International Journal of Inclusive Education

Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2006, pp. 627643

Northern Ireland head teachers

perceptions of inclusion
Lesley Abbott*
UNESCO Centre, School of Education, University of Ulster, Coleraine, UK
International
10.1080/13603110500274379
TIED_A_127420.sgm
1360-3116
Original
Taylor
02005
00
University
LesleyAbbott
000002005
and
&
Article
Francis
of
(print)/1464-5173
Francis
Journal
UlsterSchool
Ltd
of Inclusive
of (online)
EducationRoom
Education B114, Cromore RoadColeraineCo. LondonderryBT52 1SAUKL.Abbott@ulster.ac.uk

Inclusion has been a central educational issue for well over a quarter of a century, with continuing
emphasis worldwide on initiatives by governments, Higher Education Institutions and schools that
respond to the needs of children and young people with learning difficulties, disabilities or other
disadvantage. This paper reports how Northern Ireland head teachers interpret inclusion in the
nursery, primary, post-primary and special sectors. Those in mainstream schools showed wholehearted commitment to the philosophy and practice of inclusion, and could critically examine what
they have achieved so far. However, they recognized persistent and varied constraints both within
and beyond their schools. Head teachers in the special sector perceived their schools to have a multiple role in providing for pupils with the greatest need, reintegrating those on placement into their
regular schools, and offering outreach support to mainstream colleagues. The implications for all
aspects of teacher education were identified, for beginning teachers, for more experienced practitioners and for the head teachers themselves. A number of key factors were suggested to make
inclusion work.

Background
Setting the scene for this paper on head teachers perceptions of inclusion within
education requires a definition of the term itself. Despite the widespread and unprecedented popularity of inclusion in official documents, and the apparent shift from
the use of integration to inclusion, there has been criticism of the absence of clarity
and consistency in defining the concept (Booth, 1999). Booth believed that the two
linked processes of inclusion and exclusion had to be kept in mind:
It is the process of increasing the participation of learners in and reducing their exclusion
from the curricula, cultures and communities of neighbourhood mainstream centres of
learning.
(p. 164)
*UNESCO Centre, School of Education, University of Ulster, Cromore Road, Coleraine BT52
1SA, UK. Email: L.Abbott@ulster.ac.uk
ISSN 13603116 (print)/ISSN 14645173 (online)/06/06062717
2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13603110500274379

628 L. Abbott
In seeking definitions, however, a distinction must be made between those that simply
reflect good schools and others where inclusive education is genuinely reported to
be thriving (Giangreco, 1997, cited in Hegarty, 2001), the features of which, according to Giangreco, might be expected to include collaborative team work, clear roles
among professionals, effective use of support staff and a family involvement (p. 244).
Other identifiable features of good schools with an inclusive approach to education
comprise, for example, a climate of high expectation, valuing a broad range of abilities
and achievements, removing barriers to learning and promoting a positive appreciation of the diversity of individuals (HMIE, 2002).
Although the terms inclusion and integration can be used interchangeably,
integration has currently been interpreted as placing pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in ordinary schools on a full- or part-time basis, on supported
placement (in special schools), or in special classes or units within the mainstream
sector (Armstrong, 1998, p. 53), the ultimate goal, where possible, being successful
re-integration into regular classes or schools. The Inclusion Charter, first written in
1989 and revised in 2002, supported (among other things) an end to all segregated
education on the grounds of disability or learning difficulty (CSIE, 1989). It agreed
with additional, appropriate support for pupils in separate settings provided it [was]
time-limited, for a specified purpose and based on a goal-oriented plan (Thomas &
Vaughan, 2004, p. 137). But such placements may not always meet the specific
needs of some children because integration as a process does not imply a restructuring of the educational environment to accommodate the needs of a small
number (Avramidis et al., 2000, p. 191, citing Thomas, 1997). There has now been
a move away from integration towards inclusion (Ainscow, 1999, p. 148) often for
philosophical reasons pertaining to the students human rights, as well as because of
arguments concerning students social growth (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002, p. 114).
Therefore, whereas integration has tended to describe a process of assimilation
within which individual pupils with particular needs receive support to participate in
an existing school programme, inclusion suggests a transformation of schools to
respond to pupil diversity. Inclusive practices, therefore, must include a process of
growth and the development of a language of practice (Ainscow, 1999, p. 14):
Inclusive education is an unabashed announcement, a public and political declaration and celebration of difference (Corbett & Slee, 2000, p. 134, citing Branson &
Miller, 1989). Indeed, schools must not merely interpret inclusion as making additional provision for children with special educational needs: It is now time to
shift the focus to individual learners and the range of learning opportunities that
might be created and sustained to help all learners realize their potential (MacBeath
& Mortimore, 2001, p. 207, authors emphasis).
However, a philosophy of inclusion is only likely to be successfully translated into
practice where a respect for individuality and a culture of collaboration exist (Skirtic,
1991, p. 35) for even those teachers whose work is characterized by grace and fluidity, are only able to continue to grow in strong, supportive and collaborative school
cultures (Ainscow, 2000, p. 1). Schools with a culture of this kind not only enable
teachers to avoid a sense of professional isolation, but facilitate the enhancement of

