Peder Haug
European Association of Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD)
Salzburg conference 22nd-23rd October 2015
Introduction
I will discuss the following question in this presentation: What seem to be the main challenges in developing inclusive education? I especially orient the content towards how research presents and analyses this issue. The state of inclusive education in European countries differs widely, even within and between schools. Therefore, to be able to go into issues of relevance for everyone, I will present elements of general and overall interest.
Since the Salamanca statement in 1994, European countries have acknowledged that inclusive education is an important premise to secure equal educational rights for all persons with special educational needs. But as Julie Allan (2008) has concluded “ There appears, however, to be deep uncertainty about how to create inclusive environments within schools and about how to teach inclusively.” (p 10). An OECD-rapport claims that the main reasons for this uncertainty are a mixture of lack of political will and human beings’ endless resistance to change (OECD, 1999).
A model of definitions of inclusive education
I will discuss some of the key contemporary questions in inclusive education in relation to a model of inclusion that distinguishes between a horizontal dimension and a vertical dimension of the concept. I will here spend most of my time discussing the horizontal dimension, which is about the general understanding and operationalization of inclusive education. It deals with what inclusion actually is about. This is the practical institutionalization of the substantial content of the concept. The vertical dimension is about the coherence between the different organizational levels in school.
The horizontal dimension, institutionalization of inclusive education
If we turn to the official texts formulated by international organizations, such as UNICEF,
UNESCO, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the European Union, the ideal definitions of inclusion have several common elements. Inclusion deals with the right to education for all students. The values associated with inclusion revolve around fellowship,
1

participation, democratization and benefit. Other aspects in the same way are equal access, quality, equity, justice, and the balancing of unity and diversity. Inclusion then involves two processes, increasing fellowship and participation, and decreasing exclusion from school culture and curricula (Booth, 1996).
This is a strong and widely accepted ethical ethos attributed to inclusion, which I will refer to as a masterpiece of rhetoric, difficult to be against or criticize. Inclusion is strongly value-and ideology-driven, in the same category as other similar concepts such as democracy and social justice. The ambitious value aspects of inclusion have few negative positions or limitations.
This also seems to be the view of The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive
Education, when they explicitly formulate the challenges in this way: “The current debate is no longer about what inclusion is and why it is needed; the key question is how it is to be achieved”. (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2014a, p. 5).
In spite of a formal normative and overriding consensus, it is not possible to find one universally institutionalized definition of inclusive education. To the contrary, for a long time there has been a battle about the meaning of the concept of inclusion (Hansen & Qvortrup,
2013). In the book “Contextualizing Inclusive Education” David D. Mitchell (2005b) presents sixteen propositions about inclusive education, based on analyses of inclusive education in many countries all over the world. His second proposition is that “Inclusive education is a complex and problematic concept.” (p. 3) He sees inclusive education both as ideology and as practical products of multiple values that can support each other or be in conflict. He rejects a view that relates inclusion to one single dominant value and practice, creating a dichotomy.
Either you have it, or you do not have it. He finds considerable ambiguities, confusions, and controversies connected to inclusion. Especially characteristic are deep-seated dilemmas, when you have to choose between several not favorable alternatives. Many of them relate to how to define, understand and operationalize inclusive education. A vast majority of research articles and books that I have gone through support this observation. The importance of this contest about meaning is that definitions affect the understanding and therefore the practices related to the concept, and from there, how inclusive education meets and treats different groups of students.
In an analysis of research about the effects of inclusive education, Göransson and Nilholm
(2014) found corresponding variations. They identified four levels of definitions, which are related hierarchically. The lowest level is about the placement of pupils with disabilities in a general education classroom. Next comes inclusion as meeting the social and/or academic
2

