Explore the vast range of titles available.

To strengthen inclusive practice to this end inexorably requires that we attempt to make sense of it in its current form: to examine how it is enacted in educational settings from early childhood, schools, and communities and further and higher education; to contemplate the restrictions that it might inadvertently create; and to consider its effects on members of educational communities. The chapters emerged from discussions at the inaugural Inclusive Education Summit that was held at Victoria University, Australia in 2015. They present research that was conducted in Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Spain and the UK. Presented in four sections, the chapters explore everyday practice across a range of contexts: from educating culturally and linguistically diverse, refugee, and/or socially and economically disadvantaged students, to issues of diversity brought about by and through gender, giftedness and disability. The book will appeal to academics, students and practitioners in disciplines including: education, sociology, social work, social policy, early childhood, disability studies, and youth studies.

In this paper, we address the work of teachers at the intersection of educational policy and professional discretion, by undertaking a conceptual reading of Through Growth to Achievement: Report of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, and examining how the report conceptualises teacher practice. Drawing on the Bourdieusian notion of regulated improvisation, the study explores the constraints of pedagogical practices as conceptualised by influential policy reports of this kind, highlighting the paradoxical expectations of the report on teachers whose situational awareness of classrooms is curtailed through regulation. The study examines the tension between teacher autonomy and constraints, negating important considerations to temporalities of learning. The central contribution of the paper is a conceptual understanding of how policy drivers position teacher expertise through standardisation, compliance and performance, a concern not unique only to the Australian context of educational policy, nor schooling. [Author abstract]

Education systems worldwide will only successfully serve the needs of people with disability when we inclusively examine and address disabling issues that currently exist at school level education as well as further and higher education and beyond. The chapters contributing to this edited volume are presented to assist readers with a critical examination of contemporary practice and offer a concerted response to improving inclusive education. The chapters address a range of important topics related to the field of critical disability studies in education and include sections dedicated to Schools, Higher Education, Family and Community and Theorising. The contributors entered into discussions during the 2014 AERA Special Interest Group annual meeting hosted by Victoria University in Australia. The perspectives offered here include academic, practitioner, student and parent with contributions from Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, the UK and the US, providing transnational interest. This book will appeal to readers who are interested in innovative theoretical approaches, practical applications and personal narratives. The book is accessible for scholars and students in disciplines including education, sociology, psychology, social work, youth studies, as well as public and allied health. The Introduction by Professor Roger Slee (The Victoria Institute, Victoria University, Australia) and Afterword by Professor David Connor (City University of New York) provide insightful and important commentary. Cover photograph by Paul Dunn and design by Hendrik Jacobs.

The experiences of young people with disabilities of inclusive schooling are largely underresearched. This paper reports recent findings of a small-scale Australian qualitative study, in which secondary students with vision impairment spoke about their experiences of receiving paraprofessional support. Two overarching themes emerged from this study: 'light' and 'heavy' paraprofessional support. The results presented here demonstrate that participants described that support personnel upheld the strong arm of the special education tradition, which was manifestly detrimental to their inclusion. Raw data is presented to elucidate the emergent themes, and to explain the various pedagogical and general support roles of class and special educators in eliminating the need for direct paraprofessional presence in lessons. The light and heavy model of support is also examined in terms of how it fits into the complexity of the education discourse and the young people's own aspirations for full inclusion.

Inherent requirements (Australia), competence standards (UK), or essential functions (US) are often tied to notions of higher education academic integrity and linked to professional standards in practice-based professions like teaching. They are used to define and categorise core competencies students must demonstrate to prove proficiency, for example, with verbal capacity, behavioural regulation, physical dexterity or cognitive skill. The purpose of this discussion is to think with theory not commonly deployed in research related to inclusive higher education. Theoretical resources from critical disability studies and critical educational psychology are advanced to challenge the often fixed, universal, and deficit-oriented constraints used in inherent requirement applications. Responses from a 20-item survey involving academic staff in teacher training courses at an Australian university are considered through these orientations. The discussion is not intended to produce standard survey results so much as it offers ways of anticipating pragmatic means to inclusive education.

