Received: September 27, 2018. Final acceptance: February 1, 2019

ABSTRACT: The objective of the study presented was to review the guides offered in the field of educational research to support schools in developing more inclusive practices. Therefore, the text includes a content analysis carried out on a compendium of thirteen guides (mostly published in English) that address the following aspects: the purpose for which they were created, the perspective of inclusion from which they originate, the target audience, the stage in which they have greater functionality, the strategies for action they propose, the basic structure on which they are based, the dimensions and indicators on which they stimulate reflection, and the tools and instruments they propose for evaluation. This qualitative approach has made it possible to investigate the steps that these documents recommend for educational centers to undertake the so-called journey towards inclusion. The conclusions point to the need to use and disseminate the content of these types of resources in Spanish-speaking contexts, generating spaces for reflection and debate that contribute to the advancement of this non-negotiable pedagogical asset.

KEYWORDS: guides; inclusive education; school improvement; documentary analysis.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to review the guides available in the educational research literature that support the development of more inclusive practices. The paper, therefore, reports on the analyses of a compendium of thirteen guides (mainly published in English) that address the following aspects: the purposes for which they were created, the perspective of inclusion they take as their starting point, the target readership, the stage at which they are most functional, the action strategies proposed, the basic structure on which they are founded, the dimensions and indicators used to stimulate reflection and the evaluation tools and instruments put forward. The approach is of a qualitative nature and enables us to enquire into the steps these papers recommend education centers should take in their journeys towards inclusion. The conclusions point to the need to make use of and to make known these types of resources in the Spanish speaking world by generating spaces for reflection and debate that will help to advance in this field.

KEY WORDS: guides; inclusive education; school improvement; documentary analysis.

1. Transforming Reality: The Challenge of Inclusion

Preparing youth for an inclusive and sustainable world is one of the priority objectives of the contemporary educational agenda (OECD, 2018). However, how to make societies, and therefore schools, more inclusive is not a question with an easy answer. In terms of inclusion, if the aim is to transform reality, small steps must be taken, the path must be guided, and levers for change must be provided to allow this pending revolution (inclusive revolution) to take place with guarantees of success. Thus, we agree with other colleagues who position inclusive education as an aspiration and perspective from which to analyze the challenges posed by equity in education (Ainscow, 2015; Echeita, 2017; Messiou, 2017). 

Today, we face the challenge of reaching all processes and systems of practices (Puig-Roviraet al., 2012), so that they configure and determine a new school grammar that firmly sustains the commitment to the values and principles of inclusive education (Booth and Ainscow, 2015). 

It is necessary to understand that inclusion is not just another trend in educational research, but an obligation for organizations, administrators, and policymakers, who must listen to the demands of citizens and reverse the perverse effects of an education system that does not fully guarantee the needs of all its students. It can be stated that not only in Spain, but also in other countries inside and outside of Europe, what we have come to call “inclusive despotism” is growing. This term was coined to describe the perpetuation of “everything for inclusion, but without inclusion,” an approach that confirms the discourse of theory on one hand, and the reality of practice on the other, which is very different. For his part, Slee (2013) raises the dilemma of how to make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition. Nevertheless, it is true that in recent years there have been glimpses of progress and initiatives undertaken with the aim of transforming schools and classrooms into more inclusive learning environments. 

We are aware, as is Escudero (2012), that many aspects are beyond the reach of institutions, but many others are school decisions. Similarly, Murillo and Hernández (2011) reflect that, while an institution can be the main body for the reproduction and legitimation of social inequalities, it can also be the main driver for social change. Consequently, inclusion, understood as a lever for social change, is one of the main precursor forces of global educational reform, as well as a central objective of international policy and the greatest challenge facing schools today. In this regard, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations commits its member countries to ensuring inclusive and quality education, along with promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (unesco, 2015a). At this crossroads, where transforming reality is the true challenge of inclusion, the question arises as to how schools can effectively respond to diversity and move in a more inclusive direction (Azorín, 2016; Florian and Beaton, 2017; López-Vélez, 2018; Loreto, López and Assaél, 2015; Messiou and Ainscow, 2015; Miles and Ainscow, 2011; Simón, Echeita and Sandoval, 2018). 

The concept of inclusion has been widely addressed, among others, by Ainscow et al. (2006), who understand it as a process that seeks to identify and remove barriers; that incorporates the presence, participation, and achievement of all students without exception; and emphasizes those who are at risk of exclusion, marginalization, or underachievement. Both nationally and internationally, there is agreement that inclusive education is a right for all students, but there is also consensus on the obstacles that hinder education systems and communities from making this right effective. Inevitably, building education systems that guarantee quality education with equity is equivalent to saying that the former reaches all children, youth, and adults throughout life (Life Long Learning), without being conditioned by reasons of health, origin, place of residence, ethnicity, economic capacity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other circumstance. 

As we have been explaining, inclusive education is a relevant and widely debated issue in the school landscape both within and beyond our borders. However, it is important to clarify that inclusion will not arise naturally from the existing social order (Göransson and Nilhom, 2014; Marchesi and Martín, 2014), but as a result of conscious, reflective, and voluntary actions. 

In this regard, it is necessary to shed light on the management teams and teachers in educational centers regarding the shared meaning and significance they have about inclusion, and the actions they could take to move policies and practices in a more inclusive direction. Since our practical experience indicates that inclusion is understood and assumed differently by teachers, researchers, families, and students.

2. Guides to embark onthe journeytowards inclusion

Many authors in the field of educational research have used the metaphor of a journey to refer to the path that schools must take when initiating change processes and moving towards more inclusive spaces, which requires questioning both the values and policies of current societies (Messiou, 2012; Nguyen, 2015), and the capacity of schools to respond to diversity (Azorín and Ainscow, 2018; Echeita, 2006). In line with the above, different evidence from school theory and practice is beginning to provide lessons learned on the journey towards inclusion in Spanish schools (Azorín, 2018b; Simón, Sandoval, and Echeita, 2017). However, it is worth remembering that: 

It is not desirable to have a certificate suggesting that the school has reached a final destination in terms of inclusion. Schools are always changing; students and staff come and go; new forms of exclusion emerge; new resources are mobilized. Inclusion is an endless process, “an unending story.” The only sense in which it would be desirable to proclaim a school as “inclusive” is when it is firmly committed to the sustainability of a school improvement process guided by inclusive values (Booth and Ainscow, 2015: 31). 

In relation to the analysis of guides, with the field of inclusion as the primary focus of inquiry, there are previous studies that have delved into aspects such as self-assessment and the improvement of attention to diversity in educational centers (Guirao and Arnaiz, 2014); evaluation and support for monitoring the process towards inclusion (Muntaner, 2016); as well as the review of instruments on attention to diversity for quality inclusive education (Azorín, Arnaiz, and Maquilón, 2017). In this regard, the global impact and influence of the “Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2011), a tool made up of indicators, guidelines, and reflection questions that aim to support teaching teams in putting into practice the principles and values that should underpin education for all. In relation to this instrument, the following has been stated: 

It is a useful instrument for guiding self-reflection, participation, and dialogue among the different members of the educational community. The ultimate purpose of this guide is to build educational spaces that promote participation and increase their capacity to respond to the diversity of students, guaranteeing equity and quality (Booth, Simón, Sandoval, Echeita, and Muñoz, 2015: 5). 

Similarly, as explored in the empirical part of this work, numerous resources inspired by the Index have appeared in the specialized literature as support documents for the promotion of a more inclusive school and society. In summary, the process towards inclusive education taking place in Early Childhood, Primary, and Secondary Education centers requires instruments, support materials, and guides that allow for orienting the path, provide guidelines for self-reflection and analysis of reality, and consequently, favor the implementation of inclusive change and improvement proposals. 

This article addresses, per se, a topic of professional interest for the advancement of inclusion in schools. Unlike what has already been researched by other colleagues previously, a selection of guides (including within this concept materials, documents, resources, and tools) whose purpose is to support schools in taking action regarding inclusion. We consider that this compendium of resources can help educational centers know how to take the first steps and in which dimensions to focus their attention to get started, assuming as a conditionsine qua nonthat inclusion (and attention to diversity) is not just a challenge, but also an inalienable right and a pedagogical asset. 

3. Objectives

The general purpose of the research that has led to this work wasto review the guides offered by the literature to guide and accompany educational centers in the development of more inclusive practices. Therefore, a series of national and international guides will be presented that facilitate evaluation processes in centers, aimed at educational improvement. To this end, we will focus on describing those that revolve around the specific area of attention to diversity, omitting other instruments that deal with very specific aspects aimed at the inclusion of traditionally vulnerable groups. 

Specifically, it was proposed to undertake the study of the selected guides according to the following parameters: objectivefor which it is created,perspectiveof inclusion from which it starts,collectiveto which it is directed,stagein which it has greater functionality,strategiesthat it proposes for action,basic structureupon which it is based,dimensions and indicatorsthat it formulates andtools and instrumentsthat it presents for the implementation of an inclusive school philosophy in educational institutions. 

4. Method

A qualitative research study has been developedwhich describes the content of a series of guides designed to support schools on their path towards inclusion. Therefore, it can be stated that all of them aim to help educational institutions develop more inclusive practices. The method applied was documentary content analysis (Barbosa, Barbosa and Rodríguez, 2013; Fernández, 2002; López, 2002; Peña and Pirela, 2007; Rojas, 2011). This study selected the most current guides (last 10 years) that introduce significant perspectives in this field of knowledge and reflect the reality in which we live. Precisely, one of the aspects that sometimes generates contradiction in this regard is how ephemeral these types of tools can be over time, since policies, values, and knowledgetools of great renown for their impact and value in the school context, such as theIndex for Inclusion(an immaterial work that inspires all others), most of these resources require updates or profound changes to respond to the needs posed by the current socio-educational context.

Consequently, Table 1 chronologically lists the 13 guides/tools that were analyzed to understand the steps these documents recommend for undertaking inclusion-related processes. This was done by starting with guides that have been devised for the improvement of inclusive education in schools and that can, therefore, act as catalysts for inclusion.

Table 1. Guides selected for content analysis

The documentary sources themselves were the guides, tools, and resources selected for the description of their content. In the pre-selection phase, the following criteria were taken into account: 1) recency: texts published in the last decade; 2) thematic: content linked to attention to diversity and inclusive education; 3) national and international panorama: vision of inclusion within and beyond our borders; 4) guides preferably oriented towards supporting inclusion in schools (not specifically designed for self-assessment of practices, but for accompanying educational centers on the path towards inclusion); 5) character not so much empirical as reflective, advocating for the idea of inclusion not just as a matter of numbers or statistics, but as an element close to the qualitative, relational, and contextual reality presented by educational centers, a perspective that we understand is inherently linked to the inclusive movement, and 6) texts intended to help centers situate themselves at their starting point for the development of strategies and action plans that promote more inclusive educational and social processes. 

The analysis of the different documents was carried out through a registration form that allowed for standardized information extraction and collection (Table 2). 

Once the research objectives were formulated and the review criteria defined, a bibliographic search was carried out, considering the steps proposed by Guirao-Goris, Olmedo, and Ferrer (2008): 1) consultation of databases and documentary sources, 2) establishment of the search strategy, 3) specification of document selection criteria, and 4) information organization. For the bibliographic search, the following databases were used: Web of Science, Dialnet, dice, Scopus, as well as the Google Scholar tool, which proved useful for locating texts in both English and Spanish. The descriptors or keywords used were: “inclusive education guides,” “tools for inclusion,” and their Spanish translations: “guías de educación inclusiva” and “herramientas para la inclusión.” Likewise, the selection of documentary sources published in the last decade was narrowed down, agreeing to maintain the period from 2010 to the present as a filter. In parallel, special attention was paid to guides published by organizations committed to inclusion, such as UNESCO.

5. Results

Despite the heterogeneity of countries where the documents we will present below have been published and promoted, the terminological approach of all the guides reviewed is very similar, especially since most of them were produced in English-speaking countries. In all of them, the constant emerges that inclusive education is a combination of philosophy and pedagogical practices that allow every student to feel respected and safe so that they can learn and develop their full potential, based on a system of values and beliefs shared by the school community.

Todos estos materiales constituyen oportunidades para “ponerse en acción”, aunque es posible que algunas escuelas no sientan que están preparadas o quieran llevar a cabo una revisión completa de sus prácticas, pero sí pueden utilizar estas herramientas para estimular la reflexión, la discusión y el aprendizaje sobre la inclusión. 

A continuación, se expondrán los aspectos más importantes de cada documento, haciendo explícitas las dimensiones, factores o indicadores que contemplan cada una de estas guías cuando se refieren a la educación inclusiva y en la forma de utilización de cada una de ellas. 

1. Inclusion and Diversity in Education. Guidelines for Inclusion and Diversity in Schools [Inclusión y diversidad en la educación. Pautas para la inclusión y la diversidad en las escuelas] (British Council, 2010) 

Esta guía se dirige a toda la comunidad escolar, especialmente a los equipos directivos y docentes tanto de escuelas de Primaria como de Secundaria. Propone un modelo de escuela culturalmente inclusiva, basado en investigaciones internacionales, que incorpora buenas prácticas desarrolladas en el marco del proyecto indie¹. Contiene tres dimensiones: marco legal that guarantees equal opportunities; national policies on attention to diversity, and school context, which in turn comprises the following factors: culturally inclusive leadership, high expectations for all, celebration of diversity, promotion of innovation and change, development of an inclusive curriculum, family engagement and empowerment of student voice. 

The school improvement process is based on self-evaluation and self-improvement and must involve all groups that have a stake or interest in the school. This is developed in three phases:audit, self-evaluation procedures to identify strengths and areas for improvement, which involves agreeing on objectives (establishing measurable criteria), as well as planning actions;process monitoring, schools will have regular meetings to assess the development of action plans, share learning, and review any aspects that are not on the right track or are using inappropriate resources; andprogress evaluation, through the evidence found from observations, interviews, and the use of questionnaires. 

2. Creating an Inclusive school. Indicators of Success. A Reflection Tool for Administrators, Educators and Other School Staff [Creando una escuela inclusiva. Indicadores de éxito. Una herramienta de reflexión para administradores, educadores y otro personal escolar] (New Brunkwick Association for Community Living, 2011) 

La guía persigue motivar a las comunidades escolares de Educación Infantil, Primaria y Secundaria para promover prácticas inclusivas. Se trata de una herramienta de reflexión y acción que permite a los educadores y administradores conocer las claves de éxito en la creación y mantenimiento de centros inclusivos. Entre los indicadores “de éxito” que propone destacan los siguientes: respeto de las diversas experiencias, perspectivas y conocimientos de los estudiantes, así como del sentido de pertenencia; experiencias de aprendizaje inclusivas (programa de educación flexible, fortalezas y capacidades, entornos de aprendizaje comunes y participación plena, estudiantes fuera del entorno de aprendizaje común, plan de estudios, instrucción, evaluación en curso); available supports for students to participate fully; behavior(with an impact on school bullying issues);management and leadershipproactive school (effective use of environmental resources);innovation and creative environmentin the educational process; andcollaborative approachfor the search for solutions and projection towards a committed school community. 

The steps it formulates are the following:clarifies the objective; articulates the principles and values; determines who will participate and identifies facilitators; designs the process; develops a work plan; implements the proposal,andevaluates the results. Among the instruments it provides are questionnaires for teachers, families, and educational administrators that encourage reflection and analysis of the school’s profile. 

3. Inclusive Practice in Secondary Schools. Ideas for School Leaders [Práctica inclusiva en escuelas de Secundaria. Ideas para líderes escolares] (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2014) 

The aim of this guide is to offer a common framework of ideas for discussion in secondary schools with education inspectors, principals, and counselors. The guide is organized into four dimensions that in turn constitute evaluation rubrics: building an inclusive school culture, this involves a debate about individual and collective beliefs about inclusion; developing processes and systems, data and aspects linked to the development process of each student and transition periods must be collected. This is usually done through a web platform, a task that can be carried out by the department or group of educational agents; supporting diverse learners, since it is necessary to ensure presence, participation, and learning (in this sense, more importance should be given to how one learns than to what one learns, i.e., to processes rather than results); improve collaboration and camaraderie, to sustain this entire system and improve it, collaboration with families, as well as with other organizations and members of the community, is very important. The voice of families and their role in decision-making are fundamental. 

The research cycle it proposes for school improvement through the metaphor of a “journey” includes three steps: gather the human team that will be part of the discussions; collect information, and to make a plan to change and transform inclusive practices in the school.

4. Coaching to Support Inclusion: A Principal’s Guide [Coaching para apoyar la inclusión: una guía para el director] (The Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2015)

This guide aims to explore the use of coaching as a professional development strategy to support the implementation of inclusive practices in both Primary and Secondary schools. Principals become trainers who work with teachers to meet the needs of all students within an inclusive school environment. This resource is created to guide and support inclusion by leadership teams who must work collaboratively with school staff to make this happen. In this regard, establishing a collaborative culture with defined roles is extremely important. The guide presents a set of strategies to improve collaboration: create a culture of expectations; increase information sharing, and foster the transfer of ideas and concerns. 

In turn, this guide details the dimensions associated with the exercise of inclusive leadership in which it is proposed to:foster effective relationships, represent visionary leadership, lead a learning community, provide instructional leadership, develop and facilitate leadership, manage school resourcesandunderstand and respond to the broader social context.Finally, it establishes three clearly differentiated phases:mobilization, which consists of preparation activities, awareness-raising, commitment building, and program planning;plan implementation, andinstitutionalization, at this stage, coaching becomes part of the school’s culture.

5. Embracing Diversity: Toolkit for Creating Inclusive, Learning-friendly Environments [Abrazando la diversidad: Conjunto de herramientas para crear entornos inclusivos y amigables para el aprendizaje] (UNESCOX, 2015b)

This guide was born after the World Education Conference in Dakar, which aimed to ensure access to quality education for vulnerable groups of students by 2015. It was written in 2000 and has been revised several times until its version was available in 2015.online. It aims to raise awareness among future and current teachers and educational administrators of any formal or non-formal educational stage about the importance of inclusive education and provides them with practical tools to analyze their situation. 

It should be noted that one of the most relevant concepts coined in this guide is the term “inclusive, learning-friendly environment”. This concept emphasizes the importance of students and teachers learning together as a learning community, placing students at the center of their learning. The sections covered by this guide are the following: building an inclusive and friendly learning environment (including the benefits for teachers, students, families, and communities) and identifying areas that may need further improvement, providing ideas on how to plan changes and how to evaluate progress; working with families and communities describe how to help families and other community members and organizations participate in the development and maintenance of an inclusive learning environment;that all children go to school and learnpromotes reflection on the barriers that prevent this from happening, as well as examples of students who cannot learn or participate;create an inclusive learning environment, emphasizing students’ self-esteem and the necessary union of learning at home and at school;management of inclusive learning classrooms, where aspects related to the planning of teaching and learning, the use of available resources, the management of group work, cooperative learning, and forms of evaluation consistent with this way of learning are addressed; andcreation of a healthy and protective environment, in terms of child protection policies, violence prevention, school nutrition programs, and health services and facilities. 

6. How good is our school?

The guide is aimed at the entire educational community of Secondary Education centers. It proposes a change in which all stakeholders involved in the center can intervene, as well as groups of people related to the field of education, such as university staff or experts. 

The school improvement framework consists of a set of 15 quality indicators designed to help answer three questions related to important aspects of the school’s work and life. The quality indicators are divided into three categories: leadership and management, which answers the question: how good is our leadership and improvement approach?; learning environment, how good is the quality of the care and education we offer?, and éxitos y logros, ¿cuán buenos somos para garantizar los mejores resultados posibles para todos nuestros estudiantes? 

Este material expone un modelo de autoevaluación que permite revisar las políticas y las prácticas. Asimismo, profundiza en procesos básicos para la gestión del cambio desde una triple panorámica mirando: hacia adentro (autoevaluación); hacia fuera, aprendiendo de lo que sucede en otros lugares; y hacia delante, exploring what the future may hold for today’s students. This model emphasizes the need to triangulate information through direct observation, quantitative data collection, and the incorporation of all voices within the educational community. 

7. Tool to Upgrade Teacher Education Practices for Inclusive Education [Herramienta para mejorar las prácticas de formación docente para la educación inclusiva] (Council of Europe, 2015) 

This is a resource aimed at undergraduate students, practicing teachers, and teacher trainers who intend to improve school practices, especially in secondary schools. This tool consists of two parts. The first part describes the updating procedure as a sequence of activities. It guides teachers through a six-stage problem-solving cycle:problem identification; needs assessment, goals, and objectives; educational strategies; implementation; evaluation,and comments. The second part describes the framework for inclusive practices based on the European Agency’s postulates on the profile of inclusive teachers. This framework identifies four relevant practices for developing skills associated with inclusive education aimed at being a competent professional in inclusive education; valuing student diversity; supporting all students, and using collaborative work strategies. 

Teachers can use this tool to better understand their position in their own professional development and the skills they may need to progress towards inclusive practice through a problem-solving cycle. In this regard, they point out that the cycle is not linear or sequential, but rather encompasses dynamic and interactive processes. Furthermore, the guide in question offers rubrics with different skill levels on teaching competencies for both student teachers, practicing teachers, and school principals/inspectors. 

8. Equality: Making it Happen. A guide for help schools to make sure everyone is safe, included and learning [Igualdad: hacer que suceda. Una guía para ayudar a las escuelas a asegurarse de que todos estén seguros, incluidos y aprendiendo] (Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, 2015)

This is a practical, easy-to-use guide tohelp Primary and Secondary schools promote equality and ensure that all students feel safe, visible, and ultimately, learn to live together equally. 

The indicators on which the guide focuses are the following:disability(including learning difficulties), gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, culture/ethnicity, religion or beliefs, pregnancy and motherhood and socioeconomic background. Alongside these aspects, it also delves into learning environment, leadership, behaviour, wellbeing, achievement, learning about equality, diversity and human rights, British equality legislation, LGBTQ+ in education, disability equality in education, ethnic equality in educationandincreased achievement for all students. The materials include questionnaires for students, families, and teachers to monitor equality in the school.

Through practical examples of experiences in UK schools, the guide briefly covers topics related to inclusion. It presents specific case studies and explains how certain problems have been resolved or how barriers have been removed through dialogue processes and the use of, among other tools, the Index for Inclusion. The guide proposes reflective processes and support and consultation materials based on testimonies from practice. It contains a series of sections that address different content on equality in a simple way and includes examples of good practices and additional sources of information.

9. The IB guide to inclusive education: a resource for whole school development [La guía de educación inclusiva del ib: un recurso para el desarrollo de toda la escuela] (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2015)

by the Primary and Secondary Education association of international schoolsInternational Baccalaureate Organization(known as IB). The guide is aimed at principals, consultants, and support staff. First, it recognizes the important contextual nature of inclusion and admits that schools may be at different stages of development. Its main objective isto help schools structure and develop inclusive education practices.

The guide focuses its attention on community participation, inclusive policy, and the development of school policy for inclusion. The latter differs from the former in the use of a cycle of research, action, and reflection that sustains the development and review of the inclusion policy within the school itself. According to this resource, the creation of effective and inclusive schools depends on the creation of common understandings throughout the school community. Schools must consider how to include all members of the community through the following actions:creating optimal learning environments; the use of technology; the development of collaborative processes; inclusive approaches to learning; assessment, andvariability in teaching(differentiation and universal design for learning).

The proposal for carrying out improvement processes consists of a series of statements that reflect the ideals of inclusion with self-assessment questions. They are open-ended questions with no right or wrong answers. There are also no time recommendations, and schools should understand that the development of inclusive education is a long-term process. Likewise, it is emphasized that if a school decides to use the inclusive self-review process, it must be integrated into the school’s overall development initiatives and strategies. The review cycle must be supported by the IB’s research cycle, where research, action, and reflection involve the entire school community from a constructivist approach leading to open and democratic processes.

10. Diversity, equality and inclusion charter and guidelines for early childhood care and education [Carta de diversidad, igualdad e inclusión y pautas para el cuidado y la educación de la primera infancia] (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2016)

This guide is aimed at Early Childhood Education professionals and is revealing for its stance, which argues that inclusion and quality go hand in hand. It is pointed out that it is fundamental to support children in building positive identities, developing a sense of belonging, and realizing their potential. Furthermore, it is the only guide among all those presented here that discusses the concept of “funds of knowledge” and “multiple identities,” which seeks to respect the unique identity of children at birth and their role in the construction and reconstruction of personal meaning within their cultural contexts.

It reflects on different diversities such as cultural diversity, second language acquisition, gender, religious beliefs, and the communities of migrant families. On each of these topics, the visions that schools should have to respect diversity are presented, and a series of questions are provided to help educators reflect on these issues. It consists of two parts: the first mentions the Irish National Statute of (early childhood) inclusion, which aims to promote the values of diversity, equality, and inclusion. The second part contains guidelines for early childhood care and education, referring to knowledge and identity funds, an educational approach against bias, modification of the physical environment, support for families, and analysis of policy implementation and school leadership.

The proposed way to develop improvement in schools is divided into seven steps:decide who will develop; evaluate the current policy; generate a draft policyconsulting all stakeholders;share the draftwith staff, volunteers, and families; ratify the policy; implement the policy, and review the policy. 

11. Reaching Out All Learners. A Resource Pack for Supporting Inclusive Education [Alcanzando a todos los estudiantes. Un paquete de recursos para apoyar la educación inclusiva] (IBE and UNESCO, 2016)

This is a guide for trainers, educational administrators, teachers, and school management teams, for both Primary and Secondary education. To date, all the guides promoted by UNESCO that have been analyzed share similar theoretical assumptions. In this case, inclusion is considered a process related to the identification and elimination of barriers. Inclusion has three dimensions: presencia, participación y logro de todos los estudiantes. La inclusión implica un particular énfasis en aquellos grupos de aprendices que pueden estar en riesgo de marginación, exclusión y bajo logro. La forma en la que invita a reflexionar es a través de textos de distinta naturaleza: resúmenes, proyectos de investigación educativos, estudios de casos de escuelas, preguntas de discusión y actividades. 

La herramienta se organiza en tres secciones/subguías interconectadas, como se denomina en la publicación: una orientada a la política; otra a los centros educativos, y otra a las aulas. In each of them, school experiences from around the world, discussion topics, and activities are offered. 

In summary, it offers a framework of four dimensions (concepts, policy, structure, and practice) with indicators based on international educational research. 

Finally, it includes a scale composed of the aforementioned dimensions that allows schools to be evaluated generically. 

12. Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education (UNESCO, 2017) 

This guide is useful for teachers and management teams in Primary and Secondary education. Its content warns that inclusion is not only achieved by facilitating access to education, but also by providing quality learning spaces and pedagogies that allow students to thrive, understand their individual realities and differences as an opportunity to democratize and enrich learning. 

Furthermore, it presents concrete examples and offers a review framework with indicators to assess the progress level of each of them in four dimensions:concept; stated policies; structures and systems, and practices. Each dimension, in turn, has four defining characteristics that can serve as a self-assessment tool for systems, obtained from the previous publication by IBE and UNESCO (2016). 

This tool emphasizes the need for teachers to constantly renew and continue learning in order to develop inclusive education, and to this end, it establishes four core values that develop this teaching competence: valuing student diversity, seeing students’ differences as a resource and an asset for education; supporting all students, having high expectations for all students’ achievement; working with others, considering collaboration and teamwork as essential approaches, and continuous personal professional development, understanding teaching as a learning activity in which teaching staff must accept responsibility for their own ongoing training and updating. 

13. Themis Inclusion Tool [Herramienta de Inclusión Themis] (Azorín and Ainscow, 2018) 

This guide is aimed at management and teaching staff working in Primary and Secondary Education centres. Its structure is formed by three dimensions: contexts, resources and processes (inspired by Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model). The use of this tool promotes reflection on the contexts in which educational centers are immersed; the resources they have to attend to the diversity of students; and the processes (inclusive or not) that are carried out in this regard in schools.

The indicators it delves into are the following: socioeconomic situation; cultural diversity; educational policy; leadership; values; prevention of discrimination; teacher-student relationship; teacher collaboration; links between family and school; community participation; collaboration networks; formative, human, material, technological, physical, and community resources, celebration of diversity; teaching planning; educational process; varietymethodological; heterogeneity and flexibility of class groups; organization of spaces and times; supports; evaluation, and transition between educational stages. 

In this case, the steps it suggests for reviewing school practice are clearly influenced by the phases developed in the Index for Inclusion itself: initiate a reflection process in discussion groups that allows for thinking about the meaning and significance of inclusion shared by stakeholders and resolving possible contradictions; complete the questionnaire individually to compare this information with the data collected in the previous group phase; analyze the results and identify strengths and weaknesses, and select the lines of change indicating those priorities on which it is intended to advance for the implementation of improvement projects aimed at developing more inclusive practices. An example of its applicability in educational centers can be found in Azorín (2018a). 

6. Final Considerations 

As a closing remark, it should be noted that most of the guides reviewed emphasize the importance of learning from members of the educational community in a process of mutual learning and of a reflective nature in each educational context. In this direction, the work of Azorín and Ainscow (2018) advocates for the development of review instruments taking into account the particular contexts and the ideas of all people involved in the journey to inclusion. Therefore, schools and their educational communities are the protagonists of the changes that are not only planned in concrete classroom practices but also in their culture (values) and policies. However, we must be aware of the weight of representation that each agent has in these documents (in many of them, families and students are not mentioned). Likewise, we cannot be oblivious to conflicts and tensions of various kinds (personal, social, or professional) that may arise as a consequence of proposing changes in educational centers. Sometimes this involves, among other things, caring for professionals, ensuring they feel valued and participate in decisions that affect them. 

The analysis developed in this work provides evidence on the current state of the investigated topic, as well as information that may be useful in training and work processes in school contexts. After the review carried out, it can be affirmed that the different guides studied favor processes of support, advice, and accompaniment in action itself, which we have assumed as the path or journey towards inclusion. Undoubtedly, these types of resources help guide the direction of educational centers that seek to incorporate changes inside and outside the classrooms to move towards the development of more inclusive practices. Although it is easy to understand that when a school (especially its teaching staff, its families, and its students) does not share—each at their own level—certain inclusive values, we are facing a reality in which educational practices that welcome, respect, and value diversity will hardly be able to flourish. During the review of these guides, some points have been raised by those most vulnerable; the recognition of diversity and the responsibility to act to make rights effective (by removing existing barriers); as well as collaboration and cooperation to face challenges, which entails mutual trust and respect. We highlight the importance of recognition as a central value for the development of more inclusive education, bringing to mind Honnet’s (2010) thought to assume that the recognition of the other has been configured as a central dimension (and paradigm) of social justice. 

Undoubtedly, all these documents have been designed to open up reflection processes in schools, starting with a self-assessment or identification of needs through discussion techniques, visualization of ideal practices, questionnaires, and/or rubrics. Next, a second part is addressed, which seeks to resolve some factors susceptible to improvement. This is done in different ways, through real cases, examples of situations, testimonials, and research evidence. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the improvement proposals are intended for all students and not just for traditionally vulnerable groups. 

As in the review by Guirao and Arnaiz (2014), almost all the guides discussed originate from the Anglo-Saxon world, with the differences this entails, indicating the need to strengthen this line of research in our country, creating practical support for school communities to walk the inclusive path together. In parallel, emphasis must be placed on the need to use and disseminate the content of these types of resources in Spanish-speaking contexts, generating spaces for reflection and debate that contribute to the advancement of this non-negotiable pedagogical asset.

From reading these instruments, it can be concluded that the term inclusion has moved beyond the condition of access to education traditionally outlined in our legal frameworks, and seeks to provide quality learning spaces and pedagogies that allow students to thrive, understanding their individual realities and differences as an opportunity to democratize and enrich learning. In this regard, the UNESCO guide (2017) invites us to see differences not as problems to be solved, but as opportunities to democratize and enrich learning, a stance with which we fully agree.

In short, it could well be said that an education system can never be of quality if it maintains exclusionary mechanisms within itself. And given that, in fact, the levels of segregation, marginalization, and school failure (three core and interdependent dimensions of exclusion) remain high in education systems, it is not surprising that the goal of inclusive education has become, internationally as well, the way to refer to the path that all countries must undertake.

7. Bibliographical references

• Ainscow, M. (2015). Struggles for equity in education: The selected works of Mel Ainscow. London: Routledge.
• Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A. and Smith, R. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion.London: Routledge. 
• Azorín, C. (2016). The response to student diversity in the English context: a case study.Enseñanza and Teaching, 34 (2), 77-91. 
• Azorín, C. (2018a). Teacher perceptions of diversity management: proposals from practice for the improvement of inclusive education.Ensayos, Revista de la Facultad de Educación de Albacete, 33 (1), 173-188. 
• Azorín, C. (2018b). The journey towards inclusion: Exploring the response of teachers to the challenge of diversity in schools.Colombian Journal of Education,75, 39-58. 
• Azorín, C. and Ainscow, M. (2018). Guiding schools on their journey towards inclusion.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-19. 
• Azorín, C., Arnaiz, P. and Maquilón, J. J. (2017). Review of instruments for attention to diversity for quality inclusive education.Mexican Journal of Educational Research, 22 (75), 1021-1045. 
• Barbosa, J. W., Barbosa, J. C. and Rodríguez, M. (2013). Documentary review and analysis for state of the art: a methodological proposal from the context of the systematization of educational experiences.Bibliotecological Research,27 (61), 83-105. 
• Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2011).Index for Inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools.Bristol: CSIE. 
• Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2015). A Guide to Inclusive Education. Developing learning and participation in schools. Madrid: Fuhem-OEI. 
• Booth, T., Simón, C., Sandoval, C., Echeita, G. and Muñoz, Y. (2015). A Guide to Inclusive Education. Promoting learning and participation in schools: New revised and expanded edition. Iberoamerican Journal of Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 13 (3), 5-19. 
• British Council (2010). Inclusion and diversity in education. Guidelines for inclusion and diversity in schools. Madrid: British Council. 
• Council of Europe (2015). Tool to Upgrade teacher education practices for inclusive education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 
• CSIE (2015). Equality: Making it happen. A guide for schools to make sure everyone is safe, included and learning. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. 
• Department of Children and Youth Affairs(2016). Diversity, equality and inclusion charter and guidelines for early childhood care and education. Dublin: Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. 
• Echeita, G. (2006). Inclusive education or education without exclusions. Madrid: Narcea. 
• Echeita, G. (2017). Inclusive education. Smiles and tears. Open Classroom, 46, 17-24. 
• Education Scotland (2015). How good is our school? Livingston: Education Scotland. 
• Escudero, J. M. (2012). Inclusive education, a matter of right. Educatio Siglo XXI, 30 (2), 109-128. 
• Fernández, F. (2002). Content analysis as a methodological aid for research. Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (96), 35-53. 
• Florian, L. and Beaton, M. (2017). Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-15. 
• Göransson, K. and Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education.European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (3), 265-280. 
• Guirao, J. M. and Arnaiz, P. (2014). Instruments for self-assessment and improvement of attention to diversity in educational centers. Siglo Cero, 45 (4), 22-47. 
• Guirao-Goris, J. A., Olmedo, A. and Ferrer, E. (2008). The review article. Revista Iberoamericana de Enfermería Comunitaria, 1, 1-16. 
• Honneth, A. (2010). Work and recognition: a redefinition. In H. C. Schmidt, A. M. Bush and C. F. Zurn (Eds.), The philosophy of recognition: historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 223-240). Plymouth: Lexington Books. 
• IBE and UNESCO (2016). Reaching out all learners. A Resource Pack for Supporting Inclusive Education. Geneva: IBE-UNESCO. 
• International Baccalaureate Organization (2016). Learning diversity and inclusion in IBprogrammes. Geneva: International Baccalaureate Organization. 
• López, F. (2002). Content analysis as a research method. XXI, Journal of Education, 4, 167-179. 
• López-Vélez, A. L. (2018). The inclusive school: the right to equity and educational excellence. University of the Basque Country: Editorial Service of the University of the Basque Country. 
• Loreto, M., López, M., and Assaél, J. (2015). Teacher conceptions for responding to diversity: Barriers or resources for inclusive education? Psicoperspectivas. Individual and Society, 14 (3), 68-79. 
• Marchesi, A. and Martín, E. (2014). Quality of teaching in times of crisis. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. 
• Messiou, K. (2012). Confronting marginalisation in education. A Framework for promoting inclusion. London: Routledge. 
• Messiou, K. (2017). A Research in the field of inclusive education: Time for a rethink? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21 (2), 146-159. 
• Messiou, K. and Ainscow, M. (2015). Responding to learner diversity: student views as a catalyst for powerful teacher development? Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 246-255. 
• Miles, S. and Ainscow, M. (2011). Responding to diversity in schools. An inquiry-based approach. London: Routledge. 
• Muntaner, J. J. (2016). Evaluation and quality in inclusive education. In I. E. Ramírez (Ed.), Voices of inclusion. Interpellations and critiques of the idea of school “inclusion” (pp. 400-430). Buenos Aires: Praxis Editorial. 
• Murillo, J. and Hernández, R. (2011). Towards a concept of social justice. Iberoamerican Journal of Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 9 (4), 8-23. 
• New Brunswick Association for Community Living (2011). Creating an inclusive school. Indicators of success. A reflection tool for administrators, educators and other school staff. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
• New Zealand Ministry of Education (2014). Inclusive practice in secondary schools. Ideas for school leaders. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
• Nguyen, X. T. (2015). The journey to inclusion. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• OECD (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD pisa global competence framework. Paris: oecd. 
• Peña, T. and Pirela, J. (2007). The complexity of document analysis. Information, Culture and Society, 16, 55-81. 
• PuigRovira, J. M., Doménech, I., Gijón, M., Martín, X., Rubio, L. and Trilla, J. (2012). Moral culture and education. Barcelona: Graó. 
• Rojas, I. R. (2011). Elements for the design of research techniques: a proposal for definitions and procedures in scientific research. Tiempo de Educar, 12 (24), 227-297. 
• Simón, C., Echeita, G. and Sandoval, M. (2018). Incorporating students’ voices in the “Lesson Study” as a teacher-training and improvement strategy for inclusion. Culture and Education, 30 (1), 205-225.
• Simón, C., Sandoval, M. and Echeita, G. (2017). The inclusion journey: Lessons learned from the spanish schools. Copenhagen: European Conference on Educational Research. 
• Slee, R. (2013). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17 (8), 895-907. 
• The Alberta Teachers’ Association (2015). Coaching to support inclusion: a principal’s guide. Edmonton: The Alberta Teachers’ Association. 
• UNESCO (2015a). Education 2030. Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action. Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO. 
• UNESCO (2015b). Embracing Diversity: Toolkit for Creating Inclusive, Learning-Friendly Environments. Paris: UNESCO. 
• UNESCO (2017) Guide to ensure inclusion and equity in education. Paris: UNESCO.

La entrada Support for advancing towards more inclusive education in schools: analysis of guides for action se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

Received: 01.15.2017. Accepted: 02.15.2017. ISSN: 0210-2773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.46.2017.17-24

ABSTRACT. This article analyzes the global meaning of the right to inclusive education, which is formally established internationally. Following some basic questions about this issue and their respective answers, the analysis is structured around the meaning, dimensions, and dilemmas faced today by the educational agents responsible for implementing it, particularly in Spain, although many of them are similar in other parts of the world. The flagrant contradiction between what is stated in the regulations and what actually happens in many educational centers, “between what is said and what is done,” generates enormous tensions and emotional distress that negatively affect many vulnerable students and their families.

KEYWORDS: inclusive education, right, dilemmas, contradictions.

ABSTRACT. This paper discusses the overall meaning which has the inclusive education that internationally is formally established. The analysis of the dimensions regarding inclusive education, besides the dilemmas faced by educational stakeholders responsible for implementing, its organised trough some basic questions and their answer. This analysis is relevant for the Spanish context but also in other countries around de world. The big gap among theory and practices, create enormous tensions and emotional tears that affect very negatively to many vulnerable students and their families.

KEYWORDS: inclusive education, rigths, dilemmas, contradictions.

1. Introduction

Estamos de lleno en el proceso de analizar y debatir en el Congreso de los Diputados y fuera de él, una nueva ley de educación en nuestro país. En este texto presento lo fundamental de la comparecencia que he podido realizar ante la Subcomisión del parlamento que está organizando los trabajos preparatorios para dicho proyecto de ley.

Mi aportación a ese debate se ha centrado en la tarea de señalar la importancia de que la nueva ley de educación responda al compromiso inequívoca y al desafío de tratar de garantizar la equidad educativa, condición necesaria para conseguir, con y por ello, que la educación escolar sea más inclusiva.

Comparto con otros colegas, dentro y fuera de nuestro país (Ainscow, 2016; Echeita, Martín, Simón and Sandoval, 2016, talking about “inclusive education” is nothing more thana perspective from which to analyze the challenges of equity in school education and, therefore, an aspiration embedded in that general principle. In any case, what is clear is that this aspiration for greater equity will not be achieved without countries fulfilling themandate they have received for their education systems to beinclusive.

And I speak of “mandate” not in rhetorical terms, but because that is the commitment formally acquired and undertaken by Spain before several international bodies. The first is before UNESCO, to which we must recognize its role in pointing out the horizon towards which the educational policies of the “Member States” should be oriented. In this regard, I will highlight two unavoidable recent references: what was agreed at the 48th Session of the International Conference on Education promoted by UNESCO/IBE (2008), with the eloquent title: “Inclusive education: the way forward”. The second (UNESCO et al., 2016), the so-called The Incheon Declaration and its Framework for Action for the realization of Sustainable Development Goal 4, by the year 2030, which again has a title relevant to our topic: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

As I will try to explain, inclusive education is not an aspiration that refers exclusively to a specific student population, particularly that of children (and also young people and adults) with disabilities or with learning difficulties of any kind. It is a goal that seeks to help transform educational systems so that ALL students, without restrictions, limitations, or euphemisms regarding that ‘ALL’, have comparable quality opportunities for the full development of their personality, the ultimate aim of all educational systems. However, it is evident, at the same time, that students with specific educational support needs (following the categorization established in the LOMCE), are at greater risk of segregation, marginalization, or school failure, and therefore, it is only fair to pay special attention to ensuring their rights are not relegated.

Within this framework, the “States parties” have also received the mandate from the Committee responsible within the United Nations system for monitoring the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006), ratified by Spain in 2008, to ensure the full fulfillment of the “right to inclusive education” (Art. 24 of the Convention). To facilitate the task of sharing a common frame of reference for what is understood as inclusive education, the Committee responsible for monitoring this Convention has developed a General Comment (No. 4) (UN, 2016), which explains and details the meaning and scope of this right for signatory countries, with the added value of being an authoritative and legitimate interpretation.

This commitment, acquired by signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is a very relevant fact, because it could well be said that it changes the status of this concern; from being understood as a well-intentioned and applicable principle, let’s say, “as far as reasonably possible”, it is now a right, with all its legal and social force (Campoy, 2007; Lema, 2009), and for which the judicial system can and should be invoked, something that organizations such as the Gerard Foundation(1) or Solcom(2) are already doing.

