When Inclusion is Not Inclusive

By Kelly Hutton

Is it really inclusion if it has just become yet another tick list?

This week, my interest was piqued by an article about Inclusion in Education, and how it is not simply something that is just 'done' and completed, it so much more than a task on a task list, or representation of the colour of a doll in our toy box.

It is interesting to note that inclusion in this article was defined as:

"the process of improving the terms in which individuals and groups take part in society - improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity." (Iarskaia-Smirnova, et al., 2024).

It was this definition that I found very interesting in relation to our actual lived reality, because we are not likely to register when we are being included, but will definitely feel it when we are not. Now, when we are included, we are not registering our inclusion; it is just a given, which is why it is so much more important to recognise when it isn't happening, as the impacts can be defining.

The Impact of Exclusion

When inclusion fails, the consequences reach far beyond the momentary disappointment. It's the research that tells us a story, demonstrating that exclusion in educational settings creates a ripple effect throughout a child's development, affecting their sense of self, belonging, and future opportunities.

Exclusion can be more than not being picked for games or looking like a child sitting alone whilst others play. Often, it can be much more subtle and paradoxically, can happen even when a child appears to be "included" in activities. The OECD (2024) research highlights this complexity, noting that inclusion isn't about physical presence but meaningful participation and genuine belonging.

Real exclusion can look like a myriad of things, such as:

• The accommodated, but not accepted child: Like the child with autism who is physically in the classroom, but whose contributions are overlooked or whose communication style is tolerated, rather than valued. As Azuka et al. (2024) explained, these children may be "excluded from inclusive educational experiences due to the assumption that they are not capable of meeting the rigour of study" even when they are technically "included". This brings us to the discussion of differentiation in teaching and the more now accepted way of adaptive teaching... but we will come to that later.

• The helped, never the helper: Children with disabilities who are always positioned as the recipients of support, but never as contributors. Forde et al, (2025) described this as happening when "AI tools are designed with disability in mind, it is done to help disabled individuals assimilate into the able-bodied and neurotypical world" - which is the same dynmaic which occurs in social settings where children are seen as needing to be fixed, rather than having gifts to offer.

• Surface-level participation: Children whose needs are so "well accommodated" that they fade into the background, never causing problems but never truly connecting either. As Ker and van Gorp (2024) noted, some children "may opt not to disclose their condition(s) for personal reasons and might hesitate to share due to past negative experiences or bias" which leads to a kind of invisible exclusion where they're present, but not authentically themselves.

• Conditional belonging: Where children feel accepted only when they're "being good" or meeting neuotypical expectations, but sense that acceptance would disappear if they showed their authentic selves. Iarskaia-Smirnova et al. (2024) found that this type of conditional acceptance can lead to children experiencing "stigmatisation in cultural contexts" even when supposedly inclusive environments.

Whilst we are not always able to spot, or even know when these types of exclusion could happen, it is important to recognise that they do and can have some very impactful consequences...

Developmental Consequences...

These subtle forms of exclusion can be more damaging than obvious rejection, simply because they are harder to identify and address. Children who express exclusion face significant barriers to healthy development. As Iarskaia-Smirnova et al. (2024) note, the experience of stigmatisation can lead to lasting impacts on their self-concept and social connections. This exclusion doesn't just affect academic outcomes; it shapes how children come to view themselves and their place in the world.

Research shows us that exclusion can manifest in subtle but powerful ways. Azuka et al. (2024) highlight how traditional learning environments can be "overwhelming and anxiety-provoking for neurodiverse learners who struggle to keep up with the pace or fit into rigid expectations of the system. When children consistently feel like they do not belong or can't participate meaningfully, it creates what the researchers describe as increased stress and frustration, preventing them from focusing on learning and engaging with educational material.

The Ripple Effect...

The impact extends to social connections, too. Think about "Social Capital" as the web of relationships, connections, and community support that families naturally build - things like friendships with other parents, connections to community groups, informal networks where families share resources and advice, and the sense of belonging within your community.

