This paper is part of a larger national study (PID2019-108775RB-C4) that aims to explore what we are missing in inclusive education. The paper understands inclusion as a common project based on social justice, democracy and the defence of social cohesion. However, it may be at risk for a variety of reasons. Often the concept of inclusion is used indiscriminately, polarising debates that pit professionals, families, the scientific community and the educational community against each other (Göranson and Nilholm, 2014; Norwich, 2008). In fact, there are normative regulations, studies and even legal claims that use inclusion to defend anti-inclusion solutions.  Inclusive discourse runs the risks of being used to describe and legitimise exclusionary ways of doing things, what Slee (2018) describes as a misappropriation of inclusive education.

The fact that segregative and pseudo-inclusive practices persist in many countries and regions raises the question of the extent to which exclusionary attitudes, values and practices have been uncritically taken on board, when international and specifically European legislation advocates inclusion (Tawel, Emery, Daniels, Thompson & Porter, 2020).  The frequent debate about whether or not any learner (no matter who or how they are labelled) has a right to be in inclusive education illustrates the weak penetration and understanding of the inclusive ideal in society and education.

Although many studies confirm the importance of the family-school relationship, the analysis of inclusion from the perspective of families is limited. Some studies developed in the European and international context have been warning for more than a decade  of the persistent lack of recognition of the voices of parents in decisions about their children's schooling (De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert, 2010).  Other studies looks specifically at families' perceptions and attitudes towards inclusion and at families' preferred mode of schooling (Paseka, 2020; Duhaney and Salend, 2000; Merrigan, 2021). These studies show different results on the preferences of families of children in vulnerable situations for inclusive or segregated forms of schooling (whether in inclusive schools, special educational classrooms, or special education schools). Based on these results, in this study we intend to analyze which schooling model is preferred for a sample of Galician families of students identified as having Special Educational Needs and with different schooling experiences. I addition it is aimed to know, what reasons lead them to make this choice between different school emplacements.

Spanish educational legislation, although it declares itself to be inclusive, considers, as in other contexts, student diversity from a contradictory perspective by proposing segregating educational options as inclusive.

The work presented was developed in a specific region: the Autonomous Community of Galicia. According to the Galician Institute of Statistics, there are 1,254 educational schools in Galicia, with different types of ownership and providing education from nursery education to university studies. The provision of special settings is high: there are 36 special education schools in this community (with 1.111 students) while there are 41 special education classrooms in ordinary public schools attending to 337 students.

The procedure for the schooling of students with SEN is based on a psycho-pedagogical evaluation and subsequent schooling report, carried out by the school's guidance department and, in extraordinary cases, by a Specific Guidance Team. In this way, the procedure and decisions on the schooling of students are governed by exclusively technical criteria, limiting the voice of families in the report to a simple consultation without decision-making capacity.

This study assumes a qualitative research methodology with a participatory orientation. The broader study in which this work is framed aims to understand the functioning of the process of transformation and reinterpretation of educational policies considering the different agents that participate in their development. A large sample of participants belonging to different social and educational groups were involved in this process: families, associations, professionals in the field of educational policy, tutor and specialist teachers, guidance staff, management teams and students. In this paper, we focus on the analysis of families' perceptions of their children's schooling decisions and their assessment of the best educational placement for their children. Specifically, nine families (fathers and mothers) selected according to snowball sampling participated. The instrument used for data collection was the interview, of a conversational nature, supported by a form that acted as a mechanism to elicit the informant's reflection and thoughts on the object of study. The interview was designed based on a previous technical report developed by the research team. The topics addressed in the family interviews were: school participation, satisfaction at school, institutional representation of families, choice of school, economic costs, regulations and other educational spaces in which their children participate. A content analysis combining a deductive and inductive approach (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) was carried out based on the interview transcripts. It started from a series of deductive categories, which gave way to inductive coding. The qualitative analysis software MAXQDA was used as a support. The information derived from the interviews was segmented into three broad categories: Barriers, Aids and Suggestions for Improvement. In this paper we focus on the three previous categories and specifically on the codes related to schooling models and the evaluation process followed to make the schooling decision.

We are currently at the stage of analysing the data obtained, although we perceive a certain tendency for families to identify some common barriers and gaps in how the policy and practice of inclusion is understood and being developed. The opinion of the families interviewed was situated around the classic binomial of schooling: inclusive vs. special education school. Although inclusive schooling is the most desired placement for most families, when faced with their children's schooling they tend to opt for segregated settings. One explanation for this apparent contradiction between what is stated as desired and actual practice, according to families, is the disenchantment with the practical reality of inclusion. The lack of support, resources, teacher training, etc. is used to justify special schooling that is considered to be inclusive. This reveals a very simple and instrumental conception of inclusion and a lack of understanding of the idea of inclusion. Another concern expressed by families is related to how family participation is limited and restricted in the legislation and in practice. It is denounced the lack of participation in the decision making when a special placement is proposed for a student. In this way it is qualified as a symbolic participation that does not fit with democratic and social-justice inclusive ideals. This analysis suggests how the concept of inclusive education is often used loosely or superficially by focusing the development of inclusion on practical issues (necessary but insufficient such as placement or individual adaptations) without addressing its conceptual basis and the values that underpin it. Hence the conflicts, dilemmas and contradictory approaches taken by the participants in the study, which highlights the need to critically review and question the concepts and practices that are developed in the name of inclusive education.

De Boer, A., Pijl, S. P., and Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 25, 165–181. doi: 10.1080/08856251003658694 Duhaney, L. M. G., and Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remed. Special Educ. 21, 121–128. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100209 Göransson, K., and Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings–a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 29, 265–280. Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, Inclusion and disability: international perspectives on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23,4, 287-304 Merrigan, C., and Senior, J. (2021). Special schools at the crossroads of inclusion: do they have a value, purpose, and educational responsibility in an inclusive education system? Irish Educ. Stud. 40, 1–17. Paseka, A., and Schwab, S. (2020). Parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education and their perceptions of inclusive teaching practices and resources. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 35, 254–272. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2019.1665232 Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429486869 Tawell, Alice & Emery, Hilary & Daniels, Harry & Thompson, Ian & Porter, Jill. (2020). Seeking a balance: Conversations with policy makers and influencers about intervening upstream to prevent school exclusions in the context of Covid-19 and beyond: Insights from the Excluded Lives 'Policy Conversations'.