Education-line Home Page

‘Cultures of inclusion in Further Education?’

Sharon Rustemier (formerly Owen)

Research Student, The Open University

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton, September 2-5 1999, as part of Symposium ‘Cultures of Inclusion?’

Outline:

Abstract

Introduction: A cultural approach

What’s so distinctive about Further Education? The ‘generic culture’

Setting the scene

‘Inclusive learning’

Not ‘integration’ but ‘cohesion …

Wordplay – the language of exclusion

XXXX College: The ‘unique culture’

Introducing the research

Learning from Philip

Learning from the collected stories

Stepping back: The ‘wider culture’

Bibliography and References

Abstract

Inclusion in Further Education (FE) is a slippery concept. For students who have been identified as ‘having leaning difficulties and/or disabilities’ the guiding principle is ‘inclusive learning’ as outlined in the Tomlinson Report (Inclusive Learning, 1996) and is explicitly not to be equated with integration into the ‘mainstream’. Provision for others, such as those with mental health problems and other ‘disadvantaged groups’ in the community, is guided by the notion of ‘widening participation’ expounded in the Kennedy Report (Learning Works, 1997) and emphasises attracting them into FE in the first place. In this paper, drawing on Prosser’s (1999) categorisations of school culture, I argue that the social context and its influence on learning cannot be ignored if colleges of FE are to develop cultures of inclusion.

Introduction: a cultural approach

In a recent review of school culture research, Prosser (1999) identifies four ways to understand culture. ‘Wider culture’ refers to a school’s local and national context, and to the range of socio-cultural systems in operation (e.g. ethnic, professional, political). ‘Generic culture’ reflects how certain institutions may be similar to each other but distinct from others, e.g. a hospital is recognisably a hospital and distinct from a school. ‘Unique culture’ is what makes one school different from other schools, the values which determine in-house policies and practices. Finally, there is the ‘perceived culture’, insiders’ and outsiders’ views of a school.

In considering cultures of inclusion in FE, I will draw on each of these categories, since each impacts on and contextualises the others. I will first paint the generic picture of the FE sector: what is it that makes FE what it is? And what are the values underpinning inclusion in FE? As Bruner observes of the culturalist approach to education, culture is ‘a system of values, rights, exchanges, obligations, opportunities, power’ (1996, p.11) and individuals operating within the culture must adapt to that cultural system, often at some personal cost. Thus, after considering the generic FE approach to inclusion, I will explore the ‘unique culture’ in relation to one particular college by considering the experiences of Philip and other students categorised as having learning difficulties and/or disabilities. This may also be considered the ‘perceived culture’, as it concerns my own interpretations of what is happening, though as a participant observer in the college over a period of two years the distinction between insider and outsider views is not easily drawn. Finally, I will step back from this micro-analysis and consider the ‘wider culture’, the role of FE n society generally (though again this is my perception). I make no claim to an exhaustive analysis of inclusion from each of these viewpoints. Rather, I draw on Prosser’s categories to illustrate the complexity of a notion of a culture of inclusion in FE.

What’s so distinctive about Further Education? The ‘generic culture’

Setting the scene

Further education is a dynamic part of the education system with more students than the university sector, more staff than the power industries and a larger budget than the legal system.

Thus begins the Sixth Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment (1998, para 1). The Report goes on to note the great diversity within FE in England, evident in the number of courses and qualifications, the different modes of delivery, different types of institutions and the range of partnerships with local communities.

Such claims are supported by statistics: the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) funds over 400 colleges in England, which in 1996-97 catered for almost 4,000,000 students – an increase of 14% on 1995-96 and of 35% on 1993-94. Within the sector there are over 500 awarding bodies and in excess of 17,000 qualifications, including some 5,500 vocational qualifications (FEFC, 1997a).

Yet despite such diversity – indicative, according to the Select Committee, of the sector’s inclusiveness – FE has a unifying, distinctive mission: to bridge education and employment; to provide opportunities for a wide range of individuals; and to ‘give young people skills for their first job, as well as providing workers (and those seeking work) with training to enhance their employment prospects and improve their competences at work’ (House of Commons, 1998, para 16).