This rights-based perspective confers a very relevant nuance on the analyses that concern us, which should not be overlooked, because if proposals contrary to the meaning of this right to inclusive education were to be made in the law, they could well be considered as direct or indirect acts of discrimination (Lema, 2009).

Finally, and within the framework of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, promoted again by the United Nations (2016) with the hope that “countries and citizens of the world will embark on a new path to improve the lives of people everywhere”, it should be highlighted that, as has already been pointed out, Goal 4 once again emphasizes the strategic importance of working towards: “Ensure inclusive, equitable and quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

Given these freely adopted commitments, it seems clear that we need to question the meaning, scope, and implications of the approach we must take to schooling for it to be “inclusive,” and which the new education law being prepared cannot ignore.

From now on, I will structure this text around some basic questions, the answers to which I believe can help clarify why, and about whom we are talking when we discuss inclusive education, and to better understand the arguments that lead us towards it, as well as its nature and some of the enormous challenges its implementation poses to us all. I anticipate that the most substantive and important aspect of all these questions/answers about inclusive education is that we are dealing with a political matter concerning the kind of society we want to live in (Echeita, 2013; Slee, 2012).

And in relation to that social project, a dimension that is undoubtedly very relevant has to do with Alain Touraine’s (2005) question, “Can we live together?” which we must complement with equally uncomfortable questions: How do we want to do it? In a way that guarantees equity and respect for human diversity within a shared framework of rights and duties? Or by looking indifferently away from the unjust inequalities so often associated with factors such as gender, social origin, ability, sexual orientation, or the place where one lives? Depending on how clear and forceful (or ambiguous) the answer given by society to these questions is, so will be the clear and forceful (or ambiguous) mandate received by “the school” (in a broad sense of the term), and other educational agents, to ensure their educational action is consistent with the indicated social horizon.

I don’t think anyone will be surprised if I say that the mandate received by “the school” until very recently was not that of those who wanted an inclusive society, but rather that of those who have wanted and benefited from a stratified, segregated, and unequal society. However, in light of some recent political events (elections in the U.S., Holland, France…), everything suggests that we are not just talking about the “past,” but also about a very disturbing present.

2. Why do we talk about inclusive education?

The adjective inclusive added to the noun education (Jarque, 2016) tells us that we must work to ensure that the schooling we currently have – heir to ways of thinking and valuing student diversity in terms of exclusionary and hierarchical categories; boys and girls, good and bad students, capable and disabled, white and Roma, native and migrant, “normal and strange”… (Ballard, 2012; Echeita, Simón, López and Urbina, 2014) – is NOT capable of responding equitably with regard to three major tasks:

• First, to welcome ALL students, regardless of their educational needs—because, unless stated otherwise, we all have equal dignity and the right to be and share the common spaces where citizenship is built—.
• Second, to make EVERYONE feel recognized, active participants, and people loved and valued by their peers and their teachers. It happens that when schools today welcome many of those who have been outside for a long time (for example, a good portion of children with disabilities), they do not offer all of them equal opportunities to, in effect, be loved and valued for who they are (not for their proximity or distance from a certain pattern of normality); so that they can build a positive identity and not one that is “deficient” or of lesser value, and so that they feel part of a group and have meaningful friendships and social relationships, thereby warding off the risk of marginalization or, worse still, mistreatment by their peers (Calderón, 2014; Fernández Enguita, Gaete, and Terrén, 2008).
• And third, we talk about inclusive education because the education we see developing daily in educational centers (from early childhood to university) does NOT have enough varied and diversified strategies, organizational forms, and ways of teaching and evaluating (Echeita, Simón, and Sandoval, 2014) to allow ALL students to learn at the highest possible level and performance, and in a personalized way (Coll, 2016), thus moving away from the scourge of high rates of “school and educational failure” that today affects, in some contexts, more than a quarter of the student population (Escudero and Martínez, 2012).

The enormous challenge that inclusive education poses, then, is to equitably articulate for ALL students the three dimensions referred to: accessing or being present in common/mainstream spaces where everyone should be educated; participating, coexisting, and having well-being in accordance with the dignity of every human being; and finally, learning and progressing in the acquisition of basic competencies necessary to achieve a quality adult life, leaving no one behind for personal or social, individual or group reasons.

In short, we need to emphasize the adjective “inclusive” because, without downplaying the progress that has been made, we still have a very exclusionary school system in the form of segregation, marginalization, and/or school failure for many students throughout their educational process.

It could well be said that this adjective is just one more – let’s say “the second to last” for now – of those we have been adding to “education” in itself, as our social ambitions have grown stronger and new social challenges have emerged. Another adjective our education needs, for example, is to contribute to the environmental sustainability of our planet (Echeita and Navarro, 2014; Ecologistas en Acción/MRPs, 2015).

3. Who are we talking about when we talk about inclusive education?

Almost from the beginning, I have anticipated the answer to this question: we are talking about ALL students, without exclusions, restrictions, or euphemisms. That is, we do not talk about ALL to refer to the majority or almost all, but rather it is an absolute ALL: but do you also mean those students who have broad and extensive support needs for their personal and social development? Also, for example, students with intellectual or developmental disabilities? Yes, them too. Or are they perhaps people whom we should not consider with equal dignity and rights as the rest? (Urien, 2017). Is it written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that they are not? No, and that is what, as I pointed out at the beginning, has been ratified by theConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(UN, 2006). It is crucial to remember that we are talking about ALL students being necessary to prevent, first and foremost, the risk of continuing with educational policies, like many of the current ones, whose equity actions are based on categorizing vulnerable students, focusing only on them and on the schools where compensatory actions and resources are mostly allocated. Incidentally, this is a very common way of thinking in other policies that seek to reduce exclusion. For example, in the labor field (Castell, 2004).

However, it is evident that we are facing a more than difficult process of educational (and social) transformation that will take time and require great effort. It should not surprise us, then, that those who have most acutely and harshly experienced processes of segregation, marginalization, and poor/little learning are the first to demand inclusive policies and practices for themselves. This is undoubtedly the case for persons with disabilities (Campoy, 2013), who have made the banner of (educational, social, labor) inclusion their emblem and leitmotif(3).

These analyses should serve to highlight the need not to identify the international movement and the challenges towards a more inclusive education as solely belonging to that specific group or set of students that, under current legislation in Spain, we recognize as students withspecial educational needs.

Doing so would be as inadequate, unjust, and unproductive as leaving them in the background again because we are talking about ALL students, or because there are other equally vulnerable students who are more numerous (for example, students living in impoverished social contexts), or because their reality is more concerning given the social repercussions associated with their failure/dropout from school (delinquency, drug abuse, marginality…).

4. What are the main challenges for the development of the right to inclusive education?

Adopting a rights-based perspective in inclusive education necessarily means working to achieve the conditions that make its enjoyment possible. Otherwise, what is effectively done is to deny the effective exercise of these rights. These school conditions are not, and cannot be, the ones that have existed in the “school grammar” of our education system (Echeita, Simón, Sandoval, 2016; Simón, et al., 2016). Therefore, the main challenge, in my opinion, that must be undertaken within the framework of the new law is to create the conditions for educational centers to be capable ofinitiating and sustaining systemic processes of educational improvement and innovation.to move inclusive education from the realm of wishes to the reality of classrooms.

For educational centers, this collective endeavor has two non-negotiable tasks behind it:

• Firstly, to recognize the multiple barriers (a set of factors that limit or can limit the presence, learning, and participation of students) that currently exist in educational cultures, policies, and practices (derived from old ways of thinking and acting, Echeita, Simón, López, and Urbina, 2014). Centers should be called upon to deeply review their educational projects and institutional programs through the lens of this analysis.
  
• The second task is to transform these barriers into facilitators, on these same levels, of an educational action capable of personalizing teaching, adapting to student diversity, and responding equitably to their educational needs and aspirations. This requires knowledge not only about what to do (Coll, 2016), strictly speaking, but also about how to implement the necessary changes, that is, about how to initiate and sustain (in the long term) the required educational changes, a body of knowledge that is articulated around research on the effectiveness of school improvement (Murillo, Krichesky, 2012; Murillo, Krichesky, 2015).

The important thing is that today we have the knowledge, experience, and capacity to carry out these two tasks and, in fact, the specialized literature is full of rigorous knowledge to guide us in this process. Two examples will suffice;Booth, and Ainscow, (2015) and UNESCO/BIE (2016). These are insights that converge on a key idea: it is possible to do so. There are educational administrations, schools, and teachers who have been able to get started and begin to travel the path that lies between their ambitions and their reality. They are not perfect, nor are they eternally so or in all circumstances, but neither are they anecdotal.

But we also know that knowing is not enough. Indeed, the truth is that we have knowledge, but what is not clear is whether we have sufficient political will (at the different levels; national, regional, and local where it is distributed) to mobilize the available knowledge and to confront the multiple turbulences and resistances that this process will generate in established educational systems.

The systemic nature of this process alerts us to the need to generate many conditions and policies that must align coherently for progress to be made towards the stated goal; conditions and policies regarding funding, infrastructure (not least, in relation to the accessibility of physical and virtual spaces); regarding curriculum review (less overloaded with content and more mindful that what is considered essential contributes to the development of all intelligences/competencies that should be taught and not just some); regarding the organization of teaching – in tasks as sensitive as the transition processes between stages or the criteria for promotion and certification, if the latter were essential, which not everyone defends (4) – etc.

I am not in a position to analyze them all, but I can emphasize some essential ones:

• Establish a shared vision, strongly rooted in a clear set of inclusive educational values and principles (Booth, 2006; Booth and Ainscow, 2015; Escudero, 2006; Extebarría, 2005):
  • The intrinsic dignity of every human being above the differences that shape our diversity.
  • The justice that guards against discrimination and unequal treatment.
  • The beneficent action: “to seek the good of those for whom I feel responsible and the care, in particular, of the most vulnerable.”
  • The responsibility, to undertake the changes or improvements that reduce injustices and promote desired values.
• To extend a strong capacity among all members of the educational community to reflect on the “systems of practices” in which shared values should be rooted and which, therefore, sustain the “moral cultures” that could well be called inclusive (Puig Rovira et al., 2012).
• To develop solid school leadership in which three basic dimensions converge:
  • a pedagogical leadership, a distributed leadership and a leadership for social justice (Bolívar, López, and Murillo, 2013). Leadership that, ultimately, allows for the creation and maintenance of the internal conditions that support inclusive cultures (Murillo, Krichesky, Castro, and Hernández, 2010).
• Building strong and consistent cultures, policies, and collaborative practicess a varios niveles; dentro del centro escolar y entre centros escolares; entre el profesorado y entre el alumnado, y entre unos y otros con las familias y el contexto local (Ainscow y West, 2008).
• Formar desde el inicio a todo el profesorado con una firme convicción de que “la capacidad de aprender de todos sus estudiantes puede cambiar y ser cambiada a mejor como resultado de lo que él/ella puede hacer en el presente” (Hart et al., 2004).
  • Es la concepción “transformadora” de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje, opuesta a la visión determinista que se traduce en una concepción sobre la capacidad de aprendizaje condicionada genéticamente y que se refleja en el C.I. de cada estudiante.
• Garantizar que todo el profesorado (tanto el que esté llamado a enseñar en educación infantil, como en educación primaria y en educación secundaria), egrese de su formación inicial, con las competencias necesarias para sentirse y desempeñarse como profesor o profesora de todo el alumnado, algo que no parece que estemos consiguiendo a pesar de las reformas recientes en sus planes de formación (Echeita, 2012; Izusquiza, Echeita, y Simón, 2015).
• Una formación inicial y permanente que debe servir para afianzar las competencias emocionales propias de un profesorado empático that knows and wants to listen to its students, who trusts in their ability to get involved in their learning process and in their ability to tell us plainly what makes them feel bad and not learn (Vaello, 2009; Susinos and Ceballos, 2012).
• Learning to implement an institutional development that is well thought out and planned that, therefore, can be sustainable over time and capable of withstanding the innumerable turbulences of a process constantly threatened and, in any case, subject to the changing circumstances of its own “ecosystem”: the socioeconomic crisis, the lack of resources and support, demoralization. (Ainscow, Dyson, West and Goldrick, 2013).

These conditions, in particular, are not a “miracle” that some schools receive and others do not, or “personal qualities” that some teachers have by chance. All of them are capacities that can be learned and accessible to most teachers through continuous training, advice, and institutional support. I have no doubt that if the new law does not prioritize these actions of permanent training, psychopedagogical advice, and support for schools in their improvement and innovation processes, we will once again face the frustration of seeing some good intentions unfulfilled. A frustration that, moreover, is quite common on all five continents (Artiles, Kokleski, and Waitoller, 2015).

Certainly, implementing these types ofsupport policies for improvementis costly and quite difficult when, at the same time, it is very easy to turn thevictimsof its absence —that is, the “bad students” that Marchesi (2004) spoke of— into culprits for their misbehavior, marginalization, or school failure.

5. Collaboration and support to generate hope.

I believe that throughout this text, I have not stopped pointing out at opportune moments that this great challenge of moving towards aeducación más inclusiva, es un proceso complejo, éticamente controvertido, difícil y cuajado de dilemas. Soy idealista respecto a la meta que perseguimos, pero vivo con los pies en la tierra y conozco bien las turbulencias y dificultades que este proceso acarrea.

Por ello, comparto plenamente con otros autores que el principal ingrediente en estas circunstancias, para no sucumbir al desaliento que estas dificultades acarrean, es emocional. No es otro que construir colectivamente un fuerte sentido de esperanza. Pero entendida esta no como un sentimiento melifluo de que “las cosas, tarde o temprano, irán bien”, sino como la capacidad de “no entrar en pánico ante tales dificultades” (Fullan, 2001). Y esa emoción se construye sobre la base de una fuerte cultura colaborativa al interior de los centros escolares, entre los centros escolares y de estos con su comunidad local. Esta es una de las condiciones que anteriormente he señalado y sobre la que creo necesario decir algo más.

Esa cultura colaborativa se construye con políticas y prácticas de muy distinto tipo. Ya es un tópico (pero no tanto una realidad generalizada), hablar de la importancia del trabajo cooperativo entre el alumnado. Una colaboración y apoyo entre el alumnado que se debe construir con conocimiento y paciencia, que admite muchos formats (cooperative groups, peer tutoring, interactive groups, student mediators, …) and which does not tolerate improvisations or sudden impulses from one-off actions that are not sustained over time (Pujolas, Lago and Naranjo, 2013; Topping, Buchs, Duran and Van Keer, 2017).

Less common, but no less important, are the strategies of collaboration and mutual support among teachers when, however, we know well the role that, for example, strategies known as lesson study (“lessons study”) can play in designing and implementing inclusive educational practices (Messiou, et al., 2016).

Finally, and without intending to be exhaustive in this regard, it is obvious that families are a thread and a central knot in weaving this collaborative culture. A great deal of emotional intelligence and clear models of relationships with families are needed for them to become the main ally of teaching teams when initiating and sustaining inclusive educational projects (Simón, Giné and Echeita, 2016).

Reinforce this collaborative culture within schools and networking between schools and between them and their educational and local community (Parrilla, Núñez and Sierra, 2013), is called to be a critical strategy in this process. What is also clear to me is that this collaborative culture clashes with the growing trends to stimulate competitiveness between schools (as between Autonomous Communities or countries) through the ill-suited role that national and international performance evaluations are playing. I believe it is possible to combine accountability with policies of collaboration and networking that facilitate the improvement of equity. The work developed by Professor Mel Ainscow, through the “Great Manchester” project is an inspiring policy from which much can be learned (Ainscow, 2016).

6. Dilemmas and setbacks in inclusive education

From what has been said so far, one might deduce a, to some extent, positive assessment of the development of inclusive education in our country. Above all, we have seen that inclusive education has gone from being a principle to a right, and this change in status will ultimately be a determining factor for the better.

There is no doubt that, on the other hand, many schools throughout the country have been adopting more inclusive policies and practices, showing through their daily work that, as I said before, it is possible to do it.

And there is no doubt that, for example, in terms of presence in mainstream schools of the most vulnerable students, more than significant progress has been made: almost no child is left unschooled today and has learning opportunities from age 3 to 16/18; there are no longer segregated schools for girls, nor for Roma boys and girls or those who come from other countries, and among those students considered to have special educational needs, whose usual destination was to be schooled in segregated centers (Special Education Classrooms or Schools, CEE), today the rates ofschool inclusionstand, on average, around 70/80%, although it is true that with significant variability between Autonomous Communities (MECD, 2015).

If we consider that, in Germany, for example, or in the Netherlands, these same students are still mostly schooled in Special Schools, it would be unfair not to recognize these facts as positive. It is true that situations of bullying among peers continue to resist diminishing, but also that “the values of a sense of belonging to the educational center among Spanish students are the highest of all countries participating in PISA” (5).

Someone might say, then, that we have reasons to smile. But I believe that we also have many reasons for concern and, above all, some families, in particular—guarantors of their children’s rights—have nothing to celebrate and much to demand and lament (Doménech, 2017).

Someone said of love that “if it doesn’t grow, it shrinks”. Perhaps the same can be said of the commitment to more inclusive education. And at this moment, my impression is that decrece. Decrece porque no crecen (más bien están ausentes o son muy débiles), las políticas de las administraciones dirigidas a promover, financiar, acompañar y sostener los amplios y sistémicos procesos de mejora escolar e innovación educativa de los que precisa, sí o sí, el desarrollo de una educación inclusiva.

Sin estos, solo cabe esperar que los centros que se incorporen a este compromiso lo hagan con proyectos educativos inclusivos incompletos, débiles y, a la larga, fallidos. Centros que, como ya ocurre en la actualidad, se comprometen con “la inclusión” de algunos, pero no con la de otros alumnos o alumnas por ser “especiales” o porque sus necesidades educativas requieren de complejos apoyos; centros que “incluyen” en educación infantil y primaria, pero que luego “invitan”, sic, a buena parte de ese mismo alumnado a marchar cuando llega la temida secundaria (Doménech, 2017). O centros de secundaria donde esos alumnos y alumnas más vulnerables, están viviendo auténticas situaciones de marginación y, en el mejor de los casos, aprendiendo poco.

Y como la capacidad de respuesta inclusiva de los centros no mejora, lo que aumenta es la proliferación de normas, medidas, dispositivos y centros especiales, más o menos segregadores y excluyentes; para “atender a la diversidad”, como eufemísticamente se denominan. Y si llegado el caso, alguno de estos “dispositivos” funciona bien y ofrecen una respuesta educativa digna y aceptable, o en su caso una “segunda oportunidad” (AA. VV, 2017) para entrar al mundo adulto y laboral con menos riesgo, entonces hacen, a la larga, un flaco favor a la mejora de la equidad en los centros ordinarios, pues estos dejan de sentir la presión para el cambio y, además, pueden justificar que no es necesario ese esfuerzo porque objetivamente es en esos dispositivos/grupos/aulas/centros “especiales” o de “second chance” (E2O) where these students learn and are emotionally better, which is, in many cases, true, at least during that time of schooling.

Within this panorama, many families of these students suffer and face a moral dilemma that emotionally burns them, particularly in the cases of students we consider withspecial educational needs. A case in point:

We will be invisible. (Published on February 15, 2017 in El Margen)Areswill leave mainstream school at the end of the term, if we manage to get a place at the Special Education Center we want.

We believe in inclusion, but inclusion doesn’t believe in us. We have rights-guaranteeing laws with exclusionary budgets that automatically turn the laws into exclusionary ones. We have goodwill, desire, enthusiasm, but often everything else is missing. And everything else, often, is too much.

We believe in inclusion, but not at any cost. We believe in inclusion if everyone (society, school, laws, budgets, people …) rows in the same direction: that of including those who are already here, even if they are different.

We are leaving mainstream education with conviction, though sadly. Sadly because the system, for children with the difficulties Ares has, includes you with one hand, while showing you the exit door with the other.

Ares will disappear from his environment. The one that belongs to him. He will stop learning some things and teaching many more to those around him. The system will achieve greater uniformity. And make us invisible. (In El Margen. Blog: https://enelmargenn.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/sere-mos-invisibles/)

As Ares’ family rightly reflects, they, like others, had rejoiced at the news that their children had the right to quality inclusive education. They have likely attended a conference, congress, or seminar on the topic, where someone, perhaps like me, explained and broke down what that right means, making them feel that their child’s future could be hopeful. But the truth is that it is not for many (although it has been for others).

And now many of them don’t know what to do, and some of us don’t know what to tell them. Should they remain in mainstream schools where a quality educational response tailored to their children’s specific needs is not being provided? Should they withdraw to a special education center where they might, at least, be calmer and better “attended” provisionally? Should they fight for their rights or resign themselves to the situation, knowing, in any case, that “legal battles are costly in time and money” and that time passes without waiting for the resolution of these dilemmas? Should they think about their “childhood today” or their “future as adult citizens,” in a society that wishes it were inclusive?

I understand that some of these families may reproach us academics for not deeply engaging with their children’s present, while, on the other hand, we make their concerns and aspirations the content of our future proposals through our research and publications.

But we also know that change processes take a long time, and while they arrive with some solidity (if they arrive!), the poor conditions for the schooling of some students (whose personal characteristics are particularly challenging in relation to the “existing school grammar”) would generate continuous distress for them, their teachers, and their classmates, whose rights also cannot be forgotten. One understands that even those responsible for educational policies committed to this goal may be fearful of more inclusive proposals.

Something similar happens to some guidance counselors who work particularly in the early intervention, preschool, and primary education stages; they know they are participants in a process of discrimination (the one that obliges them by mandate of established norms to prepare reports and schooling assessments through which some students are referred to Special Education Centers), something that is contrary to what is established in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and also to their convictions and their professional code of ethics. Obviously, others live without worries, settled in their old guidance models and practices, and this tension doesn’t even faze them.

I am not very clear on what to do and I also feel stunned by these dilemmas. But I am clear that all of us, not just as educators but as citizens, should be informed of the contradiction of having established with all the rigor of the law a right of great significance for society (the right to inclusive education) and then knowing that not only is it not being met, but we could be at clear risk of going backward and turning it into charity or “a discard”:

“2. m. Thing that, due to being used or for any other reason, is not useful to the person for whom it was made.” (RAE Dictionary).

Have we gone too far in trying to bring the dream of inclusive education closer to our classrooms, particularly in secondary education centers? Should we recalibrate this goal? That is, inclusive education. Should it only be a limited aspiration for some of the many vulnerable students, for some time, in some schools that are voluntarily willing to do so, and obviously, in some rich countries?

Shall we tell the families who are fighting a vital battle for their children’s right to inclusive education that their fight is “utopian” and that they should resign themselves to the situation of oppression and disadvantage they have had to live through?

Inclusive education; smiles and tears.

7. Notes

1. Gerard Foundation: http://www.fundaciogerard.org/
2. Solcom; https://asociacionsolcom.org/
3. See the case, for example, of the associative movement of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, initially (1964) grouped around the acronym FEAPS (National Federation of Associations for Subnormals) and currently (since 2016), under the slogan Plena Inclusión: http://www.plenainclusion.org/.
4. See Julio Carabaña’s opinion on the matter: http://eldiariodelaeducacion.com/blog/2017/05/16/julio-carabana-defiende-la-eliminacion-del-titulo-de-eso/.
5. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA2015-Students-Well-being-Country-note-Spain-Spanish.pdf.

8. References

• AA. VV. (2017) Second chance schools. Topic of the month. Notebooks of Pedagogy, 478, 46-79.
• Ainscow, M. (2016). Struggles for Equity in Education. London. Routledge.
• Ainscow, M, Dyson, A., West, M. and Goldrick, S. (2013). Promoting equity in school. Journal of Educational Research. Monographic issue, 11(3), 44-56.
• Ainscow, M. and West, M. (2008). Improving urban schools. Leadership and collaboration. Madrid: Narcea.
• IBE/UNESCO (2016). Reaching Out to All Learners: a Resource Pack for Supporting Inclusive Education. Geneva: IBE/UNESCO.
• Bolívar, A, López, Y, and Murillo, J. (2013). Leadership in educational institutions. A review of research lines. Revista Fuentes, 14, 15-60.
• Booth, T. (2006). Keeping the future alive; turning the values of inclusion into actions. In M.A. Verdugo and F.B. Jordán de Urríes (Coords.), Breaking inertia. Keys to moving forward. (pp. 211-217). Salamanca: Amarú.
• Booth, T. and Ainscow. M. (2015). Guide to Inclusive Education. Developing learning and participation in schools.Madrid: OEI/FUHEM.
• Calderón, I. (2014). Education and hope at the borders of disability. Madrid: CERMI.
• Campoy, I (2007). The education of children in the discourse of human rights. In, I. Campoy (Ed).Children’s rights: legal and philosophical perspectives, (pp.149-201). Madrid: Dykinson.
• Campoy, I. (2013). Study on the situation of children with disabilities in Spain. Madrid: UNICEF.
• Castel, R. (2004). Framing exclusion. In S. Karsz (2004). Exclusion: bordering its frontiers. Definitions and nuances (pp. 57- 58), Barcelona: Gedisa.
• Col, C. (2013). School curriculum in the new learning ecology. Aula de Innovación, 219, 31-36.
• Coll, C. (2016). Personalizing school learning. The what, the why, and the how of an unavoidable challenge. In J.M. Vilalta (Ed.). Challenges of education in Catalonia. Education Yearbook 2015. (pp. 36- ) Barcelona: Jaume Bofill Foundation. Translated by Iris Merino.
• Doménech, A. (2017). Navigating barriers towards inclusion: A life story. Castellón: Unpublished doctoral thesis. Faculty of Human and Social Sciences. Jaume I University.
• Echeita, G. (2012). Essential competencies in the initial training of inclusive teachers. A project of the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education and Inclusive Education. Tendencias Pedagógicas, 19, 7-24.
• Echeita, G. (2013). Inclusion and educational exclusion. Once again, “voice and brokenness”. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 11(2), 99-118.
• Echeita, G.; Simón, C.; López, M., and Urbina, C. (2013). Inclusive education. Reference systems, coordinates and vertices of a dilemmatic process. In M.A. Verdugo and R. Shalock (Coordinators). Disability and inclusion. Manual for teaching. (pp. 307-328). Salamanca: Amaru.
• Echeita, G. and Navarro. D. (2014). Inclusive education and sustainable development. An urgent call to think them together. EDETANIA 46, 141-161.
• Echeita, G. Simón, C. and Sandoval, M. (2016). Notes for an inclusive pedagogy in the classroom. In, Proceedings of the IV Ibero-American Congress on Down Syndrome. Salamanca: INICO.
• Ecologists in Action and MRPs (2015). 99 questions and 99 experiences to learn to live in a just and sustainable world. Madrid: MRPs and Ecologists in Action.
• Etxeberria, X. (2005). An ethical approach to disability. Bilbao. University of Deusto Editions.
• Escudero, R. (2006). Sharing purposes and responsibilities for a democratic improvement of education. Journal of Education, 339, 19-42.
• Escudero, R. and Martínez, B. (2012). Policies to combat school failure: special programs or profound changes to the system and education?. Journal of Education, extraordinary issue, 174-193.
• Fernández Enguita, M., Gaete, J.M., and Terrén, E. (2008).Borders in the classroom? Transcultural contact and endogamy in student interactions. Journal of Education, 345, 157-181.
• Fullan, M. (2001). Emotion and hope: constructive concepts for complex times.In A. Hargreaves (Coord.). Rethinking educational change. A renewing approach (pp. 296-317). Madrid: Amorrortu.
• Hart, S., Dixon, Ab, Drummond, M.J., and McIntyre, D. (2010).Learning without limits. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Izusquiza, L., Echeita, G. and Simón, C. (2015).The perception of graduating teachers from the Autonomous University of Madrid about their professional competence to be “inclusive teachers”: a preliminary study.Tendencias Pedagógicas, 26, 197-216.
• Jarque, J.M. (2016).What do we mean by inclusion or inclusive school? An outline of the issue in Catalonia. Dossier Graó, 1(1), 42-46.
• Lema, C. (2009). The impact on education of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In, M.A. Casanova and M.A. Cabra de Luna (Coords). Education and persons with disabilities. Present and future. (pp. 31-65). Madrid: Fundación ONCE.
• Marchesi, A. (2004). What will become of us, the bad students. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
• Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (2015). Statistics on non-university education. Students with specific needs for educational support academic year 2014-2015. Summary note.
• Messiou, K., Ainscow, M., Echeita, G., Goldrick, S., Hope, M., Paes, I., et al. (2016). Learning from differences: a strategy for teacher development in respect to student diversity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(1), 45-61.
• Murillo, F.J.; Krichesky, G., Castro, A.M. y Hernández, R. (2010). Liderazgo para la inclusión escolar y la justicia social. Aportaciones de la investigación. Revista Lationamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 4(1), 169-186.
• Murillo, F.J. y Krichesky, G. (2012). El Proceso del Cambio Escolar. Una Guía para Impulsar y Sostener la Mejora de las Escuelas. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 10(1), 26-43.
• Murillo, F.J. y Krichesky, G. (2015). School Improvement: Half a century of lessons learned. REICE. Ibero-American Journal of Education, Quality, Effectiveness and Change, 13(1), 69-102.
• Parrilla, A., Muñoz-Cadavid, M.A. and Sierra S. (2013). Educational projects with a community vocation. Journal of Educational Research. Monographic issue, 11(3), 15-31.
• Puig Rovira, J.M., Doménech, I., Gijón, M., Martín, X., Rubio, L. and Trilla, J. (2012). Moral culture and education. Barcelona: Graó.
• Sandoval, M. (2011). Learning from the voices of students to build an inclusive school. REICE, Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education. 9 (4).
• Simón, C., Giné, C. and Echeita, G. (2016). School, family, and community. Building alliances to promote inclusion. Latin American Journal of Educational Inclusion, 10(1), 25-42.
• Simón, C., Sandoval, M, Echeita, G, Calero, C, Núñez, B, de Sotto, P, Pérez, M. and García, A.B. (2016). Transforming the “school grammar” to be more inclusive. The experience of three educational centers. Contexts, Journal of Education, 19, 7-24.
• Slee, R. (2012).The extraordinary school. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Madrid: Morata.
• Susinos, T and Ceballos, N. (2012).Student voice and participatory presence in school life. Notes for a cartography of student voice in educational improvement. Journal of Education, 359, 24-44.
• Topping, K., Buchs, C., Duran, D., & Van Keer, H. (2017).Effective peer learning: From principles to practical implementation. London: Routledge.
• Touraine, A. (2005). Can we live together? Equal and different. Madrid: PPC.
• UN (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016). General Comment 4. Right to inclusive education.
• UN (2016). Sustainable Development Goals, 2030.
• UNESCO/IBE (2008). Report of the 48th International Conference. Inclusive education, the way to the future.
• UNESCO (and other organizations) (2016). Incheon Declaration.
• Urien, T. (2017). From legal recognition to effective recognition. From equal dignity as a right for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities. A process that challenges us.Siglo Cero, 47 (2), 43-62.
• Vaello, J. (2009).The Emotionally Competent Teacher. A Bridge Over Troubled Water. Barcelona: Graó.

La entrada Inclusive education. Smiles and tears se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

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.

La entrada Processes that hinder inclusion in compulsory secondary education. Many shadows and still few lights se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

SUMMARY. Achieving quality education refers to education that must be inclusive and equitable, emphasizing the value of differences to improve teaching and learning experiences. However, many still suffer exclusion processes at school; those diagnosed with dyslexia form a group harmed by unwelcoming school practices and cultures. This study aims to analyze the barriers that hinder their learning and the consequences they produce. From a biographical-narrative methodological approach, the voices of families, through interviews, reveal that multiple obstacles, beyond problematizing their children’s progress, harm their self-concept and self-esteem. The results show the main barriers to be those related to the lack of efficient school-family communication, classroom methodologies that, by their nature, magnify reading and writing difficulties, impacting learning, and the emotional impact caused by the absence of responses to the needs of students with dyslexia. Making these barriers visible is a commitment to the right to quality education for and with everyone in compulsory education.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Barriers; Dyslexia; Family; Equality of rights.

ABSTRACT. Achieving quality education refers us to education that must be inclusive and equitable, emphasizing the value of differences in order to improve teaching and learning experiences. But, there are still many who suffer processes of exclusion in school; those who have dyslexia make up a group damaged by poorly welcoming practices and center cultures. The present study is oriented to analyze the barriers that hinder their learning and the sequels that produce. From a biographical- narrative methodological approach, the voices of families, through the interview, reveal that there are multiple obstacles that, beyond problematizing the progress of their sons and daughters, harm their self-concept and self-esteem. The results show as main barriers those related to the lack of efficient school-family communication, classroom methodologies that by their nature magnify the difficulties in reading and writing impacting on learning, and the emotional impact produced by the absence of responses to the needs of students with dyslexia. Making these barriers visible is a commitment to the right to quality education for and with all in compulsory education.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Barriers; Dyslexia; Family; Equal rights.

Introduction

Moving towards inclusion is not an easy task; on the contrary, given its complexity, it is imperative to get moving. This means shaking off inertia, prejudices, and attitudes; reflecting on the curriculum, methodologies, assessment, and materials; and analyzing the school’s project, the why and the for what, among many other factors that permeate the ‘exclusion-inclusion’ duality. It is unavoidable to scrutinize how school contexts limit learning opportunities by denying the optimal development of the unique characteristics of human diversity. In the 21st century, it is inexcusable to delve into ‘how’ the right to quality education is exercised unequally; a powerful barrier that affects the most vulnerable groups. The alternative to exclusion and discrimination is, without a doubt, an education that includes, that values diversity as an asset, and reduces the categorization to which the education system is so accustomed.

The concept of ‘barriers to learning and participation’ by Booth and Ainscow (2015, p. 9), the essence of their educational approaches for several decades, remains a central axis for understanding the disadvantages and inequalities that are formed within the education system, often by limiting participation and learning possibilities, thus achieving the depersonalization of teaching to which Echeita and Domínguez (2011) allude: ‘everyone doing the same thing, at the same time, with the same resources, or appealing to identical forms of motivation’ (p. 29).

Slee (2012) warns that inclusive education “is not a technical problem to be solved through a set of compensatory measures, be they curricular adaptations, the physical adaptation of the school, or the way the […] test is administered. These approaches do not question the architecture of exclusion” (p. 161). Or, in other words: “the role of the school in maintaining or reducing inequalities depends on what the school does, it is not an exclusively structural situation” (Murillo and Hernández-Castilla, 2014, p. 17). By sharing these positions, we consider it relevant to continue delving into the analysis of barriers that, in various ways, make learning impossible or difficult for children and young people, creating inequalities. On this basis, the study has been proposed, as a responsibility, according to López (2012), in the search for “a new educational project that allows us to learn to live together as an opportunity for freedom and equity” (p. 131).

Recognizing these barriers is a way of making visible the fragility of the group of students with a diagnosis of dyslexia in an education system that does not welcome and does not value diversity, affecting their performance and emotional state. An education system that “can never be of quality if it maintains exclusionary mechanisms within itself” (Azorín and Sandoval, 2019, p. 24).

1. Literature review

The objective of this study is to delve into the analysis of the barriers that students with dyslexia face in the school environment from the perspective of families; barriers that hinder their children’s learning and lead to unsatisfactory school and family trajectories. The literature review allows us to contrast scientific evidence with the experiences lived by families, deepening the understanding of these barriers.

1.1. An approach to dyslexia

The International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2002) defines it as a specific learning difficulty of neurological origin, characterized by difficulties in the accuracy and fluency of written word recognition and by spelling, decoding, and spelling problems. Its prevalence in schools has been estimated at 5%-15% of students (Soriano-Ferrer and Piedra, 2014), and it is for this reason that this heterogeneous group increasingly presents a relevant presence in our classrooms.

According to the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2014), the differential diagnosis of dyslexia is included within neurodevelopmental disorders, as a learning disorder with difficulties in reading and written expression. Current research focuses on the development of phonological representations (Cuetos, Soriano, and Rello, 2019) and how these components relate to learning to read and write and, consequently, to dyslexia (Cuetos, Suárez-Coalla, Molina, and Llenderrozas, 2015). Students diagnosed with dyslexia may experience difficulties with reading comprehension and spelling (Defior, Serrano, and Gutiérrez-Palma, 2015), leading to moments of low self-esteem and emotional-behavioral problems (Zuppardo, Serrano, and Pirrone, 2017).

Microsoft Word – art 6 RIEJS 8(2).docx

Therefore, adequate detection of these difficulties is necessary to avoid school failure and prevent the suffering of the child and family (Cuetos et al., 2015), as research shows that early intervention is much more effective around 4 – 4.5 years of age, due to the brain’s plasticity that characterizes the early years of life (Cuetos et al., 2015; Hatcher, Hulme, and Snowling, 2004; Papanicolaou et al., 2003).

1.2. Dyslexia and education

Given the prevalence and needs of students with dyslexia in classrooms, it is essential for teachers to deepen their understanding of reading acquisition. A relevant study in this regard is by Echegaray and Soriano (2016), conducted in the Valencian Community with practicing and pre-service teachers. They conclude that teachers, both experienced and inexperienced, are unaware of the emotional and/or social problems of students with dyslexia, neurofunctional and neuroanatomical alterations, and laterality issues. Furthermore, pre-service teachers hold the belief that dyslexia can be cured. Some of their findings align with the study by Binks et al. (2012) on teachers’ knowledge of reading, concluding that they lack solid knowledge about the different aspects of language (phonetics, morphology, syntax, and phonology), which form the basis of reading instruction. This particularly impacts students with dyslexia.

Other empirical research has demonstrated the effectiveness of multisensory teaching in developing reading skills. Jeyasekaran (2015) examined the effectiveness of using all sensory channels with children with dyslexia in India. Their findings indicate a statistically significant difference before and after the intervention, with a 12% improvement in reading.

In the same direction as the previous one is the research by Soliman and Al-Madani (2017). The main objective is to examine, in a safe emotional climate, the effects of multisensory instruction on the reading, fluency, and comprehension of 4th-grade Arab children with dyslexia. The results reveal that there were statistically significant differences in the post-tests of fluency (which include reading accuracy and speed) and reading comprehension between the control and experimental groups; in the latter, the successful intervention is evidenced through activities that engage the different senses.

ICTs are an adaptable, customizable, and motivating element for students, and they favor multisensory methodology. For Gasparini and Culén (2012), their use in classrooms encourages students with dyslexia to read and minimizes the stigma produced by their difficulties; this is the most relevant conclusion they draw when conducting a case study comparing memory and comprehension when working with tablets or on paper; the results show better reading test scores when using technological tools.

Anestis (2015) designed two non-standardized tests, one in digital format and the other on paper, including basic mathematical operations. Students with dyslexia obtained 18% more correct answers on the test taken with a computer; on the other hand, the control group did not show significant differences in their performance; furthermore, it concludes that the use of ICTs in the evaluation process can contribute to better concentration.

1.3. Family and emotional state

Microsoft Word – art 6 RIEJS 8(2).docx

Robledo and García (2014) conducted a comparative study to evaluate the family climate in three groups of children: with dyslexia, ADHD, and normal school performance (RN). The results reveal that in the first two groups there is more tension. It is deduced from this that families with a child with dyslexia or ADHD have a persistent concern regarding their children’s needs, dedicating the most time available to the child, outside of school hours, to completing academic tasks and attending specific therapies to alleviate the consequences of an inadequate or insufficient school process. They also conclude that parents and children belonging to RN groups are much more optimistic compared to the other two. The groups of students with dyslexia and ADHD perceive low expectations from their families and teachers, which leads them to have an unfavorable opinion of their own academic performance.

Alexander-Passe (2007) investigates the stress levels of children with dyslexia at school. The results suggest differences between groups, with and without dyslexia. The latter experience high stress, which occurs in interactions with teachers, regarding exams and academic performance; consequently, emotions (fear, shyness, and loneliness) and physiological manifestations (nausea, tremors, or rapid heartbeats) are generated that harm their self-concept. The study also shows that they consider the impression they make on their peers and do not enjoy high self-esteem.

Bryan, Burstein, and Bryan (2001), through the analysis of a set of research, explain the reality that families experience regarding their children’s homework with dyslexia. These tasks are usually structured in a way that requires the skills in which they have the greatest difficulties, such as comprehension, writing, decoding…, leading to lower performance. In this sense, the help of a family member becomes a basic element; help that, due to the frustration it entails, ends up generating discomfort and discord around school tasks, demotivation of the children, and doubts from parents about their self-efficacy to help them.

In the same vein, Zuppardo, Serrano, and Pirrone (2017), in their study with a sample of 25 students diagnosed with dyslexia and dysorthography and 10 without reading and writing difficulties, define an emotional-behavioral profile of children with dyslexia who show low self-esteem and behavioral psychological distress (anxiety) caused mainly by traditional teaching proposals at school.

2. Method

The position we adopt in this study is part of the wide range of possibilities offered by the qualitative research approach. The biographical-narrative method is what allows us to delve into, as Van Manen (2003) points out, the significant experiences of daily life, those of families whose children have been diagnosed with dyslexia. This approach allows us to analyze the relationships between specific situations and their contexts (Álvarez and San Fabián, 2012) and, subsequently, to transform oral word (voices) into written word, capturing the meanings of these unique experiences. In the end, we build a narrative composed of micro-narratives in accordance with the requirements of educational research and its ethical components; a particular construction that arises from the contrast between the researchers and between them and the literature review.

It is worth noting that the researchers share a common interest, stemming from our experiences: in schools, in secondary education centers, at university, with families, and with other researchers on the topics of both dyslexia and inclusive education. Our areas of work intersect over time and converge in a dialogue that is enriched by our own experiential contributions.

The basic tool for information gathering is the semi-structured interview as a means to “gather narrative experiential material that at some point can serve as a resource for developing richer and deeper knowledge about a human phenomenon” (Van Manen, 2003, p. 84). Following the same author’s recommendations, we decided it should be semi-structured to avoid being led “by interviews that go everywhere and nowhere at the same time” (p. 84), with the aim of answering a key question: what is the experience of families regarding the school trajectories of their sons and daughters with a dyslexia diagnosis?

Procedure

The participants were parents (mothers or fathers) with sons and daughters with dyslexia who have had or have a connection with the association Dyslexia and Family (DISFAM). From an initial list of 10 families who, for certain circumstances, were deemed more accessible, contact was made by phone with 6 who agreed to participate. In the first phone contact, the following issues were explained: introduction of the speaker, the purpose of the call, and the aim of the study. Once voluntary collaboration was accepted, a date, time, and place were established to conduct the interview, considering the specific needs of the participants.

Before starting, the interviewees were presented with the informed consent document. It was read aloud and signed in duplicate. During the interviews, a respectful interaction was maintained at all times, creating a climate of empathy and trust, in addition to firmly adhering to the ethical criteria that must guide any research in education. All interviews were recorded on audio and transcribed in their entirety.

The questions asked in the interview, which emerge from the information extracted from the literature review, revolve around three phases as specified in the following table.

