The idea of inclusion: Conceptual and empirical diversities in Germany

Abstract

In the mid-1990s, inclusion was introduced into discussions on education; today, we still do not have a precisely defined concept of inclusion. This article focuses its attention in this context on Germany, which in ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009 embarked on the path towards realising an inclusive system of education. The question examined here is what theoretical–conceptual ideas concerning the inclusion approach can be found in the scientific-legal discourse in the German-speaking region and to what extent have these found their way into school praxis. Furthermore, an attempt is undertaken to assign the ideas people working practically in the school system have about inclusion to the definition categories of the recently published attempt at systematisation by Göransson and Nilholm. The results suggest that the definition categories can also be applied to the German context. In line with the academic discourse, inclusion is interpreted in conceptual terms differently by school administrators and teaching staff. Inclusion is mainly understood in relation to the educational sector and has no clear alignment in terms of the target group in question. Clear differentiation criteria concerning the implications of how inclusion is understood are the school form in which teachers are employed, the prior experience of integrative/inclusive teaching and the function they fulfil in school.

Keywords

Conceptual analysis inclusive education special needs survey

Introduction

In 1994, inclusion was presented as a promising new pedagogic approach at the World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994). Since then, it has grown to be an internationally discussed and empirically investigated idea (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014a) and has further been promoted by the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Nonetheless, inclusion is by no means a clearly defined concept (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014a; Reindal, 2016). Rather, it is marked by unelaborated ideas and diverging notions. By now, however, there have been a number of attempts within the English-language literature to systematise this diversity, most recently that of Göransson and Nilholm (2014a; on the scholarly reactions to their work, see Dyson, 2014; Florian, 2014; Göransson & Nilholm, 2014b). In a study based on prior reviews and the outcome of a recent search of databases covering the period 2004–2012, the authors found four different interpretations of inclusion which gave rise to four qualitatively different categories of definitions. These definitions were related hierarchically to each other employing stricter criteria concerning what counts as inclusive education as one goes from A to D (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Different types of definition of inclusion and their hierarchical relations (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014a, p. 268): (A) placement definition – inclusion as the placement of pupils with disabilities/in need of special support in general education classrooms, (B) specified individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of pupils with disabilities/in need of special support, (C) general individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils and (D) community definition – inclusion as creation of communities with specific characteristics (which could vary between proposals).

In Germany too, the concept of inclusion has become in recent years a key word in political, economic and public discussions – and here too diverging notions are to be found (Kruse & Dedering, 2016).

Considering this situation, this article pursues the question of which theoretical and conceptual notions of the inclusion approach are to be found in German academic and legal discourse. Furthermore, it investigates which notions of inclusion are articulated by actors within the education system itself. The notions of those in the education system will then be compared with those elaborated in German academic and legal discourse to ascertain the extent to which these have passed from theory into practice and likewise to see whether there is a concept of inclusion that has taken hold with school administrators and teachers (perhaps as a result of activities within educational politics). At the same time, we will try to classify the notions of those in the educational system according to the definitions of Göransson and Nilholm’s (2014a) systematisation attempt in order to assess their validity within the German school system.

The authors assume that the ideas connected with a particular approach influence the attitudes taken towards it and that they ultimately lead to specific activities or ways of acting. In relation to inclusion, educational policy makers, for example, when allocating resources orient themselves with respect to their own particular understanding of the concept in question, as do teachers in the planning and implementation of classes. For this reason, the authors see it as important to clarify the concept of inclusion.

In answering the questions outlined above, this article draws on relevant German-language literature as well as legal documents important within the German context. At the same time, it utilises the results of an empirical research project currently being carried out at the University of Erfurt on teachers’ attitudes towards and experiences with inclusion in one German state (Lower Saxony).¹

Against this background, we will offer a theoretical and conceptual perspective on inclusion in Germany (section ‘Theoretical and conceptual perspective on inclusion in Germany’) before presenting the results of our own study on the understanding of inclusion among those in the education system (section ‘The understanding of inclusion among those in the German education system – our own study’). We will conclude by discussing some implications for school administration (section ‘Inclusion in German academic literature and education system – a conclusion’).

