Moving forward: Inclusive education as the core of Education for All

Abstract

This article attempts to shed light on what is meant by the statement that inclusive education is the core of the Education
for All (EFA) agenda. Against the backdrop of some fundamental concerns relating to the EFA goals expressed by UNESCO’s Assistant
Director-General for Education, the article highlights the necessity and pertinence of inclusive education within the EFA
agenda. It also suggests how we can move the concept of inclusive education forward in this context, while illustrating some
key features for our understanding of inclusive education as the core of EFA.

Full text

1
Prospects, June 2009 issue
Moving forward: Inclusive education as the core
of Education for All
Renato Opertti, Jayne Brady and Leana Duncombe
Renato Opertti
IBE-UNESCO, PO BOX 199, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
e-mail: r.opertti@ibe.unesco.org
J. Brady
e-mail: j.brady@ibe.unesco.org
Leana Duncombe
L. Duncombe@ibe.unesco.org
Abstract
This article attempts to shed light on what is meant by the statement that inclusive education is
the core of the Education for All (EFA) agenda. Against the backdrop of some fundamental
concerns relating to the EFA goals expressed by UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for
Education, the article highlights the necessity and pertinence of inclusive education within the
EFA agenda. It also suggests how we can move the concept of inclusive education forward in this
context, while illustrating some key features for our understanding of inclusive education as the
core of EFA.
Keywords: Inclusive education; Education for All; Equity and quality of education
Moving towards a review of the EFA engagement
The educational agenda of the international community is increasingly being informed by a
discussion on supporting the attainment of the EFA goals by 2015 from a human rights
perspective. The progress made so far has revealed that a holistic vision and approach to the right

2
to lifelong learning opportunities are essential for achieving the inclusive and equitable societies
that the EFA goals pursue.
This holistic approach implies the reinterpretation of core educational concepts through a
highly complex and delicate social and political process. In particular, it challenges governments
to review the content and scope of concepts that have strongly permeated the educational agenda
in the last twenty years, such as equity and quality (Braslavsky, 1999). Despite this demanding
and sensitive task, the challenge will most probably prove ever more urgent in the light of the
current economic and financial crisis, which is having a noticeable impact on well-being and
social cohesion within many countries and regions.
What are the main challenges? Nicholas Burnett, the UNESCO Assistant Director-
General for Education, has highlighted six key areas of concern with regard to the EFA goals,
which affect the fundamental aim of achieving a more inclusive and equitable global society
(Burnett, 2008).
Access versus equity and quality
As a first concern, Burnett points out that the issues of equity and quality have not received
sufficient attention in the EFA goals. Most often, the EFA agenda focuses on the expansion of
access to primary education, rather than on guaranteeing equitable and quality processes and
learning outcomes within the framework of lifelong learning opportunities—from early
childhood care to adult education. This focus on access has been noticeable in the EFA concerns
and actions, which have traditionally and primarily focused on developing technical expertise,
teachers and learning resources, and mobilizing resources to build and develop more schools in
terms of equipment, materials and personnel. The traditional concept of equal opportunities has
not necessarily resulted in equitable and high-quality opportunities.
In comparison, the concept of equity has often been featured in a rather narrow sense in
the EFA agenda, mainly within the context of the collective political will of countries and
international organizations to support the expansion and democratization of primary education.
The interpretation of the EFA goals as access-oriented has been rather influenced by the
definition of equity as treating everyone equally. Based on this definition, it is assumed that