From the selection and reduction of the information provided by the participants, the categories of analysis emerge. The steps involved in this procedure require a process of focusing on thematic units that are notable and in line with the research objective. The coding of these units is the first phase we carry out to select the information through repeated readings of the interviews. Progressively, we group the information into categories (reduction phase) around which the analysis of the results will pivot. To do this, we create a double-entry matrix, in which we place literal information from the participants, already coded, in each category. The four global categories resulting from this process are: the diagnosis, the teachers’ attitudes, the classroom methodology, the emotional state of the families and their children.

The participants in the study have been:

• Family 1: composed of a mother and father with two children aged seven and ten. Currently, the eldest daughter is studying primary school at a public school; it is suspected that she may have high abilities in addition to dyslexia.
• Family 2: whose family unit consists of four members, father and mother with a thirteen-year-old daughter who is in her second year of ESO at a secondary school. She completed primary education at a public school, the same one where her seven-year-old brother, diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD, is currently in his second year of primary school.
• Family 3: large family consisting of father and mother with four children with dyslexia, aged twenty-eight, twenty, seventeen, and twelve. The 12-year-old daughter is enrolled in a private school that follows the English education system.
• Family 4: consisting of father and mother, currently separated. The eldest daughter, 17 years old, is in a secondary school studying for her baccalaureate, and the youngest, 12 years old, is not placed at a specific level, as he attends an active school; previously, he attended a cooperative school, the same one as his sister.
• Family 5: composed of a father and mother with three children aged 27, 13, and 11. Currently, the eldest is studying away from home, the second daughter is in secondary school, and the third son is in the sixth year of primary school and has a diagnosis of dyslexia.
• Family 6: a family where the father and mother are separated. They have three children, two aged 9 and one aged 20 with dyslexia and dyscalculia. He has attended three public schools and is currently finishing basic vocational training.

3. Results

We organize the results around three dimensions: misunderstandings, classroom practices, and emotional effects. The first two relate to barriers, while the last one addresses the impacts these barriers have within the family sphere (parents and children). Each of these sections brings together evidence from the participants’ experiences; their voices give meaning to this structure.

To identify the families, we follow the order of presentation previously established, identifying the parent (M: mother or P: father) who participated in the interview: F1M, F2M, F3M, F4M, F5P, and F6P.

3.1. Family-school misunderstandings

One of the first disagreements to which families refer relates to the repeated denial by teachers to accept the diagnosis of dyslexia, which generally comes from professionals outside the schools. This denial, in some cases, translates into expressing good intentions for change in the classroom without real effects.

The school responds that they will do everything we have told them… “Don’t worry, we know what to do.” But in reality, nothing has been done. […] The tutor refused from the beginning to accept our daughter’s difficulty and expressed “she’s not keeping up, she’s not like her friends.” He accepted that he was not going to do anything about her dyslexia. (F2M)

Don’t worry, we are used to dyslexias, we are trained, they told us, the same old story… (F3M)

The teacher says he is open, but that is not what he should tell us, but rather that he is open to our son; it is he who should say how he sees it and what things he believes we as parents can contribute. (F5P)

• The tutor says that our daughter has no difficulties, denying the diagnosis itself. (F1M)

Comments such as the following reinforce the previous idea; the lack of knowledge that tutors in schools have about dyslexia and how it affects learning is emphasized, reflected in expressions from teachers lacking sensitivity. This is how they express it.

The child needs more encouragement… (F4M)

We asked the teacher why he had failed Catalan and he gave us a very old-fashioned answer: he’ll have to pull himself together. (F5P)

Your son should study more and try harder, he has to put his nose to the grindstone and he’ll get it; this is what they told us, but the resources were the same for him as for the rest of his class […]. (F6P)

The negative attitude shown by a parent to coordinate with an external professional who works with their child outside of school hours is significant.

It would have been good for them if she had explained how to help our son, but the teachers have the power to say yes or no, they set the guidelines, and they haven’t wanted to coordinate with this professional’s proposal. (F5P)

An adverse attitude is also reflected in the communication processes between teachers. Parents have to assume the role of ‘bridge’, between teachers from different grades or the same level.

It’s complicated, I mean the coordination. The following year you have to explain everything again when there’s a change of teacher, and it feels like you’re selling your own bike. (F1M)

The coordination between them doesn’t work, it’s an effort that the family has to make, this isn’t natural. (F5P)

A mother recounts an episode experienced with a teacher, with a threatening attitude and lack of communication with her classmates; it has to do with failing a subject for two consecutive terms.

It’s just that your son doesn’t know English. I looked at her and said: haven’t you looked at his papers, where he comes from, what he has… and she said: ‘we pass all the information here…’ She hadn’t read anything at all. And the second semester had passed and she said the same thing. I thought: we’re leaving here. (F3M)

Finally, it is worth highlighting a disagreement caused by the teachers’ statements regarding learning possibilities. In the words of the families, these statements are harmful, progressively destroy self-esteem, as if the overall behavior of denying difficulties that characterizes school experiences were not enough.

A teacher told my daughter that she had disappointed her a lot because of something she hadn’t done well. (F1M)

At school they told them, ‘You won’t be able to, why are you going to do it? there’s no point in even trying… you won’t be able to.’ (F3M)

3.2. Classroom Practices: Tell Me What You Do and I’ll Tell You How You Teach

ICT used as a resource can facilitate learning for students with dyslexia. However, some teachers believe that its use creates inequality compared to their peers, as expressed by the following family.

I said: “Can they bring a recorder?” NO… and a computer? NO, because they are learning to write. NO, everything was NO because this is making differences and because there are other students with dyslexia here and they don’t use these kinds of things. It wasn’t just that they wouldn’t let us have a computer, it was that they wouldn’t let us bring one from home. (F4M)

This restriction makes no sense considering that technological tools are useful and a necessary resource for doing homework and for studying at home; resources that, moreover, are part of their daily lives.

She reads, records it, and then listens to it. She finds her own ways to get there… (F2M)

The ‘repeating a grade’ measure is commonplace in schools. It’s a solution whose consequences fall on the student, without questioning the teachers’ responsibility in this measure. All families express disagreement with this response because if teachers have not worked throughout the course considering the students’ needs, there is no point in repeating.

I insisted a lot that my daughter in primary school should not repeat a grade, and with a lot of fighting, I managed to get her approved until second grade… ‘as long as you are not doing everything she really needs, she will keep passing’; they needed my signature to repeat. (F2M)

The methodology used in the primary or secondary schools where the students from the interviewed families have attended or are currently attending is mostly traditional, based on the textbook.

Yes, they used books. In schools there wasn’t really a system without books or with projects or anything, it was a totally traditional system. (F3M)

One of the mothers (F1) explains that the methodology used varies depending on the subject. While there are subjects that work on projects, in language subjects, the textbook is used as the backbone of the class.

Families demand adaptations to traditional experiences that are the same for everyone. Adaptations that, after all, do not mean extra effort for the teaching staff.

The girl was a total failure, but why was she a total failure? Because no adaptations were made. (F2M)

They have the right to an adaptation, and I demand that this adaptation be made, why? Because they have the right, period. They are my children and I want their rights to be fulfilled, there’s no other way… (F3M)

In some cases, children are removed from the classroom to receive support, even though the families do not agree.

He leaves the classroom. But he loses content, information… (F2M)

Families are the first to express that their children need a different way of learning, as they observe that the one offered by the school is not the most suitable for them.

Repeating content, as I learned, doesn’t work for him. Everything acoustic and visual works for him. (F6P)

Homework is another battle horse. These tasks cause, as indicated, that their children must dedicate many hours to fulfill this obligation, leaving no time for other activities.

Homework is an exaggerated thing in primary school, the girl used to eat and sit down to do it, and it was eleven at night and she was still going… I had to take her out of swimming and dancing because she didn’t have time.

She spends two hours on a small piece when the others are… the time difference is very evident. The others do in 10 minutes what she takes an hour to do.

Families are very critical of homework because it generates a lot of tension at home due to the excessive time that children, and parents themselves, often have to dedicate to it.

For me, doing homework right now with my son takes up the whole afternoon to do one sheet. (F2M)

My daughter gets nervous and frustrated when she’s doing her homework. (F3M)

There were shouts, there was tension at home. I didn’t understand why one day my daughter could write a word correctly and the next day she couldn’t. And how is it that yesterday she knew how to write her name and today she doesn’t? We had fights at home! because I scolded her a lot. Of course, this was before she was diagnosed with dyslexia. (F2M)

The type of homework for weekends or holidays is also discussed, very traditional and mechanical activities, which require a high time commitment.

Weekend homework is prehistoric… you have to read that book, but the book has so much content that she can’t, and I sit next to her and she reads, and I ask her about the characters in the book, which part she liked the most… The same thing every week, we’ve been doing it for 2 years. (F2M)

3.3. Emotional effect on families

The results reveal the state of mind of parents and children. They reflect anguish over what they have experienced and continue to experience with the barriers they encounter at school, which are affecting their children’s emotional state.

The school does not understand the harm it causes, because if they were aware, they would not do it. (F4M)

It is not right that they are kicked around like this. (F3M)

When the diagnosis is confirmed, it is a delicate moment for families. They narrate their experience of unease and sadness.

It leaves the family very weak. (F1M)

The diagnosis of my daughter affected me more than that of my son; I couldn’t stop crying because I didn’t want her to suffer. With my son, I took it differently. (F2M)

We all had a really bad time, honestly, terrible, seeing, moreover, your children’s decline, with the pressure at those ages… (F3M)

After the ruling, families expect a change from teachers, and yet they continue with their usual practices. This causes desperation and tension, which sometimes leads to family-school confrontation.

They told us we were bad parents, they make you feel like bad parents, and they tell you that the girl is suffering a lot, that the girl’s problem is that she’s not catching up because she sees that all her friends are already reading and she was just starting. (F2M)

The fight between the school and me began. I understand that they thought I was annoying, that I was overprotecting my son, that the child is spoiled… What happens is that at some point, with so much confrontation and so much exhaustion, and everything… you can’t take it anymore. (F4M)

The truth is that at the end of this course I’ve thrown in the towel, I can’t take it anymore, I prefer to dedicate myself more to my son than to try to make a change at school. […] we have made the decision to maintain a certain marginality, we have an adequate formal relationship, we have taken the position of non-confrontation, to finish primary school well. (F5P)

The barriers during their children’s schooling period rekindle their concern for the present and their academic future. They are clear that their future will depend heavily on the teachers they encounter in their paths, and this uncertainty causes greater anguish for families.

You can’t be worried about the teacher your child will have each year; every school year is a thought of, ‘And who will it be next year?’ Because if it’s this one or that one, we’re lost. (F4M)

Families face their children’s experiences at school with great concern, where they must confront continuous obstacles that undermine their mood and health.

We started to see that he was really down and with the beginnings of depression… he said nothing was wrong, but he kept his backpack on behind him and entered school dragging his feet with such reluctance, such sadness, such a feeling… that it hurt me to leave him there. (F3M)

My son didn’t want to go to school. Where have you ever seen a child not want to go to school with his classmates, to learn… it’s very hard. My son, a child who stopped dancing, always hid, always hid under the tables […], he would go to school and they would tell me that the child behaved terribly, every day they took him out into the hallway. And I would say: “you don’t understand anything.” (F4M)

4. Discussion and conclusions

Teachers in our education system show a lack of knowledge about dyslexia, as already highlighted in the research by Echegaray and Soriano (2016). This lack of knowledge has been reflected in this study through the generalized idea of repetition as a solution to difficulties without questioning classroom practices. The existence of dyslexia is sometimes denied, treating it as mere difficulties that any child may experience during their school journey. Repeating a grade is not the solution; the remedy lies in a profound transformation of the education system, which should be obligated to welcome all children regardless of their particular differences.

The lack of information and training among teachers hinders adequate attention to the needs of this group of students to achieve successful learning in daily classroom action (Bueno, 2017). According to Blanco (2009), the difficulties these students face will accompany them throughout their lives, and repeating a curriculum will not change the way they process information. They need specific learning tools and alternative ways to access information, such as ICT, as these enable personalization to students’ needs.

This lack of knowledge is doubly affected by the attitude of teachers who wrongly focus their attention on students’ difficulties, often making them invisible and, consequently, frustrating their efforts to learn. An attitude that is reinforced by the practices they develop in their classrooms, aimed at an ideal student, with a traditional methodology that only benefits some students, leaving the rest out. The group of students with dyslexia is disadvantaged by cultures, policies, and practices that focus “merely on their failures and not on how to meet their needs” (Forteza and Moreno, 2017, p. 42).

It is essential to approach teaching with an open attitude to change, to the inquiry of new ways of doing things in school, trusting in the learning possibilities of each and every student, and even more so, for those who may be more vulnerable to exclusion processes, due to their initial difficulties which are not adequately addressed in schools. Conversely, an attitude that weakens is a powerful barrier because it limits the learning of students with dyslexia, and also of all students; an attitude that generates rejection towards school, as we have already seen, and affects the self-esteem and self-concept of children with dyslexia from primary education onwards, leading them to internalize that they are ‘stupid’, ‘lazy’, ‘incapable of learning and studying’.

An outdated system that focuses almost exclusively on the textbook hinders students with dyslexia from accessing learning opportunities (Asensio, 2016). The diversity of students in the classroom requires methodologies that integrate the use of various sensory channels for learning (Jeyasekaran, 2015; Soliman and Al-Madani, 2017), and the use of varied resources, such as ICT, which facilitate the teaching and learning process (Anestis, 2015).

Homework, for its part, engenders dissatisfaction in families because it restricts their leisure and free time needs. Because it is based on reading and writing tasks, precisely where the difficulties lie. Because it creates dependence on adults, and a climate of tension and frustration within the family that only aggravates the situation (Bryan, Burstein, and Bryan, 2001).

Finally, we want to emphasize that diagnosis acts as a barrier when unfavorable attitudes of teachers, clinging to traditional methodologies, increase low expectations of success for students, focusing on expecting their failure. Diagnosis that, often, comes late and poorly as specific difficulties go unnoticed for years (Armenteros, 2017); thus, difficulties are magnified and children develop negative feelings about themselves. On the other hand, to the economic burden of carrying out a diagnosis, as families manifest, is added the increase involved in resorting to external instances (tutors) to minimize the consequences of what is not done in school, or to help their children with emotional therapies (Alexander-Passe, 2007; Robledo and Barcía, 2014).

To conclude, as a final reflection, we offer a series of thoughts revolving around four axes: learning, attitudes, barriers, and pain, related to the analytical categories established in this study.

On learning

We infer from all that has been said that the families’ unease largely corresponds to the depersonalization of teaching referred to in the introduction. The homogeneity of methodologies and resources, intended for all children to learn the same thing at the same time and place, translates into ‘therapeutic interventions’ (outside of school) in the hope that students with dyslexia will adapt to a preconceived design of normality.

We believe that one of the causes of depersonalization is that teachers do not know, or only superficially know, how learning originates, let alone how to facilitate it for children and young people with dyslexia. We recall a phrase by Claxton formulated over 30 years ago: “if teachers do not know what learning consists of and how it occurs, they are just as likely to foster it as to hinder it” (1987, p. 214). Drawing on the contributions of the literature previously cited, Binks et al.’s (2012) assertion that teachers do not deeply understand how language is formed, which will disproportionately affect students with dyslexia, stands out.

What Pozo (1999) expressed several decades ago is relevant: “Tango is a dance for two. If teachers move on one side and learners on the other, it will be difficult for learning to be effective” (p. 336). Thus, a consequence of this ‘not knowing’ is the lack of recognition of students’ personal biographies, leading to learning experiences that may be valuable for some, but not for all. Satisfactory school trajectories invoke the acceptance that the quality of learning depends on the teacher’s competence, also admitting that learning is an emotional act. Teaching and learning are, therefore, inseparable verbs; the progress and success of the learner depend on the interaction established by the teacher with them, on their competence as educators, and on the confidence in the learning potential that all students possess.

Based on the results, it is evident, in line with the reviewed literature, that the lack of or inadequate responses to the needs of students with dyslexia in school exerts a negative force on emotions, impacting motivation, self-esteem, and performance (Zuppardo, Serrano, and Pirrone, 2017; Robledo and García, 2014; Alexander-Passe, 2007). For the psychological well-being of all students, it is highly relevant to emphasize the necessary creation of safe, welcoming, and participatory learning environments, where each and every one can develop their talents to the fullest.

About teachers and their attitudes

We reiterate, in accordance with the study’s results and with Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2006), that the biggest barrier to their children’s progress is the teachers. They are the ones who end up being barrier builders, by denying them the right to an inclusive and equitable education. Echoing the words of Pujolàs (2015, pp. 20-21):

Inclusion means welcoming and valuing. For this reason, a school that welcomes everyone must also be a school that values everyone. Feeling welcomed and valued, loved, esteemed, in a school, is a prerequisite, essential […]. If we want our students to feel valued, we must value them, we must find the positive things they possess […].

This discourse refers us to the attitudes that must accompany quality teaching and learning processes. Valuing children and their families implies forms of communication that interact with high expectations, deploying strategies and methodologies that draw on the capacity that everyone has to learn. In this sense, what a father expresses highlights what remains to be done: “I remember a PT (acronym for Therapeutic Pedagogy) asked us if our son had been born on a Sunday, because he was very lazy. The first diagnosis many families heard.” Families who vociferously demand a different perspective from teachers towards their children.

Pennac (2008) uses the metaphor of the “burden” to refer to the accumulation of constraints, frustrations, fears… that act as a slab blocking the growth of students (whom he refers to as “duds”). It is significant that he speaks of teachers as a determining factor in school success or failure; he alludes to their ‘knowing how to be’ and their ‘knowing how to do’:

Our “bad” students (those said to have no future) never go to school alone. What enters the classroom is an onion: layers of sorrow, fear, unease, resentment, anger, unmet desires, furious resignations accumulated on a background of a shameful past, a threatening present, a condemned future. Look at them, here they come, bodies half-formed and their families on their backs in their backpacks. In reality, class can only begin when they put the burden down and the onion has been peeled. It’s hard to explain, but often just a look, a kind word, a confident, clear, and stable adult phrase is enough to dissolve these sorrows, ease these spirits, and place them in a strictly indicative present. (p. 60)

On the barriers to advancing inclusion

As Echeita (2017) indicates, it is non-negotiable to examine the multiple barriers that limit students’ learning and participation. Identifying and reducing them “is an important task for policies and practice at all levels, in order to ensure that no student is at a disadvantage” (Porter and Towell, 2017, p. 10).

It is a committed stance with the rights to equity and equality: to continue evidencing exclusionary practices or situations (in research articles, at conferences, in scientific meetings, in contacts with educational administrations, in the training of teachers at all educational levels…); and to work with families, in order to “empower ourselves” together in the fight against inequalities, injustices, and discrimination, based on the belief that inclusive education is the way forward.

In this sense, we can well say that we fully share the words of López (2012): “Knowing the barriers that prevent the learning and participation of some girls and boys in the classroom is precisely the ethical commitment of the discourse of the culture of diversity” (p.131). And those of Murillo and Hernández-Castilla (2014) when they express: “those of us who work in the educational world have an ethical responsibility to fight for a more just world” (p. 29).

The analysis of the barriers carried out in this study highlights the lack of communication between the school and families; fractures in this regard are an impediment to learning and participation. We emphasize in this regard that it is necessary to revive this connection, considering “the importance of building synergistic relationships between school, family, and community, as one of the key factors for advancing towards more inclusive systems and schools” (Duk and Murillo, 2016, p. 14). To this end, it is essential that the teaching and management team adopt a cooperative attitude with families, listening to their proposals and contributions and facilitating their feeling appreciated and involved in their children’s school education (Parody et al., 2019).

About the pain that school produces

“For many children, the experience of school is the daily experience of humiliation and pain.” With this quote from Slee (2012, p. 29), a statement he recalls from his special education training period, we assert that children with dyslexia suffer at school, as does their family environment.

“My heart doesn’t understand why childhood, the sweetest stage of life, has to be a bad memory because of a learning difficulty.” This father, who wrote a heartbreaking text in 20181 about his experience with severe dyslexia, is not wrong, because his son was the ‘object,’ not the subject, of a school that broke him, that annulled him, reaching the extreme of such vulnerability that they wondered if it was worth it for him to continue in it to suffer. It was the appearance of a teacher, his tutor in the fourth year of primary school, who saved him from the dark hole he was immersed in (as his father indicates, “he had hit rock bottom, and so had we”).

Hope is there, in that teacher who believes in their profession, in education, in the capacity of all children to learn… In this study, we have made visible some barriers from the perspective of families; those that day by day, along with their children, endure the mismatches of an education system that remains anchored in old ways of thinking and doing. We trust that the time will come when we can only write narratives that speak of the desire to learn motivated by teachers who wish to teach, by recognizing everyone’s strengths to successfully drive new learning. And for this to happen, “we do not need schools that carry out activities and actions that contribute to making the school fairer. We urgently need schools that are fair in their fullness and in depth” (Carneros and Murillo, 2017, p. 146).

Before concluding, we want to highlight some limitations of the study conducted. On the one hand, the absence of triangulation of information collection sources; the voice of students diagnosed with dyslexia and of practicing teachers would complete the contrast cycle to obtain a broad and interconnected view of the barriers that hinder or impede learning and participation; and, on the other hand, it would be advisable to increase the number of participants to be able to relate and compare the information with contextual aspects: age of the children, educational level, type of school (public, subsidized, private)… It is also essential to consider the exclusive focus on barriers in this work as a limitation; the scope could be broadened, according to Echeita (2013), by incorporating as an objective for future research the analysis of facilitators to achieve improvements in policies, cultures, and practices from the perspective of inclusive education, thus reinforcing the effort and development of innovations that are being carried out in many schools and classrooms that promote the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.

“Change is difficult, but possible” (Freire, 2001, p. 126).

References

• Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203967157
• Alexander-Passe, N. (2007). The sources and manifestations of stress amongst school-aged dyslexics, compared with sibling controls. Dyslexia, 14, 291-313.https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.351
• Álvarez, C. and San Fabián, J. L. (2012). The choice of case study in educational research. Gazeta de Antropología, 28(1), 1–12.
• American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-5. Madrid: Editorial Médica Panamericana.
• Anestis, E. (2015). The effects of using information and communication technologies instead of traditional paper based test, during the examination process, on students with dyslexia. Procedia Computer Science, 65, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.105
• Echeita, G. and Domínguez, A. B. (2011). Inclusive education. Argument, paths and crossroads. Aula. Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca, 17, 23-35.
• Forteza, D. and Moreno, F. (2017). Processes that hinder inclusion in compulsory secondary education. Many shadows and still few lights. Aula Abierta Journal, 46, 41-48.https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.46.2.2017.41-48
• Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of indignation. Madrid: Morata.
• Gasparini, A. A. and Culén, A. L. (January, 2012). Tablet PCs- an assistive technology for students with reading difficulties? Paper presented at The Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions. University of Valencia.
• Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C. and Snowling, M. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(2), 338-358.7610.2004.00225.
• Jeyasekaran, J. M. (2015). Effectiveness of visual auditory kinesthetic tactile technique on reading level among children with dyslexia at Helikx open school and learning centre, Salem. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 4(3), 315-318.https://doi.org/10.5455/ijmsph.2015.0511201467
• López, M. (2012). The inclusive school: an opportunity to humanize ourselves. Interuniversity Review of Teacher Training, 74(2), 131-160.
• Murillo, F. J. and Hernández-Castilla, R. (2014). Leading fair schools for social justice. International Journal of Education for Social Justice, 3(2), 13-32.
• Papanicolaou, A. C., Simos, P. G., Breier, J. I. and Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D., … and Davis, R. N. (2003). Brain mechanisms for reading in children with and without dyslexia: A review of studies of normal development and plasticity. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(3), 593-612. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN242&3_05
• Parody, L. M., Santos, M., Alcalá del Olmo, M. J. and Isequilla, E. (2019). The educational challenge of the 21st century: Relevance of family-school cooperation. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado, 12(24), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v12i24.2284
• Pennac, D. (2008). Mal de escuela. Barcelona: Mondadori.
• Porter, G. L. and Towell, D. (2017). Promoting inclusive education. Keys to transformational change in education systems. Retrieved from inclusive education.html
• Pozo, J. I. (1999). Learners and teachers: The new culture of learning. Madrid: Alianza.
• Pujolàs, P. (2015). Fire marks. Lessons in pedagogy. Vic: UVic Publishing Service.
• Robledo, P. and García, J. (2014). Family context of students with learning difficulties or ADHD, perceptions of parents and children. Estudios sobre Educación, 26, 149-173.https://doi.org/10.15581/004.26.149-173
• Slee, R. (2012). The extraordinary school. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Madrid: Morata.
• Soliman, M. S. and Al-Madani, F. M. (2017). The effects of multisensory-based instruction combined with brain-compatible environment techniques on reading fluency and reading comprehension of fourth-grade students with dyslexia. Croatian Journal of Education, 19(2), 363-397.https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v19i2.2190Armenteros, M. D. (2017). Main learning difficulties in mainstream primary education classrooms in the region of Murcia. International Journal of Support for Inclusion, Speech Therapy, Society and Multiculturalism, 3(1), 73-90.
• Asensio, M. J. (2016). The textbook: A barrier to the development of the inclusive school (Doctoral thesis). University of the Balearic Islands. Palma de Mallorca.
• International Dyslexia Association (2002). IDA Dyslexia handbook. What every family should know. Baltimore, MD: IDA.
• Azorín, C. M. & Sandoval, M. (2019). Supports for moving towards more inclusive education in schools: Analysis of guides for action. Siglo Cero, 50(271), 7-27.https://doi.org/10.14201/scero2019503727
• Binks, E., Washburn, E., Malatesha, R., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536.https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
• Blanco, A. I. (2009). Dyslexia, school, and social exclusion: A study from sociology on special education. Configurações. Revista de Sociologia, 5, 1-25.
• Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2015). Guide to inclusive education. Developing learning and participation in schools. Madrid: FUHEM/ OEI.
• Bryan, T., Burstein, K., and Bryan, J. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 167-180.https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_3
• Bueno, D. (2017). Neuroscience for educators. Barcelona: Octaedro.
• Carneros, S. and Murillo, F. J. (2017). Contributions of alternative schools to social and environmental justice: Self-concept, self-esteem, and respect. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 15(3), 129-150.https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2017.15.3.007
• Claxton, G. (1987). Live and Learn. Madrid: Alianza Psicología.
• Cuetos, F., Soriano, M. and Rello, L. (2019). Dyslexia, neither distraction nor laziness. All the keys to understanding the disorder. Madrid: La esfera de los libros.https://doi.org/10.4321/S1139- 76322015000300002
• Cuetos, F., Suárez-Coalla, P., Molina, M. I. and Llenderrozas, M. C. (2015). Test for the early detection of reading and writing learning difficulties. Revista Pediatría Atención Primaria, 17(66), 99-107.
• Defior, S., Serrano, F. and Gutiérrez-Palma, N. (2015). Specific learning difficulties. Madrid: Síntesis.
• Duk, C. and Murillo, F. J. (2016). Inclusion as a dilemma. Latin American Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(1), 11-14.https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782016000100001
• Echegaray, J. and Soriano, M. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge about developmental dyslexia: Educational implications. Aula Abierta, 44, 63-69.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aula.2016.01.001
• Echeita, G. (2013). Educational inclusion and exclusion. Again, “voice and breakdown”. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 11(2), 99-118.
• Echeita, G. (2017). Inclusive education. Smiles and tears. Aula Abierta Journal, 46, 17-24.https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.46.2.2017.17-24
• Soriano-Ferrer, M. and Piedra, E. (2017). A review of the neurobiological bases of dyslexia in the adult population. Neurología, 32(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2014.08.003
• Van Manen, M. (2003). Educational research and lived experience. Human science for a pedagogy of action and sensitivity. Barcelona: Idea Books.
• Zuppardo, L., Serrano, F., and Pirrone, C. (2017). Delimiting the emotional-behavioral profile in children and adolescents with dyslexia. Reto XXI-Disability and Education, 1(1), 88-104.

Brief CV of the authors

Dolors Forteza
Degree in Pedagogy and PhD in Psychopedagogy from the UIB, where she has been a professor since 1990. Co-director of the official interuniversity Master’s Degree in Inclusive Education. Member of the Research Group on Inclusive School and Diversity (GREID) and collaborator in the Research Group on Global Health and Sustainable Human Development (SG_DHS). She has participated in various research projects and is the author of articles on attention to diversity. Her participation in national and international conferences is notable. Director of the Support Office and responsible for access and admission adaptations. Her main line of research is Inclusive Education from early childhood to university. She has held various management positions, including Dean of the Faculty of Education and Vice-Rector for Teaching. ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002– 2053-9770. Email:dolorsforteza@uib.es.

Laura Fuster Coll
Graduate in Primary Education from the University of the Balearic Islands, with a mention in Musical and Artistic Education (2017). She completed the official Master’s degree in Inclusive Education at the same university (2018). She participated in a project by the Spanish Red Cross aimed at increasing the school success of children aged 6 to 16 facing social difficulties, focusing on the personal and social factors that promote it. She has attended various courses and conferences related to school improvement and active classroom methodologies. She is a volunteer for the Dyslexia and Family Association (DISFAM). She currently works as a substitute teacher. ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2135-8832. Email: laura.f.95@live.com.

Francisca Moreno-Tallón
Graduate in Musical Education (2003), Bachelor’s Degree in Psychopedagogy (2012), and PhD in Inclusive Education and Socio-educational Care throughout the Life Cycle (2012) from the University of the Balearic Islands. She has completed stays at the University of Salamanca, the University of Oviedo, and Reykjavík University in Iceland. As an associate professor, she has taught in Psychopedagogy studies and currently in the Bachelor’s Degrees in Early Childhood and Primary Education; she has also taught postgraduate courses at the UIB and continuing education courses at the Teacher Training Centers. She belongs to the Research Group on Inclusive School and Diversity (GREID). Author of various articles and conference presentations. Her research interests include: inclusive education and active methodologies. ORCID ID:https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2923-4911. Email: francisca.moreno@uib.es.

La entrada Barriers to learning and participation in school for students with dyslexia: voices of families se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

Anabel Moriña Díez. University of Seville. Faculty of Education Sciences. Department of Teaching and Educational Organization. Seville, Spain.

SUMMARY. The purpose of this article is to present and analyze the trajectories, experiences, perspectives, and assessments of young people with disabilities who have been schooled in diverse educational contexts. The data presented in this work are part of a broader investigation whose aim has been the analysis of the construction of the social exclusion process of young people between 18 and 25 years of age.
The methodology used in this study has been biographical-narrative, as it allows for a dynamic, participatory, and comprehensive approach to the issue of exclusion by giving voice to the participants through the narration of their life stories.
This work focuses on a subsample of the study (that formed by young people with disabilities). Likewise, a single area of those that make up these life stories is presented: the school paths and experiences of these young people. Specifically, through a cross-sectional analysis of these school narratives, the results revolving around five questions are presented: Are educational trajectories that run throughpaths parallel?; an educational mainstream that segregates?; an educational context specific that facilitates initial integration experiences?; a social life limited to special contexts?; and, finally, a learning process in the classroom that does not guarantee the participation and belonging of all? The conclusions of this work will revolve around the barriers and aids to educational inclusion that these young people identify in their school histories.

Keywords: social exclusion, educational exclusion, inclusive education, biographical-narrative methodology, disability.

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this article is to explore and analyze the background, experiences, perspectives and opinions of young people with disabilities who have been educated in a number of different educational contexts. The data that appear in this paper are part of a wider investigation whose purpose is to analyze the construction of the process of social exclusion in young people between the ages of 18 and 25.
A biographical-narrative methodology is used in this study, because, in giving voice to the participants through the narrations of their life stories, the chosen methodology enables a dynamic, participative, comprehensive approach to be taken to the topic of exclusion.
The paper focuses on a subsample of the study (the subsample of young people with disabilities). Furthermore, only one of the component realms of the subjects’ life stories is presented the educational pathways and school experiences of the young people. Transverse analysis of these accounts of school yields results that revolve around five questions: Educational careers that travel parallel paths? An «ordinary» educational context that segregates? A «specific» educational context that facilitates the first experiences of integration? A social life limited to special contexts? And lastly, a learning process in the classroom that does not guarantee the participation and belonging of «all»The conclusions of this paper revolve around the barriers to educational inclusion and the aids to educational inclusion that these young people identify in their school stories.

Key words:social exclusion, educational exclusion, inclusive education, biographical-narrative methodology, disability.

Theoretical bases

Inclusion and social exclusion are two closely linked processes that are part of the same dynamic. This connection implies that, to the extent that barriers acting as mechanisms of social exclusion are reduced, it is possible to contribute to the generation of practices leading to social inclusion.

Both processes can be identified on a continuum where they would occupy opposite extremes. An idea that this approach suggests is that there is not a single form of exclusion, but rather that one can speak in terms of various degrees of it that can lead to different personal experiences and social histories (Subirat, 2006; Tezanos, 2001). From this perspective, exclusion can be defined as a dynamic, social, and complex process that implies a denial of fundamental rights and includes deprivations, among others, of economic, social, political, and educational rights, etc. In this area, there is widespread agreement in pointing out the multidimensional nature of social exclusion. It can also be understood as a phenomenon that involves the interaction of various risk factors responsible for shaping people’s paths (Atkinson, 1998; Kronauer, 1998; Tezanos, 2001).

On the other hand, another significant characteristic that helps explain social exclusion processes is that they are not circumstantial, as the causes leading to situations of exclusion are structural (Witcher, 2003). Social exclusion is the result of a specific social, political, cultural, and economic structure. The very organization of society, directly or indirectly, is what generatessurplus populations.

This argument is also supported by authors such as Barton (1996), Oliver (1990), or Shakespeare and Watson (1996), who, from the social model of disability, have provided a series of explanations about how exclusion is generated. This model denounces that it is the practices, attitudes, and policies of the social context that generate the barriers or aids that either hinder or favor access and participation in different areas. Hence, there is some consensus in affirming that labor, economic, educational-training, and social (family and community social networks) exclusion are among the main factors that can lead to exclusion (Brandolini and D’Alessio, 1998; Jiménez et al., 2003; Kronauer, 1998; Levitas, 1998; Malgesini and García, 2000; Subirats, 2004; Tezanos, 2001).

Current research establishes a close relationship between social and educational exclusion. The former is more general, while the latter is more specific. Furthermore, the literature review conducted indicates the educational sphere as one of the most potent factors generating exclusion. Thus, Macrae, Maguire, and Melbourne (2003) have contributed to the thesis that school exclusion can generate social exclusion in the medium and long term. These authors present data showing how recent studies reference young people who could be considered individuals in situations of or at risk of social exclusion. These young people share, among other traits, frequent absenteeism from school, limited or nonexistent academic qualifications, etc. Another author supporting the link between social and educational exclusion is Howard (1999). For him, the group of persons with disabilities is one of the most vulnerable to social exclusion processes. He justifies this argument by explaining that this group often receives more restricted training compared to boys and girls their age, which can limit opportunities, for example, for employment and, therefore, make access to economic independence difficult.

Conceptually, educational exclusion, like social exclusion, can be defined as a process that unfolds through various phases. It is a complex phenomenon attributable to diverse factors, structures, and dynamics (Slee and Allan, 2005). Some phenomena associated with educational exclusion, according to Escudero (2005), include: school dropout, educational failure, lower-than-desired levels of training, school conflict, etc. The situation of school exclusion can be recognized, for example, in children who cannot access education, in those who drop out of school, in those who, while attending, are ignored in their differences (special educational needs, social origin, ethnicity, gender), and in those who, having completed the different educational stages, do not manage to integrate satisfactorily into society. Educational exclusion, therefore, can occur in access, as well as in school processes and outcomes.

Likewise, it is also possible to establish a continuum where one end is the right to education and the other is total inclusion. Within this continuum, it is also possible to identify school integration practices, which are currently questioned, for reasons including their inability to guarantee the learning and participation of all students on equal terms. This is because their main purpose is to reintegrate someone or some group into the normal life of the school and community from which they were excluded, which would be achieved by adapting them to the context into which they are integrated, without questioning or revising existing practices. Therefore, although integration and inclusion are sometimes used as synonymous concepts, they connote opposite meanings.

In this sense, inclusive education can be considered a process that fosters the participation and belonging of all students (Booth and Ains- cow, 1998). Social and educational inclusion can therefore be considered a way of living, a particular style of acting and participating in society, of understanding and considering each person (Ainscow, 1999; Arnáiz, 2003; Corbett, 2001; Echeita, 2006; Parrilla, 2002, 2007; Sapon-Shevin, 1998; Slee, 2001). From the perspective of inclusive education, the school and the classroom are conceived as a community that must guarantee the right that all students have to learn alongside their peers within a common curricular framework.

Authors like Torres (2008) support this inclusive school approach, in which no type of practice that could generate discrimination or segregation has a place. Instead, for this author, the school must take a more active role through, for example, denouncing discourses and practices that legitimize any educational exclusion process.

Precisely, biographical-narrative methods are an appropriate methodological tool for denouncing and explaining the processes of oppression, discrimination, and exclusion that some groups suffer (Booth & Booth, 2006; Goodley, 2001). We share with Owens (2007) the idea that this type of methodology can contribute to liberating the voices and stories of people who have habitually been silenced.

Finally, in the specific case of people with disabilities, Tim Booth (1998) explains that the “thesis of the excluded voicefacilitates, through narrative methods, access to the perceptions and experiences of oppressed groups who lack the authority to make their voices heard through traditional academic discourse. Other authors such as Biklen (2000) or Tangen (2008), in addition to highlighting this liberating character, emphasize the idea of how the studies carried out demonstrate that when the voices of people with disabilities are heard, it contributes to an increase in proposals for improvement to move towards inclusive education.

Methodological design of the research

The information presented in this article is part of a broader research project titled The construction of the social exclusion process in young people: Guide for the detection and evaluation of exclusion processes(1). This study, currently in its final phase, has been developed at two universities: the University of Seville and the University of Cantabria. The general purpose is to analyze the construction (as a personal experience) of the social exclusion process in young people aged between 18 and 25 years (2).

The total sample of the study is composed of 48 young people in situations of or at risk of exclusion belonging to groups vulnerable to processes of inequality due to minority culture or ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic class, and gender. The methodology used is biographical-narrative research, which allows participants to have a voice through the construction of their life stories.

The research design is organized around two phases. The first aims for a descriptive and explanatory approach to exclusion processes through the narration of the life trajectories of different young people who have personally experienced processes of social exclusion. In a second moment of this first phase, a comparative analysis is carried out of the main barriers and aids that the participants in the study recognize in their processes of social inclusion or exclusion. The second phase is a direct consequence of the results of the previous phase, and is subdivided into two stages or moments that advance from the identification of exclusion indicators to the actual design of a guide for detecting and evaluating the social exclusion process.

The information analyzed for this article focuses exclusively on the subsample of the disability group consisting of nine young people. Among the new young people, at the time we collected the information, most of them are between 22 and 25 years old. The exception is three girls between 18 and 20 years old. The participants are people with disabilities resulting from intellectual, speech or hearing difficulties, vision, and mobility impairments. Likewise, their life stories are not presented, but fragments of them, as it is not the purpose of this work to know the construction of the process of social exclusion globally, but instead, it is chosen to analyze a single area of exclusion: the school paths followed by young people so that, through their experiences, reflections, and emotions, they explain how they interpret their own school experiences. Through a cross-sectional analysis of different key aspects in the school histories of the participants, the barriers that act as obstacles to their full participation and learning that exclude these young people are identified and analyzed, while at the same time, the support they themselves find in their diverse educational experiences is pointed out.

After identifying the sample and obtaining informed consent from each of the participants, the following data collection techniques were generally used with each of them: self-presentation, biographical interview, biogram, life line, and photo technique.

Self-presentation consists of a brief description that the person makes of themselves. Through various questions (e.g., how would you introduce yourself?, what circumstances in your life have been most important to you?, etc.), the aim is for the person narrating their life to reflect on their self-image and certain aspects of their life that have been, are, and will be relevant in their biography.

The biographical interview (or guided retrospective self-analysis (Bolívar, Domingo, and Fernández, 2001)) consists of an in-depth interview in which, through various questions, young people are invited to reconstruct their life stories. In this research, a distinction has been made between two biographical interviews; both take place at different times. The first interview aims to reconstruct the family socio-educational context and the social context, along with personal data, while the second addresses the school context and development, the work context and development, and finally, future perspectives.

Regarding the biogram, it is a graphical representation of the young people’s life trajectory viewed from the present. It combines biographical chronology and the evaluation of events.3

The line of change aims to delve into the perspectives and assessments that young people make about some of the most significant moments in their lives. Through a three-column chart, each participant identifies an important event in their life (central column), places it in time (left column), and describes and evaluates it in terms of its impact on their own life (right column).

In the photograph, each participant is invited to select and comment on a photograph from their life, freely chosen because they consider it important. This technique, as Aldridge (2007) suggests, allows for the evocation of memory and provides great detail about the narrated scene.

Regarding data analysis, following the proposal by Bolívar, Domingo, and Fernández (2001), we have sought to combine narrative analysis (emic perspective) with paradigmatic analysis (etic perspective). In this process, an individual analysis of each life story is carried out first, attempting to respect the voices of the young people and avoiding value judgments and interpretations. In this part of the analysis, what is truly of interest are the narratives of the life stories themselves, in which it is possible to develop a plot or argument that reveals the unique and subjective character of each story. In the second part of the analysis, from a paradigmatic approach and through all the transcriptions of the documents generated with the indicated techniques, a data analysis has been carried out following the proposal by Miles and Huberman (1994). To this end, we rely on the Maxqda2 data analysis software. For this data analysis, categories and codes were inductively generated, which subsequently allowed for a comparative analysis of all the collected information. Specifically, the categories that guided this analysis were 14:

• Socio-demographic data. 
• Social relationships.
• Barriers to inclusion.
• Critical incidents.
• Habits.
• Self-image.
• Perception of themselves by others. 
• Desires.
• Satisfactions/dissatisfactions.
• Expectations.
• Inclusion support.
• Worldview.
• Sense of belonging.
• Affinities and preferences.

Specifically, the data presented in this article come from the cross-sectional analysis of those collected in relation to the school environment in the nine life stories of young people with disabilities.

Results

This section provides an approach to the educational exclusion stories of young people. To do this, we address the most significant and relevant issues that have arisen from the analysis of all their narratives. In total, this analysis has led us to five questions: are educational trajectories that run along parallel paths?; does an ordinary educational context segregate?; does a specific educational context facilitate initial integration experiences?; is social life limited to special contexts?; and, finally, is the learning process in the classroom not guaranteeing the participation and belonging of all?

The purpose of this article is not to generalize about the opinions and perceptions expressed by these young people. It is not, therefore, about their voices representing others, but rather, through a cross-sectional and comparative analysis of their school histories, to identify the barriers and supports that these nine young people experience in their educational journeys. Specifically, barriers are recognized by them as obstacles to inclusion that hinder or limit learning, belonging, and active participation, under equal conditions, in educational processes. Supports, on the other hand, represent elements of the educational context that contribute to being socially and educationally included in classrooms and schools. Based on the narratives of the research participants themselves, it is possible to reflect on how the various practices, behaviors, and attitudes generated by certain school experiences influence their lives.

