Despite the considerable activity in many countries to move educational policy and practice in a more inclusive direction (Mittler, 2000), inclusion remains a challenge that faces educational systems all over the world. Some of the reasons lie in different understandings of inclusion (Dyson, 1999) that can contribute to a disparity in expectations and a sense of uncertainty. Educational reform is particularly difficult in contexts where there is a lack of common understanding amongst stakeholders (Fullan, 1991), which may lead to practices and procedures burdened by tensions and dilemmas.

These observations apply to the process of developing inclusive education as well. This process can be disruptive and disrupted at the same time: disruptive for educators and education systems by challenging their established ways and convictions, and disrupted by them as they resist the required changes in a multitude of ways that can hinder or even block the process of transition to inclusiveness. Research evidence suggests that the barriers to inclusion can emerge at different levels – teacher (e.g. teacher attitudes, beliefs and competencies; Avramidis et al., 2000; Forlin, 1995; Kovač Cerović et al, 2017), school (e.g. school ethos, Kovač Cerović et al, 2016), local and national level (e.g. lack of inter-sectorial cooperation; Friedman et al, 2015). The manifestations and frequency of such disruptions can vary, depending on the national context (OECD, 2013) and phase of development of inclusive education. For example, Senge (1989) suggests that activities used in the initial phases of bringing about large-scale changes are often “low leverage” – they tend to change the way things look like but not the way they work. In the later phases of implementation higher leverage activities start taking place, which are likely to produce disruptions on a different scale and of a different type.

So far, research did not address the question of whether the disruptions emerging in the process of developing inclusive education, involve practices that contradict commitments of countries to values and principles that apply to the sector of education, and thus violate its integrity (Milovanovitch, forthcoming). Country contexts where the changes are advanced enough to have a tangible impact on participants in education, both on those who resist the change towards inclusiveness and of those who advocate in its favour, might be a fertile ground for problematic practices. Both groups have a stake in the process of transition and where their expectations are disappointed (for instance those of teachers who have to adjust their teaching without additional compensation, or of parents who do not receive the support they expect for their children, despite a national commitment to inclusiveness), education participants might resort to problematic practices as a remedy, including such that put the integrity of education system at risk (OECD, 2013, 2017; Milovanovitch & Lapham, forthcoming).

Since 2010, several countries have conducted in-depth assessments of integrity in their education (Serbia, Tunisia, Armenia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan). These assessments – all of which carried out on behalf of either national education authorities or civil society in these countries - helped to identify nine common violations of education integrity. These include illicit access to education, improper private supplementary tutoring, undue recognition of learning and academic achievement, politicisation of education, favouritism in staffing decisions, misappropriation of funds, procurement fraud, cheating, as well as accreditation and licensing fraud (Milovanovitch, forthcoming).

Our research explores whether the aforementioned integrity violations can be observed in connection with inclusive education, how they might be preventing the implementation of inclusive education policies, and how these policies might be leading to integrity violations. The assumption is that addressing education integrity is essential for the progress of countries in implementing inclusive education.

We conducted our research in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Serbia. These countries are at a similar stage of inclusive education development. They have all started systematic and nation-wide efforts to introduce and develop inclusive education in the last decade; they still maintain a two-track approach to education of children who need additional support; the special education movement is still strong and under the influence of defectology. Moreover, all selected countries have recently assessed the integrity of their education systems. In each country two focus group discussions aimed at exploring the manifestations of integrity violations in inclusive education and their underlying mechanisms were conducted in national languages. In the context of the research, inclusive education is defined as education of children who need additional support, both in mainstream and special schools. Integrity in education is defined as the continued commitment of education participants and institutions to act in accordance with values and principles, without engaging in corruption, and describes a professional environment that allows them to do so. Integrity violation is a corrupt action by education participants which contradicts those values and principles (Milovanovitch, forthcoming). To gain our insights from the countries in focus, we used purposeful sampling. Based on consultations with local experts, we selected participants of different positions, fields of expertise, and attitudes toward inclusive education. We conducted eight focus groups, involving a total of 80 participants who represented a wide array of stakeholders (e.g. parents, teachers, school principals, national government representatives, international organizations, civil society organisations, university professors). During the focus group discussions we relied on a funnel approach. Moderators would start with broader questions on manifestations of integrity violations in inclusive education in the specific country, followed by more specific and in-depth exploration of those integrity violations that would emerge as more common (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated in English. A thematic analysis approach informed by Braun and Clarke (2006) was applied to the transcripts in English. The data was analysed in two stages using MAXQDA software. The first explored the manifestations of difference integrity violations in inclusive education and applied a deductive approach (Hayes, 1997). An inductive approach (Patton, 2002) was used at the second stage of analysis to find out if the data would provide information on the organizing principles underlying the manifestations of the integrity violations (Daiute & Kovacs Cerovic, 2017).