3
learners would be able to adapt to homogeneous education systems and curricula, regardless of
their differing circumstances and abilities.
This narrow definition of equity has been shaped by local cultures, values and capacities.
According to Ainscow et al (2006), equity can be seen as: (a) treating everyone equally;
(b) minimizing divergence across social groups by bringing the achievements of the less
advantaged to the same level as those of the more advantaged groups; (c) achieving a common
standard for all learners—for example, basic literacy and numeracy; and (d) meeting the needs of
all individuals through differential treatment in order to take student diversity into account. More
attention should be paid to examining and broadening our perceptions of this latter concept, as
this has serious and long-term policy implications for defining and achieving equitable education
systems.
Similarly, a closer analysis and a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of
quality are essential for the attainment of the EFA goals. To date, there has been a rather
restricted and separate discussion on this concept. By focusing on quality as an autonomous EFA
goal, the role of quality inputs (i.e. the availability of quality textbooks or learning resources in
general) and processes (the development of curricula at the school and classroom levels) has been
downplayed. As a result, the current EFA proposals and action plans do not sufficiently reflect a
holistic understanding of quality. A change of focus would allow education systems to respond
effectively to learners’ diversity and, consequently, better sustain EFA in the long term.
In fact, quality inputs and processes should be understood as being a key component of
the EFA agenda as a whole. While the figures show that the EFA agenda has contributed
positively to the attainment of more integrated and inclusive societies through broadened access,
research also clearly demonstrates that high levels of equity and quality are interdependent. This
suggests that the lack of comprehensive quality approaches could be a major factor in explaining
the alarming numbers of drop-outs and out-of-school children, as well as the cultural and social
gaps in the attainment of relevant learning and core life competencies (OECD, 2001, 2003,
2006). Although, compared to 1999, some 40 million more children are now in primary school,
many countries have not necessarily improved survival rates, since high repetition and drop-out
rates are still severely impeding the universalization of a full cycle of primary education
(UNESCO, 2007, 2008).

4
Going beyond a narrow interpretation of access in terms of investment dimensions would
mean paying more attention to equity and quality in order to integrate these concepts more
harmoniously within the EFA agenda. This implies a more process- and outcome-oriented
approach. As a result, a whole range of challenges emerges, which may include: (a) the
articulation of, and equilibrium between, universal and targeted social policies, which may
positively discriminate towards certain social groups (diversity within universalism);
(b) supporting the crucial role of childhood care and education as the foundation for solid
learning opportunities and outcomes; (c) the expansion of basic education to a minimum of nine
or ten years, facilitating a smooth institutional, curricular and pedagogical transition between
primary and lower secondary education; (d) promoting the advantages of a comprehensive and
integrated vision of the education system, which provides lifelong learning opportunities (instead
of a vertical and static divided system, broken into formal, non-formal and informal education);
and (e) guaranteeing the relevance of common curricular frameworks and learning tools to
effectively address learners’ diversities and to achieve solid learning outcomes.
The content of education
The second concern mentioned by Burnett suggests that the EFA goals do not pay sufficient
attention to the content of education. He acknowledges that this area is probably too sensitive to
be subject to international goals. However, he also suggests that it is quite difficult—if not
impossible—to advance in the implementation of international normative frameworks without
providing some minimum content in certain areas, such as peace education and education for
sustainable development. There has been a past tendency to adopt these concepts by simply
adding them on to traditionally overloaded and excessively subject-oriented curricula, which are
highly academic and depend upon teachers transmitting information for students to memorize.
Where content has been incorporated into basic and youth education, the traditional
fragmented and hierarchical vision of the EFA goals may also not necessarily correspond with
existing curricular frameworks1 or the role and profile of curricular co-developers and
1 A curriculum framework can be defined here as both: (a) a technical tool which establishes parameters for the
development of other curriculum documents, such as subject syllabuses; and (b) an agreed social document
that defines and expresses national priorities for education and aspirations for the future of the nation.

