Keywords

Introduction

Inclusive education , when defined in terms of avoiding exclusion from the regular school system and addressing the learning requirements of special educational needs and/or disabilities, that is SEN(D) students, in regular schools (Luciak & Biewer, 2011; Mitchell, 2007), consists of multiple relevant dimensions. In this chapter, the authors adopt Mitchell’s (2015) notion of inclusive education as a multi-faceted construct consisting of nine areas which are (re)considered in order to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) of inclusive education at its different levels. The objective of this chapter is to propose an implementation framework for inclusive education policy and practice based on empirically validated CSFs from previous qualitative research in Croatia, Italy and Portugal (Najev Čačija, Bilač, & Džingalašević, 2019).

Theoretical Framework

Our initial model is based on grouping Mitchell’s theoretical key areas into three dimensions: (a) access to inclusive education (including an adapted curriculum, assessment and teaching as educational components, access as a physical factor and acceptance as a social one), (b) support for inclusive education (consisting of support and resources key areas) and (c) the development of inclusive education (comprising vision and leadership).

The development of inclusive education refers to previous studies of vision and shared determination for inclusion (Ainscow, 2005; Mitchell, 2007, 2015) and high-quality leadership (Black & Simon, 2014; Mitchell, 2015). Support for inclusive education incorporates different resources and processes required to ensure successful and continuous access to inclusive education. It is not based solely on peer and institutional support mechanisms (Boyle, Topping, Jindal-Snape, & Norwich, 2012; Haug, 2017; Valeo, 2008), but also refers to the role of leadership in evaluation, individual teachers’ professional development, as well as structural change at the school level (Bui, Quirk, Almazan, & Valenti, 2010). Access to inclusive education goes beyond physical access to education facilities and the placement of SEN(D) students in regular classes. It rather builds upon studies on the adapted curriculum, teaching and assessment (Topping, 2012; Westwood, 2004) which include actual problem solving in inclusive practice, as well as the structuring of a supportive social environment (Mittler, 2012).

The key areas are viewed at three levels of the education system, as identified by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009) and further discussed by Najev Čačija et al. (2019, pp. 121–122):

  • The macro level , that is the legal framework and national resources devoted to inclusive education (Ainscow 2005; Pivik, McComas, & Laflamme, 2002).

  • The mezzo level , which includes education practices at the level of an individual school (institution), along with leadership for inclusive education (Polat, 2011; Soodak, 2003).

  • The micro level , where the interaction of students and teachers creates the experience of inclusive education at the classroom level (Fakolade, Adeniyi, & Tella, 2017; Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Slee, 2011; Winter & O’Raw, 2010).

A visualisation of the framework (Fig. 10.1) is represented by the concentric circles, illustrating the development process of inclusive education (starting with the development and leadership of inclusive education, followed by the provision of support and actual inclusive practices).

Fig. 10.1
figure 1

The theoretical framework of inclusive education policy and practice. (Source: Authors)

Full size image

The Grounded Theory Approach to the Identification of CSFs for Inclusive Education

Previous research (Najev Čačija et al., 2019) used the focus group approach, with multiple stakeholders involved, to identify and group inclusive education policy aspects in Croatia, Italy and Portugal. This chapter critically (re)considers the qualitative research results from the previous stage by accepting the guidelines of the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) which has been widely applied within education studies (Lambert, 2019). Although criticised for alleged superficiality (Harry, Sturges, & Klingner, 2005), it is a solid methodological approach to the ‘messy’ and complex field of special education (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005).

In this chapter, the authors follow the practice of collecting data in multiple rounds in order to generate a generalisable theoretical model based on stakeholders’ and experts’ experiences (Lingard, Albert, & Levinson, 2008). At the same time, the authors use the comparative approach and critical (re)evaluation of previous empirical results. In the second stage of qualitative research (conducted in 2018), five experts with extensive experience in education were asked to (re)evaluate the focus group transcripts (conducted in 2017), based on their experiences and attitudes/values, related to inclusive education so as to identify the CSFs of inclusive education. The authors facilitated the expert group meetings by using Skype software.

