School-Based Initiative to Facilitate Greater Inclusion

Through this portfolio understanding of literature, research and legislation surrounding inclusive education will be demonstrated. The notion of inclusion will be explored and how a range of approaches can be used to facilitate inclusion in practise. Potential barriers to learning and participation will be identified and analysed. The specific areas that will be identified and analysed are; inclusion through learning and play outdoors predominantly in an Early Years setting but also in a wider context. The portfolio will not only use text to critically analyse these areas but will also use visual images, semiotics, in support of its analysis.
Semiotics is the study of textual ‘signs’ or ‘messages’. It is a way of ‘reading’ messages in visuals. In analysing images we can consider; the layout and styling of images, the posing of those featured, the use of light and colour, the sequencing and relationship of images to each other and to text and whether images are logos, signs or photographs. When we look at the UK’s education system today, particularly its emphasis on inclusion, it is difficult to imagine how much has changed over the years; it is believed that at present, teachers and teaching assistants work very hard every day to ensure that they give all of their students the best chance to succeed academically and socially (Learning Never Stops 2014). Indeed the way in which the support has been provided, has been seen to be crucial to the inclusion process in schools (Sorsby, 2004; Richards and Armstrong, 2008). Inclusion has even become a taken for granted practice of schooling in the UK and it is presented as a fundamental good (Dunne, 2008).
The evolution towards inclusion began tentatively in a few countries as long ago as the late 1950’s.It officially emerged as a concept and social practise in the 1990’s.The concepts integration and normalization had been discussed and the main reason was the normalization principle brought up by Nirje (2003).The main idea was that persons with disabilities should be able to live on the same living conditions as other children, adolescents and adults (Brodin & Lindstrand, 2006). A consequence of this principle was that institutions and special hospitals were abolished and that children and adolescents, as far as possible, moved back home and attended regular school’s, had access to technical aids and personal assistants and individual teaching material was produced.
The principles of integration that were established by Warnock (1978) and incorporated into the Education Act 1981 continued to inform practice through the eighties and led to the development of LEA policies on integration (Gibson and Blandford 2005). In summary, policy was that children with special educational needs should be integrated in mainstream schools where possible, with specialist provision for those whose needs were such that integration was impractical. Such an approach was not without critics. Writing in 1989, Roaf and Bines argued that the concept of need is insufficient on its own for meeting special needs in education and a discourse of equal opportunities and rights, with an emphasis on entitlement, provides a more effective basis for policy and practice. They suggested that need remained deficit based and still reflected an individualistic approach to difficulties and handicaps which also clouded issues of values, power and function (Tomlinson 1982) and, despite attempts to limit labelling and stigma, special needs is a euphemism for school failure (Barton 1988). Richmond (1979) had previously expressed concern over the use of the term ‘special’ and also raised questions that concur with current debates about the existence of a distinctive SEN pedagogy, by suggesting that there is nothing special about schools ensuring they are teaching effectively, that children are learning, that the curriculum is appropriate and that there is a suitable environment with advice and support.
An analysis of the history of special education provision in many Western countries suggests certain patterns (Reynolds and Ainscow, 1994). They state that initial provision frequently took the form of separate special schools set up by religious or philanthropic organisations. This was then adopted and extended as part of national education arrangements, leading to parallel schools systems for those pupils in need of special attention (Farrell and Ainscow, 2002). This view of pattern’s, is one that is also evidenced in developing countries, as supported by Mittler, Brouillete and Harris (1993). In the early 1990’s,as already highlighted, the appropriateness of having a separate system was challenged from both a human rights perspective and, indeed from the point of view of effectiveness and this led to the notion of integration.(Ainscow,1991;Hegarty,1990; O’Hanlon, 1995;Pijl and Meijer 1991; UNESCO, 1995).
Policy on Special Educational Needs was further demonstrated through the Code of Practise on Special Educational Needs (DfES 2001) and the Special Needs and Disability Act. Such movements were strongly endorsed internationally by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994b) and the Dakar Agreement (UNESCO, 2000). These statements aimed to promote an inclusive education which expected schools to educate all students, particularly those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and that they be taught in schools using predominantly adaptable and child centred pedagogy (UNESCO, 1994). The beginning of the twenty-first century also saw a further thrust towards inclusion with a raft of governmental policies, initiatives and legislation. For example, the Every Child Matters agenda, (DfES, 2003a); and the Strategy for SEN: Removing Barriers to Achievement, (DfES, 2004), all placed inclusion on the political agenda and embedded various understandings of it in public consciousness (Armstrong, 2005). Sheehy et al., (2004) suggest that, at first glance, it may appear on the surface that the 'battle ' for inclusive policy had been won.

