Archivo

Dolors Forteza-Forteza and Francisca Moreno-Tallón

SUMMARY.The extraordinary measures for attention to diversity in Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) are the subject of the research presented in this article. With different names depending on the autonomous community, we focus on one of these measures, the Educational Intervention Program (PIE), whose recipients are students at personal or social risk. From a qualitative methodological perspective, we analyze a case to delve into the experiences of students with behavioral difficulties who are part of a PIE. Information was collected through interviews and observation, and document analysis was a complementary technique to ensure triangulation of recording sources.

The results highlight the complex context of tensions experienced by students with behavioral difficulties in a specific program. The conclusions call for dialogue with students, educational interventions in the classroom, acceptance of personal biographies, and the right to have their needs met alongside their peers, in order to eliminate the barriers and obstacles these students face daily throughout their school careers. Significantly contextualized educational responses are required to promote the inclusion of all students.

Keywords: secondary education, exclusion, behavioral difficulties, extraordinary measures, inclusive education.

Processes that hinder inclusion in Compulsory Secondary Education. Many shadows and still few lights

ABSTRACT. The extraordinary measures of attention to diversity in Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) are the subject of the research presented in this article. With a different denomination according to the autonomous community, we focus on one of these measures, the Educational Intervention Program (PIE), whose beneficiaries are students at personal or social risk. From a qualitative methodological perspective we analyze a case to deepen the experiences of students with behavioral difficulties that are part of a PIE. Information was collected through interviews and observation, and document analysis was a complementary technique to ensure the triangulation of registry sources.

The results highlight the complex context of tensions that students with behavioral difficulties go through in a specific program. The conclusions call for dialogue with students, for educational interventions in the classroom, for the acceptance of personal biographies and the right to meet their needs with peers, to eliminate the barriers that these students live daily during their school career. Significant contextualized educational responses are required to encourage the inclusion of all students.

Keywords: secondary education, exclusion, behavioral difficulties, extraordinary measures, inclusive education.

Introduction

In this study, we focus on adolescents with behavioral difficulties (BD) in compulsory secondary education (ESO). This is a stage where conflicts and problems increase, while different educational responses proliferate to supposedly address the needs of these students. Our aim is to delve into how they feel when placed in specific intervention programs and to analyze the barriers that prevent or hinder their participation and progress.

We refer to behavioral difficulties when traits such as high emotional intensity, impulsivity, negative persistence, initial resistance, and hyperactivity are present (Saumell, Alsina, and Arroyo, 2011). Students with BD, according to Leeuw, Boer, Bijstra, and Minnaert (2017), experience difficulties in effectively regulating their social interactions and exhibit behavior and/or emotional functioning that can interfere with their development and the lives of others. These difficulties can negatively impact opportunities for positive social participation, as pointed out by Avramidis (2010). However, students’ behavior can vary not only based on personal characteristics but also on contextual factors that emerge at any point during their schooling (Sandoval and Simón, 2007).

Considering these factors is essential within the framework of inclusive education because, as Danforth and Smith (2005) remind us, disruptive behaviors in the classroom must change the foundations on which schools are based. Attitudes must also be modified, as the initial frustration experienced by these students is often due to them being considered “bad” and “disruptive.”

Consequently, the background, conditions, and contextual factors, in addition to creating needs (González, 2005), can place students in zones of social and educational vulnerability if teachers and the school culture itself focus merely on their failures and not on how to meet their needs. In other words, depending on the context, students with behavioral difficulties are likely to be at risk of exclusion during compulsory education.

Given that “educational exclusion and school failure are not natural phenomena” (Rodríguez, Álvarez and Moreno, 2009, p.176), numerous studies have already shown that behind students’ failure in compulsory secondary education lie school pathways laden with problems that begin in primary education, and in compulsory secondary education, they manifest as a progressive detachment from studies. This detachment, in the case at hand, is largely a consequence of the rigid structure that characterizes this educational stage in multiple dimensions (curricular, teacher training, organizational, etc.), and it also has “political implications, as it allows us to question the institutional processes that contribute to the development of a trajectory of school disaffection […]” (García, Casal, Merino and Sánchez, 2013, p.71).

In the same vein, Mena, Fernández-Enguita and Riviére (2010) previously stated, when discussing the gradual disengagement or detachment of students from the institution.

