See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338659276

Can special education, inclusive education, equity and excellence co-exist?

Preprint · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 312

1 author:

Garry Hornby
University of Plymouth
143 PUBLICATIONS   2,038 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Parent Involvement View project

Key evidence-based strategies for effective teaching View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Garry Hornby on 17 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Garry Hornby, Emeritus Professor, University of Plymouth

Can special education, inclusive education, equity and excellence co-exist?

Chapter for the Encyclopedia of Inclusive and Special Education

Oxford University Press

Summary
Rather than being viewed as incompatible or polar opposites, special education and inclusive
education can be seen as equally important components of effective education systems that produce
optimal outcomes for all learners. The same can be said for equity and excellence, as it is
considered important that a focus on equity be combined with measures to promote excellence for
all learners in order to optimize overall outcomes. This is illustrated with reference to an education
system where the inequitable way it operates selective secondary schooling results in excellence for
a few learners at the expense of underachievement for the majority. So, overall, this education
system can neither be described as equitable or excellent. Likewise, it is proposed that emphasizing
either special education or inclusive education to the exclusion of the other within education
systems will jeopardize both equity and excellence and lead to less than optimal educational
achievement. Whereas, having an education system with a balance of both special education and
inclusive education within a comprehensive service delivery model will result in superior
educational outcomes. This is illustrated with reference to a country that is well known for its high
performing education system. It is concluded that a synthesis of key components of special
education and inclusive education within a model of inclusive special education can provide an
equitable and excellent education for all learners, including those with special educational needs
and disabilities.

Keywords

special education, inclusive education, equity, excellence

1
Introduction
In this chapter it is proposed that equity and excellence in education are facilitated when education
systems include a combination of the most effective strategies from both special education and
inclusive education. It is posited that, rather than being viewed as incompatible, special education
and inclusive education can be seen as equally essential components of effective education systems
that facilitate optimal outcomes for all learners. Therefore, it is suggested that emphasizing either
special education or inclusive education, to the exclusion of the other, jeopardizes both equity and
excellence within education systems, and leads to less than optimal educational outcomes. This is
illustrated with reference to the education systems in the USA, New Zealand and Finland.

The same can be said for equity and excellence. Attempting to emphasize excellence while
neglecting to focus on ensuring equity within education systems does not facilitate overall
excellence. It is important that measures to promote excellence be combined with a focus on
ensuring equity within education systems in order to optimize educational outcomes for all learners.
This is illustrated with reference to the education system in Barbados, where the operationalization
of selective secondary schooling results in academic excellence for a minority of learners at the
expense of underachievement for the majority. So this education system can neither be described as
equitable or excellent when the overall population of learners that it serves is considered.

Relevant education history will be examined to consider how the emphasis on special education
alone led to dissatisfaction with educational outcomes for learners with mild intellectual disabilities
in the USA, and thereby the questioning of the equity of their placement in special classes. This is
often regarded as the trigger that led to subsequent focusing on integration, mainstreaming and
eventually to an emphasis on the inclusion of learners with special educational needs and
disabilities (SEND) within mainstream schools. The education system in New Zealand will be
examined as an example of a country that over the past two decades has promoted inclusive
education while depleting special education provision. Over the same period its world rankings on
PISA assessments of mathematics, reading and science have declined, which may well be at least
partly due to the deterioration of special education provision. This will be followed by an
examination of the education system in Finland, where a balance of both special education and
inclusive education, within a comprehensive service delivery model, has resulted in optimum
educational outcomes, as judged by rankings from PISA (OECD, 2006, 2016).

2
It will be concluded that special education, inclusive education, equity and excellence, can not only
co-exist, but must do so in order to provide effective education for all learners. It is therefore
proposed that a synthesis of key components of special education and inclusive education, within a
model of inclusive special education, can provide an equitable and excellent education for all
learners, including those with SEND (Hornby, 2014a). The key components of such inclusive
special education are outlined as a guide for future practice.

Focus on excellence not equity

The education system in Barbados operates selective secondary schooling, with a hierarchical
ranking of secondary schools, that results in academic excellence for a minority of learners at the
expense of underachievement for the majority. While there is insufficient data available to
substantiate this, it is illustrated by the annual award of prestigious scholarships for university study
almost exclusively to students from the two highest ranked of the 24 government secondary schools
(Downes, 2018), whereas the vast majority of prison inmates are found to come from the eight
lowest ranked secondary schools (CJRPU, 2017). Since equity in education is about all learners
being regarded as being of equal importance (Shaeffer, 2013; UNESCO, 2017), this education
system can neither be described as equitable or excellent when the overall population of learners
that it serves is considered. How has this come about?

