This document summarizes an article about the development of inclusive education in England over the past 25 years. It discusses the shift from segregated special education to integrated education and more recently to inclusive education. It identifies several barriers to effective inclusion, including definitions that focus on location rather than needs, top-down government policies that prioritize standards over individual needs, and a standardized curriculum that limits accommodating diverse learners. The document argues that inclusion should be defined by individual needs and choices, with the meaningful participation of all stakeholders, especially students.

1. INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL EDUCATION: Inclusive and
special education in the English educational system:
historical perspectives, recent developments and future
challenges
Alan Hodkinson
Article first published online: 16 JUL 2010
Keywords:
inclusion;special education;segregation;integration
Abstract
Special education in England has over the past 25 years been subject to rapid
development, not least in relation to the emergence of inclusive education. Alan
Hodkinson of the Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure, John Moore's
University, critically examines the development of inclusion in England and the
barriers that can stall the development of this important educational and societal
initiative. He discusses the journey towards inclusion from educational
segregation to integration and describes the current Government stance on this
important subject. Alan Hodkinson suggests that many of the barriers to effective
inclusion are in practice located within the loci of Government, local authorities as
well as that of schools. He concludes that it is now time to develop a new vision
for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities that is
supported by straightforward, co-ordinated and well-resourced policies. If
educational policy is to achieve an inclusive consciousness, it must ensure that
the views of children, their families and educational professionals are listened to,
and that inclusion is by the choice of the pupils and their parents and not by
compulsion.
Introduction
Special education in England has over the past 25 years been subject to rapid
development, not least in relation to the emergence of inclusive education.
However, one might argue that the current push for the implementation of
inclusive education is one example of an instance where policy development and
philosophical thought outpace practice. There is a danger that ‘the most

2. vulnerable learners’ (O'Brien, 2002) might be crushed by the weight of political
policy, philosophical thought and ideological doctrine that seemingly dominate
the current educational discourse. This is a potential problem for the formulation
of effective inclusive education in England.
More worrying, from my perspective, is the heavy criticism (Barton, 2005;
Frederick, 2005) to which Mary Warnock (2005) has been subjected for
suggesting that inclusion has gone too far and that some children are being
damaged by the application of its principles. It would seem that the ‘tidal wave of
inclusive intent preached with overpowering zeal’ (Hornby, 2002) for the
evolution of inclusive education, coupled with the apparent unquestioning
acceptance of the ideology of full inclusion might, in practice, be providing a
disservice to some pupils. More than ever, I would suggest educationalists
should pause to consider whether inclusion is, in reality, serving the needs of all
individuals.
The first aim of this article is to examine critically the development of inclusive
education in England from its emergence within the latter part of the twentieth
century. Secondly, I intend to elucidate the barriers which may serve to stall the
development of this important educational and societal initiative.
The emergence of inclusive education
The ideology of inclusion should not be viewed as a new phenomenon. Indeed,
its origins may be traced back to the early 1900s and the welfare pioneers who
believed in a non-segregated schooling system (O'Brien, 2002). In its current
form, however, inclusion is the end of a journey which began in the 1960s, when
policies of educational segregation became subject to debate within the context
of the civil rights movement. This questioning of policy heralded the birth of a
new integrated educational system which was legitimised by the Warnock Report
(DES, 1978) and the subsequent 1981 Education Act. While it is observable that
these events began a journey towards inclusion, the last years of the 1980s
witnessed criticism of integration as a policy that had failed to account for