In our country, faced with high rates of school failure (Roca, 2010; Aramendi, Vega and Santiago, 2011), educational administrations develop a variety of specific programs to respond to the diversity of students who experience exclusion, without questioning the triggering processes of educational segregation for those students who, for some reason, are considered diverse, different, or special (Moliner, Sales, Ferrández, Moliner and Roig, 2012).

Fulcher (1989) already considered at the time the possibility of new forms of segregation occurring in normalized environments, through divisive practices. Practices that can become remedial options that generate parallel schooling pathways for a segment of students, in some cases causing what Young (2000) calls “internal exclusion”, originating “zones of discrimination”. For Escudero, González, and Martínez (2009), these are students who are not entirely left out, but neither are they effectively included in a quality curriculum and teaching that helps them achieve the necessary learning.

The measures planned for these students, and specifically for those with behavioral difficulties, although they explicitly aim for them to obtain a secondary education diploma, ultimately end the compulsory secondary education stage without success. And although these measures or proposals can be considered “second chances” for some students – in the words of Escudero and Martínez (2011) – the truth is that many others are condemned to failure and the abandonment of their basic education.

Method

The work presented here focuses on a qualitative research method, the case study, to address two objectives: (1) To understand the educational experience of students with behavioral difficulties in a specific group; (2) To investigate the perceptions and expectations of teachers regarding these students in different classroom situations.

Within this framework, three instruments have been considered for gathering information: interviews, non-participant observation, and document analysis. While interviews and observation are the primary sources of data, documents provide contextual and contrasting information, allowing for triangulation.

Interviews were conducted with students and teachers. The students were provided with their transcriptions, and the director was informed of the results after an initial analysis of the collected information.

Classes of Natural Sciences, Spanish Language and Literature, and Physical Education were observed. This decision was conditioned by scheduling compatibility issues. An open format of field notes was used, collecting information from both students and teachers. Furthermore, the school’s Coexistence Plan and curricula were analyzed. These documentary evidences served as a useful support for observation and for the analysis of the collected information.

The school and the participants

The institute is located in a tourist area of Mallorca and has 1100 students and 117 teachers. The specific group classroom is not physically located where all the classrooms are, but in an annex between the courtyard and the sports facilities. The sample consists of 5 teachers and 12 students. Of these, 4 dropped out after repeated long-term expulsions, and one, after three months, joined a 2nd year of Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) group at the family’s request. Finally, the educational intervention program (PIE) was configured with seven students repeating 2nd year of ESO, who had to turn 16 during the school year, plus one who was repeating 1st year of ESO.

Profile of teaching staff and students

The Spanish Language and Literature teacher (PLLC) holds a degree in English Philology with 10 years of teaching experience. This is her first year at the center.

The Natural Sciences teacher (PCN) is also one of the school counselors. The fact that he taught this subject was a measure adopted by the administration, as the majority of the class hours for students in this program had to be covered by teachers from the Guidance Department. He holds a degree in Psychology and has 7 years of teaching experience. This is his second year working in this program and his first year at this center.

The two Physical Education teachers have degrees in the Science of Physical Activity and Sport, both also newly appointed. Physical Education Teacher 1 (PET1) is officially the teacher for the students in the Inclusive Education Program (IEP); he has two years of teaching experience and this is his first time participating in this type of program. Physical Education Teacher 2 (PET2) is the head teacher of a 2nd year Compulsory Secondary Education class; she has 4 years of teaching experience, 2 of which were in the program. Due to the lack of motivation of the IEP students towards the subject, she proposed that they work together with all the students.

Regarding the students, it should be noted that there is only one adolescent, hereinafter referred to as student 1.

• S1: of English nationality, recently turned 16. At the institute, she was part of the Linguistic and Cultural Welcome Program (PALIC). She repeated 1st year of Compulsory Secondary Education and it is noteworthy that she is participating in the IEP program for the second time.
• A2: there is no significant data from his Primary Education, but in secondary school he repeats 1st and 2nd year; when he has to repeat the second year course for the second time, he becomes part of the PIE.
• A3: he is of English origin. He repeated 6th grade. When starting secondary school, he repeats 1st year and, later, joined the PIE program.
• A4: born in England, he completed all his primary schooling in Spain. He has repeated 6th grade of Primary Education and 1st year of ESO; he moves to the PIE after having completed the second year.
• A5: during his schooling he repeated 2nd grade of primary and secondary school. His mother passed away a few years ago and it is his slightly older sister (20 years old) who takes care of the minors.
• A6: he is a student diagnosed with ADHD. In primary school he repeated 2nd grade and in high school it is his second year in 1st year of secondary school; however, he has become part of the PIE program, even though he is younger than the rest of the students.
• A7: he repeated 3rd grade in primary school and when he joined high school he repeated 1st grade.
• A8 is a student who has problems with narcotic substances. He left the program during the third quarter due to a long expulsion.