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 629

practice (Hopkins et al., 1996, p. 45). Those that set out to nurture the learning of all
children demand that teachers become more reflective, and see enquiry and reflection
as forces for improvement (Ainscow, 1995, p. 71). They are able and empowered to
work together as critical practitioners or problem-solving teams (Clark et al., 1999,
p. 158). The Index for Inclusion, a set of materials launched in England in 2000 and
now adapted for use in some 25 countries (http://www.eenet.org.uk), was initially
funded by the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education. Is a valuable tool for head
teachers and teachers to share, review and explore their inclusive school cultures,
policies and practices, identifying both priorities and barriers. Its authors insist,
though, that inclusion is not merely another name for SEN, conferring, as it can, a
label than can lead to lowered expectations (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13).
It is now over a quarter of a century since the first attempt to have children and
young people with special educational needs included in mainstream classes, with
special schools still making provision for those with the most complex difficulties.
Subsequent influential UK legislation (DfEE, 1997) included an endorsement for the
continued role of the special schools to cater for pupils presenting the most significant
challenge (Tilstone & Rose, 2000, p. 35), and to develop as centres of expertise (Croll
& Moses, 2000, p. 2). Governmental structures in Northern Ireland largely, but do
not entirely, reflect those in the UK and a framework for inclusion was established
through the Education (Northern Ireland) Order (1996). The Code of Practice for
SEN (DENI 1998a) followed that established earlier in the UK (DfE, 1994) and, in
2002, a Childrens Commissioner was appointed for Northern Ireland. All four
UK nations now have a commissioner installed, the most recent being in England
(http://www.byc.org.uk/cypcomiss.html). This is a well-developed concept in Australia, New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries, and the role is to ensure that there
is greater awareness of childrens rights within the wider community, and that parents
are better informed and empowered as they pursue these rights (http://www.allchildrenni.gov.uk). The proposed new legislation in the form of the Special Educational
Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order (2004) will again mirror provision in
England, Scotland and Wales, and will have a major impact on schools, pupils and
parents, with the new law planned for September 2005. The Human Rights Act
(1998) has addressed a further dimension by making the rights and freedoms of the
European Commission on Human Rights enforceable here. Work by the Human
Rights Commission to consider the scope for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland will
further help to develop a culture where respect for rights becomes second nature
(http://allchildrenni.gov.uk/consultation/chapter2.htm).
Recently, the UK Governments Strategy for Special Educational Needs (DfES,
2004) set out a vision for the education of children with special needs and disabilities
in four key areas: early intervention, removing barriers to learning by embedding
inclusive practice in every school and early years setting, raising expectations and
achievement by developing teachers skills and strategies to provide for SEN children,
and delivering improvements in partnership so that parents can be confident that
their child will get the education they need. Concerning the barriers to inclusion, their
emergence has been described as endemic rather than exceptional even where there

630 L. Abbott
were avowedly inclusive policies and where teachers were genuinely committed to
inclusive approaches (Howes et al., 2005, p. 134). They can take many forms
(Ainscow, 1999) and may be found in all aspects of the system: within schools,
communities, and local and national policies (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13). Although
the following list does not claim to be exhaustive, barriers in schools include large
classes, a curriculum not properly related to childrens experiences and, as Croll &
Moses (2000) highlighted, poor physical resources. There is a lack of time to prepare
differentiated materials and to plan with learning support teams, inadequate availability of external specialists and insufficient regular in-service training for teachers
(Avramidis et al., 2000). There can be inappropriate teacher expectations and
teacherpupil interaction that, in subtle ways, discourage pupil participation and
learning, resulting in greater marginalization (Ainscow, 1999, p. 61) and, thus,
exclusion.
A perhaps more serious constraint lies in professional attitudes towards inclusion
(Avramidis et al., 2000) as many mainstream teachers feel ill-equipped to meet the
wide range of learning difficulties in todays classrooms and negative feelings persist
a sense of fear about their ability to deal with pupils who have certain characteristics (Ainscow, 1999, p. 60), or a belief that the education of such pupils is
primarily the responsibility of a specialist (Booth et al., 2000, p. 13). Thus, there
are significant implications for all aspects of teacher education (Ainscow, 1999;
Slee, 2001). Avramidis & Norwich (2002), indeed, referred to studies showing that
acquiring the appropriate qualification from pre- or in-service courses meant less
resistance to inclusive practices, for example in the USA (Buell et al., 1999), in
Australia (Center & Ward, 1989) and in the UK (Avramidis et al., 2000). It would
also mean that teachers are not so spooked when different students enter the
classroom (Slee, 2001, p. 173). As Marshall et al. (2002, p. 212) put it:
If we are to change attitudes and move towards inclusive education for all students, we
have much work to do at the level of teacher training. All teachers need to be confident
that they can teach all children.

A more positive view of difference is needed, therefore, and implementing the Code
of Practice means that mainstream teachers must develop their capacity to deal effectively with pupil diversity (DENI, 1998b).
Also at the heart of this paper must lie the issue of UK national policy on the standards agenda that seems to contradict the principles of inclusion. The definition of
school success based only on the publication of league tables, whereby schools are
judged predominantly on the basis of pupils academic performance, has given rise
to concern (Attfield & Williams, 2003). An important study of 25 English schools
by Howes et al. (2005) found it to be a major barrier to the development of inclusive
practices. Features such as the narrowing of the curriculum, the focus on targets
and the categorization of pupils in terms of a narrow conceptualization of attainment were said to embody values which run counter to a greater or lesser extent to
notions of inclusion and make it difficult for teachers to act in an inclusive way
(p. 137). However, Dyson et al. (2004) showed that, despite schools fears that their

