Childhood Education

ISSN: 0009-4056 (Print) 2162-0725 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

School and Classroom Practices in Inclusive

Education in Australia

Christina E. van Kraayenoord

To cite this article: Christina E. van Kraayenoord (2007) School and Classroom
Practices in Inclusive Education in Australia, Childhood Education, 83:6, 390-394, DOI:
10.1080/00094056.2007.10522957

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2007.10522957

Published online: 25 Jul 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7256

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uced20
Christina E. van
Kraayenoord School and Classroom
Christina E. van Kraayenoord
is Associate Professor, School
of Education, The Univer-
Practices in Inclusive
sity of Queensland, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia. Education in Australia

E ducation in Australia is a state and territory concern (Department

of Education, Science and Training, 2006a). Among the commonwealth,
state, and territory legislation and agreements, ”The Adelaide Declaration
on the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century” stands
out as one of the key documents that directs both government and non-
government schools (Department of Education, Science and Training,
2006b). This declaration, signed by all Government Ministers of Education
in the city of Adelaide in 1999, identifies the “common and agreed goals
for schooling” and aims to provide guidance to education authorities
and schools about the desired learning outcomes for students. One of
the central tenets of the Declaration is that ”schooling should be socially
just” (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2006b, unpaged).
Such a tenet is consistent with the principle of inclusive education that ”The Adelaide
has been adopted by the commonwealth, state, and territory education
departments throughout Australia (van Kraayenoord, Elkins, Palmer, & Declaration on
Rickards, 2000).
This article describes practices in inclusive education in Australian t h e N a t i o n a l Goals
schools and classrooms. In discussing the changes that schools have
made in order to be inclusive and responsive to student diversity, the for Schooling in
author refers to one Australian school and its re-organization and also
to recent Australian research on building inclusive school cultures. t h e Twenty-first
With respect to the changes that need to be made to classrooms, the
author highlights the work of Australian researchers and authors and Cent u ry s t a nds
“

their descriptions of teachers’ pedagogical practices of differentiated

instruction and Universal Design for Learning that are consistent with out as o n e of t h e
delivering inclusive education. Differentiated instruction comprises
modifications to the curriculum, teaching structures, and teaching key documents t h a t
practices in combination that take into account the individual differences
and needs of students. Universal Design for Learning is defined here directs both Australian
as the conscious and deliberate planning of units and lessons so that all
students have access to, and can participate in, the curricula, and can g o v e r n m e n t a n d non-
grow in their achievement of learning outcomes.
g o v e r n m e n t schools.
Inclusive Education: Definitions in Australia
The term ”inclusive education” has been variously defined, both in the lit-
erature and in practice. During the 1980s and 1990s in Australia, the term
most typically referred to the participation of students with disabilities in
regular or mainstream schools and classrooms (Elkins, 1994; Organiza-