Figure 1
The journey in relation to inclusion, as described by Richards and Armstrong (2011) has progressed overtime from exclusion through segregation to integration. Visually and symbolically, as can be seen in figure 1 above and in other drawings, inclusion is frequently represented as a circle. The circle is a shape that conjures connotations and associations with security, protection and belonging (Dunne, 2009). Circles also appear to be the preferred figuration used by policymakers to symbolise inclusion. Educators are encouraged by the government to think about inclusion in terms of circles, with an inside and an outside (DfEE, 1999; DfES, 2006).

Figure 2
Analysis of school websites and prospectuses also demonstrates that preferred images are also in circle shapes. As seen in Figure 2, often they are of children or people holding hands making a circle shape. This supports the theory claimed by Dunne (2009) that the circle demonstrates security, protection and belonging.
Both the exclusion stage and segregation stage appear to support the view of the medical model of disability. This focussed on the perceived condition of a disabled person and their need for treatment.

Figure 3
This is depicted through the image in Figure 3, which demonstrates that it is perceived that a person’s disability is the problem. It demonstrates that through the medical model of disability a person with a disability is the passive receiver of services which are aimed at the ‘cure’ to their ‘condition’. Through the medical model of disability a person’s disability would be seen first and the associated difficulties would be seen as the barrier (Dunne, 2009).This model ‘medicalised’,or made a problem out of what was sometimes just differences in natural human attributes or ways of being (Walton and Goddard, 2009). For example, we inadvertently medicalise Dyslexia by talking in terms of ‘condition’ and ‘diagnosis’ and this is not particularly helpful to the child with the learning needs or to the wider process of inclusion. This attitude towards a ‘difference’ and ways of thinking and speaking can inadvertently cause harm, discrimination and exclude, a view supported by Thomas and Loxley (2001).

Figure 4
Figure 4 depicts the Medical model and how it does not support inclusion. It depicts a disabled person unable to access a service that states at its entrance that everyone is welcome. The medical model of disability sees the person as the problem and unable to join in with society as a result of their impairment and not as a consequence of the features in our society which could be changed. Mackenzie (2005) suggests that “many disabled people internalise the negative message that all disabled people’s problems stem from not having ‘normal’ bodies”. The medical model therefore can influence the way disabled people think and feel about themselves and can cause feelings of low self-esteem. This can then lead people to believe that their impairments stop them from participating in society, which can eventually lead to further segregation and exclusion. A view further supported by the quote, ‘material deprivation and political disenfranchisement continued unabated, whilst institutional discrimination and social stigmatization were exacerbated by segregation’ (Humphrey 2000:63).In order to understand the impact of the medical model on exclusionary discourses, it is of essential importance to think about the progress of medicine during the past century. The fact that a doctor now has the ability and the privilege to diagnose, prescribe, cure and rehabilitate raises him in the sphere of authority. A view supported by the statement ‘that power is maintained by medical professions who seek to define, control and treat disabled people’(Oliver 1996: 24). Vlachou (1997) argues that the medical model is extremely dominant and it demonstrates its strength through labelling and its policy around disability.
Medical models of thinking and of practise were very prevalent prior to moves towards greater inclusion. In school setting’s it is now recognised that it is more appropriate, respectful and more socially just, to speak in terms of needs rather than of difficulty or conditions; this is known as the social model of thinking (Walton and Goddard, 2012)
The social model of disability believes that everyone is individual and their own person (DfE, 2011), with specific requirements rather than problems (Dunne, 2010). In the social model of disability, the barriers that a person experiences to enjoying in the life of their community are not intrinsic to any medical or other condition but arise from disabling attitudes and environments. This argument is supported by the quote; “Impairment is what we have. Disability is what we experience”, (John and Wheway, 2004).
The social model of disability sees society itself as disabling by not adapting to the needs of everyone. For example, there are such issues as unequal job opportunities and poor access to services which causes discrimination towards disabled people. Johnstone (2001) suggests that “it is society that perpetuates the oppression and exclusion of disabled people… the onus of responsibility is shifted from the individual with an impairment or disability to the restrictions imposed by the construction of the social and physical environment and the attitudes of institutions and organisations”. The social model of disability considers how we can remove barriers to participation in learning. Armstrong (2002) writes that education was not a priority for special institutions in the first half of the twentieth century and affirming that historical accounts provide an insight into a degrading experience in which disabled pupils were subjective to a restrictive and uninspiring routine. Kudlacova (2008) believes that the development of the critical mind led people to retreat from this attitude and ways of thinking, moving towards a view of changing the lives of the disabled for the better; hence the social model of disability. Warnock informed us that the intention of the Warnock report and the introduction of the term ‘special educational needs’ was to move from categorising pupils under medical terms (Ekins, 2012), to a social model whereby children had a voice and could participate in decision making (Ashton, 2008).Up until recently there was still a barrier to participation and a lot of young disabled children were still not allowed the chance to take part in either individual or group decisions (VIPER, 2013). However, this has most recently been reflected in the latest Special Educational Needs and disabilities reform, SEND (2014) code of practise. This states that young people under the new reforms will have new rights. When they reach 16, they should normally be consulted directly – their views will take precedence over their parents ' views.
The historical development of inclusion is important to understand as it allows to us to see how far understanding, knowledge and interpretations have changed. Armstrong (2002) says it is important to use a multi-disciplinary approach when doing so as, through exploration, it was recognised that there can be silences particularly around disabled children dating back in history. For example there is not much written evidence about where disabled were and how they lived in written form, yet there may be pictorial evidence as seen in figure 5. Figure 5
This is a picture depicting the ordinary lives of disabled children, as sick and dying in Dickens novel Nicholas Nickleby. Potts (1995) critically explored the possible contribution of history to enhancing or changing the development of special educational needs and argues against a view which separates history from contemperory life and insists that “histories can only be of use if we put ourselves into the historical picture, allowing history to affect our lives and our lives to effect history” (Potts 1995:410).
So far this portfolio has looked at the historical policy development of inclusion. But it is important to explore and define what exactly inclusion means to be able to demonstrate a range of approaches that facilitate inclusion in practise. Through reading literature, researchers and organizational bodies offer differing views. This explains the various ways inclusion can be seen. Ofsted, the school inspectorate, offers the definition that educational inclusion is ‘about equal opportunities for all pupils…it pays particular attention to the provision for, and achievement of, different groups of pupils’ (Ofsted, 2001). Groups identified for inclusion not only include learners with special educational needs, but also those of different gender, minority ethnic groups and different faith groups(SEND,2014).In contrast, a differing view on inclusion is defined by The Centre of Studies on Inclusive Education who state that inclusion is about rights, equity issues and social justice. This view on inclusion is supported by the document ‘Index for Inclusion’. The main views of the book proposing that in an inclusive school, the inclusive ethos can be seen through all school policies so that learning and participation are increased for all children, and school practises reflect the inclusive ethos and policies of the school (Booth et al.,2002). The Index for Inclusion (Booth et al.,2002), according to its co-author, is arguably the most detailed explanation available about what an inclusive school ‘looks like’ (Ainscow,2007).