5
implementers, i.e. teachers. Introducing new educational content within curricular frameworks
must be founded upon educational policy visions and objectives, which provide a rationale and
an explanation of its specific role, while taking into consideration the teachers’ role and profile as
co-developers of the curricula, as well as their training and professional development. This task
involves reflecting on how new educational concepts will contribute to the expected student exit
profile, to the engagement of students in the learning process and to the achievement of core life
competencies.
Society’s ability to respond
The third area of concern referred to by Burnett is the ability of society to adapt to the evolving
EFA policy agenda. It is crucial that lifelong learning is perceived as touching upon many other
aspects of community life, and not just the traditional concepts associated with learning, such as
the school or childhood. However, in many societies, there is not yet a common understanding
and acceptance that education presents lifelong learning opportunities for both children and
adults, or that learning and the development of competencies are activities broadly applicable to
formal, non-formal or informal settings and provisions.
Linked to this, bad governance certainly constitutes a severe impediment to society’s
ability to respond actively and efficiently to changing societal contexts and demands. For this
reason, it must be emphasized that good governance in education plays a key role in meeting the
EFA goals, improving student learning and creating equal opportunities for all. It implies the
effective implementation of inclusive education systems in laying the foundations for lifelong
learning opportunities.
In line with this, the leading role of the government vis-à-vis other social actors may also
be emphasized. It is up to the government to pave the way for the appropriate conditions across
the many different societal levels to foster and implement the right to lifelong learning. For
example, the Conclusions and recommendations of the forty-eighth session of the International
Conference on Education (ICE) with regard to inclusive education, agreed upon by 153 countries,
recommended that Member States of UNESCO should “strengthen the government’s capacity to
orientate, promote and follow-up on the development of equitable education of high quality in
close partnership with civil society and the private sector” (UNESCO-IBE, 2008a). Education

6
system needs to endorse equity and be more flexible and permeable for a notion of lifelong
learning to take place.
From this perspective, working towards a common social policy framework for action is
extremely important, as is recognizing and utilizing tools such as government-led curricular
decentralization. The most recent EFA Global Monitoring Report has cautioned against the
tendency to rely on “blue prints”, especially as there is no conclusive evidence about the impact
of decentralization and privatization processes in terms of increasing the equity of the learning
outcomes (UNESCO, 2008). However, rather than debating about the value per se of such tools,
the current discussion could focus on how to generate and sustain an adequate balance between
national and local levels in terms of responsibilities and roles (i.e., a sound combination of
centralized, decentralized and private activities for the common good).
Facing political realities
The fourth area of concern mentioned by Burnett highlights the lack of recognition of political
realities in the EFA goals, such as a strong national demand to support the expansion of
secondary and technical and vocational education and training (TVET). Expanding secondary
education means enlarging basic education while simultaneously developing higher secondary
provision, which presents countries with major institutional, curricular and pedagogical
challenges in terms of reform. In particular, such reforms imply the removal of institutional,
curricular and pedagogical barriers between primary and lower secondary education, and the
establishment of a common curricular framework for developing core life competencies.
Secondly, for upper secondary education, it entails going from separate schools or tracks to a
comprehensive system with diverse and flexible avenues (links between secondary and TVET
sharing competency-based goals) to promote comprehensive learning objectives and approaches
(Schleicher, 2008).
Among other aspects, this reform should also consider the following key dimensions:
(a) the need to broaden the aims of secondary education and not just to perceive it as an
instrumental bridge from primary to tertiary education; (b) the necessity of focusing on achieving
a comprehensive citizenship education; (c) the obligation to ensure equity and diversification
across flexible curricular provisions; and (d) the need for a strong emphasis on engaging teachers

7
and students through diverse modes of instruction in order to respond effectively to learners’
diversity (i.e. project work, co-operative learning, tutorial guidance, competency-based
approaches and alternative assessment methods).
Higher education and research
As a fifth point, Burnett mentions the problem of the EFA goals incorporating in an insufficient
manner the crucial role of higher education and research. The EFA goals ought to consider
education’s role in creating critical leaders and experts who strengthen societal
“competitiveness”, where competitiveness is ultimately measured by the quality of the human
resources of a given society, as well as the ability to address diverse challenges in changing
environments.
Addressing higher education and research through the holistic EFA framework of lifelong
learning also presents challenging implications for all stakeholders. Tertiary institutions, for
example, should consider how they can better facilitate and support access and continuity of
high-performing secondary students from poor households. It would also be important to address
the role and implications of teacher education within the higher education domain. In the case of
Finland, quality teacher education programmes at the university level have led to highly qualified
and autonomous teachers, and have also served to strongly professionalize the teacher profession
and strengthen the education system as a whole. Better qualified teachers have a deeper
understanding and appreciation of learners’ diversities, by acting respectfully towards their
students, supporting their students individually and emphasizing goals like “learning to learn”,
problem-solving and analytical skills, as well as developing a sense of responsibility and ability
to co-operate (Halinen & Jaervinen, 2008).
Learning how to learn
The final area of concern on the EFA goals pointed out by Burnett relates to the lack of
consideration and social acceptance for new knowledge about learning competencies and
processes, as well as about the changing characteristics of learners. He highlights three relevant
perspectives on this issue:

