Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging The Policy-Practice Gap

Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the
Policy-Practice Gap
Financing Inclusive Education: Policy Challenges, Issues and Trends
Serge Ebersold Cor Meijer
Article information:
To cite this document: Serge Ebersold Cor Meijer . "Financing Inclusive Education:
Policy Challenges, Issues and Trends" In Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in
Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap. Published online: 09 Aug 2016; 37-62.
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by University College London At 00:15 16 August 2016 (PT)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620160000008004
Downloaded on: 16 August 2016, At: 00:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since NaN*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

emerald-srm:368933 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books
and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products
and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

FINANCING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION: POLICY
CHALLENGES, ISSUES
AND TRENDS
Serge Ebersold and Cor Meijer
ABSTRACT
This chapter highlights aspects that are high on the agenda of the finan-
cing inclusive education debate: the need to re-think resource allocation
mechanisms, the issue of empowerment, the way funding mechanisms
support inclusive education, and the importance of appropriate governance
and accountability mechanisms. It focuses on critical factors of financing
that support the right to education, as outlined in Article 24 of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD) (United Nations, 2006), in a context of financial constraints
and explores issues in the policy-practice gap in relation to both national-
and European-level policy priorities and objectives. It draws on existing
literature on modes of funding, on past research conducted by the
European Agency and on the conceptual framework developed within a
new European Agency study on current policy and practice in this field.
Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap

International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 8, 37 62
Copyright r 2016 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620160000008004
37
38 SERGE EBERSOLD AND COR MEIJER
Keywords: efficiency; cost-effectiveness; equity; governance;

resource allocation mechanisms; right to inclusive education
INTRODUCTION TO KEY POLICY ISSUES FOR

FINANCING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Funding is a fundamental issue in the debate on how to implement inclu-

sive education. Successful implementation of inclusive education requires
specific funding, additional to that provided by the healthcare and social
protection systems, to give learners who have officially recognised special
educational needs (SEN) the same learning opportunities as their main-
stream peers (without SEN). Such funding enables education systems to
take learners’ educational needs into account and to support parents in
meeting the direct and indirect costs of education.
The increasing numbers of learners with SEN being educated in main-
stream settings can be correlated with the specific resources that countries
allocate to enable their education system to equitably and effectively edu-
cate learners with SEN in mainstream education (European Commission/
EACEA/Eurydice, 2014; Riddell, 2012). In France, for example, disability-
related spending as a proportion of GDP rose from 1.75% in 2000 to
1.91% in 2006 (Délégation ministérielle à l’emploi des personnes handica-
pées, 2009). In Ireland, spending on the schooling of learners with SEN in
primary and secondary education rose by 28% between 2006 and 2008 to
EUR 900 million, while the budget for learners with disabilities doubled
between 2003 and 2008 to EUR 11.7 million (Higher Education Authority,
2009). In Malta, spending on special needs and inclusive education between
2011 and 2013 rose by just under EUR 6.416 million, or 0.73% of total
educational expenditure (European Agency, 2014a).
However, a higher amount of funds does not in itself guarantee better
learning conditions. Despite investment in inclusive education, in some
countries the numbers of learners with SEN enroled in separate special
schools are not decreasing accordingly to the raising number of learners
with SEN enroled in mainstream settings (Le Laidier & Prouchandy, 2012).
In addition, learners with SEN enroled in mainstream education have lower
chances of academic success than their non-disabled peers and are more
likely to drop out (Ebersold, Schmitt, & Priestley, 2011; Priestley, Pearson,
Beckett, & Woodin, 2010). Such persisting inequalities may indicate that
Financing Inclusive Education 39
funding systems and the incentive structures that are embedded in regula-
tions and laws lead to discrepancies between policies and actual practice
(Parrish, 2001, 2014). Indeed, an earlier study by the European Agency
revealed that the implementation of inclusive education is correlated with
the way funds are allocated and to whom the funds are addressed (Meijer,
1999). Most criticism arises in countries where the finance system is charac-
terised by a direct needs-based or an ‘input funding’ model for special
schools (more learners in special schools more funds). These countries
point at the different forms of strategic behaviour within the educational
field (by parents, teachers or other actors). These forms of strategic beha-
viour may result in less inclusion, more labelling and rising costs. A great
deal of money is spent on non-educational matters, such as litigation and
diagnostic procedures. It is not surprising to find that these countries have
relatively higher percentages of learners with SEN in separate settings.
Some countries state quite firmly that the finance system negatively influ-
ences their special and inclusive education practice.
Thus, many European countries are reviewing their funding systems to
meet new requirements for implementing inclusive policies. This review
process may be linked to the ratification of the UNCRPD and the Optional
Protocol that goes with it (United Nations, 2006). Article 24 may require
changes in existing financing systems when demanding that state parties
accommodate each person’s educational needs by providing human, finan-
cial and technical resources to support them in meeting academic, social
and professional requirements and empowering educational institutions to
become pedagogically accessible to the diversity of needs.
This review of existing funding schemes may also be linked to the finan-
cial crisis. In 2012, 19 European states cut their investment in education
and training, six of these by more than 5% (European Commission/
EACEA/Eurydice, 2013) and education systems are increasingly required
to provide greater outcomes with fewer resources (European Commission/
EACEA/Eurydice, 2013; UNICEF, 2014). As a result, support schemes for
learners have been subject to increasing restrictions in educational budgets
since 2010 and the stakeholders responsible for implementing inclusive edu-
cation are at risk of being disempowered by increasing class sizes or fewer
professional training opportunities.
From the information presented here, it becomes quite clear that atten-
tion to the issue of financing inclusive education, to the analysis of funding
systems and to the implementation of ‘better’ models is of utmost impor-
tance. These questions highlight the need for a more efficient way of
deploying available financial resources for prioritising and strengthening
investments in education and training in a context of financial austerity

and improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of inclusive education
systems. Such an approach promotes the development of inclusive educa-
tion systems with inclusiveness considered an integral part of planning and
delivering the whole education system and aimed at equitable and efficient
approaches to resource allocation.
This chapter focuses therefore on critical factors of financing that support
the right to education, as outlined in Article 24 of the UNCRPD (United
Nations, 2006), in a context of financial constraints and explores issues in
the policy-practice gap in relation to both national- and European-level pol-

icy priorities and objectives. It describes trends issues and challenges under-
pinning existing resource allocation mechanisms in terms of effectiveness,
equity and governance. It draws on existing literature about modes of
funding and on existing research by the European Agency.
INCENTIVISE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION TO PROMOTE

THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION FOR ALL
European countries have quite different approaches to the education of
learners with SEN (European Agency, 2011). Some countries segregate
high proportions of these learners in special schools, while others prefer to
enrol them in special classes in mainstream schools. A third group of coun-
tries educate only small proportions of learners with SEN in separate provi-
sion. These differences, which vary from between less than 1% to more
than 5%, are the result of many factors, one of which are incentives devel-
oped to promote inclusive education systems that encourage schools to
include everybody, to celebrate differences, to support learning and to
respond to individual needs (UNESCO, 1994). These incentives are corre-
lated with the services that are supported by resource allocation mechan-
isms and the need to convince stakeholders to see diversity as an
opportunity and not as a burden.
Shifting Resource Allocation Mechanisms Away from a Needs or

Disability Type of Approach
Funding needs to be allocated in line with an explicit policy and imple-

menting inclusive education policies requires a shift in resource allocation.
A recent review of inclusive education in the Central and Eastern Europe

and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS) region found
that Albania, Serbia, Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine all mention the lack
of financial guidelines and limited funds to mainstream schools as key factors
inhibiting the implementation of inclusive education (UNICEF, 2012).
Funding regimes must incentivise inclusive practices, rather than discourage
them. Shifting funding from special schools or segregated settings to main-
stream schools is therefore an important step towards inclusive education. In
countries that predominantly enrol learners with SEN in segregated settings,
expenditure may favour special schools. In South Africa, for example, the
political will to develop inclusive education is thwarted by greater public
spending on special education (11%) than on inclusive education (9%)
(Ebersold, 2008). The European Agency’s previous study on financing inclu-
sive education revealed that, in the Netherlands, mainstream schools receive
less additional funding for enroling learners with SEN while special schools
receive more money when more learners are referred (Meijer, 1999).
Moving away from funding formulae, connecting support and arrange-
ments with labelling mechanisms is another important shift for developing
inclusive education. Most countries provide some additional funding for
different groups that are considered to be disadvantaged because of a for-
mally identified educational need. In 17 European countries, the amount of
resources allocated to intermediate authorities or schools to cover staff
costs (either in full or in part) takes account of learners’ additional learning
needs (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2014). Of these countries,
14 provide their education systems, schools or local authorities with extra
resources for learners with SEN enroled in mainstream schools.
Allocation of these extra resources is usually linked to learner assess-
ment. In most countries, a specialist/multi-agency team or resource centre
issues a statement or formal decision in order to secure additional funds.
The funds are based on the number of children identified as having SEN
and are allocated to regions or municipalities. This may be done using a
per-learner formula as a flat grant (the state gives every district a fixed
amount of money per learner, regardless of localities’ capacities; localities
can also add funding to this amount), a ‘weighted student formula’, which
is a method for allocating resources to schools (Petko, 2005), or a census-
based count of total learner population rather than eligibility for special
education (Waller, 2012). With this mode of funding, assessment leads to
the allocation of aids, equipment, additional staff (learning support assis-
tants) or additional SEN hours, as well as to a reduced teacher/learner
ratio. In Ireland, for example, additional resources allocated to schools are
based on the number of learners with disabilities enroled, the types of dis-
abilities and their severity. For learners with a ‘low-incidence disability’,
schools benefit from a weekly ‘resource teaching’ time allowance, depend-
ing on the type of disability. Four hours are allotted for learners with a sen-
sory impairment, three hours for those with a motor deficiency, and five
hours for an autistic disorder or a severe specific learning disability. When
learners have a high-incidence disability, schools allot 90 minutes of supple-
mentary instruction, thereby ensuring a minimum of 2.5 hours of instruc-
tion in subgroups of learners with the same support needs. Secondary
schools with fewer than 600 learners are provided with teaching support
hours equivalent to 0.7 of a full-time teacher each week to meet the needs
of learners with difficulties in reading or maths, while those with a larger
student body are eligible for teaching hours equivalent to 1.2 full-time
teachers (Higher Education Authority, 2009).
Some organisations may see this model of funding as effective for
achieving the goal of inclusive education in countries where the majority of
funds are tied to the special education sector (UNICEF, 2012). It may also
be seen as a means of improving the effectiveness of education systems by
giving low-achieving learners or those with learning difficulties the oppor-
tunity to increase their chances of success.
However, it is concerned with equity of inputs, rather than emphasising
the reduction of differences in dropout rates between learners with SEN
and their peers without SEN by raising educational achievement (Fletcher-
Campbell, Pijl, Meijer, Dyson, & Parrish, 2003). Additionally, it persists in
labelling learners by their disability or their need, preventing teachers and
stakeholders from seeing them as learners first and foremost. It fosters stra-
tegic behaviours that lead to more labelling and rising costs, as observed in
many countries. It legitimates enrolment in special classes in countries
where such classes are specifically dedicated to a type of need or disability,
such as in France. It justifies the existence of special schools in countries
where these types of schools are meant to enrol those children with whom
the education system fails to cope, such as Belgium. It encourages main-
stream schools to select learners with SEN who do not cause them too
much additional work, delegating responsibility for other learners with
SEN to dedicated provision, such as special schools.
Consequently, many countries see this funding formula as problematic.
The chapter on Austria in the European Agency financing study concluded:
A negative effect of the current funding system is the increasing number of learners
with special needs […] the most obvious reason for this is the connection between the
assessment procedure and the funding system. […] Furthermore, it is felt that parents
of pupils with special educational needs generally demand more funds for special educa-
tion. (Meijer, 1999, pp. 30 31)
Belgium’s Flemish Community’s expressed clear criticism towards the

needs-based funding model:
However, the growth of special needs education is seen as an important problem that is
influenced by the open ended system of financing and the fact that the costs of a pupil
in special education [are] three times higher than the costs of a pupil in mainstream edu-
cation. Thus, the financing system stimulates segregation of pupils with special needs.
Referral is rewarded financially. (ibid., pp. 42 43)
The Need to Convince Stakeholders to See Diversity as an Opportunity
Funding mechanisms also play a key role in convincing stakeholders to see

diversity as an opportunity instead of a burden and to promote inclusive
practices within schools (Mitchell, 2009). While, for example, high per-
learner expenditure and attractive salaries for special teachers have moder-
ate consequences (Mitchell, 2010; UNICEF, 2015), teachers’ commitment
to inclusive education is one of the key factors for implementing it. Thus,
while inclusive education appears morally and philosophically justified, the
challenges facing teachers may weaken their will to implement inclusive
practices in schools.
Existing modes of funding may fail to adequately focus on quality issues
and stakeholders may feel disempowered by inclusive education if they lack
adequate skills or support. Inclusive education involves major changes in
considering learners’ difficulties and in teaching practices, but teaching staff
tend to feel unprepared. The Teaching and Learning International Survey
(TALIS) by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) shows that most teachers feel unable to cope with
diversity in their classrooms following their initial and in-service teacher
education (OECD, 2009). According to a European Union survey in
schools, 62% of teachers received training courses that included innovative
pedagogies and methods; in addition, whereas ICT appears to be a key
lever for implementing inclusive education, only 36% of teachers stated
that they were taught how to use ICT in classes during their training
(European Commission, 2009).
In many countries, head teachers attribute schools’ difficulties in provid-
ing quality instruction to the shortage of teachers with competences in
teaching learners with diverse needs (European Agency, 2011; OECD,

