sessions as well as allocated days for the specific purpose of
planning or learning the new programs and strategies that are being
recommended. As mentioned above, teachers at the global level have been
reported in several academic research interviews to feel unprepared and
unsupported. Also, as previously mentioned, when UDL and TBM are presented
as policy mandates teachers may feel less in control of their classroom and
profession and as a result, be less enthusiastic in its implementation.
Research completed by Jennifer Katz (2016) with students in the province
of Manitoba, Canada participating in centers following the Three Block Model
found a shift in student perception in terms of learning. Students began to take
accountability for their own learning, seeing it as an opportunity to enrich their
futures. Students also reported feeling more independent in their learning
whereas before they were completely reliant on their classroom teacher to direct
their learning and feed them information that was deemed to be important (Katz,
2016). This perception of learning promotes the idea that learning is a lifelong
process. It should be noted that, like inclusion itself, TBM was not designed to be
used as a program to be implemented. The TBM, according to Katz (2016),
allows teachers to practice pedagogy by designing academically rigorous lessons
while differentiating to meet the needs and provide access to education for all
students.
3.4 Positive Behavior Intervention & Support
As has already been stated repeatedly throughout this review, academics
are not the only area of focus in the realm of inclusive education. Student
behavior problems are more prevalent in today’s educational culture, a challenge
in terms of classroom management and inclusion in its true sense. The Positive
Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) model provides a proactive framework
to alter preexisting, undesirable and unexpected behaviors based on teacher
response and promotes more positive behaviors through modeling and

discussion. The PBIS model, like many others, is tiered to provide various
necessary supports and targeted assessment and intervention for individual
students based on their needs. While there has been much support and
mandated use of the PBIS model, particularly in the United States, Lane et al.
(2015) suggested that its implementation is a low-intensity strategy that
classroom teachers can use that requires little preparation and provides a
spectrum of high-impact results. Hill & Brown (2013) stated that if a change in
behavior is the desired outcome, a change in teacher strategy is ultimately
required as well. While it was found in this research that the PBIS approach is
easy to implement, it does require consistent and active supervision (Lane et al.,
2015) on the part of the classroom teacher.
Students must be praised for exhibiting desired behaviours within the
classroom. Hill & Brown (2013) found that students who were identified as having
problematic behavior were generally aware that their behavior was problematic.
After Positive Behavior Interventions were implemented consistently by both
resource teachers and classroom teachers, focusing not just on behavior but
prosocial and academic goals as well, Hill & Brown (2013) saw significant
improvement in all areas of individually targeted students’ lives. Students must
also be provided with a certain degree of instructional and educational choice.
Providing these opportunities for choice increases student engagement (Lane et
al., 2015) and fully supports the promotion of strength based approaches which
are at the height of the inclusive educational philosophy.

3.5 Heart-Based Model
As mentioned earlier, the heart of inclusion should be focused on the child.
For this reason a heart-based model is a crucial framework to consider when
implementing inclusive practices within any classroom and/or school. Inclusion
continues to have its skeptics within the general public, in particular parents
whose children are deeply involved in the more deficit-based practices of an
inclusive classroom. Mooney and Lashewicz (2015) found that regardless of their
social, emotional or academic abilities, students benefited from their participation
in an inclusive learning environment. A classroom teacher who is strong in their
ability to promote inclusionary practices within their classroom is in a constant
cycle of action and reflection to ensure that they are meeting the needs of all of
their students as well as assessing and identifying ways to improve their own
practices. Mooney and Lashewicz (2015) quoted Freire (2005) in his statement
that “it is impossible to teach without the courage to love, without the courage to
try a thousand times before giving in” (Freire, 2005, p.5)
When classroom teachers are denied the opportunity to serve their
students in need or when Educational Assistants are made responsible for the
education of students, they are also denied the opportunity to reflect upon and
improve their inclusionary practices. The Heart-Based Model is therefore one of
courage and commitment to others. The love of a child and the sincere desire for
them to succeed should be not only the means to but the “final aim of educational
pedagogy” (Mooney & Lashewicz, 2015, p.7). It is hard for teachers to have
courage when they are continuously met with the guilt and fear of doing a
disservice to their students. Mooney and Lashewicz (2015) found that academic
progress could be influenced, either positively or negatively, by classroom
teachers’ inclusionary beliefs and practices which confuse students and limit their
progress.
These inclusive strategies implemented by classroom teachers foster an
environment where students feel accepted and demonstrate reduced problematic
behavior. Students regardless of their challenges and strengths are naturally
accepting beings. It is the adults within the system who continue to struggle with
this concept of acceptance. This is why it is so important for teachers to genuinely
believe in the benefits of inclusion and show respect for their students by showing
them the values and potential they see in them (Mooney & Lashewicz, 2015). The
strength-based model is evident as teachers begin to recognize students’
strengths in an attempt to meet and bridge the gap of their deficits. Mooney and
Lashewicz (2015) stated that perhaps “love of the child may be used more
intentionally to focus and propel the action and reflection necessary for progress
in achieving mutual adaptation and sharing inclusive educational goals” (p.22).
3.6 Comprehensive School Health
As it has been mentioned in multiple pieces of literature from a variety of
academic sources, the philosophy and practice of inclusion goes far beyond the
academic component of school life. Social, emotional and behavioral components
must be equally weighed when considering inclusionary practices and policies
within a school. Research shows that learning and academic performance is
heavily affected by physical, mental and behavioral health concerns. It is for this
reason that having a comprehensive school health initiative is a critical part of a
fully inclusive educational system, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to
reconsider the role of health in schools (Murray et al., 2015). Nielson (2014)
remarked on the school’s unique position to build social and emotional
competences in a way that will reach a large population of young people. The
strengthening of competencies, particularly when begun early in a child’s
developmental years at the elementary level using a whole school approach,
plays an integral role in positive views on mental health (Nielson et al., 2014).
Murray et al. (2015) also remarked on the formalized policies, processes and
practices of comprehensive school health programs and their ability to eliminate
health related barriers through providing a learning environment that is healthy,
safe and supportive.
Nielson et al. (2014) developed an intervention to promote mental health.
“Up” is composed of four interconnected components that target mental health
using a whole school approach. These four components consist of education and
activities for students, the building of staff skills and knowledge through
professional development, involving parents through education and mental health
promotion and daily initiatives for positive discussion about mental health within
the school (Nielson et al., 2014). While less formalized, many of these same
components are mentioned by Murray et al. (2015) as necessary steps to
promote a comprehensive school health program within the school system
(Murray et al., 2015).