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 631

performance might be damaged if they were too inclusive, only a very small and
negative statistical relationship was found between the level of inclusivity and pupil
attainment (p. 11). Nonetheless, policies for raising standards, like the emphasis on
competition and choice, can discourage the kind of teaching approaches that allow
for student diversity (Ainscow et al., 2004).
Northern Ireland has had a system of academic selection since 1947, the impact of
which has been intense pressure for teachers and for pupils entered for the Transfer
Tests that determine whether they will proceed to a selective (grammar) or nonselective (secondary) school (Gallagher & Smith, 2000). Selection has resulted in
teachers focusing on a narrow curriculum for the minority (some 20 percent who go
to selective schools), with some suggestion that [they] devoted less consistent attention to the educational needs of [those not entered for the tests] (Gallagher & Smith,
2000, p. 3.2.3). However, the strenuous attempts to abolish selection (Department
of Education, 2001), with the last Transfer Tests to be taken in 2008, will help
support the rationale behind inclusion and lead to a much greater focus on the potential of all pupils. Moreover, the fact that league tables are not published in Northern
Ireland means that schools are not competing with each other, and there is not the
same pressure on head teachers to exclude.
A greater understanding is required, then, of how educational contexts can widen
access and participation and reduce exclusionary pressures, posing the research
questions: what are head teachers current perceptions of inclusion in mainstream
and special schools in Northern Ireland? What difficulties do they encounter? What
do they see as the way forward?
The study
It is against this backcloth that head teachers must attempt to make the vision of
inclusion a reality and they still exert substantial influence (Ryan, 2003, p. 45).
Ryans Canadian research suggested that those interested in promoting inclusive
leadership practices must advocate for inclusion (not see difference as a threat), must
convince others of its merits (reading, talking and writing about inclusion), and must
engender dialogue within and beyond the school (developing a critical consciousness). Crucially, they must foster a whole-school approach (involving teachers,
heads, students and parents): In other words, inclusion needs to become integrated
into the culture of the school community (p. 56).
Concerning leadership opinions on the appropriate educational placement for
children with SEN, an English study of primary and special school heads showed
that, whilst the principle of including all children in mainstream neighbourhood
schools was supported by those in special schools, those in the primary sector were
more likely to argue that some children presented difficulties which it was impossible
or unreasonable to expect them to deal with in regular settings (Croll & Moses, 2000,
p. 6). Special school heads generally held the view that children with moderate learning difficulties should be in the mainstream, and primary heads found coping with
emotional and behavioural difficulties too demanding on staff and unfair to other

632 L. Abbott
children. In keeping with other research cited above, both sets of head teachers agreed
that the lack of appropriate resourcing in the mainstream environment was why many
children were in the special sector.
The role of the special schools and their head teachers was redefined in the UK
Government Green Paper (DfEE, 1998): [to work with] mainstream schools to
support greater inclusion (p. 43), although such links were by then already established (e.g. Fletcher-Campbell, 1994). Attfield & Williams (2003, p. 31) spoke of
leaders whose ideal was described as a sort of reciprocal inclusion and who, with the
unique skills and knowledge found in special schools, could provide outreach services
for mainstream classes, clusters of geographically dispersed centres, or centres of
excellence providing consultancy and advice (p. 30). This collaborative, inter-sector
approach included a shared moral purpose in spite of schools very different starting
points and a need to revisit definitions of inclusion, with head teachers working flexibly to demystify the language of special schools: Partnership [with mainstream],
based on commitment and responsibility, must be central to the development of
inclusive practice (p. 31).
The empirical data presented here are from a one-year study commissioned by the
Northern Ireland Department of Education to investigate the views and experiences
of head teachers in relation to the development of inclusion within their schools. The
aims of the study were to examine existing practices that increase the motivation,
participation and achievement of children and young people in mainstream and
special schools in Northern Ireland; to identify characteristics of organizational
culture and conditions that promote and contribute to enhanced opportunities and
attainment for all pupils; to identify and evaluate the barriers to pupils participation
and learning; and to consider key factors for a model of good practice that could
inform policy-making at strategic and operational levels.
Methodology
A qualitative approach was used and, in consultation with the Department of
Education, the respondents were deliberately selected from 28 schools identified
as actively pursuing inclusion. Whilst this might be a limitation of the study (Avramidis et al., 2000), the sample was felt to be fully representative of Northern
Ireland as a whole in terms of the variables considered, namely, sector, size and
geographical location (schools were distributed throughout the five local education authorities).
Seven schools were selected in each case from the nursery (N), primary (P), postprimary (PP) and special (S) sectors. In respect of the seven special schools, four
provided for severe learning difficulties (SLD), two for moderate learning difficulties
(MLD) and one was an outreach support service (OSS) for Key Stage 2 pupils (711
years) with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) (see Table 1).
Semi-structured interviews were designed and piloted with one head teacher in
each sector, then conducted on a one-to-one basis with each respondent in their own
setting. The interviews lasted approximately one hour. They were tape-recorded and

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 633

Table 1.
Sector
Nursery (7)
Primary (7)
Post-primary (7)
Special (7)

School size by sector (n = 28)

Range

Mean

52104
43630
1601060
79209

75
280
674
131

transcribed. The purpose of the research and their role in it were explained to the
participants, and complete anonymity was assured in keeping with the British Educational Research Associations (2004) ethical guidelines. Because of the relatively
small sample size, raw figures only are used to show response patterns, and it is
recognized that the findings cannot easily be generalized. Selected vignettes exemplify
inter-sector experiences.
Findings
The findings are reported under the following headings:

Promoting a culture of inclusion at whole-school level.

