The DfE (2014) believe inclusion within schools should include: high expectations of all pupils; work planned for all children; an appropriate range of ambitious assessment criteria; considerations of the needs of all pupils. These statements are supported by the SEND code of practice (DfE, 2015) which provides advice and support for schools, and other associated organisations, comprising strategies to include and support SEND pupils within education. Inclusion, however, is a term that can be interpreted and defined in different ways as practitioners have their own values and beliefs which can influence their ideas around inclusion, diversity and difference (Fredrickson and Cline, 2015; Tussler and Robinson, 2015; Florian and Beaton, 2017). It is important to recognise that inclusion does not just encompass SEND children but is applicable to all children within the classroom (Tussler and Robinson, 2015). I believe that a learning environment should be inclusive of all children, where they feel safe and can access good quality education (Florian and Beaton, 2017). I also believe the learning environment should not be too overwhelming for pupils in relation to the layout and content of the class (Doppelt and Schunn, 2008; Barrett, et al, 2012). Displays should provide children with useful information and resources which are easy to read and relevant to their learning journey (ibid). Furthermore, I believe that teachers should hold high expectations of all pupils and should value learner diversity, knowing children’s strengths and planning in lessons or activities where these can be highlighted (Florian, 2008; Hannell, 2008; Tussler and Robinson, 2015; Florian and Beaton, 2017).

 (Think Inclusive, 2017)

Florian and Beaton (2017) believe that learners should be active participants within education. They believe that teachers need to listen to pupil voice to inform planning of future lessons and facilitate further learning (ibid). To include all children within my lessons I provided opportunities, particularly within Mathematics lessons, for children to choose activities they felt comfortable with (one, two or three chilies). I ensured I explained to the children that if they were finding the activity too easy or too hard, they should try the next level up or down. This approach worked well in my classroom as the children understood my high expectations, knowing that if they did not try to challenge themselves, I would recognise this when marking their work and discuss this with them. However, it is an approach that may not work in all classrooms without high expectations of all children. I believe this teaching approach enables children to feel like active participants who are responsible for their learning (Hannell, 2008; Fisher, 2012). I also believe that this approach reduced stereotypes within the classroom, enabling children to have differentiated activities whilst also not placing a particular attainment on groups of children (Florian, 2008; Florian and Beaton, 2017). I believe that teachers need to trust children to make their own choices around their learning which can begin to create autonomous learners, within an environment that values diversity and difference (ibid).

(Think Inclusive, 2017)

Tussler and Robinson (2015) believe that to be inclusive teachers need to be reflective, flexible and adaptable. They suggest that the term inclusion can cause panic and concern for many practitioners who have not received training on supporting SEND, PP and EAL children within their classrooms (ibid). Tussler and Robinson (2015) theorise two models around inclusion, the functional model and the transactional model. The functional model focuses on what the learners cannot do and their SEND needs, highlighting differences and impairments (ibid). The transactional model focuses on high expectations of all learners, considering the impact that the learning environment could have on their learning (Doppelt and Schunn, 2008; Barrett, et al, 2012; Tussler and Robinson, 2015). Within SBT1 the school values and beliefs followed the transactional model. The majority of SEND, EAL and PP children were included within classrooms, some being further supported by specialist staff within the class. Tussler and Robinson (2015) and Reid (2013) believe that to enable inclusion there needs to be a team approach where children are provided with support where necessary and are not separated from other children within the classroom. Blatchford and Webster (2012) support this argument suggesting that deployment of support staff can sometimes be ineffective resulting in pupil reliance on the teaching assistant which can in turn negatively impact pupil progress. Therefore, children should be working with specialist staff members focusing on class integration and task completion (Webster and Blatchford, 2012; Webster et al, 2013; Saddler, 2014).  All staff within SBT1 worked together, providing specific intervention support where necessary. However, although specific support was given these sessions were placed within PE and Music lessons. As a result, the children that were given this extra support were not able to be involved in these foundation subjects which could limit the development of transferable skills such as team work and creativity (Bleazby, 2015; Duncombe et al, 2015; Breslin, 2016).