Other characteristics of FE include its postcompulsory status, a high staff and student turnover, ever-shortening programmes of study with the achievement of qualifications closely linked to funding, and frequent administrative and managerial restructurings. Colleges must respond to local community requirements as well as the demands of national government. There is no overall curriculum framework (Fish, 1995).

What might inclusion mean in such a set up?

‘Inclusive learning’

Inclusion in FE centres on the concept of inclusive learning, a notion quite distinct from that of inclusion/integration commonly used in educational discourse, which often invokes notions of social acceptance and belonging (e.g. see Florian, 1998). Inclusive learning in FE was developed initially in relation to provision for students considered as having learning difficulties and/or disabilities, although recommended as an approach for all students, and was introduced in Inclusive Learning, a report by the FEFC’s Learning Difficulties and Disability Committee (‘the Tomlinson Report’, FEFC, 1996a). The concept is defined thus:

Inclusive learning is a way of thinking about further education that uses a revitalised understanding of learning and the learner’s requirements as its starting-point. What the teacher does, what the college does, and what the sector does should be informed and shaped by this understanding. The aim is not for students simply to "take part" in further education but to be actively included and fully engaged in their learning. At the heart of our thinking lies the idea of "match" or "fit" between how the learner learns best, what they need and want to learn, and what is required from the sector, a college and teachers for successful learning to take place. By "inclusive learning", therefore, we mean the greatest degree of match or fit between the individual learner’s requirements and the provision that is made for them. (pp.25-26)

Significantly, what the student is intended to be included in is his or her own learning, and the emphasis throughout is on actively engaging the individual in learning. It is explicitly not about any kind of social inclusion:

The committee does not consider inclusive learning to be the same thing as "integration" or "including students". The thinking represented by the term "integration" is sometimes insufficiently concerned with the quality of a student’s learning; concentrating instead on the location and social aspects of a student’s educational experience. The thinking represented by the term "including students" can sometimes assume that students should accommodate themselves to the existing structures, processes, procedures and methods of the sector, individual colleges and teachers. By contrast, the concept of inclusive learning places the greatest importance on the quality of a student’s learning. The concept also shifts responsibility from the student to the sector, colleges and teachers. It is they that must fit or match themselves to students rather than the other way around. This match or fit can best be brought about by understanding more about how students learn. This understanding would then be used to determine how the sector, colleges and teachers must change in order to match students’ requirements. (FEFC, 1996a, p.32)

A move towards aligning the experiences of students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities with those of other students in the college (the ‘mainstream’) is mentioned but again in relation to a general approach to learning rather than specifically to locational or social integration. The report claims to offer:

an approach to learning which represents another step forwards, perhaps the final step, on the long march towards embracing students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities fully and unequivocally within the general approach to learning appropriate for all students. (FEFC, 1996a, pp.1-2)

In fact, the companion volume to the Tomlinson Report, Student Voices (FEFC, 1996b), includes students’ own concerns about the importance of social factors in their college experiences. Furthermore, despite variations in experience, students expressed an overall preference for integrated settings (p.37). It is unclear how these views have informed the conceptualisation of inclusive learning.

The Tomlinson Report identifies three criteria for assessing a college’s inclusiveness:

1. the extent to which the college is proactive in recruiting a wide variety of learners

2. how far teaching and learning promotes and supports inclusiveness

3. the extent to which the individual learning environments are provided which promote and support inclusiveness. (FEFC, 1996a, p.208)

Using ‘inclusiveness’ as a measure of ‘inclusiveness’ is, of course, problematic. A more pragmatic picture of what is meant can be gleaned from the indicators of inclusiveness revealed in the audit instrument associated with the Report. Thus an inclusive college would be characterised thus:

1. College actively seeks to recruit under-represented groups or learners for whom provision might be ‘difficult’ or ‘expensive’.

