CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 187Inclusive Education and DiversityEducational Assessment and ImprovementCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion

Guiding schools on their journey towards inclusion

Open access
Azorín, Cecilia, Ainscow, Mel·2020·International Journal of Inclusive Education
DOI 10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Inclusion is increasingly recognised as a major driving force for educational reform and is a central goal of the international political agenda. This paper describes and analyzes how a group of schools in one region of Spain trialled a newly developed review instrument, named ‘Themis’, with the aim of guiding their efforts to promote greater inclusion. In so doing, the paper focuses on how schools can be helped to review progress on their journey to becoming more inclusive. Some of the challenges perceived in its use were the practicalities of generating credible evidence and the problem of making sense of this evidence; the need to develop trust among stakeholders; and the relevance of resolving contradictions and tensions, and deciding on priorities for moving forward. A strong theme that permeates the analysis presented in the paper is the importance of developing review instruments that relate to particular contexts and take account of the varied ideas of those involved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research collecting data on inclusive education often focuses on teacher and pre-service reflections rather than student outcomes.

    “Unfortunately, research collecting data on inclusive education often focus on teacher and pre-service reflections rather than student outcomes [31,32].”

    From Using Evidence-Based Practice and Data-Based Decision Making in Inclusive Education (2021) · cites this paper as [31]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Azorín, C., & Ainscow, M.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Education, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
  • University of Manchester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Inclusive Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-03-24
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
58-76
ISSN
  • 1360-3116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5173
DOI
10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900
OpenAlex
W2793327067
Cited by
187
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5
FWCI
44.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • International Journal of Inclusive Education (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Manchester
  • Universidad de Murcia
  • Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Inclusive Education and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Keywords
inclusive education, THEMIS, educational reform, stakeholder trust, evidence use, decision-making, inclusive education policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review