Dangers Of Inclusion

Defining the term ‘inclusion’, according to Sikes at al. (2007:366), ‘is a thorny and controversial task which has occupied many commentators over the years’. Many have also argued that ‘inclusion is a bewildering concept which can have a variety of interpretations and applications’ (Avramidis et al., 2002:158 cited Hansen, 2011:62). One might consider inclusion in relation to acknowledging diversity - people differ in all sorts of ways from race and ethnicity, culture and belief, gender and sexuality, age and social status. It is recognised that some people find it more difficult to have their voice heard in mainstream society, and inclusion is about positively striving to meet these needs of different people and taking deliberate action
However, the term inclusion has long been associated with children with special educational needs (Kilburn & Mills, 2012). This association also requires clarification, as Ainscow et al. (2006) explains the difficulty of defining inclusion, by distinguishing between narrow and broad definitions; narrow referring to aspects of SEN, and the broad to all aspects of marginalisation and diversity. This contrasts the thoughts of Armstrong et al. (2010) who points out the key dangers in stating ‘the meaning of inclusion is by no means clear and perhaps conveniently blurs the edges of social policy with ‘feel-good’ rhetoric that no-one could be opposed to (cited Kilburn & Mills, 2012).

With regard to children and schooling, inclusive education could be best understood as an aim, aspiration or even a philosophy, rather than as a set of techniques that can be applied (Hayes, 2009). While Hayward (2006) explains that school communities are charged with offering education to all members of the community that they serve, by modifying their ways so all needs are considered, therefore eradicating educational practices that tend to exclude pupils with more inclusive