Theoretical and conceptual perspective on inclusion in Germany

The inclusion approach, which originates in the Anglo-American world, was introduced around the turn of the millennium into German-language discussions of pedagogical relations to diverse school pupils. Within the scholarly literature, two principal understandings of inclusion emerged (Biewer & Schütz, 2016).

Inclusion – a definition of the concept

One narrow definition of inclusion is as a pedagogical approach that aims to place school pupils with special pedagogical needs in the general school system and to teach them alongside school pupils without such special needs. By contrast, a broader definition sees inclusion as a general social goal that can be conceptually described, drawing on Hinz (2004, 2012), according to the following four dimensions:

Valuation of human diversity: Inclusion welcomes the differences between people and groups and hence views human diversity positively.

Relevance of all aspects of human diversity: Inclusion is not limited to groups of people with disabilities but attends to the whole spectrum of human diversity and attempts to take account of all its aspects (for instance, gender, ethnic background and cognitive abilities, among others).

Political dimension: As an approach rooted in the civil rights movement, inclusion is directed against every form of social marginalisation and attempts to expose and actively dismantle present barriers. The inclusion approach hence has a political component.

Vision of an inclusive society: Inclusion takes account of all areas of life and entails a vision of an inclusive society in which every person has the unrestricted and self-determined right to participate in society and in which every form of marginalisation is excluded as soon as it presents.

On the basis of this second definition, a broader approach to inclusion aims at the creation of an inclusive educational system where all school pupils have unrestricted access to general education and are taught together in heterogeneous and inseparable learning groups. To this end, educational institutions have to be created that are ‘schools for everyone’, adapting to the individual requirements of their school pupils while observing and productively using the diversity of school pupils as a resource within the educational process.

Contrasting the two approaches, it is possible to say that the narrow and broad understandings of inclusion primarily differ in their scope: the narrow understanding relates only to the educational system, whereas the broad one is intended as an approach incorporating all of society, attending to all areas of life and hence clearly going beyond the educational system. Moreover, the broad understanding of inclusion considers the whole spectrum of human diversity, whereas the narrow one looks exclusively at school pupils with special pedagogical needs. The particular emphasis of the narrow approach could result in a partial loss of the innovative potential of inclusion if, for example, no other groups of people threatened by marginalisation are considered alongside those with disabilities, or if inclusion is discussed only within the educational system, leaving other areas of life untouched. In this context, the German-speaking literature repeatedly refers to the fact that we cannot simply assume that a society automatically becomes inclusive when only its educational system is reformed.

Integration and inclusion – a definition of their relationship

Even before the introduction of inclusion, various pedagogical approaches to dealing with the diversity of school pupils can be found in German-language scholarly literature, these having been developed in the 1970s within the context of integration research. Like inclusion, integration approaches aim at the self-determined and unrestricted social participation of marginalised groups, placing a strong emphasis on the importance of disabled people and involving various different understandings of integration (Hinz, 2004). These do not permit a single formulation of the concept, which makes it significantly more difficult to define the relationship between the terms ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’, resulting in a controversial discussion of the possibility of their being clearly separated. The academic discussion of the relationship between integration and inclusion contains various positions, which are primarily influenced by their fundamental understanding of integration. Taking an understanding of integration as based on special pedagogical needs, many innovations can be found in the inclusion approach. Inclusion can be understood as an optimised and expanded form of integration – ‘optimised’ in terms of dismantling problems present in the practical development of integration and ‘expanded’ in terms of comprehensively including all school pupils (Sander, 2004). To separate further the special-needs understanding of integration from inclusion, Hinz (2001) provides a table of differences between integrative and inclusive practice, which have, in turn, been forcefully described by Textor (2015; Table 1).

Table 1.

Integration and inclusion in practice.