2. College trains staff in meeting requirements of a wide variety of learners.

3. Identification of students’ individual learning styles and approaches.

4. Identification, assessment, regular review and recording of students’ individual learning goals.

5. Teachers match individual learning styles of wide variety of students in use of teaching strategies, materials, aids, technology, grouping of students, pace and variety of approach.

6. College identifies components of individual learning environment for each student.

7. College guarantees to provide components of individual learning environment for students.

8. College ensures that learning environments match individual requirements of students.

9. College collects, collates, monitors and uses information about learner requirements and the way it is meeting them. (see pp.211-223)

The reference to ‘grouping of students’ is not supported by detailed attention in the body of the Report and seems to pay only lip service to the social context.

Not ‘integration’ but ‘cohesion’ ...

Whilst social integration is not on the agenda, subsequent reports which build on Tomlinson repeatedly refer to the role of FE in promoting social ‘cohesion’ (e.g. DfEE, 1998; 1999). The Annual Report 1996-97 states that FE is increasingly seen as ‘an engine of social cohesion’ (FEFC, 1997a, pp.8-9). The nearest explication of this term appears in Learning for the Twenty-First Century which states:

Social cohesion ... "whereby a sense of solidarity and common interest binds a healthy society, is best engendered by education. As the economic need for a more highly educated and skilled workforce increases, the uneducated will fall even further behind than they are now. We cannot risk increasing the gap between those with high skills, and those with low skills – or none at all. The uneducated will become disaffected and disenfranchised. Widespread alienation poses a threat to the stability of society...." (Fryer, 1997, p.14, quoting Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, 1996, Our Universities Our Future)

However, nowhere is social cohesion defined in detail.

The publication of Inclusive Learning was shortly followed by Learning Works (‘the Kennedy Report’, Kennedy, 1997) which focuses on widening participation, i.e. actively seeking to recruit learners from groups in the community currently under-represented in FE.

Again, FE is considered ‘a vital engine not only of economic renewal but of social cohesion’ (p.2):

... the achievement of economic goals and social cohesion are intertwined. A healthy society is a necessary condition for a thriving economy: where parents encourage and support their children’s education; where people in employment can adapt to change; where enterprise can flourish and where those seeking employment can acquire the skills they need for economic activity. Equally, economic prosperity is a major factor in enabling individuals, families and communities to play a full part in the personal, social and cultural dimensions of life. (Kennedy, 1997, p.16)

The social is clearly important in the ideas promoted in the Kennedy report:

Education has always been a source of social vitality and the more people we can include in the community of learning, the greater the benefits to us all. The very process involves interaction between people; it is the means by which the values and wisdom of a society are shared and transmitted across the generations. Education strengthens the ties which bind people, takes out the fear of difference and encourages tolerance. It helps people to see what makes the world tick and the ways in which they, individually and together, can make a difference. It is the likeliest means of creating a modern, well-skilled workforce, reducing levels of crime, and creating participating citizens. (Kennedy, 1997, pp.6-7)

The shame is that no connection is made between this and the highly individualised inclusive learning in Tomlinson. The Kennedy report thus recognises the importance of social relationships but stops short of examining such relationships within a college. Rather, its focus is on attracting people into learning in the first place, and not on what happens once they are enrolled.

The locational and social integration which Tomlinson claimed had been overemphasised in discussions on integration has been sadly neglected in notions of inclusive learning and widening participation.

Wordplay – the language of separation

One practice associated with this neglect of the social dimension is the language used to describe particular provision, which suffers from what has been called the ‘failure to treat integration as one pole of a bi-polar construct’ (Hall, 1997, p.117). Thus whilst denying that inclusive learning is concerned with integration, Tomlinson fails to acknowledge that the alternative is segregation. In FE, the euphemistic term ‘discrete’ provision is more commonly used, and occasionally ‘special’, but rarely ‘separate’ or ‘segregated’. That discrete provision is segregated is particularly clear when provision for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities is managed separately from other (mainstream) provision, structured around the ‘type’ of students involved than what it is they aim to achieve. Indeed, it is not uncommon for ‘Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities’ itself to be regarded as a ‘curriculum area’. Inclusive learning as conceived can leave such arrangements unchallenged.