3. individual need (Ainscow, 1995). There can be little doubt that the problematic
nature of integration coupled with the statements made at the World Conference
in Special Education (UNESCO, 1994) led to the emergence of inclusive
education in England.
The evolution of inclusive educational policy began with the election of New
Labour in 1997. The Government upon taking office acted swiftly and through the
Green Paper, Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs
(DfEE, 1997), and the subsequent Programme of Action (DfEE, 1998), they set
the tone for the central thrust of education reform through the last decade of the
twentieth century (Judge, 2003). The Government further developed its inclusion
policy by introducing a revised curriculum. Curriculum 2000 (DfEE, 1999), as it
became known, was formulated upon three inclusionary principles: setting
suitable learning challenges, responding to pupils' diverse learning needs and
overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and
groups of pupils. It became quite clear to observers that the Government had put
inclusion firmly on the political agenda.
Inclusion in the twenty-first century
The beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed the evolution of inclusive
practices being supported by a raft of governmental policies, initiatives and
legislation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001)
revised section 316 of the 1996 Education Act and so strengthened the rights of
children to be educated in the mainstream. For the first time, institutions were not
able to refuse access to placements based upon the contention that they could
not meet the needs of individual children (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). In
addition, the 2001 Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) confirmed the acceptance of
inclusion by stating that the special educational needs of children would normally
be met in mainstream settings. It became clear, then, that inclusion was a policy
that was not going to go away. However, it is important to note that while
Government documentation and legislation in England included a ‘strong
commitment to the principle of inclusion’ (Croll & Moses, 2003), it was still

4. observable that the Government continued to pursue a ‘twin-track system’
(Barton, 2003) of special educational needs by promoting and developing the
orthodoxy of segregation within the loci of special schools.
It would appear, then, that while the Government would have us believe that
inclusion is based upon the rights of all children, a critical interrogation of its
education policies leads one to conclude that its inclusion practices are subject to
limits (Evans & Lunt, 2002; Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2008). Furthermore, despite
a critical report in 2006 by the Education and Skills Committee, which labelled
the Government's inclusion policy as a ‘system not fit for purpose’, the former
Education Secretary Lord Adonis expressed a belief that the Government should
take a completely fresh look at its policies of inclusion. Indeed, he argued that the
Government is making progress in its 2004 strategy of removing the barriers to
achievement for children with special educational needs (Simms, 2007).
Inclusion: the difficulties of definition
The above review of the literature leaves one in no doubt that inclusion has
become an important aspect of our educational system. However, the literature
base also suggests that tension exists with regard to how inclusion should be
defined (Hornby, 2002).
During recent years, educational policy has promoted inclusive education as the
teaching of disabled and non-disabled children within the same neighbourhood
schools. Further definitions have suggested that all pupils, regardless of their
weaknesses, should become part of the school community (Judge, 2003). Such
definitions, though, are difficult to accept, primarily because they relate to
locational inclusion; that is, children simply being educated together is more
important than the curriculum or attitudes to which they are subjected. Definitions
couched in these terms are likely to shackle an individual's needs to entrenched
societal views of disability. Moreover, I perceive that the terminology of weakness
and disability is patronising and degrading, as it inevitably leads one to a narrow
and contrived view of inclusion. Inclusion located in these terms is culturally

5. loaded because it employs language which does not instil pride and value but
rather refers to individuals who are seen to be not able because of impairment.
Definitions formulated in these terms do not promote inclusion but, conversely, I
would suggest, encourage the return to integration and thereby tolerance, not
inclusion, of children with additional needs.
A further consideration is that these definitions refer only to children whom
society and institutions deem to have special educational needs. Increasingly it is
becoming apparent that inclusion is being conceptualised as relating solely to
children with special educational needs and the relationships these individuals
have with mainstream schools. I believe that conceptions of this nature devalue
inclusion by a process of fragmentation. It is my view that inclusion must be a
broad church with solid foundations where exclusion from society is accepted as
having a common route in ‘intolerance to difference’ (Booth, 2000). Inclusion
from this perspective would relate to special needs as well as to gender, sexual
orientation, race, ethnicity, age, culture and social class. It would seem apparent
that if we are to develop a truly inclusive society, interest groups must not be
allowed to seize inclusion as a flag to rally around in the promotion of their
individual causes and ideologies.
Recently, perhaps the greatest problem has been that inclusion has become
defined and operationalised by governmental agents of accountability and
standards. For example, OFSTED, while stating that inclusion ‘is more than a
concern about any one group of pupils’ and that ‘its scope is broad’ (OFSTED,
2000), has nonetheless formulated a set of inclusive principles with which to
judge schools. According to these principles, an inclusive school is one where
‘the teaching and learning, achievement, attitudes and well-being of every person
matter’ (OFSTED, 2000). While this may be observed as a better definition than
those which employ the language of deficit, one might question whether inclusion
should ever be determined by academic standards or by the metrics of
accountability.