Integration	Inclusion
Individual-orientated perspective: incorporation of children with special pedagogical needs within a common school.	Systematic perspective: life and learning for all children within a common school.
Two-group theory: different resources according to level of impairment; categorisation of resources for children; special support and plans for children with special needs and adaptation of group lessons for their needs; specially trained teachers as support for children with special education needs, also helping with social integration.	Theory of a heterogeneous group: comprehensive resources for all; resources for systems; group and individual learning for all children via individualised work, but group reflection and planning; specially trained teachers as support for regular teachers, classes and schools.
Mainly the concern and job of special education and special-needs teachers; this leads to an expansion of special-needs teaching within general school education.	Mainly the concern and job of general school education, leading to a change of both special education and general school education.

However, representatives of the integration approach do not regard inclusion as bringing anything new on a theoretical or conceptual level; rather, it essentially describes what has already been understood for years under the concept of integration. Nonetheless, contrasting integration and inclusion, we can find a central difference between them operating on a level above the definition of the individual concepts: perspective. An integrative perspective always places its focus on the people to be integrated, whereas inclusion focuses on social systems and not individual people. From these perspectives, at least two consequences for educational practice can be derived (Textor, 2015). In the context of integration, school pupils continue to be categorised, since additional support requirements are provided on an individual basis when they are deemed necessary, and special-needs school pupils within regular schools are considered as separate groups. By contrast, in the context of inclusion, resources are distributed to schools at the level of the system as a whole and then used on-site, without the need to label school pupils beforehand.

Moreover, inclusion creates a binding legal basis via which children and teenagers with disabilities are provided with access to general education, which if necessary can be claimed as a legal right. In the context of integrative practice, before the introduction of inclusion, there was no corresponding legal right, meaning that integrative schooling only took place on a voluntary basis and as a result of the good will of the actors involved.

Inclusion – a legal right

In Germany, the right to social participation that accompanies inclusion is primarily promoted by the United Nations CRPD. This has been legally binding since 2009. In particular, the rights of persons with disabilities have been comprehensively strengthened. For education, Article 24 of the Convention is particularly important, reading as follows:

States Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realising this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning. (United Nations, 2006)

Pursuant to Article 24 of the Convention, Germany has committed itself to creating an inclusive education system in which people with disabilities cannot be excluded from the general education system and where full access to inclusive education in primary and secondary schools is made possible.

In reality, this requirement applies to a school system that has always been highly selective – in a twofold sense. First, it distinguishes between a regular school system, in which the majority of children are taught, and a special system for children who require special support because of an impairment or disability. Second, the regular system and the special system are highly differentiated. Children in the regular school system, after a 4-year primary school period together, depending on their ability to perform and their performance shown at secondary level, are sent to different forms of secondary school (Gymnasium, Realschule, Hauptschule or schools offering different kinds of education). In the special school system, children are sent to specific types of special school depending on their diagnosed needs.² In order to meet the requirements of the CRPD, Germany’s traditional, highly selective education system faces great challenges.

The specific areas of responsibility in Germany must be taken into account: the Federal Republic of Germany is made up of 16 federal states (Bundeslaender), which, following the principle of cultural sovereignty, are responsible for education and have thus developed different school systems, educational policy objectives and administrative traditions.

In order to align the variations, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the States in the Federal Republic of Germany (Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK)) was established. Based on an agreement between the federal states, the purpose of the KMK is to unite ministers and senators of the states responsible for education, higher education and research as well as cultural affairs.

With regard to the ratification of the UN CRPD, which took place at the federal level, the KMK formulated in 2011 broad recommendations for the implementation of an inclusive school system in Germany. These were adopted by the 16 states but have been implemented to varying degrees. The realisation of an inclusive education system has thus progressed to different degrees in the individual states. Nevertheless, the joint instruction of school pupils with and without disabilities/special support requirements is now legally anchored as the preferred form of education in all state education laws.

In this article, on account of the study presented below, 1 of the 16 federal states is considered separately: Lower Saxony. Here too the relevant legislation has changed noticeably. According to Article 4 of the Lower Saxony School Act (NSchG), all public schools have been inclusive since the school year 2013/2014, providing all school pupils with low threshold and equal access to all public schools and jointly educating and teaching pupils with and without disabilities. In addition, it is stipulated that the choice of the place of study is up to the child or parental authority, even though a pupil may, according to Article 59 paragraph 4, be assigned to a ‘more appropriate form of school’ by the responsible school authority, provided that he or she can only be adequately supported there and that the child’s well-being necessitates the change of school (NSchG, 2015).