needs of these pupils. Then inclusion is to meet the social and/or academic needs of all students, and finally, inclusion is to create communities. These results are close to a typology developed by Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2006).
This lack of consensus about the theoretical and practical meaning of inclusion could be a problem. Perhaps the consequence is that since this concept has many meanings, it is in reality without meaning. On the other hand, many meanings could represent a richness that has yet to be systematized and discussed (Florian, 2014). In the institutionalization of inclusion, there is a division between a narrow and a wide definition of the concept (Arduin, 2015; Thomas,
2013). They both concern what groups of students that are involved, and on what grounds, and both are of relevance here.
The narrow definition
The narrow definition deals with education of special relevance for students with disabilities.
This is in line with the origin of the concept, which is special education. In most countries, the narrow definition of inclusion is dominant, at least in practice. An analysis of relevant research databases from 2012 concluded that the use of the term inclusion in relation to disability still dominated the field (Norwich, 2014). Integration introduced during the 1960’s was intended to abolish the dichotomy between ordinary and special education. However, the developments accentuated this dichotomy, and integration became a disappointment.
Inclusion is now supposed to bring about the change that integration had not done (Graham &
Jahnukainen, 2011). Inclusive education was a reaction against segregation, marginalization, discrimination and devaluation because of the special school system, and later because of the practicing of integration in mainstream settings. Ideally, the students should be entitled to full membership in regular classes in neighborhood schools. They also should have access to differentiated and individualized support, programs and assessments. Inclusion also brings in a new perspective on educational failure. Inclusion contested the established explanation that low achievements in school were a result of students’ individual pathological characteristics and weaknesses. In inclusive education, the view is that students’ school failures are created by the school system itself.
This change from integration to inclusion came first in the USA during the 1970’s, and appeared later in Europe. Because of its origin, inclusion often concerns placement, about where the teaching is going on, and together with whom.
3

In educational policy in Europe the practice of the narrow approach to inclusion varies a lot, and does not necessarily reflect the ideal definitions as I have presented them here (Graham &
Jahnukainen, 2011; Smyth et al., 2014). There are countries that understand inclusive education primarily as being only about education for disabled students. Then inclusive education could mean to provide educational opportunities for disabled children, even in special schools with specialist teachers separated from the broader school system (Miles &
Singal, 2010). In some countries education for students with disabilities is still underdeveloped and of poor quality.
In other countries, inclusive education means to teach all students together in a normal schoolclass setting, where they all receive a teaching that corresponds to their abilities and interests
(Anastasiou, Kauffman, & Di Nuovo, 2015; Haug, 2014). Then students with disabilities go to school together with all the other children coming from the same neighborhood.
In all countries however, it is the gap between formulations and realizations of inclusive education, which is the most challenging issue in this area. Many schools still practice a dichotomy between special and ordinary education even within the intention of inclusion
(Anastasiou et al., 2015; Ferguson, 2008; Haug, 2014). In spite of decisions about inclusiveness, the extent of special education has even increased in many countries, as well as the labeling, diagnosing and even segregation of students with disabilities (Allan, 2008;
Anastasiou et al., 2015; Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011). Schools also administer special education outside normal class, some in separate groups as a two-track system. When, as happens in some countries, there also is a backdoor of different types of special provisions beyond official policy and statistics, inclusion is set back (Anastasiou et al., 2015; Haug,
2014). Authorities in some instances even narrow “ what ‘general’ education is, and who it should be for” (Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011, p. 25) by funding separately the teaching of students with serious, complex and multiple diagnoses in segregated institutions. It could be that special education has received too much attention within inclusive education, at the expense of exploring inclusion as an idea and practice in its own right (Vislie, 2003). That could be the reason why the narrow definition of inclusive education has come under heavy pressure. The value dimensions behind the placement issue are neoliberal and individualistic
(Arduin, 2015).
An alternative way to use placement as criteria within the narrow approach is to define inclusive education not as full membership in an ordinary class but as the best place for learning. When deciding where to teach students, Mary Warnock (2005) gives priority to
4