An educational trajectory that runs along parallel paths?

The phases of schooling that the young people have gone through constitute initial data that can help contextualize the stories of the new participants. All of them share school trajectories characterized by continuous ruptures. Their stories are different from those of other students their age, as they have had to face and adapt to continuous changes (remaining in a combined integration educational center along with attending an integration support classroom; changing schools two or even more times within the same educational stage; combining teaching in a mainstream context and in a special education context, etc.).

Regarding their academic results, there are also clear commonalities. Seven of the nine young people have studied up to Compulsory Secondary Education. Of these, only two have obtained the School Graduate title. The exception is one young woman, who is currently finishing a university degree. The option for many of these young people once they have finished or dropped out of Secondary Education has been to participate in Social Guarantee Programs (P.G.S.) with a wide variety of qualifications (hairdressing, wallpapering, home care assistant, etc.) and vocational training courses for people with disabilities (office assistant, industrial refrigeration, etc.). This is a fact shared by almost all the boys and girls; they start in mainstream educational settings, but prefer to continue in special settings (4) as the best alternative to finish their studies (in their life stories, this circumstance extends to other contexts, such as work or social life).

A mainstream educational setting that segregates?

If I had started, and they had put me directly in the special education classroom, then maybe I would have had a slightly better time. (Sergio’s life story).

I, myself, would have liked to change schools and stay in the special school for the deaf, right? To have more friends, but since I had support there (Mainstream School), I had to put up with it. (Blanca’s life story).

A truly controversial piece of data that appears redundantly in these young people’s stories is the one that points out that schooling in inclusive educational contexts is experienced as a painful and also segregating process. For these young people, the experiences offered in inclusive contexts have not provided academic or social opportunities, but rather, in many cases, have been identified as obstacles in their educational paths. As they seem to perceive it, the educational process would have been less harsh if they had been schooled solely in specific contexts, as they understand that in these contexts, the rejection and discrimination experienced in ordinary educational settings would have been avoided.

For this reason, their assessment of the years schooled in integration educational contexts is negative. As the following narrative shows, as has happened in the stories of other young people in this research, in the centers where they were schooled, a process of labeling and stigmatization took place. These processes were made transparent through various behaviors (whether it was by where they sat in the classrooms, by their trips to the support classroom, because they were referred to using labels and clichés, etc.) that made differences identifiable as an attribute of a few. As Corbett (1991) has argued, the dominant culture towards diversity has been to view it negatively. This is the approach present in the school trajectories of the nine participants. Therefore, an approach to diversity linked to deficit conceptions that do not recognize diversity as a value is appreciated.

R5: She was known for DA (learning difficulty), for that aspect, but nothing else.
P: Known by your classmates?
R: And because of other classes too… the teachers… all the teachers say my name and they already know who I am…
P: And how did that make you feel?
R: How did it make me feel? Many times there were moments, many, that I wished I were normal, in a way, why? Maybe to go more unnoticed, in that aspect… because I didn’t want to stand out just because I had a hearing impairment, because I was deaf. (Ana’s life story)

And although it may seem paradoxical, as we have already pointed out, it has been precisely the experiences in a special schooling context that, according to these young people, have helped to improve their self-esteem and self-concept, by offering them a space where they feel useful, helped by their peers and teachers, and where they experience their first friendships. They prefer to take refuge in a safe place like specific contexts, where they usually find a much more welcoming, less hostile, and socially less unequal environment.

We find this situation worrying, as it implies acknowledging a significant educational paradox: the segregating nature promoted by some mainstream schools leads students and their families to consider the suitability of specific, segregating models over inclusive ones. Something similar happens in Pitt and Curtin’s (2004) research, as the young people participating in that study, after being schooled in mainstream settings and not having positive experiences there, opt for education in specific centers.

A specific educational context that facilitates the first experiences of integration?

R: What I remember most, what, that, the day they told me I had to go to a support class and that’s where I met those kids.
P: And, how old were you then?
R: At 6 years old, and, and, what happened was that I felt useful there, the support teachers would give me things, tasks just like them, which is what I could handle, and I felt useful there, I felt good, I got along very well with them (…). It’s like if you take a footballer and put him in Manchester out of the blue, to give an example, and the Manchester managers get along very well with him, but he plays terribly there, and now there’s the other team, Recreativo de Huelva, they take him to Recreativo de Huelva, and he plays very well there and this and that, it’s where he feels good playing, in the lower team because he sees himself as important there. (Sergio’s life story).

This young person simply raises a particularly alarming situation: how a complementary tool in the processes of inclusive education, such as support, can become a way to escape the exclusion processes experienced in mainstream classrooms. It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of participants perceive integration support as practically the only help they have received throughout their schooling, arguing that it was in this context that they truly felt useful and on equal terms, by learning the same as the rest of their classmates, by receiving the attention and support of teachers, and by not suffering the constant humiliation experienced in mainstream classrooms.

But at the same time, some participants criticize the support activities planned by the center; above all, those that take place in the integration support classroom have been seen as obstacles in their school trajectories. Thus, in the stories of Ana, Desiré, and Blanca, support reinforced the labeling process experienced in mainstream classrooms, as they were the only ones who attended these classes. Furthermore, they disapproved of the type of support received, considering, on the one hand, that the number of teachers assigned to this action was insufficient and, on the other hand, that the professionalism of the teachers dedicated to this task was questionable. In this regard, Blanca refers to her center’s speech therapist and how the role she played in her linguistic improvement was practically imperceptible. Once again, from this perspective, support becomes a double-edged sword: while ostensibly serving inclusion, it actually generates segregation and exclusion.

R: I asked the speech therapist to help me write and summarize, and she told me, “Look, that’s not my responsibility; what’s my responsibility is the photocopies I give you (…)”. I didn’t value the speech therapy classes at all because they gave me a vocabulary worksheet of synonyms and antonyms, and they only told me what was right or wrong; I looked it up in the dictionary and wrote it down, yes, but I didn’t learn anything because I didn’t learn the meaning of what I was looking for here; I’d grab the word, cross it out, and put it in its place. (Blanca’s life story).

This brief comment about an experience in a support classroom places us before a truly complex and difficult issue. That is, the support that the young people in our study outline is seen as contradictory. On the one hand, it is a space for recognition, help, and personal validation, but on the other hand, it is another link in the chain that leads to labeling and marginalization.

A social life limited to special contexts?

In a work by Fernández Enguita, Gaete, and Terrén (2008), it is explained how the type of interactions, both social and academic, established between peers are significant for personal educational aspiration and academic achievement levels. Likewise, these authors recognize how a person’s self-perception, in terms of positive or negative self-image, is largely a result of the social group to which they belong. In relation to this, we pose a question: how might the peer groups in the life stories we are examining have contributed, to a greater or lesser extent, to the construction of self-concept and self-image? The answer to this question comes from the voices of the young people themselves, for whom their classmates in the mainstream classroom did not exactly facilitate this process.

R: They treated me terribly. My classmates never wanted to sit next to me.
P: And why did they do that to you? Do you remember that?
R: I don’t know, they’d see me as a mongoloid or something… They didn’t want to stand next to me (…) they looked at me with a bad face. (Desiré’s life story).

R: I wanted to be one of them, but they didn’t let me. Sometimes they didn’t let me. I didn’t like the kids who laughed at me, because then I saw myself as nobody, like I saw this kid is laughing at me, he’s laughing at me because he’s surely better than me and I’m nobody (…) Q: And what did you do to be…? How did you show them you wanted to be part of them?
R: Well, I’d go over to play with them, I’d try to talk about animals and they’d talk about football, for example (…)
Q: Could you give an example?
A: For example, when I was a kid, I didn’t know how to run, and many times my friends, when I was 6 years old, would say, ‘Come on, let’s play a race.’ They would race, and since I couldn’t run well, they would tell me, ‘Well, no, Sergio, you don’t play because you don’t know how to run.’ Of course, I understood then, ‘Oh, I don’t know how to run, I can’t run with them’ (…)
Q: And what would you have liked your classmates to do for you that they didn’t do?
R: Well, for example, on that topic of when I was a kid and used to race with them, even the girls used to beat me in races, they told me, look Sergio, even if you don’t know how to run, you’re going to race with us and we’ll run at your level. (Sergio’s life story).

In the nine life stories analyzed, the accounts of all the young people invite us to think that the behaviors and attitudes of their peers in the mainstream context have not contributed to their acceptance or inclusion in the classrooms; rather, everything seems to indicate that they have acted as a source of exclusion. This type of barrier (their own peers) present in all the school stories analyzed for this work is also experienced by our young people as the most painful, as it limits the possibilities of social relationship in the classroom and school to marginalization or ignorance by their equals.

In the accounts, we can identify direct discrimination in the form of open and clear rejection by classmates, through social isolation. However, other times the barriers manifest through extremely negative and even aggressive attitudes and behaviors: insults, mockery, and, on occasion, physical aggressions that extend beyond classroom life and are reproduced in other settings, in each and every one of the boys’ and girls’ school and extracurricular activities.

On the other hand, in these life stories, once again, the help in establishing social relationships comes from peers in specific contexts (peers from the support classroom, from the special education center, etc.). It is with them that these young people regain their social image and self-esteem, where they learn what it is like to feel like an equal, with whom they feel valued, and where they meet their first friends.

Q: And did any of these friends, classmates, significantly influence your schooling? Did any of these classmates influence you?
A: Mostly, those from the support school.
Q: Why?
A: Because yes, because with them I discovered that I was someone (…).
Q: And at recess, who did you go with?
A: With the support staff.
Q: With the support staff always? Why?
A: Because I felt just like them (…). We always had the same conversation… about this or that, it wasn’t like with my other classmates, I would talk to them about cars and they would jump into a conversation about football. (Sergio’s life story).
It’s like you know everything, but something is missing. So, by entering there (meeting a group of deaf people), I discovered a part of myself that I still need to discover. So, by entering there, I realized that there were more people like me. And that helps you to be stronger, to see that you are not alone.

A learning process in the classroom that does not guarantee the participation and belonging of all?

As we approach the teaching and learning process in the classroom as described by the young people, we will distinguish three areas of classroom life: the academic role of peers, the role of teachers, and the methodology used in the classroom.

As we have seen in previous sections, the boys and girls in this study have not found it easy to establish personal relationships and friendships with their classmates in the mainstream classroom. We will now hear from them how it has also not been easy to establish peer academic support relationships. In fact, the most frequent complaint that emerges throughout all the conversations with the nine young people is the complete absence of academic support from their classmates in the mainstream classroom. Sergio’s story perfectly illustrates this criticism, as emphasis is placed on this issue when revealing the lack of help from his peers, who considered that, since he did not have the same academic level, he should do different tasks, and therefore, he only received help from them exceptionally.

R: When I was a kid, maybe I was in my regular class; I would approach a classmate of mine from my regular class and ask, ‘What are you doing?’ ‘Well, I’m doing some math problems.’ ‘Let me do them, I want to do them.’ ‘No, don’t tell the teacher to give you those problems because it’s too difficult for you.’ (…) At that moment, it was a barrier she put up for me. If at that moment she had told me: ‘Yes, wait, I’ll tell the teacher to give you this problem and help you,’ that would have made it an easier path for me, and it would have been easier because she would have been opening doors for me. But the moment my classmates acted like that with me, even if they didn’t mean any harm, what they did was close doors on me one after another (…)
P: And what would you have liked your classmates to do that they didn’t do?
R: Instead of maybe laughing, they told me: you don’t understand, but I’ll explain it to you… (Sergio’s life story).

On the contrary, continuing with this same life story, Sergio did feel the academic support of his classmates in the support classroom by giving and receiving help from his peers. Thus, we can appreciate how the formal support context (outside the classroom) again offers academic opportunities to the boys and girls.

I already felt good there (support classroom) because I saw myself as one of them. We did things together, subtractions, additions. Then there were psychology games; we did them together. I went with them to recess together… What one talked about, we always had the same conversation: about this or that. (Sergio’s life story).

Regarding the role played by teachers, the stories from this research speak of the limited contribution of this group to the social and academic inclusion of these young people, whether due to passivity towards their educational and social needs (such as the absence of educational activities for certain students, inflexibility towards methodological changes, ignorance or permissiveness of insults and humiliation received from their peers, etc.) or due to excessive attention, not requested by the student.

Q: How did you get along with the teachers?
A: Awful and well, both.
P: Well, why?
R: Because sometimes they didn’t pay attention to me. (Desiré’s life story).
R: For example, the language teacher who gave us everything in writing and all that… and I told her to write more slowly on the board, and she said she couldn’t waste so much time. Look, I can’t, the light from the window, I can’t, and I was already tired. And if I stopped, she would scold me, so I had to ask my classmates for my notes. (Blanca’s life story).

When we invited young people to reflect on the attitudes and practices of teachers that had been helpful and supportive, all of them, without exception, agreed that those who helped them were the ones who showed interest in them, dedicating more time to them in class, seating them in the front row, being patient with them, supporting them during classes, and even after they had finished.

R: And what else?… That… I value the good teachers I’ve had, because they were on top of me supporting me, telling me to sit in the front row so I could explain things better (…). I remember their patience with me. For the students in my school who didn’t need support, they explained it once, but for me, 20 times. (Sergio’s life story).

R: Facilitations? The teachers who helped me. That is, they would say, for example, we have to study this lesson, and they would come to help me study it, to give me more help to learn it. (Luisa’s life story).

Finally, how the classroom is organized, the way tasks are developed in the classroom, has been identified as a significant barrier in the teaching-learning process. Regarding classroom methodology, two situations emerge:

• That of those young people who report having studied in classrooms where the work was guided by the same, single type of educational activity for everyone, without any adaptation to learning needs. In this sense, activities were not planned considering the strategies, methods, and support that might be needed, but rather thinking of a typical student or, as other authors have described, a single size (Tomlinson, 1995).
• Classroom methodologies that considered their presence through activities different from those of others, unique to them and carried out in isolation. This is a frequent situation experienced by the nine participants. Learning in their classrooms happens completely disconnected from what the rest of their peers do, even occupying a different space in the classroom.

Q: Did you do different tasks in class?
A: No, the same. We copied a book and copied from the book. (Desiré’s life story).

A: He sometimes paid attention to me (the teacher), because he was explaining something to the 20 students and I was doing something different that the teacher told me to do, so sometimes he would come over and ask how things were going with Sergio, this and that. (Sergio’s life story).

Therefore, the arguments of the young people in this study do not help us identify methodological proposals that make it possible to respond to all students in the classroom, but their voices and stories invite us to reflect and consider how we can build inclusive classroom communities.

Conclusions

A general reading of the results of this work may lead to the conclusion that, for these young people, ordinary educational contexts have not acted as a source generating processes of learning and social participation. On the contrary, for them these scenarios have contributed to generating discrimination and segregation in their school histories. This same conclusion appears in recent works such as those by Connor and Ferri (2007), Gibson (2006), Pitt and Curtin (2004), or Shah (2007).

In the nine life stories analyzed, young people perceive that there are more barriers encountered in their school trajectories than help offered. In this sense, taking up the idea from the previous paragraph, school integration contexts do not offer positive educational experiences. These boys and girls describe an evidently critical panorama when recalling their experiences in ordinary educational contexts.

The arguments provided by the research participants also coincide with some of the main criticisms made of the school integration model: how this process has been basically limited to the physical integration of students with disabilities, how practices have been characterized by a process of assimilation in classrooms, with this reality being taken as normal, or how ordinary educational practices have not been questioned or revised.

However, the same does not happen when they recount their experiences in special settings, as they value their suitability. Although it may seem paradoxical, it is in these settings that young people experience their first instances of integration, which in many cases act as a lifeline to overcome the social, curricular, and methodological void suffered in mainstream classrooms. Most of the time, the support classroom for integration is precisely their main point of reference when reconstructing their school histories. It is in this space where the construction of self-concept and self-esteem improves, contributing to the rebuilding of a damaged identity. The first networks of friends emerge in these contexts; there they feel protected, as equals. They also feel part of the group by being able to give and receive help from their peers, by everyone learning on equal terms, and by having a professional attentive to their needs.

We cannot end this article without reflecting on and pointing out the risk involved in presenting this benevolent image of segregated education without denouncing it, because even though special settings are the most integrating for young people, they are still special and segregating, meaning they are false integrating settings. In this regard, mainstream educational settings must change. It is necessary to review and improve the practices in these settings to make them places where all young people feel safe, welcomed, and part of a true social and academic community.

Schools cannot stand by and become complicit in practices that generate educational exclusion. The path forward cannot be to create special classrooms or parallel tracks that provide students with educational and social support they do not receive in mainstream classrooms. We believe the direction to follow must be one that leads to inclusive education processes, where all students are valued, and whose purpose is the recognition of the right of all to full learning and participation, and in which barriers that contribute to developing exclusion processes are eliminated.

Bibliographical references

• Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer Press.
• Aldridge, J. (2007). Picture this: the use of participatory photographic research methods with people with learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 22 (1), 1-17.
• Arnáiz, P. (2003). Inclusive education: a school for everyone. Archidona: Aljibe.
• Atkinson, A. B. (1998). Poverty in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Barton, L. (1996). Disability and society: emerging issues and insights. London: Longman.
• Beijaard, D., Van Driel, J. y Verloop, N. (1999). Evaluation of Story-line methodology in research on teachers practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 47-62.
• Biklen, D. (2000). Constructing inclusion: lessons from critical, disability narratives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4 (4), 337- 353.
• Bolívar, A., Domingo, J. and Fernández, M. (2001). Biographical-narrative research in education. Madrid: La Muralla.
• Booth, T. (1998). The sound of silenced voices: issues concerning the use of narrative methods with people with learning difficulties. In
• L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society. Madrid: Morata.
• Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (1998). Making comparisons: drawing conclusions. In T. Booth and M. Ainscow (Eds.), From them to us. London: Routledge, 232-246
• Booth, T. and Booth, W., (1996). Sounds of silence: narrative research with inarticulate subjects, Disability & Society, 11 (1), 55–69.
• Brandolini, A. and D’Alessio, G. (1998). Measurement well-being in the functioning space. Mimeo, Bank of Italy, Research Department.
• Connor, D. J. and Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society, 22 (1), 63-77.
• Corbett, J. (1991). So, Who Wants to be Normal? Disability, Handicap and Society, 6 (3), 259-260.
• —(2001). Supporting inclusive education: a connective pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Echeita, G. (2006). Education for inclusion or education without exclusions. Madrid: Narcea.
• Escudero, J. M. (2005). School failure, social exclusion: what is excluded from and how? Profesorado: Revista de Formación del Profesorado, 9 (1), 1-24.
• Fernández Enguita, M., Gaete, J. M. and Terrén, J. M. (2008). Borders in the classroom? Transcultural contact and endogamy in student interactions. Revista de educación, 345, 157-181.
• Gibson, S. (2006). Beyond a “culture of silence”: inclusive education and the liberation of “voice”. Disability & Society, 2 (4), 315-329.
• Goodley, D. (2001). “Learning difficulties”, the social model of disability and impairment: challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society, 16 (2), 207–231.
• Howard, M. (1999). Enabling government: joined up policies for a national disability strategy. London: Fabian Society.
• Kronauer, M. (1998). Social exclusion and underclass – new concepts for the analysis of poverty. In A. Hans Jurgen (Ed.), Empirical poverty research in a comparative perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate, 51-75.
• Jiménez, L. et al. (2003). Profiles and scope of social exclusion. VIII International Congress of CLAD on the Reform of the State and Public Administration, Panama, October 28-31.
• Levitas, R. (1998). The inclusivity society? Social exclusion and new labour. London: MacMillan Press.
• Macrae, S., Maguire, M. and Melbourne, L. (2003). Social exclusion: exclusion from school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7 (2), 89-101.
• Malgesini, G. and García, M. (2000). Patterns of social exclusion in the European framework. Priority actions for integration. Project funded by the European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs.
• Miles M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. USA: Sage Publications.
• Owens, J. (2007). Liberating voices through narrative methods: the case for an interpretive research approach. Disability & Society, 22 (3), 299-313.
• Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingtoke: McMillan.
• Parrilla, A. (2002). About the meaning and origin of inclusive education. Revista
• of Education, 327, 35-54.
• — (2007). Inclusive education in Spain: a view from inside. In L. Barton and F. Armstrong (Eds.), Policy, experience and change: cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education. London: Springer Books, 19-36.
• Pitt, V. and Curtin, M. (2004). Integration versus segregation: the experiences of a group of disabled students moving from mainstream school into special needs further education. Disability & Society, 19 (4), 387-401.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (1998). Because we can change the world. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Shah, S. (2007). Special or mainstream? The views of disabled students. Research Papers in Education, 22 (4), 425-442.
• Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (1996). Defending the Social Model. Disability and Society, 12 (3), 293-300.
• Slee, R. (2001). Highly capable organizations and insolvent students. The politics of recognition. In R. Slee, E. Weiner, and S. Tomlinson (Eds.). Efficiency for whom? Madrid: Akal.
• Slee, R., and Allan, J. (2005). Excluding the included. In J. Rix, K. Simmons, M. Nind, and K. Sheehy (Eds.), Policy and power in inclusive education. Values into practice. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer, 13-24.
• Subirats, J. (Dir.). (2004). Poverty and social exclusion. An analysis of the Spanish and European reality. La Caixa Foundation: Barcelona. Retrieved from:www.estudios.lacaixa.es.
• — (Ed.) (2006). Neighboring fragilities. Barcelona: Icaria Editorial.
• Susinos, T. (2007). Tell me in your own words: disabling barriers and social exclusions in young persons. Disability & Society, 22 (2), 117-127.
• Susinos, T. and Parrilla, A. (2004). Barriers to educational and social inclusion. In J. López et al. (Eds.), Changing with society, changing society. Seville: University of Seville.
• — (2008). Giving voice in inclusive research. Debates on inclusion and exclusion from a biographical-narrative approach, REICE, 6 (2), 157-171.
• Tangen, R. (2008). Listening to children’s voices in educational research: some theoretical and methodological problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (2), 157-166.
• Tezanos, J. F. (2001). Trends in dualization and social exclusion in advanced technological societies. A framework for analysis. In J. F. Tezanos.
• (Ed.), Trends in inequality and social exclusion. Madrid: Editorial Sistema.
• Tomlinson, A. C. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Torres, J. (2008). Cultural diversity and cultural contents. Journal of Education, 345, 83-110.
• Witcher, S. (2003). Reviewing the terms of inclusion: transactional processes, currencies and context. London: Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Electronic sources

• Gallego, C. and Moriña, A. (2007). Barriers and aids to inclusion: the life story of Gema. Retrieved from http://www.quadernsdigitals.net.
• Subirats, J. (Dir.). (2004). Poverty and social exclusion. An analysis of the Spanish and European reality. La Caixa Foundation: Barcelona. Retrieved from: www.estudios.Lacaixa.es.

Contact address: Anabel Moriña Díez. University of Seville. Faculty of Educational Sciences. Department of Teaching and Educational Organization. C/ Camilo José Cela, s/n, 41018, Seville, Spain. E-mail: anabelm@us.es.

Notes

1. Research funded by the Ministry of Education and Science, R&D&I, 2004-07, Ref. SEJ 2004-06193-C02-02/EDUC, Dirs. Ángeles Parrilla and Teresa Susinos.
2. Additional information about this research can be found in the works of Susinos and Parrilla (2004, 2008), Gallego & Moriña (2007), Susinos (2007), etc.
3. The article by Beijaard, Van Driel, and Verloop (1999) can offer more detailed information on this technique.
4. Elsewhere in this article, we will repeat this idea and provide the reflections that the young people themselves make about this reality.
5. R is the abbreviation for response (response of the study participants) and Q for question (question asked by the researcher).

La entrada Vulnerable to Silence. School Stories of Young People with Disabilities se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

Revista de Educación, no. 327 (2002), pp. 11-29. Received: 01-15-2002 Accepted: 03-01-2002

SUMMARY. This article aims to explore the educational roots and current theoretical perspectives of the inclusive approach in schools. To this end, it has been organized into two parts. In the first, we look back to consider the different types of responses that schools and educational systems have given to diversity before arriving at the inclusive orientation. In the second part, we identify and describe some of the new ideological and theoretical references around which inclusive education is built. It analyzes the conceptual bases and developments that the ethical, social, organizational, community, and research disciplines and perspectives are making to inclusive education. We hope to contribute to creating a platform that allows us to think in a renewed and also inclusive way about how to design and develop an education for all. 

ABSTRACT. This paper seeks to analyze the educational grounds and the present theoretical background about the Inclusive educational orientation. It is composed of two parts. The first one considers the different kinds of answers given by the school and educational systems to the diversity of needs (in terms of special needs, gender, social class, and culture) before inclusion. The second part is aimed to identify and describe some of the new ideological and theoretical frames that support and build inclusive education. Conceptual bases and developments of different disciplines and perspectives such as the ethical, social, organizational, communitarian, and research are analyzed. It is argued by the author that this knowledge can contribute to thinking in a new and inclusive way about the issue of how to design and develop an education for all.

Introduction

From the explicit or implicit denial of the right to education for different groups of people (whether women, students with special needs, people from other cultures, etc.), to the current situation of partial or full incorporation into the different levels of the education system, we have come a long way. The journey has neither been unique (we can indeed speak of different paths and routes towards inclusion), nor linear (it has developed at different paces and tempos depending on groups and countries). Nor, as we shall see, has it been unambiguous in its references (inclusion develops with different meanings and from different theoretical frameworks). From this perspective, which assumes the evolution and complexity in the transition towards inclusive educational reforms, I will try to analyze in this article some of the keys and milestones that form the essence of inclusive education.

At its origin, we must point to the beginning of a new social awareness, which UNESCO—the quote is now a mandatory reference—endorses and expands, regarding inequalities in the exercise of human rights, and especially regarding inequalities in the fulfillment of the right to education. This awareness led to the promotion, at the 1990 UNESCO Conference in Jomtien (Thailand), by a relatively small number of developed countries (all from the Anglo-Saxon context) and from the specific field of Special Education, of the idea of Education for All, thus shaping the germ of the idea of inclusion. 

Following that first Conference, awareness of exclusion and the inequalities it produces expanded to such an extent that only four years later, at the Salamanca Conference, again under the auspices of UNESCO, this idea was almost universally adopted as an educational principle and policy. There, a total of 88 countries and 25 international organizations linked to education embraced the idea of developing or promoting education systems with an inclusive orientation. 

This Conference not only served to introduce the notion of inclusion at an international level, but it also endorsed a global movement (the so-called inclusive movement) that developed countries pursue, and which developing countries aspire to in varying degrees. A second principle of great depth and impact, which the same Salamanca Statement echoes, refers to the fact that the inclusive orientation is assumed as a right for all children, for all people, not just for those qualified as having Special Educational Needs (SEN), thus linking educational inclusion to all those students who, in one way or another, do not benefit from education (are excluded from it). We understand that this principle has important educational and political repercussions, as it implies assuming that the construction of inequality and school exclusion is a broad educational phenomenon that transcends the barrier of responding to SEN and gives inclusion a general dimension that concerns everyone (placing it, therefore, at the center of the debate on education). In this way, the concept of inclusion becomes part of the usual concerns of professionals from very diverse fields. Inclusion will represent the challenge, as we anticipated, of creating a space for the convergence of multiple initiatives and disciplines. Special Education, Sociology of Education, Cultural Anthropology, Social Psychology, Psychology of Learning, etc., are fields and areas of knowledge and practice that are called to meet through inclusion.

An excellent example of initiatives aimed at this reunification of spheres and professionals under a single umbrella is the appearance in 1997 of the International Journal of Inclusive Education, a unique journal on the international scene, for its dedication to the study of the educational inclusion of any human group that is or may be in a situation of exclusion. The works on the socio-educational and political situation of women, minority cultural groups (ethnicities, aborigines, etc.), populations belonging to the most disadvantaged classes, and persons with disabilities are without a doubt the preferred topics of a publication, also worthy of mention for the diversity of spaces and fields of knowledge that come together in it. Alongside pedagogical articles, one can find anthropological, sociological, etc. ones.

But inclusion is above all a social phenomenon (before and even more than educational). It is not difficult to speak with documentation, strength, and energy (3) about social exclusion as one of the most important problems of current society. Although exclusion is not a situation confined to the 21st century—it has existed throughout all of humanity—it is very true that exclusions are greater today. They indeed occupy an important place in scientific, social, and political discourse. The exclusionary effect of globalization and the great changes of the new era have led to the increasing emergence of people and entire regions living on the margins of society, and they highlight the primary need to fight against social exclusion. The undeniable advances of so-called globalization have been only for a select few, with the voice and experience of all those who do not “align” themselves being not only ignored, but they themselves, as subjects, are displaced (excluded) from that society. Exclusion is, therefore, a global problem, and it is, as we wish to emphasize, a problem of a social nature, not just institutional, educational, or familial.

Thus, this article, based on these premises, has been organized around two parts that explore the educational roots and current references of the inclusive approach in schools. To this end, in a first section, we look back to consider the different types of responses that schools have given to diversity until the inclusive orientation was proposed. It highlights the common educational history of marginalization and segregation of large groups of people in situations of educational inequality (women, people belonging to ethnic or cultural minorities, people from disadvantaged social classes, and people with diverse abilities), concluding by stating how inclusive education must be claimed for all of them. Following this, a second section addresses the task of identifying and revealing some of the new ideological and theoretical references that inclusive education brings together. We hope to contribute to creating a platform that allows us to think in a renewed and comprehensive way about how to design and develop an education for all.

A Common Path: The Educational Exclusion of Different People

Education, like society, has reacted, until the not-so-distant introduction of democratization measures in schools, in a very similar way to human diversity: it has tried to minimize its effects based on different organizational structures and reforms. A brief look at the common past of different groups in situations of school exclusion can help us comprehensively build that framework for analysis to understand the current situation and challenges of the inclusive approach. Hence the opportunity to consider the similar situations of segregation that very diverse groups (groups of women, students from marginalized social classes, students belonging to ethnic minorities and minority cultural groups, or persons with disabilities) have suffered in the school system and which highlight the need to propose the construction of a common (inclusive) theoretical framework and a school for all.

However, this has not been the usual approach; analyses and readings of exclusion from different disciplines (from Special Education, Intercultural Education, Sociology, etc.) have been the most frequent way to address the issue. At most, attempts at joint construction have focused on the group that Slee (1997) calls “the Holy Trinity”: that is, class, culture, and gender are used as sufficient domains (ignoring disabilities) to explain and address the issue of school exclusions (5). And yet, it was, as we have already pointed out, in the field of Special Education where the initial awareness of the inclusion process emerged.

We already said that diversity has traditionally been understood in educational systems from a negative perspective and, therefore, efforts have been directed at fighting against it. The most common way in which education has faced diversity has been based on the almost constant attempt to order and treat it differently (Fernández Enguita, 1998; Gimeno, 2000). As we will see, even today, immersed in policies that have adopted the Salamanca Statement, the forces that drive to preserve the school from differences are many, but the fight in a democratic society is, and must be, unequivocally against inequality, not against diversity.

The reference to the draft of the Quality Law Bases, at this moment, is unavoidable. Everything suggests a regression and questioning of the measures for attention to diversity that until now, although with difficulties, pointed towards the possibility of building a school for all. The explicit questioning of comprehensive education, the numerous proposals—more or less formal—for organizing and differentiating teaching based on selection processes (exclusion) of students (such as the General Baccalaureate exam or Guidance Reports), the provision for specific pathways, programs, and classrooms (designed for a new classification of “specific” needs) reflect an attempt to once again order and control diversity in schools, fighting against it, not embracing it as an opportunity for improvement. Certainly, the current situation is difficult and complex, but the denial of already acquired rights and the choice for a questionable idea of quality at the expense of equity seems to us more than debatable. Because there is no quality without equity (but rather a false quality), nor is there equity without quality (without the same amount of educational effort being directed towards all students).

We are therefore seeing how the approaches of educational reforms in the inclusive direction arrive very late and unevenly; we even see how, once the path in that direction has begun, setbacks and questioning are possible and not infrequent (6). How has the school response been until now? We have organized the answer to this question around four phases, starting from a previous analysis by Fernández Enguita (1998).

Exclusion: the denial of the right to education

In an early educational stage, we can speak of the exclusion, de facto or de jure, from school of all those groups not belonging to the specific population for which it was initially intended: an urban, bourgeois population with interests in the ecclesiastical, bureaucratic, or military spheres (Fernández Enguita, 1998). At that initial moment, when school fulfilled the social function of preparing elites, peasants, working-class people, women, culturally marginalized groups (not belonging to the dominant culture) such as Afro-Caribbeans or Hispanics in the U.S., or for example, Roma people in Spain, as well as individuals identified as “unproductive” or “abnormal,” did not have the right to schooling (neither mainstream nor any other type) 7. The only exception to this can be found in mass institutionalizations, in so-called “total institutions” (Pérez de Lara, 1998), for the group of persons with disabilities. The ultimate form of exclusion is verified with this same group, which became the object of extermination through the infanticide of children with visible and notable defects or deficits.

This educational situation was accompanied by a social situation that was also exclusionary, reflected in the labor exploitation to which the working classes were subjected, and in the discrimination (with denial of the right to work, to vote, to participate in public life) of women and cultural groups other than the dominant one.

Segregation: the recognition of the right to differentiated education according to groups

In a second phase, these groups were incorporated into schooling, but under conditions that we would now classify as segregating (it is clear that not all groups were admitted at the same time, although the characteristics of the incorporation process in segregated systems are repeated almost exactly in all cases). This incorporation occurred through a dual education system that maintained a general track alongside special provisions. It is, therefore, a moment when the right to education (understood as receiving education) is recognized, and when the precedent is set for the educational policies that would be developed well into the nineties: the so-called policies of difference, specific policies (social or educational) for each group of people in situations of inequality.

The incorporation of these groups into schooling occurred around four differentiated responses, but comparable in the segregating trajectory they represented for students. The graded school served to incorporate students from disadvantaged social classes into education, its organization based on different branches and specialties intended for students of different classes and social origins (8); separate schools for people belonging to * cultural groups and ethnic minorities fulfilled the same role in relation to differences due to cultural reasons (9); the incorporation of women into public education also occurred by separating people of different sexes in different centers and, finally, students categorized as deficient were schooled in the network of “Special Education” centers.

These segregated options have their correlate in society in a series of processes, also of exclusion, which are based on nothing more than a prior hierarchization that allows the dominant culture to be presented as superior and any deviation from it to be qualified as a trait of inferiority: thus we can speak of racism, classism, sexism, etc.

Integrative reforms

These reforms truly represent a significant upheaval and a major shift in the recognition of the right to education. They are, to a large extent, a response to many pressure group movements demanding the civil rights of various marginalized groups. They propose a series of changes in educational systems aimed at correcting the deep inequalities that were arising as a consequence of segregation processes.

Comprehensiveness, Coeducation, Compensatory Education, and School Integration are the names that reflect the different options that served to definitively incorporate various groups into mainstream schooling. These new responses also have in common that the integration process always moves in the same direction, which is why it has been described as assimilationist: from segregated schools towards the “normal” ones, which impart the culture, values, and content of the dominant culture (from schools for the Black population to those for the White population, from schools for Roma people to those for non-Roma people, from schools for women to those for men, from schools for workers to those for the bourgeoisie, and from special schools to regular ones).

The first of these reforms (initiated in the 1950s), known as the comprehensive education reform, incorporates different socioeconomic sectors of the population into a single, compulsory basic school and eliminates the mechanisms previously used to “justify student selection”: Compensatory education and, later, multicultural programs and proposals, sought to bring students from diverse cultures together in school. Women also joined the school through coeducational reforms, which varied in intensity by country. Finally, around the 1960s, the process of integrating students with special educational needs into mainstream schools also occurred (in our country, this process extended until the mid-1980s). This process, like the previous ones, is governed by its own legislation and initially involved the transfer of students from special schools to mainstream ones. This has been severely criticized for being carried out with few or no changes in the schools receiving these students, resulting in what has been described as simple physical integration, not real integration (Booth and Ainscow, 1998).

In this phase of inclusive reforms, educational policies that remain sectorized by population groups share the recognition of equal opportunities in education, but limit that equality solely to access to education. The right to receive responses to one’s own needs based on equality is in no way guaranteed, much less equality of outcomes.

In fact, as Booth (1998) has pointed out, most of the measures implemented through integration reforms to address diversity end up reopening rifts and contributing to the maintenance, if not the strengthening, of inequalities.

Inclusive reforms

Integrative reforms, as we are seeing, pose problems that fundamentally stem from the type of process they have followed, consisting more of an addition process than a profound transformation of the school. Despite partial changes in curriculum, organization, and even professional aspects, the school has serious difficulties in embracing the very idea of diversity. Based on regulations or sophisticated processes of categorization, selection, and competition, exclusions in the integration school continue to be present, whether partially or permanently. Blyth and Milner (1996); Booth (1996); Clough (1999); Hayton (1999) or Parsons and Howlett (1996) are some of the researchers who have analyzed this process and have drawn attention to the school’s failure to respond equitably to society.

These studies point to the need for schools to facilitate the training of citizens capable of participating and integrating laboriously, emotionally, socially, and culturally into the institutions and mechanisms of society.

The so-called inclusive reforms, which at the present time are a proposal that serves multiple educational policies (we have already pointed out their adoption as an orientation in educational policy by a very large number of countries at the UNESCO Conference held in Salamanca), simultaneously reach all groups of people in a fourth moment or educational stage.

We can better understand the concept of Inclusion and what Inclusive orientation means by appealing to Booth’s own evolution of thought on it. We will start from a definition that this author has been refining and defending since 1985 (Booth and Potts, 1985), and which includes a basic core of the concept on which discrepancies are minimal. His original definition (of educational integration) then referred us to participation in the community. But as we have seen, in practice the idea of participation was limited to its physical and geographical dimension. Trying to describe and specify the scope of this idea today, to improve it from the perspective of inclusion, Booth (1998) agrees to include the concepts of community and participation in the definition of Inclusion, but adds two new dimensions to them that qualify them and give the concept its specific meaning. These two dimensions are the character of process, not state, attributed to inclusion, and the connection of inclusion to processes of exclusion. Thus, inclusive education involves two interrelated processes: the process of increasing the participation of students in the culture and curriculum of mainstream communities and schools, and the process of reducing the exclusion of students from normal communities and cultures.

The idea of Inclusion implies those processes that lead to increasing students’ participation, and reducing their exclusion from the common curriculum, culture, and community (Booth and Ainscow, 1998, p. 2).

According to this, the notions of inclusion and exclusion presuppose a community in which we are included or excluded in terms of participation (not just presence in it). And talking about inclusion refers us to the consideration of democratic educational and social practices. Inclusion means participating in the community of all in terms that guarantee and respect the right not only to be or belong, but to participate actively, politically, and civilly in society, in learning, in school, etc.

In short, inclusive educational reforms involve reviewing the commitment and scope of previous integration reforms (of all of them), trying to build a school that responds not only to the “special” needs of some students, but to the needs of all students. The school challenge is not reduced to adapting the school to accommodate a certain group of students, but demands a process of global restructuring of the school to respond from unity (far from fragmented positions) to the diversity of needs of each and every student (Lipsky and Gartner, 1996). From this approach, it will be recognized for the first time in history that talking about diversity in school means talking about the participation of any person (regardless of their social, cultural, biological, intellectual, affective characteristics, etc.) in the school of their community, it means talking about the need to study and fight against barriers to learning in school, and it means talking about quality education for all students (Booth, 2000).

New readings and new theoretical references for inclusion

From this initial characterization of inclusive education, we can ask ourselves what improvements inclusion offers, what new readings and interpretations (in terms of alternative optics or viewpoints to the traditional ones) exist, and what new theoretical frameworks it is attempting to build itself upon (the models that are more or less explicitly emerging as theoretical bases for the inclusive process). We will address these topics through six reference frameworks, which do not aim to exhaust the theoretical universe of inclusive education, but rather to delineate those we consider to have the greatest impact on the configuration and thought about inclusion. These are the perspectives and areas we will focus on: the new ethics represented by the human rights perspective; the conception of disability proposed by the social model; the organizational perspective as a basis for institutional development towards inclusion; community models for understanding and organizing services, and the emancipatory and participatory perspective as a framework for rethinking the meaning, role, and methodology of research that is also inclusive.

The ethical perspective: human rights as the backdrop for inclusive education

Inclusion implies a new ethic, a broader framework of rights for people than that maintained since the integration reforms. From the specific right defended in the Principle of Normalization, we move to the broad (universal) framework of the Declaration of Human Rights as a reference from which to think about and articulate inclusive policies and interventions. Inclusion is therefore proposed as a human right. In this way, what began as a movement confined to the “rights of people with disabilities” and subscribed to by just over a dozen Western countries, has been expanding and revising its scope through the linking of integration to notions of social justice and equity.

The introduction of the concept of social justice entails thinking of the excluded as human beings with rights, and of society as an institution with obligations of justice towards them. This concept also refers to the ideal of equality on which the very concept of “humanity” is founded.

Authors like Corbett (1996) very clearly state this universal dimension of inclusion as a human right, a right of higher rank than many others that serve (explicitly or implicitly) to articulate segregating educational responses. This is, therefore, a trend closely linked to the orientations derived from the Salamanca statement. From its ranks, it is argued that participation on equal terms in all social institutions is a matter of social justice and an inalienable right in democratic societies. Ballard (1994); Corbett (1996); Lipsky and Gartner (1996) are representative of works that illustrate these ideas well. Thus, exclusion from educational institutions is seen, from this ethical perspective, as an act of discrimination, which is equivalent to social oppression based on belonging to minority, ethnic, gender, or social class groups. And against oppression, only one alternative is proposed: to resist and claim people’s rights.

The social perspective: interpreting disability through a social lens

References to what the British call the “social model” (of interpreting disability) are unavoidable when discussing inclusion and explaining the theoretical frameworks underlying it, as this model has been one of the main contributions to the inclusive approach.

The social model, which emerges as a response to the medical conception and model of explaining disability, posits the social influence in the process that leads to the creation of disabled identities, through a society that is itself disabling (in its physical environment, in its economic and health policies, in its social composition …) and that legitimizes a negative view of differences. The analyses by Tomlinson (1982) or the more current ones by Barnes (1996), Barton (1999), Oliver (1990), and Shakespeare (1993) are entirely representative of this need to consider the social character and construction of disability.

But this model implies, within the scope of inclusion, not only a new framework of thought (from which to rethink the origin and development of inequalities) but a new framework for action and relationships (political, social, educational), even among people (between included and excluded, for example). In practice, this approach has meant that within the inclusive movement, the leading role of the “excluded in the process of inclusion” (as rights-bearing individuals with autonomy and capacity for decision-making and effective participation) is considered. This has led to new voices appearing on the scene (those of the excluded, who have come to organize themselves into associations demanding their space and rights as citizens 5), new areas and references for research itself (a topic we will return to later), and a new awareness of politics and social participation on equal terms (which is reflected not only in legal mandates but also in the gradual incorporation of people with and without disabilities into the same groups and communities).

