Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany Macquarie University Sydney, Australia Inclusive Education for All: Development of an Instrument to Measure the Teachers’ Attitudes by Stephan Kielblock M. A. (JLU) Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2018 ii Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... vi List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ viii Summary ............................................................................................................................. ix Statement .............................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1 · Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 3 1.4 Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 · Literature Review ............................................................................................. 6 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Inclusive Education for All – Understandings and Definitions ................................... 7 2.2.1 ‘Inclusive Education for All’ as a New Global Commitment .....................................................7 2.2.2 ‘Inclusive Education for All’ in National and Local Contexts ................................................. 13 2.3 Inclusive Education for All and Teachers’ Attitudes ................................................ 24 2.3.1 Teachers and their Attitudes as a Key to Inclusive Education for All ....................................... 24 2.3.2 Empirical Studies on Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education ................................... 32 2.4 Specification of the Research Problem ..................................................................... 41 2.4.1 Instruments to Measure Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education ............................... 42 2.4.2 Statement of the Research Problem ........................................................................................ 44 2.4.3 Research Question ................................................................................................................. 46 2.5 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................... 47 Chapter 3 · Methodology ................................................................................................... 49 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 49 3.2 Purpose of the Empirical Study ................................................................................ 49 3.3 Study Population ..................................................................................................... 50 3.3.1 Countries in which the Present Study was Carried Out............................................................ 50 3.3.2 Further Description of Both Contexts ..................................................................................... 52 3.4 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 56 3.4.1 General Stance: Quantitative Research ................................................................................... 56 3.4.2 Research Style: Survey Research Using a Questionnaire ......................................................... 57 iii 3.4.3 Objective: Develop a New Attitude Questionnaire ................................................................. 61 3.4.4 Scope: Cross-Cultural Research ............................................................................................. 70 3.4.5 Establishing Quality of the Measurement Instrument ............................................................. 77 3.5 Procedures of Developing the Data Collection Instruments ...................................... 79 3.5.1 Develop the English Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 80 3.5.2 Questionnaire Translation and Adaptation in German ............................................................ 86 3.6 Data Collection Procedures...................................................................................... 94 3.6.1 Approval of the Empirical Study ........................................................................................... 94 3.6.2 Drawing the Sample .............................................................................................................. 95 3.6.3 Sampling............................................................................................................................... 96 3.6.3 Administration of the Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 98 3.7 Quantitative Methods of Analysing Data ................................................................. 99 3.7.1 Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................................................ 99 3.7.2 Scale Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 103 3.7.3 Validation of the Scale (Hypotheses) ................................................................................... 109 3.8 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 114 Chapter 4 · Results ........................................................................................................... 116 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 116 4.2 The English Attitude Questionnaire ....................................................................... 116 4.2.1 Result of the Systematic Literature Review: Relevant Questionnaire Items ........................... 116 4.2.2 Item Revisions and Response Format .................................................................................. 120 4.2.3 Outcome of the Written-Comments Pre-Test........................................................................ 123 4.2.4 Final Attitude Items in English Language ............................................................................ 124 4.3 The German Attitude Questionnaire ...................................................................... 124 4.3.1 Translated Versions ............................................................................................................. 124 4.3.2 Comparisons of the Different Item Versions and Decisions .................................................. 124 4.3.3 Final Changes to the Items due to Intensive Pre-Testing ....................................................... 128 4.3.4 Final Items in German Language ......................................................................................... 132 4.4 Characteristics of the Sample ................................................................................. 132 4.5 Internal Structure of the Scale ................................................................................ 134 4.5.1 Outcome of the Initial Data Examination ............................................................................. 134 4.5.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis ................................................................................................ 136 4.5.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.............................................................................................. 142 4.5.4 Obtaining the Factor Scores ................................................................................................. 147 4.6 Relation of the Scales’ Dimensions to Conceptually Related Aspects .................... 148 4.6.1 Australian Teachers’ Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Background ............................................ 149 4.6.2 German Teachers’ Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Background ............................................... 160 4.6.3 Synopsis of the Results for the Australian and the German sample ....................................... 170 4.7 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 172 iv Chapter 5 · Discussion ...................................................................................................... 173 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 173 5.2 Interpretation of the Obtained Results .................................................................... 173 5.2.1 Indicators of Inclusive Education for All .............................................................................. 173 5.2.2 Internal Structure of the New Instrument .............................................................................. 176 5.2.3 Conclusions on the Validation Hypotheses ........................................................................... 182 5.3 Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................... 196 5.4 Implications of the Findings and Conclusion .......................................................... 197 5.4.1 Implications for Policy and Practice ..................................................................................... 197 5.4.2 Implications for Further Research ........................................................................................ 198 5.4.3 Overall Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 199 References ......................................................................................................................... 201 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 221 v List of Figures Figure 1. Visual elements that support the understanding of the seven-point scale ................ 70 Figure 2. Depiction of the professional translation into the target language (TL(P)) from the source language (SL), and the possible sources of discrepancies........................................... 91 Figure 3. Depiction of the comparisons with regard to item ................................................ 126 Figure 4. Confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor model ........................................ 143 Figure 5. Confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor model ......................................... 146 vi List of Tables Table 1. Decision framework of Weijters et al. (2010) for selecting a response scale format . 68 Table 2. Exclusion criteria for the review of the papers......................................................... 82 Table 3. Comparison between both German versions. Item 3 as an example ......................... 89 Table 4. Coding scheme for the systematic comparison ........................................................ 90 Table 5. Result of the search for relevant questionnaire items using a systematic approach . 117 Table 6. Overview on the 14 Papers that Resulted out of the Literature Review .................. 119 Table 7. Results of the English-English and the German-German comparisons. Absolute and relative number of items with or without issues .................................................................. 125 Table 8. Discrepancies, special attention needed, and decisions made ................................. 127 Table 9. Written and oral critique and changes to the wording ............................................ 131 Table 10. Intended sample size and actual sample .............................................................. 133 Table 11. Exploratory factor analysis for the Australian sample .......................................... 137 Table 12. Exploratory factor analysis for the German sample ............................................. 140 Table 13. Comparative examination of the support-related items ........................................ 145 Table 14. Characteristics of the four attitude dimensions .................................................... 147 Table 15. Differences of the attitudes amongst Australian teachers with regards to gender . 149 Table 16. Differences of the attitudes amongst Australian teachers with regards to age ....... 150 Table 17. Differences of the attitudes of Australian pre-service vs. in-service teachers ....... 151 Table 18. Differences of the attitudes of Australian primary vs. secondary teachers ............ 152 Table 19. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to years of teaching experience .......................................................................................................................... 153 Table 20. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to holding a postgraduate degree/diploma or not .................................................................................... 154 Table 21. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to their inclusion- related knowledge .............................................................................................................. 155 Table 22. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to their level of inclusion-related training .................................................................................................... 156 Table 23. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to their inclusive education-related experiences ............................................................................................. 157 Table 24. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to their self-efficacy in managing behaviour ....................................................................................................... 158 Table 25. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to their self-efficacy in collaboration .................................................................................................................. 159 vii Table 26. Differences of the attitudes of Australian teachers with regards to their self-efficacy in using inclusive instruction .............................................................................................. 159 Table 27. Differences of the attitudes amongst German teachers with regards to gender ..... 160 Table 28. Differences of the attitudes amongst German teachers with regards to age .......... 161 Table 29. Differences of the attitudes of German pre-service vs. in-service teachers ........... 162 Table 30. Differences of the attitudes of German primary vs. secondary teachers ............... 163 Table 31. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to years of teaching experience .......................................................................................................................... 163 Table 32. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to holding a postgraduate degree/diploma or not .................................................................................... 164 Table 33. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to their inclusive education-related knowledge .............................................................................................. 165 Table 34. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to their level of inclusion-related training .................................................................................................... 166 Table 35. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to their inclusive education-related experiences ............................................................................................. 167 Table 36. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to their self-efficacy in managing behaviour ........................................................................................................... 168 Table 37. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to their self-efficacy in collaboration ...................................................................................................................... 169 Table 38. Differences of the attitudes of German teachers with regards to their self-efficacy in using inclusive instruction .................................................................................................. 169 viii List of Appendices Appendix A · Ethics Approval ........................................................................................... 221 Appendix B · Approved SERAP ........................................................................................ 222 Appendix C · Approval of Data Collection at the JLU ........................................................ 223 Appendix D · Approval of Conduct of the Study at Schools in Hesse, Germany ................. 224 Appendix E · Analysis of the TEIP scale ............................................................................ 226 Appendix F · Univariate Analysis of the Attitude Items ...................................................... 227 Appendix G · Correlative Analysis of the Attitude Items .................................................... 230 Appendix H · Structure Matrices ........................................................................................ 232 Appendix I · Additional Information as they pertain to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis .. 234 Appendix J · Survey in English Language .......................................................................... 235 Appendix K · Survey in German Language ........................................................................ 239 Appendix L · Original Items and Revised Items ................................................................. 243 Appendix M · All Versions Compared ............................................................................... 246 ix Summary In recent years, the term inclusive education has played an unprecedented role in research and policies across the globe. It is relatively accepted to differentiate between a narrow and a broad understanding of inclusive education. On the one hand, the more narrow understanding focuses on the placement and the catering for specific students, such as those with identified special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). On the other hand, a more broad understanding of inclusive education incorporates views on the diversity of all students and supportive learning environments for all. In order to foster inclusive education for all, the literature suggests that it would be of vital importance to gain empirical data about the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all. Yet, recent review studies have uncovered that particularly empirical studies tend to utilise a view on students with SEND and that there seems to be a lack of attitude measurement instruments that operationalise a broader understanding of inclusive education for all. Accordingly, the present study attempted to make a unique contribution to the field of inclusive education in that it reviewed a substantial number of studies and developed a new, sound and robust instrument to measure different facets of the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all students. Teacher samples were drawn in Australia (n=146) and in Germany (n=238), and the data analysis revealed four dimensions of the teachers’ attitudes; namely, the vision, the differentiation, the general practices, and the supports as they pertain to inclusive education for all. The validity of the measurement was established and the final version seemed to be ready to use in further studies that attempt to utilise inclusive education for all, rather than for some. x Statement I hereby certify that this work has been submitted in identical form to the Justus Liebig University Giessen and the Macquarie University Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements of the Cotutelle Agreement between both institutions. This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself. _____________________ Stephan Kielblock 31 December 2017 xi Acknowledgements My particular interest in inclusive education was instigated in July 2014, when I met Jeremy J. Monsen at a conference at Cambridge University, UK. Our discussions led to a workshop on cross-cultural perspectives on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education that we both held together in August 2015 in Limassol, Cyprus. In this workshop, our focus was – naturally – on including students with identified special educational needs. One unexpected outcome of this workshop was written by Tinde Kovac-Cerovic and Alberto Nagle Cajes on a poster, which I have until today on my office wall: “We suggest a broader approach.” This encouraged me to study inclusive education for all the way it is represented in the present thesis. I would like to thank all workshop participants to share their views, and Jeremy for our fruitful research collaboration and friendship over the years. Like this example illustrated, many substantial gains in my personal understanding of inclusive education for all were only possible through exchange with international colleagues. In this regard, I am more than grateful that, generally, the Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany (JLU) and, specifically, Ludwig Stecher supported all my international travels over the years. Later, I was also affiliated to the Macquarie University Sydney, Australia (MQU), which also supported my international ambitions to travel to conferences in countries such as Finland, Korea, and the United States. I am thankful for the idealistic and monetary support. All the ideas that I acquired over the years needed to be transformed into a concrete research project and into a written thesis. This was a fascinating journey, which was guided by my supervisors Ludwig Stecher (JLU) and Stuart Woodcock (MQU). I am very thankful that both of my supervisors were continuously encouraging me over the years to (try to) think beyond the mainstream. There is a personal history behind reaching this point in my academic career, and I would like to thank all the unique individuals who supported me over the last three decades or so, such as my parents and siblings, my peers (and their families), and my academic teachers. A proverb says, it takes a village to raise a child; similarly, I would say, it takes a village to write a thesis. I would like to acknowledge that there were many people involved in intensively supporting me over the last few years, so that I had the capability to conduct and write the study in the present form. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to these people; namely, my beloved wife and my beloved son, our families and friends, the BiFo team and the StEG team, and the students and teachers, who participated in the present study. Without you all, nothing like this would have been written in the way I was able to write it. Chapter 1 · Introduction 1 Chapter 1 · Introduction 1.1 Introduction In recent years, the term inclusive education has played an unprecedented role in research and policies across the globe, which gave rise to a variety of different understandings of this concept (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006; Ainscow & Miles, 2008; Dyson, 2004, 2014; Göransson & Nilholm, 2014; Haug, 2017; Messiou, 2017; Miles & Singal, 2010; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017; Thomas, 2013; Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). It is relatively accepted amongst scholars (such as Arduin, 2015; Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2011; Miles & Singal, 2010; Opertti, Brady, & Duncombe, 2009; Shyman, 2015), to differentiate between a narrow and a broad understanding of inclusive education. On the one hand, the more narrow understanding focuses on the placement and the catering for specific students, such as those with identified special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND). On the other hand, a more broad understanding of inclusive education incorporates views on the diversity of all students, and the changes that the schools and the school system must pass through to be able to provide a supportive learning environment for all. In a way, both of these perspectives are represented in different global policies, mostly advocated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The perspective that some students need particular attention is promoted by UNESCO’s ‘Inclusive Education’ policies; most prominent, the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). And the perspective that education should be available for all students is represented in UNESCO’s ‘Education for All’ policies; most prominent, the World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO, 1990). It is obvious that inclusive education (in a wider or narrower understanding) is not just a global concept, but that its content has real effects for those countries that subscribe to its ideals. One of the most visible effects can be examined on the school level and researchers such as Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (Ainscow et al., 2006; Ainscow, Farrell, & Tweddle, 2000; Ainscow & Miles, 2008; Booth, 1995; Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Dyson, 2004, 2014) have argued that inclusion needs to be realised through school development, including the school’s local community. Although schools provide the environments for inclusive teaching practices and inclusive student-teacher interactions, there are convincing arguments and there is strong 2 Stephan Kielblock evidence that at a fundamental level the teachers and their attitudes are the key to inclusive education for all of the students. Concerning the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, a large evidence base is available from a variety of previous empirical studies. However, this evidence base is challenged by recent review studies. Researchers have pointed out that the focus on some students rather than on all is much more common in studies (Messiou, 2017), and that empirical studies tend to understand inclusive education as catering for some students (e.g. with SEND) specifically, while more conceptual studies utilise inclusive education as catering for all students (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). It is well documented that German instruments to measure attitudes towards inclusive education generally focus on students with SEND (Ruberg & Porsch, 2017). Against the backdrop of this situation, the present study attempted to make a unique contribution to the field of inclusive education in that it reviewed a substantial number of studies and instruments and developed a new instrument to measure different facets of the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all students, which is also usable in cross-cultural investigations. 1.2 Purpose of the Study As noted before, investigations in the area of inclusive education are confronted with a variety of understandings of inclusive education. Hence, an initial purpose was to clarify the meaning of inclusive education. As it was agreed that inclusion generally needed to be understood as a normative idea which is connected to certain values (Haug, 2014, 2017), the present investigation started with examining the relevant global contexts in which the ideas of ‘inclusive education’ and ‘education for all’ evolved. As an overarching term, ‘inclusive education for all’ was coined and discussed in the present study. After such preliminary clarifications, the main purpose of the present study was to investigate how the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all can be measured. The attempted new measurement instrument was thought to be sound and robust. Concerning the former, the instrument should allow a valid and reliable measurement. And concerning the latter, the instrument should be ready to be used in multi-language, multicultural and multinational settings. The attitudes were assumed to comprise certain facets; accordingly, the purpose of the present study was also to establish certain dimensions of the measurement instrument. Chapter 1 · Introduction 3 The resulting measurement instrument of the present study was thought to provide new opportunities for researchers to study the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all, without narrowing down possible teachers’ responses to aspects as they pertain basically to mainstreaming or integration. 1.3 Significance of the Study Teachers and their attitudes are crucial for inclusive education for all to take place in ‘real- world’ practices. Hence, the present study contributes generally to the research knowledge as it pertains to teachers and their attitudes. As noted before, many understandings of inclusive education are apparent and considerable confusions exist in this regard. The present study introduced ‘inclusive education for all’ as a term, which is not just another understanding besides many others, but it attempts to integrate some of the existing understandings. Similarly, the study started utilising ‘inclusive education for some’ as a term that signifies students with SEND, yet, at the same time dissociates from former notions of integration and mainstreaming. The significance of these two terms is that some initial steps were made in the present study towards reducing the conceptual confusion through integrating certain understandings. The main purpose was to find a way to measure the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all. The whole present study represents the ambitious attempt to develop such a new instrument. Besides some limitations, all procedures of the empirical study were realised the way they were conceptualised in accordance to an in-depth discussion of the methodological literature. Hence, the new measurement instrument resulted in a sound and robust scale. This scale comprised 12 items, which formed four dimensions of the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all. In this way, the present study makes a unique contribution to the field of inclusive education. This pertains not only to further research, which might particularly gain new insights when utilising the new measurement instrument, but also to all relevant stakeholders in education, because they might adapt the term inclusive education for all (as opposed to many others who continue their sole focus on some, rather than all) and they might be informed about the new instrument (as opposed to other measurement instruments that most stakeholders in education are continuously confronted with and that continue to focus on some, rather than all). 4 Stephan Kielblock 1.4 Structure of the Thesis The present study comprises five chapters. This Chapter one has given an overview on the fundamental issues that this study takes up, and elaborates further. The main purpose of the present study to develop a new instrument that measures the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all is justified, before the significance of the obtained results are delineated. Chapter two examines in the first part inclusive education from a global perspective. Particularly, UNESCO’s efforts towards ‘Inclusive Education’ and ‘Education for All’ are discussed as important driving forces on the global level, which represent a narrow and a wide understanding of inclusive education, respectively. Drawing on global developments, it is noted that, conceptually, these two understandings were moving closer together over the years. Hence, ‘inclusive education for all’ was established as a term, which refers to both the ‘inclusive’ and the ‘for all’ character of education. After a detailed discussion on how and why global concepts get deflected when transposed into national, local, school, and classroom practice levels, the crucial importance of teachers and their attitudes are emphasised for implementing inclusive education for all. Accordingly, a variety of empirical studies were reviewed on the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education; yet, a closer examination revealed that all these studies were not about inclusive education for all, but about inclusive education for some. As the research problem it is highlighted that in order to implement inclusive education for all, research needs to be carried out on the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all, rather than for some. In Chapter three, the empirical part of the study is specified with regards to the main purpose of the present study to develop a new instrument to measure the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all, which is sound, robust and comprise different dimensions. In order to allow for developing a robust instrument, two contexts were selected in an informed way, where the study was carried out; namely Australia and Germany. Furthermore, the key parameters of the study are discussed and justified with regards to the general stance, the research style, the objective, the scope and how to establish the quality of the measurement. The procedures regarding how the questionnaire was developed in English language, and how it was translated to German, were building on all these intensive discussions with regards to the key parameters. The data collection procedures are detailed, before the procedures of analysing data are discussed and defined. Chapter four, then, presents the results as they were obtained through conducting the study as it was determined in the previous chapter. The depiction of the results starts with the Chapter 1 · Introduction 5 systematic literature review, which was thought to result in a number of relevant items in English that could be utilised as indicators of the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for all. After revision and pre-testing, the final attitude items were translated and adapted in German; hence, the results of the according processes and also the German pre-test are described. The resulting samples from Australia (n=146) and Germany (n=238) are outlined, before the results of the statistical analyses are presented. This part is divided into examining the internal structure of the data, and examining the relationships to other teacher variables such as self-efficacy and experiences. The final Chapter five presents in a first part in-depth interpretations of all of the obtained results. After describing and reflecting the obtained indicators of inclusive education for all, the results as they pertain to the internal structure of the new instrument are discussed. This is carried out for each of the four dimensions, and, finally, for the overall structure of the instrument. Then, conclusions are presented on all of the validation hypotheses, which were specified in order to gain insights in how the instrument and its dimensions related to other teachers’ aspects. After considering limitations of the study, conclusions are reached regarding the new instrument, including four dimensions, which can be considered as sound and robust. Implications of the study’s findings are discussed and an overall conclusion is given in the end of the study. 