6. The contention I forward here is that inclusion is not a summative measurable
entity, nor is it one that can be clearly defined. Perhaps a clear definition is less
important than schools achieving an understanding of the core values of
inclusion (Coles & Hancock, 2002). Some writers (Reynolds, 1989; Booth,
Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughn & Shaw, 2000), while accepting that inclusion
is beyond definition, also contend that it should be a process inextricably linked
to the ‘goal of full inclusion’ (Hornby, 2002). Within this utopia, all children are
educated together in terms of location, need, curriculum and attitudes with no
tolerance or justification given to the maintenance of a segregated system of
special schooling.
It could be argued that, although interesting, OFSTED and full inclusionists'
definitions and contentions are flawed because they define inclusion within the
terms of institutional and societal control or ideological dictate. It is my belief that
inclusion cannot simply be operationalised in terms of OFSTED's notions of
academic achievement, nor should it be countenanced solely as a process that
achieves full inclusion. It seems essential that inclusion be firmly located within
the sphere of individuals and their needs.
The importance of the child's voice
During recent years, children's rights to mainstream educational placement have
been brought to the fore by legislation, such as the Children Act (1989), SENDA
(2001), the Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) and the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child. In addition, legislation has also placed a duty upon adults to ensure
that children involved in this process have their views taken into account (May,
2003). Some writers have quite rightly argued that a prerequisite for successful
inclusion is the maintenance of a dialogue between those involved and those
who experience this process (Jones, 2005; Rogers, 2007). Regrettably, though, it
is becoming apparent that some children's voices are being drowned out by
inclusion policies dominated by adults. In a recent study (Hodkinson, 2007a) I
was dismayed to observe that, when questioned, a majority of mainstream
children had no conception of what inclusive education was and, more
worryingly, they held extremely negative views of disability and disabled people.
Evidence of this kind should make us question whether inclusion is actually
possible without all stakeholders, firstly, understanding what inclusive education
is and, secondly, ensuring that all those involved have positive attitudes toward
its implementation. I would suggest that it is crucial for all children, families,
support staff and teachers to be educated about its principles and for all

7. participants to have their views heard and taken into account. For this reason, I
have come to believe that time and resources would be better spent supporting
activities (see Jones, 2005) and co-operative learning programmes that would
actively enable children and adults to form and express their views about
inclusion, rather than being wasted on further legislative measures.
Inclusion conceptualised in this manner, therefore, would become a catalyst
requiring schools and society to identify and overcome the barriers that inhibit
individual children's choices and ability to achieve their full potential (Hodkinson,
2007b). I would suggest that inclusion should seek to diminish the controlling
power of state, institutions and society, and replace them with an understanding
of individual value, respect and a commitment to the development of self.
The current position: examination of the barriers
to inclusive education
Earlier in this article, the three principles of inclusion in the National Curriculum
were detailed. An examination of these principles suggests that the Government
perceives the barriers to inclusive education as being related mainly to the locus
of the school and that the responsibility for overcoming these barriers is in the
hands of teachers (DfES, 2004). This viewpoint, I suggest, is simplistic and
somewhat contrived, because it is observable that many of the barriers to
effective inclusion are in practice to be found within the loci of Government and
local authorities as well as those of schools.
The locus of the Government
Inclusion in the English educational system is essentially a political process
(Booth et al., 2000) and it is observable that it has become, at one level, a key
component of governmental planning (Corbett, 2001). Problematically, though, in
recent times the Government has pursued a powerful inclusion stance on a top-
down implementation basis (Coles & Hancock, 2002). Regrettably, while the
Government has been well versed in the language of inclusion, I suggest that this
top-down approach may actually be responsible for many of the barriers that are
precluding some children from interfacing with mainstream provision.
The previous Labour Government wanted us to believe that inclusion is intended
to ensure that educational provision offers an opportunity for children to achieve

