The research presented in this paper aims to identify similarities and differences in the cantonal approaches to the integration of children with ‘special educational needs’ in regular schools and to assess how inclusive these approaches are. This analysis forms part of a larger mixed-methods study on the development and management of integrative schools in Switzerland. It consists of a document analysis examining official programmes published by the 20 German-speaking cantons that outline their implementation of national ‘integrated special education’ legislation. Objectives were captured using the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002); measures were recorded inductively, and their implementation – as outlined in the programmes – was coded as inclusive or segregated, consistent with UN terminology (2016). The analysis reveals that inclusion, as conceptualised by the UN (cf. 2016) and operationalised by Booth & Ainscow (2002), is not widely pursued in Swiss special education programmes. Objectives focus heavily on cooperation, coordination, and individualised teaching, while broader approaches to inclusiveness, such as tackling all forms of discrimination, stigmatisation, and bullying, receive little to no attention. The programmes define student support measures mainly along diagnostic lines and try to match the various needs arising from disorders and disabilities (and from learning German as a second language) with appropriate assistance and accommodations. Overall, there is a moderate tendency towards inclusive, rather than segregated implementation, though most support measures are described as optionally inclusive, thus delegating the decision to lower-level educational authorities and leaving room for both inclusive and segregated implementations. Of the twenty cantons under study, one takes a consistently inclusive approach and another two that show similar consistency, albeit to a lesser extent. Overall, this document analysis shows great variety among the 20 cantons, with some striving to provide not just integrated support within the school but inclusive, needs-based support in the classroom. All cantons, however, maintain at least temporary segregation measures and, thus, fall short of providing a fully inclusive classroom setting. The findings of this comprehensive analysis help to identify different political strategies in dealing with the requirements of national and international education policy. Whereas some cantons outline especial efforts towards a more inclusive mainstream education system, others have opted for a more pragmatic approach, trying to strike a balance between goal setting and realisable measures and often leaving many decisions to educational and political actors at the municipal level.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. 2002. Index for Inclusion. Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, United Kingdom. United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2016. General Comment No. 4. (2016) on the Right to Inclusive Education.