3.7 Canada and International Contexts
Within Canada, each territory or province practices its own forms of
inclusive education. Within current literature, Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick
are frequently mentioned for their exemplary and effective implementation of
inclusive practices within their individual education systems. In an article written
by Morrison & Gilham (2017), the current Alberta Education Policy for Inclusion
(2015) was reviewed and critiqued allowing for several recommendations to be
made regarding ways that inclusion could be further deepened and engrained
within the system. Morrison & Gilham (2017) introduced their review stating that it
was to be of value to those interested in the inclusion of students labelled as
having disabilities within the education system. This is a very deficit-based view
considering that the Province of Alberta defines inclusion as “a concept and value
involving the belonging of all students” (p.49). A similar document was published
by Porter (2012). His review of current beliefs and practices on the subject of
inclusion and special education brought forth several recommendations to better
the state of inclusive education in New Brunswick.
Since the UNESCO conference in which the Salamanca Declaration was
signed (UNESCO, 1994), there has been a global movement in an effort to
provide access to quality inclusive education. Throughout this review Canada is
cited frequently at the international level, in particular the provinces of Ontario and
New Brunswick, for the success that is being found with their endeavors to enrich
education through inclusion. While this is to be commended, inclusion is a
process and not simply a practice (Sanagi, 2016). It can be stated with some
confidence that these provinces still have a long way to go on their evolutionary
journey towards full inclusion to ensure that all students are being fully included in
all facets of their developmental stages throughout the course of their formative
educational years. This will in turn prepare them to transition into adulthood as
functional individuals, making their own contributions to society and to their
communities.
4.0 INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
4.1 Features of an Inclusive Classroom
Several common features are repeatedly mentioned throughout the
research as being crucial in the promotion, implementation and sustainability of a
truly inclusive classroom. It should be noted that the term “classroom” is used in
reference to a common learning environment. For this reason, classroom and
learning community will be used interchangeably. For inclusive education to even
begin to be present within a school or learning community, there needs to be a
common shared vision. Administration, staff and other stakeholders must all have
a personal and professional commitment to inclusion (Lyons et al., 2016) and
what that will mean for their school, their students’, their teaching staff as well as
their own teaching beliefs and practices. Lyons et al. (2016) stated that having a
clear vision of inclusion for their school, focusing on all students, is a key feature
to a successful inclusive environment. This included a shared responsibility for
the success and needs of all students (Roberts et al., 2018). For the successful
implementation of inclusion, even in the first initial steps, there are many changes
that need to be made to physical environment as well as individual subject
outcome objectives to ensure the accessibility and success for all students
(Pavlovié, 2016).
Collaboration within the learning environment is essential for inclusion to
be successful (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016). Teachers within a school
need to work together to design lessons, programs and interventions that will
meet the needs of all learners. This collaborative team approach is a proactive
strategy for inclusion (Lyons et al., 2016). Part of collaboration means common
planning time for these plans to be well designed and confidently implemented
(Katz & Sokal, 2016). Collaboration can also be accomplished through the
practice of team-teaching and coaching (Roberts et al., 2018). With team-
teaching there are consistently two teachers in the classroom able to divide the
class into smaller groups, observe student behavior, collect data as well as
implement programming and interventions. Coaching is a method of modeling
different styles of teaching allowing knowledge, experience and skills to be
shared among invested professionals.
Support is another feature of an inclusive classroom. This is meant in two
ways. Teachers need to feel supported by other teachers, administrators as well
as their students’ parents. This can be achieved through meaningful parental
involvement within the collaborative school community. Ongoing communication
is one of the most important features related to support (Lyons et al., 2016).
Secondly, students must also feel supported within their learning environment.
Through differentiation and flexible teaching styles, students can feel supported
and achieve success. In terms of differentiation and teaching styles, this can only
be achieved through professionals’ ability to adapt frequently to the ever changing
needs of their students and classroom compositions (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathaban, 2016). These changes in curriculum and/or the way they are
presented to students with various learning needs can only be achieved
successfully by the creativity (McMaster, 2013) and full engagement (Roberts et
al., 2018) of the teachers to gather, share and build on existing resources, skills
and energy.
It must be acknowledged that while it is necessary to move away from the
deficit-based model, there are many students struggling in a variety of ways.
Many of these struggles require support and interventions. For this reason, an
important feature of an inclusive educational environment is having a tiered
system of support available for educators, students and their families (Paju et al.,
2018). This can be in the format of a three tiered pyramid of interventions or
having positive behavioral interventions and supports in place within the school
among the qualified support staff (Lyons et al., 2016). Likewise, there is an
important place within the practice of inclusive education for various tools and
resources to be used effectively to support student learning (Lyons et al., 2016).
These supports include assistive technology (Roberts et al., 2018) such as
individual student computers, tablets and computer programs and applications to
name a few.
Within the classroom itself, there are other features that indicate a
successfully inclusive classroom environment. Choice is a very powerful feature
for students with both academic as well as social-emotional challenges (Walker &
Musti-Rao, 2016). Students are able to gain the same knowledge and master the
same learning outcomes through the completion of a variety of different activities
than those of their mainstream peers, providing students with the choice on how
they access and represent their learning. One of the many ways that options can
be present is through play. When considering the inclusion of students with
special education needs of a younger age in particular, play allows these students
to be included both through proximity as well as interaction (Baines et al., 2015).
Another way to achieve this element of choice of instruction is through Project-
Based Learning (PBL). When students are engaged in this process, they are able
to choose their subject matter in many cases and create a final product that will
demonstrate their learning and ability to share their newly gained knowledge with
their peers.
4.2 Evidence-based Practices
There are various evidence-based practices that have proved beneficial
and effective when used within an inclusive environment. It is important to
mention once again that while this inclusive environment exists within an
educational system, there are more than just academic successes to be
considered. There are a multitude of students who need to be included in terms of
their social-emotional wellbeing and developmental abilities. Both academic and
social-emotional inclusion research consistently shows that early intervention is