Our preliminary findings confirm that using the lens of integrity could provide important insights regarding inconsistencies between inclusive practice and policy. The narratives of participants from the four countries identified nine types of integrity violations in inclusive education, each with different manifestations and frequency. Illicit access to education was mentioned most often (94), followed by (improper) private supplementary tutoring (42), undue recognition of learning and academic achievement (39) and favouritism in staffing decisions (29), while the other integrity violations attracted much less attention by focus group participants. Since all countries in focus are still at the developing stage of inclusive education, it is not surprising that illicit access to education is the most prevalent integrity violation. The in-depth inductive analysis of the focus group narratives about the most common integrity violations manifested different organizing principles, each describing a specific set of interests and subordinate mechanisms of participation in the violation. For example, some of the manifestations of illicit access to education were: special schools lobbying for enrolment in order to retain staff, mainstream school refusing enrolment to enhance school attractiveness for wealthier parents, improper use of assessment procedures to ensure benefits for different stakeholders, parents providing financial incentives for school/kindergarten to ensure enrolment. Our in-depth analysis is still underway, but the preliminary findings indicate that integrity violations are closely embedded in the process of developing inclusive education. They account for barriers and resistance to change, but also point towards the emergence of new opportunities to violate integrity that are specific to that process. Consequently, this approach is an attempt to contribute to a better understanding of the complex risks existing within the inclusive practice. It is intended to stimulate debate in ways that enable the identification and resolution of deadlocks and take the inclusive education agenda forward.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. and Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Dyson, A. (1999). Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In Daniels, H., & P. Garner (Eds.), Inclusive Education (pp. 36-53). London: Kogan Page. Forlin, C. (1995). Educators' beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. British Journal of Special Education, 22, 179–185. Friedman, E., Pavlović Babić, D. & Simić, N. (2015). Inclusive Education in Serbia: Policies, Practice and Recommendations. Belgrade: The World Bank, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Western Balkans Investment Framework. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London, UK: Cassell. Hayes, N. (1997). Theory-led thematic analysis: social identification in small companies. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Kovač-Cerović, T., Jovanović, O., & Pavlović-Babić, D. (2016). Individual education plan as an agent of inclusiveness of the educational system in Serbia: Different perspectives, achievements and new dilemmas. Psihologija, 49(4), 431-445. Kovač Cerović, T., Pavlović Babić, D., Jokić, T., Jovanović, O., & Jovanović, V. (2016). First comprehensive monitoring of inclusive education in Serbia: Selected findings. In N. Gutvajn & M. Vujačić (Eds.), Challenges and perspectives of inclusive education (pp. 15–30). Belgrade: Institute for Educational Research. Milovanovitch, M. (forthcoming). Integrity of Education Systems (INTES): Assessment Methodology. OECD Education Working Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing. Milovanovitch, M. & Lapham, K. (forthcoming). In the shadows of education reforms in Armenia and Ukraine. In I. Silova & M. Chankseliani (Eds.), Comparing Post-Socialist Transformations: Education in Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mittler, P. (2000). Working Towards Inclusive Education. London: Fulton. OECD (2013). Strengthening integrity and fighting corruption in education: The Republic of Serbia. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2017). Strengthening integrity and fighting corruption in education: Ukraine. Paris: OECD Publishing. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.