In short, we could summarize the new issues and challenges posed by this model in the following:

• Clarify and define social responsibilities in the creation and development of disability.
• Reconsider persons with disabilities as citizens with rights.
• Re-situating the role and meaning of social and educational research on disability.

The organizational perspective: the institutional construction of the inclusive organization

This is a broad perspective that brings together a significant and varied number of trends and approaches within itself, but which in any case defends the global and institutional nature of the inclusive process in school. Inclusive educational organization is conceived within this framework as one that faces inclusion as a global project, affecting the institution as a whole. This approach, already defended in the US in the eighties from certain integrationist positions such as those of Stainback and Stainback (1984), did not take shape or develop (in the terms we will see) until well into the nineties (coinciding with the theoretical approaches to inclusion).

This makes the influence and support in the organizational literature of numerous inclusive educational proposals clear today. Studies and analyses based on the principles of Organizational Development, effective schools, school restructuring, and school improvement are already abundant and fruitful.

Inclusive approaches, under this perspective, adopt the stance that learning difficulties are strongly related (they are caused, this will be maintained from the most radical approaches) to the way schools are organized, to their school structure, to how classroom responses to students are organized, etc. (Clark, Dyson, Millwarcl and Robson, 1999). Accordingly, transforming the school as an organization is essential for the development of inclusive institutions. But it was already anticipated that there is a single proposal on how the school should be reorganized to respond to this situation. There are different theoretical and research orientations that address and analyze the issue from different perspectives. 

Three theoretical trends or currents, within the inclusive approach, summarize the contributions and work carried out from this perspective:

• The tendency or approach of so-called “adhocratic” schools. Proposals oriented from this approach are based on the work of Skrtic (1991, 1995, 1999), who argues that inclusive school organization is one that is articulated based on its own needs, creating tailored responses to the situation, rejecting the traditional organizational continuum that graded and anticipated possible specific responses at the institutional level, as it is understood that this only serves to perpetuate and reopen classifications (in this case of services). 

• Proposals framed within so-called heterogeneous schools. This approach encompasses the work and experiences developed under the American current of school restructuring, which Thousand and Villa call “the heterogeneous school (6)”. The research and work by Villa et al. (1996); Thousand and Villa (1992) or the already classic works by Stainback and Stainback (1984, 1987, and 1999), which more than a decade ago called for the need to merge the special and general education systems to guarantee the integrated schooling of all students, represent this second line well. 

• The proposals are rooted in the effective schools for all movement. They constitute the best-known line of development in this field. It maintains that schools can be effective for all students and provides guidelines and indicators based on studies that explore how to move in this direction and how to build a school improvement process. The IQUEA (Improving the quality of education for all)I7 Project is the best known within this line, but many other works interested in improving the school’s capacity to educate all its students insist on and develop in this direction. This is the case of the works by Bailey (1998), Bailan! and MacDonnald (1998); Mordal and Stromstad (1998) or A inscow, Farrel and Twedd le (1998). They pay attention to the role of the school as an organization in the production or elimination of difficulties in students.

The community perspective: the school as a support community

Inclusion also involves the emergence of new approaches that defend the capacity of the school and its professionals to generate novel and appropriate responses to face the challenges of diversity. It starts, therefore, from the recognition of the educational institution (its teachers, students, other community members, hidden resources, etc.) as a community with the autonomy to collaboratively and creatively address inclusion.

Community models from social psychology (Gallego, 1999; Gallego, 2001), which highlight the capacity of communities for self-help and development through the creation of social support networks utilizing the community’s own resources, have led to a new way of understanding and conceiving school support and its use when applied to the school context. The gradual but unstoppable introduction into schools of concepts such as ‘informal support networks,’ ‘community resources,’ ‘community support systems,’ and ‘mutual aid groups’ reflects the presence and theoretical and practical relevance of this approach. There are two main lines of development from these perspectives that are worth highlighting:

• Works proposing the creation of working or support groups among teachers, or even among schools, which typically involve establishing collaborative mutual aid groups among peers, are some examples of developments in this line from the perspective of inclusion. Daniels and Norwich (1992) in the British context, Chalfant and Pysh (1989) in the American context, or Gallego (1999) in the Spanish context, have documented various strategies that respond to peer collaboration within the school community.

• Proposals that insist on fostering natural support networks in the classroom. Accepting and positively using differences among students without resorting to aids that can be particularly aggressive or exclusionary can be addressed by fostering natural support networks in the classroom. This involves planning teaching with students themselves as support: cooperative group learning systems, peer tutoring learning systems (Ovejero, 1990; Pujolas, 1999), “circles of friends” (Snow and Forest, 1987), “peer and friend systems,” or “peer support commissions” (Villa and Thousand, 1992) involve the development and exploration of new forms of support to make the classroom and school a more inclusive and welcoming community.

In short, the community perspective in inclusive schools means assuming that the support function is embedded in any educational level, group, or sector (it is not something special, specialized, and exclusionary). Support is understood and assumed as an inherent function in the development of the school, without limiting it to specific individuals (only support professionals), directing it to specific groups (only to certain specific students), or confining it to specific intervention contexts (e.g., support classrooms), which would give it an exclusionary character.

The research perspective: emancipation as a path towards inclusion

The last of the influences we review leads us to consider the meaning, role, and development of research in this field. The introduction of an emancipatory and liberating meaning for research (Barton, 1998) is the most direct consequence of the approaches put forward from the social model of understanding disability, but also of the process of participation (active and committed) that Booth attributed to inclusion, as well as its link to processes of exclusion. This perspective began in the United Kingdom and is shared by both the community of Special Education sociologists and the community of professionals most involved in the school developments of inclusion. Furthermore, these approaches coincide with those of broad groups of researchers in the United States (Heshusius, 1984, 1986; Sckritk, 1996), Australia (Fulcher 1989 and Slee, 1999), or Spain (García Pastor, 1997 and López Melero, 1997), to cite a few examples. In general terms, it can be argued that inclusion finds in the emancipatory perspective (without this meaning that other trends and approaches do not persist) one of its main pillars and arguments. This perspective starts from a strong critique of the exclusionary and oppressive nature attributed to traditional research. Oliver (1992) has compared research on disability and the work of researchers to another barrier (like architectural ones) that contributes to the alienation of the group in question. For example, he points out:

Social relations in the production of research provide the framework within which research is produced. These social relations are constructed from the firm distinction between researchers and the researched; from the belief that it is the researcher who possesses specialized knowledge, and that this is the key to deciding which topics should be investigated and to controlling the overall research process (Oliver, 1992, p. 102).

The emancipatory perspective thus stands at the tip of the iceberg under which inclusive approaches to research operate. Inclusion proposes new relationships between researchers and persons with disabilities (based on equality and solidarity), as well as an alternative methodology in disability research aimed at making the voices of discriminated and excluded individuals heard, and at ensuring their participation. For example, drawing on narrative and autobiographical research (Booth, 1998), subjective and personal accounts describe and analyze situations of marginalization in multiple spheres (personal, social, political, academic, etc.).

With these complaints, they aim to establish a path for transforming the structures responsible for oppressive social relations (Barton, 1998). Another example of work in this vein includes the studies and proposals by Ainscow, who has previously insisted (2001) (and does so again in this issue of the journal) on the need to study and address inclusion processes, involving their protagonists (teachers and students) in the entire research process (which implies anticipating their participation at all levels: from the design of the object of study itself to the analysis and dissemination of data) based on the assumption of the possibility of mutual enrichment and learning, thus reversing the exclusivist and elitist notion in which learning processes usually converge. Studies on inclusion, therefore, should neither be generated nor decided apart from practice (guided by academic interests or trends of the moment), but should be undertaken with profound respect for the needs and interests of schools and teachers, and should be developed from the guiding commitment to contribute to the improvement (to liberation in critical and radical terms) of inclusion processes, avoiding, denouncing, and halting processes that overtly or subtly generate exclusion.

Conclusions

With these ideas about inclusion, I would like to conclude by raising some considerations about the concept itself and the complexities of the construction process that leads to educational inclusion. As many voices point out, paradoxically, although nowadays there should be no room or place for “old” assumptions of integration, it must be recognized that those old ideas had not yet been internalized when the new ones appeared. To complicate matters further, the term inclusion – as we pointed out – is defined in multiple ways, with no concrete and single meaning, and is used in different contexts and by different people to refer to different situations and purposes. Recognizing this situation, we try to contribute to the debate on inclusion by presenting our own vision of the subject.

• Inclusion is not a new approach. Despite all the literature presenting it as a new path, a new ideology, a new framework, etc., I would like to argue that even if it is all of that, in its origin it is not so much a full stop (an epistemological break like the transition from segregationist to integrationist approaches) as a refocusing, a reorienting of a direction already taken, a correction of the errors attributed to school integration. In fact, there are authors (Booth and Potts, 1985; Stainback and Stainback, 1984) and legal and social approaches that, from the beginning, have alluded to what we now call inclusion (albeit with some limitations compared to the current idea). We do not deny, however, that in its development it signifies very important new changes and transformations, perhaps more radical than those proposed with school integration. It also represents, and we believe this is a very important aspect, a process of ideological and conceptual enrichment in relation to the approaches of integrationist reforms (often supported only by political and practical principles, without strong conceptual coverage or discussion).

• Inclusion is not confined to the realm of education. It is a cross-cutting idea that must be present in all areas of life (social, labor, family, etc.). Inclusion is part of the new way of understanding society in this new millennium. Therefore, the basic reference for inclusion is the social framework. Inclusion, participation in society, and its institutions, in the various local, family, etc., communities, is the key to the process. In this regard, inclusion implies a broadening of the perspective in relation to integration. It is true that the principle of Normalization referred to this idea of society, but it was a more unidirectional process than one of mutual change and adaptation. Resituating the educational discourse in the social context means, in this case, recognizing that it is, and must be, from a new social thinking that we will be able to address school restructuring. Although the school’s capacity to influence the social system cannot be overlooked, the initial point of reference leans towards society as the generator of inclusive contexts, values, and principles that the school structures and recreates.

• Inclusion emphasizes equality over difference. The starting point of inclusion is the inherent equality of all people, and from there, the equality of human rights that gives rise to the entire development of the inclusive movement. Inclusion does not speak, or does not only speak, of the right of certain people to live and enjoy living conditions similar to those of other citizens, but of the right and social obligation to build communities for all together, communities that allow and value difference, but based on the basic and primary recognition of equality.

• Inclusion aims to alter Education in general (not simply special education or general education). It openly and clearly presents the inclusion process as a process that affects a single community (the possibility of parallel communities, whether social or educational, intended for specific subgroups of citizens or students is denied or wants to be denied) in which everyone must have a place. Barton (1997) reminds us that inclusive education is not simply placing students with disabilities in the classroom with their non-disabled peers; it is not keeping students in a system that remains unchanged, nor is it about specialist teachers responding to students’ needs in mainstream schools. Inclusive education has to do with how, where, and why, and with what consequences, we educate all students.

• Inclusion implies a new ethic, new values based on equal opportunities. Inclusive education must be part of a school policy of equal opportunities for all. If so, it will provide the basis for analyzing and identifying the forces or factors that lead to exclusion. The values that inclusion upholds should, for example, educate students in the awareness of the need for social participation of all people and should, in practice, lead to the emergence of a generation of socially committed citizens in the fight against exclusion. The values of inclusive education have to do with opening the school to new voices (the least familiar ones) and actively listening to them; but also with respect and the redistribution of power among all members of the school community, including those who have traditionally been excluded or kept as witnesses (without voice or vote). The new ethic ultimately means moving from accepting difference to learning from it.

• Inclusion means cultural and educational enrichment. Finally, throughout this work, we have been dropping hints that point to the social and educational enrichment, in practical terms, of social and school cohesion for everyone. But this enrichment also extends to the theoretical construction of education itself. The different approaches and perspectives we have reviewed speak of school improvement and point to the foundation of an educational proposal, in terms that we could characterize as multidisciplinary. Inclusion not only requires the effort to welcome everyone on equal terms and guarantee their participation in different contexts, but it transfers that same requirement to the construction of knowledge about all of this.

Bibliography

• AINSCOW, M.: Developing inclusive schools. Ideas, proposals, and experiences for improving educational institutions. Madrid, Narcea, 2001.
• AINSCOW, M.; BERESFORD, J.; HARRIS, A.; HOPKINS, D. and WEST, D.: Creating the conditions for improving classroom work. Manual for teacher training. Madrid, Narcea, 2001.
• AINSCOW, M.; FARREL., P. and TWEDDLE, DA.: Effective practice in inclusion and in special and mainstream schools working together. London, Department for Education and Employment, 1998.
• AINSCOW, M.; HOPKINS, D.; SOUTHWORTH, G. and WEST, M.: Creating the conditions for school improvement. London, David Fulton, 1994.
• — Towards effective schools for all. Manual for the training of teaching teams. Madrid, Narcea, 2001.
• APPLE, M.W.: Education and Power. Madrid, Paidós and MEC, 1997.
• ARNAIZ, P.: «Innovation and Diversity: Towards new didactic proposals», In TORRES, J., M. ROMÁN and E. RUEDA (eds.). The Innovation of Special Education. Jaén, University of Jaén, 1997, pp. 745-753.
• BAILEY, J.: “Medical and psychological models in special needs education”, in C. CLARK, A. DYSON and A. MILLWARD (eds.): Theorizing special education. London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 44-60.
• BALLARD, K.: “Disability: an introduction”, in K. BALLARD (ed.): Disability, family, whanau and society, Palmerston North, The Dummore Press, 1994.
• BALLARD, K. and MACDONALD, T.: “New Zealand: Inclusive school, inclusive philosophy?”, in T. BOOTH and M. Aiscow (eds.): The From to us. London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 68-94.
• BARNES, C.: “Qualitative Research: valuable or irrelevant?, Disability”, Handicap and Society, 7(2), (1992), pp. 115–124.
• BARTON, L.: «Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or realistic? International Journal of Inclusive Education», 1 (3), (1997), pp. 231-242.
• — Disability and Society. Madrid, Morata, 1998.
• — “Society and Multiculturalism.” Paper presented at the Congress Social Challenge for the Next Millennium: Education in Diversity. AEDES, Madrid, December 1999.
• BLYTH, E., and MILNER, J.: “Exclusions: trends and issues,” in E. BLYTH and J. MILNER (eds.): Exclusions from school London, Routledge, 1996, pp. 3–20.
• BOOTH, T.: “Stories of exclusion. Natural and unnatural selection,” in E. BLYTH and J. MILNER (eds.): Exclusions from School. London, Routledge, 1996, pp. 21–36.
• — “The poverty of special education: theories to the rescue?”, in C. CLARK; DYSON, A. and MILLWARD, A. (eds.): Theorizing Special Education. London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 79-89.
• — “Inclusion and exclusion policy in England: who controls the agenda?”, in F. AMSTRONG; D. AMSTRONG and L. BARTON (eds.): Inclusive Education. Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives, London, David Fulton Publishers, 2000, pp. 78–98.
• BOOTH, T. and AINSCOW, M.: From them to us. London, Routledge, 1998.
• Booth, T., and POOTS, P. (eds.): Integrating special education. Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1985.
• CASTELLS, M.: “Flows, networks and identities: a critical theory of the informational society,” in M. CASTELLS; R. FLECHA; P. FREIRE; H. GIROUX; D. MACEDO and P. WILLIS (eds.): New critical perspectives in education. Barcelona, Paidós, 1997, pp. 13-54.
• CHALFANT, J. C., and PYSH, M.: “Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams”. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 6, (1989), pp. 49–58.
• CLARK, C.; DYSON, A., MILLWARD, A.; and ROBSON, S.: “Inclusive education and schools as organizations”. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3 (1), (1999). pp. 37-51.
• CLOUGH, P.: “Exclusive tendencies: concepts, consciousness, and curriculum in the project of inclusion”. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3 (1), (1999). pp. 63-73.
• CORBETT, J.: The language of Special Needs. London, Falmer, 1996.
• DANIELS, H. and GARTNER, P.: Inclusive Education. London, Kogan Page, 1999.
• DANIELS, H. and NORWICH, B.: Teacher support teams: an interim evaluation report. London, Institute of Education. London University, 1992.
• FERNÁNDEZ ENGUITA, M.: La escuela a examen. Madrid, Pirámide, 1998.
• FULCHER, G.: Disabling Policies? A comparative approach to educational policy and disability. London, Falmer, 1989.
• GALLEGO, C.: Teacher support groups: another way of understanding support. Paper presented at the 25th Anniversary of the AEDES International Congress. 1999.
• — Teacher Support Groups: Creation and development process. Doctoral Thesis. University of Seville. Unpublished document. 2001.
• GARCÍA PASTOR, C.: “Beyond the Essential: Research on Education for All Students,” in SÁNCHEZ, A. and TORRES, J.A., Special Education I. An Organizational and Professional Curricular Perspective. Madrid, Pirámide, 1997, pp. 121-146.
• GIMENO, J.: Compulsory Education: Its Educational and Social Meaning. Madrid, Morata, 2000.
• GRAÑERAS, M.; GORDO, J.L.; LAMELAS, R.; VILLA, N. and DE REGIL, M.: Inequalities in Education in Spain, II. Madrid, CIDE, 1999.
• GRAÑERAS, M.; LAMELAS, R.; SEGALERVA, A.; VÁZQUEZ, E.; GORDO, J.L. and MOLINUEVO, J.: Fourteen years of research on inequalities in education in Spain. Madrid, Center for Educational Research and Documentation, 1998.
• HAYTON, A. (ed.): Tackling Disaffection and Social Exclusion. London, Kogan Page, 1999.
• HESHUSIUS, L.: “Why would they and I want to do it? A phenomenological-theoretical view of special education”. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7(1984), pp. 363-368.
• — “Paradigms Shifts and Special Education: A Response to Ulman and Rosenberg”, Exceptional Children, February 1986, pp. 461-465.
• LIPSKY, D. y GARTNER, A.: “Inclusion, School Restructuring, and the Remaking of American Society”. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), (1996), pp. 762–795.
• LÓPEZ MELERO, M.: «Diversidad y cultura: en busca de los paradigmas perdidos», en P. ARNAIZ y R. DE HARO (eds.); 10 años de integración en España: Análisis de la realidad y perspectivas de futuro. Murcia, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad, (1997a), pp. 181-208.
• MELER, M.: Therapeutic Pedagogy. Barcelona, PPU, 1982.
• MORDAL., K. and STROMSTAD, M.: “Norway: adapted education for all?” in T. BOOTH and M. AISCOW (eds.): The From to us. London. Routledge, 1998, pp. 101–117.
• OLIVER, M.: The Politics of Disablement. Basingtoke, MacMillan, 1990.
• — “Education for citizenship: issues for further education”, Educare, 42(1992), pp. 3–7.
• OVEJERO, A.: Cooperative learning: an effective alternative to traditional teaching. Barcelona, PPU, 1990.
• PARRILLA, A.: “The long road to inclusion”. Galician Journal of Education, 32(2001), pp. 35 – 54.
• PARSONS, C. and HOWLETT, K.: “Permanent exclusions from school: A case where society is falling on its children”, Support for Learning, 11 (3) (1996), pp. 109–112.
• PÉREZ DE LARA, N.: The capacity to be a subject. Barcelona, 1998.
• PUJOLÁS MASET, P.: “Attention to diversity and cooperative learning in ESO”. Revista de Educación Especial, 26(1999), pp. 43-98.
• SHAKESPEARE, T.: “Disabled People’s Self-Organization: A New Social Movement?”. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 8 (3) (1993), pp. 249–264.
• SKRTIC, T.: “The Special Education Paradox: Equity as the Way to Excellence”, Harvard Educational Review, 61(2) (1991), pp. 148–206.
• — Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education for Postmodernity. New York, Teachers College Press, 1995.
• “The Crisis in the Knowledge of Special Education: A Perspective on Perspective,” in FRANKLIN, B.M. (ed.): Interpretation of Disability. Barcelona: Ediciones Pomares-Corredor, 1996, pp. 35-67.
• “Disability and Democracy.” Voice, Collaboration, and Inclusion in Teaching and Society,” in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Contemporary Policies for Diversity: Rethinking (Special) Education in the Third Millennium. Málaga, Research Group H191 Junta de Andalucía. Faculties of Education of the Universities of Córdoba and Málaga, 1999.
• SLEE, R.: “Supporting an International Interdisciplinary Research Conversation.” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1 (1), 1997, pp. i–iv.
• «Identity, Difference, and Curriculum: A Case Study in Cultural Politics», in L. BARTON and F. ARMSTRONG (eds.): Difference and Difficulty: Insights, Issues, and Dilemmas. University of Sheffield. Department of Educational Studies, 1999, pp. 206-235.
• Talking back to power. The politics of educational exclusion. Paper presented at ISEC, Manchester, July, 2000.
• SNOW, J. and FOREST, M.: «Circles», in M. FOREST (ed.). More education integration. Downsviewe, Ontario: G. Allan Roeher Institute, 1987, pp. 169-176.
• STAINBACK, S. and STAINBACK, W.: “A Rationale for the Merger of Special and Regular Education”. Exceptional Children, 51(2) (1984), pp. 102-111.
• “Integration versus Cooperation: A Commentary on ‘Educating Children with Learning Problems: A Shared Responsibility’”. Exceptional Children, 54(1), 1987, pp. 66–68.
• Inclusive Classrooms. Madrid, Narcea, 1999. THOUSAND, J. S. and VILLA, R.: “Collaborative Teams. A Powerful Tool in School Restructuring”, in R. VILLA; J. THOUSAND; W. STAINBACK and S. STAINBACK (eds.): Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: An Administrative Guide to Creating Heterogeneous Schools. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1992, pp. 73–108.
• TOMLIMSON, S.: A Sociology of Special Education. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982.
• UNESCO: Declaration of Salamanca. World Conference on Special Educational Needs: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Unesco, 1904.
• VILLA, R., THOUSAND, J., NEVIN, A. and MALGERI, C.: “Instilling collaboration for inclusive schooling as a way of doing business in public schools.” Remedial and Special Education, 17 (3) (1996), pp. 169–181.
• VILLA, R. and THOUSAND, J. (eds.): Restructuring for caring and effective education: an administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools. Baltimore, Paul H. Brokes, 1992.

Notes

1. The following principle of the Salamanca Declaration stated: Educational systems should be designed and programmes implemented to cater for all differences and special needs. Those with special educational needs should have access to the regular school system and the mainstream of education. Within the mainstream school system they should be enabled to receive the education or all necessary support to facilitate their learning and social participation. Mainstream schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency, and in the final analysis, the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system. (UNESCO, 1994, p. 2). 
2. Daniels and Gartner’s (2001) work can be consulted for an analysis of the different impact and level of introduction of the idea of inclusion in developed and developing countries.
3. The European Epitelio report can be seen as an examplehttp://www.epitelio/obssp.htm(European observatory in the fight against exclusion). 
4. Castells’s (1997) works are an example and emblematic reference of this type of analysis.
5. In Spain, CIDE represented a commendable exception with the report by GRANERAS et al.: “Fourteen years of research on inequalities in Spain” (1997), which reviewed studies and research from all the aforementioned areas. However, the CIDE 1999 report, also from CIDE (GRANERAS et al., 1999) and a continuation of the previous one, “The inequalities of Education in Spain II,” excluded from the reviewed works and data those referring to students with disabilities, limiting such an important analysis to the usual trio: class, culture, and gender. 
6. Reference has already been made to the work of DANIELS and GARTNER (2001), which reviews the movements towards inclusive education and confirms this non-linear evolution of the inclusion process.
7. There was only some partial response, to organize the response to these groups, which from then until very recently would follow parallel paths. For the children of workers, and even for working children, so-called Sunday schools were organized in countries like the United Kingdom, for example.
8. In England, for example, grammar and technical schools were aimed at different population sectors and different subsequent professional developments. In Spain, it is the popular schools that are aimed at the working sectors of the population. In Italy, the so-called “German schools” and in France the petites écoles, were responsible for training these students and ensuring their status as workers in society. 
9. For example, the case of schools for the Black population in the US, or the case in Spain of “bridge schools” (school concentrations for Roma people) which lasted until well into the eighties. 
10. They are Special Education centers organized according to deficit categories and with their own curricular proposals, not always regulated by norms and highly dependent on the goodwill, commitment, and expertise of the professionals (Meier, 1989).
11. For example, the Eleven Plus exam in the United Kingdom, or the High School Entrance exam in our country. 
12. However, these educational programs and proposals have been denounced for the permanent cultural bias of their curricula (Apple, 1997) and for primarily serving to incorporate students from minority cultures and groups into the dominant culture, in a process of cultural expropriation that had little or nothing to do with integrationist ideals. 
13. The inequality in the curriculum, its masculinization, will nevertheless be an important source of criticism (for assimilationism).
14. Let’s not forget that it was within its ranks that some of the first voices of the inclusion movement emerged. 
15. SHAKESPEARE (1993) analyzes, in a very interesting work, the origin, challenges, and situation of this movement in the social and academic community.
16. This current is also known for its proposal — zero rejection — by stating that no child, no person, should be excluded from the ordinary school in the community. 
17. This project and its results can be reviewed in the recent translations that have been edited from it: (AINSCOW, HOPKINS, SOUTHWORTH, and WEST, 1994; AINSCOW, 2001, AINSCOW; BERESFORD, HARRIS; HOPKINS, and WEST, 2001).

La entrada About the origin and meaning of inclusive education se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

ABSTRACTThis article aims to show the promising relationship between the processes generated by Lesson Studies (LS) and the development of practical thinking in teacher training (1). To this end, we propose to broaden the focus of LS from improving practice to reconstructing and improving teachers’ practical knowledge. As a central point of analysis, we focus the debate on the relationship between practical knowledge—generally unconscious—and the practical thinking we use to describe and justify practice. Among the main findings derived from this research, we have discovered that the mere elaboration of new conscious and informed ideas (theorization of practice) is not enough to transform action; we also need to reconstruct underlying attitudes, habits, and beliefs through the systematic incorporation and repetition of new practices and new ways of doing (experimentation of theory). Lesson Study cycles become a privileged tool in initial and ongoing training by linking teachers’ professional development with curriculum experimentation and cooperative self-training (Stenhouse, 1975).

KEYWORDS: Teacher Training, Lesson Study, Practical Thinking, Practical Knowledge, Theories in Use.

ABSTRACT.This paper aims to show the promising relationship between the processes generated by Lesson Study (LS) and the development of practical thinking in teacher training. We propose broadening the focus of Lesson Study from improving practice to reconstructing and improving the practical knowledge of teachers. The core issue of the analysis is the discussion on the relationship between practical knowledge, which is mostly unconscious, and practical thinking, which we use to describe and justify practice. One of the main findings of this research is that simply developing new conscious and informed ideas (theorising practice) does not suffice to transform the action; we also need to reconstruct the most internal attitudes, habits and beliefs through systematically including and repeating new practices and methods (experimentation of the theory). Lesson Study cycles become an exceptional tool in pre-service and in-service teacher training, because they link teachers’ professional development with curricular experimentation and cooperative self-training (Stenhouse, 1975).

KEYWORDS: Teacher training, Lesson Study, Practical thinking, Practical knowledge, Theories in use.

Practical thinking and practical knowledge

We share teacher training programs and curricula with a strong academic bias. Most of them do not foster the development of practical thinking, the core of teachers’ professional competencies, and deepen the gap between theory and practice, that is, between the declared theories of each student or teacher and their theories in use, those knowledges and strategies they put into action when they are in the classroom setting (Zeichner, 2010; Pérez Gómez, 2010; Hammerness, Darling-Hammong, Bransford, Berliner, Cochran-Smith, Mcdonald and Zeichner, 2005, Elliott, 2012). 

Schön’s (1998) distinction between “reflection on action” and “knowledge in action,” Korthagen’s contributions on the formation of informed Gestalts (2010), as well as the most recent discoveries from cognitive neuroscience research (Damasio, 2010) lead us to investigate the conscious and unconscious dimensions—knowledges, skills, emotions, attitudes, and values—involved in the way the teachers we have collaborated with perceive, interpret, make decisions, and act in the complex scenario of classroom interactions. Do LS help to unveil and, if necessary, reconstruct the more implicit components of teachers’ knowledge in action?

In our opinion, understanding these complex processes requires clarifying the meaning, limits, and interactions between two concepts that are normally confused: practical thinking and practical knowledge.

For the development of our research, we have defined practical knowledge, or knowledge in action, as the set of beliefs, skills, values, attitudes, and emotions that operate automatically, implicitly, without the need for consciousness, and that condition our perception, interpretation, decision-making, and actions. Practical thinking, however, includes knowledge in action plus reflective knowledge about action. That is, it is constituted by all the resources (conscious and unconscious) that we humans use when we try to understand, design, and intervene in a specific situation in personal or professional life.

Practical knowledge: a starting point

Practical knowledge, as a repertoire of images, maps, or artifacts that carry information, logical associations, and emotional connotations (Pérez Gómez, 2010a), is holistic,2 emergent, functional, unconscious,3 emotional, and intuitive. Its implicit and automatic nature is not understood as irrational, incoherent, or ineffective, but rather as plural and disorganized, giving rise to multiple selves and orientations that are not always convergent. However, few individuals, including teachers, are aware of the nature of the practical knowledge we activate in each specific situation. This knowledge, better or worse founded and organized about our own multiple identities, about others, and about the context, acts as a platform for decisions and actions that are often contradictory to the theories we explicitly state to explain the orientation of our behavior (Zanting, Verloop, Vermunt, and Van Driel, 1998). This is a distance that we generally observe better in the practice of others than in our own, precisely because of its emotional and unconscious nature. Thus, Argyris (1993) highlights the need to differentiate between “theories in use” and “espoused theories,” understanding that theories in use have been acquired throughout personal and professional history, are part of our long and scarcely questioned teaching culture, and are shaped by functional automatisms as well as many pedagogical myths and errors, which contribute to fossilizing our way of acting (Pozo, 2014). Therefore, it is essential to attend to and emphasize the importance of intuition and emergent meanings, which are so frequently forgotten and yet permeate practical knowledge (Tardif, 2004; Van Manen, 1995; Korthagen, 2005, 2010; Lampert, 2010; Inmordino-Yang, 2011; Hagger and Hazel, 2006).

On the other hand, it is worth highlighting, following Argyris (1993) and Hammerness and Shulman (2006), that the personal and professional effectiveness of each individual is related to the degree of coherence they are able to achieve between these two “theoretical” devices – espoused theories and theories-in-use – and there is no doubt that a poor relationship between the two implies high doses of dysfunctionality in interpretation and action. Frequently, as Eraut (1994) points out, explicit language, the espoused theory, does not describe the practice but is rather a defense or rationalization of it. Therefore, when researching teachers’ practical knowledge, it will be essential to enrich the shared knowledge from interviews with teachers with the knowledge derived from the observation and analysis of their actions in the classroom. It therefore seems necessary, from the perspective of initial and ongoing teacher training, to broaden the research focus to identify the dominant meanings of teachers’ practical knowledge and, in particular, the axes of meaning that condition their specific and priority orientation (Pérez Gómez, 2012; Pozo, 2014).

From Knowledge to Practical Thinking. Theorizing Practice and Experiencing Theory

Living and building an educational experience requires the permanent and cyclical transition from knowledge to practical thinking. Therefore, being a teacher will require programs and strategies that help create the most flexible, open, and powerful integration between these two structures, where reflection, understood as informed awareness, will be key for this practical knowledge to become practical thinking.

Theorizing practice

The formation of teachers’ practical thinking requires us to re-know ourselves, that is, to understand what explicit and implicit resources nourish and condition us. To stimulate this process, we need to identify and understand our own models, frameworks, and implicit and personal theories for interpreting reality (Pozo 2014; Polanyi and Prosh, 1975), in relation to the deepest core of our beliefs and their complex identity (Korthagen, 2005) within a context of lived experience (Grimmet and Mackinnon, 1992). Ignoring this relationship can turn our theories into mere ornaments, useful in any case for rhetorical justification or for passing exams, but sterile for governing action in the complex, changing, uncertain, and urgent situations of the classroom.

This process, termed by Schön (1998) reflection-on-action and by Hagger and Hazel (2006) Practical Theorizing, theorizing practice, involves provoking and stimulating teachers to identify, analyze, and reformulate not only the espoused theories that adorn our rhetoric, but also the theories-in-use that govern our practice. A practice that must review, analyze, and question the habits, attitudes, values, and emotions that are activated and conditioned in the complex and daily professional experience in contrast with other professionals and other practices (Franke and Chan, 2007). In this way, personal and professional meanings are permanently constructed and reconstructed from personal experiences and validated through discussion with others. In summary, theorizing practice should involve the teacher’s reflection on their own practice, on their own way of acting, in light of the most relevant educational experiences and the most consistent educational research results.

Experiencing theory

However, reflection “on” action, theorizing practice, is not the same as practical thinking. The key step that, in our opinion, Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006) introduce regarding Schön’s (1998) thinking is the relevance they give to the complementary process of converting new personal theories into concrete, sustainable, and agile ways of interpretation and action, that is, the experimentation of theory. This movement implies the construction or, rather, the reconstruction of our teaching competencies, those that we automatically activate when faced with new actions and new contexts. It therefore requires giving more relevance to experience, practice, and the experimentation of new ways of perceiving, designing, making decisions, relating, and acting; without remaining solely in the analysis of our practical knowledge. It involves both the reconstruction of representations and the transformation of the dimensions and peculiarities that underpin our actions. Practical thinking, therefore, undoubtedly requires the convergence of both complementary movements: theorizing practice and experimenting with new theory.

The dimensions of practical thinking

In our research on the development of practical thinking through Lesson Studies (Pérez Gómez, Soto, and Serván, 2010; Soto, Serván, Peña, and Pérez Gómez, 2013), we have used the following theoretical framework to make explicit and analyze five dimensions that constitute the system we have called practical knowledge and thinking: knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and emotions (figure 2).

In order not to lose the continuity and permanent interaction that these components manifest in life in the representation, they are represented in a continuous interval where, at one end, the most clearly cognitive and abstract processes are located, and at the other, the most clearly emotional ones. Let’s look at each of them:

• Knowledge. It is clear that without knowledge there would be no thought or capacity for effective intervention.4 Beyond mere information, data, dates, names, formulas, etc., we understand knowledge as the integration of information into schemes, models, maps, scripts that say something about external or internal reality. They are systems of associations that help us read the world around us, design our intervention, and foresee the consequences of a course of action (Taber, 2006; Pérez Gómez, 2012). We call beliefs the less conscious, less explicit, less contrasted and questioned associations that, nevertheless, are relevant to the individual or group and show strong resistance to change and reconstruction.
• Skills and abilities. They refer to knowing how to do. There are different types of skills and strategies: heuristic, semi-heuristic, algorithmic… related to psychomotor, social, or mental domains. All of them are usually called procedural knowledge and are constructions acquired at different moments of evolutionary development, with different levels of consciousness, which tend to become automated to ensure the functional economy of the brain (Pozo, 2014). The usual, routine ways of perception, decision-making, and intervention are called habits or habitus and are resources of an automatic and fundamentally unconscious nature. All conscious thought, repeated over time, can become an invisible mental program, a belief no longer questioned that conditions perception, decision-making, and action. Focusing only on the development of skills is as myopic as focusing exclusively on knowledge, because a competent and autonomous person needs and uses knowledge and skills.
• Values. They constitute the principles, axes of meaning, understanding, and action that we consider valuable in our personal or professional lives. They provide us with guidelines for formulating personal or collective goals and purposes. They are resources that powerfully condition our ways of understanding, perceiving, interpreting, acting, etc., and therefore reflect our most important interests, feelings, and convictions (Jiménez, 2008). Obviously, values, both reactive and proactive (Wells and Claxton, 2002), involve knowledge and are closely related to emotions.
• Attitudes. Understood as dispositions to perceive and act in a certain way, they are usually formed through experience, relationships, etc., closely linked to emotions and habits. Eiser (1999) defines them as learned predispositions to respond consistently to a social object in specific environments. There are desired, conscious, chosen attitudes; there are learned attitudes; and there are attitudes that we are almost unaware of and that influence and act below the level of consciousness.
• Emotions. These are primitive and/or evolved tendencies of acceptance or rejection, of approach, paralysis, or flight in response to stimuli and contexts. We can say that emotions are at the beginning and end of all projects and all decision-making mechanisms. In this regard, following Damasio (2010) and Tizón (2011), a distinction could be made between emotions and feelings. The six basic emotions (fear, anger, sadness, disgust, surprise, and joy) are bodily, reflexive, unconscious reactions triggered by the perception of a stimulus. Feelings (shame, love, guilt, jealousy, pride, etc.) are the perceptions we experience when the organism is already aware of the emotions. While emotions are unconscious, systematic, and reflexive, feelings are the conscious perceptions of these unconscious emotions.
  
  The educational management of emotions is a clear value today, as we cannot conceive of life apart from them. They are the reference base that serves either as platforms or as filters for all other dimensions.

In summary, we can understand that knowledge consists of simpler or more complex associations between stimuli, between ideas, etc.; skills are also associations, not of representational components, but of procedures; values are the purposes, the axes of meaning that we highlight from the previous two components; attitudes are predispositions to act based on values and situations, and emotions are personal somatic reactions to situations.

All these elements are present both in declarative knowledge, which has traditionally occupied the content of pedagogical debates, and in knowledge in use. Deepening the relationships of convergence and discrepancy between explicit thought or proclaimed theories and theories in use, as well as investigating the potential of LS as a methodological tool for the autonomous and cooperative identification, contrast, and reformulation of these, in early childhood education teachers, has been the focus of our research project in recent years. The conceptual framework we have just presented has been both the source of inspiration and the result of it. It has been configured as an essential conceptual platform for identifying teachers’ resistances and difficulties in understanding the theoretical representations and the mostly implicit practical mechanisms that govern our ways of teaching. As can be seen in some examples that we provide below and more extensively in the article by Peña, Becerra, Rodríguez, Suárez, and García in this special issue, a large part of the potential and difficulties we have encountered are not located in strictly cognitive and explicit aspects (knowledge and skills), but in the implicit dimensions that belong to the realm of subjective dispositions: attitudes, emotions, and values constituted as habits.

Furthermore, LS, as we will explain below, have proven to be an ideal strategy for the development of teachers’ practical thinking (Elbaz-Luwich, 2010; Savvidou, 2010; Pareja, Ormel, Mckenney, Voogt, & Pieters, 2014; Peña, 2013). It is precisely through active participation in reflective and cooperative research practices that we identify and reformulate the different resources that make up our practical knowledge and thinking. Teachers must train themselves as researchers of their own practice to identify and regulate the implicit and explicit resources that constitute our professional competencies (Levine, 2010; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Lesson Studyas a context for reconstructing practical knowledge

There is already a significant volume of studies showing the effectiveness of LS for teachers to reflect on their practices and for students to improve their learning (Elliott, 2012; Susuki, 2012; Cheung and Wong, 2014; Dudley, 2012; Lewis, 2009). The main purpose of our research has been to analyze how LS contributes to focusing and making visible the implicit aspects of the main dimensions of practical thinking (knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions) of each teacher, in this case early childhood education, as well as its potential to facilitate its reconstruction.5 In this sense, and starting from the two complementary moments involved in the formation of practical thinking (theorizing practice and experimenting with theory), we will now analyze the potential of the different phases of LS to stimulate and generate the theoretical and practical mental processes required in them, based on the evidence gathered in the aforementioned research.

Theorizing practice in the LS process

Within the framework of the Lesson Study process, the visualization of the implicit theories that underpin teaching practice occurs mainly in the moments of reflection, analysis, and observation of practice. Individual and group deliberation and observation of the practice developed, observed, and/or recorded stimulates the theorization of practice. We have been able to identify and stimulate these moments primarily in:

• First and second phase (6): defining the problem and cooperatively designing the experimental lesson. It can provoke reflection on each teacher’s prior experience by sharing the insights and uncertainties of their daily practice, attempting to identify the knowledge, values, attitudes, skills, and emotions linked to them. In our research, this phase of contrast and reflection, from what has been done to what is desired (content of the design to be carried out), has received special attention and relevance. The practice itself began with personal accounts shared through writing and dialogue. This space for confidences, according to the teachers involved, fostered a climate of trust conducive to sustaining common strengths, questioning shared doubts, and showing fears (one of the most present emotions in some phases of the process) associated with situations of change.

In the design phase, constant evidence of the teachers’ practical knowledge emerges; putting ourselves in a situation of doing rather than talking about what is done, provokes the emergence of the implicit.

The teachers stated in this phase that their concern in daily practice diverged from the principles they explicitly share; thus, in their practice, the real importance of pencil-and-paper activities, the homogeneity of the proposed activities, etc., and finally, the primacy of their direct mediation/intervention appears, even though they state that this is not necessary for learning to occur.

But it is true that for me, one of the concerns is that children do not produce a dossier of worksheets, not doing the same activities for everyone, because they are not all the same and we are still stuck with the same issues! There is something we say and do not do, and for me that is a serious problem, because I love to say that all children are different. In my class I have 25 children, and then they arrive at the corner and, more or less, the activity is the same… (Belén (7), 2nd Meeting Design Phase of the Lesson April 3, 2013).

These beliefs emerge crystallized with some frequency in the design phase, when they express their doubts about the new proposal that is beginning to emerge: an environment for building paths with tubes and balls to learn mathematics. For example, some of the recurring ideas that emerge have to do with the possible conflict that can arise among students in the new environment, and therefore, it would be necessary to intervene more directly to establish rules, present the environment and materials, design the assemblies to share what has been learned… A certain need to organize, direct, or guide educational action emerges, a tendency that converges with their daily practices. In the course of these debates and when beliefs emerge strongly, the contrasted design makes visible the distance (8) “are we designing thelessonto do the same thing we wanted to improve?” (Belén, 4th Design Phase Meeting, April 24, 2013).

This contrast guided the shared concerns and desires for change around issues such as opening up methodological structures by recreating learning environments, trust in students’ self-regulation capacity, the need to review the materials and resources offered to students, the relevance of designing pedagogical contexts, and above all, the review of the directive and proactive role the teacher had towards an approach where observation and the design of learning contexts gain greater importance. This process of constructing the proposal required conceptual clarification due to the need to build a shared language.

This initial phase of description and dialogue linked to the design we want to develop can facilitate the identification and contrast of teachers’ primitive pedagogical Gestalts and their informed reconstruction through group deliberation and contrast with contributions from research.

Third, fourth, and fifth phases: the moments of analysis and observation of the “Lesson, where teachers record and collect evidence of student learning.