2014). While learning support teachers and classroom assistants play a vital
role in making inclusion work well in practice, funding may not allow
schools to employ sufficient support staff and teachers may feel left alone
with learners they cannot cope with. Existing training schemes may also
fail in appropriately training classroom assistants and these may face diffi-
culties in helping learners without having a negative effect on their social
integration. For example, in Malta, learning support assistants tend to
regret lacking the skills required to support learners with SEN (European
Agency, 2014b). The existing funding mechanisms may not be an incentive

for schools to develop inclusive education policies aimed at empowering
teachers to cope with diverse needs and to promote a feeling of belonging.
As a result, teachers tend to turn to classroom assistants when they need
extra support for a child and learners with SEN may face micro-exclusion,
reducing their feeling of belonging in classrooms and in schools.
Existing modes of funding may also lead schools to see inclusive educa-
tion as a burden. In some cases, they require schools to raise funds to
enable them to be accessible, and inclusive education appears to be more
challenging for them than supportive. In other cases, funding mechanisms
may not be sufficient to encourage educational institutions to invest the
amounts needed to make their premises accessible and to ensure the full
mobility of learners with SEN. In some countries, funding mechanisms
require higher education institutions to pay in advance for the required
pedagogical adaptations and to run a financial risk that some, especially
smaller ones, can scarcely afford. In France, for example, financial assis-
tance is capped, so there is little incentive for institutions to address the
situation of learners with complex disabilities, particularly since the delays
in decision-making by the Departmental Offices for Persons with
Disabilities (MDPH) do not allow for identifying timely the support that
learners are entitled to receive (OECD, 2011).
Moreover, funding mechanisms may fail to reward educational institu-
tions that promote inclusive education and these may feel ‘trapped’ or pun-
ished by funding authorities, instead of feeling encouraged to be more
efficient and equitable. In Iceland, for example, local authorities claim that
state funding has not followed policy development towards inclusive educa-
tion and subsequent increased demands (OECD, 2015). In some countries,
areas with a higher density of special schools are ‘rewarded’ for their ‘nega-
tive’ behaviour (referring learners to special schools) and areas with a clear
inclusion policy are disadvantaged (Meijer, 1999). For example, between
2000 and 2008 the funding allocated to Masaryk University in Brno (Czech
Republic) for the admission and support of learners with disabilities

decreased, but the number of learners with disabilities attending the univer-
sity increased six-fold (OECD, 2011). In Ireland, resources earmarked for
the admission and support of learners with disabilities have stagnated,
while the number of learners has been rising by an average of 20% a year
(Higher Education Authority, 2009). As a consequence, the higher educa-
tion institutions that are most receptive to enroling and supporting learners
with disabilities and that are particularly attractive to such learners tend to
be penalised by modes of funding that do not cover additional costs linked
to the enrolment of learners with disabilities.

A disconnect between funding mechanisms and quality hinders the
development of efficient, equitable and cost-effective inclusive education.
While inclusive education has the potential to be an important factor for
achieving inclusive societies and for supporting economic growth, spending
on arrangements and support does not appear to be good value for money
and an effective use of resources. Opening up to diversity is seen as a costly
strategy and a financial risk, which weighs heavily on institutions’ budgets.
Thus, inclusive education becomes a concern instead of an opportunity.
Excellence continues to be correlated with selective teaching practices and
schools tend to prefer to keep the proportion of learners with SEN low, to
reduce the number of high-cost learners and to maximise the numbers of
learners achieving expected grades, resulting in fewer dropouts. Some
schools are treated more favourably than others and families from low
socio-economic backgrounds are therefore deprived of high-quality educa-
tion and their children are disadvantaged as a result.
PROMOTE EQUITY IN EDUCATION THROUGH

DECENTRALISED, FLEXIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
While inclusive education was originally understood as an opportunity for
learners with SEN to share educational opportunities with learners without
SEN, the UNCRPD transformed inclusive education into a human rights
issue. As highlighted by UNESCO (2009), a system cannot be considered
to be of high quality if some learners are out of school or not fully
participating.
Article 24 of the UNCRPD emphasises that people with disabilities have
the right to education ‘without discrimination and on the basis of equal
opportunity’, ensuring an ‘inclusive education system at all levels’ and the

facilitation of access to lifelong learning (United Nations, 2006). In other
words, Article 24 of the UNCRPD requires stakeholders to transform addi-
tional resources allocated to the implementation of inclusive education into
an adequate social distribution, enabling effective and relevant learning for
all learners, including those with SEN, and affording them the rights to
which they are legally entitled. Such a requirement demands funding
mechanisms to allow for:
• equity in terms of access for learners with SEN and their participation in
education in non-segregated settings;

• equity in relation to educational opportunities for learners with SEN and
the possibilities within the system to provide them with appropriate sup-
port to meet their needs;
• equity in terms of achievement opportunities and possibilities for success
in academic and social learning and in the transition opportunities that
are open to learners with SEN;
• equity in relation to independent living during and after formal education
and, in particular, to the affiliation opportunities open to learners with
SEN that support their inclusion into wider society (European Agency,
2011, pp. 11 12).
Enabling learners to access the rights to which they are entitled depends
on cross-sectoral approaches allowing for accessible learning environments
and on flexibility of teaching practices and of support.
Incentivising Cross-Sectoral Policies and Practices for Accessible

Learning Environments
Appropriateness of support in cross-sectoral funding mechanisms is a key

lever for inclusive education. In most countries, additional resources
allocated to inclusive education aim to act both on personal factors by
supporting learners, and on contextual factors by supporting schools
(Drudy & Kinsella, 2009). Funding can therefore be directed towards dif-
ferent targets, like to individual learners for compensating the physical,
social or educational impact of the disability or to schools for enabling
them to be accessible and to meet learners’ needs.
As a result, efficient and equitable inclusive education policies require
cross-sectoral funding mechanisms that can effectively combine support
designed to offset the impact of the disability with support and
arrangements linked to schools’ accessibility policies and strategies and

their ability to meet educational needs.
Such a combination frames access opportunities in mainstream educa-
tion. Inconsistencies between eligibility criteria for individual support and
rationales framing the education process impede the implementation of
high-quality educational pathways. In Norway, for example, eligibility for
support provided to young adults with disabilities by the employment and
social protection sector may be of a shorter duration when health reasons
or the inaccessibility of higher education institutions delay and extend the
duration of study (Legard, 2009). In France, the pace of administrative

