MODULE 3

Lesson Overview
Previously, you learned about the history, context, and foundations of special needs and
inclusive education. By understanding the role that disability frameworks play, we can now
move on to finding out how to implement inclusive practices in the classroom. This chapter
shall provide insights and practical tin. on cultivating inclusive habits and implementing such
practices in the classroom effectively. It is entirely based on the Booth and Ainscow (2002)
framework to help schools determine their next steps in shifting to a more inclusive setting.

Learning Objectives
At the end of the module, you must have:

1. differentiated mainstreaming and inclusion,

2. create a plan for Universal Design for Learning (UDL) based on the given situation,
and
3. reflected current practices in school that support inclusive education

A Unifying Framework
In 2002, Booth and Ainscow came up with an Index for Inclusion, which aims to
direct educational institutions toward developing their own next steps and action
plans if they want to restructure into becoming more inclusive. “It takes on the
social model of disability as its starting point, builds on good practice, and then
organizes the index work around a cycle of activities which guide schools
through stages of preparation, investigation, development, and review”
(UNESCO 2005:30). A three-dimensional framework was created.

Booth and Ainscow (2002) explained that these three dimensions creating inclusive cultures,
evolving inclusive practices, and producing inclusive policies—are interconnected and
“chosen to direct thinking about school change” (2002:7). Considered the
backbone of the framework is the laying down and establishing of an inclusive
culture. Without this at the foundation, it will be quite difficult to get people to
shift policies and practices. A non-supportive culture would most likely result in
resistance from the school's direct stakeholders. They explain that these three
dimensions also branch out into sections to further guide schools into
implementing more direct steps toward this paradigm shift.

Creating Inclusive Cultures

Inclusion is as much the responsibility of society as it is the responsibility of schools. We
realized from the previous chapter that the key to successful inclusive practices is merging of
frameworks and aligning of definitions of disability. In this chapter, we shall learn that
inclusive education is an ongoing collaborative process that needs to be dynamically
revisited. For it to truly work, its essence has to resonate to all stakeholders of education.
In educational reform, stakeholders are those who are “invested in the welfare and success of
a school and its students”(www.edglossary.org). In other words, these are the teachers,
administrators, school staff, officials and other workers, the parents and their families, the
community, and the government. They may also be collective entities like local businesses,
advocacy groups, the media, sociocultural institutions, and other organizations that may be
directly or indirectly involved in education. Stakeholders are important because they play a
major role in “connecting what is being taught in a school to its surrounding community”
(www.edglossary.org (Links to an external site.)).
In 2017, UNESCO reported that there has been significant global improvement in accessing
education, specifically in the primary level for the last 15 years. However, its 2016 Global
Education Monitoring Report reveals that there are still an estimated 263 million children
and youth aged 6 to 17 all around the world who are still not in school at this time. The
report also confirmed the continuous plight of women against gender discrimination, among
others. With increasing globalization and international migration, the problem pertaining to
inclusive education and how it affects PWDs could not be more real.

Special Education vs. Inclusion vs.

Mainstreaming
Part of what needs to occur when creating cultures is to also determine
distinctions among frameworks and practices. Most important in this scenario is
to understand how different special education, mainstreaming, and inclusive
education are from each other. In the previous chapter, we discussed how special
education is often regarded as segregated and exclusive. It has to be noted,
however, that this perception is entirely due to its nature of addressing cases in a
highly individualized way. This is not to mean that special education is an
environment that violates human rights. Because special education assesses,
instructs, and evaluates students individually and intentionally, this type of
educational setting is beneficial to those with very unique needs as well.
Mainstreaming shares more similarities with inclusion than with special
education. Both look at integrating the child with additional needs into a general
education setting. There are, however, nuances between the two as well.
 Producing Inclusive Policies
As reiterated in the previous chapters, the premise of inclusion starts with an acceptance and
embracing of diversity. It is difficult to start movement if this practice is not rooted on a
culture that assumes the right perspectives and values. For simultaneous paradigm shifts to
happen among its education stakeholders, schools must first create a new culture.
UNESCO (2005) realistically acknowledges that a societal change in attitude need not be
initially present in a community before inclusion can be fully practiced. Rather, it must be
viewed as a perspective or an ideal to work toward. Without this realization, differences in
standards and quality of education may surface as potential problems. Just very recently, the
pre-service education curriculum was restructured so that special needs education units are
not only given to special needs education majors but to other education majors as well. This
is a huge step for teachers and a nod to inclusive education. The following is a list of other
possible steps that educators can take to facilitate the much-needed societal shift and inform
policy:

 Involve other sectors of society. Current training and awareness campaigns seem
to limit the movement of inclusion to a mere homeschool relationship. At most,
these are extended to the departments for social welfare and health. However, for
an inclusive set-up to truly be successful, active involvement of the entire
community must be ensured.
 Collaborate. Whether creating an academic program specific to a child with
additional needs or creating a new legislative bill for the PWD community,
collaboration is crucial. Each member of the inclusive education team would have
their own strengths and weaknesses, and these have to be used wisely to benefit the
child with additional needs.
 Recognize the shift in roles of the teachers. With the shift to inclusive education,
the role of special education (SPED) teachers suddenly seems to be reduced to only
"as needed.” As a result, the SPED teacher's role no longer becomes that of an
implementer but that of a consultative nature instead. It also becomes the
responsibility of the general education teacher to know what to do when faced with
a learner with additional needs in his or her classroom.
 Include transitions in planning. An abrupt systemic change that is not well-
planned or that disregards practices—whether existing or implied-may hinder the
shift to inclusion and cause resentment from all stakeholders. Instead, current
practices have to be respected and honored so as to facilitate a gradual shift to
inclusive education.

Evolving Inclusive Practices

Evolving inclusive practices is the third dimension to Booth and Ainscow's framework for
schools (2002), where administrators must first try to create an inclusive culture among its
stakeholders, then build better, more all-encompassing policies. The goal of the first two
steps is to ascertain habit-forming conditions, which make procedures that are otherwise
unfamiliar feel like second nature to us. We want to reach a point where inclusive teaching
practices are expected. Once this happens, we can start focusing on raising the participation
and success rates of learners with additional needs inside our classrooms.
Moreover, the term "evolving" assumes that we already have strategies in place which we
just have to revisit for possible tweaking. It suggests advancement and positive growth,
which means we can look at these existing strategies and just adjust these according to the
needs of our students along the way. Two effective evidence-based inclusive practices that
can be used in the classroom are Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated
Instruction.

1.    Universal Design for Learning

In architecture, universal designs refer to structures that were made in such a way that they
can be used by customers or clients with a wide range of needs (Dukes & Lamar-Dukes 2009
as cited in Salend 2011). Such designs ensure accessibility for all. For example, an architect
designs a commercial complex where ramps, elevators, escalators, handrails, wide doorways
and sidewalks, and signs embossed in Braille abound. It is a very user-friendly building.
Obviously, the designer imagined that some customers might walk into the complex in
wheelchairs or white canes. The architect does not know if or when it's going to happen, but
he anticipated it and incorporated it into his design anyway.
Such is the mechanics of a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach to instruction.
UDL refers to the design of instructional materials and activities to make the content
information accessible to all children (Rose & Meyer 2006 as cited in Turnbull et al. 2013).
It is best used in a general education classroom where learners are different. Through the
provision of delivering content and allowing student to construct learning in more than one
way, UDL ensures that all students learn genuinely.
There are three elements to UDL:

1. Multiple means of representation

2. Multiple means of action and expression
3. Multiple means of engagement
2.    Differentiated Instruction
According to Tomlinson (2010), differentiated (or differentiating) instruction is a
teacher's response to students’ varying needs, interests, and learning styles. "It
refers to a systematic approach to planning curriculum and instruction for
academically diverse learners. It is a way of thinking about the classroom with
the dual goals of honoring each student's learning needs and maximizing
student's learning capacity.” When teachers differentiate instruction, they use a
variety of teaching and learning strategies that are necessary to meet the diverse
needs of students in any class (Friend & Bursuck 2009).
Why Differentiate Instruction?
All learners are unique and have varying interests, talents, strengths. as well as
needs. Hence, it is essential that teaching and learning experiences reflect this
diversity. To ensure engaged, successful, and flourishing learners teaching and
learning experiences need to be designed in a way that provide opportunities for
students to learn and demonstrate their understanding in varied ways. Thus,
Differentiating Instruction (DI) helps ensure that learners are engaged in
respectful tasks and provide diverse means of learning that reflect their strengths
and address their needs simultaneously.
How Is Instruction Differentiated?
Bender in 2002 (as cited by Gentry et al. 2013) identified elements of the
curriculum that can be differentiated: (1) content, (2) process, (3) product. and
(4) learning environment in response to the students' characteristics: interests,
readiness, and learning profile. As an overview, differentiation is achieved by
providing materials and tasks:

1. at varied levels of difficulty;

2. with varying levels of instructional support;
3. by using multiple grouping arrangement; that involves student choice;
and
4. use varied evaluation strategies.