



























Defining Inclusion: What It Is, What It Is Not, and Why It Matters_Steven Sheppard.docx


Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 
 
 
 

 
Defining Inclusion: What It Is, What It Is Not, and Why It Matters 

 
Steven Sheppard* 

University of Calgary 

Inclusion in education is often championed in policy but remains misunderstood and 
inconsistently applied in practice. This paper examines how inclusion is defined, 
implemented, and experienced, particularly for students with disabilities in Canadian 
schools. Drawing on Critical Disability Studies (CDS), legal policy analysis, and 
lived experience, this critique examines how segregation and deficit-based language 
continue to reinforce ableist structures despite claims of equity. Through personal 
narrative and a case study involving a student excluded from an art class, this paper 
illustrates how systemic design—not individual impairment—often disables. Key 
frameworks, including Kearney’s concept of hospitality and Krischler’s work on 
educator beliefs, are used to reframe inclusion not as mere placement but as a 
political and ethical commitment to transformation. This paper advocates for a 
paradigm shift—from integration into existing systems to the co-creation of inclusive 
spaces where all students are valued and feel a sense of belonging. 

Key words:  Inclusion, education, equity, disability, policy 

Sheppard, S. (2025). Defining Inclusion: What It Is, What It Is Not, and Why It Matters. 
Emerging Perspectives. 

 

*sjsheppa@ucalgary.ca  

http://ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca
mailto:sjsheppa@ucalgary.ca


Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 2 

Introduction 
 

Inclusion in education remains one of the most debated and misunderstood concepts in 
contemporary educational discourse (Armstrong et al., 2011; Graham & Slee, 2006; Slee, 2010). 
Globally, educators and policymakers continue to grapple with how to build systems where all 
students are valued and supported (Haug, 2017). Over the past three decades, international 
efforts—such as Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4)—have aimed to “ensure inclusive 
and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], n.d., para. 2). Ainscow 
(2020) emphasizes the importance of shared understandings of inclusion and equity within 
policy. Yet despite formal commitments, a significant gap remains between inclusive policy and 
everyday practice (UNESCO, 2024). This gap is especially stark between the Global North and 
Global South (Kamenopoulou & Karisa, 2023), where structural barriers such as limited 
resources and technology continue to hinder progress (Sharma, 2020). These disparities raise 
questions not just about implementation, but about what inclusion really means—and for whom. 

Canadian Context 

In Canada, the policy-practice gap also persists. Inclusive education implementation 
varies across provinces and territories (Towle, 2015), ranging from full inclusion to segregated 
models that are still labeled “inclusive.” In many classrooms, inclusion exists in rhetoric but not 
in design (Slee, 2010). Haug (2017) states, “No country has yet succeeded in constructing a 
school system that lives up to the ideals and intentions of inclusion, as defined by different 
international organizations.” (p. 206). Some scholars argue that Canada has failed to do so. 
Lord (2020) argues Canada has failed to meet its obligations under Article 24 of the Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; 2007), which guarantees the right to inclusive 
education. Despite being a signatory, Canadian practices often fall short of ensuring equitable 
access to education. In some cases, students are placed in self-contained classrooms, provided 
with limited academic pathways, and excluded from meaningful peer interaction—all while 
systems claim to uphold inclusion. This disconnect calls for more than improved implementation; 
it demands a re-examination of what inclusion actually requires. 

As an educator and researcher, I have had to ask: What does inclusion genuinely mean 
in practice? This paper draws on personal experience, policy critique, and Critical Disability 
Studies (CDS) to reflect on that question and explore more equitable educational possibilities 
that move beyond compliance toward transformation. 

Positionality and Lived Experience 

I did not grow up identifying as disabled, nor did I come from a family with lived disability 
experience. I entered education believing I was an ally—committed to inclusion, yet outside the 
margins. That changed when I began to understand my own non-apparent disability. Living with 
an invisible disability made me aware of how schools reward conformity and penalize difference. 
Navigating educational spaces while masking parts of myself deepened my understanding of 
the subtle forces that shape who is seen, supported, or excluded. This experience now grounds 

 



Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 3 

my approach to inclusive education. 

I intentionally use the term “disabled students” rather than “students with disabilities.” 
While person-first language reflects the medical model—implying that disability is a condition 
separate from the individual—identity-first language aligns with CDS. It emphasizes that 
systems, not bodies, create disabling experiences (Goodley, 2014; Retief & Letšosa, 2018). This 
is a political and theoretical stance that signals a belief in systemic, rather than individual, 
reform. Identity-first language affirms disability as a valued part of identity, rather than something 
to be minimized or erased. For me, it is an act of solidarity and clarity: if schools are to become 
inclusive, we must name the ways they currently disable students. 