crucial. There are varying opinions in terms of when and where interventions
should take place. One such intervention is the practice of pull-out. Various
research projects have concluded that there is a time and a place when pull-out
interventions are appropriate and effective. Of equal interest, other research
included the opinion of students with varying types of learning and cognitive
difficulties. In this case many students preferred pull-out interventions or
programming to other intervention methods. Their reasoning was often that they
learned better in smaller or one on one situations. Still others felt that they were
able to ask questions when they didn’t understand something without feeling
embarrassed. Others, understandably, enjoyed being out of the classroom while
receiving individualized attention and instruction. In terms of social skills groups,
these are often organized by pulling students from the classroom to work on
targeted social skills with which an individual student or a group of students are
struggling with. There are researchers who believe that pull-out is not the optimal
method of inclusion for students with deficits in social skills. The skills they are
learning are not being introduced within a relevant context with students who may
instigate conflict or in an environment where conflict may occur. Baines et al.
(2015) recommended that these types of social skills training should take place
within the classroom so that the student can learn to navigate through difficult
situations in they naturally present themselves.
It should come as no surprise that the most sustainable inclusive
environments come from a teacher’s use of varying types of instruction. As
mentioned above, teachers need to be able to adapt their instruction to ensure all
students are being included and able to succeed based on their current ability.
This can often be achieved by following the Universal Design for Learning
Framework in which small universal accommodations are made to benefit all
students in the class and not just the struggling learners. In the same way the
inclusive classroom should not be contained within four walls. Teachers need to
be open to collaborate with their professional colleagues and take responsibility
for all learners within the school or class who are struggling rather than only those
in their own class who are developmentally and cognitively and physically
meeting age appropriate standards. These mixed teaching styles could include
co-teaching, small group instruction and differentiation. The goal of differentiation
is not to modify the curriculum outcomes expected from the student. Rather, it is
to present and have students show their learning in ways which are most
meaningful for them.
By using the teaching practice of multi-level instruction (Buli-Holmberg &
Jeyaprathaban, 2016), students are grouped according to their current abilities.
This is what Vygotsky would refer to as their current Zone of Proximal
Development regardless of their age or assigned grade level. Using this
framework of thought, students receive the information that they are
developmentally capable of understanding, processing and assimilating rather
than the curriculum mandated lessons that often are beyond their current capacity
for learning. Yet another evidence-based teaching practice would be multi-
dimensional grouping (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016) which, juxta-
positional to multi-level instruction, considers the differences and strengths that