Corresponding regulations can also be found in the education laws of other states according to which the separation of certain school pupils is legally anchored, and ‘un-includable’ children and teenagers can theoretically be transferred to special schools against their will (or that of the parental authority). In fact, there are several cases in different states where pupils’ legal right to inclusive education was not granted even after the entry into force of the CRPD, and individual pupils were transferred to special schools against their wishes (or those of the parental authority).

Interim conclusion

With inclusion, a new technical term was introduced into German-language discussion of education at the turn of the millennium regarding how to deal with the diversity of school pupils. It is increasingly replacing the concept of integration, used up to now. Attempts at defining inclusion can be summarised as narrower and wider conceptions that differ significantly in their scope. On the legal and administrative level, inclusion is negotiated in terms of the UN CRPD, which provides for the equal participation of people with disabilities in all areas of life and relates all proposed changes primarily to the interests of these people. This interpretation of the inclusion approach reduces the risk that part of inclusion’s potential for innovation will be lost.

In the discussion, a further conceptual interpretation of inclusion is generally advocated, and the entire range of human diversity in all areas of life is taken into account. In the literature, it is occasionally suggested that the inclusive approach in Germany is usually understood in the sense of the narrower conceptual definition.

The understanding of inclusion among those in the German education system – our own study

In the German-speaking world, the conceptual content of inclusion has primarily been negotiated at the theoretical and conceptual level. It is less often the subject of empirical research. Thus, hardly any empirical evidence can be drawn from academic literature on how the inclusion approach is interpreted by actors in the school system itself. This is the starting point for a research project at the University of Erfurt, which focuses on the views of inclusion among those in the education system itself (in this case, school administrators and teachers). The insights gained will contribute to what has so far been an insufficient body of research.

Questions and methodological design

The research project examines the overarching question of how school administrators and teachers view inclusion, by which factors their attitudes are influenced and which experiences they have had working in an inclusive context. In 2013, a total of 287 employees in the school system of Lower Saxony were interviewed in a standardised written survey on various aspects of inclusion.

On the basis of the interviewees’ experiences with inclusive work, 15 volunteers from the sample were selected according to further criteria (for instance, school type) and questioned in 2015 in the form of qualitative interviews. This served the purpose of depicting their current situation in as detailed a fashion as possible.

Within the framework of the empirical study, it was determined how inclusion is understood by school administrators and teachers and how far their respective notions relate to selected socio-demographic factors. To this end, respondents to the standardised survey were asked to present their own understandings of inclusion in writing. After an initial review of the data, 251 interviewee statements were included in the further analysis. First, this involved assessing them in terms of content. Second, the statements were classified according to the categories that Göransson and Nilholm (2014a) presented as a result of their extensive analysis of empirical studies on inclusion:

Placement definition – inclusion as placement of pupils with disabilities/in need of special support in general education classrooms.

Specified individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of pupils with disabilities/in need of special support.

General individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils.

Community definition – inclusion as creation of communities with specific characteristics (which could vary between proposals).

The school system employees were divided into groups according to selected socio-demographic factors and examined for significant differences in their understandings of inclusion. In addition to age, gender and inclusion-specific experience, the type of school at which teachers were active during the survey was considered. In addition, teachers’ and school administrators’ understandings of inclusion were examined separately and in terms of statistically significant differences.

Results regarding the understanding of inclusion among those in the education system in Lower Saxony

The following will first elaborate on the findings regarding the understanding of inclusion among actors in the school system as a whole. Second, the findings regarding the interrelations between the interviewees’ understandings of inclusion and their socio-demographic characteristics will be reported.