8. their full potential. This is a very laudable reason. However, I would question
whether in practice this was the previous Government's only motivation for
including all children within mainstream education. To support this premise we
need only examine the words of a previous Minister of Education in relation to
Curriculum 2000:
‘. . . the education of children with special educational needs . . . is vital to the
creation of a fully inclusive society . . . We owe it to all children . . . to develop to
their full potential and contribute economically and play a full part as active
citizens.’
(David Blunkett, 2000, cited in Judge, 2003, p. 163)
Blunkett's statement is interesting because he employs inclusion with the caveat
of economics. Inclusion in these terms, while promoting ‘a route to equality of
opportunity for all,’ is also about providing support for ‘a productive economy and
sustainable development’ (DfEE, 1999). To those of a more cynical disposition, it
might appear that policy operationalised in this manner is not about fulfilling
individual potential but rather is grounded within a functionalist motivation.
A second governmental barrier that seemingly bars the path of successful
inclusion is the curriculum and teaching practices promoted within our education
system. Through policies such as personalised education, the Government has
seemingly promoted inclusion. However, inclusive education does not seem to
square with other policies, such as more selective education promoted within the
recent white paper (DfES, 2005) nor with a National Curriculum and Strategies
that place an emphasis on the whole-class teaching of literacy and numeracy
(Judge, 2003). Rather than promoting inclusion, recent legislation, the inspection
regime and the metrics of accountability ensure that schools cannot fully adhere
to inclusive principles and practices. The National Curriculum and Strategies are
becoming strait-jackets which serve only to restrict inclusion by discouraging
schools from reflecting upon how changes in curricula and teaching might
contribute to increasing the quality and extent of the participation of all learners

9. (Clough & Garner, 2003).
A former Secretary of State for Education stated that:
‘. . . we need to do much more to help children with special educational needs to
achieve as well as they can, not least if we are to meet the challenging targets
expected at school’.
(Charles Clarke, cited in DfES, 2004, p. 16)
This statement makes it abundantly clear that ‘policies of inclusion operate within
a regime of accountability’ (Allan, 2003). This system of accountability should be
perceived as one of the most serious challenges that inclusive education is
facing (Frederickson & Cline, 2002; Allan, 2003; Clough & Garner, 2003; Hanko,
2003). The danger here may be that by linking inclusion to academic
accountability schools, whose reputation and financial viability are dependant
upon surface success where league tables and examination results dominate
(Hanko, 2003), will become wary of accepting children whose low attainment and
discipline may depress examination and SAT scores (Frederickson & Cline,
2002).
For some writers, a further area of tension within current inclusion policies is that
they do not go far enough. While the Government may be ‘firmly committed to
the principle of inclusion and increasing the proportion of children with special
needs attending mainstream schools’ (DfES, 2004), it has stopped short of a
commitment to full inclusion (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). This lack of
commitment, though, should not be seen as a barrier to effective inclusion. By
stopping short of full inclusion, I would suggest that the Government is
advocating ‘inclusion by choice’ (Smith, cited in Tod, 2002). The premise of
‘inclusion by choice’ is vitally important, especially when one considers research
which suggests that some children do not want to be forced into mainstream
placements (Norwich & Kelly, 2004). This premise of choice is further supported
by Warnock (2005) who believes that the specialist sector, rather than being
seen as a place of last resort, should rather be regarded as offering a ‘more