During the post independence era in Barbados, from 1967 onwards, secondary education was highly
valued by the general population, but there were not enough places to meet the growing demand.
Therefore, a secondary school entrance test (Common Entrance Examination: CEE), which focuses
on English and mathematics, was put in place to select the most able students to fill the limited
places available (Niles, 1979). Although there are now enough secondary school places for all
students the CEE has continued to be used up to the present day and has become a high stakes test
at the transition between primary and secondary school, determining which of the government
secondary schools each student is eligible to attend.

The way it works in Barbados is that students in their final year of primary school take the CEE in
May and their results determine which secondary school they will attend in September. There is a
hierarchy of the 24 government secondary schools, so that students with the top marks on the CEE
are eligible to go to the top school, those with the second best marks to the second rank school, and
so on, with those with the lowest marks going to the school at the bottom of the hierarchy. This

3
organizational process has led to the CEE becoming a dominant feature of the Barbadian education
scene, resulting in a selective system that is considered to be stratified, segregated, elitist and
exclusionary. This selective secondary school system, like those in other countries in the Caribbean,
is considered to perpetuate inequity and further disadvantage vulnerable groups in society,
especially students with SEND (De Lisle, 2012; Harrison, 2018; Niles, 1979; Springer, 1979).

This is illustrated by the findings of the few studies of the effects of high stakes placement tests for
entry into secondary schools that have been conducted in the Caribbean. The earliest such study was
conducted by Cross and Schwartzbaum (1969) in Trinidad and Tobago. This found that students
selected for secondary schools using such tests were divided along lines that reflected their socio-
economic status and ethnicity. This finding was supported by more recent research in Trinidad and
Tobago which found that students living in high-income areas were far more likely to gain entry
into secondary schools of their choice, whereas students from low-income areas were not (De Lisle,
2012). In Barbados, an early report on the transfer of students from primary to secondary schools
(Barbados Ministry of Education, 1974) found that students were advantaged or disadvantaged
depending on the quality of the primary school they attended, and that children who were
economically advantaged and attended private primary schools were far more likely to obtain marks
in selection tests that gave them entry into the elite secondary schools. More recently, Jennings
(2017) reported that 64% of children who attended private primary schools in Barbados were likely
to perform above the national average in the English component of the CEE, compared with only
11% of those who attended government primary schools. So it is clear that high stakes selection
tests are perpetuating inequity of access to quality secondary education in Barbados and other parts
of the Caribbean.

High stakes tests utilized within a selective education system are rationalized by assuming that they
serve key policy goals, for example, to raise student achievement and ensure equal opportunity. In
the case of tests used to channel students into different schools and classes of supposedly differing
ability levels the usual argument for their use is that allocating students to homogeneous schools
and classrooms allows teachers to focus their teaching of the curriculum more carefully on the
needs and aptitudes of students and to teach at a pace that will enable all students to maximize their
learning (Springer, 1979). However, research evidence does not support this argument (Slavin,
1987, 1990, 1993), and reports that the use of such tests for placement decisions is not effective in
increasing academic outcomes, and, in addition, can have far reaching negative consequences for
young people and for the societies in which they live (De Lisle 2012; Gorard & Huat See, 2013).

4
Many of these result from the overwhelming performance pressure exerted by these tests on
teachers, schools and parents, in addition to their impact on students, especially those with SEND
(Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016).

One key concern with the high stakes testing in Barbados is the narrowing of the curriculum in
which the focus of primary school teachers and schools becomes centred on preparing students for
success in the CEE at age eleven. Such a focus leads to the neglect of important curriculum areas
not prioritized by the examination (Best, 2008; Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012). At the same time
the increased attention paid to those students most likely to succeed in the examination is to the
detriment of students with SEND who are most in need of support. This is institutionalized by many
primary schools streaming children by ‘ability’ into different classes from age seven years, so that
more attention can be paid to those children likely to do well on the CEE and thereby enhance the
reputation of the school (Galloway and Upton, 1990), a practice that continues to this day. It is
therefore evident that high stakes testing exacerbates patterns of disadvantage and exclusion rather
than facilitating an equitable education system (De Lisle 2012; Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016).

