Current literary sources present analyses of early modern reason and the historical circumstances surrounding modern schooling, and conclude that even contemporary schools are subject to hierarchical supervision, homogenisation, and nationalist ideology (Foucault, 2000; Green, 2013, pp. 35-81; Ramirez & Boli, 1987). This would explain why modern school tends to gravitate towards the ideal type of an authoritarian school. However, this matter collides with late-modern developments in society (massive technological progress, globalisation, diminished importance of the national state). Under these socio-political conditions the relations between participants in the society and school become complicated (Beck, 2007) and in some situations undergo a transformation from autocratic to democratic. A simple hierarchy, a ready platform for pushing forward ideologies, is replaced by a complex network in which diversity and communication become more important. And it is this confrontation that has caused school to experience sometimes smaller, sometimes greater, yet an always present crisis starting at the beginning of the 21^st century; i.e. since the time these tendencies have begun to gain a foothold in modern society (Dewey, 1992). It fulfils its purpose to educate, but also reproduces values which contradict development in the society. One of the options of systemically tackling the chronic crisis of the school institution is inclusion.

Academic sources (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Mitchell, 2005; Soodak, 2003) as well as international agreements and national documents define inclusion in terms of several criteria: equal opportunities, fulfilling individual needs, development of human resources, community participation. In order for these criteria to be met, the community must be cohesive. Community cohesion, which is a relatively new concept, is not determined by homogeneity, but by the acceptance of diversity among the community members and utilisation of its positive potential. This brings us to a central category of inclusion - appreciating diversity and using it to get a positive effect. This idea is in stark contrast to the way and with what motives state schools were founded.

However, school diversity is a real phenomenon which schools need to tackle more and more often. This is also indicated by the number of publications focused on diversity in schools (Majhanovich & Malét, 2015; Coulby, 2000). These sources present recent analyses of using identity as a tool of coping with the demands of a diversified society (see e.g. Seeley & Wasilewski, 1996).

The main objective of the presented project has been to identify and describe in detail the processes taking place in selected schools, which contribute to their pro-inclusive character.

We have focused on these research questions:

• Which key processes (whether apparent or subtle) contribute to the pro-inclusive character of schools and promote the process of inclusion?
• How do schools treat diversity?

The study was designed within a three-year grant project of the Czech Science Foundantion No GA19-13038S. It is built around a multiple case study of three pro-inclusive schools. The correct choice of schools is essential for our research. The inclusiveness of a school can be assessed in terms of school culture (importance of each pupil, low teacher and pupil fluctuation, teacher commitment to inclusion), school conditions (sufficient budget, heterogeneity of classes, further employee education), practice of teaching (methodological diversity, involvement of pupils in the teaching process, dynamic learner assessment), and relations (teacher-parent partnership, clarity of communication, teachers observing other teachers’ lessons) (Tannenbergerová, 2016; http://www.ferovaskola.cz/standardy-ferove-skoly). Schools which we included in the research were successful in all these contexts and their reputation throughout the community reflected this success. Paradigmatically speaking, the research is rooted in situational epistemology (cf. Šíp, 2017, pp. 40-54). This is also related to the overall framework of interpretation, for which we are going to use innovative methods of situational analysis (cf. Clarke, 2005). In terms of specific research outcomes this will manifest itself in replacing the idea of “objective theory” by the idea of “detailed cartography of a social world”. The cartographic approach directs both the logic of data collection and the choice of methods of their analysis and interpretation. Three selected schools (School A, B, and C) will be studied consecutively, but each one will fulfil a different role in the research so as to make it possible to achieve the research goals in time. The research will be divided into four stages. As for its ethnographic character, we are going to employ the semi-structured research design.

Within preliminary results of ethnographic research in the first school, we have identified two basic factors composing a pro-inclusive environment. Key persons. All participants can contribute to promoting an inclusion-friendly environment; however, some do so with greater motivation than others. These could include school management, teachers with a strong vision of equality, or experts from the school counselling office. We call them key persons. Key persons have a major influence on the change within the school, being themselves deeply convinced about the necessity of inclusion. Based on this conviction, they choose matching coworkers, leading them by their own example. Unconvinced employees usually begin to leave the school and new incomers are introduced to the inclusion and openness concept in advance. Manifestations of school openness in working with diversity on all important levels. By this we mean positive manipulation with diversity both in the relationships between “traditional” school participants (directors, teachers, pupils) and school-parent relationships, or relationships between schools and the broader community, in terms of teaching methods as well as ways how the school culture affects the school environment. One of the most important factors is the conviction that parents are an inherent part of school and they can move around the school freely. The parents contact with the school is in not limited to parent conferences held once in three months. Teachers and the school management do not perceive parents as enemies or watchdogs, but instead they use their potential creatively. Parents participate in lessons; teach various topics they are experienced in (either professionally, or by having a long time interest or an interesting life experience). Parents can accompany their children during out-of-school activities organized by the school (school trips, excursions, sport events etc.). Parents know and befriend each other, spontaneously creating an active social network and support.

•Foucault, M. (2000). Dohlížet a trestat [Discipline and Punish]. Praha: Dauphin. •Green, A. (2013). Education and State Formation. London: Palgrave Mcmillan. •Beck, U. (2007). Moc a protiváha moci v globálním věku [Power and Counterpower in the Global Age]. Praha: SLON. •Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. London: Center for Studies of Inclusion Education. Available from: •http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf •Clarke, A. (2005) Situational Analysis. Grounded theory after postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, London: Saged Publication. •Coulby, D. (2000). Beyond the National Curriculum. Curricular centralism and cultural diversity in Europe and USA. London, New York: Routledge & Falmer. •Dewey, J. (1992). Democracy and Education (mw.9). In The Collected Works of John Dewey. [CD – elektronická verze] Hickman, L. A. (Ed.). Charlottesville VA (USA): InteLex Corporation. •Majhanovich, S., & Malét, R. (2015). Building Democracy through Education on Diversity. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers. •Mitchell, D. (2005). Sixteen Proposition on the Context of Inclusive Education. In D. Mitchell (Ed.). Contextualizing Inclusive Education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 2-21). London: Routledge. •Ramirez, F., & Boli, J. (1987). “The Political Construction of Mass Schooling: European origins and worldwide institutionalization“, Sociology of Education 60, January, 2-17. •Seeley, H. D., & Wasilewski, J. H. (1996). Between Cultures: Developing self-identity in a world of diversity. Chicago: NTC Publishing Group. •Soodak, L. C. (2003). Classroom Management in Inclusive Settings. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 237-333. •Šíp, R. (2017). Philosophical Foundations of Research in Tacit Knowledge: Knowledge, figurative language, and metaphor (pp. 24-105). In V. Švec, et al., Becoming a Teacher. The Dance Between Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Brno: MUNIPress. Available from: •https://munispace.muni.cz/index.php/munispace/catalog/book/887 •Tannenbergerová, M. (2016). Průvodce školní inkluzí, aneb, Jak vypadá kvalitní základní škola současnosti? [A Guide to School Inclusion: What does a good elementary school look like today?]. Praha: Wolters Kluwer.