procedures for the allocation of financial aids and support by the
Departmental Offices for Persons with Disabilities (MDPH) differs from
those of university courses, and students as well as universities may face
significant delays in support and funding allocation (OECD, 2011).
Funding mechanisms that adequately combine support related to the
compensation of a disability and arrangements and support linked to
schools’ strategies also impact on the opportunities for success of learners
with SEN. Inconsistencies in this area hinder learners in combining course
requirements with the constraints of their disability. The absence of financial
resources for accessing the medical or paramedical support needed by lear-
ners poses a significant barrier to education by failing to accurately cover the
extra costs arising from the disability. Inadequacy of financial support for
obtaining adapted housing or transport prevents people with disabilities
from living independently. The absence or inadequacy of bursaries is dis-
couraging for young adults who wish to be independent, particularly if they
cannot combine their studies with work. Countries tying eligibility for sup-
port and special arrangements to full-time registration, tend to exclude
young adults with more severe needs. Moreover, modes of funding do not
always cover long-term illness or a specific learning difficulty. They may, for
example, take insufficient account of the additional time learners may need
or of a change in direction that may become necessary during their studies as
a result of disability or illness (SER, 2007). In the United States, learners
with disabilities who are financially dependent on their parents are less likely
than other learners with disabilities to receive financial aid in the form of
grants or loans (Horn & Berktold, 1999). In Germany, resources of learners
with disabilities in 2006 were similar to those of learners without disabilities,
despite the extra costs associated with their disability or illness (Federal
Ministry of Education and Research, 2007).
Funding mechanisms that adequately combine support related to the
compensation of a disability and arrangements and support linked to
schools’ strategies also impact on the transition opportunities open to lear-

ners with SEN and on their inclusion opportunities. In many countries,
funding allocated to schools focuses on the academic success of their lear-
ners, to the detriment of their social inclusion in schools, of future pro-
spects and the means of facilitating their transition to higher education or
employment. Schools may thus be inclined to focus on earning a diploma
instead of deploying a multidisciplinary approach taking into account lear-
ners’ transition opportunities from one education sector to another or from
the education sector to the labour market. They may also fail in including
extra-curricular activities in their support and guidance strategies and, con-

sequently, this may not lead to inclusion and learners with SEN may, for
example, feel excluded in their schools or face difficulties in actively partici-
pating in society. For example, many funding mechanisms only marginally
encourage admissions and support services for learners with disabilities to
become involved with their environment and to create bridges to stake-
holders acting in secondary schools, the employment sector, the social sec-
tor and, if necessary, the health sector in order to optimally combine the
different sources of financing needed for the learner’s success.
Encouraging Flexible Support and Teaching
The European Agency’s work shows that meeting learners’ needs and
implementing inclusive education are strongly correlated with a commu-
nity-based approach encouraging family involvement and with innovative
forms of teaching providing flexible learning and support opportunities
(European Agency, 2009). Flexible and sustainable funding mechanisms
are a key lever for inclusive education when it empowers teachers to meet
diverse educational needs through innovative teaching practices, collabora-
tive teaching and the use of new technologies (Barrett, 2014).
Decentralised education systems that allow teachers to have full support
from the whole school system, from the top level to the school environ-
ment, seem to be more appropriate than centralised systems for such
requirements. Most decisions impacting on inclusiveness are made at
school level in the majority of European countries, although this may vary
according to whether the decision relates to curriculum, staff or other
aspects of the education system. Schools with greater autonomy to make
decisions about curriculum and instruction performed better than those
with less autonomy (OECD, 2015). Consequently, systems where the
municipalities make decisions on the basis of information from school sup-

port services or advisory centres and where the allocation of more funds to
separate settings directly influences the amount of funds for mainstream
schools tend to be very effective in achieving inclusive education
(Meijer, 1999).
Resource-based funding mechanisms (also referred to as the throughput
model) based on services therefore seem to be an alternative to input fund-
ing systems, especially when combined with accountability requirements.
This mode of funding allocates resources directly to regions/municipalities,
support services or networks/clusters of schools on the basis of equal finan-

cing for developing, applying and maintaining services aimed at implement-
ing inclusive education. It takes into account regional and historical
contexts, allows for easy access to key persons and for short chains of com-
munication and offers a high level of predictability of costs. It encourages
local initiatives to develop programmes and services and leads to a conti-
nuum of provision, permitting a decrease in the number of learners in seg-
regated provision. It focuses on resources and support to provide quality
education for learners with disabilities. Its acceptability is probably high in
countries with a decentralised education system and where municipalities
already have chief responsibility for certain education provisions. Many
countries use it for supporting learners whose support does not necessarily
undergo an official decision by a multidisciplinary team, but requires a
decision made at school level in light of the learners’ ability to meet educa-
tional standards. These learners may be supported in light of educational
needs arising from their socio-economic or linguistic background, as well
as from a learning difficulty that is not related to a diagnosed condition
(European Agency, 2014b).
As with every funding model, there are advantages and disadvantages
in terms of the built-in incentive structures and corresponding strategic
behaviour (Pijl, 2007; UNICEF, 2012). This model requires a minimum
‘economy of scale’ to develop adequate school-based provisions for low-
incidence types of special needs. If the region or municipality is too small,
it will be a challenge to organise this support sufficiently and it may also
result in regional differences in the quality of the support provided.
Moreover, this funding model does not focus on the desired output and
success (Hegarty, 2001). Therefore, elements that are characteristic of
‘output funding’ models might need to be introduced to make this model
effective and of high quality. Inspection, accountability, data collection,
monitoring and evaluation of progress are key concepts that need to be
taken into account in this model. The issue of governance is at

stake here.
EMBED LEARNERS’ RIGHTS IN EFFECTIVE

GOVERNANCE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS
Correlated with equity issues, inclusive education is also interrelated with

cost-effectiveness. Many countries committed to inclusive education in
order to improve the cost-effectiveness of the education provided to lear-
ners with SEN. According to the OECD, the average costs of segregated
placements are seven to nine times higher than placing children with dis-
abilities in general education classrooms, while special education per-capita
costs are around 2.5 times higher than those of mainstream education
(Evans, 2008; OECD, 1999). Inclusive education is also considered to be
cost-effective compared to the costs of exclusion in terms of lost productiv-
ity, human potential, health and well-being (Peters, 2003).
The effectiveness of funding mechanisms is therefore interrelated with
governance approaches and how means, processes and resources all come
together in a country’s policy-making. While decentralised inclusive educa-
tion systems support flexibility, they also face effectiveness, equity and
accountability issues when provision is badly co-ordinated, when provision
is not sustainable or when strategic behaviours hinder inclusive education
(Meijer, 1999). The devolvement of educational governance and resource
allocation mechanisms to local level runs the risk of increasing geographi-
cal inequalities, since schools located in socially advantaged areas will be
able to cherry pick their learners while those sited in deprived areas are at
risk of being designated as ‘failing schools’. The savings and efficiency gains
expected from inclusive education require different governance levels and
their dynamics and resources to be taken into account to initiate improve-
ment across the system and schools (Burns, 2015).
Implementing inclusive education is therefore strongly related to govern-
ance strategies that align financial, human and material resources with the
objectives and aim to find the right balance between central and local direc-
tion. It also depends on monitoring processes articulating a common set of
priorities for society and providing coherence in decision-making processes,
steering mechanisms and accountability (Pierre & Peters, 2005).
Fostering Synergies among Stakeholders through Effective