390 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
tion for Economic Co-operation and Development, Samoan heritage, and with a range of socioeconomic
1999). However, many writers (e.g., Foreman, 2005; backgrounds. Together, the school staff developed
Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2005) and education Diversity for Diversity (D4D), which comprised: 1)
authorities adopted a broader understanding of the use of a Diversity Index to identify the learning needs
term, and this understanding is more commonly used of these students; 2) a school reconstruction process,
in Australian schools today. For example, van Kraay- which resulted in a design that responded to these
enoord, Elkins, Palmer, and Rickards (2000) referred needs; and 3) a process that involved matching the
to inclusive education as ”the practice of providing for diversity of the staff and their teaching philosophies,
students with a wide range of abilities, backgrounds skills, life experiences, and personalities to the Diver-
and aspirations in regular school settings“ (p. 9). Such sity Index and the students’ needs. The outcomes of
a definition acknowledges the diversity of students D4D were staff ownership of the initiative, the use of
who attend Australia’s schools and their individual focused professional development, greater cohesion of
developmental, cultural, and personal differences, the administrative team, the creation and implementa-
as well as the requirement of schools to ensure that tion of curricula that were more closely aligned with
students’ needs, which are a consequence of these the students’ needs, and students’ improved reading
differences, are met. achievement and behavior.
All the state and territory government education Changing the school culture to make it more in-
departments provide definitionsof inclusiveeducation. clusive is also a feature of a number of reforms in
The most comprehensive definition of inclusive educa- schools. Carrington’s (Carrington, 1999,2006; Car-
tion provided by an Australian education department rington & Elkins, 2002; Robinson & Carrington, 2002)
is that of the Department of Education, Tasmania. An research in Queensland schools has demonstrated
extract from their definition states: that a more inclusive school culture is brought
about by staff commitment to change, progressive
Inclusiveeducationmeans that all studentsin aschool, regard- and democratic discussion of current beliefs and
less of their differences, are part of the school community practices (Carrington & Elkins, 2002), the develop-
and can feel that they belong. The mandate to ensure access, ment of collaborative work cultures that involve
participation and achievement for every student is taken as teachers sharing and problem solving together, and
given. (Department of Education, Tasmania, 2006) the continuous upgrading of teachers’ skills through
professional development (Robinson & Carrington,
According to the Department of Education, Tasma- 2002). In summarizing the qualities of inclusive
nia (2006), inclusive education refers to an accessible school cultures, Carrington (2006) states:
curriculum, a school community where students are
valued and respected and where their social, emotional, It is clear that some school communities value and respect
and intellectual needs are met. The department’s each other and work together in inclusive ways. In these
description of inclusive education also suggests that schools and classrooms, there is a sense of innovation,
it involves social connectedness and creates a feel- enthusiasm, excitement and commitment to ensuring suc-
ing of belonging among the students. A “systematic cessful outcomes for all involved in the process. (p. 18)
approach to ensuring that the practices of inclusive
education are embedded, sustained and evaluated” is Classrooms:
encouraged,and finally, ”the quality of relationships in Changing Pedagogical Practices
a school, especially between students and their teach- Not only have reforms related to inclusive education
ers, is the most important variable in supporting all of been undertaken at the school level, they also have
the above” (Department of Education, Tasmania, 2006, been undertaken at the classroom level. A number
unpaged). of Australian researchers and authors have described
the pedagogical practices adopted in Australian
Schools: classrooms in order to bring about inclusive educa-
Becoming Inclusive and Responsive tion. While most of these writers have focused on
Many schools in Australia have taken up the chal- differentiated instruction, some authors recently
lenge of becoming inclusive and responsive by mak- have also addressed the use of inclusive pedagogi-
ing changes to their policies, practices, and cultures. cal practices that are based on Universal Design for
Hunter (2004), the Principal of Caboolture East State Learning principles.
School in Queensland, described the way in which his
school was “re-constructed” in response to its diverse Differentiated Instruction
student community, including students with disabili- Definitions. van Kraayenoord (2003) has defined
ties, of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent, with differentiated instruction in the following way:

INTERNATIONALFocus ISSUE2007 + 391

Differentiatedinstruction involves teaching that takes into
account the individual differences and needs of students,
and the valuing and use of a n individual‘sexperiencesand
contributions to promote opportunities for learning in the
classroom. It comprises modifications to the curriculum,
teaching structures, and teaching practices in combination to
ensure that instruction is relevant, flexible,and responsive,
leading to successful achievement and the development of
students as self-regulating learners alongside their peers.
Differentiated instruction is more than just about taking
individual differences into account and accommodating
students’ abilities; it also about valuing and using (devel-
oping) the diverse characteristics and abilities of students
to promote learning. (p. 3)
Similarly, Westwood (2001) has indicated that
differentiation refers to ”teaching things differently
according to observed differences among students”
(p. 5), suggesting that it ”seeks to personalize
learning experiences by taking account of children’s
current levels of ability, prior knowledge, strengths,
weaknesses, preferences and interests” (Westwood
& Arnold, 2004, p. 375).
Teachers‘ Views. Only a small number of studies
have investigated the ways in which Australian teachers
undertake differentiation. Alston and Kilham’s (2004)
research involved two children who were in Preschool
Intervention Autism Units and were being integrated
into associated regular preschool classrooms in two
schools in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
They found that both the special education teachers
in the units and the special teacher’s assistants in the
classrooms used differentiation, alongside a number of
other adaptations. The specific types of differentiation
used included allowing extra time, expecting less
work, using different outcomes, and providing help
with writing. In examining their findings, Alston and
Kilham (2004) noted that the accommodations were
not used consistently across the two settings.
The Challenges. Westwood (2001) is critical of the
strategies commonly recommended for differentiation,
such as changing the curriculum content and using
modified tasks and easier materials. Westwood points
to concerns about “watering down“ the curriculum and
argues that “any approach that suggests giving ’less’
to some students is open to criticism under principles
of equity and social justice” (p. 6). With respect to
the provision of simpler work or easier resources,
Westwood addresses research in U.S. classrooms
indicating that students, especially older ones, reported
that they disliked such modifications and preferred
teachers to support them in undertaking the work
given to their peers. In concluding his arguments,
Westwood raises the following questions: ”Should
we not be helping teachers develop skills in teaching
392 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
the same inaterial effectively to all studerzts? . . . Isn‘t it
more inclusive for all students to be doing the same
work, with differentiated amounts of assistance?“
(p. 10). Westwood (2003) and his collaborators
(Westwood & Arnold, 2004) have found that problems
of differentiation in classrooms occur because of
the lack of preparation time, large class sizes, and
teacher workloads. Classroom teachers who adopt
differentiated instruction need to work with school
administrators and other colleagues to overcome these
barriers.
Inclusive Pedagogical Practices
Using Universal Design for Learning
In response to the challenges of delivering
differentiated instruction, some Australian researchers
have suggested that teachers might use inclusive
pedagogical practices that are based on Universal
Design for Learning principles (van Kraayenoord,
2005; van Kraayenoord & Elkins, 2005; Westwood,
2001, 2003).
Definitions. Universal Design for Learning, as
described by Bauer and Kroeger (2004), has several
characteristics. They state:
Universal design attempts to create a curriculum without
adaptation or retrofitting by providing equal access to
information, [and] . . . allows the student to control the
method of accessing information. The teacher monitors
the process and initiates new methods. Through Universal
design, the teacher encourages students’ self-sufficiency,
and imparts knowledge and facilitates learning. Universal
design does not remove challenges-it removes barriers to
access. (p. 22)
The main difference between differentiated instruc-
tion and Universal Design for Learning lies in the fact
that differentiated instruction refers to the making of
changes to lessons, outcomes, activities, and assess-
ment tasks, after the fact-that is, through the use of
accommodations and modifications retrospectively
in the planning process or during the delivery of
instruction. In contrast, from the outset, Universal
Design for Learning involves the conscious and de-
liberate creation of lessons and outcomes that allow
all students access to and participation in the same
curricula. While Westwood (2001) does not refer to
Universal Design for Learning by name, he does argue
for the use of pedagogical practices that are aligned
with these principles. Specifically, Westwood (2001)
has advocated that teachers should provide students
with flexible and responsive pedagogical and social
supports directed at individual students‘ needs.
An Example. One example of inclusive pedagogical
practices using Universal Design for Learning
principlesis taken from information
collected as part of the WriteIdeas
Project (van Kraayenooord, Moni,
Jobling, Koppenhaver, & Elkins,
2004). In this lesson, a teacher of
a primary school classroom, who
has a diverse range of students, is
using Readers Theater. The unit
is about the Aboriginal Dream
Time. In this segment of the lesson,
the teacher reported that two
groups of six children were using
the Aboriginal story “Bohia the
Kangaroo.” The teacher planned
for the children to use the same
story; however, the texts have
been written by different authors
(data from the WriteIdeas Project,
“Weekly Account of Lessons”:
Week 6, Teacher LlOlP, reported in
van Kraayenoord & Elkins, 2005).
In this way, the students have access Classroom display of published texts and student-created texts and draw-
to two different representations ings from the Aboriginal Dream Time Unit.
of the story. The teacher used her
knowledge of the students to plan
fully and deliberately provide
opportunities for the students in these two groups cula, strategies, and assessment approaches that are as
to choose their version of the story. inclusive as possible for a wide range of students, but
Over time, as more Australian teachers learn about also must recognize that some students will still need
the concept of Universal Design for Learning, they more individualized approaches and support.
will more comprehensively use inclusive pedagogies To date, no Australian examples can be found of
based on its principles. The benefits of accessibility, published research regarding teachers’ reported or
flexibility, usability, customizability, and support will observed classroom practices, nor about the outcomes
help teachers expand their pedagogical repertoires of classroom interventions that have deliberately
while meeting the students’ needs and fostering their used both inclusive pedagogical practices based on
active participation and engagement in learning. Universal Design for Learning principles and differ-
entiated instruction to support students with various
Not One, But Both needs in regular classrooms. One way that Australian
While advocatingfor and researching Australian teach- researchers can fill this gap is to create projects that
ers’ use of differentiation and inclusive pedagogical examine the applicationof differentiation and inclusive
practices, both this author and Westwood agree that pedagogical practices based on Universal Design for
it is likely that Australian teachers will need to use a Learning principles for various groups of students in
combination of these practices to meet students’ needs different contexts. Additionally, classroom teachers
most effectively (Westwood & Arnold, 2004). It is may wish to develop classroom-based studies using
suggested that teachers first develop curricula, teach- action research approaches that explore the use of
ing, and learning experiences and activities based on such practices. Such research would allow educators
Universal Design for Learning principles, in order to and administrators to determine the contributions of
minimize the need for accommodations and modifica- these practices and their efficacy.
tions. However, modification of the curricula, experi-
ences, and activities through the use of differentiated Conclusion
instruction may still be necessary for some students. Consistent with the tenet of being socially just, schools
This is in line with the thinking of McGuire, Scott, and in Australiahavemoved to adopt aninclusive approach
Shaw (2006), who have cautioned about expecting too to education. They have done soby acknowledging and
much of Universal Design for Learning. They have valuing the diversity of the students in their schools
argued that teachers must design educational curri- and developing new conceptualizations of school