Iarskaia-Smirnova et al. (2024) found that those families of children with SEND have much more limited access to these valuable social networks compared to other families. This might mean fewer playdates because parents are hesitant, less involvement in community activities due to accessibility barriers, or feeling isolated from parent networks because conversations always seem focused on experiences that your family can't relate to.

This creates a concerning cycle: when children experience exclusion, their entire families often become isolated too. The researchers found this happens on multiple levels: individual exclusion compounds, family exclusion, which then extends to community-level exclusion. This limits access to informal support networks that are absolutely crucial for healthy child development, things like other parents to call when needed for advice, friends who understand your challenges, or community connections that open doors to opportunities and resources.

The tragedy is that these social connections aren't just nice to have; they're essential building blocks for children's development and family wellbeing. When exclusion cuts families off from these networks, it doesn't just affect the present moment; it limits future possibilities and support systems that could make all the difference.

What True Inclusion SHOULD Look Like

Genuine inclusion goes far beyond physical placement in mainstream settings. It requires what researchers call "systematic change" rather than service-level accommodations (OECD, 2024).

Real inclusion creates environments where, as Azuka et al. (2024) describe, children "feel accepted and valued," leading to improved self-esteem and confidence. The authors emphasise that "when neurodiverse students perform well in their study, because of the accommodating environment and inclusive teaching style, their confidence and self-esteem will flourish.

Differentiation vs Adaptive Teaching

On a slight side path here, but this shift towards truly inclusive environments is reflected in the evolution of educational practice with the recent move away from traditional "differentation" towards "adaptive teaching." While differentiation often meant well, it frequently resulted in unintentional exclusionary practices presented as support. This might have looked like a child with dyslexia always getting the "easier" worksheet, or the student with ADHD being sent into the corridor to "help them focus".

These approaches, although designed to help, often lowered expectations and inadvertently signalled to children that they were less capable than their peers. Adaptive teaching, by contrast, maintains high expectations for all learners while flexibly adjusting how learning happens. As Forde et al. (2025) explain in their framework (below), this means creating multiple pathways to the same learning goals. It may be offering information through visual, auditory, and hands-on methods simultaneously, or allowing different ways to demonstrate understanding.

This represents a fundamental change in mindset: from asking "What can't this child do?" to "How can we remove the barriers so this child can achieve the same ambitious goals as everyone else?"

Creating Belonging

Real inclusion creates environments where, as Azuka et al. (2024) describe, "children feel accepted and valued" learning that improves self-esteem and confidence. Forde et al. (2025) provide a comprehensive framework for what this can look like in practice, identifying six interconnected components of inclusive learning environments:

• Physical environment: spaces that are socially produced and can be adapted to meet diverse needs

• Cultural environment: celebrating the diversity and challenging deficit narratives of all the learners attending

• Curricular environment: providing content that reflects and validates all learners' experiences

• Sensory environment: accommodating different ways of processing sensory information

• Relational environment: building strong, caring relationships as the foundation upon which everything else is built

• Linguistic/communicative environment: supporting all forms of communication and multilingual learners

Our Roles in Creating Inclusion...

The research is quite detailed about how inclusion isn't just about policies, but about the relationships that are fostered within the environment. As Coles-White et al. (2025) found in their global study, successful inclusion depends very heavily on "open and clear communication," "shared commitment," and "flexibility, adaptability, honesty and staying open and responsive"

A really interesting take on relationality with students is the studies which undertake the 2x10 strategy or the "Two Minute Relationship Builder." Originally developed by Wlodkowski in 1985, it demonstrated an 85% improvement in the behaviour of " difficult " target students. He also noted a ripple effect on the rest of the class after the intervention. More recently, it was explored as part of a study by Gragg & Collet (2021), where they examined the impact of the relationship-building strategy, which consisted of a two-minute conversation with a child over 10 days. This really demonstrates the underrated impact of the relational environment in our classrooms.

Forde et all (2025) further address this, emphasising that "creating a welcoming and safe learning environment is the foundation of any successful learning experience, enabling a child to participate and learn". This goes beyond accommodation to genuine acceptance and celebration of difference.