Developing inclusive practices at classroom level.
Barriers to inclusion.
Teacher education to promote inclusive schooling.
Key factors to make inclusion work.

Promoting a culture of inclusion at whole-school level

Without exception, all 28 head teachers believed their whole-school culture to be
inclusive. This was understandable, but the interviews were to show that they could
see their own progress, the constraints being met, and the means of improving
practice in both their own context and in the broader sense. The main features of a
whole-school philosophy of inclusion were said to be catering for individual difference
(all 28 heads), and treating all children the same regardless of ability, social class or
cultural background (25: 6N, 5P, 7PP, 7S). Inclusion also meant valuing staff,
developing a spirit of collaborative working, encouraging children to be accepting of
disability in others, involving parents and the wider community, and anticipating
pupils longer-term needs.
Two primary schools in the sample had children whose fathers were stationed
locally in the armed forces. As well, in their case, inclusion involved different nationalities, English as a second language, the variable duration of the pupils time in
Northern Ireland, and the difficulty of obtaining feed-forward about learning difficulties from previous schools elsewhere in the UK, the last two hampering continuity
of educational experience. Special school heads spoke of catering for the most

634 L. Abbott
vulnerable and challenging pupils, preparing those on placement for reintegration to
mainstream education, and providing outreach support for their teachers.
Inclusion is very much part of our strategy working in partnership with mainstream and
other special schools, with the local education authority and with the Department of
Education. (S)
Inclusion means treating all children the same regardless of their difficulty, whether its
language, behaviour or physical problems. In the case of the little boy with cerebral palsy,
its including him in classroom activities and its also getting the other children to play
alongside him. (N)
Our philosophy of inclusion is irrespective of the childrens socio-economic status, of ability, of where they come from. We endeavour to ensure that all children are given an opportunity to be included in all aspects of education. (P)
We not only cater for all children in school, high achievers to low achievers, but we have
teachers with their own specialisms as the special needs pupils must have a champion for
their cause. (P)
We dont accept that there are any rejects in society or any rejects in this school. (PP)

In support of inclusion, all but one of the 21 head teachers in mainstream schools
unconditionally accepted the full range of ability, including EBD (20: 6N, 7P, 7PP).
A third said that they did so provided that they could meet their needs (7: 1N, 1P,
5PP).
We take the full range of pupil needs, we dont exclude and there is no issue about we
cant deal with that. (N)
We have invested a lot of time and effort into looking after those children for whom the
school day is slightly different. Weve had dyslexia and dyspraxia, Tourettes syndrome,
aspects of autism, Downs syndrome, spina bifida, Aspergers, ADHD, dwarfism [acondroplasia], and many with major speech and language problems and moderate learning
difficulties. We look at their educational needs as well as their behaviour problems. (P)
I would only accept somebody if I truthfully believed that the school could meet their
needs [although] we have at least two children who were initially deemed unable to deal
with mainstream education and have settled well. At that outer edge of moderate learning
difficulties, were always probing what mainstream can do. (PP)
We have the full ability range: MLD and some borderline SLD. Their predominant need
is EBD, but we take those with medical conditions, visual impairment or epilepsy. We run
an Education Other Than At School Service (EOTAS) for children who cant be managed
here their needs are too complex or too difficult or theyre too violent. (OSS)

Most head teachers considered the role of the special school to have changed as a
result of the greater number of children with specific learning difficulties now in
mainstream settings (25: 6N, 7P, 6PP, 6S). Because of the limitations of their own
knowledge and skills with regard to special needs, great importance was placed on the
expertise shared with them by colleagues in the special sector. The special school
head teachers agreed that this exemplified the main shift in their own role and, whilst
all seven provided an outreach service, there were differing views on the willingness
and ability of staff to take it on even though, as one said:

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 635

Our mission is to return children to mainstream school. We see ourselves more as a referral
centre, a centre of excellence, a support to the mainstream school. (S)

The majority of heads believed the teachers in their schools fully understood the
concept of inclusion (21: 7N, 5P, 3PP, 6S). Although this response could be
expected, the inherent problems of putting it into practice were recognised. Teachers
knew they had to learn extremely quickly about difficulties or disabilities, some
adapted to special needs pupils better than others, and some schools matched a
teacher with a particular specialism to a child. One nursery head commented that her
staff were very conscious of not making a child feel excluded the other side of the
coin. However, five heads thought their teachers did not fully grasp the concept (1P,
3PP, 1S) and two said it was in their own terms (1P, 1PP).
I think staff fully understand the term, but it can be difficult because certain aspects of
special needs we learn basically on our feet. (N)
Its definitely not a case of every child can go to every teacher. The reality is that you have
to match the special needs child with someone who can meet those needs. (P)
Youre always going to get some teachers with better tolerance levels and greater empathy
than others with difficult pupils. (PP)

The importance of leadership was emphasized:

Like everything else, [understanding] depends on the management of the school because
its leadership that drives inclusion. (S)