10. productive and creative interpretation of the ideal of inclusive education for all’
(Byers, 2005).
The locus of the local education authority
Earlier in this article, it was suggested that the Government is a key stakeholder
and thus creator of barriers to the inclusion of all our children within mainstream
provision. However, it is invariably the local authority that translates legislation
and initiatives into more practicable forms. In this respect local authorities
perform two functions; not only do they create local policy but they also decide, in
the main, the level of funding for local inclusion programmes. These two
functions seem crucial to the implementation of effective inclusive education.
Regrettably, though, it would appear that inclusive education at this local level is
succumbing to the same difficulties suffered by integration (OFSTED, 2004;
CSIE, 2005; Rustemier & Vaughan, 2005). It is apparent that local authorities'
current inclusion policies have resulted in some building new more inclusive
special schools, others developing inclusive provision by transferring monies
from their special educational needs budget as well as those who no longer
provide special schools for certain categories of special educational needs
(Coles & Hancock, 2002). This variety of implementation means that families are
once again faced with unacceptable variations in the level of support available
(Audit Commission, 2002; Rustemier & Vaughan, 2005) and that, for some
children, inclusion, like integration before it, has become placement without
adequate provision (Corbett, 2001). While educational policy should advocate
inclusion by choice, in reality it seems that some families are left with no option
but the choice of inclusion.
A further barrier placed in the way of the local authorities' provision of inclusive
education is their complex funding arrangements (MacLeod, 2001). It is
interesting to note that a recent study (NUT, 2004) observes that 76% of
SENCos felt that their role was undermined by a lack of funding and 40%
believed that there was not sufficient support for pupils with special educational

11. needs. This lack of funding is problematic for the successful implementation of
inclusionary practices. However, it would be unfair to lay the blame for the
creation of these barriers solely on local authorities. Many have been placed in
an impossible position, in that not only do they have to continue the funding for
Statements of Special Educational Need but are also required to provide further
funding to support early intervention and inclusive educational strategies for all.
Moreover, those authorities which maintain a range of special provision and so
provide inclusion by choice are coming under increasing pressure to reduce their
reliance on high-cost residential placements (DfES, 2004). If local authorities are
not provided with adequate financial support to implement inclusive practices,
then, rather than being a catalyst for inclusion they will be left with no choice but
to impose barriers that will inhibit the development of successful practice.
The locus of the school
It was suggested earlier that many of the barriers to inclusive education are
located within the sphere of control of individual schools (DfES, 2004; Hodkinson,
2007b). While this premise has been questioned above, there is little doubt that
the last stop on the inclusion journey is controlled by the schools, their staff and
local community that supports them. Inclusion, it is argued, is being stalled
because educational institutions are not fit to include all children because of the
barriers of ‘lack of knowledge, lack of will, lack of vision, lack of resources and
lack of morality’ (Clough & Garner, 2003).
The last stop on the journey to successful inclusion, then, is dependent firstly
upon teachers' attitudes to its implementation, and secondly upon their
competencies to deliver this important initiative. Research studies suggest that
while a majority of teachers support inclusive education they do so with
reservation (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Croll & Moses, 2000; Hodkinson,
2005). Teachers, it would seem, will support inclusion if it relates to children with
mild mobility or sensory difficulties (Corbett, 2001). However, some teachers do
not have the same inclusive vision in relation to children who exhibit extreme
behavioural difficulties (Hodkinson, 2005; OFSTED, 2004). Research suggests

12. that, for these children, teachers believe that exclusion would be necessary on
practical grounds (Corbett, 2001; Hodkinson, 2006). It would seem that if schools
are to become inclusive, then it is crucial that they are enabled to develop an
ethos that not only enables all pupils to be supported but also provides for the
needs of teachers (Hanko, 2003).
A problem in relation to supporting the participants of inclusion is that the
literature base indicates that the training for the teaching of pupils with diverse
needs is an issue that has inhibited the successful implementation of special
educational needs strategies in the past. As far back as the Warnock Report
(DES, 1978) the lack of specialist training was raised as an issue that was
stalling the successful implementation of special educational needs strategies.
Twenty years later the Programme of Action (DfEE, 1998) again indicated the
need for teachers to undertake specific training and most recently it has again
been noted that practice is still being inhibited by these same issues (DfES,
2004). It appears that, despite continuing requests for the training of all teachers
in the pedagogy of special educational needs, there remains a common feeling
among educational professionals that training, to date, has been ‘woefully
inadequate’ (Corbett, 2001).
Conclusions: future challenges
The teaching and learning of children with special educational needs has been
subject to increased debate over recent years and it would seem that this level of
interest through policy initiatives such as inclusive education will ensure, at least
in the near future, that this will continue to be the case. This level of interest
should be seen as beneficial, as it ensures that educational policy is questioned
and analysed through the lens of the media and the camera of research.
The future, though, still holds many challenges for both teachers and pupils.
Hopefully, many more children with special educational needs and disabilities will
be taught alongside their peers in local schools. However, if we are to avoid the
mistakes of the past we must heed their lessons and guarantee that the