Governance Mechanisms
Governance relates to the interactions among the different stakeholders

and the ability to allow for effective collaboration between the different sec-
tors involved in learners’ education. In many countries, the ministry of
health and welfare is responsible for supporting individual learners, while
funding for mainstream schools is under the aegis of the ministry of educa-
tion (Meijer, 1999; OECD, 1999). In some countries, the ministry of health
and welfare may be responsible for funding special schools, while the minis-
try of education funds special classes and full-time education in mainstream
schools. Fragmented governance mechanisms may consequently hinder
synergies among stakeholders involved in the education process and be det-
rimental to the quality of the support provided and the continuity, as well
as of the coherence, of educational pathways (European Agency, 2006;
UNICEF, 2012).
Compartmentalisation among stakeholders is linked to a lack of co-
ordination at the local level, which makes it difficult to overcome the obsta-
cles raised by the division of responsibilities between sectors and ministries.
In Denmark, for example, it impedes co-operation between the Ministry of
Education and the Ministry of Higher Education and Science, although
responsibility for support and special arrangements in higher education
falls to the former ministry rather than the latter (Danish Ministry of
Education and Rambøll Management, 2009). Compartmentalisation
can also occur, as noted in Ireland, because of a lack of co-operation
between health and/or social affairs ministries and ministries of education
or tertiary education (Higher Education Authority, 2009). This compart-
mentalisation may also result, as observed in Norway, from poor territor-
ial integration of co-ordination units or services (Legard, 2009). It can
also arise, as is the case in the United States, from a lack of financing,
which means that vocational rehabilitation agencies do not have the
necessary resources to provide the aid and support learners need to
pursue their studies or secure employment after leaving secondary school
(OECD, 2011).
Compartmentalisation may also result from a lack of articulation
between the central and the local level. Implementing inclusive education
requires a strong articulation between the central government, which has to
clearly specify the goals to be achieved, and the local organisations respon-
sible for defining the way in which the goals are to be achieved. The key to
effective governance is to establish clear and transparent plans and to set
clear national expectations in the form of goals, policies, curriculum, stan-

dards or accountability mechanisms that can drive the system for all those
involved (Burns, 2015).
Compartmentalisation is also an outcome of non-inclusive strategic
behaviour, and governance requires clear steering processes (Ebersold,
2016). While effective inclusive education requires the involvement of pro-
fessionals from diverse professional and institutional backgrounds in lear-
ners’ educational process, such involvement is neither automatic nor
guaranteed. Whereas stakeholders employed in the same organisation do
have to collaborate, even imperfectly, nobody can oblige professionals

working in different organisations to divulge required information, to col-
laborate proactively in the process or to participate in meetings.
Stakeholders are indeed both linked to their own organisation (e.g. a
school, a resource centre, an administration or an assessment centre) and
to an intersystem needed throughout the implementation of the individual
education plan. They might not share the same goals and may follow dif-
ferent management rules. As a consequence, professionals may undergo
conflicts of interests and contradictions that hamper their involvement in
the process and their collaboration with other professionals.
This compartmentalisation impacts negatively on the effectiveness and
the coherence of learners’ pathways and has a disabling effect that fosters
unemployment and exclusion. Governance mechanisms should therefore
allow for the development of synergies among stakeholders. Such synergies
build upon legislation, avoiding a split in responsibilities and supporting
the commitment of the different services and their inter-professional colla-
boration. They are also underpinned by multi-professional training oppor-
tunities allowing stakeholders to have a common understanding of each
other’s institutional character and to identify the level of complementarity.
They require overarching co-ordination mechanisms so as to avoid a split
of responsibilities among stakeholders, as well as funding mechanisms that
encourage the latter to embed transition issues in their support and gui-
dance strategies.
These synergies are also supported by quality standards involving all sta-
keholders in discussions to agree on the key features of a quality education,
based on research evidence and previous experience/evaluation of work.
Such a process supports formative accountability mechanisms that connect
collaborative work with capacity-building issues, encourages engagement
and trust-building, increases collaboration within and across schools and
enables stakeholders to contextualise central standards or procedures and
to adapt to individuals’ needs (Forlin, 2007).
Effective Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms for Appropriate

Quality Assurance Frameworks
Governance mechanisms also include monitoring and accountability

issues (Hooge, Burns, & Wilkoszewski, 2012). High-quality inclusive edu-
cation demands that policy-makers set clear objectives for their education
system, so as to ensure that services are adequately and cost-effectively
provided by schools, resources centres and support services. Such require-
ments allow for the development of a methodological framework for
achieving cost-effectiveness. As suggested by Crawford, Sibieta, and

Vignoles (2011), it helps to define the alternative to be evaluated, to list
the outcomes and costs, to quantify and value the outcomes and costs, to
compare the costs and outcomes, to qualify or revise the findings in light
of risk, uncertainty and sensitivity and to examine the distributional
implications. The clear allocation of resources is a particularly important
and often neglected element in the policy-making process (Wilkoszewski &
Sundby, 2014).
Monitoring provides transparent and accountable processes for allo-
cating funds needed by decentralised policies to ensure that resources
effectively reach the learners with SEN for whom they are intended and
that they are well spent. It also allows for external control of resource
levels and performance standards, which makes the analysis of effective-
ness possible. It ensures effective planning intended to develop appropri-
ate, cost-effective and sustainable provision. A lack of systematic
monitoring deprives policy-makers and stakeholders of experiences to
learn from, fosters the persistence of unsuccessful initiatives and leads to
an ineffective use of resources.
Accountability also frames the approach to inclusive education. While it
is widely agreed that inclusive education involves ensuring both quality
education and excellence for all learners, achievement is often measured
against a set of standards or equated with an improvement in test perfor-
mance (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2004). Such accountability mechanisms
focus too much on high academic standards and conflict with an inclusive
view aimed at the achievement of all learners. They incentivise teachers to
teach towards tests and to expect learners to pass these tests, which is detri-
mental to non-academic aspects, such as well-being, democracy, citizenship
and tolerance (Bateman, Lloyd, & Tankersley, 2014; Ebersold, 2007).
Consequently, they exclude those whose chances of meeting the tests’ stan-
dards are too low, promoting early tracking and inequity (Alexander, 2010;
Ravitch, 2010). Such accountability mechanisms force schools to fit into
standardised achievement tests that are detrimental to diversity and citizen-