different students of different academic levels can bring to an educational learning
group. Students can learn from each other both socially as well as academically.
As much as students are encouraged to strengthen their autonomy by
becoming critical thinkers reflecting on their learning while setting their own
learning goals, this is equally important for teachers as well. Teaching inclusively,
as discussed by Mooney and Lashewicz (2015), should include the continuous
cyclical process of action and reflection. This allows teachers to modify their
practices ensuring that the needs of their students are being met. Inclusion is not
one size fits all. As such, educators do not always possess the same levels of
confidence in implementing inclusive strategies and practices (Lilley, 2015).
Knowing this Movkebayeva et al. (2016) developed the beginning of a framework
that would help educators to self-assess their inclusive practices. They identified
three levels of proficiency in terms of inclusive practices. At the adaptive level
teachers may lack awareness or have only a partial understanding of the ideology
and philosophy of inclusion. These teachers often lack the desire to work with
students with special needs. The procreational leveled teachers conform to the
expectation of participation in inclusive practices. There is often still a lack of
knowledge in terms of differentiation and other evidence-based inclusive
practices. Finally, within the rudimentary framework presented by Movkebayeva
et al. (2016), there is the ideal level. This is a reflection of a teacher’s awareness
and independence to consistently implement inclusive practices. Teachers at this
level are able to reflect on their practices and problem-solve, whether through
collaboration or other means, to find solutions in meeting the needs of all of their
students (Movkebayeva et al., 2016).
Providing students with authentic learning experiences that are relevant to
their daily lives is a way to ensure that students are engaged and included in the
learning process. Open learning is a practice that is becoming more common as
more diverse learner needs continue to be presented within schools. In research
conducted by Bristol (2015), teachers admitted that they found it difficult to
relinquish control in the classroom. When teachers did begin to relinquish a
certain amount of the control from the tradition whole-class instructional model
and allowed open learning to occur, they found that students explored areas of
interest to them and were able to learn, following the prescribed curriculum
outcomes, in a more authentic and meaningful way (Jay & Knaus, 2018). Bristol
(2015) determined then that less “teacher talk” and more student-driven inquiry,
exploration and learning (Tan, 2017) is a more effective practice in achieving
authentic and meaningful learning. A crucial practice that should exist in any
inclusive classroom, particularly with open learning, is that of self-review and time
for reflection. This is not solely on the part of the student but of the teacher as
well. Individuals need to have the ability to view their work or learning critically to
determine if they have achieved, through understanding or finished product, their
fullest potential.
Along this same line of thinking, more research has been done in the area
of play-based learning. While this was something that was very popular among
educators in the 1980 the pendulum, as it often does in education, swung towards
a more formal approach to learning for young children in the 1990s. More recently
the movement has begun to come back around, and research is being done
again on the effectiveness and authenticity of learning that can occur through
play. Play allows for students to work in small, often interest-based groups and
interact and navigate through various social situations. Play allows students the
opportunity to learn how to negotiate, develop common rules of play as well as
the vocabulary and oral language skills necessary to communicate clearly with
others. When given the opportunity to “play to learn” and not only “learn to play”,
students show an increase in oral language in general as well as mastery of
material in various subject areas which can be related back to their play. Play-
based instruction also promotes choice for students and promotes problem-
solving strategies (Sunardi et al., 2016).
4.3 Training and Preparedness
One concern that recurred frequently throughout the literature was the
topic of teacher training and preparedness. Several studies have been conducted
on this subject. There have been several studies focusing on teacher
perspectives in terms of professional training and teacher preparedness, such as
those conducted by Civitillo et al. (2016), Haegele et al. (2016) and Kozleski et al.
(2015). The general consensus was that teachers did not feel they had received
the adequate training necessary to be prepared to handle the variety of learners
that most classrooms have faced in recent years. Haegele et al. (2016)
researched teachers’ inclusion perceptions after having received targeted
professional development. While the study focused specifically on physical

education teachers, the sentiments are likely to be shared with teachers across
all subject areas. It was stated by several of the teachers in the study that one
day of professional learning was not enough to prompt a paradigm shift (Haegele
et al., 2016). While some teachers commented on their desire to receive more
training in the area of differentiation of instruction and various special education
techniques (Kozleski et al., 2015), others voiced that it was only through
experience that teachers could develop the ability to accommodate, differentiate
and include students with various needs (Civitillo et al., 2016). Kozleski’s (2015)
study found that often professional learning was prepared and determined
externally through district or departmental mandates. Teachers reported that they
would prefer to have the professional freedom to pursue professional learning
based on their individual needs and self-assessments of their current inclusive
practices (Kozleski et al., 2015).
Teacher perception of inclusion, whether reluctant or willing, was found to
impact greatly the success and sustainability of a truly inclusive model within an
individual classroom or school environment. There is no question that the
challenges presented to teachers in terms of differentiated instruction for the
various learning and behavioral needs in the classroom are numerous in today’s
public school settings. Teachers need to feel equipped and supported in this
endeavor by administration, their respective school districts as well as by parents.
The review of current literature showed a wide range of negative teacher
perceptions, with educators making comments referencing the added work in
planning for instructional differentiation, feelings of obligation rather than

responsibility to include students in difficulty as well as referring to challenging
students as being “unteachable”. These same teachers likened their professions
to babysitting when discussing the variety of students who were part of the
inclusive classroom system (Mooney & Lashewicz, 2015). While these
perceptions are not echoed throughout the entire profession, they do make up a
substantial portion of the educator population. Sanagi’s (2016) research noted
that these negative perceptions were often a result of teachers’
misunderstandings of the concept of inclusion.
Unlike the university level education programs for teacher training offered
in Canada, which are often eleven months in duration, countries such as the
Netherlands require four year participation within the education program to gain
mainstream teaching qualifications. This time allows for students to be trained to
teach in all subject areas as well as preparation to serve students with various
special education needs (Civitillo et al., 2016). Considering pre-service teachers,
it was recommended in numerous pieces of literature that universities offer
courses to train and prepare new teachers for the task of inclusion from the
beginning of their career. Pre-service teachers in New Brunswick universities
complete two classroom practicums within their eleven month program, in which
they are placed in a classroom with an experienced teacher to serve as their
mentor. This provides a view of the types of accommodations and modifications
that can be necessary to meet student needs that may be encountered. Limited in
time as these practicums may be, they provide a very tangible and realistic view
of their chosen profession. The research conducted by Haegele et al. (2016)