Results

We are faced with a group of students whose exclusion has been progressively forged. Now, under the umbrella of extraordinary measures to help them acquire the basic knowledge of compulsory secondary education—with the aim of obtaining a diploma in secondary education—they are on the margins; that almost invisible line that increasingly separates them from their peers and from normalized learning experiences. They are no longer just isolated (special group); it is also the proposals made by the teaching staff and the interaction that occurs between them and the students that do not yield any learning benefits.

The classroom environment is deteriorated. A deterioration that is justified by the students’ attitudes and behaviors: talking during explanations, refusing to do pencil and paper tasks, arriving late, aggression towards classmates, insults, eating in class, getting out of their seats, fidgeting, disrespect, etc., which are the cause of ‘non-learning’, as if teaching (the teaching staff) had nothing to do with this process.

The ‘bad’ behavior is experienced by teachers with resignation (‘we got this group’); the label of ‘bad students’ is persistent, almost definitive for some, and has the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy: teachers attend class with the prejudice that they will have very unfavorable behavior (they are already marked) and students respond with the expected behaviors. Consequently, an environment is created that is not conducive to teaching and learning, something that happens daily in the classroom.

A daily routine that is already exclusionary from the start, not only because it is part of an exceptional measure, but also because of the implications it has on the schooling process of these students. They do not participate in the recreational or extracurricular activities that their peers do; they do not participate, among other aspects, because the location of their classroom is completely separate and differentiated from the other classrooms, isolated. The students are aware of why they are in that space and their statements are forceful:

The class is separate from the institute and we never do what other second-year compulsory secondary education students do. I prefer a normal second-year compulsory secondary education class because you are with more people; I am the only girl in this group (A1).

The class is the worst […]. There is only echo, you say a word and there is echo. The music from the sports center that can be heard all the time. It is impossible to have class, then they want you to concentrate and work, you can’t… (A4).

The class […] is like a cage, there is echo and when they have Physical Education they look at us all the time as if we were abnormal (A5).

The most negative thing about this year has been spending the whole course there in that class (A7).

One of the teachers expresses about this:

The worst thing I’ve found is that they are completely separated spatially, totally separated, and that the classroom conditions are quite terrible in terms of sound, cold, and heat […]. They also haven’t been allowed to go on outings, they haven’t been allowed to participate in things that others have done. […] Completely separated from their peers because… hey, they also need to interact, right? (PLLC).

For their part, students report their “lack of presence and participation” in the school’s activities; they are disregarded, creating a distinction between students in general and those on the margins, outside:

I’ve seen how all the second-year students go on field trips except us, they don’t let us go on field trips or anything and I don’t know why. We don’t do the ecology project that the whole school does (A1).

We haven’t gone on any field trips, separated from all the second-year groups. They held Physical Education tests in the courtyard for all the second-year students and none for us, the talk about drugs came super late and they almost forgot about us. And this makes me feel bad and I get angry with the tutor… (A2).

Oh! And we don’t go on field trips, but I think that’s normal, yes, because we’d mess it up, I guess. It’s just that they don’t trust us; if they gave us a chance, we agreed among ourselves that we have to behave well and everything would turn out fine. They haven’t given us the chance, and we’ve asked for it a thousand times (A4).

We said, ‘We promise we won’t do anything,’ and they say, ‘No, no, I don’t trust you.’ It’s unfair because others can go on field trips and we can’t, and then they tell us we’re not special, that we’re normal like everyone else. Well, if we’re normal, they should let us go on field trips (A5).

This process of internal segregation has a great impact on self-perception and on what they think regarding how others perceive them. What these three students express is evidence of this statement:

They always think badly of us: you don’t know how to study, you never do anything, you’re not going to do anything with your life (A1).

And the others at the institute see us as fools, let’s face it. Fools and that we’re going to end up badly under a bridge or something. And the teachers see us badly too. That’s what I think (A2).

People, teachers and students treat you like a fool. They treat you differently… there are teachers who treat you with care because, maybe, they think you’ll get angry later and make a scene… (A4).