This use of apparently progressive language which in reality masks the continuation of outdated and segregative practice has been noted in relation to care in the community. Hall’s comments on this seem pertinent also to FE:

What is breaking down, however, is not the fear and loathing of difference but our resolve as a society to continue with a contradiction which is so hard to sustain; we have understood the illogicality of our segregative practices but we have not yet overcome our revulsion for those we do not want to be around us. The response of the service system to this dilemma is the compromise of continuing to segregate whilst appearing to do the opposite, which for the education system means moving children onto the site of the ordinary school whilst maintaining social and educational distance. (Hall, 1997, p.123)

 

XXXX College: The ‘unique culture’

Introducing the research

In my research I have followed in detail the stories of nine young people over three years of their experiences in a college of FE. These stories illustrate well the problems of establishing and developing a culture of inclusion and the perils of ignoring the social. (See Owen, 1999 for a discussion of my methodological approach.)

Learning from Philip

In working with Philip, I have found that there is a great deal more to him as a person than suggested by the experiences and opportunities connected with the college. In fact, there are important areas of social and personal functioning which influence his potential as a learner in the college and which should be taken into account in the college’s provision of opportunities for facilitating this learning. More significantly, there are many areas in Philip’s life in which he is a competent social actor, where he manages intricate situations that can be a challenge to many of us – e.g. managing a relationship with the opposite sex, visiting the elderly, his peer relationships, his religious practices.

The social sphere is one of the most significant in Philip’s life: relationships with various family members, girlfriend, neighbours and college peers feature highly in any descriptions based on observation, interviews and informal conversation with him. Yet the social is one aspect of influence on an individual’s learning which his college’s official discourse on inclusive learning actively excludes, arguing that inclusive learning is not about the social aspect of learning, that it is not the same as integration, that what counts is the learner as an individual, not who he or she learns with.

It seems to me that to deny a young person the opportunity to display competence is an act of deliberate exclusion. Not only is there plenty of evidence of social competence outside of college which is relevant to Philip’s vocational interest in Care or which testifies to his ability to manage awkward situations. For example:

People stare at me on the bus, which I don’t like. Then I noticed that some people sleep on the bus and no-one seems to stare at them, so I thought if I close my eyes I’ll be alright [laughing], so that’s what I do now.

(interview, 9.xi.98)

Moreover, as the oldest student in the GNVQ group by four years, as the only male, and having moved from years of segregated (discrete) provision in another college, Philip has had to manage a complexity of relationships inside of college which might task the most confident among us. As Philip himself explains:

I’ve settled in OK but because I’m the only male in the group they talk to me, so ...

It does get a bit difficult sometimes. In the lessons they are talking, they are always talking about relationships ... generally I just laugh so it won’t get to me ...

(interview, 9.xi.98)

I was upset about [others in the group] a few weeks ago and there are things, I can’t talk to them about certain things. All the girls are talking about each others’ boyfriends and that, and I can’t talk to them about anything because I’m the only boy and feel embarrassed and don’t say anything. And they were saying things about, nasty things about men, and it was, and they would just say men were nasty and I thought ‘What should I do? What should I do?’... I just ignored their comments because I knew it wasn’t made exactly at me.... I manage to keep my work separate, but they’re now starting to see I react.

(interview, 24.v.99)

Yet these social dynamics have remained virtually unremarked on and unexploited by those responsible for Philip’s learning programme. Furthermore, Philip’s experiences in visiting the elderly and babysitting outside of college have been overshadowed by both his maleness and his ‘learning difficulty’ label in the setting up of a work placement on his course.

