It is undeniable that the implementation of inclusive education in many countries has greatly reduced the degree of social exclusion of bodies and minds that have been traditionally considered as non-normative (Guffey, 2018). However, as Florian (2014) argues, ‘policies of inclusion were being developed at the same time as other school reform initiatives designed to apply the principles of the marketplace to education’ (p. 287). Thus, while the aim was to create a system that accommodated everyone equally, it had to be both competitive and effective; that is, it should not undermine the achievement of the skills demanded by an increasingly demanding and uncertain labour market. It was important to convey that everyone was capable of doing something, no matter how small. Everyone should be able to contribute to society and be productive in some way. However, although all abilities had to be considered equally worthy, it was at the same time essential to remember that there was really a certain evaluative hierarchy regarding such, which was marked by the demands of the social, economic and labour context. 

The shift from a medical model, which understands disability as an individual impairment, to a social model, which perceives it as a failure of society to cater for diversity, contributed greatly to the spread of inclusive education. Understanding that a lack of ramps is more crucial to a wheelchair user's mobility difficulties than the fact that he or she cannot move his or her legs was essential in this regard. However, as Toboso and Guzmán (2010) argue, ‘the social model interprets disability as a social construct, but does not present "ability” equally [...], which is also one’ (p.76), and in a substantial way. In other words, society not only determines which bodies and minds have access to which services, but also which bodies and minds are to be considered excellent. And in this ranking, minority functionalities tend to lose out. Even if there are mechanisms for their social and labour integration adapted to their way of being and of getting by in the world, their abilities are not only considered to be different, but also unequal in value and recognition. Even if we try to change the language and use the term functional diversity instead of disability, as has been done in several countries around the world, the unequal evaluation does not decrease as a result. The term "functional diversity" may be more respectful and less hurtful for many people (Sennet-Ramos, 2020), but it fails to hide the structural reality of our society. 

Taking this into account, this paper aims to show to what extent the concept of success is clearly problematic for the implementation of inclusive education, as it is forced to be installed in capitalist contexts. 

This paper maintains a theoretical-educational perspective, and therefore it achieves its findings fundamentally by means of critical analysis of texts. The arguments exposed are supported by the most relevant sources in the educational field (books, legal documents and articles indexed in SCOPUS and JCR).

We conclude making a strong defence of the importance of learning to experience failure as a way of life instead of pretending a success that it is actually not. However, experiencing failure does not mean being content with what has been given to us, but rather opening oneself up to the possibility of exploring other inconceivable avenues from what has been given to us. Its only meaning is to accept reality, both collective and individual, and from there, to imagine different ways of living with dignity. The supposedly inclusive education we have at present, which focuses on individual training, is clearly limited in this sense and it leads to ableism. In this way, truly inclusive education that shows what social success is, but does not convey it as an absolute may be more appropriate.. It is undeniably a more difficult and uncomfortable type of education, as it is necessarily less defined in its objectives and more open to the unpredictability of events. We are thus faced with education that is not civilised but wild. Wild inclusive education, in this sense, is what is needed in a society with such a defined evaluative hierarchy regarding human abilities as ours. It needs this unpredictability and indeterminacy, so that failure does not frustrate, but leads to the possibility of other realities. In conclusion, education that disguises failure as success by trying to adapt otherness to what is established ends up reproducing exclusion by succumbing to ableism; education that teaches how to experience failure, on the contrary, frees and opens up the real possibility of different types of life, relationships and existences. If we seek a society that is truly inclusive of all human diversity, perhaps we should begin to understand and apply it in this second way.

Ainscow, M. (1995). Education for all: Making it happen. Support for Learning, 10(4), 147 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.1995.tb00031.x Artiles, A., & Dyson, A. (2009). Inclusive education in the globalization age. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 37-62). Routledge. Del Pozo, A., Reyero, D., & Gil Cantero, F. (2020). The pedagogical limitations of inclusive education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 52(10), 1064 – 1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1723549 Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286 – 294. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.933551 Grue, J. (2016). The problem with inspiration porn: a tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability & Society, 31(6), 838 – 849. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1205473 Guffey, E. (2018). Designing Disability: Symbols, Space and Society. Bloomsbury Academic. Halberstam, J. (2011). The Queer Art of Failure. Duke University Press. Halberstam, J. (2020). Wild Things: The Disorder of Desire. Duke University Press. Inter-Agency Commision (1990). World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs. UNICEF House. Lacroix, J. (1964). L’échec. Presses Universitaires de France. Marsh, J. (2020). What´s Wrong with «You Say You´re Happy, but…» Reasoning? In D. T. Wasserman, & A. Cureton (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Disability (pp. 310-325). Oxford University Press. McRuer, R. (2006). Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York University Press. Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2019). Ableism: The Causes and Consequences of Disability Prejudice. Wiley-Blackwell. Sennet-Ramos, M. (2020). Functional diversity or disability? Social and conceptual challenges of the new educational paradigms. Culture & Education, 32(1), 17 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2019.1709397 The Care Collective (2020). The Care Manifesto. Verso Books. Toboso, M., & Guzmán, F. (2010). Cuerpos, capacidades, exigencias funcionales... y otros lechos de Procusto. Política y Sociedad, 47(1), 67 – 83. UNESCO (2017). A Guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. UNESCO. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO. Young, S. (2013). The Politics of Exclusion. In J. Caro (Ed.), Destroying the Joint: Why Women Have to Change the World (pp. 246-256). University of Queensland Press. Wong, A. (Ed.) (2020). Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from Twenty First Century. Vintage Books. Worrell, T. R. (2018). Disability in the Media: Examining Stigma and Identity. Lexington Books. Žižek, S. (2000). The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. Verso Books.