Suffice to say that for many years inclusivity has proven problematic in terms of definition, general conceptualisation and implementation. As argued by Slee (1995, 2001), unless a term has a tight definition and focus then broad understandings will result in misconceptions, misinterpretations with confused practices following. Other researchers in the field, (Armstrong, 2005; Lawson et al., 2006), have also observed that, despite the notion of inclusion being a fundamental good, the ideas and messages within inclusive policy appear to remain quite vague. Perhaps as a consequence of vagueness in policy, inclusion remains a generalised, disputable concept that is wide open to interpretation. Slee (2001b;169) observes that educators and researchers engage in conversations about it 'irrespective of the fact they may be talking across deep epistemological ravines ' and the term appears to mean ‘different things to different people who have various investments, or vested interests, in how it is constructed and interpreted’.
The main task of inclusive education, taking all viewpoints into consideration, is overcoming barriers to learning and participation for all (Booth et al, 2000). All members of the schools communities must engage in a process of reducing exclusions within and from education and increasing learning and participation (UNESCO, 2000). In 2007, Inclusion Development Programme (DfES, 2007) materials were disseminated to schools. The 'key aims ' were to improve the outcomes for pupils and to narrow the gaps between the lowest and highest achievers; to promote early recognition and intervention; to increase the confidence of all practitioners and to support schools and settings to be more effective at strategic approaches to support confidence and intervention. One approach that can be used to facilitate inclusion in practice that supports inclusion in its many definitions whether it be achievement, confidence and intervention; overcoming barriers to learning; rights, social justice or equality is that of outdoor play and learning outdoors.
The research undertaken for this document has further significance for me, and the school setting in which I work, as developing teaching and learning practices and embedding learning outside of the classroom are current focuses of the school improvement plan. This is as a result of outstanding practise demonstrated in our Early Years setting and the recognition that outdoor play and learning has, and can have, a fundamental impact on a child’s development and enables a multi-sensory approach to teaching and learning activities, therefore enabling an inclusive environment.
The most common effect of any child’s disability is peer isolation (Christensen, 2004), understanding children with disabilities and what they are capable of is the first step towards providing a truly ‘inclusive’ environment. All children have a right to play under Article 31 of the UN convention on the Rights of the Child. This right applies to every child under the age of 18 (Article 1) without ‘discrimination of any kind’ (Article 2). Many children experience barriers to play opportunities in their communities and in their day-to-day lives. Disabled children continue to face problems of attitude, access, transport and lack of flexibility or willingness to meet their needs (Play Scotland, 2003)

