Inclusion and education

FIGURE 3.16: 
Disadvantaged students feel they do not belong at school
Sense of belonging index, by socio-economic status, selected countries, 2018
-0.60
-0.20
0.00
-0.40
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Sense of belonging index

Stronger sense of belonging 

Weaker sense of belonging 
Czechia
Brunei Daruss. Macao, China
Hong Kong, China
Viet Nam
Russian Fed.
Thailand
Poland Malta
Philippines
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Latvia
Kazakhstan
United Kingdom
Ireland Ukraine Turkey
United States
Dominican Rep.
New Zealand
Indonesia Malaysia
Qatar
Panama
Montenegro
Australia Singapore
Peru
Colombia Lithuania
Brazil Jordan Canada Belarus
U. A. Emirates
Slovenia Cyprus Estonia
France
Chile
Georgia
Japan
Bosnia/Herzeg.
Belgium
Argentina
Rep. Moldova
Finland
Italy
Mexico Croatia Romania
Serbia Greece Sweden
Saudi Arabia
Hungary
Costa Rica
Uruguay Iceland
Netherlands Luxembourg
Portugal Denmark Germany
Switzerland
Rep. of Korea
Norway Austria
Spain
Albania
Morocco
Disadvantaged students
Advantaged students
Note: 
The sense of belonging index is based on responses to the following questions: ‘I feel like an outsider (or left out of things) at school’, ‘I make 
friends easily at school’, ‘I feel like I belong at school’, ‘I feel awkward and out of place in my school’, ‘Other students seem to like me’ and ‘I feel 
lonely at school’. The value of zero is the average for OECD countries.
Source: 
OECD (2019b).
67
C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E , C A U C A S U S A N D C E N T R A L A S I A

---

Data collection should promote inclusion
Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning should 
not only serve the function of collecting data on inclusion 
but also be inclusive in methodology and actively foster 
inclusion (Save the Children, 2016). Collecting data 
on inclusion can itself be part of making schools and 
systems more inclusive. The choice of indicators directs 
attention to issues that may have been ignored. School 
self-assessments are part of the search for ways to 
overcome barriers to inclusion.
The Index for Inclusion is the most prominent holistic 
framework of school-level indicators across the domains 
of inclusive cultures, policies and practices (Booth 
and Ainscow, 2002). The index can be adapted to local 
contexts through school self-evaluations and value 
frameworks (Carrington and Duke, 2014). It has been 
translated into 40 languages and adapted and used in 
many countries (Index for Inclusion Network, 2019).
The Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education 
in Serbia, initiated by UNICEF and the government’s 
Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit, is a 
well-elaborated framework suitable for national adoption. 
It includes indicators for inter-sectoral monitoring and 
identifies minimal and optimal indicator sets, including 
for identifying disparity among school authorities, 
municipalities and schools in terms of inclusion success. 
It has clear reporting cycles and assigned roles for 
information collection. It also envisages consolidation 
of information from school and municipal reports, 
the national statistical office, the national EMIS, other 
organizations’ research, and special surveys (Serbia Social 
Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit and UNICEF, 2014). 
The framework has been integrated within the overall 
school quality assurance policy and quality standards for 
schools (Nedeljkovic, 2019).
Inclusive data collection asks questions of, and on, 
all concerned, from head teachers and teachers to 
government officials, local partners, parents and students. 
Community-based surveys can respond to this challenge. 
A community-based EMIS in Tajikistan that collected 
information on out-of-school children and attendance of 
enrolled children both motivated community solutions 
and informed district policies (Save the Children, 2016).
For non-academic outcomes, it is important to consult 
with children and young people directly and elicit their 
views, not only to monitor outcomes but also to foster 
inclusive practices (Messiou, 2008). Article 12 of the 
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly 
requires student consultation. This is possible even if the 
child has communication difficulties or limited formal 
language skills (Fayette and Bond, 2017). Ensuring that 
children can express dissent, including non-verbally, 
and that all children’s voices are heard is a crucial 
consideration (Porter, 2014).