It is clear then that, in Barbados, equity is sacrificed in favour of the development of excellence for
a small proportion of the school population, who manage to get into the top secondary schools,
while the majority of children are provided with a less than exemplary education. Schleicher (2018)
has suggested that, ‘…the most impressive outcome of world-class school systems is that they
deliver high quality education across the entire school system so that every student benefits from
excellent teaching (p.138).’ Therefore, the education system in Barbados can neither be considered
to be equitable nor excellent when the overall population of learners is considered.

Focus on special education alone

Since there are now no major countries that focus on special education alone, without a focus on
inclusive education, it is necessary to look to the past, before inclusive education was developed,
and consider the evolution of special education in Western countries. Relevant education history
will be examined in order to consider how the emphasis on special education alone, for learners
considered to have disabilities, led to dissatisfaction with educational outcomes for learners with
mild intellectual disabilities in the USA, which prompted questioning of the equity of their
placement in special classes (Dunn,1968). This is often regarded as the trigger that led to
subsequent focusing on integration, mainstreaming and then inclusion of learners with SEND
within mainstream schools.

5
The beginnings of special education can be traced back to the first special schools for the blind and
deaf which opened up in the late 18th Century in Europe, soon followed by similar schools in the
USA (Lloyd, Singh & Repp, 1991). During the 19th Century other special schools were established
to cater for children with physical disabilities, and later those with severe intellectual disabilities
(Rotatori, Obiakor & Bakken, 2011). By the turn of the 20th Century most Western countries were
beginning to ensure that all children attended school at least at the primary school level. This
resulted in teachers coping with a much wider ability range of students and it was found that many
children were struggling to develop basic academic skills. In France in 1905 Binet developed a test
to identify children with difficulties in learning so that they could be given remedial assistance. In
the USA and Europe, over the next two decades, Binet’s test led to the development of what have
become known as IQ tests that can identify children with learning difficulties or intellectual
disabilities severe enough to make it difficult for them to learn effectively in mainstream
classrooms. Throughout the first half of the 20th Century these IQ tests began to be used to select
children for placement in special schools and special classes within mainstream schools, which led
to steady growth in the number of special schools and classes that continued into the 1970s (Lloyd,
et al., 1991).

In 1968 Dunn published a landmark article that highlighted how some children placed within
special classes for the intellectually disabled in the USA were getting a sub-standard education.
Dunn (1968) was referring to children with mild intellectual disabilities who he considered were
being denied equal opportunities for development by being placed in separate special classes taught
exclusively by special education teachers. He proposed that they would be better off in mainstream
classrooms with special educators acting as resource teachers, rather than being educated full-time
in segregated special classes. However, the article was somewhat ambiguous and led to the idea of
separate special classes for children with all types of SEND being questioned by many educators
(Dunn, 1983).

This led to the development of landmark legislation in 1975 in the USA of what has come to be
called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) that remains extremely
influential in the USA and in many other countries around the world to this day. The IDEA
specifies the education entitlements of children with SEND and promotes their education within the
‘least restrictive environment’. This triggered the movement toward the integration, then
mainstreaming and then inclusion of learners with SEND within mainstream schools.

6
So it was dissatisfaction with special class education for students with mild intellectual disabilities
in the USA that first led to the realization that the provision of separate special education as the only
option could be inequitable as it was unable to ensure that all children with SEND receive an
excellent education. The need to focus on whether learners with SEND were best educated within
special schools, or classes within mainstream schools, or mainstream classrooms, was considered to
be necessary in order to ensure equity, facilitate excellence, and optimize educational outcomes for
all children.

Focus on inclusive education alone

New Zealand is a country whose education system over the past two decades has promoted
inclusive education while at the same time depleting special education provision (Hornby, 2012,
2014b). Over this period its world rankings on PISA assessments (OECD, 2006, 2016) have
declined overall, while exhibiting one of the largest gaps between high and low achievers of all
OECD countries.

New Zealand has one of most inclusive education systems in the world with less than one percent of
children educated in special schools or special classes within mainstream schools. When policy and
practice regarding inclusive education for students with SEND in New Zealand is compared with
that from other countries, two differences are clear (Hornby, 2012, 2014b). First, policy for
inclusive education has been more radical than that in most countries, with an espoused goal of
educating all children with SEND in mainstream schools. Second, when the actual practice of
providing for children with SEND in mainstream schools is compared with that in other developed
countries, the lack of well established special education procedures becomes apparent, major
examples of which are outlined below.