found that teacher perspective is significantly impacted based on years served in
the profession. While Haegele et al. (2016) stated that experience was worth
more than training, Civitillo et al. (2016) found that preservice teachers had a
more accepting, tolerant and understanding outlook on the practice of inclusion.
For more experienced teachers, the inclusion mandate coming down through the
education systems is a somewhat new and overwhelming concept in terms of
implementation and practice.
5.0 CHALLENGES AND REFLECTIONS
5.1 Teacher Perception
There has been much research on the subject of teacher perspective and
its impact on the successful implementation of inclusionary practices and success
within the field of education. Sanagi (2016) found in their research that teachers
who did not fully believe in the practice of inclusive education were not able to
successfully and sustainably implement inclusion within their classroom. Quite
often the act of inclusion is presented as a district or government mandate. As
has already been discussed above, inclusion should be a continuous process. It
is unrealistic, as well as overwhelming for classroom teachers, for a school to
undertake a complete transformation of the school’s inclusive culture. It is
important to identify where the school as a whole, as well as its individual
teachers, are in relation to their use of consistent and effective inclusive practices.
This would be considered to be an ideal starting point to begin to elicit change.

Aside from the feeling of a compulsory mandated practice that is
implemented without discussion, there are several other factors that can impact
teacher perception of inclusion. Veteran teachers began their careers in a time
when there were specialized education schools designed specifically for the
education of students with cognitive and physical needs that mainstream schools
were not able to accommodate. Even as inclusion began to become part of the
education discussion, inclusion was only initially implemented at the surface level.
These same students were physically placed within their zoned mainstream
schools though they were still segregated within specialized classrooms while
also being included in various pull-out intervention groups.
Many teachers are feeling the increased demands of the profession and
perceive inclusion to be one more task added to that ever-growing list. It is at this
point that administration needs to take an active role in supporting their staff and
taking charge of the situation so that inclusion becomes part of the community of
education and a common goal among the entire staff. For full inclusion to occur
there needs to be complete teacher buy-in. As mentioned above, this does not
mean that all teachers will immediately be at the same place in terms of paradigm
and inclusive practices. Teacher buy-in means that teachers are open to the idea
of inclusion, believe in the impact that it can have for all students and possess a
willingness to begin implementing some of the inclusive features and practices
discussed above. There is no denying that resources, which continue to be cut,
are an essential element of a successful inclusive program within a classroom
and/or school. Regardless, teachers and administration need to take a joint

responsibility for all students within the schools. With a community invested in the
rich education and true inclusion of all learners inclusion can be successful and
sustainable.
It is also important to note that teacher perception is not the only
perception that can have an impact on inclusion’s success. Student, parent and
community perception are also able to impact its progress. In a qualitative
research study conducted by Rose and Shevlin (2017), student voices were the
focus to determine what their perception of inclusion was. Overwhelmingly, the
majority of students did not believe that true inclusion was possible. Students with
academic, emotional, physical and behavioral needs did not feel as though they
belonged or were accepted within their inclusive schools and classrooms. While
there is no denying that some students felt supported through their various
interventions, it could be argued that the above students did not feel a sense of
belonging because inclusion was not being implemented in the way it was
envisioned by the various theorists discussed earlier.
5.2 Successful Inclusion
Despite the many wonderful things that are happening internationally in
relation to inclusion within the education system, there is no denying that there
are various challenges which prevent, or at the very least inhibit, the complete
and successful implementation of inclusion. While many believe that inclusion
does not work, perhaps it is possible that we are simply not doing it right (Mooney
& Lashewicz, 2015).

Freitag and Dunsmuir (2015) noted that an indicator of success in inclusion
is the acceptance felt by students from their teacher as well as their peers. They
also stated, as suggested above, that a successful inclusive education model has
not only academic objectives but social objectives as well. Echoing the many
features and practices of inclusion discussed above, inclusion provides not only
access to equal education opportunities but also opportunities to experience
meaningful interactions with their peers (Freitag & Dunsmuir, 2015).
Synthesizing the findings in the recent literature allows for some concrete
statements to be made in regards to inclusion as a practice. It is evident that
positive teacher perception is crucial for the success and sustainability of
inclusion within the school system. If this positive perception is not shared among
a staff, training, guidance, collaboration and support are necessary to facilitate a
shift in pedagogical understanding and effective inclusionary practices. While
McMaster (2013) stated that one educator cannot bring about an inclusive school
community in isolation, Biamba (2016) found that while collaboration within the
school community is crucial, it is possible for one teacher to have a critical
influence in the promotion and development of an inclusive school environment.
Lyons et al. (2016) viewed the team approach as the ideal method for sustaining
inclusion. They stated, which would be a good motto for educators around the
world: “We can do it together”.
As mentioned before, teachers need to be supported in several different
ways. Continuous budget cuts made at the departmental level do not give
teachers the feeling of being supported by limiting training, teacher mentors and
educational assistants (Lyons et al., 2016). These have all been repeatedly found
to be important factors in maintaining an inclusive system in education.
Much of the research concluded that there is a lack of empirical evidence
to support and demonstrate the effectiveness of inclusionary practices for the
benefit of all students. Because inclusion lacks a common definition, even with
the many common features identified in various countries and their respective
scholars, it would be difficult to design a study that would provide this empirical
evidence. There are so many varying practices and teaching styles that
measuring success quantitatively would be difficult. That being said, more
research is still required to further examine teacher perception, allowing time for
reflection on inclusive practices, identifying areas where teachers are struggling
and providing further evidence-based strategies and practices, allowing teachers
to move forward and continue to progress in their practices while also improving
their perceptions of inclusion.