It can, first, be stated that Göransson and Nilholm’s (2014a) definition classes in their hierarchical step model are reflected in the statements of the teachers and school administrators surveyed. The percentage distribution of the four inclusion understandings in the sample (see Figure 2) shows that the education employees surveyed most frequently (38%) understand inclusion according to the ‘community definition’, thus relating it to communities or to society as a whole, and which is characterised by specific features, while 32 percent followed the clearly narrower ‘placement definition’. In total, 22 percent of teachers and school administrators understood inclusion according to the ‘generalised individual definition’, while only 8 percent, a relatively small proportion, employed a concept according to the ‘specified individualised definition’.

Figure 2.

Percentage distribution of understandings of inclusion among education system employees in the sample group.

Although the ‘community definition’ is nominally the most represented here, none of the four fundamental concepts of inclusion was overwhelmingly reflected in the statements of the teachers and administrators interviewed. From this, we can, first, conclude that the concept of inclusion within the education system – as within international and national academic discourse – is interpreted differently and sometimes vaguely.

Regarding the context within which inclusion is located, 62 percent of those interviewed (those following the ‘placement definition’, ‘specified individualised definition’ and the ‘general individualised definition’) tended to consider inclusion as a specifically education-related concept and thus left out areas of life unconnected with education. Only in the statements of teachers who described inclusion according to the ‘community definition’ was it explicitly mentioned that the concept can also be applied outside of the education system, for example, in the workplace or sometimes in society as a whole.

Regarding the specific groups targeted by inclusion, it can be stated that 40 percent of the interviewees (those following the ‘placement definition’ and the ‘specified individualised definition’) assumed that the inclusion concept relates solely to the interests of disabled pupils. However, 22 percent (those following the ‘generalised individual definition’) expressed the idea that inclusion also takes into account other disadvantaged groups. The statements of respondents who were assigned to the ‘community definition’ show variations: some respondents explicitly referred to people with disabilities, while others took account of groups threatened by different forms of marginalisation.

We can also conclude from the interviewees’ statements that 68 percent of teachers and administrators (those following the ‘specified individualised definition’, the ‘general individualised definition’ and the ‘community definition’) understand inclusion as implying, alongside structural changes, a comprehensive further development of teaching itself.

Regarding the relationships between interviewees’ concepts of inclusion and their personal characteristics, the results, first, show that gender was not a significant factor (χ²(3, N = 251) = 5.72, p = .126), and neither was age (χ²(6, N = 250) = 11.05, p = .087). However, significant differences in concepts of inclusion were shown to correlate with prior experience of integrative or inclusive teaching (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Percentage distribution of understandings of inclusion according to prior experience.

It is striking that those interviewed without prior experience of integrative or inclusive teaching more frequently expressed an understanding of inclusion according to the ‘placement definition’ and hence reduced it to the placing of disabled pupils within the regular school system, not taking account of further changes on the concrete level of teaching. Regarding the schools at which interviewees were active at the time of the survey, significant differences could be identified in their understandings of inclusion (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Percentage distribution of inclusion understanding according to school type.

It should be emphasised here that teachers show significant differences in their understandings of inclusion depending on whether they work in special-needs schools, primary schools (χ²(3, N = 146) = 8.88, p = .031) or secondary schools (χ²(3, N = 140) = 21.67, p = .000). In comparison with teachers in regular schools, those in special-needs schools mostly see inclusion as a comprehensive concept and express strikingly frequently the ‘community definition’ or ‘general individualised definition’. Few teachers in special-needs schools consider inclusion as a concept specific to pupils with disabilities. Primarily teachers in secondary schools indicated with striking frequency that they understand inclusion according to the ‘placement definition’. Overall, teachers in primary and secondary schools differ significantly with regard to their conceptual understandings of inclusion (χ²(3, N = 212) = 9.42, p = .024).

Significant differences in conceptual understanding of inclusion are also to be found between teachers and school administrators (Figure 5). Here, it appears that school administrators tend to have a more comprehensive notion of inclusion and understand it according to the ‘community definition’.

Figure 5.

Percentage distribution of understandings of inclusion for teachers and school administrators.