8
1. Countries that do well in international assessments of learning are also the ones in which
there is not much difference in learning across classrooms and schools, demonstrating that
quality and equality in learning are complementary. The Programme of International
Student Assessment (PISA) findings also show that heterogeneous learning environments
provide better learning opportunities to socially disadvantaged groups (OECD, 2007).
Diversity is not a hindrance to attaining good learning outcomes for all students and may
even encourage outstanding learning outcomes by higher achievers (OECD, 2001, 2003,
2004, 2006).
Yet, these studies on learning processes are generally incongruous with what is accepted
by society in many countries today. There is still noticeable resistance towards social
heterogeneous settings, principally coming from societal bias and parental opposition,
teachers’ apprehensions about diversity, praise for excellence as an end in itself (i.e.
schools for gifted students) and the misrepresentations of children as low-achievers and
students with special needs.
2. New findings also show that “the brain is much more ‘plastic’ than was previously
thought and can literally reshape itself” (Burnett, 2008). These findings underscore the
relevance and importance of providing lifelong learning opportunities in different settings
(formal, non-formal and informal). Similarly, they demonstrate the importance of
studying how the learner learns (i.e. the use of the memory or the development of the
brain), as supported by evidence-based research on how the brain functions. Such
research could greatly inform teacher-training curricula and the diversification of
teachers’ practices. In addition, cognitive-based education could be an important feature
of learner’s curricula, making children aware of their own cognitive functions so as to
help them to learn more effectively.
3. The progressive emergence of the “New Millennium Learners” with a multi-tasking
profile (i.e. texting, surfing the Internet and doing homework simultaneously) also has
huge implications with regard to teaching and learning processes, the diversification of
modes of instruction, the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs), as
well as teacher education and professional development. In particular, there is great
potential in expanding the use of ICTs beyond their traditional status as a syllabus subject.
It can be used as a powerful tool for further democratizing learning opportunities amongst

9
the most disadvantaged groups (e.g. on-line distance learning) and for engaging all
students more effectively in learning processes. ICTs offer the potential to transform
schools into open settings involving the community at large, to focus the syllabi on
relevant and pertinent content, to provide strong support and to better connect teachers
and learners, especially at the school level.
Inclusive education in the context of a re-positioned EFA
It is clear that, if we are to achieve inclusive societies in the future, the EFA goals must be
reviewed and reinterpreted to take such concerns into account. When discussing the important
issues and challenges that this re-positioning would entail, the evolving concept of inclusive
education is highly pertinent.
Inclusive education has been defined, amongst other complementary perspectives, as
being closely associated with international efforts towards achieving Education for All (Ainscow
& Miles, 2008). The policy discussion on the concept of inclusive education in this context has
usually focused on two main concerns: (i) the dilemma between special education and integration
or mainstreaming and the methods for progressively incorporating students with special needs
into regular schools: investments in physical facilities and equipment; curricular renewal and
adjustments; changing teachers’ practices; and (ii) responding to the expectations and needs of
targeted excluded groups mostly linked to ethnic, gender, cultural, socio-economic and migrant
factors.
Incorporating students with special needs into regular schools has remained a major and
pending challenge. In general, students have been placed in regular schools without introducing
significant institutional and curricular changes in terms of school culture and teaching practices.
This is what Peters (2004) refers to as the placement paradigm; in other words, inclusive
education is conceptualized as a place and not as a service delivered. In practice, integration may
risk becoming a rhetorical device rather than a reality, being more about a spatial change of
school classrooms than a change of curricular content and pedagogy relevant to children’s
learning needs. Indeed, drop-out rates may increase among students with special needs when they
are integrated into mainstream schools that have not undertaken a comprehensive set of
institutional, curricular and pedagogical changes (Opertti & Belalcazar, 2008).