This begs two questions which may or may not share an answer: why does this happen, and what are the consequences? One outcome is that denying Philip the opportunity to function in an educational setting in a sphere in which he has proven competence (the social) – recognising him only as an individualised learner and ignoring the social setting in which learning takes place – ensures that he appears more incompetent than he actually is and reinforces and justifies the marginalised educational position signified by the labels he has acquired and the provision that has been made for him. A further consequence of keeping Philip in such a position is that he remains in ‘training’ and therefore off the unemployment statistics. Whether or not this is the intention behind such practices is not easy to ascertain. Whatever the case, the fact is that at 21 years of age, Philip has had a longer and more circuitous route onto the GNVQ Foundation Care programme than any of his fellow students, and his ‘Down’s’ and ‘learning difficulty’ labels, together with his gender, have played no small part in hindering this progression into the mainstream.

Learning from collected stories

In looking at individual stories, the apparent blocking of opportunities for some young people may feasibly be explained as anomalies, the unfortunate consequences of particular circumstances, the late arrival of the work placement officer at the college, say, or the lack of experience of local childcare employers in taking male trainees. Another reason that has been given for failing to fully support young people in their vocational aspirations in this particular college is management’s lack of commitment to inclusive learning which acts as a disincentive for staff to act imaginatively in individual cases that are different from the norm. However, when these individual cases are put together there emerges a picture which suggests something bigger and more powerful at work, a systematised effort to position groups of young people in certain ways. Many of the young people in the programmes that I have observed have resigned themselves to ‘learning goals’ that have been chosen for them, or have opted out and dropped out of the system altogether. Of the nine that I have worked with in detail, only two can be said to have successfully entered the mainstream in a way which promises to help them towards their aspirations. Six have ended up where they explicitly and repeatedly stated they did not want to be, some having been overtly blocked, others persuaded that this is the right ‘decision’. Philip, while having made it to the mainstream, still struggles against the prejudices which his educational and social labels invoke.

Table 1 summarises the college careers of these students and shows that while each of them is considered by the college as ‘successful’ in terms of demonstrating ‘progression’, i.e. leaving the Prevocational Training programme and enrolling onto another programme, in terms of their own vocational interests, aspirations, and abilities, any ‘success’ is significantly more dubious.

Table 1: Outline of the careers of students designated as having 'learning difficulties and/or disabilities' in terms of vocational interest and 'progression'

Student ‘Progression’
Chris 1996- : Initial and lasting interest in office work, with a short-lived interest in retail in a sports shop; definitely wants to go on government training scheme (Training Credits). Throughout education experts dispute whether or not he has a learning difficulty. Parents want him to go residential out-county.

1999: After three years on Prevocational Training, he ‘progresses’ to a course for adults with learning difficulties in the same college.

John 1996- : Joined Prevocational Training with an interest in motor mechanics; attended motor mechanics sessions but work experience in retail.

1999: After three years on Prevocational Training, enrolled on government training scheme (Training Credits) ostensibly to do motor mechanics but has found himself doing retail and powerless to change it.

Alan 1996- : Joined Prevocational Training with an interest in motor mechanics; attended motor mechanics sessions but work experience in retail.

1999: After three years on Prevocational Training, enrolled on government training scheme (Training Credits) ostensibly to do motor mechanics but has found himself doing retail and powerless to change it.

Rebecca 1996- : Long standing interest in childcare; first year of Prevocational Training advised that retail more suitable so did retail work experience though in the last year did childcare work experience.

1999: After three years on Prevocational Training, moved onto government training scheme to study child care. Having been on it for 10 months has ‘decided’ that retail would be best.

Susan 1996- : Long-standing interest in catering; three years on Prevocational Training included work experience in housekeeping and local college kitchens.

1999: Using Training Credits to do NVQ in housekeeping.

Steven 1996- : Longstanding interest and lots of extra-college experience in sports training; denied the opportunity to study for NVQs because lack of learning support.

1999: On a programme to improve literacy and with work experience in sports centre.

It appears, then, that Philip’s experiences together with the educational careers of the young people in Table 1 suggest that a significant degree of social manipulation and positioning takes place in the college.

The data also indisputably demonstrates that it is not simply a case of students ‘ending up’ being marginalised but that the college is actively doing things to ensure this happens. The exclusion is active, not passive, and the means by which this is carried out need to be brought into the open and challenged. One such means has been highlighted in this paper – ignoring social considerations.