First, there is no specific legislation or clear policy regarding how children with SEND are to be
educated. In 1996 the New Zealand Ministry of Education (NZMoE) introduced a policy called
‘Special Education 2000’ which was intended to bring about the inclusion of all children with
SEND in mainstream schools. However, this policy was concerned with funding for children with
SEND rather than providing guidelines for professional practice and it did not provide a coherent
policy for the education of children with SEND (Coleman, 2011).

7
Second, in New Zealand there is a lack of statutory guidelines for schools regarding children with
SEND that schools must follow. This is in stark contrast with the requirements specified by the
IDEA in the USA and the detailed statutory guidance for schools provided within the Code of
Practice for SEND in England (Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). This
Code of Practice sets out detailed guidelines for the special education procedures that must be
followed and the resources that must be provided for children with SEND and their families.

Third, the establishment of Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) in all New Zealand
Schools, with specified time allocation for this role, was recommended by the Wylie Report on
special education (Wylie, 2000), but was never implemented. As a result, schools may have staff
assigned to this role, but limited time allocation is generally made for them to do the job. Fourth, for
New Zealand schools that do have SENCOs identified there is no requirement for them to have
qualifications in SEND or to undergo training once they are assigned this role. Therefore, many of
the staff named as SENCOs in schools do not have the training or experience with SEND to
effectively carry out the SENCO role.

Fifth, while comprehensive guidance on Individual Education Plans (IEPs) is provided to schools
(NZMoE, 2011), individual schools decide which children need to have IEPs, the format and
content of IEPs, and the extent to which parents are involved. Therefore, whether students with
SEND have IEPs or not varies widely between schools and IEP procedures are often inadequate
(Hornby and Witte, 2010a and b). Sixth, there is no statutory school involvement of educational
psychologists in the education of children with SEND. They may be involved in IEPs if invited by
schools or parents but have no mandated involvement. in assessment or programme planning for
children identified as having SEND. Seventh, there are no services in New Zealand equivalent to
the parent partnership services that play a key role in providing support and guidance to parents of
children with SEND in other developed countries.

Eighth, there is no coherent policy about inclusive education. Government policy in New Zealand
has focused on ensuring that all schools are ‘fully inclusive’ (NZMoE, 2010), although it is not
clear exactly what that actually means. It is suggested that special schools will continue to exist but
there has been little clarification of what their role will be. Although 99% of children are educated
in mainstream schools, New Zealand still has some residential special schools and day special
schools. Many of the special schools have satellite classes in mainstream schools and some have
these classes in several mainstream schools. A few mainstream schools still have special classes,

8
but most of the special classes for children with moderate learning difficulties that existed in the
past have been shut down in the last twenty years, and a number of special schools have been
closed, while those remaining are under threat due to the Ministry of Education policy on inclusive
education.

Because New Zealand has no specific legislation on provision for children with SEND and
therefore no statutory guidance for schools, the lack of a coherent policy on inclusive education for
children with SEND leaves schools to develop practices based on their interpretation of the non-
statutory guidance provided by the Ministry of Education. Thus, there is wide variation in the type
and quality of the procedures and practices employed by schools to provide for students with
SEND, which means that provision is inequitable and unlikely to facilitate overall excellence.

Given the issues outlined above, it is not surprising that the actual practice of education for children
with SEND in mainstream schools varies widely between schools and in many schools it is doubtful
that the special educational needs of all students are met. This suggests that the current education
system in New Zealand does not facilitate equity or excellence for children with SEND and that this
has an impact on educational outcomes for these students. This may explain why in each of the
PISA surveys since the year 2000 New Zealand has been found to have one of the biggest gaps of
all the countries surveyed between the highest achieving and lowest achieving students, as well as
why it has been dropping down PISA world rankings on reading, mathematics and science over this
period (OECD, 2006, 2016). The situation in New Zealand highlights the dangers of focusing
primarily on inclusive education, with insufficient consideration of special education strategies and
thereby the actual instructional needs of students (Kauffman & Badar, 2014).