Advocating for True Inclusion

As families and professionals, we really need to look beyond the surface-level indicators. Ker and van Gorp (2024) identify that key warning signs that inclusion isn't genuinelyhappening, include when children:

• continue to feel excluded from social participation

• experience increased anxiety or stress in supposedly "inclusive" settings

• are not given genuine opportunities to contribute their unique perspectives and strengths

We need to build our advocacy skills to support them.

The research suggests there are several key advocacy strategies we can undertake:

1. 1. Focus on Strengths and Assets Azuka et al. (2024) emphasise the importance of "recognising and accommodating the unique differences of these learners" rather than focusing solely on deficits. Advocates should highlight what children bring to their communities, not just what they need.

   2. Demand Systemic Change Forde et al. (2025) note that true inclusion requires "systemic changes to build collaborative and supportive learning environments" rather than just individual accommodations. This means advocating for changes to policies, practices, and cultures - not just asking for special treatment.

   3. Insist on Cultural Responsiveness The OECD (2024) research on AI in education provides insights that apply more broadly - inclusion must be "culturally responsive" and acknowledge that "different children need different support." This means advocating for approaches that honour your child's cultural background, communication style, and individual needs.

   4. Monitor Social and Emotional Outcomes Iarskaia-Smirnova et al. (2024) found that when schools implement truly inclusive policies, it improves both academic and social outcomes. Advocates should ask not just "Is my child physically present?" but "Does my child feel they belong? Are they forming meaningful relationships? Do they feel valued for who they are?"

Creating Communities of Support

Perhaps most importantly, the research shows that inclusion is not something that happens in isolation. Ker and van Gorp (2024) emphasise that successful inclusion depends on "building relationships and support networks" among all stakeholders - families, educators, and community members.

Moving Forward: From Compliance to Belonging

True inclusion isn't about checking boxes or following mandates - it's about creating communities where every child experiences genuine belonging. As Azuka et al. (2024) conclude, "by recognising and accommodating the unique differences of these learners, adopting inclusive instructional design can help unlock the potential of neurodiverse learners and create a more inclusive learning environment."

The goal isn't just to have our children tolerated or accommodated - it's to have them truly welcomed, valued, and celebrated for exactly who they are. When we achieve this, inclusion becomes invisible, not because it's absent, but because it's so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our communities that belonging becomes the natural state for every child.

This is the inclusion we should demand, the inclusion we should create, and the inclusion every child deserves.

References

Azuka, C. V., Wei, C. R., Ikechukwu, U. L., & Nwachukwu, E. L. (2024). Inclusive instructional design for neurodiverse learners. Current Perspectives in Educational Research, 7(1), 56-67. doi.org

Coles-White, D., Shilling, T., Joseph, J., Tomé, M. C., Ferguson, H. L., Deliberato, D., & Jackson, J. (2025). Inclusive education for neurodivergent learners: Global strategies and success stories—A speech-language pathology perspective. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 10.

Gragg, S., & Collet, V. (2023). The impact of a relationship-building strategy on teachers’ perceptions of preschooler behavior: a 2 X 10 approach. Early Years, 43(1), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.1922362]

Forde, D., Carstens, C., Haihambo, C. K., Sivunen, U., O'Neill, C., & Galletti, A. (2025). Creating a framework for an inclusive learning environment. In All means all! : OpenTextbook for diversity in education. Universität Bremen; Free University of Bozen-Bolzano; Maynooth University.

Iarskaia-Smirnova, E., Salnikova, D., & Kononenko, R. (2024). Inclusion in education: Its bonds and bridges. Children and Youth Services Review, 158, 107432. doi.org

Ker, G., & van Gorp, R. (2024). Effective learning advisor strategies for neurodiversity: Time to get it right. ATLAANZ Journal, 7(1), Article 4. doi.org

OECD. (2024). The potential impact of artificial intelligence on equity and inclusion in education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 299. doi.org

Wlodkowski, R. J. (1983). Motivational opportunities for successful teaching [Leader's Guide]. Phoenix, AZ: Universal Dimensions