R o g e r S l e e , P r o f e s s o r o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A u s t r a l i a 2 0 1 8 Defining the scope of inclusive education This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2020 GEM Report concept note. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report, Inclusion and education”. For further information, please contact [email protected]. ED/GEMR/MRT/2018/T1/1 Think piece prepared for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report Inclusion and education2 ABSTRACT Inclusive education has developed and established itself as field of educational research, policy and practice in a relatively short period of time. Put simply inclusive education is both an educational goal and methodology. It seeks to identify and dismantle barriers to education for all children so that they have access to, are present and participate in and achieve optimal academic and social outcomes from school. The Education for All (EFA) movement has progressively chronicled cohorts of excluded students and mobilised governments, education authorities, non-government organisations and civil society to advance inclusive education. Specific population cohorts are more likely to be excluded from, or within, school. This paper reaffirms the Education for All and Sustainable Development Goals aspirations for ensuring inclusive and quality education for all and promoting lifelong learning (SDG4), especially the most vulnerable individuals and population cohorts. More specifically the objective is to consider inclusive education in relation to children and young people with disabilities. Responding to what is typically a poorly conceptualised and defined area of educational research and practice, this paper attempts to chart the relationship between regular and special education as a means for analysing the attenuation of inclusive education through its appropriation and application by special education. The think piece identifies forces for exclusion in contemporary education policy and practices, employing this backdrop as a basis for suggesting areas for research and monitoring at global, regional and local levels in preparation for Global Educational Monitoring Report 2020.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My thanks to Professor Mel Ainscow (University of Manchester), Dr Sulochini Pather (Nazabyev Univerrsity) and Dr Tsitsi Chataika (University of Zimbabwe) for alerting me to initiatives in inclusive education in Africa, South America and Central Asia. Thank you also to Katarzyna Kubacka and William Smith for their guidance.4 CONTENTS Abstract 1. Introduction 2. What is Inclusive Education? 2.1. Towards a working definition. 2.2. Worlds of schooling: Locating exclusion. 2.3. Inclusive education and students with disabilities. 2.4. A ‘fast guide’ to the development of theories and practices of inclusive education. 2.4 (a) Special Education – reach & interest. 2.4 (b) Disability Studies in Education 2.4 (c) Forces for exclusion. 3. What does this mean for Global Education Monitoring reporting? 3.1 Introduction 3.2 A word on measurement. 3.3 Thematic research drivers for monitoring inclusive education for children and young people with disabilities. 4. References 5. Appendices 5.1 Sustainable Development Goal 4 5.2 Child Labour at a Glance 5.3 The International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health 5.4 Universal Design for Learning5 INTRODUCTION Inclusive education has established itself as a global field of educational research, a core element of teacher preparation and continuing professional learning, and a domain within education policymaking and practice. There are clear indicators that we can point to in order to demonstrate that this is the case (European Agency for Special Needs Education, 2011, 2012 & 2013; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2018; Slee, 2018). Some indicators include:  Education jurisdictions’ legislation and regulations for inclusive education;  Increasing government budgets for inclusive education;  The rapid increase in the volume of academic and general publications about inclusive education;  The numbers of conferences, training programmes, university courses, workshops and seminars on inclusive education;  Increased funding of research programmes and projects on inclusive education;  Growth in the work of Non-Government Organisations’ (NGO) in the field of inclusive education. Also apparent is the range of meanings and purposes attached to inclusive education. The definition and scope for inclusive education is captured in Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4): Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning. (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ See Appendix 1: SDG 4) Inclusive education has been a constant feature of UNESCO’s work since the pioneering calls for Education for All in Jontiem, Thailand -1990. Successive conferences in Amman, Jordan - 1996, Dakar, Senegal - 2000, Geneva, Switzerland -2008, and Incheon, The Republic of South Korea - 2015 have maintained momentum through ‘Declaration and Framework for Action Statements’ for the Education for All movement, supported by global education monitoring (GEM) meetings, reports and agreements. The Incheon Education 2030 Declaration and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2015a:6) ‘… recognise(d) with great concern that we are far from having reached education for all’ and set out a ‘new vision for education’ and corresponding implementation strategy, targets and monitoring schedules to achieve inclusive and equitable education. In their statement of intent, the contributors to the ‘Incheon Declaration and Framework’ were unequivocal.6 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. There is clarity and enormity in the goals for the Education for All movement and SDG 4. The Muscat Agreement (UNESCO, 2014: 1&2) sets out some of the challenges:  57 million children and 69 million adolescents still do not have access to effective basic education  774 million adults were illiterate in 2011, two-thirds of which were women  At least 250 million children are not able to read, write or count well even after having spent at least four years at school  Persistent inequalities in access, participation and learning outcomes for vulnerable groups and minorities  60% of countries had achieved gender parity at the primary level and 38% at secondary level. Inadequacy of education financing  Increasing violent attacks on students in schools Global and local priorities are shaped by changing conditions in a fast-moving world (Bauman, 2004; Mason, 2015). Inclusive education responds to educational underachievement and diminished social opportunities of vulnerable student identities – Indigenous and First Nations children, the girl child, children displaced by conflict or natural disasters, children from minority ethnic, religious or tribal groups, children living in poverty, traveller children, and children with disabilities. To achieve sustainability, inclusive education must develop a practical understanding of exclusion; its structures and cultures (Slee, 2011). In essence, inclusive education ought to provide a principled and systematic approach to identifying and dismantling barriers for vulnerable populations. “The central message is simple: Every learner matters and matters equally.” (UNESCO, 2017: 12) In practical terms, inclusive education seeks to increase access, presence, participation and success for all students in education (Booth & Ainscow, 2016). This is the objective of SDG 4.7 Defining the Scope of Inclusive Education, acknowledges and briefly sets out the broader scope of inclusive education (SDG 4), but will concentrate on the education of students with disabilities. However, it is necessary to acknowledge the overlapping factors that more or less exclude or include children and young people from education. Achieving the right to an inclusive and quality education for students with disabilities remains unfinished business, and it cannot be business as usual. Consensus does not exist about the nature and strategies to increase access, participation and improved education outcomes. Disappointingly, inclusive education policies and practices may intensify experiences of exclusion and underachievement (Dyson & Slee, 2001; Cologon, 2013; Walton, 2016; Greenstein, 2016; Tomlinson, 2017). The means for determining who is eligible for additional support in school sometimes has perverse effects and excludes more children and young people with disabilities from the regular school or classroom (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017; Slee, 2018). Countries of the global north and south often group children with disabilities together in their diagnostic categories to be educated away from children without disabilities. UNESCO has demonstrated a commitment to shaping the aspirations of and strategies for inclusive education for students with disabilities. The World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality in Salamanca, Spain in 1994 is generally regarded as foundational to setting a global framework, agenda and movement for inclusive education for students with disabilities (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006; Ainscow, 2016). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994) couched in the language of its time foreshadowed the need for ‘major reform to the ordinary school to meet the challenge of educating the child with special educational needs’. Over time an uneasy merging of the languages of inclusive education and special education has persisted as if they are one and the same. It is too simplistic to say that special educators have hijacked the language of inclusive education. As is always the case, the theatre of public policy it is far more complex. To assist our understanding of the complexity of defining and achieving SDG4 for students with disabilities globally (North & South) this paper will:  Trace the development of inclusive education for children and young people with disabilities and identify struggles within research, policy-making and ground-level practices.  Provide a working definition of inclusive education that assists educators and members of civil society to defy the gravity of exclusion that draws in vulnerable student populations.8  Consider approaches to measuring or evaluating inclusive education and appropriate data sets and sources.  Describe barriers to the achievement of inclusive education for vulnerable population cohorts across diverse geographic, cultural and political contexts.  2. WHAT IS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION? 2.1 Towards a Working Definition Inclusive education refers to securing and guaranteeing the right of all children to access, presence, participation and success in their local regular school. Inclusive education calls upon neighbourhood schools to build their capacity to eliminate barriers to access, presence, participation, and achievement in order to be able to provide excellent educational experiences and outcomes for all children and young people. Education increases opportunities and choices for work and social connection in the whole of the lifespan (OECD, 2017). Access to education is regarded as a basic human right for all children and young people. This is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly resolution 217A, Article 26, 1948) and strengthened through treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child – CRC (United Nations General Assembly, 44/25, Articles 28 & 29, 1989). Other treaties have been struck to protect this basic human right of access to and participation in quality and inclusive education for vulnerable population groups: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - CEDAW (General Assembly Resolution 34/180, Article 10, 1979), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – CERD (General Assembly Resolution 2106 (xx), Article 5e(v), 1965), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – CESCR (General Assembly Resolution 2200A (xxi), Article 13, 1966), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families – CMW (General Assembly Resolution 45/158, Article 30, 1990), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – CRPD (General Assembly Resolution 61/106, Article 24, 2006).9 These international agreements are monitored through United Nations committees. Anti-discrimination legislation and regulations in nation states also act to protect the right of all children and young people to an inclusive and quality education (SDG 4). Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) and communities actively support these internationally agreed rights at the grass roots. For example, Save the Children in India are working with a number of organisations and corporate bodies to bring the “missing children” to school. In Shivaji Nagar near the city of Bengaluru in Bangalore India an Aanganwadi has been built as a stepping-stone from the streets to school. Community workers engage with families to maximise the number of children it can reach. (https://www.savethechildren.in/news/bangalore-children-gear-up-to-reach-schools) Put simply, inclusion of all children and young people is a prerequisite for an education in and for democracy (Bernstein, 1996; Knight, 1985; Pearl and Knight, 1998). The thinking and actions of inclusive educators are shaped by a series of direct questions:  What kind of world do we want our children and young people to live in?  What kind of schools and classrooms are required to achieve that world?  What do children need to know, think and be able to achieve a more inclusive world?  When we look at our schools – who is in, who is out, who decides and what are we going to do about it? Inclusive education is secured by principles and actions of fairness, justice and equity. It is a political aspiration and an educational methodology. We want an inclusive world, so we must teach inclusively. This applies to all children, including children with disabilities. Curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and the design of a school or classroom may be more or less enabling, more or less disabling. The Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2016) now translated into over forty languages and being used in over thirty-five countries in the Global South and North establishes inclusive education as a means for planning and reflecting upon all aspects of an educational programme, including what we teach, how we teach and how we evaluate learning for all children. The recent development of indicators of inclusion for10 schools across the island countries of the South Pacific is indicative (Forlin, Sharma, Deppeler and Loreman, 2016). 2.2 Worlds of Schooling: Locating Exclusion. Despite global investment and activism (Keddie, 2012; Save the Children, 2015; UNESCO, 2017) the goal of education for all or ‘inclusive education’, enshrined in these international treaties, remains distant. At the end of 2016, 124 million children and adolescents were not in primary or lower secondary education (http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs48-one-five-children-adolescents-youth-out- school-2018-en.pdf). In a global context of expanding conflict and increasing displacement of people these figures understate the problem. Child homelessness is a constant. UNICEF reported 28 million children homeless due to conflict in 2016 (https://www.dw.com/en/unicef-reports-28-million-children-homeless-globally-due-to- conflict/a-19530645). Many girls continue to experience childhood marriage and are forced out of education. UNICEF (2018) reports 285 of girls married by 15 in Nicaragua, 22% in Bangladesh, 30% in Chad and 29% in the Central African Republic (https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-marriage/). Although, according to UNICEF (2018) there has been a 15% decline in the marriage of girls before their 15th birthday from 1 in 4, to 1 in 5 there remain 650 million girls and women alive today who were married before their 18th birthday. Child labour compromises education for all (See Appendix 2: Child Labour at a Glance). The negative impact of poverty on educational access and attainment has been well documented (Teese, 2013; Dorling, 2018a). The share of the global population defined as poor with less than $1.90 per day has fallen by half to 15 per cent to 783 million people globally in 2013. 8.6 per cent of the global population own 85.6 per cent of global wealth. 