Focus on both special education and inclusive education

One country that has developed a focus on both special education and inclusive education within
their education system is Finland (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007; Takala, Pirttimaa & Törmänen,
2009), which is now internationally considered to be one of the most equitable and excellent
education systems in the world (Schleicher, 2018). Indeed, Finland provides an example of a
comprehensive, rather than selective, education system in which students are not separated into
different tracks until around the age of 16 years, when around 40% choose to follow a more
technical and vocational education (EASNIE, nd.). Finnish educational policy makers consider that,
“the single most important education policy decision taken since Finland established its
independence in 1917 was to create a common, untracked comprehensive school system that would

9
serve students from all walks of life” (OECD, 2011, p131). This was not implemented until the
1960s by which time there was widespread dissatisfaction with the education system. ‘In the late
1960s, there was a decision to move to a comprehensive system, making high-quality education
available to all students, not just the minority selected for grammar schools (Schleicher, 2018,
p.135).’

The introduction of a comprehensive system of education, focused on equity, is considered by most

Finnish education analysts to be the foundation upon which all subsequent reforms and improved
educational outcomes have rested (OECD, 2011). Careful planning meant that the implementation
of change was a process that took five years to complete and was marked by ongoing consultation
with teachers during the planning process as well as extensive investments in teacher training to
support the new system. In addition, maintaining rigorous in-service training programmes to allow
teachers to continually update their skills was also considered to be a key element of the system’s
success (EASNIE, nd.).

Finland prides itself on its commitment to social and economic equity and to its system of
comprehensive education that includes both facilities and procedures for special education as an
integral part of the education system (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007; Takala, Pirttimaa & Törmänen,
2009). So while the emphasis in on mainstream schools, special classes within mainstream schools,
as well as special schools, are available for students with the most complex SEND (OECD, 2011).
Not only do special schools in Finland provide education to students with special needs but they are
regarded as national development and service centres providing expertise and support services for
other schools (EASNIE, nd.). While 8% of students in Finland are deemed to have significant
special educational needs or disabilities, only half of these children are educated in special schools,
the rest are educated in mainstream schools (OECD, 2011). So, in Finland, ‘Support for children
with special needs is seen as an integral part of the school system (Schleicher, 2018, p.136).’

Finland demonstrates that providing a range of special education provision within a comprehensive
system of mainstream education facilitates both equity and excellence. ‘… the Finish system is
based on the assumption that disadvantaged students can also succeed in school, and that all
schools, no matter where they are located, should be of high quality (Schleicher, 2018, p.134).’ The
implementation of a philosophy that encompasses both special education and inclusive education
has no doubt been a major factor in the education system in Finland being rated by successive PISA
assessments as one of the best in the world (OECD, 2006, 2016; Schleicher, 2018).

10
Focus on inclusive special education
Given the discussion so far in this chapter, it is proposed that what is needed for education systems
to be both equitable and excellent for all learners, particularly those with SEND, is a policy that
combines the philosophy and values of inclusive education with strategies and programmes from
special education. This can be referred to as ‘inclusive special education’ which is a term first used
to describe education for children with SEND in Finland (Takala et al., 2009). Inclusive special
education, as defined by Hornby (2014a, 2015), is somewhat more comprehensive and
involves the recognition that all children with SEND will be provided for appropriately within
education systems, with the majority of them in mainstream schools. Mainstream schools will be
organized to provide effectively for a wide range of children with SEND by using programmes and
strategies that are evidence-based and have been found to be the best practices for supporting the
implementation of inclusive education. Most children will be educated in mainstream classrooms,
but a small number will be taught in resource rooms or special classes within mainstream schools or
educated at special schools on the campuses of mainstream schools or nearby. Mainstream schools
will work closely with special schools that will also provide for children with the most severe levels
of SEND (Hornby, 2014a, 2015).

Thus, inclusive special education requires a commitment to providing excellent education for all
children with SEND, in the most appropriate setting, throughout all stages of a child’s education. Its
focus is on effectively including as many children as possible in mainstream schools, along with the
availability of a continuum of placement options from mainstream classes to special schools, and
involving close collaboration between teachers in mainstream and special schools and classes, in
order to ensure equity of provision and optimum outcomes for all learners. These six components of
inclusive special education are outlined in more detail below.
Implementing best practices from inclusive education
Inclusive special education involves implementing well established inclusive education practices
including: fostering acceptance of diversity; using IEPs to focus on students’ strengths and
challenges; using evidence-based interventions such as Response to Intervention, Universal Design
for Learning and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (Hornby, 2014a). It also involves
using both formative and summative assessment, as well as instructional strategies such as peer
tutoring, cooperative learning and meta-cognitive strategies, and closely collaborating with parents
of children with SEND and professionals in culturally responsive ways (Salend & Whittaker, 2012).