Figure 6
Figure 6 clearly depicts a play area which supports this very point; accessibility to this playground for the disabled child is clearly minimal and demonstrates no flexibility in enabling a disabled child to use its provision independently. Disabled people are entitled to exactly the same rights as those without a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was updated in 1995, is designed to ensure disabled people have equal rights and do not suffer from prejudice or discrimination; this relates to all areas of life, including education, employment and access to public services and facilities. However, while physical access is necessary and important, it does little to promote the inclusion of children with disabilities. Whilst physical access does help, it is the social access or inclusion to a play environment that promotes true inclusion.
“The key to a quality, socially accessible play experience for both disabled and able bodied children is a diversity of types of play opportunities” (Oestreicher, 1990;53), which helps stimulate a wider range of developmentally appropriate play activity (Frost and Klein, 1979).
Furthermore, there is increasing interest in the necessity of outdoor provision for young children to support their learning and development. Concern is developing about the lack of opportunities that children have to engage in child initiated play in natural outdoor spaces. According to Grant (2011) children are growing up disconnected from their natural world as a result of overprotection from harm and risk. Two recent studies have revealed this decline with fewer than ten per cent of children playing in wild spaces, down from fifty percent a generation ago (Moss, 2012) and twenty one per cent of children playing outdoors everyday compared to seventy one percent of their parents when they were children (Morton, 2012). Interestingly this is being linked by some with missed opportunities for the development of key skills (Morton, 2012). An absence of stimulating play opportunities may also result in negative consequences for the affected child. A continuing lack of sensory stimulation is sometimes referred to as play deprivation (Hughes, 2003).It has been suggested that play deprived children show symptoms of withdrawal, impaired concentration, anti-social or aggressive behaviour and poor social skills (Best Play 2000; Hughes, 2003; Rennies,2003).
Until the 1900s the importance of play was not linked to developmental activities but contemporary theorists have since elevated the importance of play to that of a method for understanding the world and an indication of cognitive development (Frost and Klein, 1979). Many studies show how play has previously been used as a tool for assessment of the cognitive and physical abilities of the child in order to support the total development (Hanline & Fox 1993: Mahoney, 1992).An important distinction to be made, however, is that children experience play at two levels; one that merely occupies the child, the other that contributes to development (Parry and Archer, 1975). Play may be structured, required, and uninteresting, and children may only be allowed to play beneath their cognitive level. Free play, on the other hand, occurs at the child’s discretion, according to the child’s developmental level and individual pace of learning, and evolves as the child does. While free play better meets the developmental needs of the child, whether disabled or able-bodied, opportunities for free play are doubly important for children with disabilities. A disabled child, and indeed a child with special needs, has a greater need for recreation or play services because “their limited circumstances to some extent prevent them exploring opportunities for themselves” (Ellis, 1973:147).Additionally, many children with disabilities spend a lot of their time in an environment such as a school, where play tends to be structured, organized and restricted and such children “have shown to be particularly slow in language development and social skills” (Wolff, 1979:87). Allowing free play opportunities enables a child’s disposition to take risks and to believe that they are competent, capable and independent and included. Therefore to prevent barriers in participation and learning it is necessary to understand the needs of children and the implications of a disability on the child (Christensen, 2004).
The links between outdoor provision and play and opportunities for children to engage in high levels of independent thinking and learning, is a view supported by Waters and Maynard (2010). They suggest that the outdoors prompts awe and wonder leading to opportunities for sustained shared thinking and questioning. Moreover, it is suggested that during outdoor learning children have opportunity to play more creatively, problem solve and engage with risk, as they explore boundaries and exercise higher levels of independence and freedom (Thompson, 2011; Tovey, 2011; Garrick, 2009). Chilvers (2011) further adds that outdoor learning provides the crucial opportunities for slow thinking and meandering which in turn leads to deep learning. Play in outdoor environments stimulates all aspects of child development more readily than indoor environments (Moore & Wong 1997). Current literature therefore points strongly to connections between outdoors provision and children’s higher level thinking skills linked in turn with increased ability to think critically and creatively.
The approach of daily outdoor play and provision to support development and inclusion is nationally relevant in the Early Years setting due to the newly revised EYFS framework (DfE, 2012) and the statutory requirements to report on the characteristics of effective learning (STA, 2012) and provide opportunity for ‘daily outdoor provision’ (DfE, 2012: 25). The ‘characteristics of effective learning’ (DfE, 2012:7) focus on how children learn and develop rather than the product of learning into the spotlight (STA, 2012) In addition the use of outdoor learning is said to be a crucial element of the EYFS framework (Foundations for the future, 2013) and at the heart of early years provision (Bilton, 2010). This is apparent with the development of national organisations and initiatives such as Outdoors Matters (Ryder-Richarson, 2010), Learning Through Landscapes (2013), Play England (2013) and the Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto (Council for Learning Outside of the Classroom, 2006). Bilton (2010), an advocate for quality outdoors provision, however interestingly opposes the development of some outdoor initiatives claiming they have limited knowledge in these areas and some published documentation is in fact poor practice.
A considerable amount of literature has been produced on outdoor play, outdoor learning and outdoor environments within Early Years settings, yet when defining what outdoor provision actually means there is still an absence of some clarity. The statutory EYFS guidelines state that ‘providers must provide access to an outdoor play area’ or daily ‘outdoor activities’ (2012: 24) highlighting the essential nature of outdoor provision whilst failing to give insight into what outdoor provision is like in practice. Zink and Burrows (2008) simply state that outdoors provision is education taking place outdoors. This claim is strongly rejected by Dowdell et al (2011) and Bryce-Clegg (2013) who make a clear distinction between indoor and outdoor provision, stressing that outdoor provision must involve nature and natural spaces (Dowdell et al, 2011) and does not simply involve the use of indoor resources outdoors (Bryce-Clegg, 2013). However Waters and Maynard (2010) contest the previous definitions stating that being outside is not enough, it is the manner in which children and teachers engage when they are outside that defines what real, quality outdoors provision should actually be like.
This use of nature and natural spaces, a theory supported by Dowdell et al., was a theory developed by the philosopher Rousseau(1712-1778), who was the first one to recognize childhood as a separate learning stage in life. In his first book he demonstrated how a young boy learned from exploring nature instead of learning from books and formal learning. He stated that children learn best from direct experiences, from the immediate environment and meant that learning primarily arrived from nature. A view supported by Wellhousen, (2002) when he states “The values of outdoor play has been recognized in some capacity since childhood was first recognised as separate period of life” (Wellhousen, 2002;2).

