Inclusion and education

TABLE 3.1:
Potential indicators of inclusion in education, by level of authority and result
Level
Result
Inputs
Processes
Outputs and outcomes
System
District
School
Policy
Teacher education
Professional development
Resources and finances
Leadership
Curriculum
Climate
School practice
Collaboration
Shared responsibility
Support to individuals
Role of special schools
Participation
Achievement
Post-school outcomes
Source: 
Loreman et al. (2014).
DATA ON INCLUSION: THE GROUPS 
COUNTRIES MONITOR VARY
Countries face a dilemma in deciding what data to collect 
on inclusion. On the one hand, the concept should not 
be fragmented by group because inclusion cannot be 
achieved one group at a time. ‘In the process of pointing 
to the exclusion of specific groups, attention is focused on 
the “markers of difference” and thus difference is in fact 
created by comparison to an implicit norm’ (Armstrong 
et al., 2010, p. 37). Education systems and environments 
become inclusive by breaking down barriers for the 
benefit of all children. Such barriers may be higher for 
some groups than for others. In any case, many types of 
vulnerability are not outwardly apparent, and it is thus 
impossible to distinguish neatly between students with 
and without disabilities or special needs.
On the other hand, categorizing students is important 
to shine a light on specific groups and help make them 
visible to policymakers (Florian et al., 2006; Simon and 
Piché, 2012). Certain groups of children may be excluded 
not only when they are omitted from textbooks, placed 
at the back of the class or never called on, but also by lack 
of explicit recognition in data collection. Lack of data both 
results from and contributes to their invisibility.
Resolving this dilemma requires different kinds of data 
at different levels. Outcomes can be monitored at the 
population level; service delivery can be monitored 
at the student level through administrative systems. 
Understanding the purposes and types of inclusion-
related data can therefore ease dilemmas of identification: 
Identifying groups for statistical or policy purposes 
need not create a false dichotomy between ‘normal’ 
and ‘special’ groups that distorts efforts at inclusion. 
For instance, collection and use of administrative data 
can occur without assigning corresponding labels in the 
classroom. In some high-income countries, voluntary 
equal-opportunity questionnaires collect information 
on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and other 
characteristics. Results are used only to monitor diversity 
in universities or workplaces.
Censuses and surveys provide insights into inclusion 
in education
Administrative data have been the mainstay of efforts to 
monitor access to and participation in education.
Universal primary and lower secondary education have 
been achieved in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus 
and Central Asia, with an average out-of-school rate of 
3% in the subregions. With respect to youth of upper 
secondary school age, substantial progress has been 
achieved: Between 1999 and 2019, the out-of-school rate 
halved in both the Caucasus and Central Asia (from 31% to 
14%) and in Central and Eastern Europe (from 25% to 12%). 
Much of the latter fall is due to Turkey, where the out-of-
school rate dropped by 75% in 15 years (
Figure 3.1
).
Still, this leaves about 850,000 children of primary school 
age (down from 1.5 million in 1999), 850,000 adolescents 
of lower secondary school age (down from 2.3 million in 
2002) and 2 million youth of upper secondary school age 
(down from 5.5 million in 1999) who were out of school in 
2019. Turkey accounts for 1.5 million or just over 40% of 
the out of-school population in the region. Such data do 
not capture the extent to which children may be attending 
non-mainstream schools or may be home-schooled.
Understanding the purposes and types of inclusion-related data can ease 
dilemmas of identification
50
GLOBAL EDUCATION MONITORING REPORT 2021

---

Administrative data sources indicate there is no gender 
disparity in enrolment in mainstream schools, but are silent 
with respect to other potential systematic patterns of 
exclusion from school participation. Population censuses 
and household surveys can provide information on the 
education status of those at risk of being marginalized, but, 
like any tool, they also have disadvantages.
Censuses aim to cover all residents and, done properly, 
do not intentionally exclude any group from the count. 
They have advantages over surveys, which miss some 
populations because of their small sample sizes or by 
design (e.g. prisons and orphanages tend not to be 
sampled) (United Nations, 2005). However, even they are 
known to undercount marginalized populations, such as