Most agreed that a language of practice had developed in relation to inclusion (24:
6N, 6P, 5PP, 7S). When probed, the heads said that this was by promoting a strong
collegial atmosphere to foster peer support so that the language used is understood by all staff (N) discussion, critical reflection and forward planning Inclusion has to be ingrained, welcomed and done naturally (P). Teachers observed each
others practice and, in the primary and post-primary schools, learned from the
Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) who can reach out to all year
groups and pinpoint the needs of any child including the gifted (PP). The language
of practice also had to traverse the different sectors to avoid fragmentation (S), and
most head teachers appeared satisfied that their staff worked collaboratively to put it
to good use and promote inclusion (23: 6N, 6P, 5PP, 6S). Four thought this was
being achieved as well as they can or by and large (1N, 1P, 2PP). Constraints lay
in the greater number of children with a myriad of special needs, and the resultant
increasing and different demands now placed on teachers.
In Northern Ireland and in this school, weve got a body of highly professional, trained
teachers who really react to the duty of care as well as to the educational needs of the whole
child, even though theyre now dealing with a big range of difficulties. (P)
I think the teachers here have managed inclusion to a reasonable degree but, if youre asking
is it perfect, no, it is not. Theres a tendency under the umbrella of inclusion always to look
at the academically low achievers so within our school development plan we incorporated the specific aim of trying to move people out of [their] comfort zone and getting them
to challenge the most able pupils to strive towards higher level examination entry. (PP)

636 L. Abbott
Teaching strategies, while obviously influenced by resources, are in line with what the
child should be experiencing if they were in mainstream, and the teachers do a good job
of that. (S)

The efforts of schools, as reported by the head teachers, were commendably good,
although the preoccupation with SEN was much in evidence within the wider agenda
of inclusion.
Developing inclusive practices at classroom level
There was consensus among the head teachers on the main approaches to developing
inclusion in the classroom. They consisted of assessment, curriculum adaptation,
planning for individual needs and putting differentiation into practice, providing
specific support (particularly with reading, concentration and fine motor control),
and critically reviewing and evaluating progress. Most said that individual targets
were set for pupil learning outcomes (21: 4N, 7P, 3PP, 7S) and appropriate resources
identified (16: 7N, 2P, 7S). Half mentioned extra literacy and numeracy support (14:
2P, 5PP, 7S), 11 the appropriate use of classroom assistants (2P, 3PP, 6S), and about
one-third (mostly special schools) stressed the need for an appropriate physical environment (9: 1N, 1P, 2PP, 5S).
You adapt the curriculum its constantly in motion and plan for specific outcomes,
but you must keep reviewing to see that youre delivering. Staff regularly evaluate targets
thats teamwork. (N)
Each child has an individual education plan with curriculum, social and life skills objectives, and these are very, very specific and measurable. They receive the same curriculum
as the mainstream child at a level appropriate to them. (S)

Ten mainstream head teachers stressed that, as far as possible, pupils with particular learning difficulties should not feel segregated or marginalized when receiving
additional support, to improve and sustain self-esteem (4N, 2P, 4PP).
Specific help can be given in a group situation where skills can be practised and its part of
structured play for everyone. We target the children without them knowing and nobody
feels excluded. (N)
Were conscious of how the child feels about themselves, and that in providing appropriate
work, we dont want to segregate them in their own minds. (P)
There is a high level of differentiation in our teaching and learning strategies, not just for
special needs but for all pupils. We try to take any stigma away and ask, Are we treating
all the kids in a consistent fashion? Then the expectation factor comes in: is it too high or
too low? (PP)
We have a series of critical skills within the curriculum that children need, then we decide
on the teaching method. (S)

Most head teachers felt that they could offer an effective education to all children in
their schools, one that enabled them to reach their potential (24: 6N, 6P, 6PP, 6S).
From the four who disagreed (one in each sector), one spoke of the demands of
making provision for all children considering the multiple barriers to inclusion, two

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 637

referred to the lack of resources, and one to parental attitudes, in this case the
reluctance of some parents to move their children out of the secure special school
environment, even though deemed appropriate by the staff.
Were frustrated by the barriers to inclusion, plus we have to remember the needs of all
children were not just focusing on those with special needs. (N)
Sometimes the childs needs just cannot be met in mainstream. Im thinking of severe
disability. We have a special needs unit but there are five steps up to it, so what about the
child who cant walk? Some mainstream schools dont lend themselves to inclusion very
easily, have not been physically prepared for inclusion. (P)
I dont feel that were properly resourced considering what theyre asking us to do. (PP)
Hand on heart, no. Some of our children here, I believe, should be in mainstream schools,
but their parents dont want them to go. There are some for whom I believe, yes, this is
the best possible environment. (S)

Barriers to inclusion
The main barrier to inclusion across the four school sectors was said to be a shortfall
in human resources in terms of external agencies professionals who provide
therapeutic or other services the main implications of which were the long delays
in pupils being assessed by an Educational Psychologist and in getting specialist
support that often proved to be of insufficient frequency and duration (18: 5N, 4P,
3PP, 6S) The system is very unwieldy and slow. Its working against inclusive
practices (N). Mentioned in each case by about one-third of head teachers were the
shortage of teachers that meant large classes with too few classroom assistants properly trained in special needs (9: 4N, 3P, 2S); insufficient money to manage inclusion
at both local authority and school level (9: 4P, 1PP, 4S); and attitudes that related to
the negative mindset of some mainstream teachers towards special needs, or that were
rooted in a deficit model that failed to appreciate the inherent potential of every child
(9: 1N, 1P, 1PP, 6S).
Physical resources likely to be lacking were specialist items of equipment and
school design did not always facilitate disabled access (7: 1N, 3P, 3PP), such as the
case of an older primary school pupil whose larger wheelchair could barely fit into an
already overcrowded classroom, or the nursery school with no appropriate room for
staff to discuss privately with parents their childs special needs very distressing
issues, particularly for first-time and young mothers, or for any mother.
None of those interviewed saw a conflict between inclusion and the standards
agenda, even those with an ethos of long-established academic success following the
Transfer Tests at age eleven, partly explained by the absence in Northern Ireland of
league tables unlike elsewhere in the UK.
Inclusion doesnt necessarily mean a dilution of standards and the school has to be very
honest in setting targets for the children not in the academic band. I always emphasize that
although were immensely proud of the academic success of the school, we take equal
pride in some children reaching a lower level. (P)