Inclusion in German academic literature and education system – a conclusion

This article has presented the theories and concepts of the inclusion approach that circulate in German academic and legal discourse. Furthermore, it focused on the extent to which these notions are reflected in actors’ practices in schools and whether one specific concept of inclusion has become prevalent among teachers and school administrators. The findings of an empirical study of employees in Lower Saxon schools suggest that school administrators and teachers interpret inclusion differently, in parallel with academic discourse. The data demonstrate that neither the narrower nor the broader notion of inclusion dominates. Inclusion is predominantly associated with the education sector but is not clearly applied to one specific target group. According to the results, the type of school at which respondents were employed, their prior experience of integrative or inclusive teaching and their function within school were the most distinctive factors affecting the way in which the teachers conceptualise inclusion and its scope. Teachers at regular schools and those without prior experience of integrative or inclusive teaching as well as those not in an administrative position tended towards a narrower notion of inclusion.

The ideas people working practically in the school system have about inclusion were assigned to the definition categories of the recently published attempt at systematisation by Göransson and Nilholm (2014a). The results suggest that the definition categories can also be applied to the German context.

Given that, so far, academic literature has not arrived at a consistent definition of inclusion, it is hardly surprising that employees at schools also conceive of it in different ways. In our opinion, teachers can hardly be expected to develop a coherent notion of inclusion in the light of inconsistencies in the theoretical discourse. In other words, the question is open as to whether teachers can or even should compensate in their own practical work for discrepancies that arise in the formative stage of education science theory construction. Fundamentally, this problem touches on the relationship between teacher training and the actual practice and reality in schools.

In the framework of school development, administrators might be advised to support their employees in exchanging their various views on the notion of inclusion. A discussion between school administrators and teachers might initiate an exchange of opinions and help clarify the origins of their different opinions.

School administrators could attempt to sensitise their colleagues to a broader understanding of inclusion by discussing its meaning and potential consequences for teachers with their colleagues. They may be motivated to do this if they assume that a narrower understanding of inclusion has certain consequences for educational practice (e.g. greater support of children with special needs resulting in reduced support for those with other needs) and that the task of a school is to support the potential of all children equally. In the context of the development of inclusive schools, a joint model of (broader) inclusion could be worked out according to which the future action could be oriented.

One well-known example of inclusive education in Germany is the primary school Berg Fidel in Münster. The school implemented the concept of a pedagogy of diversity. Every child of the district Berg Fidel is allowed to join the school, regardless of disability or intellectual giftedness, religious or family background. A regular feature of the inclusive concept is the multi-professional team, which includes class and subject teachers, educators, social workers, teachers for special education, trainees and other pedagogical staff. To meet the needs of the individual student, the team members have to work collaboratively. At the Berg Fidel School, education takes place in diverse and open forms, the lessons are structured unconventionally, and the time schedule changes from lesson to lesson. Every student – not only the students with disabilities – has the right to persistent and individualised support to strengthen him/her in his/her development. Furthermore, the students learn in mixed age groups, which are composed of students of each grade. Once a week, the students come together to discuss and solve problems which occurred in the classroom (Wenders, 2014).

Another example is the Integrierte Gesamtschule (IGS) Hannover-Linden³ which was founded in 1971 as the first integrative comprehensive school of Hannover. The school educates about 1.400 students, among them, 50–60 students with learning and socio-emotional difficulties in 14 integrative classrooms. Due to their exceptional achievements and various projects, the IGS Linden was honoured with several awards, including the Jakob Muth-Preis for inclusive education (Döttinger & Hollenbach-Biele, 2015).

The IGS offers the opportunity to achieve certificates for both secondary school levels I and II. Furthermore, no student leaves the school without having done his/her final exams. The students are prepared for work life through several programmes since grade 8, while special support is given to students with difficulties. At the IGS Linden, diversity and difference are promoted as an enriching factor for the school community in the everyday school life. The school implemented a competence-oriented curriculum to support the students in their individual development. Each student works with an Individualised Education Plan to enhance a self-organized learning process. Moreover, the school creates a positive learning atmosphere based on respect and recognition for others. The IGS aims to implement inclusive education in a way that every student is addressed, teachers and students work collaboratively on the same topic while each student has the possibility to work according to his/her capabilities and gets the help he/she needs to outperform the individual potential.