Excluding opportunities which would allow young people to challenge the categories into which they have been placed is a powerful exclusionary process. It becomes even more potent when conjoined with manipulating the choices of young people and the notions of adulthood to which they aspire. While some young people, like Philip, continue to confront the system and fight to do what they want to do, others are subtly manipulated until their wishes conform to others’ expectations. Rebecca’s story is illustrative – see Table 1 and the following extract from an interview during her third year in College.

... What’s the difference between work experience on the government training scheme and work experience on the Prevocational Training programme you were on before?

Well, this one you do three days but now I’m doing two so it’s more better for me now. I don’t like going to college all week, I found that really tiring, but placement is really good because you like it’s more fun having two or three days than one because it’s too long to have it again, like it keeps going round.

Why are you doing an extra day in college now?

Because they’re going to change it in September, well not September, July. I’m leaving my placement for good in July, when the July term’s finished, then hopefully in September I might get something completely different for paid work because hopefully next year when I finish my course they said I might not be able to get a job in care but because this course is really good. They said carry on with this course because it’s still quite useful for the future because if I want to become a mother one day I need to know more so...

So why do they think you might not get a job in care?

It’s just because my placement said that you have to have high education and I didn’t have GCSEs or A levels or anything like that and they want, they say it’s mainly parents who’ve got children, with children, who’ve got children at the school so...

How do you feel about that?

I don’t mind. I was a bit annoyed but I can understand why, so ...

So what might your other placement be if you can change it?

Well, I’m hoping to work in my dad’s warehouse because my dad works in Lion Publishing and they have a warehouse and I’ve worked there before because in FTA when I had that Wednesday off, Wednesdays I used to go in to my dad’s warehouse and helped out there and I used to get paid there, so hopefully I should get a job there because that’s what I want to do, work in a Christian environment, and I’d get used to it there because I know quite a lot of people and so does my dad because, so, yes ....

And you’re happy with that?

Yes I’m just hoping I can work there but if I can’t then I’ll have to find something else. I don’t want to work in a shop because that put me off, especially in the co-op.

So you definitely don’t want to do that.

Well I don’t mind working in like other shops like, what’s it, like toyshops but the only thing is what about the tills. I don’t want to work on tills. And definitely not a food shop, lots of food and stuff just confusing me, ooh the customers come up and talking puts me off.

But it would be nice to work with Christians so working in the warehouse at Lions would be ...?

Yes, mainly there’s a lot of Christians there....

(interview, 26.v.99)

In finally coming round to the idea of working in Retail not in Care, and in believing this to be her own choice, Rebecca’s story represents a prime example of the manipulation of thought. She ends up working in an occupational area of her own choosing (and is therefore more likely to comply with its demands than rebel, less likely to fall unemployed again). This act of making a choice related to the world of work seems to boost her own concept of maturing thus she is making the transition to adulthood in a way satisfactory to her. She has demonstrated ‘progression’ by moving onto something in which she can be sure of success. The college has thus ‘succeeded’ on three counts – that of facilitating the ‘transition to adulthood’, of demonstrating ‘progression’, and by creating a compliant employee. Furthermore, it has pleased Rebecca’s parents who never thought she would get a job and will therefore certainly consider sending her siblings to the institution, and it has built up good relations with employers by sending them the kind of young people they desire (‘employable’) rather than young people with ‘unrealistic’ aspirations.

Such positioning is, of course, anathema to ideas of inclusion since certain young people are continually being positioned on the periphery, i.e. excluded. Not only are they on the periphery within the college, but they are ‘prepared for’ life on the periphery of society in terms of employment, progression and learning opportunities, earning potential, status and so on. Indeed, it could be said that what characterises FE for these students is a culture of exclusion.