6 Stephan Kielblock Chapter 2 · Literature Review 2.1 Introduction It is widely acknowledged that inclusive education should consider all individuals, and not some specifically (see e.g. Thomas, 2013). Yet, the most recent reviews clearly point to the fact that studies on inclusive education are focussing to a large extent on students with identified special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) (Haug, 2017; Messiou, 2017; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017; Ruberg & Porsch, 2017). Furthermore, there seems to be a gap between conceptual or theoretical studies on the one hand, which advocate a more diverse learners- and ‘for all’-related perspective and empirical studies on the other hand, which utilise an understanding of inclusive education as the placement of students with SEND in the mainstream (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). As the first major step, an extensive discussion of conceptual understandings and definitions of inclusive education will be carried out in the following section. At international level, developments towards ‘education for all’ and ‘inclusive education’ are reviewed, and an attempt is made to think education for all and inclusive education together, which leads to the postulation of ‘inclusive education for all’ as guiding principle on the global level. If global policies and concepts are translated to the national, local, school, and classroom practice levels, tensions and diverse interpretations are created, which is discussed subsequently. As a second major step in this chapter, the teachers are emphasised as one of the main stakeholders in education. It will be argued that their attitudes need to be considered as crucial for implementing more inclusive practices. The empirical literature on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, which is reviewed subsequently, demonstrates that the instruments to measure the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education were exclusively focused on the placement of particular students and/or on students with SEND. Hence, how to operationalise inclusive education for all for an empirical investigation of the teachers’ attitudes is established as the research problem of the present study, which is described and justified in the end of this chapter. Chapter 2 · Literature Review 7 2.2 Inclusive Education for All – Understandings and Definitions At the heart of inclusive education are the efforts of the United Nations, and in particular of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Burnett, 2008; Kiuppis, 2014; Mundy, 2016; Peters, 2007). Many studies give reference to UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), and some to UNESCO’s World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO, 1990) as the origin of the present inclusive education-related thinking. 2.2.1 ‘Inclusive Education for All’ as a New Global Commitment Education for all and inclusive education are commitments on a global level that are closely related to the UNESCO as one of the main driving forces towards achieving inclusive and quality education for all. Both terms have their own history and a particular meaning; yet, not much research effort was expended on how both might complement each other. The Early Adoptions of the Idea to Provide Education for All The idea of the education for all was laid out in the 1940s after World War II (Mundy, 2016; Roche, 2016). The notion that education should be available ‘for all’ was explicitly formulated in the constitution of the UNESCO, which was adopted in London on 16 November 1945. In this document, it was stated that the States’ Parties are “believing in full and equal opportunities for education for all, in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, are agreed and determined to develop and to increase the means of communication between their peoples and to employ these means for the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of each other’s lives” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 5; italics added). The idea that “everyone has the right to education” was also articulated by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (UN, 1948) in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Besides these early notions of the availability of education for all students, various authors (such as Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Guo, 2014; Kiuppis, 2014; Tomlinson, 2015) highlighted that UNESCO’s Education for All, as a global movement, was initiated more recently after the Cold War. In 1990, the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand resulted in the approval of the World Declaration on Education for All. In its Preamble, the assertion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was repeated that “everyone has a right to 8 Stephan Kielblock education” (UNESCO, 1990, p. 1). This notion is mirrored in the World Declaration on Education for All “that education is a fundamental right for all people, women and men, of all ages, throughout our world” (UNESCO, 1990, p. 2). The declaration states that “to serve the basic learning needs of all requires more than a recommitment to basic education as it now exists. What is needed is an “expanded vision” that surpasses present resource levels, institutional structures, curricula, and conventional delivery systems while building on the best in current practices” (UNESCO, 1990, p. 4). Furthermore, the declaration states that disparities must be reduced. This pertains to a large variety of underserved groups and it is emphasised particularly that “the learning needs of the disabled demand special attention. Steps need to be taken to provide equal access to education to every category of disabled persons as an integral part of the education system” (UNESCO, 1990, p. 5). The Jomtien World Declaration was controversially discussed with regard to its influence of developments after 1990. On the one hand, both the conference and the declaration was a unifying element that connects all countries with a common vision. Ainscow and Miles (2008) call it a ‘ground-breaking’ conference, because a number of countries worldwide committed to achieve common goals with regard to providing education for all. On the other hand, the commitments seemed not to be translated into action after the conference. Despite the available resources – such as the Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs (which was also adopted at the Jomtien conference) and over one hundred pages of background information on the ‘expanded vision’ provided by Haddad, Colletta, Fisher, Lakin, and Sutton (1990) – an implementation or initiation of relevant steps scarcely happened in the different countries. In the words of Mundy (2016, p. 7), ‘little tangible action’ was noticeable after the Jomtien conference, despite the ‘glorious pledges and commitments’. In addition, authors such as Ainscow and Miles (2008) criticised that the World Declaration on Education for All might have left too much room for interpreting the notion of ‘all’ as ‘almost all’. In their view, only the so-called Salamanca Statement ensured later that all really does mean all (Ainscow & Miles, 2008). In 1994, the World Conference on Special Needs Education took place in Salamanca, Spain. The participating delegates of governments and international organisations approved the Salamanca Statement and its Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994). The Salamanca Statement reaffirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Education for All agenda. The Salamanca Statement leaves no doubt that Chapter 2 · Literature Review 9 “regular schools […] are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all” (UNESCO, 1994, p. ix). Both conferences and related policies lay the foundations for the UNESCO pushing forward towards Education for All (as agreed in Jomtien) and Inclusive Education (as agreed in Salamanca). The Dakar Era (2000-2014) and the Millennium Development Goals In 2000, the World Education Forum was held in Dakar, Senegal. As Mundy (2016, p. 7) noted, this conference lead into ‘a much more productive Education for All decade’, which Mundy (2016) refers to as the ‘Dakar era’. The outcome of the conference is known as the Dakar Framework for Action, which already carries “action” in its name. In this Framework, the necessity to action is pointed out and agreed upon explicitly: “The Dakar Framework is a collective commitment to action. Governments have an obligation to ensure that EFA goals and targets are reached and sustained. This is a responsibility that will be met most effectively through broad-based partnerships within countries, supported by co-operation with regional and international agencies and institutions.” (UNESCO, 2000, p. 8) Since 2000, UNESCO’s Education for All and Inclusive Education were systematically fostered. The Dakar Framework specified regional frameworks for action that were thought to be achieved by the different countries within 15 years. In addition, as pointed out for example by Mundy (2016), the United Nations released eight so-called Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which urged the countries to achieve amongst others universal primary education (goal 2). Moreover, the UNESCO established the periodically conducted UNESCO Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Another crucial development after Dakar was the publication of the Guidelines for Inclusion in 2005. As it was emphasised by different inclusion researchers (such as Armstrong et al., 2011; Berlach & Chambers, 2011; Opertti & Brady, 2011), these guidelines relate the vision of education for all and the vision of inclusive education to each other. In the guidelines (UNESCO, 2005), it is critically acknowledged that the education for all movement had scarcely taken up issues of special needs, and vice versa that inclusive education was not recognised as an essential element of the education for all movement. In the following quote from UNESCO’s Guidelines for Inclusion, it is articulated that providing education for all 10 Stephan Kielblock students is only possible when discrimination and exclusion is taken seriously and is explicitly tackled: “It is important to highlight that Education for All does not automatically imply inclusion. Inclusion properly understood is precisely about reforming schools and ensuring that every child receives quality and appropriate education within these schools. To this extent, inclusion is critical to the EFA [Education for All] movement since without it, a group or groups of children are excluded from education. Thus, EFA by definition cannot be achieved if these children are excluded. Both EFA and inclusion are both about access to education, however, inclusion is about access to education in a manner that there is no discrimination or exclusion for any individual or group within or outside the school system.” (UNESCO, 2005, p. 29). Like these guidelines, many other important developments can be recognised in the years after Dakar. For example the establishment of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (discussed with regard to the inclusive education movement e.g. by Armstrong et al., 2011; see also Section 2.2.2). Yet, the positive developments proceed slower than originally thought that they would. Mundy (2016) stated that “despite much good news, it is important to note that many of the promises of the Dakar era did not gain the momentum expected” (Mundy, 2016, p. 9). The Incheon Era (Since 2015) and the Sustainable Development Goals In 2015, the new sustainable development agenda was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The former eight MDGs were revised into seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The original education-related goal (MDG 2) “achieve universal primary education” was reformulated in the goal to “ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning” (SDG 4). Also in 2015, the World Education Forum 2015 took place at Incheon, Republic of Korea. The participants reaffirmed the vision of education for all and recognised “with great concern that we are far from having reached education for all” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 5). The so-called Incheon Declaration presented a “new vision for education” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 6) for the next 15 years (until 2030). The targeted direction for worldwide developments in establishing education for all students is in line with the SDG 4, as it is explicitly stated in the Incheon Declaration (UNESCO, 2015). The goals specified by the Incheon Declaration cover a wide range of topics such as access to education, inclusion and equity, gender equality, quality education, and lifelong learning opportunities. Inclusion and equity means to address exclusion and ensure that ‘no one is left behind’. The declaration states: Chapter 2 · Literature Review 11 “Inclusion and equity in and through education is the cornerstone of a transformative education agenda, and we therefore commit to addressing all forms of exclusion and marginalization, disparities and inequalities in access, participation and learning outcomes. No education target should be considered met unless met by all. We therefore commit to making the necessary changes in education policies and focusing our efforts on the most disadvantaged, especially those with disabilities, to ensure that no one is left behind.” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 8) As it is clear from this quote, the Incheon Declaration reflects a broad definition of inclusive education, as it is noted for example by Messiou (2017). Compared to the previous Dakar Framework, it is noticeable that the mission to tackle exclusion and marginalisation in all forms complements the importance of education for all students. Both perspectives – to provide education for all students, and to tackle exclusion of some students – are emphasised. Currently, the ‘Incheon era’ (this term is inspired by the notion of the ‘Dakar era’ used by Mundy, 2016, p. 9) has just started, and the Incheon Declaration sets the direction until 2030. It remains to be seen, what developments might be achieved by then. An Attempt to Establish ‘Inclusive Education for All’ as a New Guiding Principle Especially within the Dakar era, attempts were made to synchronise the efforts of Education for All, inclusive education and the broader commitments to the MDGs. Recently, UNESCO’s definitions of inclusive education and education for all have been aligned. Inclusive education attempts to ensure that “all learners have access to quality education that meets basic learning needs and enriches lives”, and education for all means providing “quality basic education for all children, youth and adults” (www.unesco.org; accessed on 20/03/2017). It was noted by scholars such as Kiuppis (2014) that these newly established directions of ‘Inclusive Education’ and ‘Education for All’ as two of UNESCO’s missions blurs the boundaries between them. According to Kiuppis (2014), both aim at achieving that education supports individuals in reaching their full potential and that discrimination comes to an end. In addition, and in line with this, the newly established UN SDG 4 works systematically towards ‘inclusive and quality education for all’, which explicitly combines the notions of inclusive education and education for all in one expression. Researchers have tried to bring both the perspective on education for all students (as advocated by UNESCO’s Education for All) and the perspective on tackling exclusion of some students to foster education for all (as advocated by UNESCO’s Inclusive Education) together. As early as in 2004, Peters (2004) noted that Education for All and Inclusive Education needs to join forces under a new kind of thinking and planning, which she called “Education for All- Together” (Peters, 2004, p. 47). Recently, Thomas (2013) called for a new kind of inclusive 12 Stephan Kielblock thinking, which considers inequality and equity at the same time. According to this perspective, young people need recognition, respect and identity. ‘Community’ is at the heart of this new thinking, as Thomas (2013) pointed out, and it is crucial to examine the role of schools in enabling community for students to prosper within such community. Shyman (2015) argued in a similar direction, when he emphasised a new definition of inclusive education based on social justice. In the words of Shyman (2015), this definition states that “all individuals, regardless of exceptionality, are entitled to the opportunity to be included in regular classroom environments while receiving the supports necessary to facilitate accessibility to both environment and information” (Shyman, 2015, p. 351). This perspective combines the notion of education for all and the notion that some might need additional support. Miles and Singal (2010) reiterate that UNESCO’s Education for All is likely to overlook the issue of continued exclusion of particular individuals, while UNESCO’s Inclusive Education tends to demarcate special cases as separate issues. In this way, Miles and Singal (2010) make a clear point that issues such as ‘disability’ need to be “recognised as one of many issues of difference and discrimination, rather than as an issue on its own” (p. 11). If inclusive education and education for all are brought together in just one expression, it seems relatively obvious to use ‘education’ as a link between them and combine them into the term ‘inclusive education for all’. In the literature, this exact term was used before. For example, Miles and Singal (2010) mentioned in one sentence that “the extent to which more inclusive educational practices are promoted at country level will depend on the development of a clear understanding of the concept of ‘inclusive education for all’ in the cultural contexts in which it is developed” (p. 8). Another example is Carrington et al. (2012), who mentioned the term in their chapter title “towards an inclusive education for all” (p. 3). Similarly, the term was used as a subtitle of a book: “school without walls: inclusive education for all” (Jha, 2008). Yet, none of these references, or any other reference that mentioned this term in a way (such as Arduin, 2015; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Costello & Boyle, 2013; Loreman, 2014) have defined its meaning or have used it consistently. As noted in the previous paragraphs, recently, there is a push forward towards combining the idea of inclusive education and the idea of education for all. However, there seems to be not yet any established term to refer to education as being inclusive for all rather than for some. The present study attempts to take up the term ‘inclusive education for all’, as it was mentioned in previous works, to define its meaning, and to use it consistently. To coin this term in this way, it would add to the education for all perspective that discrimination exists and needs to be tackled and would add to the inclusive education perspective that the focus on all students should not be lost out of sight. Although the expression of ‘inclusive education for all’ might Chapter 2 · Literature Review 13 be not new in itself, the present attempt of a definition and the present attempt to use it accordingly, might justify to refer to ‘inclusive education for all’ as being a new concept. This new concept gives emphasis to the fact that the principle of inclusive education is thought to be relevant for all students rather than for some particularly. However, many recent studies on inclusive education are not focussing on all students but students with SEND (see evidence in Section 2.3.2). In order to be able to refer to studies like that, the concept of ‘inclusive education for some’ is also introduced in this study. To differentiate between inclusive education for all and inclusive education for some allows one to describe that researchers tend to utilise and operationalise former ideas of mainstreaming and integration under the umbrella of inclusion. However, inclusive education was and is supposed to refer to all students rather than to particular groups of students, which this Section 2.2.1 clearly demonstrated (see detailed discussion in Section 2.4). In this sense, it is not suggested that ‘for all’ and ‘for some’ are both, in a normative sense, valid ways to think about and conduct research on inclusive education. The differentiation is supposed to allow to describe that the term might have changed (e.g. from integration to inclusion), but that researchers tend to remain in their former mindsets. The term inclusive education for all on the global level is defined in the present study in accordance with UNESCO’s policies and with the discussed references (such as Ainscow et al., 2006; Ainscow & Miles, 2008; Miles & Singal, 2010; Peters, 2004; Shyman, 2015; Thomas, 2013): Inclusive education for all describes the presence, participation and achievement of all students in education, and the imperative to tackle exclusion and marginalisation that some individuals face with regards to their presence, participation and achievement in education, and to initiate all necessary steps on all necessary levels that these individuals are embraced by the notion of ‘all’. In this way, this term might be able to embrace both the education for all students perspective and the inclusive education (as strengthened education for some students) perspective; and it might therefore be able to explicate the direction for education in the next number of years, which was inscribed implicitly in the Incheon Declaration (UNESCO, 2015). 2.2.2 ‘Inclusive Education for All’ in National and Local Contexts Global policies are relatively abstract, which means that they need to be translated into national and local contexts. These translation processes are highly complex and a variety of aspects deflect the translation in other directions than intended, such as the already existing laws on different societal levels, monetary flows, involved agencies, political directions, past events in the society, utilisation of particular words and phrases in policies, values, attitudes and so forth. The dynamics of the processes depend largely on the kind of global policy and the context in which it is supposed to be implemented, or even to be made legally binding. Hence, in the 14 Stephan Kielblock following section, a selection of some major issues of translating global inclusive education policies into national and local contexts are highlighted as they seem to dominate current inclusive education discourses. These include diverse definitions and understandings of inclusive education in different contexts, diverse understandings as they are represented in different educational policies, the way SEND are defined and identified in certain contexts, schools as important institutions to implement more inclusive ideas, and the general pedagogic approach. Diverse Meanings of Inclusive Education Research that tried to clarify what inclusive education meant repeatedly have reached the conclusion that, generally, there were different understandings. Ainscow et al. (2006) developed a typology of six different understandings of inclusive education (see also Ainscow & Miles, 2008). As opposed to the previously presented reflections on the global (policy) level, Ainscow et al. (2006) were more interested in examining how inclusive education was understood within countries, government policies and schools. Being concerned with including students with SEND, or trying to reduce the exclusion of students whose behaviour is considered as being difficult, are the first two ways of thinking about inclusive education, respectively. According to Ainscow et al. (2006), the third understanding relates inclusive education to all groups that are considered as being particularly vulnerable to exclusion. Developing schools for all is the fourth, and Education for All as advocated by the UNESCO is the fifth way of thinking about inclusive education. According to Ainscow et al. (2006), there is a sixth understanding: the principled approach to education and society. This way of thinking is not in favour of any of the aforementioned understandings, but it acknowledges that the understanding of inclusive education, as adopted by particular schools, is not unalterable and solid, but it is ‘a never-ending process’ of developing and scrutinising the current view on inclusive education (Ainscow et al., 2006). This implies that the “emphasis should be less on what inclusion might look like and more on how it might be developed with schools” (Ainscow et al., 2006, p. 23). Nearly