Regarding the funding of inclusion, it is clear from multiple sources (for example, Fontaine, 2019; Meijer and Watkins, 2019; Slee, 2018; UNESCO, 2020) that an effective inclusive education system requires investment and adequate support. Whilst the various properties of inclusion funding models are numerous, it is argued by Meijer (1999) that all funding for inclusion/special educational needs is essentially:

1. input - needs funding. Sometimes referred to as a pupil Backpack fund that travels with a child through their school/college life.

or

1. throughput - tasks funding. Throughput funding of tasks, services, continuing professional development, etc.

Of the two forms of funding, throughput is argued to be the more inclusive of the funding options (Meijer and Watkins, 2019) as it seeks to develop and improve services and is more likely to avoid the labelling of pupils (Meijer, 1999). In this paper, the focus is on governmental throughput funding of practitioner research projects in the form of Action Research for Inclusion and Special Educational Needs and Disability (ISEND). The funding of Action Research as continuing professional development (CPD), is considered to be particularly interesting because it aligns with the current and widely respected literature on the topic of efficacious CPD for inclusion (for example, Alves, 2020; Black-Hawkins and Florian, 2012; Norwich and Ylonen, 2014; Rouse, 2008), and contrasts with other current trends which are steering towards the homogenisation of teacher CPD.

This paper comes from the premise that when teacher CPD is set within a constructivist ontology which frames inclusive practice as a process rather than an end goal, teachers are more likely to embrace its challenges (Robinson, 2021). The constructivist ontology also aligns with Jordan et al.’s (2009) construction of an interventionist paradigm, which views inclusive teachers as holding a belief that children with SEND are their responsibility and their actions have a positive and meaningful effect on the outcomes for children with SEND. The interventionist paradigm being juxtaposed against the pathognomonic paradigm which situates SEND as ‘within the child’ and requiring specialist intervention from experts, and a greater use of segregated forms of support which take place outside of the classroom (Jordan, et al., 2009). Pathognomonic beliefs have also been argued to deplete teachers’ feelings of professional wellbeing (Codina and Fordham, 2021). In this paper the epistemology and efficacy of practitioner research (which recognises teachers as complex agents of change who operate in highly contextualised and collaborative settings) is explored.

Key questions on which this paper will focus

-        What is the relationship between the Action Research projects undertaken by participants and the interventionist and pathognomonic paradigms?

-        Is this form of throughput funding leading to participants’ engagement in projects which promote inclusive practice (as set within a constructivist ontology)?

-        Is there anything that can be said about Action Research for ISEND and a reduced reliance, or shift in analyses, regarding the use of backpack funding?

-        Will the teachers involved in this project be interested in, or able to, embed a practitioner research culture within their setting, if so why?

To answer the research question ‘what is the epistemology and efficacy of practitioner research for ISEND’ this study is adopting an interpretivist, qualitative approach to content analysis. Content analysis as a methodology allows for the organisation and elicitation of meaning from collected data, and the drawing of realistic conclusions (Bengtsson, 2016). The data for analyses is drawn from ten participants who started the Action Research Project in November 2022. Data will be predominantly drawn from research case studies written by participants, and this data will be supplemented by some evaluative participant data. Approval to conduct the research was given by an English University ethics committee. Aligned with methods for content analysis, data analysis is to be conducted as a four staged model as defined by Bengtsson (2016): - Contextualization – researcher familiarization with the data gathered; - Recontextualization – in relation to the research aim, checking whether all aspects of the content present within the data have been covered; - Categorisation – grouping and or condensing of extended units of meaning; - Compilation – drawing together the categories of meaning into themes as a form of manifest analysis which uses participants’ words and requires the researcher to stay close to the original meanings and contexts.

The data which will be presented in this paper, should it be accepted, is currently being gathered. Data gathering is due to be complete by June 2023. Regarding the expected findings and outcomes, this paper aims to shine a light on the epistemology and efficacy of throughput funded Action Research in relation to: - the development of interventionist school/college approaches to special educational needs and disability which apply a constructivist ontology that frames inclusive practice as a process rather than an end goal; - teachers’ experiences of developing practice to include children who are in receipt of input funding (i.e., a Backpack fund, known in England as an ‘Education, Health and Care plan’); - Teachers’ perceptions about the value and benefit of the Action Research project, and their willingness to further develop and embed a practitioner research culture within their setting. The use of content analysis as a methodology is designed to provide a rigor to the process of drawing conclusions, and a means of exposing findings which may be uncomfortable or far from what has been set out above as expected.

Alves, I. (2020). Enacting education policy reform in Portugal—The process of change and the role of teacher education for inclusion. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 64–82. https://doi. org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1693995. Bengtsson, Mariette. “How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis.” NursingPlus open 2 (2016): 8–14. Black-Hawkins, K., and Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice. Teachers and Teaching, 18(5), 567–584 Codina, G., Fordham, J. (2021) ‘Resilience, Reflection and Reflexivity’. In S. Soan (Ed) Why Do Teachers Need to Know about Diverse Learning Needs? London: Bloomsbury, pp. 119-135 (Chapter 8) Fontaine, F. (2019) Inclusive education for learners with disabilities: the role of the European Union. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 6(2),109-109. Jordan, A., Schwartz, E. and McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009) Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 535–542. Meijer, C. J. W. (1999) Financing of Special Needs Education. A Seventeen-Country Study of the Relationship Between Financing of Special Needs Education and Inclusion. European Agency for Development in Special Education Needs: Denmark. Meijer. C., & Watkins, A. (2019) Financing special needs and inclusive education – from Salamanca to the present, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23:7-8, 705-721. Norwich, B., & Ylonen, A. (2014) ‘Lesson study practices in the development of secondary teaching of students with moderate learning difficulties: a systematic qualitative analysis in relation to context and outcomes’, British Educational Research Journal, 41(4):629-649 Robinson, D. (2015) The difficulty with inclusive pedagogy in teacher education: Some more thought on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 164–178. Robinson, D. (2021) The SENCO as a leader of professional learning for inclusive practice. In M.C. Beaton, G.N. Codina, and J.C. Wharton, (Eds) Leading on Inclusion: The role of the SENCO. Abingdon: Nasen Routledge, pp. 15-25 (Chapter 3) Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education? Education in the North, 16, 6–13.Sansour, T., and Bernhard, D. (2018) Special needs education and inclusion in Germany and Sweden. European Journal of Disability Research, 12,127-139. Slee, R. (2018 Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it just Smells Funny. Routledge: Abingdon United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020) Towards Inclusion in Education: Status, trends, and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. Paris: UNESCO.