Count me in: comparative perspectives of
inclusion from India and England’
Dr. Chandrika Devarakonda
University of Chester
and
Dr. Krishna Duhan
Common Wealth Academic Fellow
The Forum for Research into Equality and
Diversity
(FRED)
1
Aim
 To explore the concept of inclusion
 To compare and contrast the perspectives of inclusion
in India and England
 To raise awareness of historical and contemporary
contexts of inclusion in India and England
2
Who excludes/includes
 Individual
 Institution
 Society
 Is it accepted ? Or expected ?
3
Journey of inclusion
Global
National
Setting
Personal
4
5
6
Diverse – how
 SES /background
 Ethnicity /race
 Culture
 Practices
 Language
 Expectations
/communication
 Ability
 Types of families
 Services needed
 Religion
7
Who are not included – reality
check

-
Marginalised groups

Disadvantaged families

Races

cultures
Gypsy Roma and Travellers families 

Caste

Political / social / religious contexts
Lack of access
Lack of facilities
Attitudes
stigma
Quality of inclusion
 Values and stereotypes
8
Multiple perspectives
 Elusive concept (Ainscow, 1999; Ballard, 1999,





Slee 2000)
No universal definition (Florian, 1998)
Who includes/ excludes whom (Sebba and
Sachdev, 1997)
Different interpretations (Florian 1998;
Ainscow et al 2006)
Global agenda (Pijl et al., 1997)
Ongoing process (Ainscow 2005)
9
Concept of inclusion
 Armstrong,
Armstrong, and Spandagou
(2011) have argued that the origin and
development of the concept of inclusive
education is restricted to the North and its
entry into the global agenda has been driven
by international agencies
 Children with disabilities were placed in
regular school so that they could study along
with their nondisabled ‘peers’.
10
Continued--- elusive concept’ (Singal 2005, 332), ‘statement of
fashion’ (Hodkinson and Devarakonda 2009, 97), and
‘a tendency to be “politically correct” by taking on
current trends in the West without a real or common
understanding of their meaning’ (Kalyanpur 2008,
247).
11
India
 Singal (2006) - there is a visible struggle for clarity
 Singal (2008) rationalises her disability focus in her
study based on how inclusive education is
understood in India.
 highlighted the ambiguity and confusion surrounding
the concept in government policies and among
government officials and practitioners (Singal 2006,
2008)
 integration and inclusion were used interchangeably
as if they mean the same.
12
Relevance to Indian context
 Establishing the concept of inclusion
 Translating policy from global perspectives to practice
 Preparing teachers to identify diversity of needs and
meet them
 All children and their families are respected for who
they are
13
Policies - Global level
• Education for all
• Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of
having every child complete primary school
by 2015.
• Salamanca statement
14
Policies at national level – India
• Indian Constitution (Part IX, Article 45)states :
• The state shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years
from the commencement of this constitution, for free and
compulsory education for all children until they complete the
age of fourteen years.
• The constitution of India does not explicitly include children
with disabilities in the provisions made for education, but
Article 41 does mention people with disabilities and says in part
“the state shall within the limits of its economic development
make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to
education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment,
old age, sickness, disablement and in other cases of undesired
want”
• Right to Education Act 2010
15
Continued--
 Article 45 does rectify this by stating that free and
compulsory education should be provided for ALL
children until they complete the age of 14” The ALL is
never specifically explained.
 But the most recent 93rd amendment to the Indian
Constitution passed in December 2001, affirms the
Government’s commitment to (EFA) or Education for
ALL. In Sanskrit it is Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The
preamble explicitly states that this includes children
with disabilities.
16
Continued--
 The Tenth Plan (2002-2007) aims to provide Universal
Elementary Education by the end of the plan.
 It also aims to provide basic education for the unreached segments and special groups. the groups
included
girls, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, working
children, children with disabilities, urban deprived
children, children from minority groups, children below
poverty line, migratory children and in the hardest to
reach groups.
17
RTE Act (2009)
 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act,
2009.
 The implementation of this Act will be considered successful only
if it addresses the issue of making the children of marginalized
communities “visible” within the four walls of the classroom.
Many of these children, across the country come from socially
disadvantaged backgrounds, such as Scheduled Caste (SC) and
Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities; ethnic and religious
minorities, economically weaker sections (EWS), migrant
labourers, nomadic and de-notified tribes, urban poor, children
with special needs (CWSN) and so on
18
Historical context (England)
 Journey began in 1960s when policies of segregation were