First, the group unanimously expressed their limited experience in observing their students and how participating in this experience helped them develop a new and necessary skill, which also facilitated reflection on their practical knowledge and a change in perspective towards their students:

Vito comments that before doing the observation, she was very confused about what exactly she had to look at and didn’t know how she was going to do it, but then she realized that the observation table helped her a lot. Belén highlights that this is one of the new strategies they have learned and that it would have been much more difficult to learn it alone. (Research diary. Initial proposal analysis phase, July 9, 2013).

Secondly, the teacher who is not developing the lesson is observing the educational process from a different position than they usually have in their classroom; this experience stirs them and resonates, provoking stimulating reflection on their own practice.

And that’s where we all felt identified with you. When I saw you like that, I said I would do the same… (Belén, 1st Meeting of the proposal analysis phase, June 10, 2013.)

As we are saying goodbye, Ana points out that she has felt very relaxed all morning, that things that make her very nervous in her class she has seen them differently here and has faced them with calm, and that she believes this should be done from time to time. (Research diary, Revised proposal development phase, July 5, 2013.)

In our research, the decision to video record the experimental proposals allowed the teachers developing the action to see themselves in a mirror, where they were able to appreciate details that were somewhat invisible or unnoticeable in the emergence of their daily practice, a unique opportunity to evidence and provoke reflection in the phase of understanding, debate, and evaluation of the lesson on the characteristics of the theories in use, the practical knowledge of the group and of each of its members.

Yes, yes, but I, you know… the issue of working in corners has been one of my pending assignments… if I don’t land a little bit on the table in the end and do something for everyone at once… that’s one of the things that gets you soaked. But it seemed to me that the morning was going to be too long, without having those moments and, however… it didn’t seem to me that the children found it long, nor… that the children got bored like other times. (Lena, 1st Meeting of the proposal analysis phase, June 10, 2013).

Through the contrast of evidence gathered by the teachers, this phase offers the opportunity to question and discuss as a group the strengths and weaknesses of one’s own practice, theoretically analyzing the relevance of the processes experienced both in the design of the Lessonand in its development.

Experiencing theory in the LS process

In some cases, and to our surprise, from the very first readings that teachers do to analyze the focus of the Lesson Study, incipient and interesting changes begin in their immediate classroom practices.

I have changed, ever since I read in one of the first articles the phrase… ‘Playtime for students who have finished their task’ – I identified with it; when I read it, I said, ‘That’s me.’ You know, the moment I read it, I saw it and I didn’t like it. And now, for example, the other day I changed it and didn’t put the corners after the task, which is when they play, but I put them at the beginning, as soon as they arrived, for a long time, more than an hour. (Lola, 2nd LS Design Phase meeting, April 3, 2013).

From our experience, we can say that, although the experimentation of the theory occurs, above all, in the moments of development (initial and improved) of the experimental proposal, it can take place at any time during the process. Experience reveals how the cooperative research-action process allows teachers to put new theory into practice through the activation of new agreed-upon attitudes and skills, new habits for experimenting with that informed Gestalt that has been reconstructed in the design phase. It cannot be forgotten that replacing consolidated pedagogical habits of perception, interpretation, and intervention requires unlearning and relearning, that is, it requires time, conditions, and the will to overcome the inevitable internal and external obstacles that favor the maintenance of the status quo. In this sense, and as an example, the teacher who develops the proposal within the agreed-upon framework of principles, initially concerned about this new situation of being observed, is reconstructing her automatic habits by incorporating attitudes and skills that are beginning to make her own beliefs and routines more visible in an environment that, as they themselves state, has been comfortable, conducive, and protective.

… I haven’t felt observed at any point in a way that made me uncomfortable. And I’ve been very happy that my class is working (…) So, yes, I think I’m happy about that. I don’t know, you tell me… (Lena, 1st Meeting of the proposal analysis phase, June 10, 2013.)

Likewise, another of the teachers becomes aware of her own childhood image, as well as the possibilities of self-regulation of her own students when initially questioning the process followed in the Lesson Study, as we saw earlier with the issue of conflict:

Lena: I don’t see… everyone at the same time in a class, I don’t think so…

Ana: In case it were possible, more spread out because there they will be… in Japan they will be used to it, but here… (2nd LS Design Phase meeting, April 3, 2013.)

The cooperative dimension of LS is a first-rate value for facilitating this process.

I think it will be very difficult to get rid of that unconscious thought, because for me it will remain unconscious, which is why I believe we will need external instruments, either for someone to investigate us or for common reflection, to help me bring that out, because the unconscious, precisely, is characterized by the fact that I often don’t realize what I’m doing, or what I have inside. (Lena, General Meeting prior to the start of the research, June 29, 2011.)

Despite starting from the individual experiences of each of them at the beginning, at all times during the proposal analysis phase, the teachers spoke in the plural when referring to Lena’s actions and later to Ana’s, which is evidence of the strong group feeling and collective construction that this process incorporates, thus avoiding unfounded sensitivities and fears in sharing the experience and opening the classroom doors to other teachers.

Nati adds that usually in daily work you don’t stop to think and you do what has been done to you, and only this group work allows you to become aware of it. (Research diary, Proposal analysis phase, April 24, 2013.)

Similarly, the cyclical and sustainable conception of the LS proposal over time is another excellent condition for the formation of new habits.

Nati states that it will be easier for them each time, until they have it automated, and Belén confirms it, (…) Lena recognizes that on many occasions she has found it difficult to remain silent and restrain herself, but she has found it easier because this restraint is the result of consensus. This shows how LS has helped her to change her teaching role towards action more consistent with her declared theories. (Research diary, Proposal analysis phase, April 24, 2013.)

The characteristics of our research,9 in which only one LS has been developed, show that the experimentation of the new theory or the new informed Gestalt, and its conversion into new, more flexible and powerful habits and dispositions, require more practical moments in addition to the second experimentation planned in theLesson (10).

During the process experienced in the research, some teachers became aware that even though the explicit purpose of the LS they had designed was to protect each student’s freedom to promote their autonomy and responsibility in early childhood education, they could not always control their acquired habit of intervening directly and invasively in the students’ space, actively directing their actions. The mere awareness of this subjective pedagogical tendency did not, in some teachers, lead to the modification of deeply consolidated habits and teaching attitudes in their practical knowledge. In other teachers with different pedagogical dispositions, more profound transformations were evident not only in their role but also in their classroom’s teaching methodology (Peña et al., monographic).

To provoke this transformation, we believe that repeated participation in LS processes is necessary, which, through cooperation in observation and action, allows the transformation of intuitive Gestalts into informed Gestalts that consolidate and precipitate new and desired ways of proceeding. This second experimentation is the starting point for further individual or group practices that each teacher develops to consolidate new habits, attitudes, values, and emotions. Therefore, with the aim of using LS as a powerful tool to foster the reconstruction of practical knowledge, it seems necessary to conceive it in Spain, as in other countries, as continuous Cooperative Action-Research programs, involving a group of teachers over a prolonged period. Informed practical thinking requires reflection and experience, experience and reflection. Not all practical knowledge or know-how has the desired pedagogical potential. It will be necessary to understand its nature, meaning, history, and functionality. This nature, experiential and reflective, implies the transformation of historically established pedagogical beliefs and assumptions, resistant to analysis, change, and reformulation.

Some final notes

The first result of our research refers to the variability and flexibility of LS. Since practical thinking is not stable, but is formed and evolves based on concrete practices, contextual demands, and professional requirements, we believe it is necessary to reflect on how LS can become a relevant tool for improving not only practice but also teachers’ practical knowledge, if we start from the concerns and pedagogical culture of the different geographical and social contexts where the action takes place.

The second refers to the relevance of a conceptual framework for interpretation that is shaped throughout the inquiry process. Conceiving the formation of practical thinking as a dynamic process with two complementary movements: theorizing practice and experimenting with theory, as well as the debate on the components that constitute this practical thinking (knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and emotions) has offered invaluable support to both teachers and researchers in better understanding the richness and complexity of their proclaimed theories and their theories in use.

The third result refers to the relevance of the methodological nuance that has individualized our interpretation and development of LS. We have focused on the improvement of teaching-learning, as an object of observation, analysis, review, and debate, in order to stimulate the theorization of practice and the experimentation of each teacher’s theory, particularly by investigating and reflecting on the harmony and/or dissonance between their proclaimed theories and their theories in use, especially focusing on the implicit dimensions of their practical knowledge. The best strategy for curricular experimentation is, ultimately, the development of teachers’ practical thinking, and this development is inconceivable without reflection on shared experiences of curricular experimentation.

The fourth result refers to the shared conviction among teachers and researchers that the experimentation of theory, the reformulation of unwanted, insufficient, or inappropriate habits, attitudes, and beliefs in the educational process requires long and persistent programs of novel teaching experiences, in successive LS cycles, because unlearning and relearning tacit, emotionally ingrained components resistant to change does not occur through mere cognitive illumination or clarification, but requires sustained experience in the everyday contexts of practice. Lesson Study cycles become a privileged tool in initial and ongoing training, by linking teachers’ professional development with curricular experimentation and cooperative self-training (Stenhouse, 1975). As Claxton (2013) proposes, reconstructing meanings involves and requires re-experiencing relationships with ourselves, with others, and with the natural world. Informed practical thinking requires reflection and experience, experience and reflection, preferably in community.

We conclude that what matters to us is the methodological change, the role we want to play. Our need was more important to us in relation to these aspects than learning logical-mathematical concepts. Our biggest challenge is that change of ‘mindset’ regarding our role. The great contribution of Lesson Study has been focused basically on this change of the teacher’s role. […] Here we have been unanimous, yes we have seen the way […] we commented on the iceberg metaphor, and it is that the presence of the educator ‘is supported’ by considerable work of prior design and practical reflection, and indeed that is what we have experienced with all this group work. (Final minutes of the teachers from the LS Group, January 14, 2014.)

In conclusion, it can be affirmed that the research developed through the implementation of LS, especially focused on teachers’ practical thinking, can contribute decisively to enriching teacher training processes by addressing a dimension that is usually forgotten (Schön, 1998): the one located in the interstices between theoretical training and practical training, through the incorporation of teachers’ practical knowledge in cooperative action research processes: Lesson Study.

Bibliographical references

• Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
• Cheung, W.M., and Wong, W.Y. (2014). Does Lesson Study work?: A systematic review on the effects of Lesson Study and Learning Study on teachers and students. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3 (2), 137–149.
• Claxton, G. (2013). Noises from the Darkroom: The Science and Mystery of the MindLondon: Harpercolins. 
• Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice. Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
• Damasio, A. (2010). Y el cerebro creó al hombre. Barcelona: Destino. 
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
• Dudley, P. (2012). Lesson Study development in England: from school networks to nacional policy. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 85-100.
• Eiser, J.R. (1999). Social Psychology. Madrid: Valencia.
• Elbaz-Luwich, F. (2010). Studying teachers’ lives and experience. Narrative inquiry into K–12 teaching. In D.J. Clandining (ed.), Handbook of Narrative Inquiry Mapping a Methodology. London: Sage, 357–382.
• Elliott, J. (2012). Developing a science of teaching trough lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1 (2), 108–126.
• Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Taylor and Francis.
• Franke, M.L. and Chan, A. (2007). Learning about and from focusing on routines of practice. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, United States.
• Grimmett, P.P. and Mackinnon, A.M. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. Review of research in education, 18, 358-456. 
• Hagger, H. and Hazel, H. (2006). Learning teaching from teachers: Realising the potential of School-Based Teacher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. 
• Hammerness, K. and Shulman, L. (2006). Seeing through teachers’ eyes: Professional ideals and classroom practices. Amsterdam: Teachers College Press. 
• Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M. Mcdonald, M. and Zeichner, K. (2005). How teacher learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: what teachers should learn and able to do. Jossey-Bass.
• Immordino-Yang, H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educational Phylosophy and Theory, 43 (1), 98-103.
• Jackson, Ph. (1987). The practice of teaching. New York: Teacher College Press.
• Jiménez, J.C. (2008). The value of values in organizations. Caracas: Cograf.
• Korthagen, F. (2005). Introduction: Personal links that shape the identity of teacher educators. In G.F. Hoban (ed.), The missing links in teacher education design: Developing a multilinked conceptual framework. The Netherlands: Dordrecht, 231-234.
  — (2010). The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education. In E. Baker, B. McGaw and P. Peterson (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Elsevier, Vol. 7: 669-675.
• Korthagen, F., Loughran, J. and Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (8), 1020- 1041.
• Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for Practice: What do we mean?. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1-2), 21-34. 
• Levine, T. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning. The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37 (1), 109-130. 
• Lewis, C. (2009). What is the nature of knowledge development in Lesson Study? Educational Action Research, 17 (1), 95-110. 
• Pareja, N.N., Ormel, B.J.B., Mckenney, S.E., Voogt, J.M. y Pieters J.M. (2014). Linking research and practice through teachers communities: A place where formal and practical knowledge meet? European Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (2), 183-203. 
• Peña, N. (2013). Lesson Study and practical thinking: A case study in Spain. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2 (2), 115-136. 
• Pérez Gómez, A. I. (2010). The nature of practical knowledge and its implications for teacher training. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33 (2), 171-179. — (2010a). Learning to teach in practice. Barcelona: Graó. — (2012). Educating in the digital age. Madrid: Morata. 
• Pérez Gómez, A. I., Soto, E. and Serván, M.J. (2010). Participatory Action Research and the reconstruction of teachers’ practical thinking. Lesson Studies and core reflection. An experience in Spain. Educational Action Research, 18 (1), 73-87.
• Polanyi, M. and Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
• Pozo, J.I. (2014). Psychology of Human Learning: Acquisition of knowledge and personal change. Madrid: Morata.
• Savvidou, C. (2010). Storytelling as dialogue: how teachers construct professional knowledge. Teachers and teaching theory and practice, 16 (6), 649-664.
• Schön, D.A. (1998). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Barcelona: Paidós.
• Soto, E., Serván, M.J., Peña, N. and Pérez, A.I. (2013). Lesson Study (LS) as a strategy to reconstruct teachers’ practical knowledge. WALS 2013. Goteborg, Sweden. 
• Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational Books. 
• Susuki, Y. (2012). Teachers’ professional discourse in a Japanese lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1 (3), 216-232. 
• Taber, S. (2006). Beyond Constructivism: The progressive research programme into learning science. Studies in Science Education, 42, 125-184. 
• Tardif, M. (2004). Los saberes del docente y su desarrollo profesional. Madrid: Narcea.
• Tizón, J.L. (2011). El poder del miedo. ¿Dónde guardamos nuestros temores cotidianos? Lleida: Milenio. 
• Van Manen, M. (1995). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. London: Ont., Althouse Press. 
• Wells G. and Claxton G. (2002). Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Zanting, A., Verloop, N., Vermunt, J.D. and Van Driel, H. (1998). Explicating Practical Knowledge: an extension of mentor teachers’ roles. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21 (1), 11-28. 
• Zeichner, K. (2010). New epistemologies in teacher training. Rethinking the connections between campus subjects and practical experiences in university teacher training. Interuniversity Review of Teacher Training (RIFOP), 68 (24.2), 123-149.

Notes

1. The project developed by the research group at the University of Málaga (2011-2015), led by Ángel I. Pérez Gómez, has been funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain within the National R&D&I Plan (EDU2011-29732-C02-02) “Practical knowledge in early childhood education teachers and its implications in initial and ongoing teacher training: cooperative action research (LS)”.
2. Classic holistic positions, such as those of Dewey (1933) or Jackson (1987), insisted on considering human experience as the unit of multiple different and even conflicting aspects, and not just the rationalist dimension of human knowledge and behavior (Descartes’ error) by placing consciousness as the sole instance for proposing and controlling our thoughts and actions. 
3. Most researchers in cognitive neuroscience confirm the non-conscious nature of at least 90% of the mechanisms that humans activate to perceive, interpret, make decisions, and intervene in the complex reality they inhabit, both in the personal, professional, and social spheres (Damasio, 2010; Inmordino-Yang, 2011).
4. They are almost the only ones that have been worked on in teacher training.
5. The project we are developing aims to investigate the practical knowledge of seven kindergarten teachers participating in an LS process, between March 2013 and February 2014, which included a total of 24 meetings for the different phases of the cycle; two experimental lessons and an exhaustive review of documents related to the focus of theLesson. The meetings and experimental lessons were video recorded and the meetings were transcribed for analysis. Documents produced by the teachers on the design and review of the experimental lessons (lesson design document, observation record sheets, meeting minutes, etc.) were also analyzed. The authors of this article conducted the case study of the LS developed. 
6. A description of the phases of Lesson Study can be found in the introductory article of this special issue by Soto and Pérez Gómez.
7. The real names of the teachers have been replaced by fictitious ones for confidentiality reasons. 
8. Within the LS process, the organization and distribution of roles are of particular relevance. In this case, one of the group members, on a rotating basis, maintains the focus on the agreed-upon principles during the design and analysis phase of the proposal.
9. The seven teachers in our research’s Lesson Study group come from five different schools. This, combined with the organizational characteristics of most Spanish schools, where teachers spend almost all their time with their students, makes it difficult, though not impossible, to establish LS beyond the process initiated for this research. Evidence of the possibilities can be found in Caparrós’s article in this same special issue. 
10. Chade-Meng and Goleman (2011) state that, generally, it takes between three and six months of employment for a new habit to become more natural than the old one.

La entrada Lesson Studies: Rethinking and Recreating Practical Knowledge in Cooperation se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

Ángel I. Pérez Gómez

SUMMARY.  This article proposes the need to reconceptualize and reformulate the theory and practice of teacher training, in light of the new demands of the information society and uncertainty, national and international research in the field, as well as international experiences in the last decade. The training of practical thinking, of basic professional qualities and competencies, requires openness to new epistemological conceptions in which the theory-practice relationship becomes complicated in a permanent movement of mutual enrichment. The work presents the theoretical assumptions and the methodological, organizational, and institutional implications that feed the new training programs for contemporary teachers through prolonged and relevant action-research processes.

KEYWORDS:Practice-based teacher training, Practical thinking, Teacher professional development.

ABSTRACT. The present article puts forward the need to reconceptualize and reformulate the theoretical and practical components in Teacher Education in the light of the new educational demands within the information and uncertainty society, the national and international research in the field, and the international experiences within the last decade. Training in practical thinking, in basic professional competences and qualities, requires the opening to new epistemological conceptions in which the relationship between theory and practice becomes complex in a continuous movement of mutual enrichment. In this paper, theoretical issues are presented together with methodological, organizational and institutional implications as they feed the new contemporary Teacher Education programs through relevant and extended Action-research processes.

KEY WORDS:Teacher Education based on practice, Teacher practical thinking, Teacher professional development.

“…University-based teacher education programs have no right to recommend teaching practices to teachers that they themselves have not satisfactorily used in their own university teaching practice.” (Russell, 1999, 220). 

“I never teach my pupils, I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn” (Albert Einstein).

New demands and new challenges for schools and teachers

The substantial relevance of education in the contemporary world seems to be a common place that no one disputes. The information and uncertainty era requires citizens capable of understanding the complexity of situations and the exponential increase in information, as well as creatively adapting to the speed of change and the uncertainty that accompanies it. The widespread perception of dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching-learning processes in contemporary schools has also become a common place. The high rate of early school leaving among the most needy students, without even completing compulsory education, and the irrelevance of the content learned for passing exams, but which does not increase the useful knowledge that each citizen applies to a better understanding of complex daily, personal, social, and professional life, turn society’s gaze towards the drastic reform of a school system better adapted to the requirements of the 19th century than to the challenges of the 21st. Faced with such demands, the figure of the teacher as a catalyst for teaching-learning processes becomes the focus of attention and controversy. If schools have to respond to new and complex demands, teacher training must face similar challenges to respond to such important and novel challenges.

With certain nuances, both phenomena, the training of citizens and the training of teachers, respond to the same demands and require similar training proposals and strategies. Underlying these phenomena is the same problem: what is the relationship between the knowledge contained in scientific, artistic, or humanistic disciplines, which is embodied in conventional academic curricula and packaged in textbooks, and the training and development of individuals’ ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as citizens, individuals, and professionals? How do we understand the development of human competencies or qualities in citizens and the professional competencies or qualities in teachers?

The construction of practical thinking, of competencies (1) or human qualities, which guides and governs the interpretation and modes of intervening in reality, is presented as the true objective of educational intervention and cannot be considered a process similar to that which leads to the elaboration of theoretical knowledge, nor a simple and direct application of it. The ephemeral and situated nature of academic knowledge that students acquire in educational institutions, whether in primary or university education, is a consequence, for various reasons, of its limited relevance in contributing to the development of practical thinking and individuals’ ways of understanding, feeling, and acting in daily life.

Human beings acquire meanings from a very early age that they associate, relate, and group into interpretative, anticipatory, and planning schemes. Regardless of their scientific accuracy, gaps, and contradictions, these schemes guide their understanding, emotions, and behaviors in a specific direction. The relationship between practice and theory, between phronesis and episteme, between intuitions and reasoning, between the circumstances and situations of the context and the development of internal structures of understanding and action, is key to comprehending this process. Contemporary individuals grow up and live saturated with information and surrounded by uncertainty. Therefore, the challenge in the formation of the contemporary subject lies in the difficulty of transforming information into knowledge—that is, into organized bodies of propositions that help to better understand reality—as well as in the difficulty of transforming that knowledge into thought and wisdom (2).

Epistemological Models in the Formation of Citizens
and Teachers

In my view, the conventional school has perversely inverted the means-ends relationship: the learning of disciplinary content and the passing of exams cannot be considered or proposed as valid ends in themselves, but rather as means to facilitate the development of human qualities or competencies that we consider valuable. If they do not achieve this, these means lose all their educational legitimacy. The training of citizens and teachers in school institutions has historically been based, and continues to be so today, with very few exceptions, on a scholastic epistemological conception, which responds to a logic of linear Cartesian rationality: a mixture of naive idealism and technical mechanism (BULLOUGH and GITLIN, 2001; RUSSELL and McPHERSON, 2001), whose fundamental assumptions are the following:

• There is a linear and unidirectional relationship from theory to practice. This naive and mechanistic conception considers that practice is a mere and direct objective application of theory, and that adequate practice is guaranteed through the declarative learning of relevant theories. Furthermore, since theories do not have for the student-apprentice, in most cases, the authentic significance they may have for the researcher, scientist, or expert, theoretical, declarative learning generally becomes a mere verbal reproduction of meaningless memorized acquisitions, without use value, which the apprentice exchanges for notes, grades, or credentials, but which rarely illuminate or guide practice.
• Knowledge is presented as a sequence of finished data and closed concepts, invented by others—without the richness of syntactic strategies for inquiry and heuristic search—that must be learned as is and reproduced as faithfully as possible, without participation or subjective interpretation. Doubt, uncertainty, or awareness of relativity and contingency do not appear as constituent elements of human knowledge.
• The contents and skills to be learned are normally placed at the lower end of the knowledge scale: mechanical data and skills, routines, and simple abilities that must be learned and mastered through repetition and practice. Precisely, these are the aspects of knowledge that are currently already within the reach of electronic machines and that they can execute with much greater ease and reliability than human beings.
• Learning is conceived as a strictly individual acquisition that increases the explicit and declarative store of mental resources, a “knowing how to say-repeat,” based on the belief that even if the learner does not find its meaning or applicability at the present moment, they will find it in the future (pedagogical positions well described and criticized by Freire in his “banking pedagogy” or by Merieu in his “camel pedagogy”).
• When higher-order knowledge categories, such as schemes, models, and conceptual maps, are worked on, learning generally focuses on abstract and decontextualized activities, outside of research or creation processes and the situations in which it can be applied to solve problems, propose alternatives, or modify realities.

This epistemological orientation leads, among other things, to the following considerations about the curriculum:

• The curriculum is conceived as the result of juxtaposing different bodies of disciplinary knowledge. It is naively assumed that the learner will be able to integrate these isolated curricular fragments into meaningful theoretical and practical units.
• Secondary sources of information are mainly used, fundamentally textbooks, which form a reality of their own, isolated from the context.
• Verbal transmission, oral or written, is the preferred method. All other methodological proposals are considered a waste of time. 
• The acquisition of knowledge is verified through accreditation exams, where said knowledge is presented as a set of closed questions with unique solutions, which the student must solve, generally by reproducing it as faithfully as possible.

In short, this epistemological conception leads to a simplistic view of pedagogy as a unidirectional transmission process, of the teacher as a mere technician who imparts a prescribed curriculum, and of knowledge as a neutral, established, and finished object, with no connection to feelings, values, and biases, which is simply transferred from the teacher’s mind, or the textbook, to the learner’s mind and from the learner’s mind to their practices. (Pérez Gómez, in press).

From Dewey’s approaches, which posit teaching as a form of inquiry and knowledge creation, through neo-Piagetian and neo-Vygotskian constructivist positions, as well as from the wide dissemination of Schön’s (1983, 1987, 1992) and Argyris’s (1993) significant works on the importance of practical thinking, an epistemological alternative is consolidated that understands the formation of citizens and teachers as a permanent process of conceptual reconstruction, continuous restructuring of modes of representation, understanding, and action, in light of the experiences and reflections that each person lives with the objects, people, ideas, and contexts that surround their personal and professional existence. Thus, more in theory and academia than in school institutions and their daily practices, a constructivist epistemology emerges, based on the following principles:

• Practice should not be considered a mere direct application of theory, but a complex, uncertain, and changing scenario where interactions occur that are worth observing, relating, contrasting, questioning, and reformulating, as they are spaces and processes that generate new knowledge (Gergen, 2001). The permanent interaction of practice and theory forms a creative and dynamic loop, which expands knowledge and transforms reality, by transforming the subject who knows and acts, as a consequence of their interaction with reality.
• Stated, verbalized theories, and theories-in-use, the knowledge-in-practice, of each individual, constitute related, complementary, but independent and sometimes discrepant universes (Argyris, 1993).
• The daily, personal, social, and professional life of citizens in general, and of education professionals in particular, makes up a complex, uncertain, unpredictable scenario, laden with values and pressured by the urgency of immediate reactions. In this scenario, it is practical thinking—theories-in-use, not stated theories—that governs our interpretations and actions.
• Contemporary research leaves little doubt about the holistic and emergent nature of practical knowledge. Practical thinking seems to be the appropriate place to understand the indissoluble yet complex integration of logical and rational elements with the emotional and motivational aspects of our systems of interpretation and action. It is formed by a repertoire of conscious and unconscious images, maps, or artifacts that carry information, logical associations, desires, and emotional connotations. The meanings or representations that human beings construct and reconstruct in their interactions possess cognitive and emotional components, conscious or unconscious, indissolubly integrated into the complex unit of representation. They constitute the cognitive, affective, and behavioral substrate of each individual. The complex nature of human thought and behavior cannot be understood without the emotional and evaluative component (Dewey, 1934, 1938; Wong, 2007; Damasio, 1994, 1999; IMmordiNO-YANG and Damasio, 2007).
• Learning involves consciously and systematically reconstructing (Pérez Gómez, 1998), restructuring (Pozo, 2006), and redescribing (Karmilov-Smith, 1992) the network of representations or meanings that each individual has built throughout their personal history, through interactions in everyday settings. Learning involves increasing and rethinking the knowledge that arises from each subject’s lived and thought experience to broaden the horizon of new experiences and new knowledge, as proposed by Contreras in this same special issue (Contreras, 2010).
• Students construct knowledge by interpreting, analyzing, and evaluating, while also intervening, not simply reciting information (Daniels and Bizar, 2005).
• Knowledge that is worthwhile in education has use value, for discovering and creating new horizons or for solving problems and improving living conditions. The exchange of knowledge for grades should, in any case, be a mere secondary condition.

School or curricular training of practical knowledge, within this epistemological perspective, advises:

• Start from open questions and real problems, paying special attention to areas of uncertainty and controversy.
• Use primary sources of information. Reality itself is the privileged source of information.
• Question one’s own common conceptions, create new scientific proposals and interpretations, experiment in practice, and use new knowledge in new contexts as a methodological, didactic procedure, more valued.
• Foster cooperation, debate, synergy of shared resources, the exchange of opinions and experiences. Students must confront the discrepancy between different researchers on controversial issues, accepting the constitutive relativity of human knowledge.
• Emphasize concentration on an area of work or focus of attention, rather than covering endless encyclopedic collections of information and data with claims of exhaustiveness.
• Conceive the curriculum more as a set of relevant problems and situations, disciplinary or interdisciplinary, that challenge learners’ capacity for understanding and action, rather than as a set of juxtaposed disciplinary fragments. As Jonnaert (2008) proposes, it is not enough to teach decontextualized disciplinary content (area of a trapezoid, sum of fractions, mental calculation procedure, syntax rules, conjugation mode, etc.); it is necessary to define situations in which students can construct, modify, or refute knowledge and skills using disciplinary content. Teachers who value this way of thinking about the curriculum provide students with time to think, problems worth working on, and other peers to think with (Daniels and Bizar, 2005).

It therefore seems evident that, if the aim is to develop the basic human competencies and qualities considered valuable for citizens of the 21st century, the teacher’s task will not consist solely or primarily in teaching decontextualized disciplinary content, but in defining and posing situations in which students can construct, modify, and reformulate knowledge, attitudes, and skills, that is, promoting learners to experience the relationship between experience and knowledge themselves (Contreras, 2010). Disciplinary content is not an end in itself; it is a means, the best one, to help confront the problematic situations that surround citizens’ lives. Understanding and acting in complex situations requires certain competencies or human qualities. Competencies are developed through the actions a person takes in a given situation and the resources they rely on.

Holistic positions, such as Dewey’s (1934, 1938), insist on considering human experience as the unit of multiple different and even conflicting aspects, conscious and unconscious, rational and emotional. The challenge is to discuss opposing qualities without falling into Manichaean dualism. Too often, however, only the rationalist dimension of human knowledge and behavior has been highlighted, by placing consciousness as the sole instance of control over our thoughts and actions. However, to understand the complexity of practical knowledge, we must understand the convergence and interaction of the conscious and unconscious aspects of information processing and meaning construction that are present in all human experience. The educational task, therefore, involves provoking, facilitating, and guiding the process by which each individual reconstructs their systems of interpretation and action, systems that, let us not forget, interactively include knowledge, skills, emotions, attitudes, and values.

Learning to educate (oneself). The formation of practical thinking

The training of education professionals, their thinking and conduct, their fundamental professional competencies, involves the effective, complex, and enriching development of theory-practice interaction processes. It is obvious that to understand their thinking and actions, it is not enough to identify formal processes and information processing or decision-making strategies; it is necessary to delve into the ideological network of theories and beliefs, often implicit, that determine how the professional makes sense of their world in general and their professional practice in particular (Korthagen, 2004; KORTHAGEN et al., 2006).

Few individuals are aware of the maps, images, and artifacts that make up their practical knowledge repertoires and that they put into action, mobilize, in each situation. Such repertoires contain assumptions, better or worse organized, about one’s own identity, about others, and about the context. These assumptions constitute a microcosm of everyday knowledge that is divergent and sometimes contradictory to the theories explicitly proclaimed by the individual to explain the orientation of their conduct. Therefore, Argyris (1993) emphasizes the need to keep in mind the differences between “theories-in-use” and “proclaimed or declared theories” in the training of reflective professionals.

The personal and professional effectiveness of each individual is related to the degree of congruence they can achieve between these two “theoretical” frameworks, and there is no doubt that significant differences between them imply high levels of dysfunctionality in interpretation and action. Frequently, as Eraut (1994) highlights, explicit language, the proclaimed theory, does not describe one’s own practice but rather serves as a defense or rationalization of it. Verbal reports can distort theories and conceptualizations, favoring certain factors while underestimating the importance of others.

On the other hand, practical knowledge, as highlighted by the implicit theories current (Marrero, 1993; Pozo et al., 2006), is permeated by beliefs, better or worse organized into systems, which are formed from an early age. Implicit beliefs are fundamentally non-conscious in nature, linked to emotions, needs, desires, and affections, which remain throughout life and whose resistance to change is well known, even if their logical and rational foundations are quite scarce (Pajares, 1992, Sola Fernández, 2000).

The training of teachers’ practical thinking, their fundamental human competencies and qualities, requires attention to the development of their implicit, personal theories (Pozo, SCHEUER, MATEOS and PÉREZ ECHEVARRÍA, 2006), the hard core of their beliefs and identity (Korthagen and VASALOS, 2005). Because if explicit and declared theories do not connect with implicit theories, with the schemes, resources, habits, and intuitive ways of perceiving, interpreting, anticipating, and reacting, they become mere ornaments useful, at best, for rhetoric or for passing exams, but sterile for governing action in the complex, changing, uncertain, and urgent situations of the classroom (Lampert, 2010).

As Korthagen et al. (2006) argue, until teachers manage to reduce their declared theories to their own, informed Gestalts, there is no guarantee that these theories will guide urgent practice in complex classroom situations. Hence the multiple contradictions between thought and action. Complementarily, until teachers are able to reconstruct their intuitive beliefs, images, and Gestalts, developed through the long socialization process as students, and transform them into Gestalts informed by others’ theories and experiences (Korthagen et al., 2006), there are also no guarantees of conscious, effective action adapted to the novel demands of contemporary educational challenges. The relatively harmonious and coherent development of teachers’ practical thinking, in the implicit-explicit continuum (Martín and Cervi, 2006), requires, in my opinion, permanent processes of action research, back and forth, from intuitions to theories and from theories to intuitions and habits in the contexts and situations where intervention is necessary. Teachers must be trained as researchers of their own practice to identify and regulate the implicit and explicit resources that make up their professional human competencies and qualities.

Every experience is transformative when we build new thoughts, feelings, and actions by intensely living the context with its expected regularities, contradictions, and surprises (Garrison, 2001). To be responsible, in addition to being reflective and intentional, one must first be sensitive to what surrounds us, to what calls to us, living intensely the interaction between our desires and purposes and the possibilities and resistances of the context (Wong, 2007; Pérez Gómez, in press).

The reconstruction of practical knowledge requires teachers to review and question the very images, ideas, and practices they develop in their daily work. Hagger and Hazel (2006) call this process practical theorizing; Contreras (2010) conceives it as the relationship between experience and knowledge, as the knowledge that emerges from one’s own reflected experience. Practical theorizing is the teacher’s reflection on their own practice, on their own way of acting, in light of the most relevant educational experiences and the results of the most consistent educational research. Therefore, the privileged strategy in teacher training must consist of involving learners in disciplined and informed practical theorizing about their own practice, that is, cooperative action-research processes and programs in professional contexts (Stenhouse, 1975; Elliott, 2004). By collecting evidence on the development of their own teaching in a specific context, the teacher can problematize the implicit theories, beliefs, values, and artifacts that shape their practice and develop systematic processes for generating and testing hypotheses and action alternatives on how to implement valuable changes and innovations.

In this regard, Mezirow’s concept of transformative learning (1996, 2000) seems useful to me, due to its emphasis on critical self-reflection, as the privileged strategy for reconstructing the networks of values, beliefs, and assumptions about how things work and how each individual functions. Personal meanings are permanently constructed and reconstructed from personal experiences and validated through debate and dialogue with others (3).

Teacher training could therefore be conceived as a relevant process of metamorphosis, of “transition,” an internal process of personal reorientation and transformation, which takes advantage of and builds upon previous acquisitions and which precedes lasting and sustainable external change. In other words, it is a genuine process of education. Teachers educate themselves by becoming involved and decisively reflecting on the educational process of others, not in an abstract and theoretical way, but in the complex, conflictive, and unpredictable contexts of real classrooms and schools where they are involved and called upon (Pérez Gómez, 1998; Russell and McPherson, 2001).

In all these processes, it seems evident that research, personal inquiry, constitutes an integral part of teaching and learning, both in the general education of citizens and in the training of teaching professionals in particular. The philosophy, strategies, and instruments of research become the philosophy, strategies, and instruments of teaching. The paradoxes and contradictions, the controversies, the rigor, and the uncertainty inherent in all human inquiry must therefore also accompany the teaching and training processes of the reflective teacher, as they provide invaluable learning opportunities linked to their own practice.

The formation of practical thinking and learning contexts

It is worth remembering now (Perez Gómez and Soto, 2009) that all learning, but particularly that which is relevant and lasting, is fundamentally a byproduct of an individual’s participation in social practices, as a member of a social community. The effective acquisition of skills, attitudes, values, and knowledge, in other words, competencies, takes place as part of a process of becoming familiar with ways of being, thinking, feeling, and seeing that characterize the group and the environment in which our lives unfold (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Thus, human thought, action, and feelings grow nested in social, cultural, and linguistic contexts. The meaning of concepts and theories must be situated in real-life practices, where such concepts, ideas, and principles are functional and where they constitute resources for understanding and action for learners. The concept of situation thus becomes the central element of learning: it is in situation that the learner constructs, modifies, or refutes contextualized knowledge and develops situated competencies (Jonnaert, 2005, 2007, 2008).

If a teacher’s practical knowledge is the result of long socialization processes as a student and as a teacher in school contexts whose culture disseminates images, artifacts, and relationships that learners largely incorporate unconsciously throughout their personal and school lives (lortie, 1975), it is this school culture that must be analyzed in detail in relation to the explicit and agreed-upon goals of the community, and its effects on each learner, to understand its meaning, its congruences, and its contradictions.

On the other hand, we should not forget, as Nuthal (2005) repeatedly highlights, that teaching is a cultural ritual that has been assimilated by each generation over several centuries, and which teachers, families, and students themselves reproduce without awareness of its foundations and implications. Teaching is not a simple skill, but a complex cultural activity profoundly conditioned by beliefs and habits that function, in part, outside of consciousness and are induced by the ways the school setting operates, within the pressures of the social context. As Marilyn Cochran-Smith (2009) enthusiastically and repeatedly argues, unless a change, a transformation in school culture is provoked, only superficial changes will occur in the curriculum, roles, or bureaucratic tasks. Profound, authentic, and sustainable changes depend as much or more on beliefs and ways of understanding as on the behaviors of individuals and professionals.

Towards a new pedagogy for the formation of teachers’ practical thinking

If, as Labaree (2006, 2008) states: “No teaching that we consider valuable occurs if students have not learned what we consider valuable,” that is, if they have not developed their basic human competencies or qualities for their contemporary lives, the aims of teacher training must be expressed in terms of fundamental professional competencies or qualities as systems of professional understanding and action. These fundamental qualities or competencies of teachers as researchers of their own practice, committed to the learning and development of students, can be specified as follows (DARLING-HAMMOND, HAMMERNESS, Grossman, Rust, and Shulman, 2005; Zeichner and Conklin, 2005):

• Create and build the training curriculum based on students’ interests, strengths, and prior practical thinking. 
• Construct an open, democratic, and flexible scenario and a set of authentic activities that aim to provoke each student’s involvement, each learner’s educational experience, respecting their differences and emphasizing their strengths. 
• Tutor and guide the learning of each student, establishing the necessary personalized scaffolding. 
• Evaluate the learning process in such a way that it helps students understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to assume their own self-regulation to improve. 
• Show respect and affection for all students, understanding their different personal and emotional situations and trusting in their ability to learn. Strive for close and respectful interaction and communication, provoking the feeling in students that they are respected and heard. 
• Develop in ourselves the best human qualities that we want to provoke in students: enthusiasm for knowledge, inquiry and intellectual curiosity, justice, honesty, respect, collaboration, commitment, solidarity, and compassion. 
• Become active members of the learning community, taking responsibility for the collective project and for our own ongoing professional development. 
• Assume responsibility for our own lifelong learning and professional development process, questioning the value of our own knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and attitudes, our ways of thinking, feeling, and acting as individuals and as teachers.

These qualities or competencies can be grouped into three basic professional competencies that underpin most innovative teacher training programs:

• Competence to plan, develop, and evaluate teaching that aims to foster the development of desirable human qualities in students.
• Competence to create and maintain open, flexible, democratic, and culturally rich environments where a positive learning climate is stimulated.
• Competence to promote one’s own professional development and the formation of learning communities with colleagues and other stakeholders in education.

We cannot forget that when using the term qualities, competencies, or practical thinking, we are referring to systems of understanding and action, and that, therefore, they include knowing how to think, knowing how to say, knowing how to do, and wanting to do. The teacher’s commitment and active involvement are key to professional development and clearly include rational and emotional aspects, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, concrete techniques and skills, and theoretical strategies and models. Thus, programs that aim to develop practical knowledge and teachers’ professional competencies must establish a rich, permanent interaction between practice and theory (practicum, fieldwork, clinical experience, induction programs, etc.) and use cooperative action-research projects as the privileged pedagogical strategy (4).

As we all know from experience and as research confirms, in the formal education system, from early childhood to university, assessment constitutes the true and definitive curriculum, as it indicates “what counts.” Therefore, in a teacher training program that aims to develop the basic professional competencies discussed earlier, the processes of assessment, grading, and accreditation must be configured congruently with the pedagogical philosophy we have considered valuable. Assessing basic professional competencies requires a multiplicity and diversity of procedures, strategies, techniques, and instruments that can approximate the complexity of the phenomena we wish to provoke: the creative and critical relationship between practice and theory, experience and knowledge, as well as linking cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects (5). These programs will use a wide variety of flexible and open diagnostic resources and instruments: observation of performance, portfolios, journals, reports, debates, interviews, teamwork… to respond to the requirements of authentic and formative assessment of fundamental professional competencies and qualities (WIGGINS, 1996, 1998; TILLEMA, 2009; MONEREO, 2003; James, 2007) 6.

Ultimately, learning to educate means learning to educate oneself continuously throughout the teacher’s professional life. Preparing teachers for these demands requires a radical transformation of traditional training methods. We need professionals who are experts in their respective fields of knowledge and, at the same time, are committed and competent to provoke relevant learning in students, because teaching that fails to provoke learning loses its legitimacy. However, there is little doubt that faculties of Education Sciences and teacher training institutions are far from the ideal of training competent teaching professionals for the task that education demands, as we have considered it here. The training of 21st-century teachers requires a radical change, not a mere cosmetic or bureaucratic change of names or accounting on paper, but a substantial change in perspective, culture, and current practices (Stigler and Hiebert, 1999; Mumby, Russel, and Martin, 2001). It requires a curriculum based on practice, focused on problematic situations, developed through integrated projects that actively involve future teachers in authentic tasks within real scenarios and contexts, where they learn to educate by cooperatively experiencing authentic educational innovation processes, intervening in the complex contexts of the classroom, observing the difficulties and resistances imposed by the school system, restricted and insufficient spaces, inflexible times, scarce resources, the expectations of the stakeholders involved… reflecting on their own practice, analyzing and debating possible improvement alternatives, accessing external theoretical and practical examples and models, and constantly reformulating their own projects, designs, methods, scenarios, tasks, and forms of evaluation.