6.0 RESOURCES
Abawi, L-A. (2015). Inclusion “from the gate in”: Wrapping students with
Personalized learning support. International Journal of Pedagogies and
Learning. 10(1), 47-61.
Alborno, N.E. (2017). The ‘yes . . . but’ dilemma: Implementing inclusive

education in Emirati primary schools. British Journal of Special Education.
44:1, 26-45.
Amr, M., Al-Natour, M., Al-Abdallat, B. & Alkhamra, H. (2016). Primary school
teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and views on barriers to inclusion in Jordan.
International Journal of Special Education. 31(1), 67-77.
Arnett, K. & Bourgoin, R. (2018) Access for success. Pearson Canada. ISBN:
9780134632711.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P. & Rob Webster (2015). The challenges of implementing
group work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with special
educational needs. Education 3-13, 43(1), 15-29.
Beckett, K. (2018) John Dewey’s conception of education: Finding common

ground with R. S. Peters and Paulo Freire, Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 50(4), 380-389.
Biamba, C. (2016). Inclusion and classroom practices in a Swedish school: A

case study of a school in Stockholm. Journal of Education and Practice.
7:3, 119-124.
Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and
participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Bristol, L. (2015) Leading-for-inclusion: transforming action through teacher talk.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:8, 802-820.
Buli-Holmberg, J. & Jeyaprathaban, S. (2016). Effective practice in inclusive and

special needs education. International Journal of Special Education. 31:1,
119-134.
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved
from http://udlguidelines.cast.org.
Civitillo, S., De Moor, J.M.H. & Vervloed, M.P.J. (2016). Pre-service teachers’
beliefs about inclusive education in the Netherlands: ln exploratory study.
Support for Learning. 31(2), 104-121.
Cobb, C. (2015). Is French immersion a special education loophole? … And does

it intensify issues of accessibility and exclusion?. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(2), 170-187.
Daniel, G.R. & Wang, C. (2017) Inclusion and the practice of Repeating
Kindergarten in Australia. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22(1),
57-69.
Freitaga, S. & Dunsmuir, S. (2015). The Inclusion of Children with ASD: Using the
Theory of Planned Behaviour as a Theoretical Framework to Explore Peer
Attitudes. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education.
62:4, 405-421.
Göransson, K. & Nilholm, C. (2014) Conceptual diversities and Empirical

shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education,
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29:3, 265-280.
Haegele, J.A., Hodge, S., Gutierres Filho, P.J. & Goncalves de Rezende, A.L.
(2018). Brazilian physical education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion
before and after participation in a professional development workshop.
European Physical Education Review. 24(1) 21–38.
Hakala, J.T. & Leivo, M. (2017). Tensions in the New Millennium: Inclusion
Ideology and Education Policy in the Finnish Comprehensive School.
Journal of Education and Learning. 6:3, 287-298.
Higham, R. & Booth, T. (2018). Reinterpreting the authority of heads: Making

space for values-led school improvement with the Index for Inclusion.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 46(1), 140–157.
Hill, D. & Brown, D. (2013) Supporting inclusion of at risk students in Secondary

school through positive behavior support, International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 17:8, 868-881.
Howard, M. PhD (2012) Good to Great Teaching: Focusing on Literacy Work that
Matters. Heinemann Educational Books. ISBN13: 9780325043692
Huggins, S & Smith, P. (2015). Using an ‘open approach’ to create a new,

innovative higher education model. Open Praxis. 7:2, 153-159.
Jay, J. A., & Knaus, M. (). Embedding Play-Based Learning into Junior Primary
(Year 1 and 2) Curriculum in WA. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
43(1), 112-126.
Katz, J. & Sokal, L. (2016). Universal Design for Learning as a Bridge to

Inclusion: A Qualitative Report of Student Voices. International Journal of
Whole Schooling. 12(2), 36-63.
Katz, J. & Sugden, R. (2013). The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for
Learning Implementation in a High School. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy. 114, 1-28
Kershner, R. (2016). Including Psychology in Inclusive Pedagogy: Enriching the