Figure 7
In figure 7 above, Rousseau is depicted in a natural setting where it was stated that he wanted to teach the young boy Geography, so he took his student into the woods at noon without food and pretended to be lost. Figure 3, even in those very early years, supports Waters and Maynards view, where the adult is engaging with the child outdoors. It can also be seen in figure 8.

Figure 8 It is suggested therefore that a combination and range of flexible spaces, resources and positive relationships mean that enabling environments develop not just from physical space but also the facilitation of children’s interests, exploration and quality adult interaction. (Canning, 2010; Olsen et al, 2011; Bilton, 2010). It could be argued therefore that outdoor based play and learning should always use children’s interests as a starting point and involve ongoing, sustained investigation (Touhill, 2012), as children do not always want to be told the answer (Stewart, 2011) and need to learn through experience and not always direct instruction (Torquati et al, 2010). Vygotsky however suggested talk is central to learning particularly when initiated with more experienced others to allow the child to construct and develop new understandings, highlighting the significance of adults or competent peers in the process of developing thinking and learning (Whitebread, 2012; Featherstone and Bayley, 2011).
Regardless of how outdoor play and outdoor learning have been studied and proven to be successful, another barrier to its successful implementation and therefore to the benefit of the children, as pointed out by Robertson (2014) is that teachers may pay lip service to it. Forlin, Keen and Barrett (2008) found that teachers expressed concerns when attempting to incorporate inclusive strategies with children with special needs. They go on to conclude that support for teachers who are involved with inclusion needs to be well planned and must take into account the different concerns of teachers according to their past experience. Pauline Zelaieta (2004) conducted an investigation and found that teachers of general education are afraid of lacking the expertise and confidence to work on issues relating to special educational needs. Other inhibitive factors were found to be the “lack of leadership, organizational difficulties and financial constraints” (Zelaieta 2004:43).Or as pointed out by Ashman and Elkins (2009) translation from concept of inclusion to operating an inclusive environment has proven problematic; among others, cultural, personal, political, managerial and economic reasons have been offered by way of explanation.
Training and lack of expertise and confidence can have further implications. As written by Christensin; when considering developmentally appropriate activities for play and learning outdoors, it is important that we identify and acknowledge the types of play activities we include and how important they are, if we are to break down the barriers to learning and participation for children with special educational needs. Play activities are best defined as the stimulus of a specific feature/characteristic of the child (Christensin). For example, exploratory activities stimulate children’s cognitive skills by fostering new insight not available during normal life routines (Bodrova and Leong, 1996).They go on to explain that exploratory activities cause them to act and think in ways beyond their normal performance and that they offer surprises and a sense of discovery.
.
Figure 9.
This type of exploratory activity is depicted in the image above. This image shows children playing in a natural landscape using their senses and discovering new things. White (1997), claims that children show a preference for playing in a natural environment, one which is not static or manufactured. In support of this argument, Nicholson (1974), goes onto explain that “the less manicured and more ‘wild’ the setting, the more inclined children are to play in it and the variability of the setting being directly proportional to the possibility of discovery” (Nicholson 1974:223). Natural environments allow for investigation and discovery by children with a variety of learning styles (Moore and Hong 1997). Research shows too “that children who have behavioural or learning difficulties often perform much better in an outdoor setting” (White 1997:3). Moreover a number of researchers have supported these claims. Maxwell et al (2008) found that the use of natural, open ended materials with children aged four and five encouraged higher levels of possibility thinking, a term used to describe children participating in higher level thinking and learning. Benson et al (2012) also found that natural resources supported children’s creativity to a higher degree than other available materials in the setting. Additionally, research conducted by CapeUK (2011) into the effectiveness of recycled materials used in natural contexts concluded that there was direct link between the materials used and children’s participation in sustained shared thinking, questioning and reflection. Whitebread (2012), Williams-Siegfredsen (2007) and Brown (2003) all agree with this clearly developing view that natural, found and recycled materials used in outdoor contexts can have a profound impact on how children learn and the level to which they engage in creatively and critically solving and discussing problems.
Image 7, however depicts a playground where the above principles of a natural environment and natural materials are clearly not being used and also due to financial constraints not available and for many schools this ‘concrete jungle’ is the norm. This is clearly a barrier to learning outdoors and participation as it is uninspiring and not conducive to the types of ‘play’ activities that foster an inclusive outdoor environment.