As we have already indicated, the prevailing practice in current teacher training is based on a model that, although obsolete, is resistant: the supposed deferred and direct application of theory to practice. Academic courses, teaching practices, tutoring and supervision, educational innovation in schools, and pedagogical research are being configured, even in new study plans, as independent areas with no integration or communication between them, and with little conceptual and institutional congruence in their programs. There isn’t even a common vision among the agents involved in teacher training regarding what good teaching means, what a good teacher should be, and how to train them (LEVINE, 2006; HIEBERT, GALLIMORE & STIGLER, 2002; MUNBY, RUSSELL & MARTIN, 2001; BAIN, 2006; FERNÁNDEZ RODRÍGUEZ, RODRÍGUEZ NAVARRO & RODRÍGUEZ ROJO, in this special issue)7. Consequently, the fragmentation and decontextualization of the teacher training curriculum, the separation of theory and practice, research and action, the divorce between school and university; between knowledge, skills, attitudes, and affections, ruin the educational possibilities of any program for training competent professionals.

At the present time, with the implementation of the new study plans, promoted by the so-called Bologna Process, it is easy to understand the magnitude of the opportunity we are losing to face the substantive change required for the training of 21st-century teachers and the need to begin, with some independence from official routines and provisions, to experiment with new forms and models for training these professionals, taking advantage of the significant loopholes, wide cracks, and numerous degrees of freedom that present themselves in our daily work. Good luck to all. Thank you.

Bibliographical references

• Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 
• Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.
• Bain, B. (2006). What the best university professors do. Valencia: PUV.
• Bullough Jr., R. V. and Gitlin, A. D. (2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking knowledge production and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
• Cochran-Smith, M. (2009). “Re-culturing teacher education: Inquiry, evidence, and Action”. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 458-468. 
• Contreras, P. (2010). “Ser y saber en la formación didáctica del profesorado”. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 68 (24,2), 61-81. 
• Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam. 
• Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. London: Heinemann. 
• Daniels, H. and Bizar, M. (2005). Teaching the best practice way: Methods that matter. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Le Page, P., Hammerness, K. and Duffy, H. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
• Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F. and Shulman, L. (2005). “The design of teacher education programs”. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 
• Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree. 
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. 
• Elliot, J. (2004). “Using research to improve practice: the notion of evidence-based practice”. In C. Day and J. Sachs (Eds.), International Handbook of the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. 
• Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer
• Mezirow, J. (1996). “Contemporary paradigms of learning”. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 158-172.
• Mezirow, J. & Associates (Eds.) (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• MONEREO, C. (2003). “Assessing strategic knowledge through authentic tasks”. Pensamiento Educativo, 32, 71-89.
• Munby, H., Russell, T., and Martin, A. K. (2001). “Teachers’ knowledge and how It develops”. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook Of Research on Teaching (pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: AERA.
• Nuthal, G. (2005). “The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey”. Teachers College Record, vol. 107, no. 5, 895-934.
• OECD (2002). Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo): Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations: Strategy Paper. Downloaded from https://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education-and-training/37277077.pdf
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). “Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct”. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
• Pérez Gómez, A. I. (1998). La cultura escolar en la sociedad neoliberal. Madrid: Morata.
• Pérez Gómez, A. I. (2007a). The nature of basic competencies and their pedagogical applications. Government of Cantabria: Cuadernos de Educación.
• Pérez Gómez, A. (2007b). “Reinventing the school, changing the perspective”. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 368, 66-71.
• Pérez Gómez, A. I. (2008). “Competencies or practical thinking? The construction of meanings of representation and action”. In J. Gimeno (Ed.), Educating by competencies, what’s new? (pp. 59-103). Madrid: Morata.
• Pérez Gómez, A.I. (In press). “The nature of practical knowledge and its implications for teacher training”. Infancia y aprendizaje. June 2010.
• Perez Gómez, A.I. and Soto Gómez, E. (2009). “Competencies and school contexts. Mutual implications”. Organización y Gestión Educativa, 2, 17-22.
• Perrenoud, P. (2004). Developing reflective practice in the teaching profession. Professionalization and pedagogical reason. Barcelona: Graó.
• Pozo, J.I., Scheuer, N., Mateos , M. and Pérez Echevarría, M.P. (2006). “Implicit theories about learning and teaching”. In J.I. Pozo, N. Scheuer, M.P. Pérez Echevarría, M. Mateos, E. Martín and M. De La Cruz, New ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Teachers’ and students’ conceptions. Barcelona: Graó.
• Pozo, J.I. and VV.AA. (2006). New ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Teachers’ and students’ conceptions. Barcelona: Graó.
• Russell, T. (1999). “The challenge of change in teaching and teacher education”. In J. R. Baird (Ed.), Reflecting, teaching, learning. Perspectives on educational improvement (pp. 219-238). Cheltenham, Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.
• Russell, T. and McPherson, S. (2001). “Indicators of success in teacher education: A review and analysis of recent research”. Paper presented at the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda (PCERA) Symposium on Teacher Education / Educator Training, Quebec.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
• Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Schön, D. A. (1992). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Sola Fernández, M. (2000). “The formation of ideological beliefs and their influence on professional thinking”. In I. Rivas Flores (Ed.), Teaching Staff and Reform: A Change in Teachers’ Practices? (pp. 73-80). Málaga: Aljibe.
• Solomon, J. (2009). “The Boston Teacher Residency”. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 5, 478-488.
• Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational.
• Stigler, J.W. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
• Tillema, H. (2009). “Assessment for learning to teach: Appraisal of practice teaching lessons by mentors, supervisors, and student teachers”. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 155-167.
• Wiggins, G.P. (1996). “Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments”. Educational Leadership 54(4), 1-25.
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Wong, D. (2007). “Beyond control and rationality: Dewey, aesthetics, motivation, and educative experiences”. Teachers College Record, 109 (1), 192-220.
• Zeichner, K. (2007). “Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in Teacher Education”. Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (36), 36-46.
• Zeichner, K. y Conklin, H. (2005). “Teacher education programs”. En M. Cochran-Smith y K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 645-735). New York: Routledge.

Notes

1. I use the term “competencies” here in the holistic sense defended in the DESECO document (OECD, 2003; PÉREZ GÓMEZ, 2008; PERRENOUD, 2004; JONNAERT et al., 2005). For example, for Perrenoud (2004), the competency-based approach is a way of taking seriously, in other words, an old problem, that of “knowledge transfer”. Competency, for Jonnaert et al. (2005, 674), is the implementation of a diversified and coordinated set of resources, which the person mobilizes in a given context. This implementation is based on the choice, mobilization, and organization of resources. Resources are conative (e.g., the person’s commitment in the situation), bodily (hand movement when writing), material (a dictionary or program), social (exchange with a colleague), cognitive (recall of a memorized procedure or a heuristic strategy),… A competency corresponds to a complex know-how that relies on the mobilization and effective use of a variety of resources… A competency is more heuristic than algorithmic.
2. I understand wisdom as the art of knowing how to navigate and manage in situations of uncertainty, aware of the possibilities and limitations of the context and ourselves, by virtue of our own values and purposes, debated and questioned. The ability and willingness to use the best available knowledge to develop and pursue one’s own life, personal, social, and professional project.
3. Similarly, Fenwick (2003) proposes three ideas for understanding adult learning: a) learning is experiential, as it emerges jointly with the context, individuals, and activity; b) understanding is embodied in behavior, emotions, and relationships among participants; and c) the continuous process of invention and exploration is linked to imbalance, dissonance, and is amplified by others’ feedback and responses.
4. The experimental teacher training program project for early childhood education at the University of Malaga proposes the following guiding principles: – Prioritize a close relationship between theory and practice or practice and theory, which implies emphasizing the quantitative and qualitative importance of practical contexts and components of the curriculum. Competencies are complex systems of reflection and action, many of whose components must necessarily be formed in action, in practice. Reflection in and on action is the privileged strategy of the entire training process. The link between research and concrete practice becomes the priority pedagogical tool. It will therefore be essential to establish close relationships between the University and schools so that both actively participate in all phases of the training process for future teachers, from the planning of teaching to the evaluation and accreditation of the degree. – Enhance the modular structure of the curriculum. Without prejudice to distinguishing corresponding subjects where appropriate, we consider that the modular structure for curriculum organization overcomes one of the most significant deficiencies of our current study plans, which is fragmentation, and allows for broader curricular spaces that facilitate the acquisition and development of basic competencies, by enabling teaching strategies that integrate theory and practice, as well as fostering the initiative and activity of the learner individually and in work groups, on authentic tasks and in real contexts, situations, and problems. The modular structure implies cooperation between teachers, first within the same department and then between departments involved in the same module. 
   • Stimulate the development of the tutorial, personalized nature of university teaching, clearly situating teaching methodologies at the service of the learning of each and every student, which requires attending to diversity and respecting the uniqueness of the learning processes that the teacher must stimulate, accompany, guide, and correct. This implies a sensible student-teacher ratio that cannot exceed 50 students per basic teaching group.
   • Facilitate the convergence between teaching and research, so that the latest advances in knowledge in each field are placed at the service of student learning. This means ensuring that teaching is assigned to the areas, departments, and teachers who are most relevant due to their research and academic background.
   • Establish curricular flexibility as the key to the permanent development of study plans, so that they can react to the permanent change and development of knowledge and society. This implies methodological plurality and openness to the permanent incorporation of new content and new teaching and evaluation methods.
   • To promote, stimulate, and enhance the development of the future teacher’s autonomy, encouraging the optativity of courses, seminars, and workshops, as well as the practical, idiosyncratic, and unique forms of intervention of each student, so that their own professional personality is strengthened. 
   • To ensure coherence throughout the process, between the definition of the profile and competencies, the selection and sequencing of content, the formulation of teaching and evaluation strategies, and the organization of learning contexts, paying attention to the space, time, and grouping of students.
5. In this regard, the proposal made by the New Zealand Teacher Council (Kane, 2008) on the principles that should govern evaluation processes in the different initial teacher training programs can be consulted, which are summarized as follows. Evaluation should: 
   • To be an integral part of the learning process. 
   • Enrich and promote student learning through formative assessment. 
   • Motivate students to develop their skills, knowledge, and attitudes. 
   • Stimulate the development of the capacity for reflection, self-assessment, and shared assessment with peers. 
   • Stimulate the development of cooperative learning as well as individual learning.
   • Seek coherence between assessment and the proposed learning objectives. 
   • Seek reliability by grounding in relatively stable evidence and verifiable information.
   • Be manageable in terms of the workload required. 
   • Involve the negotiation and transparency of assessment criteria.
6. The program used by a consortium of major universities in California, called the Professional Attributes Questionnaires (PAQ), designed to assess teaching dispositions and professional competencies in four fundamental domains, can be consulted in this regard: 1) Design of teaching and assessment to promote student learning (31% of the test). 2) Create a positive and productive classroom environment (15% of the test). 3) Develop effective and sensitive teaching and assessment procedures (31% of the test). 4) Fulfillment of professional functions and responsibilities in accordance with the ethical and legal requirements of the profession (23% of the test).
7. As stated in the presentation of this special issue, this dissatisfaction with conventional, institutional, and curricular models of teacher training has led to extensive and intense theoretical and practical production of models and reforms on the international scene. Examples include the following: Carnegie Forum (1986); Holmes Group (1986); National Commission on Excellence in Teacher Education (1985); Project 30 Alliance (1991); Renaissance Group (1996); Tom (1997); Zeichner (2007); Grossman (2005); Grossman et al. (2009); Darling-Hammond, Bransford, LePage, Hammerness, and Duffy (2005); National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996); The AERA Special Interest Group “Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices” (S-STEP); Teacher For America (TFA); Teacher for a New Era (TNE); “School based teacher education”, IVLOS (Utrecht University); the substantial reform carried out in Finland in the last decade; Boston Teacher Residency (BTR) and the Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL) in Chicago (Solomon, 2009).

La entrada Learning to educate. New challenges for teacher training se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

Promoting equity in education. Translated by Patricia Alejandro Arias. Received date 28/02/2013. Acceptance date 25/05/2013. Contact address: Mel Ainscow. Centre for Equity in Education, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13, 9 PL. United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: This article addresses the challenge of how to develop inclusive and equitable education systems based on research evidence. The authors conclude that a multidimensional strategy is required. More specifically, they argue that school improvement processes need to be included in local efforts to achieve more equitable school systems, and to unite the work of schools with area strategies that address inequalities more broadly and, ultimately, with national policies aimed at creating more just societies.

PALABRAS CLAVE: Educación inclusiva; Equidad; Mejora escolar; Sistemas educativos.

ABSTRACT: This paper draws on research evidence to address the challenge of how to develop education systems that are inclusive and fair. The authors conclude that this requires a multi-dimensional strategy. More specifically, they argue that school improvement processes need to be nested within locally led efforts to make school systems more equitable, and to link the work of schools with area strategies for tackling wider inequities and, ultimately, with national policies aimed at creating fairer societies.

KEY WORDS: Inclusive Education; Equity; School Improvement; Educational Systems.

1. Introducción

Los sistemas de educación en todo el mundo se encuentran con el reto de alcanzar la equidad. En los países económicamente más pobres, este reto hace referencia a los 70 millones de niños sin escolarizar. Mientras tanto, en los países más ricos muchos jóvenes dejan la escuela sin ningún título significativo, otros son enviados a distintos tipos de centros especiales alejados de experiencias educativas ordinarias, y algunos simplemente eligen dejar unas clases que parecen totalmente irrelevantes para sus vidas.

This article draws on evidence from a research program to identify the changes needed to address this crucial political challenge. It also asks: how can schools ensure that every child receives fair treatment, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds? England is a useful context to consider when reflecting on this issue, as a 2007 OECD study indicates that the impact of socioeconomic circumstances on young people’s performance is more pronounced than in any of the other 52 countries studied.

2. Making Sense of Equity

Our research is guided by the principle of equity, as well as the notions of inclusion and social justice implicit within it. Having worked with schools for many years, we have become aware of the complexities involved. One way of thinking about the processes we work with is to see them as interconnected within an “ecology of equity” (Ainscow et al. 2012). By this, we mean that whether students’ experiences and outcomes are equitable does not depend solely on their teachers’ educational practices, or even on their schools, but is conditioned by a wide range of interactive processes that reach the school from the outside. These processes include the demographics of the areas served by educational centers, the histories and cultures of the populations that enroll (or do not enroll) children, and the economic realities faced by these populations. They also encompass the underlying socioeconomic processes that make some areas poor and others prosperous, and that concentrate migratory groups in certain locations.

They are also influenced by broader policies relating to the teaching profession, by decision-making at the district level and by the development of national policies, as well as by the effects that schools have on each other regarding issues such as exclusion and parental school choice.

Furthermore, they reflect new models of school governance, the ways in which local school hierarchies are established and maintained, and the extent to which a school’s actions are enabled or limited by its position within those hierarchies. It is important to recognize the complexity of the interactions between the different elements of this ecology, and their implications for achieving more equitable school systems. When working on improvement projects in schools, we find it useful to think about three interrelated areas where issues of equity arise. These are:

• In schools. These are the issues that arise from the school and pedagogical practices. They include: the way students are taught and how they are engaged in learning; the ways in which teaching groups are organized and the different types of opportunities that result from that organization; the type of social relationships and personal support that are characteristic of the school; the school’s response to diversity in terms of performance, gender, ethnic identity, and social background; and the kind of relationship the school establishes with families and local communities.
• Between schools.These are issues that arise from the characteristics of the local school system. They include: the ways in which different types of school appear locally; the ways in which these schools acquire different statuses so that hierarchies are created in terms of performance and preference; the ways in which schools compete and collaborate; processes of integration and segregation that concentrate students with similar backgrounds in different schools; the distribution of educational opportunities in schools, and the extent to which students in each school can access similar opportunities. 
• Beyond SchoolsThis wider-ranging context includes: the broader political context in which schools operate; family processes and resources that shape the ways in which children learn and develop; the interests and understanding of the professionals who work in schools, and the demographics, economy, culture, and histories of the areas that schools serve. Beyond this, it includes the underlying social and economic processes at national and – in many respects – global levels, out of which local conditions arise.

Seen in this way, it is evident that each school has considerable capacity to address issues within the walls of its own organisation, and that such actions are likely to have a profound impact on students’ experiences, and perhaps influence inequalities that appear elsewhere. However, it is equally true that these strategies do not lead schools to the direct resolution of issues between schools and beyond schools.

No school strategy can, for example, make a poor area more prosperous, or increase the resources available to students’ families, any more than it could contribute to creating a stable student population, or address the global processes underlying migration patterns. But perhaps there are issues relating to access, or the allocation of students to schools, that could be addressed if schools worked together on a common programme. With these arguments laid out, we now explore different possibilities for joining up strategies within schools, between schools, and beyond schools, that can facilitate the development of more equitable improvement approaches.

2.1. Factors within the school

Our research had shown how the use of evidence to analyse teaching within the school can help to promote the development of inclusive practices (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006; Miles and Ainscow, 2011). In particular, the act of interrupting existing discourses creates valuable space for rethinking. Techniques that are especially effective in this respect involve the use of reciprocal observation of lessons, sometimes by means of video recordings, as well as evidence, gathered from students, about the mechanisms of teaching and learning within the school. Under certain conditions, these approaches provide “interruptions” that make it possible to see the familiar as strange, so that self-questioning, creativity and action are stimulated. Sometimes, the reframing of perceived problems through these approaches makes it easier for teachers to see solutions for the elimination of barriers to participation and learning that had been overlooked. 

However, such approaches to the development of practice based on questioning are far from straightforward. Disruption to thinking, resulting from an analysis of evidence by a group of teachers, may not necessarily lead to consideration of new ways of working. Indeed, we had documented instances of how deeply held beliefs within a school prevent the experimentation needed to promote the development of more inclusive practices. 

This points to the importance of forms of leadership that promote the challenging of conjectures about a particular student among professional colleagues. We know that some schools are characterized by having ‘inclusive cultures’ (Dyson, Howes and Roberts, 2004). Within such schools, there is a consensus among adults about the values of respect for difference, as well as a commitment to offering all students access to learning opportunities. This consensus may not be total and does not necessarily eliminate all tensions or contradictions in practice. On the other hand, there are possibilities for a high level of staff collaboration and joint problem-solving, and similar values and commitments can be extended to all students, parents, and other interested community members of the school. 

Between 2006 and 2011, we had the opportunity to explore these ideas in more detail through our involvement in a group of English secondary schools (see Ainscow et al., 2012 for a detailed explanation of this project). The initiative was located in an area characterized by socioeconomic deprivation, and social and ethnic segregation. The district’s secondary school system comprised a hierarchy of sixteen schools, some selective based on achievement or religious faith, alongside others that were non-selective and described as comprehensive schools.

The network started with an existing collaboration between four schools, with ten more schools joining at different stages over a five-year period. While the headteachers of the participating schools had developed very good working relationships that had resulted in some collaborative activities, they felt that the impact had been limited. Consequently, they decided that there was a need to develop ways of working that challenged staff practices, conjectures, and beliefs, and would stimulate further, more sustained progress. With this in mind, they approached us to support and facilitate the use of research to strengthen their network. The schools agreed to fund our involvement. 

Following several conversations with the headteachers, it was agreed that equity was one of the most important issues facing each participating school. It soon became apparent, however, that this meant something different in each context, and not least in relation to the groups of students who seemed to be left out of existing systems. As a result, it was agreed that the network’s work should take note of these differences, adopting a broad group of research questions to focus their activities, within which each school would determine its own particular approach. These questions were as follows: 

• Which of our students are most vulnerable to school failure, marginalization, or exclusion? 
• What changes in policy and practice are needed to bring these students back in? 
• How can these changes be introduced effectively and evaluated in relation to student outcomes? 

When making the strategic decision to focus attention on groups of students who were thought to be outside existing systems, we were concerned that this might lead to restricting and focusing efforts on “fixing” students considered incapable in some way. However, the collection of evidence about these groups usually led to a new vision focused on the contextual factors that were acting as barriers to their participation and learning. In this way, most of the projects carried out gradually became efforts to improve the conventional school with the potential to benefit a large part of the student body.

As with our previous projects, research groups were formed in each school, consisting of five or six members representing different perspectives within their school communities. These groups took part in introductory workshops where we discussed with them an initial analysis of the area that we had done, based on a consideration of various documents, statistics, and interviews with a selection of interested members, including school principals, local administration staff, community group representatives, and politicians.

Following this process of contextual analysis, the teams in each school engaged in a planning process for the research they intended to carry out. In doing so, we helped them develop a clearer approach and plan the procedures they would follow. Subsequently, each team in each school decided to collect evidence about those students who were identified as “losing out” in one way or another, with the aim of developing a more accurate understanding of their experiences in school. The groups also shared their findings with colleagues from other collaborating schools. Thus, the intention was to deepen the understanding of practices, beliefs, conjectures, and organizational processes, both individually and collectively among the schools in the network.

Having been carried out over a period of five years of intense governmental activity to improve educational outcomes – or at least to raise performance levels in annual reports – during which multiple political initiatives and interventions were developed to overcome standards, it is not easy to discern the concrete effects of the project nor to attribute them more to the work of the project teams than to the pressures imposed on schools in general during this period. Nevertheless, the evidence collected showed that even members of the school’s teaching staff were able to identify changes themselves and track them, linking them to the project. It can also be stated that these schools fully contributed to the overall improvement of exam results recorded by the specific local administration during this period. In fact, the percentage of students who obtained five or more grades between A* (honors) and C (very good) in the GCSE 1, the state exam to obtain the secondary school diploma taken by almost all 16-year-olds, rose from 54.6% in 2005 to 76.5% in 2010, an increase of 22% (during the same period the national average was from 56.3% to 75.3%, which is 19%). Looking at a more inclusive measure of student performance, during the same period the percentage of students who obtained five or more grades between A* and G2 increased to almost double the national average, from 90% to 96.1% (compared to 89% to 92.7% at the state level).

Our consideration of what this particular network has achieved points to a number of factors that seem to be particularly important for the development of more equitable schools. Fundamentally, the factors that concern us are located in classrooms, where, above all else, equity refers to attitudes. In other words, the attitudes of teachers – and classmates – can both promote and inhibit a fair, welcoming, and inclusive working environment. In a school committed to the principle of social justice, all students should expect to be welcomed into their classes – not only explicitly, that is, embracing cultural, social, and intellectual differences – but also implicitly, so that no one feels marginalized due to reactions (or lack thereof) to their behaviors and actions. By all students being welcomed, they can expect positive interactions as a normal part of their classroom experiences. As a result, they will feel included, valued, and recognized. 

Then there is the issue of practice. If teachers favor a certain style, this will tend to suit those students who are comfortable with that style more. Indeed, strong orthodoxies in teaching disadvantage students who are less confident or less engaged with that approach. Equity therefore requires practitioners, professionals who understand the importance of teaching the same thing in different ways to different students, and of teaching different things in different ways to the same students. 

The schools in the network could point to examples of good practice in all these areas before joining the project. But the question they wanted to resolve through their participation was how to ensure that all students could feel welcomed within these ways of working. In most schools, there was also evidence of changes in classrooms, so that specific groups who felt excluded were now more actively engaged in learning, and this had been achieved through deliberate attention to the attitudes shown, the language used, and the interactions programmed in classes, all of which were reflected in the range of teaching approaches used. 

Of course, these are the aspects of equity that are least difficult to implement. This premise is not intended to deny their value, but rather we accept that although adjustments in classroom practices can have a significant impact on the experiences of specific students, they do not have the capacity to alter those factors that led those same students to be “missing out” in the first place. Often such factors are more inflexible, and therefore more difficult for a single school to influence.

1. Translator’s note: The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is the equivalent of the ESO certificate in Spain.
2. Translator’s note: GCSE results are graded on a scale of 8 grades: A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, with A* being the highest honor (a score of 90% of the total score for the subject), and G being the lowest score (20% of the total). Students who do not reach the minimum grade (G) will not be graded, which will be indicated by the letter U, and therefore will not obtain the certificate.

2.2. Factors between schools

The approach outlined so far is based on the idea that professionals in a school gather various types of information and commit to the data obtained to stimulate actions towards creating more equitable mechanisms. Our research has provided us with a compelling argument for the potential of this approach (Ainscow et al., 2012). It has also shed light on the difficulties of putting such an approach into practice in current political contexts. This leads us to analyze the limitations of strategies within schools, and consequently, to the conclusion that these must be complemented by activities between schools. 

Recently, we have conducted a series of studies that have generated considerable evidence that school-to-school collaboration can strengthen improvement processes by increasing the variety of knowledge and experiences available. (see: Ainscow, 2010; Ainscow and Howes, 2007; Ainscow, Muijs and West, 2006; Ainscow, Nicolaidou and West, 2003; Ainscow and West, 2006; Ainscow, West and Nicolaidou, 2005; Muijs, West and Ainscow, 2010; Muijs, Ainscow, Chapman and West, 2011). Furthermore, these studies indicate that collaboration between schools has enormous potential to promote system-level improvements, especially in challenging urban contexts. More specifically, they show that this collaboration between educational centers can be an effective means of immediate problem-solving, such as staff cutbacks; it can have a positive impact during periods of crisis, such as the closure of a school; and that, in the long term, schools working together contribute to increasing expectations and achievements in schools that have a history of underperformance. There is also evidence that collaboration can help reduce the polarization of schools based on their position in the “league tables,” to the specific benefit of those students who appear marginalized at the edges of the system and whose performance and attitudes are a cause for growing concern. 

In most cases, these studies have been conducted in situations where schools have received short-term financial incentives linked to the demonstration of collaborative planning and development activities. However, they convinced us that this approach can be a powerful catalyst for change, even if it is not an easy option, particularly within political contexts where competition and choice continue to be the main political drivers. The most compelling evidence of the power of collaboration between schools working together comes from our recent participation in the “Manchester Grand Challenge,” a three-year project involving over 1,100 schools in ten local authorities, with a government investment of £50 million (approximately €60 million) (see Ainscow, 2012, for a detailed explanation of this initiative). The decision to invest a budget of such magnitude reflected a concern about educational standards in the city and its surroundings, particularly for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The approach adopted was influenced by a previous initiative carried out in London (Brighouse, 2007).

Reflecting much of the thinking developed in this work, the overall approach of the Manchester Grand Challenge emerged from a detailed analysis of the social context, using both statistical data and local information provided by stakeholders. The analysis focused attention on areas of interest and, in turn, allowed for the identification of a range of human resources that could be mobilized to support improvement efforts. Recognizing the potential of these resources, it was decided that networking and collaboration should be the key strategies for strengthening the overall improvement capacity of the system. More specifically, this referred to a series of interconnected activities to ensure that “knowledge circulates everywhere” (Ainscow, 2012).

Thus, for example, in an attempt to involve all schools in networking and collaboration processes, School Families were created, using a data system that groups schools into “families” of 12 to 20 centers based on students’ prior attainment and the socioeconomic background of their households. The strength of this approach is that it connects schools serving similar populations, while at the same time fostering collaboration between schools that are not in direct competition with each other because they do not serve the same neighborhoods. School Families, led by school principals, proved successful in strengthening collaborative processes within a metropolitan area, although the impact was varied.

With regard to schools working in highly disadvantaged contexts, the evidence obtained from the Challenge suggests that school-to-school collaborations are the most decisive means of promoting improvements. Most notably, the “Keys to Success” program led to impressive progress in the attainment of around 200 schools facing very difficult circumstances. There is also evidence that the progress made by these schools helped to drive progress across the entire system. A common feature of almost all interventions was that progress was achieved through carefully selected pairings (or sometimes trios) of schools that transcended “social boundaries” of various kinds, including those that separate schools belonging to different local authorities. In this way, experience and knowledge that was previously confined to specific contexts became more widely accessible.

Another effective strategy for facilitating the movement of experiences was provided by the creation of various types of “hub schools.” Thus, for example, some of the centers provided support to other schools regarding how to support students learning English as an additional language. Similarly, so-called “teaching schools” that offer professional development programs focused on providing improvements in classroom practice. Other “hub schools” offered support related to specific areas of specialization and to respond to potentially vulnerable groups, such as those categorized as having special educational needs. In this latter context, a significant strategy consisted of special education schools acquiring new roles by supporting the development and improvement of practices in mainstream schools.

Significantly, we find that such collaborative arrangements can have a positive impact on the learning of students across all participating schools. The importance of this finding is that the effort made to strengthen schools with a more or less low performance can, at the same time, foster wider improvements across the system. It also offers a compelling argument for why relatively strong schools should support other schools. In other words, the evidence shows us that “by helping others, you help yourself”.

While increasing collaboration of this kind is vital as a strategy for developing more effective ways of working, the experience of Greater Manchester showed that it is not enough. The essential additional ingredient is a commitment to data that can bring an element of common challenge to such collaborative processes. We found that data were particularly important when matching schools, as the degree of effectiveness of collaboration is much higher when matched schools are carefully chosen and know what they are trying to achieve. Data are also important for schools to move beyond cordial relationships that have no impact on outcomes. Consequently, schools need to base their relationships on evidence of each other’s strengths and weaknesses, so that they can challenge each other to improve.

To facilitate this kind of contextual analysis, strategies and frameworks were designed to help schools support each other in carrying out their evaluations. In the primary sector, this involved colleagues from other schools acting as critical friends in internally led evaluation processes; while in secondary schools, subject departments took part in “deep dives”, where qualified specialists from another school made visits to observe and analyse practices, and facilitate improvement activities focused on some aspect. The power of these approaches lies in the way they provide opportunities for teachers to have strategic conversations with colleagues from another school.

The powerful impact of the collaborative strategies developed during the “Greater Manchester Challenge” points to ways in which the processes used within individual schools can be deepened and thus strengthened. This requires an emphasis on mutual critique, within schools and between schools, based on a commitment to shared data, and, in turn, requires a strong collective commitment from secondary school professionals and a desire to share responsibility for driving system reform. The study of new patterns of school leadership that emerged in response to structural changes that occurred in the English education system, offers some promise in this regard (Chapman et al. 2008).

2.3. Factors beyond the school

An OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) report, “No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education” (2007), argues that educational equity has two dimensions. First, it is a matter of social justice, which involves ensuring that social and personal circumstances—for example, gender, socioeconomic status, or ethnic background—should not be an obstacle to achieving educational potential. Second, it is about inclusion, which is about ensuring a minimum basic standard of education for all. The report states that the two dimensions are closely intertwined, as “addressing school failure helps to overcome the effects of social disadvantage that is often a cause of school failure” (p. 11).

The report continues to argue that fair and inclusive education is desirable due to the imperative set by human rights for individuals to be able to develop their capacities and participate fully in society. It also reminds us of the long-term social and financial costs of school failure, as those without the skills to participate socially and economically generate greater costs in health, supplementary benefits, childcare, and security. Furthermore, increasing migration poses new challenges for social cohesion in more and more countries.

 Despite the efforts made in response to these arguments, a worrying gap continues to exist in many parts of the world between the achievements of students from wealthy families and those from poor families (Kerr and West, 2010; UNESCO, 2010; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2000). The extent of this gap varies significantly between countries. For example, Moushed, Chijioke, and Barber (2010) argue:

“In a world-order system like the Finnish one, socioeconomic status is much less predictive of a student’s achievement. Under the same conditions, a low-income student in the United States has far less chance of succeeding in school than a low-income student in Finland. Given the enormous economic impact of educational achievement, this is one of the best indicators of equal opportunity in a society…” (p. 8-9).

On a more optimistic note, the most recent international comparisons regarding literacy indicate that the best-performing school systems manage to provide high-quality education to all their students. For example:

“Canada, Finland, Japan, Korea and the partner economies Hong Kong-China and Shanghai-China outperform the OECD average, and students tend to perform well regardless of their own circumstances or the school they attend. Not only do they have a large number of students with very high levels of reading proficiency, but there are also relatively few students with low levels of proficiency” (OECD, 2010, p. 15).

This means that countries can develop education systems that are both equitable and excellent. The question is: what steps need to be taken to advance policy and practice?

Within the international research community, there is evidence of a division of opinion on how to respond to this question. On the one hand, there are those who argue that what is required is a school-focused approach, which allows for better implementation of the base knowledge created over many years of research on school improvement and effectiveness (Hopkins et al., 2005; Sammons, 2007).

Dichos investigadores señalan ejemplos donde este acercamiento ha tenido un impacto en el logro de las escuelas que dan servicio a comunidades desfavorecidas (por ej. Chenoweth, 2007; Stringfield, 1995). Por otra parte, están aquellos que argumentan que dichos acercamientos centrados en la escuela no pueden resolver desigualdades fundamentales en una sociedad que impide a los jóvenes liberarse de las restricciones impuestas por las circunstancias de su hogar (Dyson y Raffo, 2007). Dichos argumentos advierten del peligro de separar el intento de mejora escolar del impacto que pueden tener factores sociales y políticos más amplios. Los investigadores que refieren este peligro abogan por reformas más holísticas que conecten escuelas, comunidades e instituciones políticas y económicas externas (Anyon, 1997; Crowther et al., 2003; Levin, 2005; Lipman, 2004). Estos autores concluyen que es insuficiente centrarse únicamente en la mejora individual de las escuelas, sino que dichos esfuerzos deben formar parte de un plan global mayor para una amplia reforma del sistema que debe incluir a todas las partes interesadas a niveles nacional, regional, institucional y comunitario. 

Una posibilidad obvia es la combinación de ambas perspectivas por medio de estrategias que traten de unir los intentos por cambiar las condiciones internas de las escuelas con esfuerzos por mejorar las áreas locales. Este enfoque es una de las características de la tan aclamada Zona de los Niños de Harlem (Whitehurst y Croft, 2010), un sistema de educación basado en el vecindario y servicios sociales para los niños de familias de ingresos bajos en ese barrio de Nueva York. El programa combina componentes educativos como Programas para la primera infancia con clases para padres y escuelas públicas experimentales (también conocidas como “escuelas chárter”) con componentes de salud (incluyendo programas de nutrición); y con servicios al vecindario (asesoramiento individual para las familias; centros comunitarios; y un centro que enseña habilidades relacionadas con empleos a adolescentes y adultos). Dobbie y Fryer (2009) describen la Zona de los Niños como “posiblemente el experimento social más ambicioso de nuestro tiempo para aliviar la pobreza” (p. 1). Habiendo llevado a cabo un análisis en profundidad de los datos estadísticos con relación al impacto de la iniciativa, concluyen: 

“… las escuelas de alta calidad o las escuelas de alta calidad, unidas a inversiones en la comunidad, posibilitan la consecución de los logros. Las inversiones comunitarias solas no pueden explicar los resultados.”(p. 25)

Nuestras recomendaciones se basan en este enfoque combinado, aunque somos conscientes de que las presiones generadas por las políticas nacionales pueden llevar a dilemas estratégicos a la hora de ponerlo en práctica, especialmente cuando las escuelas se sienten obligadas a demostrar rápidas mejoras en los test y en las calificaciones de los exámenes. 

Our analyses of the ways in which external factors limit the possibilities for developing equitable schools offer clear examples of the complexity of the process, and therefore justify the argument that an analysis of the broader context in which schools operate is needed (Ainscow et al, 2012). The authors’ considerable experience in conducting analyses of this type in various school districts has shown that transforming educational services offered according to neighborhoods and local services depends on identifying local priorities and ways to develop convincing responses to them. This requires embarking on forms of contextual analysis whose questions delve beneath the surface of achievement indicators, in order to understand how local dynamics shape concrete outcomes, and to identify the key underlying factors at play and determine which can be altered and by whom. 

This implies a change in the conception of local transformation, moving from a superficial response, which will be no more than a mere patch related to manipulating official figures, to a deeper response that, by addressing problematic issues in their context, aims to achieve sustainable, long-term improvements. Thus, the purpose is to produce a rich and feasible understanding of local issues. To achieve this, the analysis can be delimited in three different ways, none of which are mutually exclusive: 

• Based on unit of action– for example, a contextual analysis could focus on issues within an administratively defined area, such as a regional or local authority, where structures already exist that can be used to carry out actions. 
• According to geographical and social boundaries– the analysis could focus on issues in an area clearly delimited by physical borders, such as, for example, main roads, or imaginary borders, such as a residential neighborhood with which residents fully identify – or a combination of both. 
• According to issues– the analysis could focus on the study of a specific issue, such as school absenteeism or belonging to adolescent gangs. In these cases, while maintaining a local focus, the analysis could extend beyond a specific neighborhood or administrative area. We have seen that sometimes a contextual analysis can highlight issues that shape local circumstances but which local actors are not in a position to change – for example, the global recession leading to the decline of local industry. However, analyses should be able to identify how local processes and dynamics are being shaped by these factors; what can be done locally, and which unit(s) of action can be used to develop an appropriate response. 

To understand the complex dynamics at play in an area, and to explore the resulting data, it is necessary to allow people who live and work in that place to talk about their interpretation of local issues. We have seen that a flexible research framework can help provide the necessary freedom for this, while also ensuring that the data generated can be usefully compared, and used to create shared interpretations and strategies (Ainscow et al., 2012).

3. Rethinking Relationships

When reflecting on how to more generally use the strategies we have outlined in this article, it is essential to recognize that they do not offer a list of techniques that can simply be taken and transferred to other contexts. Rather, they offer a general approach to improvement driven by a set of values and processes of using contextual analysis to create strategies that suit specific circumstances. What is also distinctive about this approach is that it is primarily directed from within schools to make more effective use of existing expertise and creativity. 

We argue that reducing the existing gap in outcomes between children from more and less advantaged backgrounds will only happen when what happens to children outside and inside schools changes. This means changing the way families and communities work, and enriching what they offer to children. In this regard, we have seen hopeful experiences of the progress that can be achieved by merging, through a coherent strategy, the work of schools with the efforts of other local agents – employers, community groups, universities, and public services – (Ainscow, 2012; Cummings, Dyson and Todd, 2011). This does not necessarily mean that schools work harder, but it implies collaborations beyond the school, which allow collaborators to multiply the impact of their individual efforts. 

The repercussions of this approach affect all parties involved in the education system, especially teachers, particularly those in positions of authority, who must be aware of having a greater responsibility towards all children and young people, not just those attending their school. They must also develop internal organizational patterns that enable them to have the flexibility to cooperate with other schools and with other interested agents beyond the school gates (Chapman et al., 2008). Likewise, those who administer area school systems must adjust their priorities and ways of working in line with the improvement efforts directed from within schools. 

There is a key role for governments in all of this. English experience over the last twenty years has shown that attempts at centralized ordering and control stifle as much as they stimulate local development. (Ainscow and West, 2006; Gray, 2012; Whitty, 2010). Consequently, central government needs to act as a promoter, fostering development, disseminating good practices, and ensuring that local leaders are accountable for results. All these practices depend on a continuous flow of knowledge exchange and therefore demand a cultural change. A new approach to national policy is essential for this purpose: an approach that responds to local factors and, in turn, provides an understanding that unites all aspects of equity to bring coherence and foster collaboration among the various reform efforts (Ainscow, 2005).

4. Conclusion

The arguments we have developed in this article aim to question prevailing school improvements to return to their historical purpose: ensuring a solid, quality education for every child. We have suggested that to achieve this, it is necessary to complement improvements within schools with efforts that link schools to each other and to their broader communities. For this to happen, we propose five organizational conditions that need to be realized: 

• Condition 1:Schools must collaborate in a way that creates a system-wide approach. If, as we have argued, equity issues can arise between schools, this demands an approach to promoting equity that crosses school boundaries. In other words, all schools in a given area must assume some level of responsibility for all the children who live there. Therefore, the criteria that favor institutional benefit, so characteristic of current school systems, need to be replaced by an approach that recognizes the reciprocity of schools. 

• Condition 2:Local leadership focused on equity is needed to coordinate collaborative action. Although it is still debated whether local authorities remain the ideal vehicle for local coordination and policy design, it is clear that some form of local leadership is necessary, and that such leadership must prioritize equity issues in the area over the benefit of any particular institution. In this regard, we have observed a number of contexts in which the most authoritative staff within a group of schools have worked together to provide such leadership. 

• Condition 3:Development within schools must be linked to broader community efforts to address the inequalities suffered by children. Local coordination is not simply about managing schools to have some kind of productive relationship with each other, but also about linking the work of educational centers with that of other agents, organizations, and community groups involved in the social and economic well-being of the area. If they work separately, schools cannot help to resolve the deficiencies, and the corresponding disadvantages, that some of their students experience. However, in principle, there is no reason why they cannot go beyond their doors and develop a more holistic approach to problems in collaboration with other stakeholders. 

• Condition 4:National policy needs to be formulated in a way that facilitates and supports local action. None of the improvements we are suggesting will be possible without a national policy framework that encourages schools to orient themselves towards broader equity issues. In our own country, the perverse consequences of successive government educational policies are all too evident – the excessive emphasis placed on numerical measures of performance; the conflation of crude indicators of school quality with actual student performance; the fostering of the conception of schools as self-interested institutions, competing against each other rather than working for the interests of all children; the weakening of local leaders by local authorities and the repeated attempts to resolve deeply entrenched social and educational problems through improvements, reforms, and the history of British educational policy over the last two decades does not end here. The flourishing forms of school collaboration that have been described owe much to the political emphasis on schools working together, as well as to a discreet but crucial break from the “isolated school” model to provide a good education. 

• Condition 5: Movements towards supporting equity in education must be matched by efforts to develop a more just society. It goes without saying that even the most powerful approaches to promoting equality, based on areas, are likely to have little more than palliative effects in a context where dominant socioeconomic forces generate inequality and lead to marginalization. Therefore, in a certain and important sense, in the absence of more fundamental social reforms, efforts to develop greater equality and integration of services are inevitably destined to fail. Even so, however powerful the forces that produce inequality and marginalization, they are not entirely invincible. Policy in our country, and elsewhere, can and indeed does have a very significant impact on levels of poverty, social segregation and integration, as well as on the gap between rich and poor. Even without radical political change, there is evidence that different governments have made decisions that have aggravated or alleviated the impact of both underlying socioeconomic processes and global influences. 

Our conclusion, therefore, is that just as there is a complex ecology of equity within and outside educational institutions, there should also be multidimensional strategies to address equity issues. Specifically, school improvement processes need to be integrated into locally driven efforts to make education systems more equitable and to link the work of schools with area-based strategies to address greater inequalities and, ultimately, with national policies aimed at creating a more just society.