11
These practices provide teachers with a sound base for working with children with SEND in order
to ensure equity of provision and excellence of outcomes.
Continuum of placement options from mainstream classes to special schools
Inclusive special education is an equitable approach in that it is aimed at providing the best possible
education for all children with SEND. It recognizes that, although the majority of children with
SEND can be effectively educated in mainstream classes, there are a minority of children with more
severe levels of SEND who benefit more from being educated in resource rooms, special classes or
special schools. Therefore, it is necessary for a continuum of placement options, from mainstream
classes through special schools to be available, as is currently the case in most developed countries
(Blackman, 2017; NCSE, 2010; Takala et al., 2009).
Focus on effectively including majority of children in mainstream schools
In inclusive special education there is a major focus on effectively including as many children with
SEND as possible in mainstream schools. In order to achieve this it is essential for mainstream
school teachers to have appropriate values and attitudes and a sound understanding of the different
types of SEND as well as practical teaching strategies needed to teach them effectively in
mainstream classrooms (EADSNE, 2009; Hornby, 2014a). Mainstream school teachers also need to
have the skills necessary to work effectively with parents or caregivers of children with SEND and
with other professionals such as specialist teachers, SENCOs and educational psychologists
(Hornby, 2014a). In addition, education systems and schools need to have in place policies and
practices to address the aspects noted above as weaknesses in the New Zealand education system
(Hornby, 2014b).
Close collaboration between mainstream and special schools and classes
In inclusive special education there are two major aspects to the role of teachers in special schools
and classes. First, they provide special education for children who have the most severe levels of
SEND whose needs cannot be effectively met in mainstream schools. Second, they provide
guidance and support to assist teachers in mainstream schools to effectively educate children with
more moderate levels of SEND (Ekins, 2012). Special schools are well placed to fulfill this second
aspect of their role because they have specialist staff who have expertise in dealing with high levels
of SEND, that teachers in mainstream schools typically do not have. The collaboration between
special and mainstream schools is a key factor in ensuring the effectiveness of education for
children with SEND in mainstream schools (Ekins, 2012). This collaboration is an important
element of the philosophy and practice of inclusive special education as it ensures equity of
provision as well as optimal educational outcomes.
Education in most appropriate setting throughout children’s education

12
An important consequence of having a continuum of placement options from mainstream classes
through special schools is that there can be movement between the various options in order to
ensure that an excellent education in the most appropriate setting can be provided throughout all
stages of a child’s education. For example, it is possible that a child may begin his or her education
in an early intervention program alongside other children with high levels of SEND and when
school-age is reached be transferred to a mainstream elementary school class, perhaps with support
from a specialist support teacher or teacher aide. Later the child may transfer to a resource room or
special class within a middle school and later still transfer to a special school in order to complete
his or her education. The most important issue is to have the flexibility to transfer within a school
system that has a continuum of options available, in order to ensure that children are at all times
being educated in the setting which best facilitates their learning.
Organization for providing optimal education for all children with SEND
In order to provide an excellent education for all children with SEND it is necessary to have
education policies and procedures in place in all aspects of the education system (EADSNE, 2009).
This includes having national legislation that clearly specifies the rights of children with SEND and
their families, as well as statutory guidelines provided by the national ministry of education, or
equivalent, in each country, along with mechanisms to ensure that these are implemented at the
regional and school levels, including procedures for identifying and assessing children with SEND
and for providing appropriate interventions. In addition, it is essential that schools have effective
organizational procedures for meeting children’s SEND coordinated by staff who are trained in
inclusive or special education, such as specialist teachers and SENCOs.