where students experience the highest potential for learning on the condition that the students have a feeling of belonging and well-being. Benefit then becomes superior to placement, which is also an argument for retaining special schools within an inclusive ideology.
This is a rare standpoint, which represents a segregated discourse of inclusion (Fulcher,
1999), which is not in line with the official definitions, already mentioned. On the other hand, the tension between inclusion as learning opportunities and inclusion as placement in schools for all is a central matter of contention in many European countries (Norwich, 2014, p. 4). In practice however, the question of where often takes priority over how the students should be educated. The danger is that access and placement will replace quality and benefit as the focus in the debates about inclusive education, as was the case with integration. The dilemma here is that being taught in ordinary class gives students with disabilities less access to specialist services. Separate settings could result in exclusion and devaluation (Norwich, 2008). The solution is to bring these two alternatives together and combine them.
It seems that inclusive education is a multi-dimensional matter, developing both at different rates and in different directions dependent upon national historical, cultural and political values and ideologies (Arduin, 2015; Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011; D. Mitchell, 2005a).
There are many reasons for the implementation difficulties of the narrow definition of inclusive education. Historical traditions, economic possibilities, societal and political ideas and practices can explain much of it. Accountability, neo-liberal market-orientation as well as school competition and demands about higher academic standards can produce strong exclusionary effects and do not necessarily promote inclusive schools.
The broad definition
The Salamanca declaration from 1994 formulated inclusive education to cover all groups of students in danger of facing problems in school because of diversity. Their focus went far beyond students with disabilities and learning difficulties, which initially was the main group of interest for inclusive education. The idea is that education develops human capital for everyone.
The broad view of inclusion concerns all students, referring to the education of all children, and covers all marginalized groups, not just those with disabilities (Thomas, 2013), and regardless of special needs, gender, ethnicity, culture, social background etc. (Arduin, 2015).
Education for All has become an alternative expression, and is also a global movement within
UNESCO to provide quality basic education for all (Miles & Singal, 2010). In addition, all
5

students should participate in common learning activities within the ordinary school system.
This approach is linked to democratic values as well as an interactionist ideology. Inclusion is moved away from the field of disability into the realm of diversity, a terrain that “… now incorporates a more extensive spectrum of concerns and discourses … ” (Thomas, 2013, p.
474).
Without doubt, school affects the learning of many groups of students negatively. This applies not only to students with disabilities. The reason for this is that learning difficulties for many groups of students are a result of the way school functions, and the fact that school reinforces pre-existing differences. Therefore, it is a solution to realize inclusive ideals and practices in school more generally. A report from the OECD claims that to succeed with inclusive education, there is a need for a change that is more far-reaching than just special education:
Inclusion goes beyond the integrative idea of assimilating children with disabilities into the existing ordinary school system […] it requires instead, changes to the school system itself which, inter alia, involve alterations on educationalists’ perceptions of children’s being, some re-thinking of the purposes of education and a reforming of the system generally, all of which needs consideration in the development of “schools for tomorrow”. (OECD, 1999, p. 22).
This would bring a complete change of school policy and practice. Inclusion will presuppose a deep change of school structure and mentality, and this will affect all students, not only those with special needs.
Some inclusive theorists worry about the consequences of widening the inclusion territory, and criticize the broad definition. They see this as a possible threat to both inclusive theory and inclusive practice. The notion is that governments and international organizations have assimilated and neutralized the concept by adopting it. Because of this assimilation within a broader educational policy of regular schooling, inclusion is contested and neutralized. The reason is that the ideals do not match the practical realities (Norwich, 2014). Since the broad definition concerns not only persons with disabilities, there is a risk that the interests of those with disabilities might become secondary or even be overlooked when pursuing other minority interests, for instance related to gender or social class (Norwich, 2014, p 3). Under the vision of education for all, some countries have actually overlooked the issue of disability, and have not been able to provide education for the most disadvantaged students (Miles &
Singal, 2010). Based on the value principles behind Education for All and inclusive
6

education, these practices are unacceptable. On the other hand, it is also unacceptable not to offer the same conditions for learning and development in school to all students.
Teacher competence
Independent of definitions of inclusive education and practical organization, teaching quality is decisive for the students’ learning outcomes. In many countries, there are no clear formulations about specific qualifications for teaching students with disabilities. No formal regulations regarding teacher competences in this area could be a sign of a lack of visions and ambitions for these students (Nordahl & Hausstätter, 2009). The use of teaching assistants to support children with special education needs is well established, and in many cases with positive results. However, the increasing use of teaching assistants with unclear roles and competences is a concern for the teaching quality in general. In my opinion, teachers are the single most important factor influencing how much students benefit from school, and this is independent of the definition of inclusive education. Therefore I here will concentrate on teachers’ competences and how to teach within an inclusive setting.
One approach is that students in need of special education require distinctive teaching strategies, adapted to each person, and dependent upon what constitutes the learning difficulties in the first place. Teachers must have extensive knowledge about the individual’s difficulties, their specific pathology, their prognoses and expectations (Brownell, Sindelar,
Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). The other dominating perspective is that there is no need for distinctive impairment-oriented strategies for most students (Thomas & Loxley, 2007). What is needed is “only” good teaching (David Mitchell, 2014).
Meta-studies show that general teaching strategies give the best results for most students
(Florian, 2008; K.A. Kavale, 2007; David Mitchell, 2014; Norwich & Lewis, 2007). A metastudy concludes that: “The pedagogic approaches which have been shown to be effective are accessible for all practitioners. They build on traditional teaching skills and do not require extensive training or deep knowledge of individual impairment characteristics.” (Rix &
Sheehy, 2014, p. 471). Some students need more time, more practice, more repetitions, slower progression, fewer tasks etc., but strategies that provide good results may be the same, independent of whether the teaching is “ordinary” or “special”. Differences between learners are a matter of degree, not a matter of category (Florian, 2008). The notion about a dichotomy in teaching between ordinary education and special education seems not to be
7