The perception that they are “dumb” and are perceived as such, is reaffirmed by this last student when referring to the textbooks:

They also take us for fools because the books are new, they are the kind you can write in, and that’s for slow learners. We have different books, they explain it easier, much more for dummies (A4).

They are perceived and treated as ‘problem students’ (troublemakers), more than enough reason to place them elsewhere, in a specific program. For the teaching staff, this extraordinary measure is the best option to avoid harming the rest of the students in the regular classroom:

They have a very negative attitude. They complain that they are really all together and that they are the ones set aside, but I am sure that in a normal group they would have had the same attitude and two or three would have followed them and they would have done practically the same thing (PLLC).

The teachers who teach the different subjects in this group, besides not coordinating (as they state), do not consider any other type of intervention either in the classroom or in the center to mobilize their learning and improve their performance, nor their interaction with other students. Although they do see ‘collateral damage’ in this measure: “I think that by creating a sort of ghetto, the attitude worsens. It’s like retroactive, meaning, someone who behaves moderately well joins the little group of those who misbehave and ends up misbehaving” (PEF1). What is concerning: behavior.

The evidence shows that the students are not accepted; they have lived and are living a trajectory of misunderstandings, something that seeps into that feeling of “not belonging.” One student summarizes the situation like this: “We are something separate. A separate class, like I don’t know… outcasts, I haven’t felt good” (A7).

Evidence that likewise reveals the different treatment they receive: they are not given opportunities, they are ignored, they are distrusted, among many other aspects, and their well-being is affected, as is their self-esteem. However, it is important to refer to the positive reaction these students have when they are presented with opportunities to participate with their peers. This is the case in Physical Education sessions, where the group shares activities with one of the 2nd year of ESO classes. They showed more interest and motivation, in the words of the teacher:

The students’ attitude changes a lot. Their class was super apathetic, they didn’t want to do anything, and when they got together they felt more motivated. […] There are aspects to improve, everything related to habits is difficult for them, but then they also surprise you because they come to tell you “I had a great time dancing” and at first they said “I’m not doing silly things.” Now they tell you they loved dancing rock. They are kids who have deficiencies, but they can improve, together they can improve (PEF2).

The process of experiencing and sharing experiences was not without problems, although it was worth it, according to the same teacher. She alludes to a very disruptive student when making the following reflection: “When we brought the group together with the other one, A6 started to collaborate. We can change one bad one along with the others, but what if they are all bad?” And she is satisfied with the joint work with the other teacher in her area: “I worked very well with him because I saw other exercises, I copied them and did them in my classes because I thought that if it works with these students, imagine with the others” (PEF2).

Students’ school histories reveal that their learning difficulties begin to become visible in primary education, culminating in repeating a grade. They recall situations from their time in that stage like these that follow:

I was always in my own world, well, since fifth grade or so. It’s just that I’ve always had trouble concentrating. They made me sit at the front, and I would leave the class in some subjects (A4). 

When I was bored, it was because if they started explaining something and I didn’t understand it, the teachers didn’t want to explain it to me, because you asked them many times, so I stopped asking, and when I didn’t understand something, I would end up drawing or sleeping. They didn’t explain it to me because I found it very difficult to understand (A5).

One of the most common characteristics among these students during compulsory secondary education is a lack of motivation. The context does not help them, and even less so the teaching methodologies that are primarily aimed at a non-existent “standard” student. They arrive in secondary school with learning difficulties and do not connect with the linear class structure: explanation, copying from the board, textbook exercises, and homework. Disruptive behaviors emerge, followed by a punitive response (expulsion) that distances them from daily classroom activities, and when they return, they don’t ‘re-engage’; the cycle of demotivation begins again. Isn’t this chain a process of exclusion? The words of this student referring to secondary school teachers reflect this in some way:

There hasn’t been any who was like some from primary school, good ones. And there are worse ones. They’ve been ruder, like they don’t care, they only teach 5 or 6 and ignore the rest. Of course, they ignored me as if I didn’t want to do anything because I don’t know, I knew how to do something, but I had doubts about most of it (A7).

Discussion and conclusions

What has been described so far shows an unfavorable scenario for the students who participated in the study. The feeling of rejection is unanimous; these are stories of exclusion and lack of recognition. These are students who usually feel discredited due to the labels attributed to them; one of them is blunt when he says: “The Spanish teacher tells us: you are useless! And I don’t know why she says it […] although I think it’s true and she’s the only one who tells us the truth.” Stories characterized by the lack of trust from teachers in their abilities, both in the past and at the time of the fieldwork. The students do not want to be there, in a separate group, and neither do the teachers; it has simply ‘fallen to them’.