My introduction to inclusive education was unplanned. I was hired to teach a class of 14 
disabled students—without a curriculum, expectations, or resources. These students had been 
grouped based on diagnostic labels rather than learning needs or strengths. They represented a 
wide range of experiences, strengths, and goals, but the system treated them as one 
homogenous group to be managed rather than supported. That experience revealed how 
exclusion is built into the structure of schooling, even when inclusion is the stated goal. The 
classroom was physically separate, pedagogically undefined, and administratively invisible. It 
was clear to me then that inclusion was not about adding students into existing systems—it was 
about reimagining those systems from the ground up. 

Kearney’s (2003) Strangers, Gods and Monsters helped me articulate what I had felt but 
couldn’t explain. He describes how societies construct “others” to reinforce dominant norms. 
Disabled students, positioned as “monstrous” disruptions to order, are often managed rather 
than welcomed (Kearney, 2003). Kearney’s analysis of the stranger as a threat to identity, 
safety, and order mirrors the way many schools treat disabled students—as potential disruptions 
rather than valued participants (Kearney, 2003). Kearney’s concept of hospitality reframes 
inclusion as an ethical imperative: not to assimilate the stranger, but to transform the system in 
response to those who unsettle it (Kearney, 2003). 

Systemic Barriers: Language and Segregation 

Deficit-based language and segregated programs sustain ableist structures by 
normalizing separation and lowering expectations (Titchkosky, 2011; Ainscow, 2020). These 
practices frame difference as a problem to manage, not an opportunity to reimagine education. 
When systems pathologize variance, they not only exclude—they make inclusion seem 
impossible. This is particularly true when students are evaluated solely through narrow 
academic lenses, with limited recognition of diverse ways of knowing, expressing, or 
contributing. 

Emily—a disabled, Indigenous, transitioning student—makes this issue painfully 
concrete. Exceptionally gifted in art, she was denied access to a high school course due to 
staffing and scheduling. Her exclusion wasn’t about ability; it reflected a system unprepared to 
include her, despite its stated values. Her story illustrates the compounding effects of 
intersectionality, where multiple layers of identity—disability, Indigeneity, gender, 

 



Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 4 

poverty—interact with systemic barriers. Emily’s absence from the art class was not an isolated 
oversight. It was a failure of the system to respond flexibly, creatively, and equitably. 

This echoed other forms of exclusion. Canada’s last racially segregated school closed in 
1983 (Walker, 1997). While racial segregation is now rejected, segregation by disability remains 
normalized—often reframed as support. These parallels are not metaphorical; they are 
structural. Just as racially segregated schools were justified under the guise of “separate but 
equal,” special education spaces are often described as necessary for “meeting needs.” Yet 
they often operate as containers that isolate, restrict, and diminish students’ access to broader 
educational opportunities. 

Theoretical Foundations of Inclusion 

A law and ethics course pushed me to analyze key policies: the Canadian Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms (1982), the Education Act (2023a), the Teaching Quality Standard 
(Alberta Education, 2018), and the Alberta Human Rights Act (2023b). Together, these 
documents affirm that inclusive education is both a legal right and ethical responsibility. Section 
15 of the Charter guarantees equal protection and benefit under the law, including on the basis 
of disability (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 6(2)(b)). The Education Act mandates inclusive 
environments, while the Teaching Quality Standard requires that teachers foster them. The 
Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in public services—including education. Yet 
despite these legal frameworks, daily practices still reflect entrenched ableism, especially when 
policies are implemented inconsistently or interpreted through a deficit lens. 

UNESCO (2020) defines exclusion as the denial of “life prospects needed for learning” 
(p. 26). In schools, this occurs through inaccessible curricula, streaming, and segregated 
programming. Segregation, often framed as support, is the deliberate separation of groups, 
limiting access and opportunity (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.; Dixon, 2005). It creates parallel 
systems in which students are provided with “different” rather than equal experiences. By 
contrast, differentiation can promote equity when used to adapt instruction in shared spaces 
(Tomlinson, 2014). But when differentiation justifies separation, it risks reproducing the very 
inequities it seeks to challenge. It becomes a tool of exclusion dressed in the language of 
accommodation. 

CDS helps reframe disability as a product of exclusionary systems rather than individual 
deficits. Paterson and Hughes (1999, as cited in Lebenhagen, 2024) argue that even integration 
can enforce assimilation. From a CDS perspective, inclusion requires transforming the 
system—not merely adjusting it to accommodate some. It involves unsettling foundational 
assumptions about ability, intelligence, and success. This lens also clarifies the difference 
between inclusion and belonging. Inclusion ensures presence; belonging ensures recognition, 
value, and connection (Schuelka et al., 2019). A student can be in the room and still feel 
profoundly excluded—physically present, but socially and emotionally absent. 

Krischler et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of active participation. Inclusion isn’t 
just about placement; it’s about engagement. Students must have agency in shaping their 

 



Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 5 

learning experiences. Dixon (2005) supports this, describing inclusive classrooms as places 
where diversity is embraced through thoughtful design. Participation is not an add-on; it is the 
foundation of meaningful learning. While strategies like co-teaching and trauma-informed 
practice are valuable, they’re not enough. Inclusion is not a checklist—it is a political project. As 
Krischler et al. (2019) argue, teacher beliefs shape classroom realities. Embracing CDS means 
shifting from the question “How can this student fit in?” to “How can we build a system where 
they already belong?” 