relevant for a majority of students. At best, there is a continuum where the common general strategies in teaching are dominant, but adapted to the students’ abilities.
The different understandings of the challenges associated with students with disabilities represent at least two distinct solutions about who should dominate teaching within an inclusive school. The notion that an impairment orientation is most valid is an argument and a legitimation for specialist teachers. If it is so that ordinary teaching methods are the best way to teach the majority of students with disabilities, then inclusive schools most of all need highly qualified ordinary teachers. Lani Florian (2014) argues strongly for the latter approach.
According to her, difference is an essential aspect of human life and development in every aspect of learning, which teachers must be aware of and accustomed to meet. Therefore, teachers must trust in the fact that they are capable of teaching all children, as well as continually developing creative new ways of teaching. Then the need for specialist teachers in inclusive education will be less than we now practice.
What is there in inclusion for the students?
A central element is whether the students’ learning outcomes differ in favor of inclusive education compared to other ideologies and practices. As mentioned before, research evidence is not the only factor on which to base political decisions. Politics is also about values and ideologies. In many societies, inclusive education is a moral imperative, not in need of empirical support at all (Cara, 2013). I initially referred to inclusive education as a masterpiece of rhetoric. There are even researchers who maintain that research evidence is not central or even relevant to decisions about inclusion. “Poor outcome may be found but, it is argued, these should drive us to greater efforts to discover how to implement a policy seen as inherently correct.” (Lindsay, 2007, p 2). There are also researchers that exclude benefit from teaching from the concept of inclusive education. One way to do this comes from a definition where inclusion is seen as a combination of physical issues, meaning placement, social issues, that is participation, and a psychological issue, being about students’ personal experiences of being included (Hansen & Qvortrup, 2013).
Nevertheless, learning effectiveness is an element in the discussion on inclusive education
(Lindsay, 2007). There is no doubt that in developing inclusive education, empirical evidence has not been especially important. To develop this ambitious educational policy with weak research evidence has also been highly criticized (K. A. Kavale & Mostert, 2004; Mostert,
Kavale, & Kauffmann, 2008). To research effectiveness is challenging and requires
8

considering many different substantial and methodological issues. Here I only discuss one of these, already mentioned; the multitude of definitions of inclusive education. Inclusion has different meanings; the implementation varies within different systems and at different levels, and deals with different aims, teaching philosophies and motives. To be able to conclude about how inclusive education functions, there has to be a certain consensus about definition and practice. This is a classic validation challenge, to be sure that you study what you think you do.
There are many publications about the effects both of special and inclusive education, but they are of variable quality. In this research, the definition of inclusive education differs widely, and there are clear methodological shortcomings (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014).
Studies and meta-studies of inclusive education for students with disabilities in no way provide a clear and positive answer about the effects (Cara, 2013; Göransson & Nilholm,
2014; K. A. Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lindsay, 2007). “Taken as a whole … there is lack of a firm research base for inclusive education to support either whether this is a preferable approach in terms of outcomes, or how inclusion should be implemented (Lindsay, 2007, p.
16).
There are many explanations of these results. The one that I turn to is that these results could be a result of weak pedagogical practice, rather than of the low efficacy of inclusive education
(Cara, 2013). My reason for this conclusion is the earlier experiences with integration. The implementation of the integration of students with disabilities in school did not go as well as expected, the students did not receive the adapted teaching they were promised. The reason was that schools did not sufficiently acknowledge their educational needs within the fellowship. With reference to Lise Vislie (2003) the question is to what extent the introduction of inclusive education is simply a linguistic shift or represents a new educational agenda. Her conclusion was that the challenge for inclusion is free itself from the focus on special education and set its own agenda. The fact that special education has dominated the debate in the field has tended to stagnate both practical and knowledge development. To develop inclusive education, we have to produce creative ways of teaching.
The vertical dimension, coherence between levels in school organization and environment,
One element of importance in a nation’s struggle towards inclusive education is coherence within and between all levels of the school system and with the school system’s immediate environment (Ferguson, 2008). The whole system, from top (national policy) to bottom
9