Firstly, the experts were introduced to the focus group methodology and output (transcripts) and were also briefed on previous studies. The three hierarchical levels of inclusive education proposed by the authors of this chapter were debated and re-labelled by the experts, although the authors’ initial hierarchical design was accepted. In the second round of expert discussions, inclusive education policy items produced by the focus groups were critically re-examined. The very notion of CSFs was introduced into the discussion by two of the authors with a background in business research. Then, the experts chose quotations from the focus group transcripts which they believed represented inclusive education CSFs. The previous mapping of items, at the three accepted levels, was ‘re-shuffled’ by the experts. Tables 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 present the experts’ consolidated output, along with the authors’ (re-)mapping of the CSFs to the initial theoretical concept, including the identification of new key areas emerging from the grounding process.

Table 10.1 Macro-level CSFs
Full size table
Table 10.2 Mezzo-level CSFs
Full size table
Table 10.3 Micro-level CSFs
Full size table

At the macro level (Table 10.1), the experts recognise the significant role of the national policy makers’ vision and leadership, especially in ensuring the principle of universal accessibility to education and developing institutional cooperation. Accessibility is the precondition for inclusive education which, unfortunately, is practised in a formalistic manner in Croatia. Macro-level leadership is required to create the required level of institutional cooperation as opposed to individual ‘meddling’, based on the uncoordinated work of highly motivated individuals using an ad hoc approach.

An additional CSF, emerging from the grounding process, relates to support processes, especially in the field of teachers’ continuous education. The lack of initial, as well as continuous, teacher training seems to be a basic reason for the low level of education system performance in Croatia, as compared to Italy and Portugal.

The grounded approach at the institutional (mezzo) level leads to several conclusions (Table 10.2), with the central role assigned to (school) leadership. It is especially applied to transforming teachers’ attitudes and instilling a sense of professional achievement, as well as ensuring cooperation among all stakeholders of inclusive education. The most important support mechanism is represented by continuous education and professional development at the school (institutional) level, while two groups of resources are recognised. At the level of individual actors, internal experts are recognised as a CSF, while specialised support centres represent a CSF in the institutional context, due to their systematic role in developing relevant knowledge and competences. This finding also resonates with teachers’ negative attitudes, feelings of isolation and dependence on individual initiatives, as identified in Croatia.

At the micro level, (re)configuration of the initial CSF grouping also emerges (see Table 10.3). Acceptance proves to be the most important of the initial factors, with two different forms. The first factor, ‘institutional hypocrisy ’, proves to be common in both Croatian and Portuguese contexts. Formal recognition of the need to provide inclusive education to SEN(D) students appears often to break down in the low level of motivation and support to practitioners at the classroom level or in issues of continuity across the levels of the education system. The same applies to the constant need to formally acknowledge the student orientation of the inclusive education system, which is not especially important if inclusion is actually practised. The second factor, ‘social hypocrisy ’, relates to the stakeholders’ inadequate understanding of SEN(D) students’ needs and/or their (un)willingness to recognise them as equal members of the learning community. While accessibility proves to be more of a universal principle than a factor to ensure physical access to facilities and classes, the adaptation of the curriculum, assessment and teaching are mentioned in the dichotomous context. From the Italian experience comes recognition of the systematic and planned approach, while the Portuguese emphasise the need for flexibility.

Conclusion: A Proposal of the CSF-Based Model for Inclusive Education in Europe

The resulting model (illustrated in Fig. 10.2) consists of the following CSFs:

  • At the macro level , emphasis is placed on the responsibility of national policy makers to develop vision and leadership to ensure accessibility as a universal value of the education system, as well as to coordinate institutional cooperation required for universal access. Support, in the form of continuous education, is required at the system (macro) level if it is to be successful.

  • At the mezzo level , the central role belongs to school leadership, which needs to transform the attitudes and practices of teachers, as well as other stakeholders. Support at the institutional (mezzo) level takes the form of continuous education in schools. Two groups of resources relate to (a) individual actors—internal experts (developed within the school or assigned to it) and (b) relevant institutions, that is specialised support centres.

  • At the micro level , highest importance is assigned to social acceptance of SEN(D) students, which is distinguished in terms of: (a) ‘institutional hypocrisy ’ (i.e. formal commitment to inclusive education, without relevant actions and/or implications at the classroom level); (b) ‘social hypocrisy ’ (i.e. stakeholders’ inadequate attitudes and/or motivation, affecting classroom-level actions and/or implications). At this level of education, adaptation of the curriculum, assessment and teaching is identified in a dichotomous context, contrasting the need to achieve a systematic and planned approach to the need for flexibility in inclusive practice.

Fig. 10.2
figure 2

CSF-based framework of inclusive education policy and practice

Full size image

Further research is needed to verify if the obtained model is generalisable at the European level or valid only for the observed three South-European countries.