INTERNATIONALFocus ~ U 2007
E 393
management, organization, and teachers’ work. The
school-level practices described in this article have
emerged from situations in which administrators and
teachers were willing to change to meet the needs of
their school community, their teachers’ capabilities,
and their students’ backgrounds. Thus, the Australian
schools and school cultures that have been described
in this article have emerged from unique contexts and
teacher and student populations.
Alongside the reforms being made to schools in recent
years that are premised on an inclusive approach to
education, classroom practices have changed as well.
The practices described in this article are based on
meeting the needs of all students in ways that are
responsive, supportive, and equitable. The practices
of differentiated instruction and inclusivepedagogies,
based on Universal Design for Learning principles,
are two types of practices that are used in Australian
classrooms to support the achievement of diverse
students’ learning outcomes. The use of both types
of practices is supported, because they address issues
of access to and support of learning in complementary
ways. However, there is a need to provide evidence
of the joint and separate contributions of the practices
of inclusive pedagogies based on Universal Design
for Learning principles and of differentiated instruc-
tion in the Australian context. Finally, it appears that
school and classroom practices in inclusive education
in Australia may be relevant to school administrators
and teachers in other parts of the world. Sharing
these practices across the globe can lead to enhanced
teacher knowledge and practices as well as improved
learning outcomes for all the world’s children.
References
Alston, J., & Kilham, C. (2004). Adaptiveeducationfor students
with special needs in the inclusive classroom. Australian
Journal of Early Childhood Education, 29(3), 24-33.
Bauer, A. H., & Kroeger, S. (2004). Inclusive classrooms: Video van Kraayenoord, C., Elkins, J., Palmer, C., & Rickards, F.
cases on C D - R O M , Activity and learning guide. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school
culture. lnternational Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(3), van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., Jobliqg, A., Koppen-
257-268.
Carrington, S. (2006). Developing an inclusive school culture.
In M. Keeffe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity
(pp. 17-32). Frenchs Forest, NSW Pearson Sprintprint.
Carrington, S., & Elkins, J. (2002). Bridging the gap between Westwood, I? (2001). ‘Differentiation’ as a strategy for in-
inclusive policy and inclusive culture insecondary schools.
Support for Learning, 17(2),51-57.
Department of Education, Tasmania. (2006). Inclusive educa- Westwood, P. (2003). Commonsense methods for children with
tion. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from www.ltag.education.
tas.gov.au/focus/inclusiveprac/default.htm
Department of Education, Science and Training. (2006a). Westwood, P., & Arnold, W. (2004). Meeting
School education summary. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from
www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school-education/School-edu- Journal, 58(4), 375-378.
394 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
cation-summary2.htm
Department of Education, Science and Training. (2006b).
The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in
the Twenty-first Century. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from
www.dest.gov.au/sec tors/school-education/policy-ini-
tiatives_reviews/national_goals_for_schooling-in_the_
twenty-first-century.htm
Elkins, J. (1994). The school context. In A. Ashman & J.
Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (2nd ed.,
pp. 71-103). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Foreman, F. (2005). Disability and inclusion. In P. Fore-
man (Ed.), Inclusion in action (pp. 3-34). Southbank, VIC:
Thomson.
Hunter, M. (2004). Total school re-construction: Achiev-
ing a new level of inclusive education. The Practising
Administrator, 2, 32-35.
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2005). Inclusive
education: A practical guide to supporting diversity in the
classroom. Crows Nest, NSW Allen & Unwin.
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal
Design and its application in educational environments.
Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166-175.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (1999). Sustaining inclusive education: Including
students with special educational needs in mainstream schools:
Lessons f r o m the case studies. Paris: Author.
Robinson, R., & Carrington, S. (2002). Professional develop-
ment for inclusive schooling. The lnternational Journal of
Educational Management, 26(4&5), 239-247.
van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003, May). Differentiated instruction
forallstudents. Paperpresentedat theplanningfor Diversity
Seminar. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved May
31,2006, from www.learningplace.com.au/uploads/docu-
ments/store/doc~l9~398~planningfordiversity.doc
van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2005). Literate lives. In A. Ashman
& J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating students with diverse abilities
(2nd ed., pp. 183-214). Frenchs Forest, NSW Pearson
Education Australia.
van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Elkins, J. (2005, AprillMay).
Differentiated instruction in inclusive classrooms. Paper
presented as part of a Research Symposium at the 50th
Annual Convention of the International Reading Associa-
tion, San Antonio, TX.
(2000). Literacy, numeracy and students with disabilities,
Volume 2-The literature review. Canberra: Department
of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
haver, D., & Elkins, J. (2004). Developing the writing of
middle school students with developmental disabilities:
The WriteIdeas Model of writing. Literacy Learning: The
Middle Years, 22(2), 36-46.
clusive classroom practice: Some difficulties identified.
Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 5-11.
special needs: Strategies for the regular classroom
(4th ed.). London: Routledge-Falmer.
individual needs with young learners. ELT
4