Dialogue? International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2), 112-139.
Kozleski, E.B., Yu, T., Satter, A.L., Francis, G.L. & Haines, S.J. (2015). A Never
Ending Journey: Inclusive Education Is a Principle of Practice, Not an End
Game. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 40(3),
211-226.
Lilley, R. (2015) Trading places: Autism Inclusion Disorder and school change,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(4), 379-396.
Lane, K.L. & Royer, D.J. (2015). Empowering Teachers with Low-Intensity
Strategies to Support Academic Engagement: Implementation and Effects
of Instructional Choice for Elementary Students in Inclusive Settings.
Education and Treatment of Children. 38(4), 473-508.
Lowrey, K.A., Hollingshead, A., Howery, K. & Bishop, J.B. (2017) More Than One
Way: Stories of UDL and Inclusive Classrooms. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities. 42(4) 225–242.
Lyons, W.E., Thompson, S.A. & Timmons, V. (2016) ‘We Are inclusive. We are a
team. Let's just do it’: commitment, collective efficacy, and agency in four
inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(8), 889-
907.
McMaster, C. (2013). Building Inclusion from the Ground Up: A Review of Whole
School Re-culturing Programmes for Sustaining Inclusive Change.
International Journal of Whole Schooling. 9(2), 1-24.
Mooney, L.R. & Lashewicz, B. (2015). For the Love of the Child. Canadian
Journal of Education. 38(4), 1-28.
Morrison, W. & Peterson, P. (2013). School as a Setting for Promoting Positive

Mental Health: Better Practices and Perspectives. Pan-Canadian Joint
Consortium for School Health. 2nd Ed. ISBN 978-0-9866785-0-9.
Morrison, W. & Peterson, P. (2016). Personalized Learning Framework. New

Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
Movkebayeva, Z.A., Oralkanova, I.A., Mazhinov, B.M., Beisenova, A.B. &

Belenko, O.G. (2016). Model of Formation for Readiness to Work within
Inclusive Education in Teachers. International Journal of Environmental &
Science Education. 11(11), 4680-4689.
Murray, S.D., Hurley, J. PhD. & Ahmed, S.R. (2015). Supporting the Whole Child
through Coordinated Policies, Processes and Practices. Journal of School
Health. 85. 795-801.
Neilson, L., Meilstrup, C., Nelausen, M.K., Koushede, V. & Holstein, B.E. (2014).
Promotion of Social and Emotional Competence: Experiences from a
Mental Health Intervention Applying a Whole School Approach. Health
Education. 115 (3/4), 339-356.
New Brunswick Policy 322. (2013). Inclusive Education. Department of Education

and Early Childhood Education. 1-14.
Nunez, J.L. & Leon, J. (2015). Autonomy Support in the Classroom: A Review
from Self-Determination Theory. European Psychologist. 20(4), 275-283.
Paju, B., Kajamaa, A., Pirttimaa, R. & Kontu, E. (2018). Contradictions as Drivers
for Improving Inclusion in Teaching Pupils with Special Educational Needs.
Journal of Education and Learning. 7(3), 11-22.
Pearson, E.C. & Tan, J. (2015). Should Inclusive Education be made Compulsory
in Schools?: A Study on Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Regarding Inclusive
Education Among a Diverse Group of SENA (Special Needs Assistance)
Teachers. International Journal of Special Education. 30(1), 111-119.
Pavlović. S. (2016). Inclusive School Is (Not) Possible – Pupil's Voice. Universal

Journal of Educational Research. 4(11), 2502-2508.
Porter, G. (2008). Making Canadian Schools Inclusive: A Call to Action. Canadian

Education Association. 48(2), 62-66.
Porter, G. & Aucoin, A. (2012) Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools:

Report of the Review of Inclusive Education Programs and Practices in
New Brunswick Schools – An Action Plan for Growth. Province of New
Brunswick.
Province of New Brunswick. (2016). 10-year Education Plan: Everyone at their

Best. ISBN 978-1-4605-1129-9 (PDF: English).
Province of New Brunswick. (2016). Fostering Resilience in New Brunswick

Schools and Communities. New Brunswick Health Council.
Province of New Brunswick. (2016) Recognizing and Focusing on Population

Health Priorities. New Brunswick Health Council.
Roberts, C.A., Ruppar, A.L & Olson, A.J. (2018). Perceptions Matter:
Administrators’ Vision of Instruction for Students with Severe Disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 43(1) 3–19.
Rose, R. & Shevlin, M. (2017). A Sense of Belonging: Children’s Views of

Acceptance in “Inclusive” Mainstream Schools. International Journal of
Whole Schooling. 65-80.
Sanagi, T. Ph.D. (2016). Teachers’ Misunderstanding the Concept of Inclusive

Education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research. 9(3), 103-114.
Šmelová, E., Ludíková, L., Petrová, A. & Souralová, E. (2016). The Teacher as a
Significant Part of Inclusive Education in the Conditions of Czech Schools.
Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2), 326-334.
Statistics Canada. (2012). Canadian Survey on Disability, 2012: Concepts and

Methods Guide. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-
x2014003-eng.htm
Sunardi, G., Anwar, M., Andayani, T.R. & Shaari, A.S. (2016). The Effect of
Cluster-Based Instruction on Mathematic Achievement in Inclusive
Schools. International Journal of Special Education. 31(1), 78-88.
Tan, P. (2017). Advancing inclusive mathematics education: Strategies and

resources for effective IEP practices. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 13(3), 28-38.
Tanyi, M.E. (PHD). (2016). Pedagogic Barriers in Cameroon Inclusive