In conclusion, teachers are supported by the National Curriculum (DfE, 2014) and SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) to create an inclusive learning environment, where they are aware of pupil’s differences. Within my own practice I will continue to hold high expectations of all pupils and ensure children are active participants within the classroom, through a consideration of pupil voice on the activities provided (Florian, 2008; Florian and Beaton, 2017). I will also ensure that I deploy any staff effectively within my classroom, working with the additional needs’ children in the class myself, rather than relying on a teaching assistant, to make the most impact on the children’s learning as possible and to focus on whole class inclusivity (Webster and Blatchford, 2012; Saddler, 2014; Tussler and Robinson, 2015). Finally, I will consider when in the day I am providing children with extra support, making sure to provide this in day-to-day lessons rather than restricting children’s opportunities to access all of the curriculum as I believe children can develop skills transferable skills from foundation subjects which can support their progress in core subjects such as English and Mathematics (Bleazby, 2015; Duncombe et al, 2015; Breslin, 2016).

References:

Barett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J. and Kobbacy, K. (2012) “A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning”, in Building and Environment, Vol 59, p678-689.

Breslin, T. (2016) Subject hierarchies and the purpose of learning – Time to press re-set?, [online] BERA, Available: <https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/subject-hierarchies-and-the-purpose-of-learning-time-to-press-re-set> [Accessed: 23/11/18].

Bleazby, J. (2015) “Why some school subjects have a high status than others: The epistemology of the traditional curriculum hierarchy”, in Oxford Review of Education, Vol 41 (5), p671-689.

Department for Education (2014) National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4, London: DfE, Available: <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4#inclusion> [Accessed: 31/12/18].

Department for Education (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years, London: DfE, Available: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf> [Accessed: 31/12/18].

Doppelt, Y. and Schunn, C.D. (2008) “Identifying students’ perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design-based learning environment”, in Learning Environments Research, Vol 11 (3), p195-209.

Duncombe, R., Cole, L. and Harris, J. (2015) “Strengthening ‘the foundations’ of the primary school curriculum”, in International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, Vol 46 (1), p76-88.

Fisher, H. (2012) “Progressing towards a model of intrinsic inclusion in a mainstream primary school: a SENCO’s experience, in International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol 16 (12), p1273-1293.

Florian, L. (2008) “INCLUSION: Special or inclusive education: future trends”, in British Journal Special Education, Vol 35 (4), p202-208.

Florian, L. and Beaton, M. (2017) “Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child”, in International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol 22 (8), p870-884.

Fredrickson, N. and Cline, T. (2015) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity, (Third Edition), Berkshire: Open University Press.

Hannell, G. (2008) Success with inclusion: 1001 teaching strategies and activities that really work, London: David Fulton Publishers.

Reid, G. (2013) Dyslexia and Inclusion: Classroom approaches for assessment, teaching and learning, (Second Edition), Oxon: Routledge.

Think Inclusion (2017) The case for inclusive education, [online], Available: <https://www.thinkinclusive.us/inclusive-education-sabrina/> [Accessed: 13/01/19].

Tussler, S. and Robinson, D. (2015) Inclusive practice in the primary school: A guide for teachers, London: SAGE.

Saddler, H. (2014) “Researching the influence of teaching assistants on the learning of pupils identified with special educational needs in mainstream primary schools: exploring social inclusion, in Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Vol 14 (3), p145-152.

Webster, R. and Blatchford, P. (2012) ‘Supporting learning? How effective are teaching assistants?’, in Adey, P. and Dillon, J. (Ed) Bad Education: Debunking educational myths, Maidenhead: OUP.

Webster, R., Blatchford, P. and Russell, A. (2013) “Challenging and changing how schools use teaching assistants”, in School Leadership and Management, Vol 33 (1), p78-96.