We are dealing with stigmatized students; they have been assigned a series of characteristics that have led them to be part of an extraordinary program, thus legitimizing the exclusionary treatment they have received with unwanted effects on their learning, performance, and life path. Considering that some studies affirm that there is a direct correlation between behavioral difficulties and the fact that these students feel incapable of facing the academic rigor demanded in secondary education (Garner, 2005; Garner and Davies, 2007).

To teach, one must immerse oneself in the “culture of trust,” as López Melero (2004, p. 21) states, which must be built with the value of difference at its core. This requires profound transformations of schools to make education for all possible. Education should provide, regardless of any personal, social, or emotional difference, the resources that children and adolescents need (Florian, Young, and Rouse, 2010) without offering educational proposals parallel to the mainstream ones. In this regard, the crucial aspect is to focus analyses and changes on microsystems (schools) rather than on individuals. As Vilaró (2007) indicates, the key lies in promoting dialogue, in convincing the adolescent to speak with the adult and convincing the adult to listen to the student, so they can explain themselves and get to know each other a little better. That is, establishing a positive relationship between students and teachers based on respect and communication (Meyers, 2009).

The study conducted by Álvarez, Álvarez, Castro, Castro, and Fueyo (2008) on secondary education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion emphasizes that teachers’ opinions varied depending on the student group. It highlights that students with behavioral difficulties are the least accepted. In this sense, we should delve into the lack of dialogue between teachers and students and the lack of recognition by the former towards the latter. Because, as Vilaró (2007) explains:

Behind many incidents, insults, and aggressions towards adults, there is surely a prior history of misunderstandings, belittling, poor upbringing, more misunderstandings, even more belittling (…) that they don’t have “manners” doesn’t mean they are never right. Many adolescents who confront teachers do so from the insignificance they have been made to feel (p.198).

To promote learning, students must feel that learning is worthwhile. This converges with feelings of self-worth and relationships of belonging, friendship, and participation in the class group and the school (Echeita et al., 2014). According to the same authors:

The opposite, that is, everything that, as a result of the way teaching and learning are organized, contributes to the development, in certain students, of feelings and situations of repeated failure, isolation, marginalization, worthlessness, or exclusion, must be considered as first-order barriers to learning (p.32).

Another issue to highlight is the transition from one educational stage to another. According to Martínez (2011, p.168), “the transition from primary to secondary school is when the most vulnerable students run the greatest risks of being excluded from the mainstream education system.” Indeed, in our study, we have confirmed this; students with behavioral difficulties, who already have a history of failures (having repeated in both stages), are directed, almost inevitably, towards non-regular educational alternatives, and the PIE is one of them when we started the study. Here, teacher attitudes and their expectations come into play:

The teacher believes that nothing more can be done, and the student thinks it’s not worth changing. This spiral of negative expectations contributes to reinforcing maladaptive behavior. Sometimes, the teacher also doesn’t know how to solve the problem by any method other than punishment. It is necessary to talk and make agreements to try to modify this dynamic (Marchesi, 2004, p.149).

Following up on low expectations: they damage any interaction process. Evidence has clearly shown this; students perceive that they are not valued by their teachers, to which they respond with behaviors they don’t know how to manage, leading to a progressive deterioration of the relationship. The circle closes in on itself. Let’s recall the words of one of the students previously mentioned: “They always think badly of us: you don’t know how to study, you never do anything, you’re not going to do anything in your life” (A1).

In this vein, other research has shown that these students perceive the relationship with their teachers as the factor that most influences their behavior in accordance with classroom norms (Turner, 2000). Despite the evidence, we look the other way, students are the bearers of difficulties, of defects, which justifies segregation into a special group; a path that will definitively lead them to very unequal destinations, in the words of Slee (2012).

We want to emphasize students’ identities, their personal biographies. As has been reflected, secondary education fails for a segment of students (and if it fails for those with certain difficulties, it fails for everyone), and it does so because it does not recognize students’ needs, nor are they given opportunities to learn that spark their interest and motivation (Birbili, 2005). On the contrary, what prevails are the low expectations that teachers have of these students (“repeaters”, “the bad ones”, “disruptive ones”,…), to whom, successively, barriers are placed to their participation and progress, ending compulsory schooling in a specific group without graduating.

