Policy statements throughout the world today emphasize Inclusive Education (IE) as a major component of reform conceptions in education. As both an attitude and a new approach to education, IE – as disseminated by UNESCO – is widely recognized and internationally regarded as innovative. In fact, this model was even chosen as the theme of the last ministerial ‘International Conference on Education’ (held in Geneva, 25–28 November 2008, hosted by the International Bureau of Education, IBE), presently one of the foremost international forums for education policy dialogue among stakeholders in education (see UNESCO/IBE 2008). On that occasion, IE was celebrated as ‘The Way of the Future’. Accordingly, nearly all UNESCO member states, as well as organizations and professionals in education, are apparently answering IE in the affirmative (see Opertti & Belalcázar 2008). They currently share the global aim to implement the model into the respective education systems. Put in other words, nowadays ‘there is no serious national educational agenda organized around exclusive principles in place anywhere’ (Ramirez 2006, p. 440). The paper examines the connection between IE, as disseminated by UNESCO, with examples out of a variety of interpretations of this model that are reflected in statements made by ministries of education. It explores that the way IE is translated into public policies and reform conceptions differs significantly between different world regions and nation states (Ferguson 2008). However, UNESCO’s human rights-based model of IE that implies transnational homogenization of reform plans towards quality Education for All, as well as schools for all, is analyzed as a contrast to numerous national modes of educational inclusion that reflect the paradox interpretation of IE as addressed equally to all but especially to some. Upon analyzing statements of ministers of education and country reports, it became clear that only at first glance ministers talk about IE similarly to each other according to provisions and targets given by UNESCO. As a result of the spread of reference papers, guidelines, and suggestions by UNESCO, most of the documents refer to some core features of the IE model (for example ‘Education for all’) and are similar to some extent. However, both progress conceptions and perceptions on the national level appear bound to and determined by country-specific problems and traditions. Hence, when looked at more closely, the documents reveal quite a wide range of interpretations of this model.

The paper proposes an explanation for different interpretations of IE in the context of the recently emerged world-wide emphasis on the implementation of IE. Firstly, using neo-institutionalist strands of sociology of organizations (e.g. DiMaggio & Powell 1983) as a theoretical framework, it shows a broad international consent to implement IE. Secondly, using Discourse Analysis from the viewpoint of sociology of knowledge (Keller 2005) as a mode of inquiry, it makes clear that appearances are deceiving: Already on the national level of the reception of this model, there remains little consensus as to what the term IE actually means. This becomes more obvious when taking a closer look at archival documents (restricted documents, e.g. letters) that have been conducted and analyzed during several research sojourns to the archives of UNESCO in Paris.

The paper exposes the finding that beyond the globally shared vision to implement IE, national strategies and action plans reflect quite a variety of understandings and interpretations of IE, and are therefore linked both to differently arranged modes and different goals of inclusion in education. Regardless of the impact the model of IE has on the level of ‘policy talk’ (e.g. awareness-raising), it is argued that developments on the ‘action’ level (e.g. legislation, finance, curriculum design) turn out to be ‘loosely coupled’ with the model, its objectives, and the rationale behind it. The analysis of messages of ministers and national reports shows that the aspect of ‘lifelong learning’ is often neglected, although extensively described in information documents by UNESCO. Instead, the focus lies on children and youth. During the endeavour to adopt and implement IE as a major component of reform conceptions in education, in only a few national contexts is IE understood as a strategy to initiate ‘Education for All’ that is available throughout the life-span and regularly set up in diverse groups of co-educated learners. Moreover, how the ministerial documents pave the way in which IE is meant to be translated into educational reality, shows a significant divergence.