Rethinking the Role of Inclusive Education

• In Event: Roundtable Session 3
  In Refereed Roundtable Session: Diverse challenges facing education: case studies on climate change, edu-tourism, inclusive education and Kyrgyzstan

Proposal

This roundtable discussion seeks to engage participants in a discussion about rethinking inclusive education. The paper extends conversations that started at a Brookings Institution workshop in April 2024 and continued in a Special Olympics International research collaborative meeting in the United Arab Emirates in November 2024 about the ways in which inclusive education is understood in current global policy environments. At present, inclusive education is framed by global governance organizations as an aspirational goal, one which can transform education systems if particular “leverage points” fall into place (Ingram, 2024). Systems transformation scholars often use leverage points with physics metaphors, arguing that if leverage points are found on one side of a social fulcrum, scales will shift, and systems will change (Meadows, 1999).

The problem with changing systems to be more inclusive is that education systems were never intended to be inclusive, and that inclusive systems are likely decades away, if ever attainable. This paper argues that inclusive education should instead be framed as a disruptor of education systems as they currently exist. The “disruptor” framing takes an activist stance and uses chemistry metaphors, hypothesizing that as new elements are inserted into systems, chemical reactions occur that will forever change that system. Framing inclusive education as an act that can disrupt systems that are currently ableist, sexist, and colonizing draws upon Ainscow’s (2020) work that inclusion is an ongoing and ever shifting process, and should not be considered a system destination. The presenter for this roundtable will draw upon five examples of how inclusive education is currently disrupting systems, remaking them in localized ways despite systemic structural incoherence with the ideals of inclusivity. Inclusive education as a disruptor, then, is informed by critical research and the capacity of advocates to enact inclusion on their own terms. The author shares five examples of this reconceptualized inclusion, which include:

• Theoretical reconceptualizing inclusivity to be that of a restorative, just, and redistributive practice rather than one that simply promotes social cohesion (Gupta & Pouw, 2017);
• Representational political actions by advocacy groups seeking restructuring of resourcing and greater recognition in policy (Hickey et al., 2015);
• Accessibility as an underlying approach to all teaching and learning activities, placing the onus on reducing barriers on systems rather than students (Rose & Meyer, 2002);
• Flexibility in all aspects of schooling as a “disruptive intervention” (Artiles, 2020) to rigid, standards-driven, or normative schooling expectations;
• Anti-ableism (Dolmage, 2018) as a specific approach to inclusion that interrogates the systemic ableism that is embedded in school policies, routine expectations, and educational norms and takes action upon it.

The session ends with questions to participants about this reframing, and a call to action. Can inclusive education be represented as an act of resistance, not a utopian goal? The session concludes with discussion about considering inclusive actions - as imperfect, localized, or under-resourced as they may be, as ways to disrupt systems that are inherently, historically, and purposefully unequal and exclusionary.

Author

• Christopher Johnstone, University of Minnesota