43 per cent of the world’s millionaires have North American nationality, but this belies the widening gap between privilege and poverty in that country where wealth disparity is twice as wide as in the rest of the industrialised world (http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home/;https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/; Atkinson, 2015; Dorling, 2018b; Alvaredo, Chancel, Piketty, Saez & Zucman, 2018).11 We can put an all too human face to these data (see Inset 1): Inset 1. The Economist magazine carries a regular feature called Briefing. A recent entry (‘In need of help’, 2012) maps and personalises poverty in America. It is worth capturing and considering some of its detail. We are introduced to Emma Hamilton who worked as a loader in a factory in Sumter, South Carolina. After seven years at the factory her hand was crushed in an industrial accident. This left her unable to work at the factory. Shortly afterwards she lost her house. Emma collects cans for small change during the daytime and sleeps with her son in her van in a shopping centre car park at night. Chronic pain in Emma’s leg leads us to Patricia Dunham, a medical assistant at a clinic, where she seeks treatment. Patricia works two jobs, one at the medical clinic and the second at a fast food restaurant. From her minimum wage salary, she supports her infirm husband and buys expensive medications for him. She also needs to purchase expensive medications for their son who has a behaviour disorder. Chronic illness and a history of incarceration form barriers to her husband gaining employment. Her work does not provide access to medical insurance. She is paying off a loan for her mother’s funeral. Falling behind in her car loan repayments, the car was repossessed and she makes an unsafe and long journey from their home to her night job. If she could rely on regular hours of work Ms Dunham would earn $32,135.70 a year before tax. This places her below the poverty line. The Economist reports 15% of Americans living below the poverty line. This represents around 46.2 million people. The Economist (2012). Briefings: In need of help. November 10 – 16: 23-25.12 Krishnan, Ibarra, Narayan, Tiwari and Vishwanath (2016) reported on uneven outcomes in North Africa and the Middle East. They conclude that while there is an overall 4 per cent growth rate in mean consumption this is unevenly spread between and within countries. They highlight Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco, and the Republic of Yemen where large concentrations of vulnerable populations lie near the $1.25 per day line for each country. This is worse than countries with historically high concentrations of poverty such as Brazil, Columbia and South Africa. What emerges from their report is the uneven spread of opportunity and access to basic services such as health, education, and infrastructure including safe drinking water and sanitation for vulnerable population cohorts such as different ethnic groups, people with disabilities and women. UNHRC (2017) reported that of the 65.6 million displaced people in 2016 22.5 million carried refugee status. Of that 22.5 million 189,300 were resettled. Maley (2016) cites data from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimating that 1,008, 616 refugees and migrants had sought to cross into Europe by sea in 2015. 3,771 others perished at sea. UNHRC suggests that of the 65.6 million displaced people 55% came from Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan. The wall, rather than the bridge, is the metaphor of our time (Marshall, 2018; Sennett, 2006; Bauman, 2004 & 2016; Gleeson, 2016). As Toni Morrison (2017:38) tells us: Why should we want to know the stranger when it is easier to estrange another? Why should we want to close the distance when we can close the gate? This scale of human displacement has profound implications for children and their education. This is not only a welfare logistics problem – how do we mobilise food, shelter, health care, security, education and so on in conflict zones – it is a challenge for the inclusive curriculum. How do we ensure that such global challenges (population displacement, war and terrorism, environmental degradation, drought and famine) become a part of a future oriented problem based curriculum? An inclusive education must address the major challenges of our time. Art Pearl and Tony Knight (1998:3) remind us that: An education that does not examine the range of plausible explanations for and solutions to major problems can only exacerbate those problems.13 While visiting an isolated rural community in the south-central Indian state of Telangana; about a two- and-a-half-hour drive from Hyderabad, community workers from Save the Children took me to a school where we observed a meeting of the student council. I was introduced to a young girl who sat quietly looking at the floor as her story unfolded. Her parents, like others in the surrounding villages, had arranged her marriage and she was set to leave school prior to completing a basic education. Her friends didn’t want her to leave them and after a number of meetings with teachers, community leaders and workers from Save the Children they visited the parents and asked them to stop the planned marriage. This happened and the girl continued her schooling with her young friends. The children have made a number of these interventions to arrest the exclusion of the girl child in their school with the material support of an NGO so that families are not further impoverished. Material support must be in place to enable families to support their children’s education and keep their families together. The backstory runs deep revealing the political economy of the region. Like child labour, child marriage is part of the fabric of economic survival. It also guarantees exclusion from schooling for the girl child. It is the pattern of life, in local culture. Changing this requires strategic responses that do not throw families into deeper life-threatening poverty and community ostracism. This was the contribution of community intervention with support from the NGO. Consistent with research findings (Kalyanpur, 2008; Singal, 2016) the absence of children with disabilities in schools was conspicuous. Explaining their absence requires an interrogation of religious beliefs and cultural understandings of disability. People with disabilities are too frequently perceived as a burden or source of shame to family and community. Earlier that year I had worked on a project in Iraq where we were attempting to identify the prevalence and nature of childhood disabilities in four governorates (Baghdad, Basra, Najaf and Erbil) and consider the implications for schooling (Alborz, Slee & Miles, 2013). Impairment and childhood and adolescent trauma are obviously attributable to conflict (Trani, Bakhshi, Noor & Mashkoor, 2007; Trani & Bakhshi, 2008). Continuing conflict erects barriers to schooling. Lack of security prevents children travelling to school. The destruction by war of infrastructure that is otherwise taken for granted presents barriers to schooling. Children with disabilities and chronic illnesses were particularly vulnerable. Mobility aids, if available, were unusable without proper roads and pathways.14 Through individual interviews and focus group discussions, senior religious leaders within the community cohorts, delivered their unambiguous message to us, ‘actively enabling people with disabilities to live an engaged and rewarding life was not optional, it is a spiritual obligation’. Still some parents believed that the birth of their child with a disability was a punishment from God. In numerous cases shame and the desire to protect the disabled child led them to keep that child at home. This belief is not restricted to any one religion or country. What are relatively inexpensive resources and common medical treatments elsewhere, were not available to families involved in this research. Mobility and access are compromised by the degradation of infrastructure, where it may have existed, by the design of the built environment, by the constancy of physical threat and the lack of basic aides for mobility. Poverty and war are fellow travellers. Working with educators and civil society organisations in Ethiopia, I was asked, “What would be a first step in achieving an inclusive education for all children in Ethiopia?” Still shaken by learning of the extent of the prevailing conditions of drought, I replied, “Feed the kids, their families and their teachers”. Asked the same question in Australia, my response might be, “Make sure that Education Departments censure school principals who routinely deny the enrolment of children with disabilities and recommend the school down the road”. Following exclusion, inclusive education must acknowledge and respond to specificity – geopolitical and cultural. This will of course generate difficulties as we confront cultural traditions that create barriers to education for all. Education needs to be based upon principles of equity and inclusion (OECD, 2017; UNESCO, 2017) to lay the foundations for effective citizenship in civil society. Exclusion is a stubborn foe. It is a general feature of schooling, but its particular characteristics vary depending upon local context (Urwick & Elliott, 2010; Chesterton-Khayat, 2015; Nguyen, 2015, 2016 & 2018). Our task is to identify the global and local structures of exclusion or barriers to inclusion. Local conditions are crucial, but they mustn’t stop us from questioning overarching global theories and practices that sustain the exclusion of vulnerable students such as children with disabilities. For example, traditional special education sustains ableist assumptions about disability through longstanding practices of categorisation and separation of children according to deficits. Exclusion is attributed to individual student impairment rather than to the disabling cultures and practices of schooling.15 Defining inclusive education often fails to consider complex overlapping issues and relationships that must be on the agenda for school reform. Inclusive education is everybody’s business, not just the concern of special educators, support workers and para-professionals. The inclusive education agenda must be context driven and proceed from a more careful analysis of the causes of exclusion. Let us set out the conceptual foundations for a working theory of inclusive education that addresses the exclusion of students with disabilities. 2.3 Inclusive education and students with disabilities. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), an estimated 15% of the world’s population has a disability (see Appendix 3). This represents over 1 billion people (Goodley, 2017:1). The World Report on Disability (World Health Organisation, 2011:39) observes that people with disabilities living in developed countries experience worse educational and labour market outcomes, and that they are more likely to be poor and marginalized than persons without disabilities (see also: Barnes & Sheldon, 2010; OECD, 2012). Notwithstanding the difficulty in gathering prevalence data (Trani & Bakhshi, 2008; Alborz, Slee & Miles, 2013), the situation worsens for children with disabilities living in developing countries (WHO 2011:39; Grech, 2009; Muderedzi & Ingstad, 2011). The World Report on Disability cites a number of countries in Africa, Asia and South America to demonstrate the increasing levels of poverty and more limited educational and vocational opportunities for children with disabilities. Njelesani and Bangura (in press) and Kvam and Braathen (2008) report on the incidence of girls with disabilities in Sierra Leone becoming “night wives” to mitigate poverty. Disability and poverty has a two-way relationship, and education is a critical element in this non-random allocation of poverty (OECD, 2017; WHO, 2011:10). Evidence shows that students with disabilities who attend their local neighbourhood school with their siblings and neighbourhood peers achieve superior educational outcomes to those who attend separate special schools (Cologon, 2013; Crawford, 2008). The experience of children with disabilities in Italy (D’Alessio, 2011) or in the province of New Brunswick in Canada where students with disabilities are educated in their neighbourhood regular school (Porter & Towell, 2013) is illustrative of this claim.16 It is important for organisations like UNESCO who command global authority to clarify and advocate for the distinction between special education and inclusive education and its implications for educational and social outcomes for students with disabilities. This is a strong recommendation for the GEMR 2020. To understand the development of inclusive education in relation to students with disabilities we must examine the co-dependent relationship between special education and regular education. In their review of the best evidence of inclusive education for students with disabilities, Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler and Sharma (2013:6) state: Inclusive education is a contentious term that lacks a tight conceptual focus, which may contribute to some misconception and confused practice. Definitions of inclusive education, they conclude, fall into two broad groups: (a) those who detail features of inclusion, and (b) those who identify and describe barriers to inclusion that must be removed (Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler & Sharma, 2013:7). This does not acknowledge the overlapping nature of these domains. Researchers such as Ainscow (2015), Booth and Dyssegaard (2006), Ainscow, Booth and Dyson (2006), who are said to fall into the second category, frequently describe the features of inclusive educational environments. Like Loreman (2009), these researchers stipulate the features of an inclusive school for all children before suggesting a more general educational reform agenda for the benefit of all children – including children and young people with disabilities. Loreman (2009) suggests seven key features of inclusive education for students with disabilities. Seven Key Features of Inclusive Education 1. All children attend their neighbourhood school. 2. Schools and districts have ‘zero-rejection’ policy when it comes to registering and teaching children in their region. All children are welcomed and valued. 3. All children learn in regular, heterogeneous classrooms with same-age peers. 4. All children follow substantively similar programmes of study, with curriculum that can be adapted and modified if needed. Modes of instruction are varied and responsive to the needs of all. 5. All children contribute to regular school and classroom learning activities and events. 6. All children are supported to make friends and to be socially successful with their peers.17 7. Adequate resources and staff training are provided within the school and district to support inclusion. Source: Loreman, T. (2009) Straight talk about inclusive education outcomes in Alberta. CASS Connections, Spring. The depiction of inclusive education as lacking a tight conceptual focus is in part correct. Ambivalence and confusion has grown around the theory and practice of inclusive education. In some quarters, there is a rejection of its principles and practices with a call for a return to separate schools for children with disabilities (Imray & Colley, 2017; Farrell, 2006 & 2010; Warnock, 2005). Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler, and Sharma (2013), whose contribution to the field is important, do not analyse how this lack of conceptual clarity has developed over time. For this we need to dig further. 2.4 A ‘fast guide’ to the development of theories and practices of inclusive education.1 This section is divided into three parts: (a) Special Education – reach and interest. (b) Disability Studies in Education. (c) Forces for exclusion. The history of inclusive education for children and young people with disabilities has been a story of struggle. There is never one history that tells the whole story. This brief history identifies the deep contradictions between inclusive education as a radical response to the exclusion of students with disabilities through many of the assumptions and traditions of special education (Taylor, 2006). Edward Said (2000) tells us that when radical ideas travel through time and place and become popular they lose their original “insurrectionary zeal”. They are “tamed and domesticated”. He calls this ‘travelling theory’. Inclusive education shows all of the features of a travelling theory. It has been applied to policy 1 ‘Fast guide’ is used in the above heading to acknowledge problems that arise from summarising a complicated emergence of educational ideas and practices.18 programmes by education jurisdictions globally and is commonly used to describe the work of special education (Hornby, 2014). To understand the present impasse that now positions inclusive education policies and interventions as instruments of the contemporary architecture of exclusion (Danforth & Gabel, 2006; Tomlinson, 2017; Slee, 2018), it is important to acknowledge debates surrounding the education of students with disabilities (Danforth, 2009; Franklin, 1987, 1994; Ford, Mongon & Whelan, 1982; Lewis, 1993, 1989). The growth of interdisciplinary Disability Studies provides critical accounts of cultures of disablement that have oppressed people with impairments and chronic illness throughout history (Stiker, 1999; Davis, 1995 & 2013; Snyder & Mitchell, 2006; Titchkosky, 2003 & 2011; Foucault, 1965; Goodley, 2017; Oliver, 1990 & 2009; Oliver & Barnes, 2012). For the purposes of this paper, it is important to observe four lessons from this work:  People with disabilities have been systematically oppressed and marginalised and this is reflected in changing patterns of exchange between people with / without disabilities through institutional structures and cultures (e.g. education systems).  