Definition of inclusion

In the international context, the notion of inclusive education is seen to be interpreted to mean different agendas, strategies, approaches and models of provision (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017), leading to a lack of conceptual clarity. Though ‘Salamanca Statement’, ‘Education for All’, EU Commission and many other international organizations intend to adopt a broader approach that goes beyond ‘special needs’ to conceptualise inclusive education, referring to equality, discrimination, and social inclusion (Miles & Singal, 2010; Thomas, 2013), predominant studies identify that ‘inclusion’ is typically synonymous with ’special needs’, a narrow definition of  inclusion that only deals with children with disabilities or special educational needs (Arduin, 2015; Wolff et al., 2021).

In developing an understanding of a global phenomenon like inclusive education, one should consider the specific cultural and historical contexts in which inclusive education developments take place (Artiles & Dyson, 2005) since IE develops differently in various countries (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007). Thus, a short description of the social historical backgrounds, the current status of the concept of early childhood inclusion from the perspective of China, Germany and the UK is discussed.

Definition in China

The conceptualisation of inclusive education in the Chinese policy framework is contested, inconsistent and confusing (Tan, 2020). Serving as the main form of inclusion at other school levels for the past four decades, ‘Learning in the Regular Classroom (LRC)’ has only started to develop on the early childhood level until the beginning of 21st century as Shanghai proposed the concept of “Early Care and Inclusive Education” (Hu & Szente, 2010). It provides general school access to children with visual, hearing/speech and intellectual disabilities (Yan & Deng, 2019). Though Chinese government ratifying the UNCRPD in 2008, LRC is a very limited response to the international trend towards inclusive education, differing from the international understanding of inclusion that is grounded in liberal democracy with individualism value and ensures every child’s right to education (An et al., 2018).

Definition in the UK

In the UK, inclusion is a multi-faceted term and has a wide range of definitions. The concept evolved from special education, integration and inclusion (Francisco, Hartman, & Wang, 2020).The focus of the concept of inclusion is on SEND and other aspects of diversity that varies in the four countries within UK although they are influenced by each other as well as their social, cultural and political contexts (Beaton & Black Hawkins, 2014)

Definition in Germany

Ratifying the UNCRPD in 2006 (UN, 2006), the terms of integration and inclusion are of relevance a refer to different dimensions concerning the current context of early childhood sector in Germany (Rothe et al., 2020). On an institutional level, the German early childhood sector is an integrative system. It focuses on children with “Eingliederungshilfe” (integration assistance)[1], and is provided by different forms of integration in regular early childhood settings. Early childhood inclusion refers to a more ideological dimension and is acknowledged in conceptualizations on different educational levels, the Federal states (early childhood curricula/ “Bildungs- und Orientierungspläne, Education and orientation plans”),the different providers (Caritas, AWO), as well as the individual institutions.

Research question

We applied the four dimensions of ‘access, acceptance, participation and achievement’ by Ainscow, Booth and Dyson (2006) and Artiles and Kozleski (2016) as the guiding framework while examining empirical studies that define inclusion on the early childhood level from China, Germany and the UK from year 2000 to year 2020. We formulated the following research question: How is early childhood inclusion defined in China, Germany and the UK?

[1]    a form of assistance, which corresponds with the institutionally approved special educational needs on school level

Method Literature search and eligibility criteria The following electronic databases were used to find an initial set of relevant literature published between 2000 and 2021: EBSCO host Database, British Education index; Education Source, ERIC, Pedocs, Proquest and Google Scholar. We also searched different journals: International Journal of Inclusive education, European Early Childhood Education and Research Journal, specialist journals and books. Our primary key search words are: “inclusion”, “inclusive education” (“inclusive*”); children, “Early childhood”, “early childhood settings*”, “kindergartens*”, “early childcare”, “childcare”, “diversity”, “diverse*”, “difference”, “access”, “acceptance”, “participation”, “achievement”, “China”, “Germany”, “UK”. We used Boolean search terms (AND, OR) and wildcards (such as the asterisk) to double-check results and make sure that combinations and alternative forms of the keywords were searched. Our searches were conducted between February 2020 and June 2020, so the set of articles we found represent those referenced in databases prior to June 2020. The initial search yielded the following articles from the three cultural contexts with the above search terms: 106 articles in China, 247 articles in Germany, 1005 articles in the UK. We then carefully reviewed the titles and abstracts of all the searched articles and made sure that there were full texts available for each of the article. We then selected those literature studies that met all the following five inclusion criteria: 1. Published between 2000 and 2020 2. Reported an empirical study (using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method design) 3. Reported a study discussing the concept of inclusion 4. Reported a study focusing on the early childhood level 5. Reported a study focusing on China/Germany/the UK (any of the four countries) After this first filtering, 100 articles remained. For the next final round, we developed the following two exclusion criteria to further narrow down our selection of the articles that address the definition of inclusion on the early childhood level in China, Germany and the UK. Specifically, we excluded articles that: 1. Are not published in peer-reviewed journals 2. Did not focus on or address perceptions or definitions (or the notions/concepts) of inclusion Articles were coded for information related to authors (year, country); aims of the study, methodology, key findings, dimensions of inclusion. We conducted six zoom sessions (each lasting three hours) to review all codes to determine consistency between the descriptions provided by each coder. All codes were thoroughly discussed until all three researchers agreed that the pertinent information was included and consensus was established.