10
On the other hand, the targeted-group approach has actually widened the scope and
content of the concept of inclusive education, recognizing that inclusive education also raises
issues of cultural and social exclusion. In response to these concerns, governments have given
priority to certain excluded groups in policy planning and in the allocation of resources.
However, such prioritization has not necessarily gone hand-in-hand with innovative approaches
for providing relevant learning opportunities. The design and development of policies on
inclusive education should not be solely understood as the sum of initiatives and efforts in favour
of specific groups. The focus of inclusive education should not be reduced to targeted categories,
but rather be expanded on the provision of quality, friendly and diverse learning environments
and opportunities for all. According to Tutt (2007), the real challenge is to provide inclusive
settings in all schools, through the provision of a diverse continuum of services within a school
network that is articulated with other social policies.
To address this challenge, the UNESCO stance has certainly helped the concept of
inclusive education to evolve, mainly from the narrow debate on special education or integration
to a broad, comprehensive definition that is currently used by UNESCO:
a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through
increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion
within and from education. It involves changes and modifications in content, approaches,
structures and strategies, with a common vision that covers all children of the appropriate
age range and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all
children (UNESCO, 2005).
Among other things, this evolving conceptualization of inclusive education serves to provide a
universalized and holistic approach to quality education for all. This may prove to be highly
relevant for a re-positioned EFA agenda, allowing for a broader understanding of how the
concepts of equality, equity and quality interact (Acedo, 2008). Similarly, Mel Ainscow and
Susie Miles suggest that the concept of inclusive education, with its broader notion of all and a
greater appreciation of difference, could hold the key to improving the quality of education
(Ainscow & Miles, 2008).

11
At the same time, moving forward beyond a narrow and piecemeal conceptualization of
the EFA goals implies profound changes in the understanding of the theory and practice of
inclusive education. In the light of a refined EFA engagement and building upon the conclusions
and recommendations of the forty-eighth session of the ICE (UNESCO IBE, 2008a), inclusive
education can be seen as touching upon all dimensions and levels of the education system with a
view to attaining a high-quality equitable education. More specifically, it can be seen as a way of
contributing to the fulfilment and enjoyment of the right to education and to providing access to
lifelong learning opportunities within the holistic framework of EFA.
Inclusive education as the core of EFA
Firstly, inclusive education can be understood as the “presence (access to education and school
attendance), participation (quality of the learning experience from the students’ perspective) and
achievement (learning processes and outcomes across the curriculum)” of all learners (UNESCO
IBE, 2008b). This definition essentially implies the design and implementation of policies and
programmes that recognize and involve different dimensions (access, processes and learning
outcomes), levels (lifelong learning comprising formal and non-formal settings and provisions)
and units (the macro unit of national frameworks, the medium unit of school-based curricula, the
micro unit of classrooms, groups and teachers and the individual unit of the learner and his/her
personalized curriculum).
From this perspective, inclusive education can indicate clear and unified policy planning
processes, the allocation of resources and the impacts pursued and attained (i.e. with regard to
targeting socially disadvantaged groups). It also provides a comprehensive vision about learning
barriers in order to better visualize the interfaces and synergies between social inclusion and
inclusive education, and the need for developing inter-sectoral policies. In addition, inclusive
education contributes to orientating the design and implementation of models to address all
learners’ needs effectively (i.e. common curricular frameworks for early childhood, basic and
secondary schools; curricula structured around core life competencies and knowledge; school
networks and close co-ordination between social institutions, the community and parents).
Inclusive education also promotes the diversification of teaching practices so as to engage the