The progress towards the recognition of disability as inappropriate responses to impairment, illness and difference and as a matter of human rights violations and concessions has been slow and remains unfinished business.  History is not linear. Redundant knowledge and beliefs such as eugenics and the necessity of segregation endure. We constantly observe history in the present.  Discourse is an important marker of the social relations of disablement and enablement. “Special” is not a signifier of inclusion. It has always been a term applied to children seen as defective or abnormal. It represents a descending hierarchy of human value. (a) Special education – reach and interest. Special education refers to a very broad range of programmes, personnel and provisions. Education systems around the world frequently are comprised of the regular neighbourhood or village schools as well as separate schools that have been designed for children with disabilities. This holds for the Global North and South, although the material conditions of the schools vary significantly. Many of these schools are dedicated to particular diagnostic categories such as behaviour disorders, sensory disabilities, cognitive disabilities, physical disabilities or for children with multiple complex impairments. Special education accounts for large financial investment. As well as being located outside of the regular school we are seeing increasing numbers of schools enlisting special educators to coordinate their programmes19 for students with disabilities. Universities have Departments of Special Education for the training of special teachers and the development of special education research programmes. Special education has expanded its activities, influence and authority since its beginnings. The recent invention of mass ‘compulsory’ schooling was neither designed nor intended for all children. Schools continue to struggle, more or less, against the strictures of their origins. Population cohorts (e.g. girls, First Nations and Aboriginal children, the so-called feeble-minded, retarded, backward or handicapped children) were marked out for exclusion from school, and in some parts of the globe this continues for children with disabilities. In a study of 19 countries (Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Peru, South Africa, South Sudan, Vietnam and Zambia) Male and Wodon (2017:6) report: “Many children with disabilities are never enrolled in school. At the time of the latest Census data, among children aged 11, the likelihood of having ever enrolled in school was thirteen (13) percentage points lower for children with disabilities versus children without disabilities. The disability gap has increased over time.” Globally, we continue to see the separation of students with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, cognitive disabilities and chronic illness (including mental illness) into separate special schools or classes away from their non-disabled siblings and peers. This happens despite a growing body of research demonstrating the improved educational outcomes and vocational opportunities for children with disabilities educated in an inclusive regular school (Myers, Pinnock & Suresh, 2016). It is recommended that GEMR 2020 investigate this as a matter of priority and that it commission research into the prevalence of parents opting for home schooling children with disabilities to protect them from ableist practices and cultures in local schools. At present data on home schooling hides the exclusion of children and young people with disabilities. Interventions from concerned parents, medical practitioners, educators and community activists over the past three centuries sought to establish the right of children with disabilities to education (Lewis, 1989;20 Danforth, 2009). The contributions of physicians such as Jean Marc Gaspard Itard in France who wrote about training a young boy considered uneducable who was found in the woods in Aveyron in 1798, and Johann Jakob Guggenbuhl who established a residential school for children with intellectual disabilities in Interlaken in Switzerland in 1869 represented a radical departure from the established wisdom of the time that handicapped children were ‘uneducable’. As a young student, Samuel Alexander Kirk who was a pioneer of special education in the US, conducted lessons for a young disabled boy in a dimly lit corridor in the Oak Forest Institution for Delinquent Children2 away from the eyes of the institution’s custodians (Danforth, 2009). It is important to acknowledge that special education represented a progressive educational intervention for children with disabilities. Those who demanded an education for children with disabilities refused to accept the common belief that children with disabilities were uneducable. This was a radical response to exclusion. However, special education did not result in a radical reform of schooling. Rather, a separate system of schooling and special teacher education programmes developed parallel to, but firmly segregated from the regular school system. From that point onwards, the two systems have shared a co- dependence that is increasing rather than diminishing (Tomlinson, 1982, 1985, 2017; Slee, 2018). Francis Galton (1869) and Cyril Burt (1925) in Britain, and Alfred Binet (1905) in France who pioneered the ‘science of intelligence (IQ)’ were significant in setting the conceptual foundations for the practice of special education. Special education proceeded from assumptions about the generalizability and determinism of individual pathological defectiveness on learning. Stephen Ball (2013a:72) describes the contribution of intelligence testing as an agent of control rather than of learning: Intelligence testing both defined an appropriate education and a set of limits, a fixity – the work of the teacher would be to match an appropriate pedagogy, body of knowledge, and pace of coverage to the “needs” and capabilities of individuals, or rather in practice, groups of students who were transmuted from individual differences (sequences) to distinctive types (sets). At each end of this distribution “exceptions” could be located – each in their way abnormal and 2 Delinquency was largely regarded as a marker of feeble-mindedness or retardation.21 unteachable, the genius at one end and the backward or “retarded” at the other. Each of whom are “discovered” by testing … ” Emboldened by the civil rights movement in the US and successful litigation such as Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (347 US 483, 1954) that declared the principle of “separate but equal” invalid for the education of children of different ethnic origins, people with disabilities, together with their parents and allies, agitated for the recognition of the right of children with disabilities to take their place alongside their siblings and neighbourhood peers in regular classrooms in local regular schools. This movement was generally referred to as mainstreaming. Public Law 94-142 – The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA) was designed to ensure a ‘free, appropriate education for all handicapped children’ (Henderson, 1993:97; Minow, 1990). In 1990 PL94-142 was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with revisions in 1997 and 2004 (Norwich, 2008). The legislation was subject to considerable ‘interpretive latitude’ (Slee, 1996) and firmly placed authority with special educators for children with disabilities who were seen and described as “exceptional learners”. In the US, the language of rights fell into step with the discourse of special educational needs. Biklen (1985) observed the creation of ‘islands in the mainstream’ where children with disabilities would be congregated within the same classroom in the school away from children without disabilities. In other words, the inclusion of children with disabilities was not considered a catalyst for changing schools according to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (see Appendix 4). Rather the challenge was to build support around the “exceptional learner” to minimise disruption to the other students. Italy predated the US legislation by granting the right for children with disabilities to attend regular schools in 1971 (D’Alessio, 2011). The expectation was that schools and learning programmes become accessible for all children – including children with disabilities. The Department of Education and Science’s (England & Wales) (1978) report: Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People, generally referred to as the ‘Warnock Report’, has an enduring legacy that can be witnessed in global education discourse. For Barton and Landman (1993:43), the report challenged medical notions of22 handicap by introducing the concept of a ‘continuum of special educational needs’. What followed was paradoxical. Instead of providing a framework for the consideration of disability as a relationship between individual impairments or differences and combinations of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and school and classroom organisation and culture, the term ‘special educational needs’ became an overarching category of defective pathology. Through global repetition in official documents, meeting discussions, training modules and informal corridor, school car-park, supermarket aisle and sports-field side-line conversations people came to believe firmly in the notion of the special needs student. To the present time there is an insistence on the existence of the special educational needs student. It is a marker of students who are further divided into general diagnostic categories: sensory impairments, physical impairments, cognitive impairments, behavioural impairments. ‘Special educational need’ is code for individual student pathology or categories of impairment and disability. The special school as a manifestation of institutional structures and cultures represents exclusion. Special education provides the instrumentation for the calibration, separation and training of so-called defective children. Tracking the expansion of statutory categories of disability in England, the rise in numbers of children referred to special education services and the increasing numbers of special educators and school psychologists, Sally Tomlinson (1985:157) observed: Special education in Britain, as in other advanced technological societies, is expanding. In changed forms and rationalised by changed ideologies, notably the ideology of special needs, it is becoming a more important mechanism for differentiating between young people and allocating some to a future which, if not as stigmatised as in the past, will be characterised by relative powerlessness and economic dependency. She has since documented the exponential growth of special needs classifications and of increasing numbers of student exclusions in England and globally (Tomlinson, 2017). The intention is not to suggest that special education is the sole protagonist in the exclusion of students with disabilities. Special education exists, as we noted, because of the unwillingness and inability of many regular schools to educate students with disabilities. The disappearing youth labour market had created a dilemma for schools (Tomlinson, 2017; Slee, 2011). The dilemma was, and remains, do schools23 restructure education to ‘deal with increasing numbers of young people who are defined as being unable or unwilling to participate satisfactorily in a system primarily directed towards producing academic and technical elites’ (Tomlinson, 1985:157)? Education jurisdictions and individual schools around the world have become more inclusive through specific sets of reforms that meet the needs of all students, including children with disabilities. In New Zealand, the Ministry of Education has restructured its organisation so that it no longer has a separate division for special education. They have ceased using the language of special educational needs and now promote initiatives for support for learning for all. There is an apparent attempt to move away from individual student pathology towards accepting the principles and practices of Universal Design for Learning (Appendix 4) wherein learning environments are specifically designed to maximise options for access, participation and success in heterogeneous classrooms. A local elementary school in Wellington on the north island of New Zealand, the Berhampore School and Community Centre has aligned itself with the Inclusive Education Action Group. It takes pride in the diversity of its community and ensures accessibility, participation and successful learning experiences for all students. The principal describes the way in which the teachers’ knowledge of curriculum planning, instruction and assessment has improved by using diversity as an educational asset. The school conducts conferences and workshops in disability awareness, Universal Design for Learning and cooperative learning strategies. In Los Angeles, I visited the WISH (Westside Innovative Schoolhouse) elementary, middle and high schools. The presence and engagement of students with a range of disabilities is a feature of the school. The school invited students from a local university engineering department to design furniture and aids to assist students with mobility and communication to enhance access and participation. Teachers work in teams to support all of the children in the classroom. A highlight of my day was a conversation with teachers over lunch where we considered whether a term like special needs had any place in a school where difference was the natural order and all teachers were working with all students. The Enabling Education Network has highlighted many initiatives around the world that have directly improved the educational experiences of children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Particular focus24 has been applied to experiences of children with disabilities in developing countries. The 2015 publication on advocacy for inclusion details initiatives to increase the participation of students with disabilities in a range of contexts – Indonesia, Gaza, Armenia, and Tajikistan (https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/EER%20advocacy.pdf). The clear message from the vignettes of inclusive practice is the importance of local action based on strong community partnerships. Over time special education researchers, policy-makers and teachers have adopted and adapted the language of inclusive education. The “big glossy special education textbooks”, as Brantlinger (2006) describes them, required for the training of special educators have adjusted their titles to incorporate the language of inclusion. The structure of the texts remains rooted to diagnostic categories. However, they carry additional chapters on student diversity and inclusive education policy. Education jurisdictions have adjusted nomenclature to reflect their inclusive educational credentials. It is not unusual to find schools that have an inclusion room where students with disabilities are taught together away from the regular classroom. Other schools have inclusion units that are in a different part of the schoolyard. It is also the case that these students often have different times for lunch and recesses than the majority of the students. The Department for Education and Training in Queensland, Australia holds its annual showcase awards for educational excellence. The Award for Excellence in Inclusive Education was given to Mt Ommaney Special School. Shortly thereafter local real estate agencies have taken to advertising properties in the Mt Ommaney Special School catchment zone (https://www.domain.com.au/school-catchment/mt- ommaney-special-school-qld-4074-9260). These tensions indicate the importance of establishing and maintaining consistency across the policy portfolio. It must be said that Queensland, in response to reports of the seclusion of students with disabilities, commissioned a review of education for students with disabilities and has since been engaged in a programme of significant reforms. There has been an upturn within the special education fraternity pressing for distance from inclusive education and a reassertion of brand special education (Imray & Colley, 2017; Kauffman, Hallahan, Pullen, Badar, 2018). In 2005 Baroness Warnock published a pamphlet for the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain in which she declares:25 I now want to move on to what is possibly the most disastrous legacy of the 1978 report, the concept of inclusion (formerly known as integration). Like an inheritance that grows and becomes more productive from one generation to another, this concept has gained a remarkable foothold in our society. (Warnock, 2005:22) According to Mel Ainscow (2007:128): Mary Warnock’s recent pamphlet Special Educational Needs: A New Look has intensified the debate about inclusive education. In some ways this has been helpful, it has moved the issue nearer to the centre of the ongoing debate about the future of education in this country. Unfortunately, it has also had a negative impact, in the sense that it has tended to