15 studies including five from China, four from Germany and six from the UK were identified, highlighting different stakeholder’ perspectives on the definition of inclusive education on the early childhood level. Majority studies revealed a lack of one or more of the four dimensions that children with SEN or from im/migrant backgrounds and their families experience. The dimension of access Lack of access is discussed in four categories: physical access; access to activity and program design; access to curriculum and assessment; access to qualified professionals. The dimension of acceptance Partial acceptance is shown: some groups of children are excluded; parents not being fully accepted by professionals; different stakeholders accept children differently. The dimension of participation Children’s lack of participation is seen in classroom activities, instructions, games, etc. Moreover, parents lack involvement in pedagogical decisions and children’s social lives. The dimension of achievement The dimension of children’s achievement is more frequently discussed in the studies from China and the UK compared to Germany. Children’s academic achievement is much often addressed compared to their social-emotional achievement. Conclusion The studies revealed a tokenism understanding of early childhood inclusion since it shows inclusion is valid with certain preconditions and is applicable to certain groups. They focused predominantly on the narrow definition of inclusion that addresses children with disability, special educational needs/integrative status (Arduin, 2015). We suggest researchers to understand inclusion from a more holistic understanding that considers the nuances of broader classifications such as social class, gender and race/ethnicity, and the application of intersectional approach (Wolff, et al 2021). Meanwhile, though inclusion is a necessary “north star” (Hinz, 2015) that embraces and relates to all the different contexts, future research applying an international comparative perspective should consider the specific cultural and historical contexts in which inclusion takes place (Krischler, Powell, & Pit-Ten Cate, 2019).

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge. Arduin, S. (2015). A review of the values that underpin the structure of an education system and its approach to disability and inclusion. Oxford Review of Education, 41(1), 105-121. Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and power in inclusive education. Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 24, 1-29. Beaton, M. C., & Black‐Hawkins, K. (2014). Editorial Changing legislation on inclusive and special education: perspectives across the four nations of the UK. British Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 340-343. Francisco, M. P. B., Hartman, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and special education. Education Sciences, 10(9), 238. Hu, B. Y., & Szente, J. (2010). Education of young Chinese migrant children: Challenges and prospects. Early childhood education journal, 37(6), 477-482. Krischler, M., Powell, J. J., & Pit-Ten Cate, I. M. (2019). What is meant by inclusion? On the effects of different definitions on attitudes toward inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(5), 632-648. Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity?. International journal of inclusive education, 14(1), 1-15. Nilholm, C., & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 437-451. Rothe, A., Disep, L., Lichtblau, M., & Werning, R. (2020). Child at risk? Interaction at risk?. Frühe Bildung. Tan, R. (2020) Promoting peer interactions in Chinese inclusive preschool classrooms: Strategies teachers apply for children with Special Educational Needs. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld. Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 473-490. Wolff, C. E., Huilla, H., Tzaninis, Y., Magnúsdóttir, B. R., Lappalainen, S., Paulle, B., ... & Kosunen, S. (2021). Inclusive education in the diversifying environments of Finland, Iceland and the Netherlands: A multilingual systematic review. Research in Comparative and International Education, 16(1), 3-21. Yan, T., & Deng, M. (2019). Regular education teachers’ concerns on inclusive education in China from the perspective of concerns-based adoption model. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(4), 384-404.