12
students effectively in the learning process (interdisciplinary team work; collaborative teaching;
peer tutoring; and specialized support from teacher resource centres).
A second key feature of inclusive education is the “never-ending search to find better
ways of responding to diversity” (Ainscow & Miles, 2008); that is to say, a dynamic and
evolving process of understanding, addressing and responding to the diversity of all learners by
providing personalized education and support, and by using their diverse cultural and social
profiles as contexts and opportunities for learning enhancement.
In particular, such personalized education can be understood as implying at least four core
dimensions, according to the United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills (2004):
1. Children and young people engaged in learning through a variety of learning opportunities
and modes of instruction;
2. The right learning choices made with the support of tutorial guidance;
3. Parents engaged in creating a supportive home learning environment; and
4. Maintaining high expectations for all children, regardless of their background and/or
needs.
A third key feature of inclusive education concerns the understanding, the identification and the
removal of barriers to participation and learning. This implies a profound change—from blaming
and penalizing students’ profiles for low achievement, to considering learning barriers from the
multi-dimensional perspective of cultural, social and educational factors. Such factors may stem
from both outside and inside the education system, i.e. the societal contexts and the so-called
“black box” of prejudices resulting from institutional and in-school factors. Many times, barriers
arise from “entrenched professional attitudes, class, sexist or racial prejudice, or from cultural
misunderstandings” (Rambla et al., 2008). A discussion of pedagogical approaches of deviance
compared to inclusive education can be extremely important to better understand, identify and
overcome such learning barriers. Skidmore (2004) provides five examples:
1. For students’ learning capacity, the deviance discourse establishes a hierarchy of
cognitive skills to measure the abilities of each student; however, the inclusion discourse
highlights the open learning potential of each student that can be progressively discovered
and stimulated;

13
2. With respect to explaining school failure, the deviance discourse points out that the main
learning difficulties are related to the deficiencies of the students’ capacities; but the
inclusion discourse argues that the main difficulty lies instead on the insufficient
responses generated by the curriculum;
3. The deviance discourse states that the learning process should be related to the students’
deficiencies; while the inclusion discourse emphasizes the need for reforming the
curriculum and the teaching/learning processes by implementing a cross-cutting pedagogy
in the school that addresses diversity;
4. The deviance discourse emphasizes the importance of specialized discipline knowledge as
the key to the teachers’ expertise; however, the inclusion discourse highlights the active
participation of the students in the learning process;
5. Relating to curriculum models, the deviance discourse argues that an alternative
curriculum should be designed for those students categorized as low achievers; yet, the
inclusion discourse emphasizes the need for a common curriculum for all students.
Lastly, the fourth key feature of inclusive education is the prioritization of policies and
programmes towards learners who are at risk of marginalization, exclusion or underachievement
(Ainscow & Miles, 2008). Bearing in mind that inclusive education is a universal approach to the
education system, targeting socially disadvantaged groups is one way of contributing to the
achievement of equality of opportunities in terms of access, processes and outcomes. High-levels
of drop-out, along with disparities and huge gaps in learning outcomes, represent major concerns
that underlie the need for developing focused policies.
Nevertheless, it is essential that prioritized policies are solidly grounded on universal
frameworks and embedded in a moral mandate—features that are common to all educational
provisions and aimed at attaining high-quality equitable education. Too often, targeted
educational policies are disconnected from the “normal” organization and functioning of the
education system, and are perceived as second-class education. There is also a real risk of
consolidating homogeneous educational environments through the development of focused
policies, reinforcing the process of fragmentation and segregation. Instead, inclusive education as
a guiding approach emphasizes the need for providing equivalent learning opportunities in all
schools, regardless of the targeted populations. Indeed, gathering students from diverse origins