Classrooms: The Impact of Curriculum, Teachers’ Attitudes and Classroom
Infrastructures. Journal of Education and Practice. 7(17), 210-222.
Thomazet, S. (2009). From integration to inclusive education: does changing the

terms improve practice? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(6),
553-563.
Towle, H. (2015). Disability and Inclusion in Canadian Education: Policy,

Procedure, and Practice. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. ISBN
978-1-77125-210-2.
Trust, T. & Horrocks, B. (2017) ‘I never feel alone in my classroom’: Teacher

professional growth within a blended community of practice. Professional
Development in Education, 43(4), 645-665.
UNESCO, (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special
needs education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access
and Quality. 1-50.
UNESCO, (2008). Inclusive education: The way of the future (final report). Paris:
Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_IC
E/ICE_FINAL_REPORT_eng.pdf
Veck, W. (2014) Inclusive pedagogy: ideas from the ethical philosophy of

Emmanuel Levinas. Cambridge Journal of Education. 44(4), 451–464.
Walker, Z. & Musti-Rao, S. (2016). Inclusion in high achieving Singapore:

Challenges of building an inclusive society in policy and practice. Global
Education Review, 3(3). 28-42.
Williamson, J.W. & Gilham, C. (2017). Winning and Re-Winning:

Recommendations for Inclusive Education Reform for Students Labelled
as Disabled in Alberta’s Schools. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 184, 49-66.
Wise, N. (2011). Access to special education for exceptional students in French

Immersion programs: An equity issue. The Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 14(1), 177-193.

Comp 1 - What Is Inclusion Patti Edits

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Comp 1 - What Is Inclusion Patti Edits

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Running head: WHAT IS INCLUSION?

What is Inclusion? Exploring the philosophy, process and practice

University of New Brunswick

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO INCLUSION ...................................................................................... 4

1.1 The Development of the Idea of Inclusion (History) ............................................................. 4

1.2 Common definitions ................................................................................................................. 5

1.3 Perspectives ............................................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Rights-based Philosophy ........................................................................................................ 13

1.5 The Heart of Inclusion (Student-centered) .......................................................................... 15

2.0 INCLUSIONARY THEMES AND ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................... 17

2.3 Social Emotional Learning .................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Strength-based (Personalized Learning) .............................................................................. 25

2.5 Autonomy Support /Self-determination ............................................................................... 27

3.0 FRAMEWORKS/MODELS .................................................................................................. 28

3.1 Index for inclusion .................................................................................................................. 29

3.2 Universal Design for Learning .............................................................................................. 31

3.3 Three Block Model ................................................................................................................. 35

3.4 Positive Behavior Intervention & Support ........................................................................... 37

3.5 Heart-Based Model................................................................................................................. 39

3.6 Comprehensive School Health............................................................................................... 40

3.7 Canada and International Contexts...................................................................................... 42

4.0 INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES ........................................................................................ 43

4.1 Features of an Inclusive Classroom ...................................................................................... 43

4.2 Evidence-based Practices ....................................................................................................... 46

4.3 Training and Preparedness ................................................................................................... 51

5.0 CHALLENGES AND REFLECTIONS ............................................................................... 54

5.1 Teacher Perception................................................................................................................. 54

5.2 Successful Inclusion ................................................................................................................ 56

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO INCLUSION

1.1 The Development of the Idea of Inclusion (History)

involved in creating and sustaining an inclusive education system for decades.

followed with well-known academics such as social constructivist theorists Lev

Albert Bandura (1996) within their respective theories of cognitive development

and social learning. It wasn’t until UNESCO held an international conference

where the Salamanca Declaration was signed by over 90 countries in 1994

interpretations of inclusion within the classroom and school environment.

Within Canada, particularly in the province of New Brunswick, the Porter

Department of Education, school districts, administrators and educators viewed

numerous recommendations that were strongly encouraged to be implemented

(Department of Education and Early Childhood Education, 2013).

1.2 Common definitions

The difficulty with the application of an authentically inclusive education

current practices and validate beliefs on the subject of inclusion in different

in terms of defining “inclusion” could easily explain the inconsistencies being

examined and practiced globally, encompassing individual classrooms within the

same schools. Paju et al. (2017) explained these inconsistencies in defining

inclusive education to be a result of the fact that these definitions, and by

extension, practices are developed from governmental policy and cultural-driven

interpretations. In exploring the various existing definitions offered throughout

resources, infrastructure, technology or equipment. It is also not a matter of

simply adjusting the curriculum to make learning easier or providing updated

professional development to current and pre-service teachers. These are quite

or presently being done effectively. Educators, administrators and the general

public need to move away from these preconceptions to develop a globally

unified definition of inclusion as well as a framework from which to work within

mainstream approach to education around the world.

reflect a deficit-based assumption that it is the students with physical, cognitive

and learning disabilities who need to be included within the mainstream

classroom. This limited view of inclusion eludes to it as merely a shared physical

with little consideration to the individual needs of the learner or appropriate

while placement is a crucial element of inclusion, it is only one of many methods

towards inclusive education rather than the successful holistic practice of

regardless of social, physical and economical differences receive learning