Further, schools must ensure that school-wide practices are based on research evidence of
effectiveness in facilitating the academic and social development of all children, including those
with SEND. For example, they must have in place effective procedures for optimizing parental
involvement in their children’s education (Hornby, 2011). Schools must at the same time ensure
that strategies found to be ineffective, such as between class ability grouping are avoided (Hornby
and Witte, 2014). Finally, all teachers must be able to identify children with SEND and ensure that
the teaching strategies and techniques that they use are based on evidence-based practices, for
example, cooperative learning and peer tutoring (Hornby, 2014a).
It is considered that ensuring that the six components of inclusive special education outlined above
are implemented will facilitate equity and excellence in education systems and result in optimal
education outcomes for all learners.

13
Conclusion
It has been concluded that equity and excellence are facilitated when education systems include a
combination of the most effective strategies from both special education and inclusive education.
Special education and inclusive education are both considered essential components of effective
education systems that facilitate optimal outcomes for all learners. It has been suggested, using the
example of the historical development of special education in the USA, that emphasizing special
education provision in classes within mainstream schools and in special schools, without
considering the possibility of mainstream school placement, resulted in inequitable treatment of
some children with SEND. Likewise, it has been shown, using the example of the New Zealand
education system, that focusing mainly on inclusive education while depleting special education
provision jeopardizes both equity and excellence, and leads to less than optimal educational
outcomes.

Further, using the example of the education system in Barbados, it has been shown that prioritizing
producing excellence in a relatively small number of learners, rather than focusing on ensuring
equity within the education system as a whole, does not facilitate overall excellence. In fact, it was
made clear that the way Barbados operates selective secondary schooling results in academic
excellence for a minority of learners at the expense of underachievement for the majority. This
demonstrates the importance of measures to promote excellence being combined with a focus on
equity within education systems in order to optimize educational outcomes for all learners.

It has also been shown, using Finland as an example, that providing a range of special education
provision within a comprehensive system of mainstream education that focuses on both equity and
excellence has led to this education system being rated as one of the best in the world. So, in
maintaining a focus on both special education and inclusive education strategies, Finland is now
considered to be one of the most equitable and excellent education systems in the world.

It is concluded that special education, inclusive education, equity and excellence, can co-exist and
in fact must do so in order to provide effective education for all learners. It is therefore proposed
that a synthesis of key components of special education and inclusive education, within a model of
inclusive special education, can provide an equitable and excellent education for learners, including
those with SEND, that will result in optimal education outcomes for all.

14
 References

Barbados Ministry of Education (1974). Report on Transfer from Primary to Secondary Education in
Barbados. Bridgetown, Barbados: Ministry of Education.

Best, T. (2008). Achieving excellence in education. Barbados Union of Teachers: John Cumberbatch

Memorial Lecture. Retrieved from http://butbarbados.com/but-library.html

Blackman, S. (2017). From charity education towards inclusion: The development of special and inclusive

education in Barbados. In S. Blackman & D. Conrad (Eds.), Caribbean Discourse in Inclusive

Education: Historical and Contemporary Issues (pp. 3–20). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing.

CJRPU (2017). A profile of the prison population. Bridgetown, Barbados: Criminal Justice Research and
Planning Unit, Office of the Attorney General.

Coleman, P. (2011). Special education 2000 policy: our leaky home? Kairaranga, 12(1), 10-22.

Cross, M., and Schwartzbaum, A. M. (1969). Social mobility and secondary school selection in Trinidad
and Tobago. Social and Economic Studies, 18(2), pp. 189–207.

De Lisle, J. (2012). Secondary school entrance examinations in the Caribbean: Legacy, policy, and
evidence within an era of seamless education. Caribbean Curriculum, 19, pp. 109-143.

Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) Special educational needs and disability code
of practice: 0 to 25 years. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-
practice-0-to-25

Downes, A. (2018). Queens, Harrison, take lion’s share of scholarships. Barbados: Nation News, 10th
August, p.8.

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded – Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional

Children, 35, 5-22.

15
Dunn, L. M. (1983). Citation Classics. Social & Behavioral Sciences: Current Contents, February 21st, 8,

p.18.

EASNIE (nd.) Finland - Special needs education within the education system. European Agency for
Special Needs and Inclusive Education. Retrieved from: https://www.european-agency.org

EADSNE (2009). Key principles for promoting quality in inclusive education. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Ekins, A. (2012). The changing face of special educational needs: impact and implications for SENCOs
and their schools. London: Routledge.

Gorard, S. and Huat See, B. (2013). Overcoming disadvantage in education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Harrison, D. (2018). School violence fix. Daily Nation, Monday February 12th, p. 10.