Following the line of barriers, we believe that students’ failure cannot be understood in individual terms (what they don’t do, what they don’t know, their behavior…), global, systemic explanations are necessary:

School failure can be read in relation to the difficulties of educational institutions in finding or seeking support in the community; in relation to the very configuration of secondary education studies; in relation to the lack of knowledge of personal histories and not taking them into account in school requirements and dynamics; in relation to the family-institution distance; in relation to intercultural and religious components; in relation also to social origin, which determines possibilities and equal opportunities; in relation to personal fractures, and to the construction of complex identities; in relation to the distance from the childhood and youth cultures present in the social scene; in relation to gender, etc. (Hernández and Tort, 2009, p.6).

Hence the importance of analyzing school trajectories; by doing so, we aim to influence grade repetition, as it is a significant fact given that most of the participating students have already repeated in primary school and, subsequently, in secondary school. This confirms that failure is being forged at an early age; it is not “a specific event or a final outcome,” as Mena et al. (2010, p. 121) state, but rather “a slow process that accompanies the student throughout their school life or a significant part of it” (p. 121). Rué et al. (2006) confirm this idea in their research, asserting that disengagement intensifies in secondary education but begins in the preceding stage. The overall teaching culture is not capable of compensating for initial school deficiencies, nor for sociocultural ones; and they emphasize that school organizational factors, teachers’ expectations and representations of their students, the institutional climate, and the types of support provided to students, among other factors, play a significant role in the degree of school success (Rué et al, 2006).

Regarding students’ attitudes, often described as challenging, negative, and disruptive, research by Fernández-Enguita, Mena, and Riviére (2010) found that these attitudes (which they term anti-school) “except perhaps for very specific groups culturally distant from the mainstream, do not originate in the family, but in the school, where the institution’s neglect combines with the self-perpetuating dynamics of the peer group in adolescence; this situation favors the conversion of episodic behaviors into systematic strategies of rejection” (p. 186). The same authors are conclusive regarding grade repetition, an aspect that characterizes the group of students who participated in the study; it is, in all probability, an indicator of the school’s inability to respond to student diversity: “repetition can be considered an excellent predictor and almost certainly a cause of dropout” (p. 188). 

Returning to the stigmatization students feel when in a separate group, the one for “fools” (as they indicate), leads us to reflect on what lies behind a diversification measure like PIE: institutional incompetence in a broad sense (both at the center and classroom level). This issue also contrasts with the research by Fernández Enguita et al. (2010), who point out the weaknesses of these extraordinary measures, such as:

the relative stigma that accompanies these same courses, (…) and the majority conviction among students that with these groups and diversification measures, more is lost than gained, whether due to institutional expectations or bad company. In general, the student does not perceive diversification as additional help, much less as a special effort by the school, but rather as a disqualification of their person. And although teachers demand more diversification measures, everything indicates that they think about differentiating the objectives pursued with students, including, of course, those of compulsory education, not about diversifying the means and resources to achieve the same objectives (p.199).

In summary, the failure affecting different groups of students, especially in compulsory secondary education, is a complex problem:

Not only because it deprives people of the right to a foundation of intellectual, personal, and social tools to build a dignified present and future, but also because it represents a threat to the very roots of community life, authentic democracy, economic and social progress, and, of course, the credibility and legitimacy of the education system itself (Escudero and Martínez, 2012, p.177).

And a complex problem requires a systemic, holistic view, so that the right to learn is for everyone. From this perspective, actions that segregate students with difficulties are nothing more than a mere “patch” that increases the barriers these students encounter in their life path, and particularly in school.

The challenge is inclusive education. An education that, as Escudero (2012) points out, involves improving school results:

They are not born spontaneously; they must be socially, institutionally, and personally constructed. Improvements and advances in school learning cannot occur without profound changes in the school curriculum, in teaching and learning processes, in the teaching profession, in school governance, and in the administration and management of the system (p.117).

Or in other words, progressing towards inclusion requires, on the one hand, political will and social consensus based on values of equity and justice; and, on the other hand, teacher training, changes in curriculum design and development, provision and redistribution of human and material resources, as well as courageous decisions about the organization of schools – within a framework characterized by flexibility and autonomy that promotes community participation – and about teaching and learning processes, with a special focus on the latter (Durán and Giné, 2011). 