This paper presents a critical analysis of the temporal politics of inclusive education. Drawing on the misalignment of universalist human rights discourse with the prevalence of materialist conceptualisations of disability, it instead advocates for a non-representative and temporal approach to inclusive practice. In four parts, it begins by presenting a temporal framework to the analysis of disability and inclusive education. Characterising the historical present as the best and worst of times for people with disabilities, immediately following is a consideration of the legislated inclusiveness of compulsory and non-compulsory education. a discussion of the diachronic and synchronic positioning of inclusion, social model conceptualisations and human rights discourse follows, from which the paper concludes with a conceptual framework of temporality that accounts for nuances to human rights and the ways that assemblages of education and disability mesh together in inclusionary events.

Contributions to this edited collection represent diverse perspectives, yet share a commitment to challenging existing forms of educational marginalisation through policy, practice, theory and pedagogy. The chapters emerged from discussions at the inaugural Inclusive Education Summit that was held at Victoria University, Australia in 2015. They present research that was conducted in Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Spain and the UK--illustrating transnational interests and diverse approaches to practice.

The purpose of this paper is to foreground accessibility as a necessary aspect of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). We go about this by highlighting shared experiences of negotiating institutional ableism together, as a disabled scholar employed at a HEI in the UK, and a non-disabled, culturally and linguistically diverse individual employed to bridge inaccessible spaces. Drawing upon Wong's (2023) conceptual framework of spatial belonging in higher education, which traverses the intersecting terrain of physical, digital, relational and structural spaces, we develop a postqualitative narrative demonstrating the limitations of narrowly defined legal protections that fall short of implementing inclusive ideals. The narrative draws attention to the ways that 'access intimacy', understood as shared commitments to accessibility, develops informally, which excuses HEIs from taking responsibility to institutionalise it. We contemplate accessibility as a relational concern and build an argument for learning from our experiences to inform the development of key accessibility considerations into institutional ways of working and relating to difference. The paper is significant for engaging principles from critical disability studies as conceptual means by which to consider accessibility, and the relational account provided contributes a collaborative perspective frequently experienced but not widely considered in higher education research for strengthening EDI. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

PurposeThis paper emerged from the challenges encountered by both authors as academics during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Based on their subsequent reflections on inclusion in education for minoritised academics in pandemic-affected institutional contexts, they argue that beyond student-centred foci for inclusion, equity in the field, is equally significant for diverse teachers. Working as tempered radicals, they contend that anything less is exclusionary.Design/methodology/approachUsing a reciprocal interview method and drawing on Freirean ideals of dialogue and education as freedom from oppression, the authors offer dual perspectives from specific positionings as a non-tenured woman academic of colour and a tenured staff member with a disability.FindingsIn framing this work dialogically and through Freirean ideals of conscientização, the authors' collective discussions politicise personal experiences of marginalisation in the teaching and researching of inclusion in education for preservice teachers, or more pointedly, in demonstrating the responsibility of all to orientate towards context-dependent inclusive practices. They assert that to enable educators to develop inclusion-oriented practice, the contextual frameworks need to ensure that they question their own experiences of inclusion as potentially precarious to enable meaningful teaching practice.Research limitations/implicationsIt offers perspectives drawing on race, dis/ability and gender drawing on two voices. The bivocal perspective is in itself limitation. It is also located within a very Australian context. However, it does have the scope to be applied globally and there is opportunity to further develop the argument using more intersectional variables.Practical implicationsThe paper clearly highlights that universities require a sharper understanding of diversity, and minoritised staff's quotidian negotiations of marginalisations. Concomitantly inclusion and valuing of the epistemologies of minoritised groups facilitate meaningful participation of these groups in higher education contexts.Social implicationsThis article calls for a more nuanced, empathetic and critical understanding of issues related to race and disability within Australian and global academe. This is much required given rapidly shifting demographics within Australian and other higher education contexts, as well as the global migration trajectories.Originality/valueThis is an original research submission which contributes to debates around race and disability in HE. It has the potential to provoke further conversations and incorporates both hope and realism while stressing collaboration within the academic ecosystem to build metaphorical spaces of inclusion for the minoritised.

The chapters contributing to this edited volume are presented to assist readers with a critical examination of contemporary practice and offer a concerted response to improving inclusive education. The chapters address a range of important topics related to the field of critical disability studies in education and include sections dedicated to Schools, Higher Education, Family and Community and Theorising.