individual need (Ainscow, 1995). There can be little doubt that the problematicnature of integration coupled with the statements made at the World Conferencein Special Education (UNESCO, 1994) led to the emergence of inclusiveeducation in England.The evolution of inclusive educational policy began with the election of NewLabour in 1997. The Government upon taking office acted swiftly and through theGreen Paper,
Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs
(DfEE, 1997), and the subsequent Programme of Action (DfEE, 1998), they set
the tone for the central thrust of education reform through the last decade of thetwentieth century (Judge, 2003). The Government further developed its inclusionpolicy by introducing a revised curriculum. Curriculum 2000 (DfEE, 1999), as itbecame known, was formulated upon three inclusionary principles: settingsuitable learning challenges, responding to pupils' diverse learning needs andovercoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals andgroups of pupils. It became quite clear to observers that the Government had putinclusion firmly on the political agenda.
Inclusion in the twenty-first century
The beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed the evolution of inclusivepractices being supported by a raft of governmental policies, initiatives andlegislation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001)revised section 316 of the 1996 Education Act and so strengthened the rights of children to be educated in the mainstream. For the first time, institutions were notable to refuse access to placements based upon the contention that they couldnot meet the needs of individual children (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). Inaddition, the 2001 Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) confirmed the acceptance of inclusion by stating that the special educational needs of children would normallybe met in mainstream settings. It became clear, then, that inclusion was a policythat was not going to go away. However, it is important to note that whileGovernment documentation and legislation in England included a ‘strongcommitment to the principle of inclusion’ (Croll & Moses, 2003), it was still