encourage some in the field to retreat into traditional stances. Barton (2005) rebukes Mary Warnock for her “naivety, ignorance and arrogance”. Seeing nothing new in the pamphlet, he notes her failure to consult the research of disabled scholars and activists in coming to her judgement of inclusive education as a failure. Ainscow’s point is demonstrated in special education texts such as Farrell’s (2006, 2009, 2010, 2012 a&b) that reassert the traditional special education. Imray and Colley (2017:1) are forthright: The fundamental premise of this book is that educational inclusion, despite a constantly changing and liquid definition, has not been achieved in any country under any educational system despite some 30 years of trying. It was no doubt a valiant and laudable attempt to ensure justice and equity but its failure must now be addressed. Inclusion has become a recurring trope of academic writing on education; it is trotted out as an eternal and unarguable truth, but it is neither. It doesn’t work, and it never has worked. Inclusion is dead. The languages of special needs and inclusive education have merged. The critical question is to investigate to what extent practices have changed to ensure that schools and classrooms value the presence, participation of children with disabilities alongside children without disabilities. Has special education26 relocated itself in the regular school or is there a more substantive reform to the design of schools, classrooms, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment? Might GEMR 2020 be a vehicle for this kind of inquiry? Let us conclude this section by raising a longstanding problem for special and regular education. The issue of ethnic identity and special school referral generates controversy and reminds us of the need to disaggregate data against a number of factors to reflect the complexity of educational experiences and outcomes. At play are a number of factors that increase student vulnerability. The intersection of poverty and minority ethnic identity together with cultural biases in disciplinary and special educational identification protocols leads to greater levels of marginalisation and exclusion. IQ has long been considered a reflection of cultural bias (Gould, 1981; Hamre, Morin & Ydesen, 2018). The disproportional referral of minority student populations to special education (over-referral and under-referral) has been scrutinised across a number of jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, Sally Tomlinson (1981) revealed the disproportionate exclusions from school and referrals to special education of Black Caribbean boys. What was described as a trend then is now an established tradition (Gillborn, 2008; Tomlinson, 2017). In a recent circular from the Department for Education (2017) in England entitled, Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions in England: 2015 – 2016, some interesting patterns of exclusion emerge:  Black Caribbean pupils are over three times more likely to be permanently excluded.  Gypsy/Roma and Traveller of Irish Heritage pupils have the highest rates of exclusion.  Students who are eligible to receive free school meals (FSM), a proxy measure for poverty, are four times more likely to be excluded. Addo (2011) reviews research that indicates minority ethnic overrepresentation in special education in Canada that in turn limits the educational and post-schooling opportunities for Aboriginal, Inuit, African Canadian students. Susan Gabel and her colleagues (2009) highlight the vulnerability of Pasifika and Maori students in New Zealand. Studies in Greece have shed light on and encouraged government intervention to address the problems of Roma children’s absence from school in general and overrepresentation in special schools (Parthenis & Fragoulis, 2016; Zachos, 2012).27 Research in the US (National Research Council, 2002; Parish, 2005; Losen & Orfield, 2005; Hehir, 2005; Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, & Ortiz, 2010;Connor, Ferri & Annamma, 2016) illustrates the vulnerability of Black American, Hispanic and Native American students to over and under-representation in special education and disciplinary exclusions. Gordon (2018) notes the link between school discipline practices and diagnostic assessment. Disengagement and disruption lead students towards clinical behavioural assessments and to alternative educational placements. In a report for Brookings, Nora Gordon (2017:1) commences with the findings of Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier and Maczuga (2017) who (Hibel, Farkas and Morgan, 2010) say that once “you take other student characteristics – notably family income and achievement - into account, racial and ethnic minority students are less likely to be identified for special education than white students. Gordon’s (2017) report affirms the disparities of special education identification processes between and within school districts as well as the intersection of factors outside and inside schooling that forge a special education identity, or not. Even if schools treated all students the same, special education identification rates would likely differ across racial and ethnic groups. The disproportionality literature consistently notes that children’s outcomes are causally affected by out-of-school factors such as poor nutrition, stress, and exposure to environmental toxins, and that exposure to these influences unduly affects poor children and children of colour. The unfortunate implication of this – that true prevalence of disability may be higher for these students – can get lost in the back and forth over measurement, sampling, and other methodological issues. (Gordon, 2017:5-6) The issue of over-representation of minority population groups in special education warrants wider global investigation to examine the overlay of poverty and the cultural biases of identification protocols. We can reason ably conclude that minority ethnic overrepresentation in special education demonstrates the social construction of disablement in and by education.28 (b) Disability Studies in Education Steven J. Taylor observes that Disability Studies in Education existed before it had a name and underlines the importance of understanding its foundational ideas. Neither Disability Studies nor Disability Studies in Education represents a unitary perspective. Scholarship in these areas includes social constructionist or interpretivist, materialist, postmodernist, poststructuralist, legal and even structural-functionalist perspectives and draws on disciplines as diverse as sociology, literature, critical theory, economics, law, history, art, philosophy and others. (Taylor, 2006:xiii) At its core Disability Studies in Education is a rejection of all forms of ableism – prejudice and discrimination against people with disabilities in education. Disability Studies in Education became a formal research group in the American Education Research Association in 1999 and over the ensuing five years attracted “… curriculum theorists, special educators, educational technologists, policy researchers, educational historians …” (Danforth & Gabel, 2006:2-3). It was formed to challenge perverse uses of ‘inclusive education’ and to draw a line in the sand to reflect conceptual and political differences from the long-established and powerful traditions, discourses and practices of Special Education. Those who had described themselves as critical special educators found a more positive identity in Disability Studies in Education. Disability Studies in Education identifies and challenges structures of power that exclude people with disabilities in and from education by:  Providing conceptualisations of disability, impairment and disablement that resist the hegemony of individual deficit and defectiveness explanations of disability.  Researching the deleterious impacts of segregation in education upon children and young people in general and children and young people with disabilities in particular.  Researching the political economy of the exclusion of people with disabilities from education.  Researching the impacts of and perverse incentives created by education funding models. Disability Studies in Education moves beyond the limiting gaze of traditional special education by elaborating the form and possibilities of Universal Design for Learning (see Appendix 4) and29 of ways (incorporating the ICF) of recognising and responding to individual needs while building institutional capacity to educate diverse communities.  Applying a range of disciplines and research methodologies to deepen our understanding of the exclusion of students with disabilities in and from education. Studies in what sociologists refer to as ‘intersectionality’ between social institutions and identities actualises nuanced research with greater fidelity to the dynamics of exclusion and inclusion.  Developing a reform education for schooling that is inclusive and enabling for all students. This agenda assumes a reformulation of what is currently segmented into regular and special education wherein the conceptualisation, structures, protocols and practices of both are fundamentally transformed.  Recognising the complexities of globalisation and the need for care in universalising aspirations and methodologies. Post-colonial studies and disability studies provide leadership in this domain.  Acknowledging and supporting the leadership of people with disabilities in conceptualising, developing and executing inclusive education research, reform and practice. (c) Forces for exclusion. The Australian Disability Discrimination Act (1992) required the establishment and implementation of a set of Disability Standards for Education that were agreed on by the federal, state and territory governments in 2005. Reviews of their implementation have been conducted. The Report on the Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Department for Education, Employment & Workplace Relations, 2012) identified a number of barriers to their implementation under seven themes:  Lack of awareness of the Disability Standards for Education  Problems of Clarity and Definitions  Issues of Access and Participation in Schools  Discrimination and Exclusion  Complaints, Accountability and Compliance  Contemporary Education Context  Resources – Procurement and Management The sixth point, contemporary education is highlighted and warrants attention. The pressures created by contemporary education practices that drive the continuing, some would say escalating exclusion, of students with disabilities should foreground all major reports into education including GEMR 2020. Let us explore this further.30 To understand patterns of exclusion of children with disabilities from education we need to look beyond diagnostic categories and individual student pathologies. This is not an attempt to deny difference, impairment or illness or the challenges children with disabilities and their teachers face in creating rich, accessible, engaging and productive learning experiences. The point is to consider the capacity of education systems, schools, classrooms and learning programmes to build their capacity to value difference and build these inclusive learning experiences. Understanding the relationships between schooling and student identities requires research that sometimes goes beyond what might be considered the educational arena. Zygmunt Bauman (2004, 2011, 2016) and Richard Sennett (2006 & 2018) describe how global changes in the structure of work and the labour market have led to people living under the ‘spectre of uselessness’. Fear of redundancy drives a competitive wedge between people as they scramble against each other to stave off unemployment and poverty. Many become collateral casualties of the contraction of the labour market as the cheapest source of labour is pursued around the globe. Shifting capital, population, technology and knowledge (Appadurai, 1996) produces human waste (wasted humans who will never fulfil their potential). Communities break down and human connection is fragmented as competition intensifies and people relocate or commute for work away from family and home. This is what Bauman refers to as “liquid times”. Exclusion is described in a technical, seemingly objective, language – attributed to outside forces - to remove the element of human decision making. … the production of human waste has all the markings of an impersonal, purely technical issue. The principal actors in the drama are ‘terms of trade’, ‘market demands’, ‘competitive pressures’, ‘productivity’ or ‘efficiency requirements’, all covering up or explicitly denying any connection with the intentions, will, decisions and actions of real humans with names and addresses. (Bauman, 2004:40)31 In a state of “ambient fear”, we produce and fear strangers – those who will “take our jobs away from us”. The refugee, the asylum seeker, the immigrant, the traveller, the person with disabilities – those who don’t fit the majority identity – represent disruption. All societies produce strangers; but each kind of society produces its own kind of strangers, and produces them in its own inimitable way. (Bauman, 1997:17) Contemporary education in many parts of the world is forged within this neo-liberal ethic of competitive individualism and schooling operates according to the unruliness of the marketplace (Gewirtz, Ball &Bowe, 1995; Ball 2017). School systems compete with each other to improve performance in international testing programmes. This has a narrowing effect on curriculum and pedagogy as schools feel compelled to adopt strategies to train their students for improved test performance. This places great pressure upon schools, teachers and students. Students are streamed and banded – they are seen as the bearers of results. Some students show promise while others introduce risk. The stakes are high (Ball, 1990, 2007, 2013b; Ball & Youdell, 2008; Reay, 2008; Apple, 2001, 2017; Waslander & van der Weide, 2010). Many jurisdictions have national testing programmes at different stages of schooling and individual school performance is published. Tests drive decisions about school sustainability. Affluent consumers strategically buy into the catchment zones of higher performing schools. In England researchers like Gillborn (2008) describe the “white flight” from schools in minority ethnic communities. Some schools become risk averse. Students, as the bearers of results, represent more or less risk. Gillborn & Youdell (1999) wrote of educational triage and the rationing of education in the A to C economy of English school examination results. Strategic decisions are made about enrolment, streaming and banding to decrease the risk of poor school performance. The cycle of exclusion is inevitable. The pressure on students is often intense. Reports from China (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1512032/school-pressure-blame- chinese-youth-suicides-official-study-finds) cite an increase school student suicides as a result of examination pressures. An Asian Development Bank report on student suicides observes that 85% of Hong Kong students receive shadow schooling. This is also the case for many students in the Indonesian Piaget Academies. Hong Kong-based Cherie Chan (2017) elaborates:32 “In February this year, five secondary school students took their lives in the course of just 17 days. Two others were rescued from attempted suicides. Compared to other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan, Hong Kong's suicide rate isn't unusually high. But the alarming frequency of students committing suicide since 2015 has prompted authorities to look at the struggles young people are facing. In 2016, Hong Kong's government set up a special committee to explore potential causes and create preventive measures to stop the situation from getting worse. In an investigative report published by the Committee on Prevention of Student Suicides in November 2016, at least 24 percent of 38 cases of primary and secondary school student suicides showed "considerable stress related to learning." I was invited to work with a school in Singapore that was a school for excellence in the arts. The teachers were asking for training in inclusive education and differentiated teaching. Students were admitted to the school on the basis of their audition or creative portfolios. Consequently, these Singapore teachers were encountering ability range unlike other schools were students were admitted and banded according to academic ability. Under these conditions of high stakes competition, ‘Special educational needs’ is often a way of managing disengaged and failing students into categories of disability to excuse them from the requirement of testing. This process is described in clinical terms of intelligence ratings, behaviour scales according to a standardised view of the normal non-disabled student. As Bauman (Bauman and Mazzeo, 2012:75) remarks, “what else does being ‘normal’ mean, if not belonging to a statistical majority?” The Bell Curve shrinks the imagination of educators (Florian, Rouse & Hawkins-Black, 2017). Ironically, the curve is flattening as the calibrations of individual differences expand at both ends of the line (Slee, 2018). The prevalence of formal assignment of children to categories of special educational needs is apparently increasing globally. This is especially apparent in the area of behaviour disorders (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017; Tobin & House, 2016; Frances, 2013). The Department for Education (2018:4) in England data reflect this:33 There were 285,722 children and young people with statutory Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans and 34,097 children and young people with statements of special educational needs (SEN) maintained by local authorities as at January 2018. This gives a total of 319,819, an increase of 32,529 (11.3%) from 287,290 as at January 2017. Verification of increasing prevalence that goes beyond acknowledgement of literature reviews to mine country-by-country data is beyond the scope of this paper and would be a useful exercise for the GEMR 2020 preparation. Although probes are needed to examine what the data in fact reveals. Across country and within country data are likely to reveal divergences in diagnostic resources, protocols and predispositions. Herein, the gaps between the global North and South would be thrown into sharp relief (Ainscow, 2017). OECD data sets on students with disabilities and difficulties are drawn from supply side data (http://www.oecd.org/education/school/26527517.pdf). Improved lifelong options are attached to success in school (OECD, 2012). It is not surprising that parents seek support for their children to do well. Multiple information platforms have elevated a hyper- awareness of the expanding range of behavioural disorders described in the DSM. The ‘disengaged’, ‘disruptive’, ‘slow’ or ‘maladjusted’ child is entitled to reasonable accommodations to enable access, presence and participation in education. Where a child is at risk of falling behind parents may enlist the physician, psychologist, counsellor, therapist, and pharmacist in the common project of improving performance in education. Describing and then diagnosing disruptive student behaviour, inattention, defiance, and truancy as problems of the mind and genetic structure of the student reinforces the authority of school psychologists and special educators (Tomlinson, 1982). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is seen as an educational accoutrement (Tobin & House, 2013). Published in eighteen languages and available as a smart phone ‘App’, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5 is often referred to in social and popular media. The attribution of disorders is commonplace and psychiatrists now refer to shadow syndromes where not all of the DSM criteria are identified to allow official diagnosis (Frances, 2013; Kutchins & Kirk, 1997; Whitaker, 2002 & 2010). DSM being has been subjected to widespread critique, not least for its fiduciary conflict of interest (Frances, 2013; Paris & Phillips, 2013).34 Tracking the emergence and rise of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is instructive on a number of levels. Steven Rose (2005) is amongst a number of researchers to track ADHD from its foundations in early studies of hyperactivity to the growth of large organisations such as Children and Adults with Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) with large government and corporate backing to build research, improve the quality and availability of diagnosis and support professional and community education (see Slee, 2011). Epidemiological reviews (Wang, et al 2017; Rowland, Lesesne & Abramowitz, 2002; ADHD Institute, 2017; Lawrence, Johnson, Hafekost, Boterhoven de Haan, Sawyer, Ainley and Zubrick, 2015) suggest a worldwide prevalence rate from 5.29% to 7.1%. In China, the rate was 6.26% representing some 23 million children and adolescents (Wang et al, 2017). The ADHD Institute (2017) reports on geographic variance: Geographical location was associated with significant variability between the prevalence estimates from North America and both the Middle East (p=0.01) and Africa (p=0.03), while no significant differences were reported for prevalence rates between North America and Europe (p=0.40), South America (p=0.83), Asia (p=0.85) or Oceania (p=0.45). This finding was confirmed in a meta-regression model using Europe as the comparator: significant differences in prevalence were found between Europe and both Africa (p=0.05) and the Middle East (p=0.03). Variance of data between and within countries is regarded as indicative of methodological disparities. For some researchers, it presents a story of the improvement of medical knowledge that has enabled students to learn and teachers to teach more precisely and effectively adopting a bio-psycho-social approach to educating children with behaviour disorders. Others have interrogated the veracity of the brain science applied to its discovery and explanation (Harwood & Allan, 2014; Slee, 2011; Graham, 2010; Tait, 2010; Laurence & McCallum, 2009; Rose, 2005). Kutchins and Kirk (1997) pursue the sweeping of everyday life into psychiatry, questioning the construction of normalcy and bio-cultural identities (Davis, 2013). The same may be said for education. As schools become sites for increasing competition, children who might once have found their place in the unskilled labour market are now staying on at school with the potential to disengage, disrupt and be formally diagnosed as having special educational needs (Harwood and Allan, 2014; Tomlinson, 2017). Many of these students find themselves in alternative, special or inclusive programmes outside of the regular school with reducing educational and social opportunities. ADHD may35 well be a proxy for the evaporation of the unskilled labour market (Tomlinson, 2017), the regional variance of diagnostic predispositions, the political economy of big Pharma, or ironically the contemporary management of difference. Different models for the allocation of resources to students and schools have markedly different effects. In 1995 the OECD published a set of comparable data in the field of special educational needs. Including data sets from 29 countries, the comparisons of statistics on special needs education are drawn from a supply side definition as the participating countries have different definitions of categories of special educational needs. The participating countries are: Austria Iceland Poland Belgium Ireland Portugal Canada Italy Spain Czech Republic Japan Slovak Republic Denmark Korea Sweden Finland Luxembourg Switzerland France Mexico Turkey Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Greece Norway United States Hungary New Zealand Models for funding the education of children with disabilities can vary widely in structure and effect. Many jurisdictions around the world, as we have noted, have combinations of separate special schools36 and classes for children with disabilities, while other students with disabilities attend the local school and seek government support for adaptations to increase access and optimise the quality of learning. There are infrastructure costs that include building stock, curriculum and teaching materials, technology, mobility-aids, communication aids, additional personnel including professional services from physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, special education needs coordinators, inclusion aides, special teachers, visiting teacher specialists, counsellors and so the list builds. In some jurisdictions children with disabilities are entitled to individual funding for teacher aid time, additional materials and adjustments to the classroom. Algorithms are devised to calculate the level of “additional” entitlement. In New Zealand, funding for students with disabilities into the general school grant and this is calculated on school census data. Additionally, parents may apply to the Ministry of Education for Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) support for children with multiple and complex disabilities. The challenge for funding is to avoid the creation of perverse incentives. For example, a jurisdiction may apply a sliding scale of support where schools receive more funding for students with more severe disabilities. The gravity produced by the model pulls diagnosis towards more severe statements of deficit. Systems thereby create more students with more severe disabilities. It is usual that demand grows significantly with this kind of funding. Data from Ireland is indicative: Special educational needs expenditure increased by €465m (38%) between 2011 and 2017 to €1.68 billion, representing an estimated 18.9% of the Department of Education and Skill’s gross current allocation. Since 2004, expenditure on special educational needs has increased by almost 260%, from a total cost of €468m in 2004. The level of special education expenditure is now in excess of what is allocated to the entire Higher Education sector (€1.58 billion). (Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, 2017:2) Alternative approaches include the allocation of funds to schools that demonstrate an increasing capacity to teach diverse populations. In other words, instead of funding students as individuals the greater share of funding goes into schools developing their capacity for inclusive education for diverse student37 communities. Accordingly, schools apply this to: built-design, programmatic reform, professional learning and are then held accountable in their reporting cycles. The Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, like many other developing countries, has been supported by external funding agencies. The Government of Finland provided funds to support inclusive education for children with disabilities. The support was invested with a view to reforming the more traditional special educational practices. The threefold approach included:  Support for the development of new curriculum and learning materials together with training for teacher educators from the 36 Colleges of Teacher Education;  The establishment of regional support centres where resources and personnel were deployed to be able to reach village and rural schools and their communities. The centres took responsibility for building the capacity of local educators.  Building community networks with the assistance of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) to build disability awareness and support for families, communities and schools. A number of tensions arose during this work. First was the tension between the expectations of the funding agency from the Global North and those of the recipients from the Global South (Pather & Slee, in press). This is a growing problem for the consideration of funding bodies as it is certainly not simply an Ethiopian issue (Nguyen, 2018; Singal, 2016). 3. WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION MONITORING REPORTING (GEMR 2020)? Our monitoring must not be deflected to the growth of special education training for the next generation of the global education workforce or a recording of diagnoses as an indicator of educational and social inclusion. An inventory of the instillation of special centres, programmes or resources for children with disabilities is not a register of the cultural and institutional changed required for achieving inclusive education for all students in general and students with disabilities in particular. The focus of the GEMR 2020 should capture the general and the specific. In particular it needs to generate a set of analyses that establishes key global pressures for exclusion as a basis for consideration of local initiatives that drive change that is sustainable and infectious.38 3.1 Introduction. It is important for UNESCO to continue to address the meta-drivers of educational exclusion in the Global Education Monitoring Report. GEMR Education for People and Planet (2016) exemplifies this is by definition achieving a ‘big report’ that “… is both masterful and disquieting … comprehensive, in-depth and perspicacious” (Sachs, 2016 in GEMR 2016). Set out thematically under the following headings: Planet, Prosperity, People, Peace, Place, Partnerships, Projections, the report set its framework for education and sustainable development and the challenges of monitoring. The scope and reach is considerable, local and global. This think piece acknowledges the achievement of the GEMR to this point and may only suggest some more specific themes to address within a rubric of inclusive education that drill down (or across) from global to regional to local with respect to the exclusion and inclusion of students with disabilities 3.2 A word on measurement. Decisions about measurement have profound and lasting impacts that may be both progressive and regressive. In particular we have seen the way in which decisions about measurement, including assessment, have negative impacts on specific population cohorts. Here I refer to both the goals and the means for measurements. An obvious example is suggesting that success for inclusive education is reckoned by a headcount of students with disabilities in separate special schools and regular schools. In this respect GEMR 2020 may decide to challenge the OECD supply side measurement methodology. I am confident that they would describe it as an objective measure, but the OECD methodology may be seen to support the separation of children and young people with disabilities in education. Having raised this I am very aware that OECD has declared its support for inclusion in the regular school in many of its publications. Consider the following data in Table 1: Special & Regular School Attendance in Australia and Table 2: Department of Education and Training Victoria Students with Disabilities in Government Schools (Full- Time Equivalent - FTE) Table 1: Special & Regular School Attendance in Australia39 Students with disabilities Students with disabilities State / Territory Students without disabilities Attending Special School Attending Regular School New South Wales 7,109,623 12,966 73,910 Victoria 5,546,311 7,994 57,197 Queensland 4,458,232 7,007 53,018 South Australia 1,619,316 1,561 17,403 Western Australia 2,313,972 2,949 29,334 Tasmania 485,051 575 9,156 Northern Territory 143,800 360 829 Australian Capital Territory 361,081 662 4,770 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012 Table 2: DET Victoria Students with Disabilities in Government Schools (FTE)40 YEAR In Regular Schools In Special Schools Total % Of Total Student Cohort 2012 11,875 9,721 21,596 4.0 2013 12,034 10,247 22,281 4.0 2014 12,218 10,704 22,922 4.1 2015 12,671 11,264 23,936 4.2 2016 12,980 11,515 24,495 4.2 Source: DET Victoria, April 2017 http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/brochureapril2017.pdf (Retrieved: July 7th 13:51 AEST 2017) The data in Tables 1 & 2 simultaneously reveal and conceal data about the educational experiences and attainments of students with disabilities in Australia in general and the state of Victoria in particular. We can surmise that the numbers of children in segregated special schools is relatively small and apparently stable. The numbers vary between the tables with respect to the Victorian data. In part, this is explained by the inclusion in the Australian Bureau of Statistics count of students in private schools, the Catholic Education Sector and other independent schools. Other discrepancies relate to definitional issues. The apparent stability of segregation of students with disability in Table 2 is illusory. Interrogation of the conditions of schooling in the regular school quickly reveals the reconstruction of separate special education provision inside regular schools. Data reflecting this would be inconsistent globally. It would be collected in some jurisdictions not in others. Specifically, the definition of practices would be contentious. The description of decisions to have a child with a disability schooled separately is repeatedly presented as parents’ choices. Focus group discussions and interviews with parents of children with disabilities frequently instruct us that the decision arises from a lack of choice. In a review of enrolment experiences for parents of children with disabilities in Queensland, Australia (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017) it41 became apparent that some school principals, notwithstanding their legal obligations and the responsibility attached as a signatory country to CRPD (2006), are telling parents that they should find another school to enrol their child so that their special needs are met. This is not a Queensland phenomenon (Wills, Morton, McLean, Stephenson & Slee, 2016). Researching the dimensions of this practice and its variants in different countries is necessary but would present significant logistical difficulties for the researchers. For others, the experience of the regular school is unsustainable such is the risk to a child’s wellbeing and educational progress. The data also conceals the increasing calibration of student cohorts and their disablement in the regular school. The recommendation therefore, is not to limit data collection but to expand the data sets so as to build comprehensive and nuanced pictures of the educational experiences and quality of achievements