Conclusion 

Inclusion in education must move beyond rhetoric and tokenistic practices. It must be 
rooted in systemic change, informed by critical theory, and grounded in the lived experiences of 
those most affected by exclusion. As educators, researchers, and policymakers, we must ask 
not how to fit disabled students into existing structures, but how to reconstruct those structures 
altogether. Genuine inclusion requires rethinking norms, redistributing power, and recognizing 
diversity as a strength rather than a disruption. This paper offers both a personal and critical 
reflection on what inclusion is, what it is not, and why getting it right—ethically, legally, and 
practically—matters more than ever. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 6 

References 

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international 
experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 

Alberta Education. (2018). Teaching quality standard. 
https://www.alberta.ca/professional-practice-standards.aspx 

Alberta Human Rights Act. RSA 2023a, c A- 25.5. 
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A25P5.pdf 

Education Act. RSA, 2023b, c E-0.3. https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/e00p3.pdf 

Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: By choice or by chance? 
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 29–39. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496192 

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Segregation. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved April 6, 
2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/segregation 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being 
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11. 

Dixon, S. (2005). Inclusion—Not segregation or integration is where a student with special 
needs belongs. Journal of Educational Thought, 39(1), 33–53. 

Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203366974 

Graham, L. J., & Slee, R. (2006, April). Inclusion? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
American Educational Research Association (Disability Studies in Education SIG), San 
Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/107158437/Inclusion 

Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of 
Disability Research, 19(3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778 

Kamenopoulou, L., & Karisa, A. (2023). Inclusive education in the Global South: Can we turn 
promises into actions? Disability and the Global South, 10(1), 2181–2188. 

Kearney, R. (2003). Strangers, gods and monsters: Interpreting otherness. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203450659 

Krischler, M., Powell, J. J. W., & Pit-Ten Cate, I. M. (2019). What is meant by inclusion? On the 
effects of different definitions on attitudes toward inclusive education. European Journal 
of Special Needs Education, 34(5), 632–648. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1580837 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
https://www.alberta.ca/professional-practice-standards.aspx
https://www.alberta.ca/professional-practice-standards.aspx
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A25P5.pdf
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/e00p3.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496192
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496192
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/segregation
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203366974
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203366974
https://www.academia.edu/107158437/Inclusion
https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203450659
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203450659
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1580837
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1580837


Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 7 

Lebenhagen, C. (2024). Autistic students’ views on meaningful inclusion: A Canadian 
perspective. Journal of Education, 204(1), 13–28. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221101378 

Lord, P. (2020). Access to inclusive education for students with autism: An analysis of Canada’s 
compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(4), 124–150. 
https://cjds.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjds/article/view/710 

Paterson, K., & Hughes, B. (1999). Disability studies and phenomenology: The carnal politics of 
everyday life. Disability & Society, 14(5), 597–610. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925966 

Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). Models of disability: A brief overview. HTS Teologiese 
Studies/Theological Studies, 74(1), a4738. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.4738 

Schuelka, M. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thomas, G., Artiles, A. J., & Sage eReference. (2019). The 
SAGE Handbook of Inclusion and Diversity in Education. London. 

Sharma, U. (2020). Inclusive education in the Pacific: Challenges and opportunities. Prospects, 
49(3–4), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09498-7 

Slee, R. (2010). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge. 

Titchkosky, T. (2011). The question of access: Disability, space, meaning. University of Toronto 
Press. 

Towle, H. (2015). Disability and inclusion in Canadian education: Policy, procedure, and 
practice. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. 
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Off
ice/2015/01/Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education.pdf 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (n.d.). Sustainable 
Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). Retrieved April 6, 2025, from 
https://www.unesco.org/sdg4education2030/en/sdg4 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Towards inclusion in 
education: Status, trends and challenges—The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 
years on. https://doi.org/10.54675/ASIM9654 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2024). The Salamanca 
Statement anniversary: 30 years of progress? 
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000390459 

United Nations. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2515 U.N.T.S. 3. 
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-wit

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221101378
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574221101378
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925966
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925966
https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.4738
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09498-7
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2015/01/Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education.pdf
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Manitoba%20Office/2015/01/Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education.pdf
https://www.unesco.org/sdg4education2030/en/sdg4
https://www.unesco.org/sdg4education2030/en/sdg4
https://doi.org/10.54675/ASIM9654
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000390459
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000390459
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html


Sheppard / Emerging Perspectives (2025)                                 8 

h-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html 

Walker, J. W. St. G. (1997). “Race,” rights and the law in the Supreme Court of Canada: A 
historical case study. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. 

 
 

 

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html