questioned with in the context of civil rights movement.
Birth of integrated system which was legitimised by the
Warnock Report
(DES,1978) and Education Act (DES, 1981)
The term Inclusion became part of governmental
rhetoric gaining status in schools. New Labour Govt
swept to power on a tidal wave of equality rhetoric and a
commitment to reform how children with SEN and
disabilities were to be educated (Hodkinson, 2005)
Inclusion became a political process and a key
component of governmental planning (Corbett, 2001)
Equality Act (2010) simplified
19
Contemporary context
 Warnock
critiqued
the
ideological
understanding behind inclusive education,
‘instead of the simplistic ideal of including
all children ‘under the same roof’, we
should consider the ideal of including all
children in the common enterprise of
learning’ (2010, 14–15)
20
England
 The intention of Mary Warnock’s term ‘special
educational needs’, coined in the UK in 1978, was to
imply that any child, with an impairment or not, may
have an individual educational need at some point in
their school career (e.g. dyslexia, or language of
instruction as a second language) which the teacher
should adapt to. (Giffard-Lindsay, 2006).
21
Inclusion is not
 Not just children who are easy to work with, obliging,
endearing, clean, pretty, , capable, but every child respecting them for who they are, respecting their
language, their culture, their history, their family, their
abilities, their needs, their name, their ways and their very
essence. (Nutbrown 1996, 54)
22
Challenges and dilemmas
 Diverse Interpretations
 Overwhelming Literature from Western perspectives
 Raise awareness among schools, media and
community
 Attitudes towards children from diverse backgrounds
 Provide training and resources to update teachers’
knowledge and understanding
23
Conclusion
 No consistent interpretation of the concept of
inclusion
 Inclusion is a priority in national policies, but does not
reflect in practice at grass root level
 Diverse perspectives of inclusion due to the social,
political and cultural contexts of the settings and the
community
24
 The emphasis should be on developing
situational appropriate solutions, by adopting
a pragmatic and strategic approach,
embedded in the realities of India.
 Singal (to be published), promotes ‘fluidity of
spaces’ and ‘“value-free” transition points’
between different educational settings.
25
Idealistic or realistic ?
‘If inclusion is based primarily on ideological
feeling, it may suffer the fate of most ideologies
by running out of steam when social or political
conditions and fashions change. We may wish to
continue to promote it, we may even – such is
the power of fashion – be stuck with it and be
obliged to make it work as well as we can; but if
we are to do it justice, we have also to clarify and
evaluate it.’

Wilson .J (2000) Doing Justice to Inclusion, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, Volume 15, Issue 3 October, pages 297 – 304
26
References
 Armstrong, D., A. C. Armstrong, and I. Spandagou. 2011. “Inclusion: By






Choice or by Chance?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (1):
29–39.
Giffard-Lindsay, K. 2007. Inclusive Education in India: Interpretation,
Implementation, and Issues. CREATE Pathways to Access Research
Monograph No. 15. Brighton: CIE, University of Sussex.
Hodkinson, A., and C. Devarakonda. 2009. “Conceptions of Inclusion and
Inclusive Education: A Critical Examination of the Perspectives and
Practices of Teachers in India.” Research in Education 82 (1): 85–99.
Kalyanpur, M. 2008. “Equality, Quality and Quantity: Challenges in
Inclusive Education Policy and Service Provision in India.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 12 (3): 243–262.
MHRD. 2009b. Right to Education Act. http://mhrd.gov.in/acts_rules_SE
MHRD. 2011. Sarva Shikshya Abhiyan. Framework for Implementation.
Government of India.http://ssa.nic.in/page_portletlinks?foldername¼ssaframework
Balasundram.P (2005) The journey towards inclusive education in India,
paper presented at SEISA UNIVERSITY ASHIBETSU SHI, HOKKAIDO,
27
JAPAN, 9th July 2005.
References
 Singal, N. 2005. “Mapping the Field of Inclusive Education: A Review of





the Indian Literature.”International Journal of Inclusive Education 9 (4):
331–350.
Singal, N. 2006. “Inclusive Education in India: International Concept,
National.
Interpretation.”International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education 53 (3): 351–369.
Singal, N. 2008. “Working Towards Inclusion: Reflections from the
Classroom.” Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies 24 (6): 1516–1529.
Taneja.S.J (2014) A critical and contextual approach to inclusive
education: perspectives from an Indian context, International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 18: 12, 1219 -1236 ,DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.885594
UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education. Madrid: UNESCO/Ministry of Education and
Science.
Warnock, M. 2010. “Special Educational Needs: A New Look.” In Special
Educational Needs: A New Look, edited by L. Terzi, 11–46. London:
Continuum International Pub. Group.
28
Any thoughts, comments
or questions
29