638 L. Abbott
Teacher education to promote inclusive schooling
When asked if they thought that Initial Teacher Education (ITE) fully prepared
students for inclusive classrooms, most head teachers said no (21: 3N, 6P, 5PP, 7S),
although they warmly praised their motivation and enthusiasm to learn. Beginning
teachers had to understand pupil diversity, albeit overwhelming at first, and learn how
to teach with this in mind, taking a holistic view of the child. It was suggested that
Teaching Practice should entail student placement in a range of settings that included
non-selective and special schools.
Im not sure that learning difficulties, the disruptive child, the dysfunctional family and the
social context in which education operates are given much attention in ITE. (PP)
If something hasnt been covered during ITE we do it here, but Im concerned that theres
a gap between the teacher trainers and ourselves. (PP)
Every teacher should be a teacher of special needs with a background in child development, particularly EBD. Its the one area that today is still crying out for training, for
preparation, for resourcing, and its the one that causes the most problems. (S)

There are implications for teacher trainers, therefore, in respect of inclusion within
the three phases of teacher training initial, induction and early professional
development in respect of its scope and depth.
All 28 head teachers provided induction for beginning teachers that spelled out the
inclusive culture, ethos and organization of their own school, assigning a teacher tutor
and sometimes a mentor too. Most made use of specialist expertise amongst staff to
initiate new teachers into inclusive practices and, in the primary and post-primary
sectors, the SENCO had a highly significant part to play as, for example, had Year
Heads. External help came from the local education authorities induction
programmes and their behaviour support teams. Of increasing importance were
fostering critical reflective practice and inculcating the interpersonal skills needed to
deal with parents, the latter often daunting for new teachers.
We found it necessary to get a much tighter hand on inclusion [in our induction policy]
and have a much clearer role to fulfil with the young teachers. (P)
We put great emphasis on new teachers reviewing their own work as part of personal and
professional development, and we make that explicit. (S)
The majority saw a need for more in-service support to promote inclusion focusing on
teaching and learning strategies that embraced individual needs and appropriate expectations (22: 6N, 7P, 5PP, 4S) Teachers need to be educated themselves to know what
demands to make or not to make (PP).
You have children with different experiences, levels of maturity and home backgrounds
added to that are the learning difficulties and physical disabilities. Managing your classroom, staff and resources is the biggest challenge. (N)
We all need more INSET head teachers included if inclusion is going to come on
board. (P)

The Regional Training Unit (RTU) in Northern Ireland, with responsibility for
senior management training, is now producing a coherent strategy for leadership

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 639

training in relation to the inclusion agenda. The intention is to develop collaborative
working models between mainstream and special schools, and across the external
agencies to improve the performance of all pupils (http://rtuni.org/section).
Key factors to make inclusion work
The key factors believed to support a model of best practice in inclusive schooling
were as follows:

Catering for individual difference in an accepting, valuing atmosphere (23).

Establishing partnerships between staff, parents, other schools and outside professionals (19).
Developing better interagency collaboration, including improved and quicker
access to therapists (14).

Equally crucial were nurturing a whole-school culture of inclusion with openness

towards learning difficulties and disabilities, having adequate human and physical
resources, and proper training for staff. Additionally, all seven nursery school heads
highlighted the need for early intervention, one commenting, The more help you can
give special educational needs children in the early years, the better the prognosis.
Prevention is better than cure. Its also cheaper. Other perceptions of inclusion
working were:
The first thing is the ability to treat all children as human beings with individual rights.
Second, look at how you can meet their needs, not get drawn into pre-judgements and
classifications; give everybody at least one go, but be honest, open and dont promise what
you cant deliver. (S)
I think inclusion works for us because we can cope with what we have. Inclusion is the
ideal, but the practicalities can sometimes be difficult. Im not in favour of total inclusion
to the point where a mainstream school like mine would be creaking. (PP)
We need to be aware that in large mainstream classes, the teacher hasnt got the time they
have in special schools and some children are better to be educated in a special environment. But when a child leaves here and hugs you before he goes, thats where you get the
wages! (P)

Conclusions
Returning to the research questions, first, what are head teachers perceptions of
inclusion in mainstream and special schools in Northern Ireland? The interviews
plainly showed a strong engagement with such a culture, reflecting the belief that the
inclusive school is different from the non-inclusive school, not simply in terms of its
pursuit of inclusion, but also its internal structures and practices (Clark et al., 1999).
It was to be expected that the head teachers wanted to portray their schools as
promoting and developing inclusion, but it was also clear that they recognized how
far this was being achieved as well as the challenges of putting it into practice. While
seemingly committed to a broad view of inclusion, the responses in the main reflected