14
and profiles in the same classroom is a strong signal of societal integration and cohesion, and can
also be more cost-effective as the learning opportunities and outcomes benefit from
heterogeneity.
The successful combination and synergies between policies and programmes with regard
to these four key features of inclusive education are grounded on an integrated and harmonious
vision of education, where all components are mutually implicated in their development and
impact. This comprehensive approach can pave the way to the progressive attainment of
inclusion in education and, hence, in society. Inclusive education can thus constitute an effective
way to implement and complement a re-positioned engagement of the EFA framework, which is
essential if we are to attain the EFA goals on time.
References
Acedo, C. (2008). Introduction—Inclusive education: pushing the boundaries. Prospects, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 5–13.
Ainscow, M.; Dyson, A.; Kerr, K. (2006). Equity in education: mapping the territory: The first annual report of the
Centre for Equity in Education. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester, Centre for Equity in Education.
Ainscow, M.; Miles, S. (2008). Making Education for All inclusive: where next? Prospects, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 15–
34.
Braslavsky, C. (1999). Los conceptos estelares de la agenda educativa en el cambio de siglo [Key concepts on the
educational agenda at the turn of the century]. In C. Braslavsky. Re-haciendo escuelas: un nuevo paradigma
en la educación latinoamericana. [Remaking schools: towards a new paradigm in Latin American
education]. Buenos Aires: Santillana.
Burnett, N. (2008). What kind of UNESCO for what kind of education? Hugh Gaitskell Memorial Lecture. Available
on-line at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_uccer/unesco-
pdfs/Hugh_Gaitskell_Lecture_Burnett__2008_.pdf
Halinen, I.; Järvinen, R. (2008). Towards inclusive education: the case of Finland. Prospects, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 77–
98.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: first results from
PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow:
further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: first results
from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: a
comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: science competencies for
tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.
Opertti, R.; Belalcazar, C. (2008). Trends in inclusive education at regional and interregional levels: issues and
challenges. Prospects, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 113–135.
Peters. S. (2004). Inclusive education: an EFA strategy for all children. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Rambla, X. et al. (2008). Inclusive education and social inequality: an update of the question and some geographical
considerations. Prospects, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 65–76.
Schleicher, A. (2008). Presentation at the 48th session of the International Conference on Education, Organisation
for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD): Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA). Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO IBE.
Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: the dynamic of school development. London: Open University Press.

15
Tutt. R. (2007). Every child included. London: Paul Chapman Publishing/The Association for all School Leaders
(NAHT).
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2007). Education for All Global Monitoring
Report 2008: Education for All by 2015. Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO; Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access
to Education for All. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2008). Education for All Global Monitoring
Report 2009. Overcoming inequality: why governance matters. Paris: UNESCO; Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. International Bureau of Education. (2008a).
Conclusions and recommendations of the 48th session of the International Conference on Education.
Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO IBE. (ED/BIE/CONFINTED 48/5.)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. International Bureau of Education. (2008b).
Inclusive education: the way of the future, pp. 13–19. Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO IBE.
(ED/BIE/CONFINTED 48/3.)
United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills. (2004). National conversation on personalised learning.
London: Department for Education and Science. (DfES 0919.) Available on-line at:
publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DfES%200919%20200MIG186.pdf
Author Biographies
Renato Opertti (Uruguay) is Programme Specialist, Capacity-Building Programme at UNESCO IBE, Geneva,
where he co-ordinates the Community of Practice in Curriculum Development. Masters in educational research, from
the University of the Republic, Uruguay. Consultant for ECLA, UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. He has
published numerous studies on social policy, poverty, education and curriculum issues.
Jayne Brady (United Kingdom) is Research Fellow, UNESCO IBE, Geneva. L.L.B. (Hons. I), Edinburgh
University; Masters in International Studies and International Law from the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva. Educator for the British Council in North Africa and a local NGO in Asia. Her
research explores the legal right to education and curriculum issues.
Leana Duncombe (Switzerland) is Research Fellow, UNESCO IBE, Geneva, Switzerland. B.A. (Hons) in
International Development and International Relations from McGill University, Canada, and a Masters in
International Affairs from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva. Her graduate
research focused on girls’ basic education and government education programmes in India. She has worked in both
early childhood education and adult education settings.