Equity, as Domínguez, López, and Vázquez (2016) affirm, remains one of the most fragile links in the education system. The shift towards inclusive approaches clashes with the ingrained reductionist view that extraordinary measures are most beneficial for students with difficulties. Drawing on approaches that address diversity by homogenizing educational actions represents an inconsistency in the discourse of the schools themselves, but even worse, if possible, is suppressing individual plurality, leaving students who do not meet the standard on the margins.

Paraphrasing Pujolàs (2010), practices that seemingly separate students based on their needs with the intention of better serving them, sideline the key idea defended in inclusive education: “to pursue comprehensive training not only for them, but for everyone, it is precisely required that they have the opportunity to educate themselves together, in the same classroom, so that they can interact continuously with each other” (p. 39). For all students, social interaction is fundamental, while the isolation of some in specific classrooms and programs only increases their initial difficulties, exclusion within the school, and marginalization outside of it. Creating conditions for satisfactory interactions should be a priority in the daily work of teachers (Avramidis, 2010).

There is still much work to be done. Extraordinary measures are nothing more than “palliative,” say Sandoval, Simón, and Echeita (2012, p. 121), and the more efforts and resources are put into them, the less urgent preventive measures become. Consequently, inequality may increase in the coming years, establishing new scenarios of segregation based on discredited approaches and models of teaching and learning.

There are still numerous shadows that weigh down educational inclusion, and few lights if we focus on the issues of justice and rights on which inclusive education pivots—emphasizes Slee (2012). These issues also have to do with the barriers that many students still face; the lack of equity or the pursuit of it is the compass that guides us to safeguard such a precious value, making the evidence of exclusion visible.