640 L. Abbott
a preoccupation with special needs, but returning to the definition at the outset
an equal undertaking to reduce exclusion in any form.
By accepting the full range of learning difficulties (including EBD), the schools
invested time and effort in facilitating curriculum access and building pupils selfesteem. The special schools provided for those with the most profound needs while
endorsing a policy of reintegrating pupils to mainstream wherever possible. While
active in the outreach aspect of their work and willing to share their expertise with
mainstream colleagues, there was some concern that not all special school teachers
were disposed to teach other adults, or felt sufficiently skilled to do so. The transference of their practice into mainstream could present difficulties, an area in which little
research has been done (Farrell, 2000) and one that INSET, too, must address.
At whole-school level, most head teachers believed inclusion to be understood by
their teachers. If, as some claimed, it was conceptualized more in their own terms,
then there are strong implications for leadership from the head teacher and from other
key staff that demonstrates wholehearted respect for diversity, and that is clearly
communicated to all (HMIE, 2002). In the classroom, heads stated that widening
participation and responding to individual needs meant high levels of adaptation and
differentiation, as well as setting the right expectations to provide effective learning
experiences for all (MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001). Again, strategies were in place in
all four sectors to ensure that measures taken to support learning difficulties did not
prove counter-productive by generating any sense of exclusion.
Second, what difficulties do head teachers in Northern Ireland face in promoting
inclusive schooling? Barriers were numerous and reflected those experienced in the
wider arena, the most frequently cited being a shortfall in resources (Croll & Moses,
2000). Surprisingly, too, the physical design of some school buildings could fall short
of enabling access for all. A further limiting factor was the attitude of some mainstream
teachers towards making provision for particular learning needs and recognizing pupil
potential, a point forcibly made by some in the special sector. With the legislation on
special needs and disabilities imminent, though, such a mindset cannot be justified.
The schools in the study had comprehensive induction programmes to support
beginning teachers, but heads did not feel that students were being fully prepared to
teach in inclusive classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Although ITE per se is
not the responsibility of head teachers, all phases of the teacher education continuum
impact on the culture of a school. Indeed, in the absence of a coherent plan extending
from initial to in-service training in SEN, it is difficult to see how inclusion can fully
succeed. This, together with continued outreach support from special school
colleagues, could help teachers welcome, value and cope more confidently with
diversity.
Last, what do head teachers see as the way forward? Those interviewed were
indisputably committed to inclusion, but still believed that the enrolment of pupils
with particular educational needs should be contingent upon a school having not only
the right culture and leadership, but also the appropriate human and physical
resources (limited and stretched as they are) as well as prompt, sustained support
from external agencies. It is argued, therefore, that policy-makers should consider the

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 641

implications of the head teachers perceptions for, as Avramidis et al. (2000, p. 209)
stated: with the provision of more resources and extensive opportunities at both preservice and post-service levels, teachers attitudes towards inclusion can become more
favourable. They warned, however, that successful inclusion was not only dependent
on more human and material resources, but on how they were used, and that training
should foster critical thinking.
The evidence here has compellingly captured the efforts of some head teachers to
develop inclusive schools, albeit not always in ideal circumstances, by widening participation for those at risk of being marginalized. What is more, it reflects the four main
elements of the DfES (2004) strategy: early intervention, removing barriers to learning, raising expectations and achievement, and developing improvements in partnerships. It is also in keeping with the conclusions reached by the Office for Standards
in Education (Ofsted) (2003) on schools efforts to be inclusive although, as in any
human system, there is a degree of frailty. To echo Rouse & Florian (1996), there is
a need for purpose and a context-specific perspective, for policies and philosophies
that create a climate conducive to learning with well defined strategies, for the involvement of multiple agencies, and for support within and beyond the school community.
Inclusion is about embracing the bigger educational values of equity, diversity and
justice, not simply a term to describe the practice of including children and young
people with learning difficulties and disabilities in mainstream schools. It is a process
of reducing barriers to learning for all children, and is about cultures that are receptive
to, and value, diversity and that espouse the notion of social equity for all. Working
towards inclusion should involve critically examining barriers created by individuals
and schools, and, once identified, ways must be sought to minimize them (Booth
et al., 2000, p. 14). There should be a strong focus on student achievement in caring,
inclusive classrooms, and sound parental links.
Schools in Northern Ireland have made considerable progress in promoting
inclusion, although much of the discussion has been around the integration of children
with special educational needs into regular classes. But in the context of a true
interpretation of the term and the definition of inclusion used here increasing
participation and reducing exclusion there is still a long way to go.
Acknowledgements
The paper was based on a report commissioned by the Department of Education for
Northern Ireland. The willing participation of the head teachers in the study is gratefully acknowledged.
Note on contributor
Lesley Abbott is a Research Fellow at the UNESCO Centre, School of Education,
University of Ulster. Her research interests include the professional needs of
newly qualified teachers, cross-national cooperation through Information and
Communications Technology, inclusive schooling and teacher education.