(teachers’ teaching and students’ experiences and learning) must emphasize the intentions and practices of inclusive education. Lack of consistency weakens the policy. It does not suffice that the overall general policy deals with inclusion, if the schools’ organization and teaching contradict this policy. It is good for the students if they experience inclusion wherever and whenever they receive teaching, but inclusive education refers not only to what is going on in the groups or classrooms. Inclusive pedagogy is not enough if our interest is inclusive education. Therefore, it is possible for a country to have an inclusive policy, but not inclusive practices, and vice versa, to have inclusive practices but not an inclusive policy (Haug, 2010).
In inclusive education (as in every other complex issue in education) there has to be coherence right through the whole system for it to be successful. Then the different parts of the system can support each other, and strengthen the achievement of high ambitions. The most dominating trend is that European countries express an intention to realize inclusive education in accordance with common definitions, but that the results are not convincing.
Changes are slow, few, and there are many setbacks. Tensions and even resistance because of lack of coherence mark the implementation (Arduin, 2015, p. 118; European Agency for
Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2014a, 2014b; Ferguson, 2008; Kiuppis, 2011;
Norwich, 2014). This is often the case in the field of education; to decide on high ambitions is relatively easy, to realize them can be much more problematic. In that sense, the request from the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education mentioned earlier about the need to achieve inclusive education in practice is indeed extremely valid.
Most countries have not been able to adapt to the common decided definition of inclusive education. With coherence in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that at this stage and at this time, there is no model of inclusive education that would suit every country. Dependent upon national circumstances, most nations could realize some of the values and aspects of inclusion, but not others. “… a correlation exists between the ideology predominant in a society […] and its approach to disability and inclusive education […]. (Arduin, 2015, p.
118). It seems that each country must develop its own route to inclusive education, and in this process, even its own definition of inclusive education. Countries can learn from each other, but one has to be careful with the direct importation of inclusive solutions and strategies between countries as well as the efforts to standardize school systems between countries. To be successful, both importers and exporters of inclusive philosophies have to respect local values (D. Mitchell, 2005a). If not, coherence within legislation, systems and local values will suffer. One valuable result of a diversified approach will, in addition, be a variety of
10

experiences and models that can inform much more about how to create inclusive education, than we would get if everybody worked according to the same standardized model.
Conclusion
In this presentation, I have gone into some of the elements in inclusive education that dominate the research literature. Because of the variety in the state of inclusive education among European countries, I have chosen to present issues of broader relevance linked to important general questions. I have discussed elements associated with definitions of inclusive education related to a horizontal and a vertical dimension, practices of inclusive education, teacher competence for inclusive education, political coherence for inclusive education and the benefits of inclusive education.
The conclusion of my presentation adds up to two issues, both dependent upon each other.
The first is that the practical implementation of inclusive education is the overriding challenge. The difficulties come from disagreements about definitions of inclusive education, as well as from weak implementation efforts. This will challenge national political will and strength and organizational structures. There is a vast literature on that topic that I will not go into now. Instead, I will turn to the pedagogical part of the implementation, which is the teachers’ responsibility. There is no doubt that teachers matter, and that teachers’ competences will be decisive for the implementation of inclusive education. Therefore, to be able to realize inclusive education we have further to develop teachers’ competence in this particular form of education. Systematically and based on empirical grounds, it will be necessary to reveal the challenges in inclusive education and develop how teachers can meet them. To do this will take time and effort. However, I think it will be worthwhile in order to achieve the goal of a fair and well-functioning education for all our students without exclusion, which after all is what inclusion is really all about.
References
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London:
Routledge.
Allan, J. (2008). Rethinking inclusive education. The Philosophers of Difference in Practice. .
Dordrecht: Springer.
Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: description and reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 429-443.
Arduin, S. (2015). A review of the values that underpin the structure of an education system and its approach to disability and inclusion. Oxford Review of Education, 41(1), 105-121.
Booth, T. (1996). Stories of exclusion: Natural and unnatural selection. In E. Blyth & J. Milner (Eds.),
Exclusion from School: Inter-professional Issues for Policy and Practice. (pp. 21-36). London:
Routledge.
11

Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special Education Teacher
Quality and Preparation: Exposing Foundations, Constructing a New Model. Exceptional
Children, 76(3), 357-377.
Cara, M. (2013). Academic and Social Outcomes of Children with SEN in the General Education
Classroom. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 90-99.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2014a). Five Key Messages for Inclusive
Education. Putting Theory into Practice. . Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2014b). Vocational Education and
Training-Summary of Country Information Odense Denmark: European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education.
Ferguson, D. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge to teach one and everyone European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 109-120.
Florian, L. (2008). Special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special Education,
35(4), 202-208.
Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 29(3), 286-294.
Fulcher, G. (1999). Disabling Policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability.
Sheffield: Philip Armstrong Publications.
Graham, L. J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Wherefore are thou, Inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland. . Journal of Education Policy,
26(2), 263-288.
Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings-a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
29(3), 265-280.
Hansen, O., & Qvortrup, L. (2013). Inklusion i Danmark-hvilke konsekvenser har begrepsdefinitioner for den pædagogiske praksis? Paideia(5), 8-19.
Haug, P. (2010). Approaches to empirical research on inclusive education. Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research, 12(3), 199-209.
Haug, P. (2014). The practices of dealing with children with special needs in school: a Norwegian perspective. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 19(3), 296-310.
Kavale, K. A. (2007). Quantitative Research Synthesis: Meta-Analysis of Research on Meeting Special
Educational Needs. In L. Florian (Ed.), Handbook of Special Education (pp. 207-221). London:
Sage Publications.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, Rhetoric, and Reality. Analysis of the Inclusion Debate.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.
Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2004). The positive side of special education : minimizing its fads,
fancies, and follies. Lanham, Md: ScarecrowEducation.
Kiuppis, F. (2011). Mer enn én vei til fremtiden: Om ulike tolkninger av inkluderende opplæring.
Norsk pedagogisk tidskrift, 95(2), 91-102.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1-24.
Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1-15.
Mitchell, D. (2005a). Sixteen propositions on the contexts of inclusive education. In D. Mitchell (Ed.),
Contextualizing Inclusive Education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives. (pp.
1-21). London: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education : using evidence-based
teaching strategies (2nd ed. ed.). London: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (Ed.) (2005b). Contextualizing Inclusive Educaton. Evaluating old and new international
perspectives. London: Routledge.
12

Mostert, M. P., Kavale, K. A., & Kauffmann, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Challenging the Refusal of Reasoning
in Special Education. Denver: Love Publishing Company.
Nordahl, T., & Hausstätter, R. S. (2009). Spesialundervisningens forutsetninger, innsatser og
resultater. Hamar: Høgskolen i Hedmark.
Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: international perspectives on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 287-304.
Norwich, B. (2014). Recognising value tensions that underlie problems in inclusive education.
Cambridge Journal of Education, DOI:10.1080/0305764X.2014.963027, 1-16.
Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2007). How specialized is teaching children with disabilities and difficulties?
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 127-150.
OECD. (1999). Inclusive Education at Work . Paris: OECD.
Rix, J., & Sheehy, K. (2014). Nothing Special: The Everyday Pedagogy of Teaching. In L. Florian (Ed.),
The Sage Handbook of Special Education, Volume 2, second edition (pp. 459-474). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Smyth, F., Shevlin, M., Buchner, T., Biewer, G., Flynn, P., Latimier, C., . . . Ferreira, M. A. V. (2014).
Inclusive education in progress: policy evolution in four European countries. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(4), 433-445.
Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. . British Educational Research Journal, 39(3),
473-490.
Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. 2nd
Edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to Inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western
European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17-35.
Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: a new look. IMPACT no. 11, a series of policy
discussions. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
13