To what extent the conceptual understanding of inclusion influences teachers’ behaviour and how far a deeper understanding leads to more appropriate treatment of the diversity of pupils remains, however, a question yet to receive empirical investigation.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Biewer

Schütz

(2016). Inklusion [Inclusion]. In Hedderich

Biewer

Hollenweger

Markowetz

(Eds.), Handbuch Inklusion und Sonderpädagogik [Handbook of Inclusion and Special Education] (pp. 123–126). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.

Döttinger

Hollenbach-Biele

(2015). Auf dem Weg zum Gemeinsamen Unterricht? Aktuelle Entwicklungen zur Inklusion in Deutschland [On the way to joint lessons? Current trends toward inclusion in Germany]. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Dyson

(2014). A response to Göransson and Nilholm. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29, 281–282.

Florian

(2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29, 286–294.

Göransson

Niholm

(2014a). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings: A critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29, 265–280.

Göransson

Niholm

(2014b). A continuing need for conceptual analysis into research on inclusive education: Response to commentators. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29, 295–280.

Hinz

(2001). Von der Integration zur Inklusion – terminologisches Spiel oder konzeptionelle Weiterentwicklung? [From integration to inclusion – terminological game or conceptual advancement?] Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik [Journal for Remedal Education], 53, 354–361.

Hinz

(2004). Vom sonderpädagogischen Verständnis der Integration zum integrationspädagogischen Verständnis der Inklusion!? [From the special educational understanding of integration to the inclusive educational understanding of inclusion?) In Schnell

Sander

(Eds.), Inklusive Pädagogik [Inclusive Education] (pp. 41–74). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.

Hinz

(2012). Inklusion – historische Entwicklungslinien und internationale Kontexte [Inclusion – historical lines of development and international contexts]. In Hinz

Koerner

Niehoff

(Eds.), Von der Integration zur Inklusion: Grundlagen, Perspektiven, Praxis [From integration to inclusion: basic information, perspectives, practice] (pp. 33–52). Marburg, Germany: Lebenshilfe-Verlag.

10.

Kruse

Dedering

(2016). Inklusion – zum Verständnis eines Ansatzes in Fachliteratur und Schulpraxis [Inclusion – the understanding of an approach in literature and school practice]. In Buchen

Horster

Rolff

H.-G.

(Eds.), Schulleitung und Schulentwicklung. Erfahrungen – Konzepte – Strategien [Leadership and School Development. Experiences – concepts- strategies] (Vol. 70, pp. 1–17). Stuttgart: Raabe Verlag.

11.

NSchG. (2015). Niedersächsisches Schulgesetz in der Fassung vom 2. März 1998 [Lower Saxony School Act, version of 2nd March 1998] (Nds. GVBI. S.137). Retrieved from http://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=24742&article_id=6520&_psmand=8

12.

Reindal

(2016). Discussing inclusive education: An inquiry into different interpretations and a search for ethical aspects of inclusion using the capabilities approach. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31, 1–12.

13.

Sander

(2004). Inklusive Pädagogik verwirklichen [Achieving inclusive education]. In Schnell

Sander

(Eds.), Inklusive Pädagogik [Inclusive Education] (pp. 11–22). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.

14.

Textor

(2015). Einführung in die Inklusionspädagogik [Introduction to Inclusive Education]. Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.

15.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York, NY: Author.

16.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris, France: Author.

17.

Wenders

(2014). Gelingensbedingungen für Inklusion: Beispiel Berg Fidel [Success factors for inclusion. The example of Berg Fidel]. In Maschke

Schulz-Gade

Stecher

(Eds.), Jahrbuch Ganztagsschule. Inklusion. Der pädagogische Umgang mit Heterogenität [Annual book of All-day School. Inclusion. The pedagogical handling of heterogenity]. (pp. 160–165). Schwalbach, Germany: Debus Pädagogik.