13. professional development of teachers and adequate funding for schools are
given a high priority. Furthermore, I would suggest that if the prevailing
educational policy is to meet the requirements of children with special
educational needs and disabilities in local schools it must, as a matter of
urgency, move away from the Victorian systems of accountability to ones that
allow local authorities, schools, families and individual pupils to work in a
partnership where mutual trust and respect, not examination results, dominate.
It is now time to develop a new vision for the education of children with special
educational needs and disabilities that is supported by straightforward, co-
ordinated and well-resourced policies. If educational policy is to achieve an
inclusive consciousness, it must ensure that all children are enabled to achieve
their full potential. I would suggest that this can only be achieved by listening to
children, their families and education professionals, and by ensuring that
inclusion is by the choice of the pupils and their parents and not by compulsion.
References
Ainscow, M. (1995) ‘Education for all: making it happen’, Support for
Learning, 10 (4), 147–154. Direct Link:
AbstractPDF(995K)References
Allan, J. (2003) ‘Productive pedagogies and the challenge of inclusion’,
British Journal of Special Education, 30 (4), 175–179. Direct Link:
AbstractPDF(50K)References
Audit Commission (2002) Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue.
London: Audit Commission.
Barton, L. (2003) ‘Inclusive education and teacher education. A basis for
hope or a discourse of delusion?’ Inaugural Professorial Lecture, London:
London Institute of Education.
Barton, L. (2005) ‘Warnock, M. 2005: special educational needs – a new
look’, Centre for Disability Studies' [online at
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/archframe.htm.
Booth, T. (2000) ‘Inclusion and exclusion policy in England: who controls
the agenda?’ in F.Armstrong and D.Armstrong (eds) Inclusive Education.
London: David Fulton.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughn, M. & Shaw, L. (2000)

14. Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools.
Bristol: CSIE.
Byers, R. (2005) ‘Editorial’, British Journal of Special Education, 32 (3),
114–115. Direct Link:
AbstractPDF(192K)References
Clough, P. & Garner, G. (2003) ‘Special educational needs and inclusive
education: origins and current issues’, in S.Bartlett and D.Burton (eds)
Education Studies: essential issues. London: Sage.
Coles, C. & Hancock, R. (2002) The Inclusion Quality Mark. Croydon:
Creative Education.
Corbett, J. (2001) Supporting Inclusive Education: a connective pedagogy.
London: Routledge Falmer.
CrossRef
Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000) ‘Ideologies and utopias: educational
professionals' views of inclusion’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 15 (1), 1–12.
CrossRef
Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2003) ‘Special educational needs across two
decades: survey evidence from English primary schools’, British
Educational Research Journal, 29 (5), 731–747.
CrossRef,Web of Science® Times Cited: 2
CSIE (Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education) (2005) New Segregation
Statistics [online at http://www.//inclusion.uwe.ac.uk]. Bristol: CSIE.
DES (Department of Education and Science) (1978) Special Educational
Needs: a report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of
Handicapped Children and Young People (Report of the Warnock
Committee). London: HMSO.
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997) Excellence for
All Children: meeting special educational needs. London: DfEE.
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1998) Meeting
Special Educational Needs: a programme for action. London: DfEE.
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1999) The National
Curriculum for England [online at http://www.nc.uk.net] London: DfEE.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2001) Special Educational
Needs Code of Practice. London: DfES.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2004) Removing Barriers to
Achievement. The Government's strategy for SEN. Executive summary.
London: DfES.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2005) Higher Standards,
Better Schools For All: more choice for parents and pupils. White Paper.
London: DfES.
Evans, J. & Lunt, I. (2002) ‘Inclusive education: are there limits?’ in
K.Topping and S.Maloney (eds) The Routledge Falmer Reader in
Inclusive Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Frederick, K. (2005) ‘Let's take the special out of special needs’, Times