References

• Álvarez, E., Álvarez, M., Castro, P., Campo, M.Á., and Fueyo, E. (2008). Functioning of integration in Compulsory Secondary Education according to the perception of the teaching staff. Psicothema 20(1), 56-61. Retrieved from http://www. psicothema.com/pdf/3429.pdf
• Aramendi, P., Vega, A. and Santiago, K. (2011). Programs for diversity attention in Secondary Education from the perspective of students: a comparative study. Revista de Educación, 356, 185-209. Retrieved from http://www.revistaeducacion.educacion.es/re356/re356_08.pdf
• Avramidis, E. (2010). Social relationships of pupils with special educational needs in the mainstream primary class: peer group membership and peer-assessed social behavior. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(5), 413-429. DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2010.513550
• Birbili, M. (2005). Constants and Contexts in Pupil Experience of Schooling in England, France and Denmark. European Educational Research Journal, 4(3), 313-320. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/eerj.2005.4.3.10.
• Danforth, S. and Smith, T.J. (2005). Engaging Troubling Students. A Constructivist Approach. California: Corwin Press.
• Domínguez Alonso, J., López Castedo, A., and Vázquez Varela, E. (2016). Attention to diversity in Compulsory Secondary Education: Analysis from educational inspection. Aula Abierta, 44, 70-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.aula.2016.03.002
• Durán, D. and Giné, C. (2011). Teacher training for inclusive education: A process of professional development and school improvement to address diversity. Revista Latinoamericana de Inclusión Educativa, 5(2), 153-170. Retrieved from http://www.rinace.net/rlei/numeros/vol5-num2/art8.pdf
• Echeita, G., Muñoz, Y., Sandoval, M. and Simón, C. (2014). Reflecting aloud on the meaning and some knowledge provided by research in the field of inclusive education. Revista Latinoamericana de Inclusión Educativa, 8(2), 25-48. Retrieved from http://www.rinace.net/rlei/numeros/vol8-num2/art1.pdf
• Escudero, J.M. (2012). Inclusive education, a matter of right. Educatio Siglo XXI, 30(2), 109-128. Retrieved from http://revistas.um.es/educatio/article/view/153711/140751
• Escudero, J.M. and Martínez, B. (2012). School failure reduction policies: special programs or profound changes to the system and education? Profesorado. Revista de Educación, extraordinary issue, “Public policies for educational support and reinforcement”, 174-193. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-EXT-211
• Escudero, J.M.; González, M.T. and Martínez, B. (2009). School failure as educational exclusion: understanding, policies, and practices. Ibero-American Journal of Education, 50, 41-64. Retrieved from http://rieoei.org/rie50.htm
• Fernández Enguita, M., Mena Martínez, L., and Riviére Gómez, J. (2010). School failure and dropout in Spain. Barcelona: Obra Social La Caixa, Social Studies Collection, no. 29.
• Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive and diverse educational environments: studying curricular reform in an initial teacher education course. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 709-722. DOI: 10.1080/13603111003778536
• Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Education Policy and Disability. London: Falmer.
• García Gracia, M., Casal Bataller, J., Merino Pareja, R. y Sánchez Gelabert, A. (2013). Itinerarios de abandono escolar y transiciones tras la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Revista de Educación, 361, 65-94. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-361-135
• Garner, P. (2005). Behaviour for Learning: A positive Approach to Managing Classroom Behaviour”. In S. Capel, M. Leask y T. Turner (eds.), Learning to Teach in Secondary Schol: A companion to school experience (pp. 136-150). London: Routledge.
• Garner, P. and Davies, J.D. (eds.) (2007). Key Questions in Behaviour. Exeter: Leaning Matters.
• González, M.T. (2005). Absenteeism and dropout: a form of school exclusion. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 9(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev91ART4res.pdf
• Hernández, F. and Tort, A. (2009). Changing the perspective on school failure from young people’s relationship with knowledge. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 49(8), 1-11. Retrieved from http://rieoei.org/3109.htm
• Leeuw, R.R., de Boer, A.A., Bijstra, J. & Minnaert, A.E.M.G. (2017). Teacher strategies to support the social participation of students with SEBD in the regular classroom. European Journal of Special Education, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2017.1334433
• López Melero, M. (2004). Building a school without exclusions. A way of working in the classroom with research projects. Málaga: Aljibe.
• Marchesi, Á. (2004). What will become of us bad students. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
• Mena Martínez, Fernández Enguita, M. and Riviére Gómez, J. (2010). Disengaged from education: processes, experiences, motivations and strategies of dropout and school failure. Revista de Educación, extraordinary issue, 119-145. Retrieved from http://www.revistaeducacion.mec.es/re2010/re2010_05.pdf
• Meyers, S.A. (2009). Do Your Students Care Whether You Care about them? College Teaching, 57(4), 205-210.
• Moliner, O., Sales, A., Ferrández, R., Moliner, L. and Roig, R. (2012). Specific measures for attention to diversity in Compulsory Secondary Education (ESO) from the perceptions of the stakeholders involved. Revista de Educación,
• 358, 197-217. DOI: 10-4438/1988-592X-RE-2010-358-075
• Pujolàs, P. (2010). Not everything that is said to be inclusion is inclusion. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 191, 38-41. Retrieved from http://www.fapac.cat/sites/all/files/aula_1.pdf
• Roca, E. (2010). Early school leaving and training in Spain. Revista de Educación, extraordinary issue “Early school leaving and training: figures and policies”, 31-62. Retrieved from http://www.revistaeducacion.mec.es/re2010/re2010_02.pdf
• Rodríguez, C., Álvarez, J. and Moreno, Mª.Á. (2009). The extraordinary programs for attention to diversity: psychological, academic-cognitive and social implications for students in the autonomous community of Andalusia. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 13(3), 175-192. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev133ART7.pdf
• Rué, J. (coord.) (2006). Enjoying or suffering compulsory schooling. Who is who in the face of school opportunities? Barcelona: Octaedro.
• Sandoval, M. and Simón, C. (2007). Students with behavioral problems. Keys for teacher training. Contextos Educativos, 10, 91-100. Retrieved from https://publicaciones.unirioja.es/ojs/index.php/contextos/article/view/581
• Sandoval, M., Simón, C. and Echeita, G. (2012). Critical analysis and evaluation of the functions of support teachers from the perspective of inclusive education. Revista de Educación, extraordinary issue, “Public policies for support and educational reinforcement”, 117-137. DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-EXT-209
• Saumell, C., Alsina, G. and Arroyo, A. (2011). Students with difficulties in behavioral regulation. Vol. I Primary.
• Barcelona: Graó. Slee, R. (2012). The extraordinary school. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Madrid: Morata.
• Turner, C. (2006). A pupil with emotional and behavioural difficulties perspective: Does John feel that his behaviour is affecting his learning? Journal Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 5(4), 13-18. DOI: 10.1080/1363275000050403
• Vilaró, R. (2007). A Look: a portrait of secondary education. Barcelona: Edicions de 1984.
• Young, I.M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.