a decade later, Göransson and Nilholm (2014) proposed four definitions of inclusive education, which were reached through a literature review of research articles. Being concerned about the placement of students with SEND is the first, and being concerned about meeting their social/academic needs is the second kind of definition. According to Göransson and Nilholm (2014), a third definition of inclusive education is to meet the social and academic needs of all students, and fourth, inclusive education as creating communities, which is based on notions of “equity, care […], justice, honouring of subjugated knowledge and valuing Chapter 2 · Literature Review 15 diversity” (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014, p. 270). The postulation of these four definitions has been criticised (Dyson, 2014; Haug, 2014). Haug (2014) argued that inclusive education should be understood more as an overarching normative idea which is connected to certain values. This argument is similar to the general (normative) vision of inclusive education for all as it has been discussed in Section 2.2.1. Dyson (2014) pointed out that inclusive education needs to be understood as a principle that “is embodied in different ways in different contexts” (Dyson, 2014, p. 282), which was described in the previous paragraph as that principled approach to education (Ainscow et al. (2006). Contrary to the attempt of Göransson & Nilholm (2014) to find a generally accepted classification, such a view would emphasise that inclusion has a substantially different meaning for each school and its community. Besides this critique, Göransson and Nilholm (2014) demonstrated at least that a great variety of conceptual understandings of inclusive education is present amongst researchers from different contexts. The issue that inclusive education seems to be a relatively unambiguous concept in international policies (e.g. in the context of the UNESCO; see Section 2.2.1), yet, seems to have diverse meanings on more local levels, needs further consideration in the following paragraphs, because it relates to the methodological approach used in the present study. Noticing that inclusive education research across contexts is not easy to carry out because of the lack of a generally accepted definition, Dyson (2004) formulated that inclusive education is “a highly slippery concept, particularly when it is used across the boundaries of different education systems” (p. 614). Until today, efforts to clarify the concept of inclusive education across different contexts (Haug, 2017; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017; Schneider, 2015) did not result in a single embracing understanding. Hence, the conclusion might be that the ‘conceptual diversities’ (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014; Kruse & Dedering, 2017) of inclusive education cannot be resolved – at least on the national and local level. However, as argued previously in the present study, on the global level, the understanding of inclusive education for all seemed to have little variation across the globe (on the contrary, it was even critisied by Tota, 2014 that the policy development by the UNESCO is unanimous and therefore structurally undemocratic). Hence, the discrepancies, as they were identified in reviews (such as Ainscow et al., 2006; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017), seemed to be created when the global suggestions were translated into the national and local policies and practices. Inclusive Education in Policies on the National and Local Level As noted previously, there is a certain agreement on the global level of what inclusive education for all comprises of; yet, if understandings of the concept are compared on the national or local level, different views are apparent. The aforementioned variety of definitions is mirrored in 16 Stephan Kielblock and/or emerges from policy documents on the national/local level that are characterised by considerable discrepancies and contradictions (Armstrong et al., 2011; Hardy & Woodcock, 2015; Slee & Allan, 2001). Three aspects seemed particularly worth mentioning with regard to the emergence of differing understandings of inclusive education. First, inconsistencies might arise on the national level, because of different interpretations of the global policies by the leading governments and responsible agencies on the national level. For example, policies as they pertain to inclusive education in the United States reflect a number of the principles of transnational policies, yet, one inclusive education policy in Canada re-iterates integrative notions of bringing those students with SEND into the mainstream (Hardy & Woodcock, 2015). Hence, some national policies are generally in line with the global policies, while others are not. Second, besides the actual content, another issue that might lead to inconsistencies, is the vagueness of some policy texts. Slee and Allan (2001) for example demonstrate through their analysis that a policy, which was supposed to support inclusive education, keeps systematically away from making any concrete suggestions or give any directives for action. The researchers conclude that the policy is “a license to do nothing” (Slee & Allan, 2001, p. 183). It seems very likely that such policies that leave much space for interpretation produce a variety of differing understandings. Third, inconsistencies might also arise, because the local education authorities have to concretise educational policies against the backdrop of their specific local demands. Only concrete policy guidance that fits the local realities, allows more inclusive arrangements, as it is emphasised by Ainscow et al. (2000). The authors point out that the local education authorities must clarify for themselves and with regard to the local situation “what is meant by inclusive education and how policies might be introduced to encourage developments in that direction” (Ainscow et al., 2000, p. 224). This can produce a variety of meanings, because a locally relevant definition of inclusive education is laid down in policy documents, which are difficult to continuously revise. Hence, a particular understanding is perpetuated to lead the understanding of inclusive education in a particular way (which was relevant to a particular time at a particular place). The complexities of the development of education-related policies and legislations are demonstrated by Nes and Strømstad (2006), who analysed the revision process of the basic education policies in Norway starting in 2001. The Norwegian government appointed a committee in 2001 to make suggestions for improving basic education in Norway. Amongst many other suggestions, it was recommended by this committee in 2003 to change the §5.1 of the Education Act, which stated originally that students who struggled with ordinary education had a right to special education, and replace it with a legal right to adapted education for all (Nes & Strømstad, 2006). A large variety of different parties were invited to comment on these Chapter 2 · Literature Review 17 recommendations, and with regard to the §5.1 the responses were 50:50 pro or contra the deletion of the §5.1 respectively, as Nes and Strømstad (2006) reconstructed further. The Institute of Special Education in Oslo, then, opposed that further elaborations would be needed in this regard, and they convinced the government that they need to write these recommendations themselves. In their recommendations the Institute of Special Education pointed out the value of keeping §5.1, which resulted in actually keeping the §5.1. Nes and Strømstad (2006) concluded that this was most illustrative “how special education gets most of the attention even when the broader issue of adapted education for all is on the agenda” (Nes & Strømstad, 2006, p. 375). Notably, §5.1 does still apply in Norway in this form, stating that “pupils who either do not or are unable to benefit satisfactorily from ordinary teaching have the right to special education” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2014, §5.1). Besides these examples, another interesting case for illustrating issues that arise from policies on national and local levels is Australia. On the one hand, Australia has a relatively advanced discourse on diversity, yet, on the other hand, Australia has a federal constitution, which produced major differences in the quality of education-relevant policy texts. In Australia, a variety of conventions and declarations guide inclusive practices, and the general trend is apparent that understandings of inclusive education were shifting from emphasising particularly students with SEND to “educational opportunities for all students, framed in terms of diversity” (Carrington et al., 2012, p. 17). Important educational guiding texts (such as the Melbourne Declarations or the Australian Curriculum) emphasise that teachers are supposed to cater to the diversity of their students (Carrington et al., 2012). Yet, the educational policies as they pertain to inclusive education in Australia are different between the States. Hardy and Woodcock (2015) demonstrate in their policy analysis that policies in New South Wales (NSW), for example, have the tendency to encourage bringing students with SEND into the ‘mainstream’ schools (see also e.g. L. J. Graham & Sweller, 2011 for statistical evidence and problematising the specific focus in NSW on students with SEND). On the other hand, in Queensland, another state in Australia, the policies are challenging homogenising tendencies and emphasise students with diverse needs and abilities instead (Hardy & Woodcock, 2015). As opposed to Australia’s tradition in discussing diversity-related issues, there are also countries that only recently started discourses on establishing inclusive education. An example is Germany, where basically the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; UN, 2006) brought the German term ‘Inklusion’ (Engl. Inclusion) up for discussion in the educational field, around its ratification in 2009. At that time, Germany had established a fully separated – and highly elaborated – special education system besides the regular school system. Like Australia, Germany is divided into Federal States, and these states are responsible for all 18 Stephan Kielblock education-related issues and policies. In 2009, none of the school laws and policies of Germany’s 16 Federal States met the requirements of the CRPD (Hinz, 2015). Accordingly, all Federal States had to change their education legislation and policy considerably (Hebborn, 2014). Special educational services in Germany depended on identified SEND (Banafsche, 2013; Henry-Huthmacher, 2015). Highly complex and partially contradictory laws governed the goods and services as they pertained to identified SEND (Banafsche, 2013 exemplifies these contradictions with regard to the goods and services according to the social security codes SGB VIII and SGB XII). While recently, most school-related laws have been changed more or less in accordance with the CRPD (Hebborn, 2014; Henry-Huthmacher, 2015), the general system that distributes support to students with identified SEND has hardly changed. Hence, in many cases, the ministries strive “exclusively for new structures of ‘special educational support’ in the regular school” (Hinz, 2015, p. 24). The school laws keep their opportunity to assign a child to a ‘more appropriate form of school’, as mentioned by Kruse and Dedering (2017) with regards to the law in Lower Saxony, a German Federal State. As Kruse and Dedering (2017) formulate, many of the Federal States reserve their right that “‘un-includable’ children and teenagers can theoretically be transferred to special schools against their will (or that of the parental authority)” (Kruse & Dedering, 2017, p. 6). The Medical- and Social Model of Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities As discussed previously, to identify SEND still plays a major role in current inclusive education discourses in different contexts. Booth (1995) noted that a new kind of thinking is only possible, if we are “prepared to jettison the language that ties us to old habits of thought” (Booth, 1995, p. 97). ‘Special educational needs’ and ‘disability’ are such terms that suggest a clear cut between the normal and the non-normal or between the general and the special (Booth, 1995; L. J. Graham & Macartney, 2012; L. J. Graham & Slee, 2008). However, the use of labels, such as certain SEND recently increased in many contexts (L. J. Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). Two modes of thinking about SEND are generally distinguished; namely, a medical model and a social model. The idea that SEND are inherent of particular students’ minds and bodies, which limits their abilities and capacities, is referred to as the deficit model or the medical model of inclusive education (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014). In a broader sense, this means that services need to be delivered that compensate the students’ inherent defects so that such exceptional students can function like normal students in the classroom. More recently, the medical model was criticised by different perspectives that can be summarised as the social model or the social constructivist/constructionist model of inclusive education (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014). In this way of thinking, SEND are no ‘true defects’, but emerge out of certain Chapter 2 · Literature Review 19 discourses (Slee, 2008; Tomlinson, 2012). This is supported by research that has, for example, demonstrated that the age of a child relative to its peers has a direct effect of being identified with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Evans, Morrill, & Parente, 2010). If ADHD would refer to any inherent and unalterable trait of the child, such an effect should not exist. In other words, to identify specific SEND depend on expectations as they pertain to what is considered being normal in a particular society and context. The particular use of categories of SEND are dependent on more general societal values as they pertain to the educational system, as Arduin (2015) demonstrated in a comparative study of four different countries. The neo-liberal values in England and Ireland converge with the utilisation of the medical model, while Norway and Finland, which are generally subscribed to more social-democratic values, utilise more of a social-interactionist model (Arduin, 2015). Many of Slee’s studies (Slee, 2001a, 2001b, 2011, 2013; Slee & Allan, 2001) point in a similar direction, too, that the medical model persists and as a result the battle for (special educational) resources demands special education to identify needs and according services. In addition, a similar interaction between the values and the discourse model was also described as the ‘irresistible rise of the SEN industry’ (Tomlinson, 2012, 2015) or the ‘manufacture of inability’ (Tomlinson, 2017), in order to point out that inclusive education is intertwined with particular interests of different stakeholders and monetary considerations. One instrument of ‘market efficiency’ and ‘competition’ in education is the standardised (achievement) testing of students, which is one of the indicators for neo-liberal values underpinning the educational sector. Inclusive education and the ‘standards agenda’ are in conflict with each other, because both are making different suggestions with regard to desired school developments (Ainscow et al., 2006; Ainscow et al., 2000; Glazzard, 2013). When academic achievement is assessed in standardised examination procedures, the “most vulnerable learners will continue to be singled out for specialised attention” (Glazzard, 2013, p. 186). This keeps specific learners marginalised and creates difficulties with regard to their participation and achievement (Glazzard, 2013). Similar conflicting developments were described by Engsig and Johnstone (2015), who demonstrate that the emphasis to develop more equity through inclusive education is contradicted in Denmark by the implementation of “US- inspired accountability-driven” (Engsig & Johnstone, 2015, p. 475) standardised testing. An example of increased market efficiency and competition in the educational sector is Australia. The Australian educational system is regarded to utilise neo-liberal strategies to foster quality through competition (see e.g. Hardy & Woodcock, 2015). One instrument that is commonly mentioned in this respect is the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN; see e.g. Fachinetti, 2015; Johnston, 2017). NAPLAN was introduced in 20 Stephan Kielblock 2008, and it was supposed to replace the varieties of different standardised testing that were in place before, with a common instrument for assessment throughout the country (Fachinetti, 2015). NAPLAN examines the students’ literacy and numeracy achievement in school years 3, 5, 7 and 9, and the results are published online at the school level (Johnston, 2017). Johnston (2017) notes that adjustments for students with disabilities are possible. A number of students with identified SEND do not have to participate in NAPLAN (Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Elliott, Davies, & Kettler, 2012). Hence, there is a certain interest at the school level for diagnosing low-achieving students, because, as discussed before, it brings additional monetary resources and services, but it also could improve the schools’ NAPLAN scores, because these particular students might get around the standardised testing, which makes such a school more attractive for families with higher socio-economic status. As mentioned previously in the present study, although all of its advancements in Australian inclusive education, there are still tendencies in the Australian school system to place students identified with SEND in special schools or to ‘confine’ them in special classes or units in regular schools, as the monitoring committee of the United Nations denounced (UN, 2013). Although Australia has ratified the CRPD (UN, 2006), the United Nations clearly criticised in their report the ‘substandard education’ and the lower school completion rates of students with SEND (UN, 2013). A country that challenges the argument of Arduin (2015) that social-democratic values of a society suggest that a social-interactionist stance towards SEND is more likely, is Germany. Germany and its educational system is generally seen as social-democratic (see e.g. Tomlinson, 2015). Except for the general discourse on educational standards (e.g. Rödler, 2012 discusses inclusive education and educational standards as being paradoxical, while e.g. Hinz, 2015 states that they are not necessarily contrary to each other), there is no nation-wide achievement testing that is being reported on the school-level. In accordance with the aforementioned analysis by Arduin (2015), one would have suggested that Germany’s discourses on SEND utilises a social model. Germany has a long tradition in special education. The special education sector is very advanced and has a vast variety of special schools for all kinds of SEND. Many of these special schools note that SEND emerges due to barriers that particular students face, and the special schools tried to mitigate these barriers for these students. This tradition was and still is present in the German inclusive education discourse. Yet, more recently, it was argued that mitigating barriers for students with particular SEND should not only take place in the special school sector, but also in the regular school sector. In the German-wide recommendations of the ministers of education and cultural affairs (KMK, 2011), ‘Inklusion’ (Engl. inclusion) was introduced as a comprehensive concept of ‘living together’, ‘education for all’, and that all barriers that hinder inclusive education in the regular system need to be overcome. ‘Inklusion’ Chapter 2 · Literature Review 21 is about all children and youths and their active participation in common life and learning (KMK, 2011). Yet, to accomplish this, the KMK (2011) recommended to identify the SEND, by using the established categories, so that the children receive appropriate provision in the regular system according to their identified precondition and potential. As it is common in Germany’s federalism, the KMK (2011) recommends that all Federal States make their own laws what kinds of goods and services are provided for each of the SEND categories (KMK, 2011). Additional goods and services are only available, if a child was identified. There is an increase of children with identified SEND; especially special needs with regards to ‘emotional/social development’ have recently doubled (Henry-Huthmacher, 2015). In addition, it has been criticised that the recommendations by the KMK (2011) and similar recent developments in Germany “strive exclusively for new structures of ‘special educational support’ in the regular school” (Hinz, 2015, p. 24). Generally, it turned out to be difficult and expensive to change the established structures of special education and develop a unified educational system with schools for all (Hinz, 2015; Klemm, 2012). The United Nations’ Committee that examined the progress of implementing the CRPD was very concerned that the German educational system was still in large parts fully segregated (UN, 2015). Schools and Inclusive Education Inclusive education for all requires the actual pedagogical settings to create communities that are welcoming for all and to combat discriminatory attitudes of all (based on UNESCO, 1994). Schools are suitable institutions for inclusive education to take place in this way; namely, schools involve students and teachers, but also parents and the wider community, and they are developing so that they are able to respond adequately to demands such as becoming welcoming for all and tackle discrimination. A school that provides inclusive education for all in this sense needs constantly be mindful of new exclusionary dynamics and it needs to find creative ways to foster provision and prospering for all. Such “an inclusive school is one that is on the move, rather than one that has reached a perfect state” (Ainscow & Miles, 2008, p. 20). In the perspective of Slee (2008, 2011), such a task is unlikely to be carried out by special schools nor by regular schools; instead it needs a new revised kind of schooling, which he calls irregular schooling. Generally, students spend a considerable amount of time in schools. Most recent data presents evidence that “Students in OECD countries and economies receive an average of 7,538 hours of compulsory instruction during their primary and lower secondary education, ranging from 5,976 hours in Latvia to almost double that in Australia (11,000 hours) and Denmark (10,960 hours)” (OECD, 2017, p. 334). About a decade ago, the OECD average of students’ 22 Stephan Kielblock time spent in schools was 6,898 hours (OECD, 2007). Yet, not only the objective time that students spend in schools has increased over the recent years, but also the subjective significance of schools from the perspectives of the students (Fraij, Maschke, & Stecher, 2015). Hence, the time students spend in schools should at best be free from discrimination and exclusion. It was argued that improving schools in this way means developing inclusive education (Ainscow et al., 2006). School developments in this direction of ‘schools for all’ are supported in many cases around the globe by the ‘Index for Inclusion’ (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; first edition published in 2000). Another school development