642 L. Abbott
References
Ainscow, M. (1995) Special needs through school improvement: school improvement through
special needs, in: C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds) Towards Inclusive Schools?
(London, David Fulton), 6377.
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools (London, Falmer).
Ainscow, M. (2000) Reaching out to all learners: some lessons from international experience,
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 119.
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2004) Understanding and developing inclusive practices in
schools: a collaborative action research network, International Journal of Inclusive Education,
8(2), 125139.
Ainscow, M., Farrell, P. & Tweddle, D. (2000) Developing policies for inclusive education: a
study of the role of local education authorities, International Journal of Inclusive Education,
4(3), 211229.
Armstrong, F. (1998) Curricula, management and special and inclusive education, in: P. Clough
(Ed.) Managing Inclusive Education From Policy to Experience (London, Paul Chapman), 4863.
Attfield, R. & Williams, C. (2003) Leadership and inclusion: a special school perspective, British
Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 2833.
Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002) Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of
the literature, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129147.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000) A survey into mainstream teachers attitudes
towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary classroom in
one local education authority, Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191211.
Booth, T. (1999) Viewing inclusion from a distance: gaining perspective from comparative study,
Support for Learning, 14(4), 164168.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for
Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in School (Bristol, Centre for Studies on
Inclusive Education).
Branson, J. & Miller, D. (1989). Beyond integration policy the deconstruction of disability, in
L. Barton (Ed.) Integration: Myth or Reality? (Lewes, Falmer), 144167.
British Educational Research Association (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research
(Southwell, BERA).
Buell, M., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M. & Scheer, S. (1999) A survey of general and special
education teachers perceptions and in-service needs concerning inclusion, International Journal
of Disability, 46(2), 143156.
Center, Y. & Ward, J. (1989) Attitudes of school psychologists towards the integration of children
with disabilities, Exceptional Child, 34, 4156.
Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (1989) The Inclusion Charter (Bristol, CSIE).
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A. & Robson, S. (1999) Theories of inclusion, theories of schools:
deconstructing and reconstructing the inclusive school, British Educational Research Journal,
25(2), 157177.
Corbett, J. & Slee, R. (2000) An international conversation on inclusive education, in: F. Armstrong,
D. Armstrong & L. Barton (Eds) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative
Perspectives (London, David Fulton), 133146.
Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000) Ideologies and utopias: education professionals views of inclusion,
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(1), 112.
Department for Education (DfE) (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of
Special Educational Needs (London, HMSO).
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1997) Excellence in Schools (London,
Stationery Office).
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs: A
Programme for Action (London, Stationery Office).

Northern Ireland head teachers perceptions of inclusion 643

Department for Education and Skills (2004) Removing Barriers to Achievement (London, DfES).
Department of Education (2001) Education for the 21st Century: Report by the Post-primary Review
Body [Burns Report] (Bangor, DE).
Department of Education for Northern Ireland (1998a) Code of Practice on the Identification and
Assessment of Special Educational Needs (Bangor, DENI).
Department of Education for Northern Ireland (1998b) Practice in Mainstream Schools for Children
with Special Educational Needs (Bangor, DENI).
Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F. & Hutcheson, G. (2004) Inclusion and Pupil Achievement. Research
Report RR578 (London, Department for Education and Skills).
Farrell, P. (2000) The impact of research on developments in inclusive education, International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 153162.
Fletcher-Campbell, F. (1994) Special Links? Partners in Provision? Collaboration between Ordinary
and Special Schools (Slough, NFER).
Gallagher, T. & Smith, A. (2000) The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern
Ireland Main Report (Bangor, Department of Education).
Giangreco, M. F. (1997) Key lessons learned about inclusive education: summary of the 1996
Schonell Memorial Lecture, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1,
323336.
Hegarty, S. (2001) Inclusive Education a case to answer, Journal of Moral Education, 30(3),
243249.
H. M. Inspectorate of Education (2002) Count Us In Achieving Inclusion in Scottish Schools
(Edinburgh, HMIE). Available online at: http://www.hmie.gov.uk
Hopkins, D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (1996) Improving the Quality of Education for All: Progress
and Challenge (London, David Fulton).
Howes, A., Booth, T., Dyson, A. & Frankham, J. (2005) Teacher learning and the development
of inclusive practices and policies: framing and context, Research Papers in Education, 20(2),
133148.
MacBeath, J. & Mortimore, P. (2001) School effectiveness and improvement: the story so far, in:
J. MacBeath & P. Mortimore (Eds) Improving School Effectiveness (Buckingham, Open
University Press), 121.
Marshall, J., Ralph, S. & Palmer, S. (2002) I wasnt trained to work with them: mainstream
teachers attitudes to children with speech and language difficulties, International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 6(3), 199215.
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2002) Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice (London, Paul Chapman).
Office for Standards in Education (2003) Special Educational Needs in the Mainstream. HMI511.
Available online at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index
Rouse, M. & Florian, L. (1996) Effective inclusive schools: a study in two countries, Cambridge
Journal of Education, 26(1), 7185.
Ryan, J. (2003) Leading diverse schools: headteachers and inclusion, Improving Schools, 6(2), 4362.
Skirtic, T. M. (1991) Students with special educational needs: artifacts of the traditional curriculum,
in: M. Ainscow (Ed.) Effective Schools for All (London, David Fulton), 2042.
Slee, R. (2001) Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: the case of
inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167177.
Thomas, G. (1997) Inclusive schools for an inclusive society, British Journal of Special Education,
24(3), 103107.
Thomas, G. & Vaughan, M. (2004) Inclusive Education Readings and Reflections (Maidenhead,
Open University Press).
Tilstone, C. & Rose, R. (2000) Do special schools have a role in supporting the process of inclusion? Tizard Learning Disability Review, 5(4) 3543.