Figure 10.
Interactive activities are another approach to facilitate inclusion in practise. Activities that bring the children into physical proximity and play opportunities that require more than one child can enhance social interactions (Rogers-Warren et al.1980). These types of opportunities are important for children with disabilities as they typically show delays in social interaction skills. However, these types of activities require careful planning when including children with disabilities as it may increase the occurrences of aggression if they are forced into the situation (Smith and Connelly, 1980). Hartle and Johnson (1993) agree with this principle going on to argue that interaction should never be forced and that children should have opportunities for solitary play but have the opportunity for these type of activities should they wish to participate.
To conclude, although as has been mentioned throughout this assignment there are barriers to overcome if we are to facilitate inclusion in practise when learning outdoors, evidence and research clearly state its benefits to child development generally and specifically for children with special educational needs. Teachers are not fully aware of the potential uses and benefits- the affordances (Fjortoft & Sagie, 2000) of outdoor environments and playing in the outdoor environment is seen as having little to do with what some teachers see as their primary role: that of teaching curriculum content (Rivkin, 2000). The uniqueness of a natural outdoor environment cannot be ignored when seeking to answer the question how can outdoor provision support the development of children and hence the inclusion of such provision on our School Improvement Plan. Outdoor play and learning is an important element of the Foundation Phase in Wales, were it is seen that not only can content or curriculum learning take place outdoors but there is the potential for ‘special’ sessions for children to develop a broader range of understandings, skills and attributes (Maynards and Waters, 2007). Early experiences with the natural world have been positively linked with the development of imagination and the sense of wonder (Cobb 1977, Louv 1991). Wonder is an important motivator for life- long learning (Wilson, 1997). Aubrey (2004) compares this to teachers working within the English Foundation Stage who she claims work within a system dominated by a requirement to meet specified outcomes whilst also incorporating more informal, process-led approaches. Interestingly Ofsted (2008) in a document entitled ‘Learning Outside the Classroom’, refers to a government manifesto produced in 2006 which clearly states the benefits of learning outside the classroom and how many of the activities that can be organised outside the classroom have a wide appeal, with pupils and students from different backgrounds and with varying needs working together successfully and enjoyably. A single overarching definition of what is meant by inclusion did not emerge whilst undertaking research for this portfolio. However it is clear that legislation and the policies implemented have shaped the development of inclusion today. Over the past 40 years or so, a great deal of work has been undertaken on developing policy, methodology and pedagogy aimed at meeting the educational needs of all children. Legislation has forced educators to consider how education for all children might be best managed and models of inclusive practise have provided practitioners with some strategies for implementation. However, as discussed earlier you could spend a great deal of time on further defining and clarifying exactly what the term inclusion means but it may be more prudent to adopt a more pragmatic approach where what is already known is applied to the best of everyone’s abilities. What is clear is that policy and legislation will continue to change. Indeed in the government’s latest Special Educational Needs and Disability code of practice document, changes are being implemented which see’s new and explicit requirements around the involvement of children, young people and parents in decisions about provision for children and young people with SEN. It also requires education, social care and health services to work together to support children with SEN and disabilities through the ‘joint commissioning’ of services reinforcing the notion of inclusion and inclusivity.
To finish, it is important to remember that through all of the policy, legislation and change it is always important to remember what is at the heart of Inclusion and that is that we need to personalise learning for all children and to make education more innovative and responsive to the diverse needs of the individual child. (DfES, 2004).

References
AINSCOW, M., 1991.Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton Publishers
AINSCOW, M., 2007. Taking an inclusive turn '. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs.7(1).pp. 3-7.