tool, yet not as elaborated and established as the Index for Inclusion, is the ‘school-based inclusivity framework’ (Berlach & Chambers, 2011). All in all, the school seems to be a crucial institution for the implementation of inclusive education for all, because of its significance for the students, and because it provides the space where conceptual ideas of inclusive education for all need to be transposed into ‘real world’ teaching practices and social actions. Pedagogical Approach to Inclusive Education At the classroom level, inclusive practices are crucial for quality teaching for all. Even in more general recommendations to ‘what makes great pedagogy?’, a review by Husbands and Pearce (2012) clearly recommended that “effective pedagogies are inclusive and take the diverse needs of a range of learners, as well as matters of student equity, into account” (p. 11). There is a great deal of research available on pedagogical strategies to teach all learners, mostly referred to as the ‘inclusive pedagogy’ for all (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Linklater, 2010; Pantić & Florian, 2015). One aspect of inclusive teaching is that teachers should not fall for labels that particular children might carry (Daniels, 2006). In order to tackle exclusion, labels might be needed at some point to uncover specific exclusory pressures (Ainscow & Miles, 2008), and it might generally be difficult to work and think without using any labels; yet, teachers need to be very aware of the ‘trap of stereotyping’ (L. J. Graham & Macartney, 2012). These recommendations from previous research seem to be plausible, yet, research uncovered that these ideals seemed hardly implemented in ‘real-world’ contexts. In an empirical study with chief education officers, principals, and teachers in Sweden, Nilholm, Almqvist, Göransson, and Lindqvist (2013) demonstrated that particularly practitioners at the school level highlight the need for medical diagnosis and labelling of children. A similar result was reported in the aforementioned study by Nes and Strømstad (2006) in Norway, who reported that particularly politicians seemed to be in favour of education for all, while the Chapter 2 · Literature Review 23 majority of school authorities and teachers were in favour of retaining special education (Nes & Strømstad, 2006). This shows that, although the concepts to develop inclusive schools (Berlach & Chambers, 2011; Booth & Ainscow, 2011) and inclusive practices (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Linklater, 2010; Pantić & Florian, 2015) are available, practitioners might still stick to the established ways of thinking about SEND. ‘Inclusive Education for All’ as a Guiding Principle on all Levels On the global level, the directions towards education for all and inclusive education, as they were set by the UNESCO, are relatively unambiguous. The emphasis given previously to inclusive education for all as a new kind of thinking is on the global policy level the consequent continuance of the current ongoing narrowing of the scope of education for all on the one side and inclusive education on the other. Yet, as the previous paragraphs showed, global policies need to be translated into national and local policies, and the clash of global policies and ideas with cultural and structural realities deflects the original intents and meanings into a diverse range of understandings and thinking about inclusive education. On the one hand, in order to be effective, policies need to consider the social realities of education and schools (Armstrong et al., 2011). On the other hand, only consistent and coherent guidelines allow practices to become more inclusive (Hardy & Woodcock, 2015; Hinz, 2015; Miles & Singal, 2010), which might mean that inconsistencies between different policies (on different levels) and also vagueness in policy texts might lead to confusion amongst the relevant stakeholders. Taken together, inclusive education for all can be understood as a ‘north star’ (Hinz, 2015), which explicitly encourages active engagement and intensive contention with its (abstract) content. As the previous discussion of the different aspects demonstrated, this pertains not only to policy development, but also to continuously questioning the established understandings of SEND, to develop schools to be more inclusive for all and to maintain a reflective stance towards the pedagogical approach. In this way, the notion of Ainscow and Miles (2008) that inclusive education should be understood on the school level “as a never-ending process” (p. 20), might apply to all other levels, too. Accordingly, this genuine process character of inclusive education might be re-interpreted in the context of the present study with regard to all described national, local, school, and classroom practice-related levels as a never-ending and iterative process that is oriented towards a sufficient translation of the global notion of inclusive education for all. 24 Stephan Kielblock 2.3 Inclusive Education for All and Teachers’ Attitudes Inclusive education for all was introduced in the previous section as the new concept. The discussion focused to a large extent on global policies and issues as they pertained to the translation of global commitments to the national, local, school, and classroom practice levels. It was demonstrated that the global policy messages clash with the national and local realities and become deflected into a diverse range of understandings. The previous section ended with notions as they pertained to the pedagogical approach. Yet, the pedagogical approach to inclusive education for all needs to be implemented in ‘real world’ contexts. Hence, this section considers the teachers as one of the main stakeholders in education and as being crucial for implementing inclusive education for all. Particular emphasis is given to teachers’ attitudes. 2.3.1 Teachers and their Attitudes as a Key to Inclusive Education for All In the Incheon Declaration (UNESCO, 2015), emphasis is given to teachers and educators being necessary for ‘quality education’ and for ‘improving learning outcomes’. Hence, the teachers’ empowerment, training, and support needs to be ensured, as it was declared by the UNESCO (2015). Importance of Teachers for Quality Education The importance of teachers for all of their students was highlighted in the report ‘teachers matter’ published by the Education Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2005). This report emphasised the vital importance of teacher quality and quality teaching for improving student learning (OECD, 2005). Yet, because the report had a different scope (namely, to foster teacher policy) the section within the report that presented empirical evidence in this direction was relatively small, compared to other sections. Strong evidence that teachers generally matter is derived from studies that measure students’ achievement. Empirical studies repeatedly revealed that the students’ achievement scores had little between-school variance, but not negligible within-school variance (Coleman et al., 1966; Goldhaber, 2016; Hattie, 2009; Mansfield, 2015). In other words, there were no specific kinds of schools or districts that did better (or worse) than others. This lead most authors to the conclusion that the variance of students’ achievement needs to be explained at the classroom level; hence, it depended on the teachers. Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005) for example analysed the reading and mathematics achievement of students and the characteristics of their teachers and class size in Texas, United States. In this study, a lower class size (a Chapter 2 · Literature Review 25 common argument to improve student achievement) was associated with slightly higher achievement, and a higher estimated teacher quality was associated with even higher students’ achievement. The authors concluded that the reduction of the class size is not as effective as improving the teacher quality to raise the students’ achievement (Rivkin et al., 2005). Findings of the meta synthesis of Hattie (2003) confirmed that teacher quality had the greatest effects on the learners, because it explained about 30% of the variance of students’ achievement. Until today, it remains a debate if the teachers or the teaching has the most influence. While Hattie (2003, 2009) found that it is not the teacher, but the ‘excellence in teaching’ which influences achievement the most, an analysis of the TIMSS 2011 data by Blömeke, Olsen, and Suhl (2016) showed that instructional quality had no direct effect on students’ achievement. Instead it was the felt preparedness, experience, degree and relevant major of the teachers that had an effect on students’ achievement (Blömeke et al., 2016). In a longitudinal study in Queensland, Australia, the importance of teachers’ experiences were also highlighted, because the literacy and numeracy of the students of more experienced teachers had higher test score gains (Leigh, 2010). In the same study, the importance of high quality teachers was even more apparent, because the students of the ‘very best’ teachers (90th percentile teacher) achieve in half a year, what students of the ‘worst’ teachers (25th percentile teacher) achieve in a full year (Leigh, 2010). In addition, even longer-term effects could be demonstrated in longitudinal studies. Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff (2014) analysed school district and tax records from more than one million children, and found that children, who were assigned to high-quality teachers were more likely to attend a college, to earn higher salaries and they were less likely to be teenage-parents. In his seminal study ‘Visible Learning’, Hattie (2009) generated a ‘model of successful teaching and learning’, which highlighted the power of the teachers and their teaching, their proficiencies with regards to decision making, their engagement in establishing caring relationships with and amongst students and their critical reflection of desirable teaching outcomes. Hattie (2009) criticised that there is a mismatch between the strong empirical evidence that the working conditions (such as resources, smaller class sizes etc.) are not effective in terms of students’ achievement on the one side, and the great importance of working conditions as it is represented in most policies and ongoing discourses on the other side. Quite a similar situation is present in most of the present inclusive education discourses around the world. As it was demonstrated previously in the present study, there is a strong emphasis on working condition-related issues, such as class size, aides, counselling, etc., which the diagnosing of children is hoped to improve. Although Hattie (2009) had not specifically commented on inclusive education, one might learn from his study with regard to inclusive 26 Stephan Kielblock education for all that, if the learning of the child is in the centre of interest, excellence in teaching should be the main goal to be achieved. This does not mean that resources are not necessary at all (such as inclusive design of the learning environment) – but it does mean that the bemoaning of the working conditions might deflect the teachers’ efforts towards more effective teaching strategies for all, which holds the most powerful effects for all students. In this sense, inclusive education for all demands that teachers are reflecting constantly on their teaching and their beliefs and attitudes, and find new ways of teaching all students. In the words of Hattie (2009): “the beliefs and conceptions held by teachers need to be questioned – not because they are wrong (or right) but because the essence of good teaching is that teachers’ expectations and conceptions must be subjected to debate, refutation, and investigation” (pp. 239-24