Stepping back: the ‘wider culture’

In Fig.1 I attempt to illustrate the wider context of such a culture. Clearly, the links I have made vary in tenacity: my data provides a great deal of evidence for the exclusionary processes within FE but the link I have made with social stability may be more open to challenge. Nevertheless, I cannot but wonder how far this idea of social stability – where everyone ‘knows’ and accepts their place in society – maps onto the government’s notion of social cohesion. As Bruner has Commented, ‘education is never neutral, never without social and economic consequences’ (1996, p.25).

Bruner also notes the anomaly between education as an instrument of individual realisation and as a reproductive technique for maintaining a culture, a tension very evident in the present discussion. Yet as he states:

Education is risky, for it fuels the sense of possibility. But a failure to equip minds with the skills for understanding and feeling and acting in the cultural world is not simply scoring a pedagogical zero. It risks creating alienation, defiance, and practical incompetence. (Bruner, 1996, pp.42-43)

It seems to me that while ‘inclusive learning’ is ostensibly about inclusion and motivated by a desire to value each individual and provide educational opportunities of equal quality for all, it is conceived in such a way that easily allows exclusionary practices to continue. In its emphasis on the individual learner, ‘inclusive learning’ explicitly rejects the social context of learning and renders the argument over discrete versus integrated provision meaningless. Therefore, while colleges can claim to be working towards ‘inclusiveness’, the conceptualisation of that inclusiveness easily co-exists with processes of exclusion.

Bibliography and References

Blunkett, David (1999), ‘Empowering People and Communities for a Better Future’, speech

Bruner. Jerome (1996), The Culture of Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

Corbett, Jenny (1999), ‘Inclusivity and School Culture: the Case of Special Education’, in Prosser, Jon (ed) (1999), School Culture, (London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd), pp. 122-132

DfEE (1999), DfEE Strategic Framework

DfEE (1998), The Learning Age: Further Education for the New Millennium: Response to the Kennedy Report (London: DfEE)

FEFC (1997b), Circular 97/12 Validating Self-Assessment

FEFC (1996a), Inclusive Learning: Report of the Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee (London: HMSO)

FEFC (1996b), Student Voices: The Views of Further Education Students with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities (London: Skill)

FEFC (1997a), Annual Report 1996-97 (Coventry: FEFC)

FEFC (1997c), Circular 97/22 Joint Working: Audit and Inspection

FEFC (1998a), Circular 98/02 Annual Report to the Secretary of State on Students with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities

FEFC (1998b), Circular 98/07 Consultation on the Recommendations of the Widening Participation Committee

FEFC (1998c), Circular 98/04 Performance Indicators 1996-97 to 1997-98

FEFC (1996c), Provision for Students with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities: Good Practice Report

Fish, John (1995), ‘Comprehensive Further Education: An Inclusive Educational Framework for Colleges’, in Maudslay, Elizabeth & Dee, Lesley (eds) (1995), Redefining the future: Perspectives on students with learning difficulties and disabilities in further education (London: Institute of Education), pp.45-58

Florian, Lani (1998), ‘Inclusive practice: What, why and how?’ in Tilstone, Christina, Florian, Lani & Rose, Richard (eds) (1998), Promoting Inclusive Practice (London: Routledge), pp.13-26

Fryer, R.H. (1997), Learning for the Twenty-First Century (London: National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning)

Hall, John T. (1997), Social Devaluation and Special Education: The Right to Full Mainstream Inclusion and an Honest Statement (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers)

House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment (1998), Education and Employment – Sixth Report

Kennedy, Helena (1997), Learning Works: Widening Participation in Further Education (Coventry: FEFC)

Owen, Sharon (1999), ‘Researching Inclusive Learning in Further Education: Evolution of a Methodology’, Paper presented at Research Students Network Conference, University of Oxford, March 1999

Prosser, Jon (1999), ‘The Evolution of School Culture Research’, in Prosser, Jon (ed) (1999), School Culture, (London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd), pp.1-14

 

Figure 1: Explaining the maintenance of marginal positions for young people in Further Education?

1373g1.gif (10029 bytes)

This document was added to the Education-line database on 04 April 2000