Hornby, G. (2011). Parental Involvement in Childhood Education: Building Effective School-Family

Partnerships. New York: Springer.

Hornby, G. (2012). Inclusive education for children with special educational needs: A critique of policy
and practice in New Zealand. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 52-60.

Hornby, G. (2014a). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs
and disabilities. New York: Springer.

Hornby, G. (2014b). Special education today in New Zealand. In A. F. Rotatori, J. P. Bakken, F. E.

Obiakor, & S. Burkhardt (eds). Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the
Globe - Advances in Special Education, Volume 28. Bingley, England: Emerald, pp. 643-660.

Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the education of
children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education,
42(3), 234-256.

Hornby, G. & Witte, C. (2010a). A Survey of parental involvement in secondary schools in New Zealand.
School Psychology International, 31(5), 495-508.

16
Hornby, G. and Witte, C. (2014b). Ability grouping in New Zealand high schools: are practices evidence-
based? Preventing School Failure, 58(2), pp. 90-95.

IDEA (2004) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. No. 108-446, 20
U.S.C.

Jennings, Z. (2017). Interventions in schools’ curricula to achieve quality in learning: Experiences from the
Commonwealth Caribbean. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
47(6), pp. 818-834.

Kauffman, J. M. & Badar, J. (2014). Instruction, not inclusion, should be the central issue of special
education: An alternative view from the USA. Journal of International Special Needs Education,
17, 13-20.

Kivirauma, J. & Ruoho, K. (2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish School
Reform. International Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302.

Klenowski, V. and Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story,
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), pp. 65-79.

Lloyd, J.W., Singh, N.N. & Repp, A.C. (1991). The regular education initiative. Sycamore, Il: Sycamore
Press.

Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture. (1995). White Paper on Education Reform: Each One
Matters...Quality Education for All. Barbados: Author.

Ministry of Education, Human Resource and Development. (2008). The Development of Education:
National Report of Barbados. Barbados. Author.

Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development, and Ministry of Labour. (2010). Barbados
Human Resource Development Strategy 2011-2016: Developing National, Institutional and Human
Capacity for Sustainable Growth. Barbados: Authors.

Ministry of Education, Youth Affairs and Culture. (2000). Barbados Information Handbook. Barbados:
Author.

17
NZMoE (1996). Special Education 2000 Policy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

NZMoE (2010). Success for all: every school, every child. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of

Education.

NZMoE (2011). Collaboration for success: individual education plans. Wellington: Learning Media.

NCSE (2010). Literature review of the principles and practices relating to inclusive education for children
with special educational needs. Trim, Ireland: National Council for Special education.

Niles, B. (1979). Ministry must act fast to abolish exam. Bridgetown. The Advocate, May 17, p. 11.

OECD (2006). Programme for International Student Assessment: 2006 Results. Paris, France: OECD.
Retrieved from :
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/pisa2006results.
htm

OECD (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in
Education. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. Paris:
OECD.

Rotatori, A. F., Obiakor, F. E. & Bakken, J.P. (eds). (2011). History of Special Education. (Advances in
Special Education, Volume 21). Bingley, England: Emerald.

Salend, S. & Whittaker, C. (2012). Inclusive education: best practices in the United States. In C. Boyle &
K. Topping (eds.) What works in inclusion? Maidenhead, England: Open University Press, pp. 66-
80.

Schleicher, A. (2014). Equity, Excellence and Inclusiveness in Education: Policy Lessons from Around the
World: International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD.

Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system, strong performers and
successful reformers in education. Paris, France: OECD.

18
Shaeffer, S. (2013). Identifying and promoting good practice in equity and child-friendly education. New
York: UNICEF.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: a best-evidence
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, pp. 347–350.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in high schools: a best-evidence synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 471–499.

Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives.
Elementary School Journal, 93, pp. 535-552.

Springer, J. (1979). Grouping children according to ability. The Advocate, June 1, p.7.

Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R. & Törmänen, M. (2009). Inclusive special education: the role of special education

teachers in Finland. British Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 162-172.

UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Paris: Author.

Walker, Z. and Musti-Rao, S. (2016). Inclusion in high achieving Singapore: Challenges of building an
inclusive society in policy and practice. Global Education Review, 3(3), pp. 28-42.

Wylie, C. (2000). Picking up the pieces: review of special education 2000. Wellington: NZCER.

19

View publication stats