5. Bibliography

• Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109-124. 
• Ainscow, M. (2010). Achieving excellence and equity: reflections on the development of practices in one local district over 10 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21 (1), 75-91. 
• Ainscow, M. (2012). Moving knowledge around: strategies for fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of Educational Change, 13 (3), 289-310.
• Ainscow, M.; Booth, T. y Dyson, A. (2006) Inclusion and the standards agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10 (4-5), 295-308. 
• Ainscow, M.; Booth, T. and Dyson, A. with Farrell P.; Frankham, J.; Gallannaugh, F.; Howes, A. and Smith, R. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge. 
• Ainscow, M.; Dyson, A., Goldrick, S. and West, M. (2012) Developing equitable education systems. London: Routledge. 
• Ainscow, M. and Howes, A. (2007). Working together to improve urban secondary schools: a study of practice in one city. School Leadership and Management 27, 285–300.
• Ainscow, M.; Muijs, D. and West, M. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools 9 (3), 192-202.
• Ainscow, M.; Nicolaidou, M. and West, M. (2003). Supporting schools in difficulties: The role of school-to-school cooperation. NFER Topic 30, 1-4.
• Ainscow, M. and West, M. (eds) (2006). Improving urban schools: leadership and collaboration. Open University Press. 
• Ainscow, M.; West, M. and Nicolaidou, M. (2005). Putting our heads together: a study of headteacher collaboration as a strategy for school improvement. In Clarke, C. (Ed.). Improving schools in difficult circumstances. London: Continuum. 
• Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College. 
• Brighouse, T. (2007). The London Challenge – a personal view. In T. Brighouse and L. Fullick (eds.). Education in a global city. London: Institute of Education Bedford Way Papers.
• Chapman, C.; Ainscow, M.; Bragg, J.; Gallannaugh, F.; Mongon, D.; Muijs, D. and West, M. (2008). New models of leadership: Reflections on ECM policy, leadership and practice. Nottingham: NCSL.
• Chenoweth, K, (2007). It’s being done: Academic success in unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
• Crowther, D.; Cummings, C.; Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2003). Schools and Area Regeneration. Bristol, The Policy Press. 
• Cummings, C.; Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the school gate: can full service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? London: Routledge.
• Dobbie, W. and Fryer, R.G. (2009). Are high-quality schools enough to close the achievement gap? Evidence from a bold social experiment in Harlem. Cambridge: Harvard University. 
• Dyson, A., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about inclusive schools? A systematic review of the research evidence, in: D. Mitchell (Ed.). Special educational needs and inclusive education: major themes in education. London, Routledge Falmer. 
• Dyson, A. and Raffo, C. (2007). Education and disadvantage: the role of community-orientated schools. Oxford Review of Education 33 (3), 297-314.
• Gray, J. (2010). Probing the limits of systemic reform: the English case. En A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan y D. Hopkins (eds.), Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer. 
• Hopkins, D.; Reynolds, D. y Gray, J. (2005). School improvement lessons from research. London: DfES. 
• Kerr, K. y West, M. (Eds.) (2010). Insight 2: Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap?Macclesfield: British Education Research Association.
• Levin, B. (2005).Thinking about improvements in schools in challenging circumstances.Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April.
• Lipman, P. (2004).High stakes education: inequality, globalisation and urban school reform. New York: Routledge.
• Miles, S. and Ainscow, M. (2011). Responding to diversity in schools. London: Routledge. 
• Mourshed, M.; Chijioke, C. and Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company. 
• Muijs, D.; Ainscow, M.; Chapman, C. and West, M. (2011). Collaboration and networking in education. London: Springer. Muijs, D.; West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21 (1), 5-26. 
• OECD (2007). No more failures: ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD.
• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background – Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II). Paris: OECD. 
• Sammons, P. (2007). School effectiveness and equity: making connections. Reading: CfBT. 
• Stringfield, S. (1995). Attempting to improve students’ learning through innovative programs – the case for schools evolving into high reliability organizations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (1), 67-96.
• UNESCO (2010). EFA global monitoring report: Reaching the marginalized. Paris: UNESCO/Oxford University Press. 
• West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010) Improving schools in Hong Kong: a description of the improvement model and some reflections on its impact on schools, teachers and school principals. In S. Huber (Ed.), School leadership – International Perspectives. London: Springer. 
• Whitehurst, G. J. and Croft. M. (2010). The Harlem Children’s Zone, promise neighborhoods, and the broader, bolder approach to education. Washington: The Brookings Institution. 
• Whitty, G. (2010). Marketization and postmarketization in education. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds.). Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer. 
• Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2000). The spirit level. London: Allen Lane.

La entrada Promoting equity in education se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.

Susana Rojas Pernia* and Patricia Olmos Rueda**. University of Cantabria and Autonomous University of Barcelona. Email: rojass@unican.es, patricia.olmos@uab.cat

ABSTRACT. Special Education Centers (CEE) were the only schooling option for children with disabilities until relatively recently. Social, economic, political, and educational changes in recent decades have led to a transformation of mainstream schools, but also of special education schools. Thus, while some CEEs have remained as organizations that welcomed and facilitated the learning of students—primarily—with intellectual disabilities, others have sought new ways to facilitate the learning of these students in mainstream contexts, giving rise to what we know as Resource Centers (CRR) and configuring themselves as core services in the process of building a more inclusive school. The development of the LOMCE (2013) necessarily compels us to consider the role that CEEs play within the framework of inclusive education and, therefore, to examine the conditions that favor or hinder the access, participation, and learning of all children in mainstream schools. This article addresses the work that some CEEs undertake as CRRs, considering their functions, the relationships between professionals, and reflecting on the work they are doing with the aim of building an inclusive school.

Keywords: inclusive education, resource centers, special education centers, collaboration, educational support

ABSTRACT. So far, Special Schools have been the only schooling alternative for many disabled children. The last decades’ social, economic, political and educational changes have helped bring the changes in the regular schools and also, in the special education school. So, while some special schools have remained as organizations that took mainly intellectual disabled students in and facilitated their learning, others have sought new ways for facilitating these students’ learning in regular contexts, leading to what is known as Resource Centres (RC). These are nuclear services in building an inclusive school. LOMCE development (2013) makes consider the role that special schools have within the framework of inclusive education and, therefore examining the conditions that help or hinder the access, participation and learning of all the children in the regular school. This article reflects on the work of some special schools as RC, thinking in its functions, the relations among professionals and reflecting on the work that these centres are developing in order to build an inclusive school. 

Keywords: inclusive education, resource centers, special education centers, collaboration, educational support

1. Introduction

The significant changes made in the Spanish Education System since the 1970s have shaped the educational cultures, policies, and practices of Mainstream Schools (CO), but also the cultures, policies, and practices of centers originally designed to support children who were not admitted to mainstream schools due to reasons of ability or behavior.

The initial development of that dual system in parallel (mainstream education and special education) was followed in the 1980s by the first experiences of integrating students with disabilities into mainstream schools. These first encounters between both types of educational services were the seed of collaborations that over time have led to very diverse educational experiences and situations. While some special education centers (CEE) remain as centers that serve children or young people who fall under the category of students with special educational needs (SEN) (mainly with intellectual disabilities, communication and behavioral disorders), others play a central role in the educational response provided to all students within mainstream educational contexts. As resource centers for mainstream schools, professionals intervene, advise, provide materials, or collaboratively train colleagues in mainstream settings. These experiences show that it is possible for students assessed with SEN to receive quality responses in mainstream schools (CO). Therefore, all children, including those with the greatest needs, can learn and participate in the same educational contexts. These are experiences that, as explained later, benefit families, professionals, and, consequently, students in general.

The LOMCE (2013) opens up a new educational landscape, and it is time to review and consider the work that professionals and educational centers (of both types) have done so far with the aim of building a single school for all. The new Law, in its Article 57, recognizes the Administration’s responsibility to ensure resources and provide the means to guarantee that all students can achieve their maximum personal development and proposes the possibility of establishing priority center plans to support centers that enroll students in situations of social disadvantage, which could be a stimulus for all public and subsidized centers working under the principle of inclusive education. However, it also promotes the specialization of educational centers, values the early assessment of students, and links educational quality with an increase in student academic performance. We know that the latter could lead to the presence of some students in mainstream educational centers not being interpreted as an opportunity for school improvement.

In this article, we reflect, based on some experiences that document the work of Special Education Centers (SECs) as Resource Centers (RCs) for educational inclusion, on the role that these services play in this process. Through a set of questions, we begin a journey from the origins and premises of special education (SE) to the transformation and improvement that collaboration between Mainstream Schools (MS) and SECs has meant for some centers. Undoubtedly, the transformation of some SECs into RCs was possible because the decisions made by the specific centers were shared by the MS. Therefore, and although the focus is initially on special education, its origins, and the premises that supported it, changes in the educational response to “special” students must always be understood within a broader social and educational framework.

2. Is it possible to continue thinking about specific centers for special children in the
21st century?

Special Education in Spain began to take shape in the early decades of the 20th century, a time when arguments began to be made about the need for teachers in the education of the deficient (Carreño, 2005). Considered uneducable by the ordinary system and a risk to the learning of children without disabilities and to society in the future, specific services and specialist professionals were the alternative that would guarantee a more adequate educational response for students with deficiencies (Franklin, 1996). The creation of these services was a humanitarian gesture, a way to compensate for the years of neglect to which these children or young people had been subjected, but also “an initiative designed to socially control a population considered threatening to the existing social order” (Franklin, 1996, p. 19). In addition to preparing children with deficiencies physically, intellectually, and morally, it was urgent to ensure the protection of other members of society.

The creation of special classrooms and schools served to respond to a portion of children who had been left out of regular education. The development of a professional intervention area began in our country, that of special education under medical control (Carreño, 2005; Cura, 2012; Franklin, 1996; Pérez de Lara, 2004). Attempts to explain the nature of the difficulties these children encountered and the design of special practices that educators would employ in segregated spaces helped to stabilize a discourse centered on the individual with a disability and their unavoidable rehabilitation. Following the tradition of other European countries, the education of children with disabilities in Spain was carried out under a model based on student categorization, the need to articulate individual responses based on the disability, or the search for these differentiated responses in specific spaces separate from others without disabilities (García Pastor, 1993). This model would maintain its status quo until new approaches to scientific knowledge and ethical-social transformation processes paved the way for educational inclusion as a desirable and necessary proposal (Pérez de Lara, 2004). In a work from the mid-nineties, Skirtc (1996) argued that the first criticisms of the traditional model in SE – of the type of segregated practices and their social consequences – were made by families, the main consumers and users of SE. This first crisis in special education served to introduce changes in educational practices that were legally reinforced and supported.

The 1980s in Spain inherited this change. As other countries—the US, the United Kingdom, Norway, or Italy—had done in the previous decade (Susinos, 2003), a set of regulations were approved in Spain to develop the principle of school integration (LISMI, 1982; RD 334/1985). Integration aimed to promote the joint schooling of all students, addressing their educational needs within the same system. It did not intend to eliminate Special Education, but rather for it to become part of the regular education system, so that it would not be exclusively identified with special centers and/or special students. From the integration model, the context is fundamental to understanding the difficulties students encounter and in seeking responses to the needs they present. The curriculum—and curricular adaptations—and support services—inside and outside of school—are core elements for the development of school integration (Arnáiz, 2003).

The principle of integration was forged in the discourse of applied research, as exemplified by the reports on the implementation process of integration that were produced (e.g., Álvarez et al., 1987; MEC, 1989) or the change in the content of the National Conferences of Universities and Special Education that had been held since 1984 (Pallisera, Jiménez, and Bueno, 1998). This was also reflected in educational practice, as shown by some experiences indicating how many children with disabilities benefited from being placed in regular schools, without forgetting the differences in the development of integration plans or projects across the country (Almansa and López, 1997; Caravaca, 1997; Vendrell, 1997).

The demands that some students with intellectual disabilities made of mainstream schools led to experiences of combined integration between Special Education Centers (CEE) and mainstream schools. Some of these experiences show how, in certain subjects, sometimes only during breaks, for a few hours a week or a day, students with intellectual disabilities shared the spaces, times, and material resources of mainstream schools with their peers without disabilities (Acebes, 2002; Chiva and Moyano, 1997; Magdaleno and Figueiras, 2003; Monereo, 2000; Solé and Piquero, 1994). What is important here is that some of these practices were the beginning of a path outlined in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), in which Special Education Centers and their professionals would assume new functions as Resource Centers for Mainstream Schools (Carbonell, Capellas, Crehueras, Escudero and Milian, 2007; Carbonell, Batllori, Muñoz and Saltó, 2004; Castells and Font, 1997; Font, 1999, 2004).

However, it is possible to state that the changes in the organization and the type of practices developed in mainstream schools with integration did not serve to question the theoretical assumptions on which the previous model of special education was based. Within this framework, differentiating practices continued to be reproduced, adopting different names in the various Autonomous Communities (CCAA). Thus, the discourse of integration was accompanied by “new” practices that were reinforced through the regulation of theoretical discourse (Echeita, 2005; Martínez, 2002, 2005). More specifically, placement proposals were articulated that facilitated the development of programs and services parallel to the ordinary ones. The study conducted by Díez (1999; in Arnáiz, 2003) during two school years (1997/99) showed that only 14% of the time students received support, they did so within the classroom. Among the arguments put forward were professionals’ fear of working collaboratively, classroom structures that prevented the simultaneous work of several teachers, the requirement for coordination between professionals, or the emphasis placed on “instrumental learning.” In the classroom, many students began to do activities that had nothing to do with what their classmates were doing and/or were physically separated from the others to avoid distractions. As Skirtc (1996) argued, in no case did the criticism deeply question the dominant idea of disability as an individual condition or the uselessness of differentiating between disabled/non-disabled.

The recognition of inclusive education in the 1990s1 as a fundamental principle that should guide educational policies worldwide pushed for a rethinking of how schools had been responding to diversity (and not just to students with disabilities or SEN), ideologically and conceptually enriching previous approaches (Parrilla, 2002). Inclusive education questions the creation of specialized services or differentiated measures based on predefined categories, the expert organization of support, or the separation of quality and equity in education. Two principles are central: the recognition of education as a fundamental basic right for all students and diversity as an essential educational value (Ainscow, 2001; Arnáiz, 1996, 2003; Parrilla, 2002), which forces us to recognize that the rights of some people are being violated and that the difficulties experienced by students are the result of the way we have chosen to organize schools, as well as teaching styles and methods.

This new landscape has served as a framework for some Special Education Centers (CEE) and Ordinary Centers (CO) to continue with the necessary transformation in creating a school for all. We cannot analyze what has happened in the different Autonomous Communities (CCAA) and how different initiatives were legally protected, but it is possible to discover that during this period, some CEE have been configured as Reference Centers (CRR) for CO, facilitating the access and learning of children assessed with severe and permanent difficulties in mainstream classrooms.

At this point, and before clarifying what we mean by resource provider services for inclusive education, who benefits from this transformation, or what it entails, we want to state that experiences show that children with intellectual disabilities – including those who present greater challenges to education professionals – can learn and participate in mainstream schools with their peers (Agell, Sala and Torrent, 2009; Capellas, 2014; Carbonell et al., 2004, 2007; Font, 2004).

Therefore, what has been achieved compels us to continue in that direction. It is surprising that, after a century of history in responding to students with disabilities, one might consider the specialization of educational centers, meaning more Special Education Centers (CEE) and/or for these centers to be the ones to accommodate students with intellectual disabilities. Of course, it is not possible to ignore that the creation of certain spaces legitimizes the needs that some people have, without forcing us to question the why or what for of those spaces. As some authors have argued (Aiscow, 2001; Dyson, 1999; Saleh, 1999), recognizing the problem is the first step on the path towards an inclusive school.

3. Who are and would be the beneficiaries of the transformation of Special Education Centers (CEE) into Resource Centers (CRR) for inclusive education?

From the analysis of some of the experiences and after reviewing existing literature on the subject (Carbonell et al., 2007; Department of Education and ETI, 2006; DoE, 2001; Font, Castelis and Carbonés, 1995; Giné, 2001; James, 1997; Lambe and Bons, 2008; López-Torrijo, 2009), a common interpretative line can be deduced regarding what is understood by Special Education Centers (CEE) as Resource Centers (CRR) for inclusive education, what functions they adopt, and who benefits or could benefit from this conversion.

CEEs are conceived as support services with expertise in addressing the Educational Needs (EN) – especially severe ones – of students. The centers and the professionals working in them possess a wide range of knowledge, skills, good educational practices, or resources that they have developed and implemented in differentiated educational contexts. Therefore, the potential of these centers as references that provide other professionals and educational agents (teachers, management teams, families, etc.) with specialized support and resources in mainstream educational contexts is valued.

The conceptualization of CEEs as CRRs is key to educational inclusion and one of the conditions for ensuring that all students have access to, learn in, and participate in the same school context. As Font (2004) points out, “(…) Special Education must adopt the inclusive education model. That is, it must serve as an instrument, resource, and support for mainstream schools in order to reduce barriers to the participation and learning of all students” (p. 64). In this line of interpretation, the conversion of CEEs into CRRs has consequences for the way Special Education is organized.

The transformation affects both types of centers, mainstream and special. For the former, the placement of students who have so far been educated in segregated spaces requires a restructuring of the educational center, of what is done and how it is done. It demands substantial modifications in its organizational structure – professionals hitherto foreign to the center’s culture appear –, in curriculum planning – it invites a review of the type of content and its distribution–, and in the type of relationships established among the different educational agents within the school – among students, with families, and among professionals. Likewise, for Special Education Centers (CEE), their conversion into service providers for educational centers and their professionals also calls for a reorganization of their structures and professional functions. The consideration that resources should be where the students are and not the other way around demands new political and practical approaches in the COs.

The provision of educational support is expanded, falls on the entire school and, therefore, on those who will carry out the main educational activity, whether they are teachers or families. It is possible to define a wide range of functions that include advice and guidance to teachers and families in the CO, specialized training for the different educational agents, the provision of existing material resources and the creation of new ones, coordination in the development of educational practices in the CO and with other services, the joint implementation of individual or group programs, participation in the design and development of innovation or research projects, and the creation of informal work networks (see Table 1). The joint work of the teacher from the CEE with the tutor within the classroom in attending to students with SEN through what we know as co-teaching (Agelet, Bassedas and Comadevall, 1997; Alonso and Rodríguez, 2004; Duran, 2003) is one of the ways in which support is foreseen, but not the only one, nor the main one. Direct intervention on students with SEN in the mainstream or special classroom thus gives way to shared work between professionals with different training in the same classroom and with all students. Flexibility in the organization of physical space, available resources, and therefore, in who provides support and to whom it is provided, are undoubtedly substantial changes in the way support in classrooms has traditionally been understood. The contribution to professional development is evident in both directions.

The transformation of Special Education Centers (CEE) into Resource Centers for Inclusive Education benefits mainstream educational centers and society as a whole (Porter, 2014). Therefore, it can be stated that we are all direct beneficiaries. According to authors such as Lambe and Bones (2008), Rose (2000), or Rose and Coles (2002), the educational community – teachers, students, and families – is enriched by shared experiences with CEEs. 

However, the process is not without risks and obstacles. In the analyzed experiences, the main difficulties are associated with the attitudes and training of teachers. Likewise, it is important not to overlook that legislation, funding for Special Education (EE) – based on the number of children assessed with Special Educational Needs (SEN) – or the weight of tradition in EE can be a barrier to the development of a common school project for all children.

4. What characteristics do the transformation projects of CEEs into Resource Centers for Inclusive Education share?

Some of the first experiences of combined integration in the Spanish context exemplify the type of relationships that Ordinary Centers (CO) and Special Education Centers (CEE) came to establish (Monereo, 2000; Solé and Piquero, 1994). These were experiences in which some students with SEN were incorporated – in certain spaces and for specific periods of time – into Ordinary Centers, which made it necessary for the professionals involved to coordinate to understand what type of learning would take place in each center. This was a peripheral response that did not deeply affect the functioning, structure, or organization of educational centers – ordinary and special – but it served as a basis for what would come later. Subsequently, the debate on the need to review the work that Ordinary Centers had been doing with various groups traditionally excluded from compulsory schooling also led to rethinking the role of Special Education Centers (Porter, 2001; Porter and Stone, 2001).

Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, experiences emerged internationally (United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and South Africa) emphasizing the necessary support between special education centers and mainstream schools when discussing inclusive education (DfEE, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2012; Maguvhe, 2013; Motitswe, 2014; Porter, 2001; Porter and Stone, 2001; Rose and Coles, 2002; Schuman, 2011; Thomson, 2011). The national perspective also offers interesting experiences in Catalonia and Andalusia. In Catalonia, ASPASIM (Carbonell et al., 2004, 2007; Carbonell, 2014), the CEE L’Estel (Font, 2004), and the CEIP Els Xiprers project (Agell, Sala, and Torrent, 2009) are some examples. These are proposals where students with and without SEN “learn with and in” the same common learning space, i.e., in the mainstream school with the support of the special education center, which, as a resource center, provides direct support to students with SEN, technical support and advice to mainstream school professionals on issues related to resources and assessment, and support to families or legal guardians.

Thus, the first experiences of coordination between both mainstream schools and special education centers mentioned found continuity in legislative frameworks (LOE, 2006) and regional initiatives. For example, the 2008-2015 Action Plan of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Departament d’Educació, 2014) or the report from the Principality of Asturias on special education centers as resource centers for inclusion (Educastur, 2011) serve as examples. These initiatives make explicit the need to transform special education centers into providers of services, resources, and support programs for the inclusive education of students with SEN in non-restrictive environments (mainstream schools) and necessitate collaboration between the professionals of both centers.

Without ignoring that it would be possible to refer to other experiences that move in the same direction (but this is not the objective of this work), the ones mentioned highlight three conditions that favor the transformation of Special Education Centers (CEE) into Resource Centers for Inclusion (CRR) in inclusive education. Firstly, all experiences take as a starting point the right that all children have to receive a quality education in Mainstream Schools (CO) and the need to create a mainstream school capable of welcoming all students. As numerous authors point out (Ainscow, 2001, 2004; Parrilla, 2002; Porter, 2001, 2004; Sapon-Shevin, 1999, 2010, 2013; Slee, 2012; Susinos, 2009), diversity is an enriching element in educational centers and the difficulties they encounter in responding to differences in ability, culture, gender, or social background are a warning sign about the urgency of introducing changes in the school “architecture”. Special Education Centers cannot be an obstacle to the development of a more inclusive education system, but rather part of the solution. Therefore, it is of no value to debate about which place is most appropriate for some students or others, and it is necessary to analyze and review the barriers in Mainstream Schools that prevent the learning and participation of many students and how Special Education Centers become a support in that process.

Collaboration between both types of centers is another of the core aspects and the strategy that makes possible the support of external professionals to the CO in its different modalities, moving from intervention to advice, training, or resource provision. It is necessary to understand this collaboration from a school-centered curricular support model, focusing on teaching difficulties, teamwork in mixed support networks, and cooperation as a basic strategy of action that, therefore, overcomes the individual and therapeutic perspective of other advisory models (Parrilla, 1996, 2005). Undoubtedly, this process requires recognition by the Educational Administration and a significant degree of commitment between professionals from both centers. In this regard, for example, resolution EDU/4168/2010 from the Department of Education of the Generalitat de Catalunya selected 11 public special education centers and 23 subsidized ones to carry out support programs and services for mainstream schools that would promote the inclusion of students with disabilities. However, no analysis and evaluation of these experiences were conducted, which, as Carbonell (2014) points out, would have been “an excellent opportunity” to continue working from.

It would be necessary to thoroughly understand how the set of experiences carried out in recent years defines these processes – in working with students and other educational agents – without forgetting that each school is unique, as are the needs that arise within it and to which a response must be given.

Finally, experiences reveal where much of the essence lies, which is that practices evolve as shared learning stories (Ainscow, 2004). The importance of knowing and disseminating these experiences is not in what special education center professionals do in mainstream schools or in the type of activities they develop in isolation with students with special educational needs, but in the process of negotiating meanings among the people who have followed the path. Inclusion as a process requires time to build together and to listen to and recognize others as professionals. These are unique experiences that share a roadmap, but also have a unique history.

The establishment of a collaborative culture and shared learning facilitates the creation of mixed teaching teams (support teachers and mainstream classroom teachers) working in the same direction. But this, in turn, demands changes in teaching roles, the development of new teaching strategies, and above all, a change in values, norms, behaviors, and attitudes on the part of the entire educational community: students (McGregor and Forlin, 2005), management teams (Attfield and Williams, 2003), and teachers – also regarding their training (Flem and Keller, 2000; Hamilton-Jones and Vail, 2013; León, 1999; Lumadi and Maguvhe, 2012; Walton and Rusnzyak, 2014).

5. Optimization of structures and resources to continue advancing

Data collected for the 2015/16 school year show that many students still remain in a parallel system to the mainstream one, and that this figure has increased compared to the previous year (MECD, 2015). Furthermore, many voices have been denouncing for years that the school system is becoming a kind of market or “quasi-market” (Álvarez Uría, 1998; Cascante, 2000; Gimeno Sacristán, 2001; Torres, 2001). With education understood as a consumer good rather than a fundamental basic right, the freedom of choice of schools or greater school autonomy is upheld, and the need to establish evaluation tests that measure the level of students and, consequently, their teachers is argued. As education is transferred from the sphere of politics to the sphere of the market, where it is merely an element of individual consumption dependent on the merit and ability of students, some old ideas about the limitations faced by students with disabilities or special educational needs, among others, reappear. Therefore, it is necessary to continue working towards a school where all children learn together and to keep making proposals in that direction.

In this regard, greater determination and clarity are needed in the regulations to ensure that the proposals move in the desired direction. Inclusive education is one of the principles guiding the work of educational centers included in the LOMCE (2013), but there are no references to what Special Education Centers (CEE) could do as Resource Centers for Inclusion (CRR). It would be desirable that, in the same way that it is stated that the schooling of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) should be done in Mainstream Schools (CO) “preferably”, references to CEEs should go beyond being the place where certain students are schooled and from which specific actions are implemented by certain professionals. Imaginative formulas are required that break with the way the educational response to students with and without SEN in COs and CEEs has traditionally been understood; formulas under which it is possible to recognize a review of the theoretical approaches on which educational policies and practices are designed (Skirtc, 1996). And a clear commitment is needed for the development, both in general regulations and in each of the Autonomous Communities (CCAA), of joint projects with COs or the implementation of working networks by zones that allow COs to benefit from the human and material resources accumulated by special centers. This can be a way to recognize the work that some of these centers have carried out over the years, while at the same time being a means to make possibilities visible both for those that continue to be CEEs or CRRs to Special Education in COs and for the latter.

Likewise, it is urgent to abandon the term CEE for Resource Centers for Inclusive Education (CREI) – not Resource Centers for Special Education (CREE). This is not a mere aesthetic or formal change, but an element to properly define what we are talking about. As Slee (2012) points out, the issue is “(…) although endless, it is very simple: the way we describe the world reflects certain ways of seeing things and determines our way of reproducing that world” (p. 152). The widespread and confusing use of certain words allows that, under the principle of inclusive education, practices are recognized in which the specialists of the CRR only attend to students with disabilities (not others) and/or in certain schooling modalities (e.g., combined), which does not contribute to the necessary restructuring of educational centers.

Similarly, based on the fact that each center is unique and improvement projects arise from an in-depth review of the needs that emerge and the set of priorities that the educational community sets for itself, it is undeniable that the shared experience of different projects is what allows us to see how these innovations or improvements take shape and imagine new possibilities. Therefore, it is necessary to move beyond the particular and the concrete so that there is informed and shared knowledge of what the CEE that are CRR for inclusive education are doing.

It is necessary to move towards the consolidation of a community of professionals who, collaboratively and from different contexts (mainstream schools, special education centers, universities, families, students, educational administration), address the challenge of educating all children in inclusive settings, and this can take shape through an educational network. The proposal should serve to: 1) develop exchange activities between special education centers that have initiated the transformation along with mainstream schools and those special education centers that remain in an integration or earlier model, inclusive; 2) design training spaces where complex issues are addressed, such as the incorporation of special education center professionals into mainstream schools or the organization of support for classrooms, teachers, or the center as a whole; and 3) investigate and research with the centers on what has been done and what could be done to ensure that resources are where the students who need them are, rather than students having to move to access resources. This would involve breaking the isolation in which some specialized services, both within and outside each autonomous community, might find themselves.

It would also be necessary to promote collaboration processes between schools in the same area and between these schools and other services. As some works argue (Agell, Sala i Torrent, 2009; Carbonell et al., 2007; Torrent, 2014), it is necessary to clarify who carries out each task and how. There needs to be time for coordination and close communication among all professionals involved. And it is important for the special education center professional to relinquish direct tutoring of students from the specialized center.

Finally, the work of these schools with other services, as “institutional partners,” will allow the development of new proposals that take what is being done in these schools out into the community and allow the community to participate in the construction of this single school for all (Parrilla, Muñoz-Cadavid, and Sierra, 2013). It is necessary to review how the inequalities that many children face within school are replicated outside of it and what means can be jointly articulated to prevent this.

6. Conclusions

The inclusive education model calls for a thorough review of what is done in schools to respond to all students, including those who remain enrolled in Special Education Centers (CEE). Therefore, it is necessary to question the model of education being defended or the goals that the school pursues, because depending on the answer, clearly some children will not have a place or it can be argued that the mainstream school is not the most suitable place for them. One cannot speak of the possibilities that one or several children have of learning in school if this analysis does not clarify what the school or professionals consider important, or what the conditions are under which the centers operate, which would be specified by the type of projects and initiatives that regional or state administrations prioritize.

Although various works – some of which are included throughout the article – argue and demonstrate how student diversity is a spur for the transformation and improvement of schools – also when students propose substantial organizational and curricular changes in schools – the discourse of fear has enormous power. That is, the fear reappears that the presence of some students will translate into a general delay in the learning of the rest of the group and a drop in their performance. The separation of students, logically based on the argument that everyone receives the best possible education, has consequences for both the students as a whole and the teaching staff. The justified differentiation and separation of students through all kinds of differentiating measures, including specific services, is reinforced by the specialization of teachers and their training. In this context, of course, the work that professionals from Special Education Centers (CEE) can do with and in Mainstream Schools (CO) is reduced to the provision of very specific strategies or resources so that some students can temporarily attend the CO. CEEs cater to students for whom COs have no solution and, in some particular situations, provide tools so that some can continue in the mainstream or special classroom of the CO.

The commitment to an inclusive school cannot be confined to technical decisions – forms of student assessment, types of grouping, or defining the roles of tutors and support specialists – it is necessary to start by recovering the discourse (Martínez, 2002) or, in the words of Gentili (2001), contributing to making visible what the normalizing gaze hides. The response to all students involves reviewing the type of policies and practices being developed in the CO to support any decision that strengthens the development of more inclusive systems. In this sense, Special Education Centers (CEE) as Resource Centers for Inclusive Education (CREI) become key pieces in the complex puzzle that are schools designed by and for all students.

7. Bibliographical references

• Acebes, S. (2002). How our special education classroom works within a school for all. In D. Forteza & M.R. Rosselló (Coords.), Education, diversity, and quality of life (pp. 345-350). Palma: Universitat Illes Balears.
• Agell, M.; Sala, G. & Torrent, J. (2009). Participation of all students, success, and school improvement. Analysis of the most relevant barriers and how to overcome them. In C. Giné, D. Durán, J. Font & E. Miquel (Eds.), Inclusive education. From exclusion to full participation of all students (pp. 63-79). Barcelona: ICE-Horsori.
• Agelet, J., Bassedas, E. & Comadevall, M. (1997). Some organizational models that facilitate the treatment of diversity, and alternatives to flexible groupings. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 61, 46-50.
• Ainscow, M. (2001). Developing inclusive schools. Ideas, proposals, and experiences for improving educational institutions. Madrid: Narcea.
• Ainscow, M. (2004). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change. Retrieved from http://ww2.educarchile.cl/UserFiles/P0001/File/CR_articulos/investigador/articles94457_recurso_1.pdf
• Almansa, C. & López, C. (1997). The integration of students considered “severe”: the case of Pablo. In P. Arnáiz & R. De Haro (Eds.), 10 years of integration in Spain: analysis of reality and future perspectives (pp. 237-261). Murcia: University of Murcia.
• Alonso, P. & Rodríguez, P. (2004). Two tutors in the classroom. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 331, 70-72
• Álvarez, K., Babio, M., Echeita, G., Galán, M., Martín, E. (coords.) & Rey, M. (1987). Evaluation of the school integration program for students with disabilities. Revista de Educación, extraordinary issue, 7-44.
• Alvarez Uría, F. (1998). Neoliberalism versus democracy. Madrid: La Piqueta.
• Arnáiz, P. (1996). Schools are for everyone. Siglo Cero, 27 (2), 25-34.
• Arnáiz, P. (2003). Inclusive education: a school for all. Málaga: Aljibe.
• Attfield, R. & Williams, C. (2003). Leadership and inclusion: A special school perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30 (1), 28-33.
• Capellas, N. (2014). Role of special education centers as reference and resource centers in mainstream schools. In E. Carbonell (coord.), The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive School in Catalonia (pp. 48-53). Barcelona: Aspasim, Barcelona.
• Caravaca, M. (1997). My experience with Nacho. P. Arnáiz & R. De Haro (Eds.), 10 years of integration in Spain: analysis of reality and future perspectives (pp. 221-235). Murcia: University of Murcia.
• Carbonell, E., Batllori, M., Muñoz, J. & Saltó, A. (2004). Inclusive education for students with severe barriers to learning and participation, also in Secondary education. Suports, 8 (2), 132-147.
• Carbonell, E., Capellas, N., Crehueras, M., Escudero, G. & Milian, M. (2007). Transformation of a special education center into a resource provider for the inclusive education of students with severe barriers to learning and participation. CEE Aspasim-20 years of a process. Àmbits de Psicopedagogia, 21, 37-43.
• Carbonell, E. (coord.) (2014). The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive School in Catalonia. Barcelona: Aspasim.
• Carreño, M. (2005). Reflections on the why and the what for of the education of abnormal children’ according to the Spanish medical-pedagogical discourse of the early 20th century. Revista de Educación y Pedagogía, 17 (42), 31-44.
• Cascante, C. (2000). Comprehensiveness versus the educational market. Temps d’educació, 23, 199-210.
• Castells, M. & Font, J. (1997). L’Estel: an open center for the schools of the Osona region. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (pp. 179-187). Barcelona: APPS.
• Cura, M. Del (2012). A board for the “abnormal”: first steps in public protection for children with intellectual disabilities in Spain (1910-1936). Asclepio. History of Medicine and Science, LXIV (2), 541-564.
• Chiva, C. & Moyano, M. (1997). Esclat-Escuela Itaca School Experience. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (pp. 189-197). Barcelona: APPS.
• Department of Education (2014). Action Plan 2008-2015. Retrieved from https://creemoseducacioninclusiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Plan-de-Accion-2008-2015.pdf
• Department of Education & ETI (2006). The future role of the special school. Retrieved from https://creemoseducacioninclusiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-future-role-of-the-special-school.pdf
• DfEE (1997). Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: Department of Education and HMSO.
• DfEE (1998). Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action. London: DfES Publications.
• DfEE (2001). Inclusive Schooling. Children with Special Educational Needs. London: DfES Publications.
• DfEE (2012). ‘Learning across the continuum’ a guide to collaborative practice ‘sharing practice: supporting inclusion’. London: DfES Publications.
• DoE (2001). Education White Paper 6. Special Needs Education Building an inclusive education and training system. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/polmos/Downloads/Parents%20Pamphlet%202004.pdf
• Duran, D. & Miquel, E. (2003). Cooperating to teach and learn. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 331, 73-76.
• Dyson, A. (1999). Equity as the path to excellence? Possibilities and challenges in inclusive education. In AAVV, Towards a school for everyone. Proceedings of the II Conference on Special Educational Needs in the Classroom (pp. 109-123). Barcelona: Ramon Llull University.
• Echeita, G. (2005). Critical perspectives and dimensions in diversity policies. Alambique, Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 44, 7-16.
• Educastur (2011). Special Education Centers as Resource Centers: An Inclusive Perspective. Retrieved from http://web.educastur.princast.es/personales/rubenvf/archivos/documentos/DosierCEEs%20como%20Centros%20de%20recursos.doc
• Flem, A. & Keller, C. (2000). Inclusion in Norway: a study of ideology in practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15 (2), 188-205.
• Font, J. (1997). L’estel: a center open to the schools of the Osona region. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World, November 7 and 8, Barcelona, 179-187.
• Font, J. (1999). Special education centers. Reality and perspectives. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 83-84, 15-18.
• Font, J. (2004). Schools that help each other. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 331, 63-65.
• Font, J., Castelis, M. & Carbonés, J. (1995). Support for school integration from a special education center. Analysis of an experience. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 45. Retrieved from http://www.grao.com/revistas/aula/045-presente-y-futuro-de-la-educacion-especial–habitos-ynormas/el-apoyo-a-la-integracion-escolar-desde-un-centro-de-educacion-especial
• Franklin, B.M. (1996). Introduction: Reading texts on disability. In B.M. Franklin (Ed.), Interpretation of disability (pp. 7-32). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
• García Pastor, C. (1993). A common school for different children: school integration. Barcelona: PPU.
• Gentili, P. (2001). A lost shoe. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 308, 24-30. Gimeno Sacristán, J. (2001). Educating and living together in global culture. Madrid: Morata.
• Giné, C. (2001). Inclusion and the Education System. III Congress on Attention to Diversity in the Education System. University of Salamanca. INICO. Retrieved from https://campus.usal.es/~inico/actividades/actasuruguay2001/1.pdf
• Hamilton-Jones, B. & Vail, C. (2013). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: preservice Teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 28 (1), 56-68.
• James, F. (1997). The evolution and role of an effective support service. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (141-157). Barcelona: APPS.
• Lambe, J. & Bones, R. (2008). The impact of a special school placement on student teacher beliefs about inclusive education in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Special Education, 35 (2), 108-116.
• León, M.J. (1999). Teacher training for a school for all. An analysis of the study plans for primary education and special education specialist teachers in Spanish universities. Profesorado, Journal of Curriculum and Teacher Training, 3 (2), 1-24.
• Law 13/1982, of April 7, on the Social Integration of the Disabled.
• Organic Law 8/2013, of December 9, for the Improvement of Educational Quality.
• Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education.
• López-Torrijo, M. (2009). The inclusive education of students with severe and permanent disabilities in the European Union. Relieve, 15 (1). Retrieved from https://www.raco.cat/index.php/RELIEVE/article/view/25100
• Lumadi, M.W. & Maguvhe, M.O. (2012). Teaching Life Sciences to Blind and Visually Impaired Learners: Issues to Consider for Effective Learning Mediation Practice. Anthropologist, 14 (5), 375-381.
• Magdaleno, L. & Filgueiras, M.J. (2003). Programming, evaluation and coordination in our shared schooling experience. GUIX. Elements of educational action, 299.
• Maguvhe, M. (2013). Perspectives of South African Special School Teachers on Special Schools as Resource Centers. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (14), 711-717.
• Martínez, B. (2002). Education in diversity at the dawn of the 21st century. In D. Forteza & M.R. Rosselló (Coords.), Education, diversity and quality of life (pp. 27-61). Palma: Universitat Illes Balears.
• Martínez, B. (2005). Measures for responding to diversity: possibilities and limits for school and social inclusion. Profesorado, revista de currículum y formación del profesorado, 1 (1), 1-31.
• Mcgregor, S.J.R. & Forlin, CH. (2005). Attitude of students towards peers with disabilities: Relocating students from an Education Support Centre to an inclusive middle school setting. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 1 (2), 18-30.
• MEC (1989). Evaluation of school integration. Madrid: MEC.
• MECD (2015). Data and figures. School year 2015/16. Madrid: Technical General Secretariat.
• Monereo, C. (2000). Snapshots. Madrid: Celeste.
• Motitswe, J. (2014). The Role of Institute Level Support Teams on Addressing Barriers to Learning and Provide Support in Schools. Are They Functional? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (8), 259-264.
• Pallisera, M., Jiménez, P. & Bueno, J.J. (1998). Fifteen years of University and Special Education. Importance of professional meetings: “University and Special Education” (1984-1998) and its relationship with the training of education professionals. In R. Pérez Pérez (coord.) Education and diversity. XV National Conference on University and Special Education (pp. 11-24), vol. 1. Oviedo: University of Oviedo Publications Service.
• Parrilla, A. (1996). Support for the school: a collaborative process. Bilbao: Mensajero.
• Parrilla, A. (2002). About the origin and meaning of inclusive education. Revista de Educación, 327, 11-30.
• Parrilla, A. (2005). From collaboration to the construction of Networks: the role of psychopedagogy. In VVAA, Weaving networks from psychopedagogy (pp. 11-25). Bilbao: University of Deusto Publications Service.
• Parrilla, A., Muñoz-Cadavid, Mª A. & Sierra, S. (2013). Educational projects with a community vocation. Journal of Research in Education, 11 (3), 15-31.
• Pérez de Lara, N. (2004). The capacity to be a subject. Barcelona: Laertes. Porter, G. (2001). Critical elements for inclusive schools. Creating inclusive schools: a Canadian perspective based on fifteen years of experience. Suports, 5 (1), 6-14.
• Porter, G. & Stone, J. (2001). The six key strategies for supporting inclusion in school and the classroom. Suports, 5 (2), 94-107.
• Porter, G. (2014). Segregating children means segregating citizens. In E. Carbonell (coord.), The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive Education in Catalonia. Barcelona: Aspasim.
• Royal Decree 334/1985, of March 6, on the Organization of Special Education.
• Rose, R. (2000). Classroom support: Using classroom support in a primary school. British Journal of Special Education, 27 (4), 191-196. Rose, R. & Coles, C. (2002). Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion of inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2 (2). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2002.00164.x
• Saleh, L. (1999). Inclusive education: consensus, conflict, and challenges. In AAVV, Towards a school for everyone. Proceedings of the II Conference on Special Educational Needs in the Classroom (pp. 2-21). Barcelona: Ramon Llull University.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Celebrating diversity, creating community. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusive classrooms. A new way of approaching and living the curriculum (pp. 37-54). Madrid: Narcea.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (2010). Because we can change the world: a practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Boston: Sage Publications.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (2013). Real inclusion: A social justice perspective. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 11(3), 71-85.
• Schuman, H. (2011). Education in the Netherlands, recent developments and the debate on integration and inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.icevi-europe.org/enletter/issue48-06.pdf
• Skirtc, T. (1996). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. In B.M. Franklin (Ed.), Interpreting disability (pp. 35-72). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
• Slee, R. (2012). The Extraordinary School. Exclusion, Schooling, and Inclusive Education. Madrid: Morata.
• Solé, N. & Piquero, C. (1994). Intermediate alternatives in the school integration of children with intensive special educational needs. In ACOEP, V Conference on Psychopedagogical Guidance and Attention to Diversity (pp. 175-179). Barcelona.
• Susinos, T. (2003). International overview of school integration. In R. Cano González (Ed.), Pedagogical Foundations of Special Education (pp. 343-365). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
• Susinos, T. (2009). Listening to share: recognizing student authority in the project of an inclusive school. Revista de Educación, 349, 119-136.
• Thomson, CH. (2011). Collaborative consultation to promote inclusion: voices from the classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17 (8), 882-894.
• Torrent, J. (2014). A shared experience of inclusive school. Facts and words. In E. Carbonell (coord.), The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive School in Catalonia (pp. 76-80). Barcelona: Aspasim.
• Torres Santomé, J. (2001). Education in the time of neoliberalism. Madrid: Morata.
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, 7-10 June.
• Vendrell, R. (1997). Longitudinal study of a case of integration – the mediator adult in the learning process -. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (pp. 167-177). Barcelona: APPS.
• Walton, E. & Rusznyak, L. (2014). Affordances and limitations of a special school practicum as a means to prepare pre-service teachers for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18 (9), 957-974. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.872203

La entrada Special education centers as resource centers within the framework of an inclusive school. Review for a debate se publicó primero en Educación inclusiva. Quererla es crearla.