ARMSTRONG, D., 2005. 'Reinventing inclusion ': New Labour and the cultural politics of special education '.Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), pp.131-151.
ARMSTRONG,F., 2002. The historical development of special education: humanitarian rationality or ‘wild profusion of entangled events’? History of education, 31(5), Pp. 437-456
ASHMAN, A. and ELKINS, J., 2009.Education for inclusion and diversity. Frenchs Forest: Pearson
ASHTON, B., 2008. Super patients should use their powers wisely. Health Service Journal.pp.1
BARTON, L., 1988. The Politics of Special Educational Needs. Lewes: Falmer Press.
BENSON, K., STONEHOUSE, A. and GUJER, M., 2012. ‘Nurturing Creativity’ .National Quality Standard Professional Learning Programme e-newsletters. Available from: http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au.nqsplp/ [Accessed 1/11/2014]

BILTON, H., 2010. Outdoor Learning in the Early Years: Management and Innovation. London: Routledge
BODROVA, E. and LEONG, D.J.,1996. Tools of the Mind: The Vygostkian Approach to Early Childhood Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
BOOTH, T. and AINSCOW, M., 2002. Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education
BRODIN, J. and LINDSTRAND, P, 2005. Childrens learning in outdoor environments. Paper presented at the Early 11th Biennal Conference, August 23-26 2005.Cyprus University, Nicosia.pp.2
BROWN, F., 2003. ’Compound Flexibility: The role of playwork in child development’. In: Brown, F.,ed. Playwork Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press
BRYCE-CLEGG, A.,2013.’ABC Does Wigan 2013’. Early Years Wigan Conference. DW Stadium, Wigan, UK.
CANNING, N., 2010.’The Influence of the Outdoor Environment: den-making in three different contexts’.European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 18(4).pp.555-566.
CAPEUK, 2011. A journey into creative learning: One small step for Early Years One giant leap for children. Leeds City Council: Arts Council England-Creative Partnerships.
CHILVERS, D., 2011. As long as they need: the vital role of time .In: WHITE, J., ed. Outdoor Provision in the Early Years. London : SAGE Publications.
CHRISTENSEN, K.M., 2004.Creating Inclusive Outdoor Play Environments; Designing for Ability Rather Than Disability Available from : http://www.adventureislandplayground.org/Keith%20Christensen%20article.PDF {Accessed 2/11/2014]

COBB, E., 1977. The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood. New York, Columbia
University Press.

COUNCIL FOR LEARNING OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM, 2006. Learning outside the classroom manifesto. Available from : http://www.lotc.org.uk/about/manifesto/ [Accessed 15/11/2014]

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, 2012.Early Years Foundation Stage: Revised Edition, Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Department for Education/ Early Education

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, 2014. Special Educational Needs and Disability code of practise:0 to 25 years. London: DfE

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT, 1999. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. Report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education.London:Dfee

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2001. Special Educational Needs Code of Practise. London: DfES

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2003. Every Child Matters Agenda. London: DfES

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2004. The Strategy for SEN: Removing Barriers to Achievement. London: DfES

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2006. Implementing the Disability Act in Schools and Early Years Settings. London:DfES

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2007. Inclusion Development Programme. Supporting children with Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties: Guidance for practitioners in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: DfES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE, 1978. Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People ( The Warnock Report). London: HMSO

DOWDELL, K., GRAY, T. and MALONE, K., 2011.’Nature and its influence on Children’s Outdoor Play’. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 15(2).pp.24-35.

DUNNE, L., 2008. Discourses of Inclusion. Paper presented at British
Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, September 2008. Herriot Watt University, Edinburgh. Pp. 5

DUNNE, L..,2009. ‘Discourses of Inclusion: A Critique’.Power and Education 1(1) Available from www.wwwords.co.uk/POWER (accessed 1/11/2014)

DUNNE, L.,2009. ‘Inclusion’ In: Walton, A. and Goddard, G.(eds.) Supporting Every child. London: Learning Matters. Pp.53-65.
EKINS, A., 2012. ‘The Changing Policy context’. In: The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs: Impact and Implications for SENCOs and their schools. Oxon: Routledge.
ELLIS, M.J., 1973. Why people play. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
FARRELL,P. and AINSCOW,M., 2002. Making Special Education Inclusive. Fulton: Abingdon
FEATHERSTONE, S. and BAYLEY, R., 2011. Independent Learning in the Foundation Stage: How to help children to develop into self motivated autonomous learners. London: A&CBlack
Figure 1 Lets aim for inclusion. Embrace the Middle East. Available from: http://www.embraceme.org [Accessed 1/11/2014]

Figure 2 Inclusion and accessibility. Crabtree Junior School. Available from: http://www.crabtreejm.herts.sch.uk/teaching_learning/inclusion.html [Accessed 2/1//2014]

Figure 3. Expressing Myself in More Ways than One. Drive Mom Crazy. Available from: http://www.crabtreejm.herts.sch.uk/teaching_learning/inclusion.html [Accessed 30/10/2014]