ship issues. Attempts to raise the achievement of learners with SEN may
then increase their risk of failure. Disability continues to be the main factor
justifying a lack of progress or weak achievements and such accountability
mechanisms support the development of compensatory approaches, rather
than a focus on diversity and social values seen in wider achievement and
personal progress. These mechanisms lead service providers to focus on the
amount of additional resources allocated to the school or the learner,
instead of aiming for effective teaching and high-quality support (Sodha &
Margo, 2010).
Quality assurance frameworks are an important tool for monitoring
and accountability. They highlight what is considered to be effective prac-
tice, provide guidance on how to implement inclusive practices at school,
local and national level, and include indicators for evaluating service pro-
viders. They serve as a basis for discussion among stakeholders to chal-
lenge underlying assumptions, beliefs and values, identify priorities and
evaluate progress (European Agency, 2014c). In some countries, such as
Malta, for example, quality standards for education are developed to sup-
plement internal reviews and performance appraisals in the school
improvement framework. They lead schools to embed quality assurance
in their policies and to act as learning organisations aiming to achieve
high-quality education and to constantly improve their practices. As sug-
gested by Eurydice (2013), a national referral system for absenteeism may
improve the referral process and enable multidisciplinary teams to work
together when required.
Such a quality assurance framework can be supported by output-based
funding systems delivering funds to schools in connection with added-value
outcomes measurement that is corrected for starting achievement levels.
Schools that do not reach the expected outcomes or fulfil fixed parameters
are penalised with economic sanctions. Penalisation also takes place when
the reasons for such a failure are mobility factors or learner absenteeism;
therefore, they are not strictly related to schools’ responsibilities (Peters,
2002). While this mode of funding facilitates a focus on the enabling effect
of policies and practices and on cost-effectiveness issues, its ability to
adequately address equity issues may require it to be combined with the
previously described throughput approach.
However, both monitoring and accountability need evidence to inform
policy-makers and schools. Data collection, analysis and dissemination are
effective means by which governments influence public dialogue, increase
control over policy areas and eventually wield more power and extend their
authority (Porter, 1997). According to Burns, reliable quantitative evidence

lends legitimacy to public action and potentially increases trust. It helps to
track learners and monitor their progress and, at school level, to establish
the patterns of achievement across different groups to ensure that interven-
tions/policies are effective and have an equitable impact and to allow any
‘achievement gaps’ to be addressed. Having evidence supports the develop-
ment of a culture of monitoring and reflection to ensure that information is
used to inform work with learners and develop practice (Burns, 2015).
Existing research highlights existing gaps and weaknesses in this area. A
previous European Agency project reveals that only a few countries collect
budgetary data in their national data collection systems, or can connect
sums spent on inclusive education with placements, achievements or learn-
ing outcomes (European Agency, 2011). Most countries also face difficul-
ties in analysing the ability of their inclusive education policies to provide
learners with equal opportunities in terms of learning, success, transition
and affiliation. Moreover, the majority of countries are unable to analyse
the inclusiveness of their education system. Their data collection system
focuses on learners enroled in segregated settings and does not adequately
inform developments regarding enrolment in mainstream education. They
also lack evidence on the impact of allocated financial, technical or human
support in terms of outcomes and inclusion. According to Eurostat, there
is a need to gather data covering expenditure on special needs education in
public and private institutions; capital investment; teachers with special
needs qualifications; additional teachers supporting both learners and tea-
chers, as well as on non-teaching staff (European Commission/Eurostat,
2011). Work also needs to be done to explore the possible aggregation of
data on funding provided by different ministries for the education of lear-
ners with SEN, and on including private funding in data collection.
This lack of data reveals the complexity of the task. The implementation
of inclusive education is embedded in the whole process of school improve-
ment and quality, without a separate price tag, and its effectiveness is
closely related to the implementation of a complex process through which
funding is translated into effective learning. The correlation between
investment and success rates or learning outcomes is therefore limited and
schools with low funding may be among the most successful, while schools
with higher than average funding are among the least successful
(UNICEF, 2012). This lack of data suggests a need to develop data collec-
tion systems that enable policy-makers to effectively monitor both the
implementation of the right to education and cost-effective inclusive
education policies.
CONCLUSIONS
Inclusive education is progressing in many countries and more and more
learners with SEN are enroled in mainstream settings. This trend reflects
policies geared towards inclusive education as a human rights issue and
the development of inclusive education policies that aim to make educa-
tion systems both efficient and equitable for all learners, including those
with SEN. It also mirrors the financial and methodological incentives
developed to encourage schools to be receptive to the diversity of educa-
tional profiles and to give learners with SEN equal opportunities on an

equal footing with their peers. Nevertheless, this trend requires a shift
towards resource allocation procedures aimed at effective decentralised
and flexible education systems and embedded in appropriate governance
and accountability mechanisms.
Shift from Ineffective, Inequitable and Labelling Resource

Allocation Mechanisms …
This trend, however, is not synonymous with inclusiveness. Despite rising

costs, inclusive education policies still seem to demand that learners adapt
to the education system, instead of the education system adapting to lear-
ners’ needs. The growing number of learners with SEN enroled in main-
stream schools may result in many countries using labelling mechanisms to
transform learners at risk of failure into learners with SEN, instead of striv-
ing for higher levels of inclusiveness in schools (Ebersold, 2010). Moreover,
teachers tend to pay less attention to the needs of learners with SEN com-
pared to non-disabled peers, so the former are more likely to feel excluded
in classrooms and in schools (OECD, 2007). Learners with SEN are there-
fore less likely to enter upper-secondary education or to be successful in
education and have lower chances in the transition to work (OECD, 2011).
These challenges reveal the lack of the right incentives in existing fund-
ing mechanisms. These mechanisms connect support and arrangements to
labelling mechanisms, hampering schools from seeing openness to diversity
as an opportunity and teachers from seeing learners with SEN as learners
first and foremost. They encourage mainstream schools to select learners
according to their needs, thereby legitimating enrolment in special classes
as well as in special schools. Funding mechanisms also fail to support
cross-sectoral policies that effectively combine support designed to offset
the impact of the disability with support and arrangements linked to
accessibility policies and strategies from schools and their ability to meet
educational needs.
These challenges also highlight the weaknesses of existing governance
and monitoring mechanisms. Existing data does not currently enable coun-
tries to ascertain the educations systems’ ability to meet learners’ rights, to
be efficient and to be cost-effective. Current accountability and quality
assurance mechanisms prevent schools from combining excellence and
equity and policy-makers from monitoring their policies.
… To Decentralised and Flexible Inclusive Education Systems Focusing on

the Enabling Effect of Policies and Practices …
Improved inclusive education policies therefore depend on funding

mechanisms that aim to ensure that education systems meet all learners’
rights in terms of access, success, qualification, participation and affiliation
and that allow for the monitoring of implementation of these rights and
cost-effectiveness of inclusive education policies.
Such funding mechanisms should be an incentive for schools to develop
an educational approach to disability that focuses on the enabling effect
of policies and practices, rather than treating it as an intrinsic personal
characteristic, and that supports long-term changes in schools’ policies
and practices.
Funding mechanisms should be decentralised and funding criteria
should support flexible support and teaching practices, allowing the educa-
tion system to be responsive to learners’ and schools’ needs. They should
also foster synergies among the stakeholders involved in the education pro-
cess so as to promote effective and coherent educational pathways.
…And Embedding Learners’ Rights in Effective Governance and