by students with disabilities. In the Pacific Island countries including Vanuatu, Samoa, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands Umesh Sharma and his colleagues (2016) have developed an index of Disability Inclusive Education Indicators for the Pacific Island communities. Applying quantitative and qualitative methods it is necessary to capture the combinations of elements that form high quality experiences of inclusive education for students with disabilities. This would include evaluations of the social experience including indicators of belonging, accessibility of the physical environment and the learning programme. Herein there is a requirement for the collection of achievement data that is scrutinised for attempts to incorporate the principles and practices of Universal Design for Learning in order to demonstrate capability rather than reveal the inappropriate mode of testing (Florian, Rouse & Black-Hawkins, 2017; Stobart, 2009, Smith, 2018). There is a need for an expanded investigation into the educational experiences and attainments of students with disabilities. This constitutes a research programme in itself. For Australian state and territory jurisdictions, there is readily available datasets compiled with student identifies that chart student identity complete with intersections of SES, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliations, parent / care- giver educational histories, disability, geographic location, attendance record, behaviour data, psychometric testing history and academic and extra-curricular achievements. This can be matched against school data, satisfaction surveys and funding allocations. As we travel across educational jurisdictions from east – to – west and north – to – south variance in data quality and availability is obvious.42 Decisions can be made about how to generate supplementary datasets to build inventories of inclusion, inventories of exclusion. This is a priority for avoidance of headcounts as proxies of inclusion. School exclusion data is particularly important for monitoring inclusive education. Is inclusion and academic quality achieved by school decision-making - screening, exemptions, referrals and transfers? What fluctuations are there in suspension and exclusion data? Herein demographic information may emerge about ethnicity, gender, stages of schooling, SES and geographic location that are suggestive of interventions for reform. Likewise, diagnostic data should not be taken at face value. It is important to examine variances and investigate reasons for such variances. Are quality assurance measures applied to avoid under or over diagnosis? We turn then to qualitative data we can extract from ethnographic case-studies, from extended interviews and from participant narratives constructed through a range of artefacts. Data balances may be considered to determine whether the evidence presses us to build more elaborate stories about the prevalence and conditions of disability and or the conditions of schooling (institutional organisation and culture, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, forms for engagement of difference and diversity, and resourcing). Markers of progress for a monitoring team to report on require judicious and situated reflection (Nguyen, 2017). The co-creation of monitoring programmes to ensure relevance and authenticity is necessary. Monitoring ableism through the accounts of children with disabilities is always instructive (Slee, 2018). 3.3 Thematic Research Drivers for Monitoring Inclusive Education for Children and Young People with Disabilities. This think piece suggests considering inclusive education across four domains: 1. Contextual geopolitics & policy-making. 2. Reconceptualising the construction of disability, ableism and exclusion. 3. Strategic engagement and partnerships. 4. Resourcing Universal Design for Learning, programme innovation and building pedagogical capacity.43 With obvious risks of reduction and making orderly a very messy monitoring canvas I am suggesting, albeit tentatively the foundations for reconsidering the progress and slippages of inclusive education for the GEMR. Diagrammatic representations are offered that may assist, commencing with “elements of analysis” in the construction of exclusion. Figure 1 provides prompts for building rich descriptions of context and analysis under the headings: Context, Identity & Education. Figure 1: Elements of Analysis. Figure 2 is a simple statement of points of focus for driving the analysis. The points of focus may be matched to the objectives of SDG4. Figure 2 reflects the multiple layers of focus for research and reporting interventions and representations – global jurisdictional or regional and local – according to the domains. Each domain heading will generate context specific areas for monitoring and evaluation. Figure 2: Points of Focus. Context Geopolitcal factors (including north / south) Culural Factors Ideological predisposition Identity gender religion tribe ethnicity disability SES status Education value drivers policy framework locus of authority workforce capacity influence of special education44 Figure 3 is very straightforward. Monitoring should represent the experiences of exclusion and inclusion in and from education for students with disabilities and this ought to reflect a range of demographic features as well as the intersections of the characteristics that go into making a composite student identity. The focus needs to be stretched to capture the identity of schools as well as students and provide for indicators of hope for the future programme of reform. Figure 3: Segmenting the analysis Global Education Monitoring Report Research & Reporting Thematic Drivers Exclusion FuturesInclusion Global Drivers of Exclusion & Inclusion 1. Contextual geopolitics & policy-making. 2. Reconceptualising the construction of disability, ableism and exclusion. 3. Strategic engagement and partnerships 4.. Resourcing universal designs for education. Regional Drivers of Exclusion & Inclusion 1. Contextual geopolitics & policy-making. 2. Reconceptualising the construction of disability, ableism and exclusion. 3. Strategic engagement and partnerships. 4. Resourcing universal designs for education. Local Drivers of Exclusion & Inclusion 1. Contextual geopolitics & decision-making. 2. Reconceptualising the construction of disability, ableism and exclusion. 3. Strategic engagement and partnerships. 4. Resourcing universal designs for education.45 3.4 Sites for Research and Reform This section is organised into four propositions. They address global, regional and local contexts and carry the caveat for care in addressing a reformulation of inclusive education as statements of local as well as global engagement. GEMR 2016 (UNESCO, 2016:172) is instructive in this regard wherein the process for negotiating the adoption of SDGs is laid out. There is an assumption that people with disabilities are key actors in the research programme. Proposition 1: The requirement for context setting that identifies key forces for exclusion and compromise of the aspirations of SDG4. This has specific implications for the GEMR 2020:  What are the effects of international, national and local testing programmes in particular and assessments practices in general on the exclusion / inclusion of students with disabilities and other vulnerable student identities?  To what extent are different jurisdictions relying on disability diagnoses to manage students, guide infrastructure development and develop programmes of learning?  Is there a trend towards the inclusion of students in regular schools? How is this measurable? How do we apply authenticity tests? (Attainment, social / wellbeing factors)  What is the incidence of out of school children with disabilities? A household survey of families in four governorates of Iraq to determine the prevalence of childhood and adolescent disability identified the disproportionate non-enrolment and withdrawal of children with disabilities from schooling (Alborz, Slee & Miles, 2013). The study reflected the intersection of different features of identity and context that led to this including conflict, poverty, gender, tribal affiliation, and a sense of religious and community shame attaching to impairments. Determining the global data for the absence of children with disability from formal education / schooling would be enable target setting. See for example Atekyereza (2001) for Uganda, Kopoka (2000) and Ward & Seager (2010) for South Africa, Chakuchichi, Chiinze and Kaputa (2003) and Chakuchichi, Nyaruwata and Chataika (2015) in Zimbabwe, and The World Bank (2008) for Kenya. In affluent countries of the North it would be useful to gather data on the home schooling of children with disabilities as an entry for qualitative studies on decision-making for withdrawal from schooling. Ray (2017:604) reports 2.4 million children being home schooled in the US.46  What can we learn about jurisdictions and their schools from disciplinary absences? How does the disciplinary absence data for children with disabilities compare with students without disabilities? Proposition 2: The requirement for a definitional statement for inclusive education that establishes ableism as a key barrier and its presence in the conceptualization, language and practices of special education and not just as a question of where the schooling takes place. This is a challenging area as in many jurisdictions (we need to collect data) the building of new special schools and refurbishment of old ones continues. This has specific implications for the GEMR 2020:  To what extent is Disability Studies in Education positioned as an alternative pathway for educating teachers to become inclusive educators?  How might we gather and compare jurisdictional statements of inclusive education to examine discourse and match it against experiences and outcomes of children and adolescents with disabilities? The cautionary note here is how we respect the knowledge(s) of the South in pursuing this line of inquiry.  How might we develop frameworks and rubrics for understanding and applying disability awareness training, Universal Design for Learning and cooperative learning in teacher education and move away from the dominance of diagnostic training? Proposition 3: The requirement for understanding the complex and sometimes ambiguous relationship between regular and special education and the implications for reinforcing or dismantling barriers for students with disabilities. This has specific implications for the GEMR 2020:  In what ways has traditional forms of special education and its appropriation of the discourse of inclusive education compromised the implementation of SDG4 for children and young people with disabilities? This assumes analyses of more and less inclusive, more and less ableist policy47 statements, curriculum organisers, teacher education programmes could be presented with rubrics established for GEMR2020 onwards. Can we identify exemplars of “regular” and “special” schooling generating innovations that lead to high quality programmes that are inclusive and educationally substantial? The collection and presentation of systemic data across different jurisdictions, geographic and demographic contexts could be collected to establish benchmarks for systemic reform and checking the expansion of special educational institutions, programmes and practices.  How do we build datasets around the establishment and impacts of diagnostic categories and to evaluate the implementation of approaches that draw from ICF? Proposition 4: The requirement for identifying and developing inclusive and enabling education policies, programmes, practices and cultures that build the capacity of schooling for inclusive education for all students, including students with disabilities. This has specific implications for the GEMR 2020:  How do we encourage jurisdictions and local communities to demonstrate that they “ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning” (SDG4) to\ develop the capacity of schools to educate diverse communities in general, including young people and children with disabilities? How do we reconstruct workforce skills inventories for inclusive education that place the classroom teacher and teaching and learning at the centre of professional learning?Can we demonstrate the identification of specific barriers and the resourceful management of context and resources to innovate inclusively? For example, the decentralization of resource centres to support schools at distance from the administrative hub of Addis Ababa in Ethiopia supported by the rewriting of a teacher education curriculum for educating all students including children and young people with disabilities. There are many lessons to be drawn from these case studies including:  Enlistment of educators with disabilities, disability activists and NGOs in co- creation of inclusive education innovations;  The requirement to work with or revitalize Ministries of Education with senior decision-makers who are special education trained;  Building and sustaining local community in the school programme;  Creating inexpensive approaches to professional learning for teachers and teaching assistants – cluster groups.48 REFERENCES Addo, M. (2011). Minority students and special education. Unpublished Thesis. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan. ADHD Institute (2017). Epidemiology: Age. Switzerland: Shire Pharmaceuticals. https://adhd- institute.com/burden-of-adhd/epidemiology/age/ Ainscow, M. (2007). Towards a more inclusive education system. Where next for special schools? Included or Excluded? In R. Cigman (Ed.) The challenge of the mainstream for some SEN children. London: Routledge, pages 128 – 139. Ainscow, M. (2015). Towards Self-Improving School Systems. Lessons from a city challenge. Abbingdon: Routledge. Ainscow, M. (2016) Struggles for equity in education: the selected works of Mel Ainscow. Abingdon, Routledge. Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Improving schools, developing inclusion, London, Routledge. Alborz, A., Slee, R., & Miles, S. (2013). Establishing the foundations for an inclusive education system in Iraq: reflection on findings from a nationwide survey. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 17 (9): 965-987 Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saeze, E. & Zucman, G. (2018) World Inequality Report 2018. Oxford: World Inequality Lab. http://wir2018.wid.world American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Apple, M.W. (2001). Comparing Neo-liberal Projects and Inequality in Education. Comparative Education, 37(4): 409 – 423. Apple, M. W. (2017). Official knowledge democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge. Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E.B. & Waitoller, F. (2011). Inclusive education: examining equity on five continents. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E.B., Trent, S.C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. 2010. Justifying and Explaining Disproportionality,49 1968-2008: A Critique of Underlying Views of Culture. Exceptional Children, 76:3, 279-299. http://aartiles.faculty.asu.edu/publications_files/2010_Artiles-etal_Culture-Disproport-EC.pdf Atekyereza, P, R (2001). The education of girls and women in Uganda. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 16 (2): 115-146. Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality. What can be done? Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bakhshi, P., Kett, M., & Oliver, K. (2013). What are the impacts of approaches to increase the accessibility to education for people with a disability across developed and developing countries and what is known about the cost-effectiveness of different approaches? London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Ball, S. J. (1990). Markets, morality, and equality in education. London: Tufnell Press. Ball, S. J. (2007). Education plc: understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Abingdon: Routledge. Ball, S. and Youdell, D. (2009), “Hidden privatisation in public education”. Education Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 73-83. Ball, S. J. (2013a). Foucault, power, and education. New York, Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2013b). The education debate. Bristol, Policy Press. Ball, S. J. (2017). Laboring to Relate: Neoliberalism, Embodied Policy, and Network Dynamics. Peabody Journal of Education, 1-13. Barnes, C. and Sheldon, A. (2010) Disability, politics and poverty in a majority world context. Disability & Society, 25(7):771-782. Barton, L. (2005). A response to Warnock, M. 2005 Special Educational Needs A New Look. Leeds: Centre for Disability Studies. Barton, L. & Landman, M. (1993). The politics of integration: Observations on the Warnock Report. In R. Slee (Ed.) Is there a desk with my name on it? London: Falmer Press. Pages: 41-49. Bauman, Z. and R. Mazzeo (2012). On education: conversations with Riccardo Mazzeo. Cambridge, Polity.50 Bauman, Z. (2016). Strangers at our door. Cambridge, Polity Press. Bauman, Z. (2011). Collateral Damage. Social inequalities in a global age. Cambridge: Polity. Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives: modernity and its outcasts. Oxford, Polity. Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents. Cambridge, Polity. Bernstein, B. B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity : theory, research, critique. London, Taylor & Francis. Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the complete school: strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York, Teachers College Press. Binet, A. (1905). The mind and the brain. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company. Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2016). The index for inclusion. Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education: Bristol. Booth, T. and Dyssegaard, B. (2008) Quality is not enough, the contribution of inclusive values to the development of Education for All, Copenhagen, Danida. Brantlinger, E. A. (2006). Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other people's children. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burt, C.L. (1925) The Young Delinquent. London: The University of London Press. Chakuchichi, D. D., Chiinze, M. M. & Kaputa, T. M. (2003). Including the Excluded: Issues in Disability and Inclusion. Harare: Zimbabwe Open University. Chakuchichi, D., Nyaruwata, L. and Chataika, T. (2015). Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD): Promoting Inclusive Primary Education in Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe– An End of Evaluation Report. Harare: Leonard Cheshire Zimbabwe Trust (Lenard Cheshire Disability International). Chan, C. (2017) Why are Hong Kong students committing suicide? Hong Kong: DW. https://www.dw.com/en/why-are-hong-kong-students-committing-suicide/a-38414311 Chesterton-Khayat, K. (2015) Inclusive education policy, practice and progress: a transformative analysis of three Middle East countries. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Palmerston North (New Zealand): Massey University.51 Cologon, K., (2013). Inclusion in education: towards equality for students with disability, Children with Disability Australia, available online, http://www.cda.org.au/inclusion-in- education Connor, D.J., Ferri, B.A., Annamma, S. (Eds.) (2016). DisCrit: Critical Conversations Around Race, Class, & Disability. New York: Teachers College Press. Crawford, C. (2008) A Positive Difference: Statistical Report on Inclusive Education and Canadian Children with Intellectual Disabilities. Toronto: Canadian Association for Community Living, 2008. D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy. A critical analysis of the policy of Integrazione Scolastica. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. Danforth, S. and S. L. Gabel (2006). Vital questions facing disability studies in education. New York: Peter Lang. Danforth, S. (2009). The incomplete child: an intellectual history of learning disabilities. New York: Peter Lang. Davis, L. J. (2013). The end of normal. Identity in a biocultural era. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: disability, deafness, and the body. London ; New York, Verso. Deloitte Access Economics (2017) Review of education for students with disability in Queensland state schools. Brisbane: Department of Education and Training. http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/disability/docs/disability-review-report.pdf Department for Education (2017). Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions in England: 2015-2016. London: Education Standards Evidence and Dissemination Division, Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/64 5075/SFR35_2017_text.pdf Department for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2012) Review of disability standards for education 2005 Report for Department for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Canberra, Australian Government Printer. Department for Education and Science (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. (Warnock report). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.52 Department for Education (2018) Statements of Special Educational Needs and Education Health and Care Plans, England 2018. London: DFE, May 24th. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/70 9590/Statements_of_SEN_and_EHC_plans_England_2018_Main_Text.pdf Department of Public Expenditure & Reform (2017). Special Educational Needs Provision. Spending Review 2017. Belfast: Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service. June, 2017. Dorling, D. (2018a). Do we need economic inequality? Cambridge: Polity. Dorling, D. (2018b). Peak Inequality. Britain’s ticking time Bomb. Bristol:Policy Press. Dyson, A. & Slee, R. (2001). Special Needs education from Warnock to Salamanca: the Triumph of Liberalism? In R. Phillips and J. Furlong (Eds.). Education, Reform, and the State. London: Taylor & Francis. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2012). Teacher Education for Inclusion: Profile of Inclusive Teachers. Brussels: EADSNE. European Agency for Development In Special Needs Education (2011) Mapping the Implementation of Policy for Inclusive Education (MIPIE)> An Exploration of Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Indicators, Brussels: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/MIPIE-Report_0.pdf https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/MIPIE-Report_0.pdf European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, (2013). Organisation of provision to support inclusive education. Literature Review. A Review of the Literature. (S. Symeonidou and V. Donnelly eds.). Odense, Denmark. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/organisation-of-provision-to-support-inclusive-education- 2013-literature-review_Organisation-of-Provision-Literature-Review.pdf European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2018. Evidence of the Link Between Inclusive Education and Social Inclusion: A Review of the Literature. (S. Symeonidou, ed.). Odense, Denmark. https://www.europeanagency.org/sites/default/files/raising_achievement_final_summary_report.pdf Farrell, M. (2012a). New perspectives in special education: contemporary philosophical debates. Milton Park, Abingdon, Routledge. Farrell, M. (2012b). Educating special children: an introduction to provision for pupils with disabilities and53 disorders. London, Routledge. Farrell, M. (2010). Debating special education. London: Routledge. Farrell, M. (2009). Foundations of special education: an introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Farrell, M. (2006). Celebrating the special school. London, David Fulton. Ferri, B. A. and Connor D. J. (2006). Reading resistance: discourses of exclusion in desegregation & inclusion debates. New York: Peter Lang. Florian, L., Rouse, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2017). Achievement and inclusion in schools. London: Routledge. Ford, J., Mongon, D. and Whelan, M. (1982). Special education and social control: invisible disasters. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. & Sharma, U. (2013). Inclusive education for students with disability. A review of best evidence in relation to theory and practice. Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth. Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: a history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Vintage. Frances, A. (2013). Saving normal: an insider's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. New York: William Morrow. Franklin, B. M. (1994). From "backwardness" to "at-risk": childhood learning difficulties and the contradictions of school reform. Albany: State University of New York Press. Franklin, B. M. (1987). Learning disability: dissenting essays. London: Falmer. Gabel, S. L. and Danforth S. (2008). Disability & the politics of education: an international reader. New York: Peter Lang. Gabel, S.L., Curcic, S., Powell, J.J.W., Khader, K. & Albee, L. (2009). Migration and ethnic group disproportionality in special education: an exploratory study. Disability & Society, 24(5): 625-639. Gabel, S. L. and D. J. Connor (2014). Disability and Teaching. New York: Routledge. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius. An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: MacMillan & Company. Gewirtz, S., Ball, S.J. & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice, and equity in education. Buckingham, Open University Press.54 Gillborn, D. and Youdell, D. (1999). Rationing education: policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Gillborn, D. (2008). Racism and education: coincidence or conspiracy? London: Routledge. Gleeson, M. (2016). Offshore. Behind the wire on Manus and Nauru. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing. Goodley, D. (2017). Disability studies: theorising disablism and ableism. London: Sage. Gordon, N. (2017). Race, Poverty, and Interpreting Overrepresentation in Special Education. September 20th, Washington: Brookings. Gordon, N. (2018). Disproportionality in Student Discipline: Connecting Policy to Research. January, 18th, Washington: Brookings. Gould, S.J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Graham, L. J. (2010). (De)constructing ADHD: critical guidance for teachers and teacher educators. New York: Peter Lang. Grech, S. (2009) Disability, poverty and development: critical reflections on the majority world debate. Disability & Society, 24(6):771-784. Greenstein, A. (2013). Radical inclusive education: disability, teaching and struggles for liberation. Abingdon: Routledge. Hamre, B., Morin, A. & Ydesen, C. (Eds.) (2018). Testing and inclusive schooling: international challenges and opportunities. London, Routledge. Harwood, V. and J. Allan (2014). Psychopathology at school: theorizing mental disorders in education. Abingdon: Routledge. Hehir, T. (2005). New Directions in Special Education: Eliminating Ableism in Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Henderson, R.A. (1993). What is this Least Restrictive Environment in the United States? In R. Slee (Ed.) Is there a desk with my name on it? London: Falmer Press. Pages: 93-105. Hibel, J., Farkas, G., Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education? Sociology of Education, 83, 312–332. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: evidence-based practices for children with special needs and55 disabilities. New York: Springer. Imray, P. and Colley, A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: long live inclusion. London: Routledge. 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. Kauffman, J.M., Hallahan, D.P., Pullen, P.C. & Badar, J. (2018). What it is and why we need it. (Second Edition), New York: Routledge. Keddie, A. (2012). Educating for diversity and social justice. London: Routledge. Kim, E.J., Byrne, B. and Parish, S.L. (2018) Deaf people and economic well-being: findings from the Life Opportunities Survey, Disability & Society, 33(3), 374-391. Krishnan, N., Ibarra, G.L., Narayan, A., Tiwari, S. and Vishwanath, T. (2016) Unequal odss, unequal outcomes. Inequality of opportunity in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington DC: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/929521467821173462/pdf/106773-PUB-PUBLIC.pdf Knight, T. (1985). An Apprenticeship in Democracy. The Australian Teacher, 11(1), 5 – 7. Kopoka, P.A. (2000). ‘The Problem of Street Children in Africa: An Ignored Tragedy’. International Conference on Street Children and Street Children’s Health in East Africa. University of Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania. Kutchins, H. and S. A. Kirk (1997). Making US crazy. DSM: the psychiatric bible and the creation of mental disorders. New York: Free Press. Kvam, M. H., & Braathen, S. H. (2008). “I thought... maybe this is my chance” Sexual Abuse Against Girls and Women with Disabilities in Malawi. Sexual Abuse, 20(1), 5-24. Laurence, J. & McCallum, D. (2009). Inside the Child’s Head. Histories of childhood behavioural disorders. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lawrence, D., Johnson, S., Hafekost, J., Boterhoven de Haan, K., Sawyer, M., Ainley, J. and Zubrick, S.R. (2015). The Mental Health of Children and Adolescents. Report of the Second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra: Department of Health. Lewis, J. (1993). Integration in Victorian schools: Radical social policy or old wine? In R. Slee (Ed.) Is There A Desk With My Name On It? R. Slee. London: Falmer Press, pages: 9 - 26.56 Lewis, J. (1989). Removing the grit: The development of special education in Victoria 1887-1947. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Bundoora, LaTrobe University. Loreman, T. (2009). Straight talk about inclusive education outcomes in Alberta. CASS Connections. Alberta. Losen, D. J. and Orfield, G. (Eds.) (2005). Racial inequality and special education. Cambridge, Harvard Education Press. Male, C. and Wodon, Q. (2017). The Price of Exclusion: Disability & Education. Disability gaps in educational attainment and literacy. Washington D.C., The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/396291511988894028/pdf/121762-replacement-PUBLIC- WorldBank-GapsInEdAttainmentLiteracy-Brief-v6.pdf Maley, W. (2016). What is a refugee? London: Scribe. Marshall, T. (2018). Divided. Why we’re living in an age of walls. London: Elliott & Thompson Ltd. Mason, P. (2015). PostCapitalism. A guide to our future. London: Penguin. Minow, M. (1990). Making all the difference: inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Morgan, P.L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M.M., & Maczuga, S. (2017). Replicated Evidence of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Disability Identification in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 46(6): 305-322. Morrison, T. (2017). The Origin of Others. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Muderedzi, J. and Ingstad, B. (2011) Disability and Social Suffering in Zimbabwe. In A.H. Eide & B. Ingstad (Eds). Disability and Poverty: A Global Challenge. Bristol: Policy Press. Myers, J., Pinnock, H. and Suresh, S. (2016). # Costing Equity. The case for disability-responsive education financing. Brussels, IDDC Inclusive Education Task Team. National Research Council, 2002. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. The National Academies Press. From: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128/minority-students-in-special-and-gifted- education Nguyen, X. T. (2015). The journey to inclusion. Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. Nguyen, X. T. (2016). Girls with Disabilities in the Global South: Rethinking the Politics of Engagement. Girlhood Studies, 9(1), 53.57 Nguyen, X. T. (2018). Critical disability studies at the edge of global development: why do we need to engage with southern theory? Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 7(1), 1-25. Njelesani, J. and Bangura, I. (in press). “Night Wives” and education of girls with disabilities in Sierra Leone.’ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education: School Reform. Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: international perspectives and future directions. London: Routledge. OECD, (2012). Equity & Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students & Schools. Paris: OECD Publishing OECD (2017) Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2017_eag-2017-en#page1 Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: MacMillan. Oliver, M. (2009). Understanding disability: from theory to practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Oliver, M. & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Paris, J. & Phillips, J. (Eds.) (2013). Making the DSM-5. Dordrecht: Springer. Parrish, T. (2005). Racial disparities in the identification, funding and provision of special education. Racial inequality in special education. D. J. Losen and G. Orfield. Cambridge, Harvard Education Press: 15-37. Parthenis, C. and Fragoulis, G. (2016). Otherness as threat: Social and educational exclusion of Roma people in Greece. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(2): 39-57. Pather, S. and Slee, R. (in press). Tensions and dilemmas. In M. Best, T. Corcoran & R. Slee (Eds.) Who’s in? Who’s Out? The Inclusive Education Summit 2017. Leiden, Brill / Sense Publishers. Pearl, A. and Knight, T. (1998). The democratic classroom: theory to inform practice. Cresskill, N.J., Hampton Press. Porter, G. & Towell, D. (2013). Advancing Inclusive Education. Keys to transformational change in public education systems. Federicton, Inclusive Education Canada, and London, Centre for Inclusive Futures.58 http://inclusiveeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/07/Porter-and-Towell-Advancing-IE-2017- Online-FINAL.pdf Ray, B.D. (2017). A systematic review of research on selected aspects of homeschooling as a school choice. Journal of School Choice. 11(4): 604 – 621. Reay, D. (2004). “Exclusivity, exclusion, and social class in urban education markets in the United Kingdom”. Urban Education, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 537-560. Rose, S. P. R. (2005). The 21st-century brain: explaining, mending and manipulating the mind. London: Jonathan Cape. Rowland, A.S., Lesesne, C.A. & Abramowitz, A.J. (2002). The epidemiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a public health view. Mental Retardation Developmental Disability Research Review. 