15. Educational Supplement, 15 July.
Frederickson, N. & Cline, T. (2002) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion
and Diversity, a textbook. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hanko, G. (2003) ‘Towards an inclusive school culture – but what
happened to Elton's affective curriculum?’, British Journal of Special
Education, 30 (3), 125–131. Direct Link:
AbstractPDF(60K)References
Hodkinson, A. (2005) ‘Conceptions and misconceptions of inclusive
education: a critical examination of final year teacher trainees' knowledge
and understanding of inclusion’, Research in Education, 73, 15–29.
Hodkinson, A. (2006) ‘Conceptions and misconceptions of inclusive
education – one year on: a critical analysis of Newly Qualified Teachers'
knowledge and understanding of inclusion’, Research in Education, 76,
43–55.
Hodkinson, A. (2007a) ‘Inclusive education and the cultural representation
of disability and disabled people: a recipe for disaster or the catalyst for
change? An examination of non-disabled primary school children's
attitudes to children with disabilities’, Research in Education, 77, 56–131.
Hodkinson, A. (2007b) ‘Inclusive education and the cultural representation
of disability and disabled people within the English education system: a
critical examination of the mediating influence of primary school
textbooks’, International Association for Research on Textbooks and
Educational Media, IARTEM e-Journal, 1 (1) [online at
http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/treat/iartem/index.htm.
Hodkinson, A. & Vickerman, P. (2008) Special Educational Needs and
Inclusion. London: Sage.
Hornby, G. (2002) ‘Promoting responsible inclusion: quality education for
all’, in C. A.Jones (2004) Supporting Inclusion in the Early Years.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jones, P. (2005) ‘Inclusion: lessons from the children’, British Journal of
Special Education, 32 (2), 60–66. Direct Link:
AbstractPDF(301K)References
Judge, B. (2003) ‘Inclusive education: principles and practices’, in
K.Crawford (ed) Contemporary Issues in Education. Norfolk: Peter
Francis.
MacLeod, F. (2001) ‘Towards inclusion – our shared responsibility for
disaffected students’, British Journal of Special Education, 28 (4), 191–
194. Direct Link:
AbstractPDF(40K)
May, H. (2003) ‘The engagement of children with learning difficulties in
mainstream classrooms.’ Paper presented to the British Educational
Research Association Conference, Edinburgh, 13 September 2003.

16. Norwich, B. & Kelly, N. (2004) ‘Pupils' views on inclusion: moderate
learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools’, British
Educational Research Journal, 30 (1), 43–64.
CrossRef,Web of Science® Times Cited: 12
NUT (National Union of Teachers) (2004) Special Educational Needs
Study. London: NUT.
O'Brien, T. (ed.) (2002) Enabling Inclusion. Blue skies . . . dark clouds.
London: Optimus.
OFSTED (2000) Evaluating Educational Inclusion: guidance for inspectors
and schools. London: OFSTED.
OFSTED (2004) ‘Most mainstream schools are now committed to meeting
special educational need (SEN) as a result of the Government's revised
inclusion framework’, Press Release NR 2004-107, 12 October 2004
[online at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/pressreleases/index.cfm]. London:
OFSTED.
Reynolds, M. C. (1989) ‘An historical perspective: the delivery of special
education to mildly disabled and at-risk students’, Remedial and Special
Education, 10 (6), 11.
CrossRef,Web of Science® Times Cited: 19
Rogers, C. (2007) ‘Experiencing an inclusive education: parents and their
children with special educational needs’, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 1, 55–68.
CrossRef,Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Rustemier, S. & Vaughan, M. (2005) Segregation Trends – LEAs in
England 2002–2004. Bristol: CSIE.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996) ‘Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion 1958–1995: a research synthesis’, Exceptional
Children , 63 (1), 59–74.
Web of Science® Times Cited: 106
Tod, J. (2002) ‘Enabling inclusion for individuals’, in T. OBrien (ed.)
Enabling Inclusion. Blue skies . . . dark clouds. London: Optimus.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization) (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for
Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Warnock, M. (2005) ‘Special educational needs: a new look’, Impact, 11.
London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.