Accountability Mechanisms
Funding mechanisms supporting inclusive education should be embedded

in governance and accountability mechanisms, allowing for the effective
piloting and monitoring of policies. They should be linked with school
action plans and quality assurance mechanisms that ensure effective plan-
ning intended to develop appropriate and sustainable provision, as well as
with accountability procedures and mechanisms to ensure that the allo-
cated resources effectively reach the learners with SEN for whom they are
intended and that they are well spent. Funding mechanisms should also be
rooted in external control of resource levels and performance standards.
Furthermore, they must be underpinned by reliable indicators and statisti-
cal data that facilitate comparisons between the situation of young adults
with disabilities and that of the general population, that help to determine
the enabling effect of the strategies and practices employed and of the sup-
port and arrangements provided, and that allow for evaluation of the qual-
ity of the paths taken by learners with disabilities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The contribution of Antonella Mangiaracina, European Agency, to the
drafting of this chapter is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2004). Understanding and developing inclusive prac-
tices in schools: A collaborative action research network. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 8(2), 125 139.
Alexander, R. J. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recom-
mendations of the Cambridge primary review. London: Routledge.
Barrett, D. (2014). Resourcing inclusive education. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (Eds.),
Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on Inclusive
Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Bateman, B., Lloyd, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (Eds.). (2014). Understanding special education:
Personal perspectives on what, who, where, how, when, and why. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burns, T. (2015). Governing complex education systems. Project plan. Retrieved from http://www.
oecd.org/edu/ceri/GCES%20Project%20Plan%202015.pdf. Accessed on February 2016.
Crawford, C., Sibieta, L., & Vignoles, A. (2011). Special educational needs funding systems:
Role of incentives. Short Policy Report No. 11/04. Centre for Understanding Behaviour
Change, Bristol.
Danish Ministry of Education and Rambøll Management. (2009). Pathways for disabled stu-
dents to tertiary education and employment. Country Report for Denmark. Copenhagen:
Danish Ministry of Education and Rambøll Management.
Délégation ministérielle à l’emploi des personnes handicapées. (2009). Parcours des personnes
handicapées vers l’enseignement supérieur et vers l’emploi. [Pathways of persons with dis-
abilities to higher education and to employment]. Country Report. Paris: Ministry of
National Education.
Drudy, S., & Kinsella, W. (2009). Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing
European society. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(6), 647 663.
Ebersold, S. (2007). Affiliating participation for an active citizenship. Scandinavian Journal of

Disability Research, 9(3), 237 253.
Ebersold, S. (2008). Inclusive education and equity in education. In OECD (Ed.), Reviews of
national policies for education: South Africa 2008. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ebersold, S. (2010). Idéologie de la réussite, réinvention des institutions et reconfiguration du
handicap. [Ideology of success, reinvention of institutions and reconfiguration of dis-
ability], ALTER, 4(4), 318 328.
Ebersold, S. (2016). Youth with disabilities and transition to adulthood. In P. Devlieger, F. R.
Rusch, & D. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Rethinking disability: The emergence of new definitions,
concepts and communities. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant.
Ebersold, S., Schmitt, M. J., & Priestley, M. (2011). Inclusive education for young disabled peo-
ple in Europe: Trends, issues and challenges. A synthesis of evidence from ANED country
reports and additional sources. Brussels: Academic Network of European Disability
experts (ANED).
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2006). Individual transition
plans. Supporting the move from school to employment. Middelfart: European Agency
for Development in Special Needs.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2009). Development of a set
of indicators for inclusive education in Europe. Odense: European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011). Mapping the imple-
mentation of policy for inclusive education: An exploration of challenges and opportunities
for developing indicators. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special
Needs Education.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2014a). Education for all:
Special needs and inclusive education in Malta. External Audit Report. Odense:
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2014b). Education for all:
Special needs and inclusive education in Malta. Annex 6: Survey Results Report.
Implementing Daily Inclusive Education in Malta: Skills, Opportunities and
Challenges. Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2014c). Education for all:
Special needs and inclusive education in Malta. Annex 2: Desk Research Report.
Odense: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
European Commission. (2009). Creativity in schools in Europe: A survey of teachers. Brussels:
European Commission.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2013). Funding of education in Europe 2000 2012:
The impact of the economic crisis. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2014). Financing schools in Europe: Mechanisms,
methods and criteria in public funding. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
European Commission/Eurostat. (2011). Statistics on special needs education, reference docu-
ment for enquiry. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Eurydice. (2013). Education and training in Europe 2020: Examples of recent and forthcoming
policy measures in the EU-28 in response to the Europe 2020 priorities in education and
training. Brussels: Eurydice.
Evans, P. (2008). Facts and challenges of inclusive education. Include, 1/2008. Inclusion
Europe, Brussels.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2007). Economic and social conditions of student
life in the federal republic of Germany in 2006. 18th Social Survey of the Deutsches
Studentenwerk conducted by HIS Hochschul-Informations-System. Berlin: German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Fletcher-Campbell, F., Pijl, S. J., Meijer, C., Dyson, A., & Parrish, T. (2003). Distribution of
funds for special needs education. International Journal of Educational Management,
17(5), 220 233.
Forlin, C. (2007). A collaborative, collegial and more cohesive approach to supporting educa-
tional reform for inclusion in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review,
8(2), 276 287.