8(3): 162 – 170. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12216060 Sachs, J. (2016). In UNESCO (2016) Education for people & planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002457/245752e.pdf Said, E. W. (2000) Travelling theory reconsidered. Reflections on exile and other literary and cultural essays. London, Granta Publications: 436 – 452. Save the Children (2015). Transforming young lives through education. The 2014 review. London: Save the Children. https://www.savethechildren.net/sites/default/files/libraries/Transforming%20young%20lives%20through%20e ducation_The%20Review%202014_Web_Email_0.pdf Sennett, R. (2018). Building and dwelling: ethics for the city. London: Penguin Books. Sennett, R. (2006). The culture of the new capitalism. New Haven: Yale University. Shorter, E. (2013). The history of DSM, in J. Paris and J. Phillips (Eds.) Making the DSM-5. Dordrecht: Springer. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Sprunt, B., & Merumeru, L. (2016). Identifying disability-inclusive indicators currently employed to monitor and evaluate education in the pacific island countries. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1 - 17. [1170754]. DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.117075459 Singal, N. (2016). Education of children with disabilities in India and Pakistan: Critical analysis of developments in the last 15 years. Prospects, 46(1): 171 – 183. Slee, R. (1993). "The politics of integration - new sites for old practices?" Disability, Handicap & Society 8(4): 351- 360. Slee, R. (1996). Clauses of conditionality. In L. Barton (Ed.) Disability and Society: Emerging issues and insights. London: Longman: 107-122. Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: exclusion, schooling, and inclusive education. London: Routledge. Slee, R. (2013). Reflections on a new equity agenda. In A. Reid and L. Reynolds (Eds.) Equity and participation: Exploring new directions for equity in Australian education. Melbourne: Australian College of Educators: 88 - 100. Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn't dead, it just smells funny. London: Routledge. Smith, W. (2018). Quality and inclusion in the SDGs: tension in principle and practice. In B. Hamre, A. Morin and C. Ydesen (Eds.). Testing and Inclusive Schooling. International challenges and opportunities. Abingdon: Routledge. Snyder, S. L. and D. T. Mitchell (2006). Cultural locations of disability. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Stiker, H.-J. (1999). A history of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Stobart, G. (2008) Testing times: the uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge. Tait, G. (2010). Philosophy, behaviour disorders, and the school. Rotterdam: Sense. Taylor, S. J. (2006). Before it had a name: Exploring the historical roots of Disability Studies in Education. In S. Danforth & S. Gabel (2006). Vital questions facing disability studies in education. New York: Peter Lang. pages: xiii – xxiii. Teese, R. (2013). Academic success and social power: Examinations and inequality. North Melbourne, Scholarly Press. The Economist (2012). Briefings: In need of help. November 10 – 16: 23-25. Thrupp, M. (2018). The search for better educational standards. A Cautionary Tale. Cham: Springer. Titchkosky, T. (2003). Disability, self, and society. Toronto ; Buffalo, University of Toronto Press. Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access, disability, space, meaning. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.60 Tobin, R. M. and House, A.E. (2016). DSM-V Diagnosis in the Schools. New York, The Guildford Press. Tomlinson, S. (2017). A sociology of special and inclusive education. Exploring the manufacture of inability. Abingdon: Routledge. Tomlinson, S. (1985). The expansion of special education. Oxford Review of Education 11(2): 157 - 165. Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tomlinson, S. (1981). Educational subnormality: a study in decision-making. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Trani, J-F., Bakhshi, P., Noor, A.A. & Mashkoor, A. (2007) Disability in Afghanistan: Taking a capabilities approach to look at research challenges and policy implications. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/lccstaff/jean-francois- trani/HDCAconf0905.pdf Trani, J-F. & Bakhshi, P. (2008) Challenges for assessing disability prevalence: The case of Afghanistan. European Journal of Disability Research 2(1): 44-64. UN [United Nations] (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml UNESCO (1994) Final Report. World conference on special needs education: Access and quality. (Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education). Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2000). Education for All: Meeting our collective commitments. The Dakar framework for action. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2003) Overcoming Exclusion through Inclusive Approaches in Education. A Challenge & Vision. Conceptual Paper. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001347/134785e.pdf UNESCO (2014). Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2014. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/gmr-2013-14-teaching-and-learning-education-for-all- 2014-en.pdf UNESCO, World Education Forum 2015, Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea (2015a). Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Incheon: World Education Forum. https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum- 2015/incheon-declaration61 UNESCO (2015b). Education for All 2000 – 2015. Achievements & Challenges. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf UNESCO (2016) Education for people & planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002457/245752e.pdf UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf UNHCR (2018) Data. http://www.unhcr.org/en-au/data.html UNICEF (2018). Child marriage: latest trends and future prospects. New York: UNICEF, https://data.unicef.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/Child-Marriage-Data-Brief.pdf Urwick, J. & Elliott, J. (2010). International orthodoxy versus national realities: inclusive schooling and the education of children with disabilities in Lesotho. Comparative Education, 46(2), 137–150. Victorian Ministry of Education (1984) Integration in Victorian Education. Report of the Ministerial Review of Educational Services for the Disabled. Melbourne, Ministry of Education – Victorian Government Printer. Walton, E. L. (2016). The language of inclusive education: exploring speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Abingdon: Routledge. Wang, T., Liu, K., Li, Z., Xu, Y., Liu, Y., Shi, W. & Chen, L. (2017) Prevalence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMC Psychiatry, 17(32) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5244567/ Ward, C.L. and Seager, J.R. (2010). ‘South African street children: A survey and recommendations for services. Development Southern Africa. 27(1): 85-100. Warnock, M. (2005). Special Educational Needs: A New Look. Philosophical Society of Great Britain. London, Philosophical Society of Great Britain. Impact Number 11. Waslander, S., Pater, C. and van der Weide, M. (2010). Markets in Education: An Analytical Review of Empirical Research on Market Mechanisms in Education, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 52, Paris:OECD Publishing.62 Whitaker, R. (2002). Mad in America: bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publications. Whitaker, R. (2010). Anatomy of an epidemic: magic bullets, psychiatric drugs, and the astonishing rise of mental illness in America. New York: Crown Publishers. Wilkinson, R. G. and K. Pickett (2010). The spirit level: why equality is better for everyone. London, Penguin. Wills, R., Morton, M., McLean, M., Stephenson, M., & Slee, R. (Eds.) (2014). Tales from school: Learning disability and state education after administrative reform. Netherlands: Sense. The World Bank (2008). Kenya Poverty and Inequality Assessment Volume I: Synthesis Report: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPGENDER/Resources/PAKENYA.pd World Health Organisation (2011). World Report on Disability. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Zachos, D. (2012). Institutional racism? Roma children, local community and school practices. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(2), 53- 66.63 APPENDIX 1 Sustainable Development Goal 4 Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning Obtaining a quality education is the foundation to improving people’s lives and sustainable development. Major progress has been made towards increasing access to education at all levels and increasing enrolment rates in schools particularly for women and girls. Basic literacy skills have improved tremendously, yet bolder efforts are needed to make even greater strides for achieving universal education goals. For example, the world has achieved equality in primary education between girls and boys, but few countries have achieved that target at all levels of education. (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/) APPENDIX 2 Child Labour at a Glance.  Worldwide 218 million children between 5 and 17 years are in employment. Among them, 152 million are victims of child labour; almost half of them, 73 million, work in hazardous child labour.  In absolute terms, almost half of child labour (72.1 million) is to be found in Africa; 62.1 million in the Asia and the Pacific; 10.7 million in the Americas; 1.2 million in the Arab States and 5.5 million in Europe and Central Asia.  In terms of prevalence, 1 in 5 children in Africa (19.6%) are in child labour, whilst prevalence in other regions is between 3% and 7%: 2.9% in the Arab States (1 in 35 children); 4.1% in Europe and Central Asia (1 in 25); 5.3%in the Americas (1 in 19) and 7.4% in Asia and the Pacific region (1 in 14).  Almost half of all 152 million children victims of child labour are aged 5-11 years. 42 million (28%) are 12-14 years old; and 37 million (24%) are 15-17 years old.  Hazardous child labour is most prevalent among the 15-17 years old. Nevertheless up to a fourth of all hazardous child labour (19 million) is done by children less than 12 years old.  Among 152 million children in child labour, 88 million are boys and 64 million are girls.64  58% of all children in child labour and 62% of all children in hazardous work are boys. Boys appear to face a greater risk of child labour than girls, but this may also be a reflection of an under-reporting of girls’ work, particularly in domestic child labour.  Child labour is concentrated primarily in agriculture (71%), which includes fishing, forestry, livestock herding and aquaculture, and comprises both subsistence and commercial farming; 17% in Services; and 12% in the Industrial sector, including mining. (International Labour Organisation (2011). Global Estimates of Child Labour. Results and Trends 2012 – 2016. Geneva: ILO. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--- dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_575499.pdf) APPENDIX 3 The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (World Health Organisation, 2001) advanced the understanding and measurement of disability. It was developed through a long process involving academics, clinicians, and – importantly – persons with disabilities. The ICF emphasizes environmental factors in creating disability, which is the main difference between this new classification and the previous International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH). In the ICF, problems with human functioning are categorized in three inter- connected areas:  impairments are problems in body function or alterations in body structure – for example, paralysis or blindness;  activity limitations are difficulties in executing activities – for example, walking or eating;  participation restrictions are problems with involvement in any area of life – for example, facing discrimination in employment or transportation. Disability refers to difficulties encountered in any or all three areas of functioning. The ICF can also be used to understand and measure the positive aspects of functioning such as body functions, activities, participation and environmental facilitation. The ICF adopts neutral language and does not distinguish between the type and cause of disability – for instance, between “physical” and “mental” health. “Health conditions” are diseases, injuries, and disorders, while “impairments” are specific decrements in body functions and structures, often identified as symptoms or signs of health conditions.65 The ICF contains a classification of environmental factors describing the world in which people with different levels of functioning must live and act. These factors can be either facilitators or barriers. Environmental factors include: products and technology; the natural and built environment; support and relationships; attitudes; and services, systems, and policies. The ICF also recognizes personal factors, such as motivation and self-esteem, which can influence how much a person participates in society. However, these factors are not yet conceptualized or classified. It further distinguishes between a person’s capacities to perform actions and the actual performance of those actions in real life, a subtle difference that helps illuminate the effect of environment and how performance might be improved by modifying the environment. The ICF is universal because it covers all human functioning and treats disability as a continuum rather than categorizing people with disabilities as a separate group: disability is a matter of more or less, not yes or no. However, policy-making and service delivery might require thresholds to be set for impairment severity, activity limitations, or participation restriction. It is useful for a range of purposes – research, surveillance, and reporting – related to describing and measuring health and disability, including: assessing individual functioning, goal setting, treatment, and monitoring; measuring outcomes and evaluating services; determining eligibility for welfare benefits; and developing health and disability surveys. From The World Report on Disability (World Health Organisation, 2011) http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf APPENDIX 4 Universal Design for Learning Universal Design for Learning is organised to address the critical features of a teaching and learning environment wherein we assume a heterogeneous or diverse group of learners with varying strengths and challenges:  The means by which information is presented to the learner;  The means by which the learner is required to express what they know;  The means by which students are engaged in learning.66 Provide Multiple Means of Representation Provide Multiple Means of Action & Expression Provide Multiple Means of Engagement 1. Provide options for perception 4. Provide Options for Physical Action. 7. Provide options for recruiting interest.  Options that customise the display of information.  Options that provide alternatives for auditory information.  Options that provide alternatives for visual information  Options in the mode of physical response.  Options in the means of navigation.  Options for accessing tools and assistive technologies.  Options that increase individual choice and autonomy.  Options that enhance relevance, value, and authenticity.  Options that reduce threats and distractions. 2. Provide options for language and symbols 5. Provide options for expressive skills and fluency. 8. Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence.  Options that define vocabulary and symbols.  Options that clarify syntax and structure.  Options for decoding text or mathematical notation.  Options that promote cross- linguistic understanding.  Options that illustrate key concepts non- linguistically.  Options in the media for communication.  Options in the tools for composition and problem solving  Options in the scaffolds for practice and performance.  Options that heighten salience of goals and objectives.  Options that vary levels of challenge and support.  Options that foster collaboration and communication.  Options that increase mastery- oriented feedback. 3. Provide options for comprehension. 6. Provide options for executive functions. 9. Provide options for self-regulation  Options that provide or activate background knowledge.  Options that highlight critical  Options that guide effective goal- setting.  Options that support planning and  Options that guide personal goal-setting and expectations.  Options that scaffold coping skills and strategies.67 features, big ideas, and relationships.  Options that guide information processing.  Options that support memory and transfer. strategy development.  Options that facilitate managing information and resources.  Options that enhance capacity for monitoring progress.  Options that develop self-assessment and reflection. CAST (2008) Universal design for learning guidelines version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.