Hegarty, S. (2001). Inclusive education — A case to answer. Journal of Moral Education,
30(3), 243 249.
Higher Education Authority. (2009). OECD Project on pathways for disabled students to ter-
tiary education and to employment. Country Report Ireland. Dublin: Department of
Education and Skills.
Hooge, E., Burns, T., & Wilkoszewski, H. (2012). Looking beyond the numbers: Stakeholders
and multiple school accountability. OECD Education Working Papers No. 85. OECD
Publishing, Paris.
Horn, L., & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile
of preparation, participation, and outcomes (NCES 1999 187). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Legard, S. (2009). Pathways from education to work for young people with impairments and
learning difficulties in Norway. Oslo: Work Research Institute.
Le Laidier, S., & Prouchandy, P. (2012). La scolarisation des jeunes handicapés [Schooling of
young people with disabilities]. Information note 12-10. Paris: Ministry of National
Education, Higher Education and Research.
Meijer, C. J. W. (Ed.). (1999). Financing of special needs education. A seventeen-country study
of the relationship between financing of special needs education and inclusion. Odense:
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Mitchell, D. (2009). Education for respect and understanding Inclusion and equity. Malaysia:
Commonwealth Education Partnership.
Mitchell, D. (2010). Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of stu-
dents with special needs. Final Report. University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand. University of Canterbury.
OECD. (1999). Inclusive education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2007). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies, statis-
tics and indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.
OECD. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in tertiary education and employment.
Education and Training Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning.
OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Parrish, T. (2014). How should we fund special education? In B. Bateman, J. W. Lloyd, &
M. Tankersley (Eds.), Understanding special education: Personal perspectives on what,
who, where, how, when, and why. New York, NY: Routledge.
Parrish, T. B. (2001). Who’s paying the rising cost of special education? Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 14(1), 4 12.
Peters, S. (2002). Inclusive education in accelerated and professional development schools: A
case-based study of two school reform efforts in the USA. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 6(4), 287 308.
Peters, S. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabil-
ities and special education needs. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/exter-
nal/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/09/08/000160016_20030908131732/
Rendered/PDF/266900WP0English0Inclusive0Education.pdf. Accessed on July 2015.

Petko, M. (2005). Weighted Student Formula (WSF). What is it and how does it impact educa-
tional programs in large urban districts? Washington, DC: NEA Research.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2005). Governing complex societies: Trajectories and scenarios.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pijl, S. J. (2007). Introduction: The social position of pupils with special needs in regular edu-
cation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(1), 1 5.
Porter, A. C. (1997). Comparative experiments in educational research. In R. Jaeger (Ed.),
Complementary methods for research in education (2nd ed.), Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Priestley, M., Pearson, S., Beckett, A., & Woodin, S. (2010). ANED country report on equality
of educational and training opportunities for young disabled people Country: United
Kingdom. Academic Network of European Disability experts (ANED) VT/2007/
005, Cambridge.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Riddell, S. (2012). Education and disability/special needs: Policies and practices in education,
training and employment for students with disabilities and special educational needs in the
EU. Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and Training (NESSE).
Brussels: European Union.
SER. (2007). Meedoen zonder beperkingen. Meer participatiemogelijkheden voor jonggehandi-
capten [Participation without limitations. More participation opportunities for young
people with disabilities]. Sociaal-Economische Raad, Advies rapport No. 6. The
Hague: SER.
Sodha, S., & Margo, J. (2010). A generation of disengaged children is waiting in the wings ….
London: Demos.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs educa-
tion. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2009). Inclusive education: The way of the future. Reference Document.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNICEF. (2012). The right of children with disabilities to education: A rights-based approach to
inclusive education. Geneva: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe
and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS).
UNICEF. (2014). Children of the recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being
in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 12. Florence: UNICEF.
UNICEF. (2015). The investment case for education and equity. New York, NY: UNICEF.
United Nations. (2006). United nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
New York, NY: United Nations.
Waller, J. (2012). Study of a new method of funding for public schools in Nevada. San Mateo,
CA: American Institutes for Research.
Wilkoszewski, H., & Sundby, E. (2014). Steering from the Centre: New modes of governance in
multi-level education systems. OECD Education Working Papers No. 109. OECD
Publishing, Paris.

Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging The Policy-Practice Gap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging The Policy-Practice Gap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Serge Ebersold and Cor Meijer

Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap

Keywords: efficiency; cost-effectiveness; equity; governance;

INTRODUCTION TO KEY POLICY ISSUES FOR

Funding is a fundamental issue in the debate on how to implement inclu-

investments in education and training in a context of financial austerity

the policy-practice gap in relation to both national- and European-level pol-

INCENTIVISE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION TO PROMOTE

Shifting Resource Allocation Mechanisms Away from a Needs or

Funding needs to be allocated in line with an explicit policy and imple-

A recent review of inclusive education in the Central and Eastern Europe

Belgium’s Flemish Community’s expressed clear criticism towards the

Referral is rewarded financially. (ibid., pp. 42 43)

The Need to Convince Stakeholders to See Diversity as an Opportunity

Funding mechanisms also play a key role in convincing stakeholders to see

teaching learners with diverse needs (European Agency, 2011; OECD,

Agency, 2014b). The existing funding mechanisms may not be an incentive

Republic) for the admission and support of learners with disabilities

to the enrolment of learners with disabilities.

PROMOTE EQUITY IN EDUCATION THROUGH

opportunity’, ensuring an ‘inclusive education system at all levels’ and the

education in non-segregated settings;

Incentivising Cross-Sectoral Policies and Practices for Accessible

Appropriateness of support in cross-sectoral funding mechanisms is a key

arrangements linked to schools’ accessibility policies and strategies and

duration of study (Legard, 2009). In France, the pace of administrative

schools’ strategies also impact on the transition opportunities open to lear-

extra-curricular activities in their support and guidance strategies and, con-

Encouraging Flexible Support and Teaching

municipalities make decisions on the basis of information from school sup-

support services or networks/clusters of schools on the basis of equal finan-

taken into account in this model. The issue of governance is at

EMBED LEARNERS’ RIGHTS IN EFFECTIVE

Correlated with equity issues, inclusive education is also interrelated with

Fostering Synergies among Stakeholders through Effective

Governance relates to the interactions among the different stakeholders

clear national expectations in the form of goals, policies, curriculum, stan-

have to collaborate, even imperfectly, nobody can oblige professionals

Effective Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms for Appropriate

Governance mechanisms also include monitoring and accountability

achieving cost-effectiveness. As suggested by Crawford, Sibieta, and

standardised achievement tests that are detrimental to diversity and citizen-

authority (Porter, 1997). According to Burns, reliable quantitative evidence

tional profiles and to give learners with SEN equal opportunities on an

Shift from Ineffective, Inequitable and Labelling Resource

This trend, however, is not synonymous with inclusiveness. Despite rising

… To Decentralised and Flexible Inclusive Education Systems Focusing on

Improved inclusive education policies therefore depend on funding

…And Embedding Learners’ Rights in Effective Governance and

Funding mechanisms supporting inclusive education should be embedded

Ebersold, S. (2007). Affiliating participation for an active citizenship. Scandinavian Journal of

8(2), 276 287.

Rendered/PDF/266900WP0English0Inclusive0Education.pdf. Accessed on July 2015.

You might also like