Figure 4 .ASD Teacher, 2012.Understanding the Social ad Medical Model of Disability. Available from : http://asdteacher.com/medical-and-social-model-of-disability/ [Accessed 1/11/2014]

Figure 5. Charles Dickens as Social Commentator and Critic, The Condition of England. Available from : http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/diniejko.html Accessed [25/10/2014]

Figure 6.Parks & Playgrounds. District Council of Robe. Available from: http://www.council.robe.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=296 Accessed [25/10/2014]

Figure 7.Jean-Jacques Rousseau Biography. Available from: http://www.enotes.com/topics/jean-jacques-rousseau [Accessed 1/11/2014]

Figure 8.Special Educational Needs. Lymington Junior School. Available from: http://www.lymington-jun.hants.sch.uk/2332-index/2332-the-curriculum/2332-sen-provision.htm [accessed 1/11/2014]

Figure 9. Just Add Stones, Logs, Stumps and Mounds. Let the Children Play. Available from: http://www.letthechildrenplay.net/2010/04/just-add-stones-logs-stumps-and-mounds.html [Accessed 2/11/2014]

Figure 10. PTFA. St Ethelberts Catholic Primary School.Available from: http://www.st-ethelberts.kent.sch.uk/ptfa.html {Accessed 2/11/2014]

FJORTOFT, I. and SAGEIE, J., 2000. ‘The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children:
Landscape Description and Analysis of a Natural Landscape’. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 48(1/2), pp. 83-97

FORLIN, C., KEEN, M., and BARRETT, E., 2008. The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55(3), pp. 251–264.
FROST, J.L and KLEIN, B.L..,1979. Perspective on Play in Playgrounds. In: Play from Birth to twelve and beyond: Contexts, Perspectives and Meanings. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
GARRICK, R., 2011. ‘Creating a dynamic, versatile and flexible environment’. In : WHITE, J.,ed. Outdoor provision in the Early Years. London: SAGE Publications. Pp. 57-85.
GIBSON, S. and BLANDFORD,S., 2005. Managing Special Educational Needs. London: David Fulton.
GRANT, C., 2011.Children Growing Up disconnected from their natural world. Nursery World. Available from: http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1105007/children-growing-disconnected-natural-world [accessed 5/11/2014]

HANLINE, M.F. and FOX, L., 1993. Learning within the context of play. Providing typical early childhood experiences for children with severe disabilities. Journal of the association for persons with sever handicaps.18, pp.121-129
HARTLE, L. and JOHNSON, J.E., 1993. ‘Historical and Contemporary Influences of Outdoor Play Environments’. In: Children on Playgrounds: Research Perspectives and Applications

HEGARTY,S., 1990. The Education of Children and Young People with Disabilities: Principles and Practise. Paris: UNESCO
HUGHES, B., 2003. Play deprivation, play bias and play work practice. In: F Brown (ed) Play work: theory and practise. Open University Press
HUMPHREY, J., 2000. Researching Disability Politics, Or, Some Problems with the Social
Model in Practice. Disability and Society, 15(1). Pp., 63.

JOHN, A. and WHEWAY,R., 2004. Can play, will play: disabled children and access to outdoor playgrounds. National Playing Fields Association.
JOHNSTONE, D., 2001. Introduction to Disability Studies. London: David Fulton
KUDLACOVA, B., 2008. ‘From Repression to Inclusion-Historical Models and Approaches to Disabled People in the European Context’.Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 8. pp. 68-78. Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost. [Accessed 01/11/2014]

LAWSON, H., PARKER, M., and SIKES, P.,2006. ‘Seeking stories: reflections on a narrative approach to researching understandings of inclusion’. European Journal of Special Needs Education.21(1).pp 55-68.
LEARNING NEVER STOPS, 2013. Historical and Political Influences On Inclusive Education In The UK. Available from: https://learningneverstops.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/historical-and-political-influences-on-inclusive-education-in-the-uk/ [Accessed 1.11.2014]

LEARNING THROUGH LANDSCAPES, 2013. Learning Through Landscapes: Transforming Childhood, Transforming Spaces, Transforming Learning. Available from : http://www.ltl.org.uk [Accessed 15/11/2014]

LOUV, R., 1991. Childhood 's Future. Doubleday, New York, NY

MACKENZIE, K., 2005. The Medical Model of Disability[Online].Available from: https://www.staffcentral.brighton.ac.uk/clt/disability/#models [accessed 21/11/14]

MAHONEY, G., 1992. Constructivism play and children with disabilities.Paper presented at the Gulf Coast Conference on Early Intervention. Point Clear.AL.

MAXWELL, L., MITCHELL, M. and EVANS, G., 2008. ‘Effects of play equipment and loose parts on pre-school childrenss’s outdoor play behaviour: An observational study and design intervention’. Children, Youth and Environments. 18(2).pp.33-63.
MAYNARD, T. and WATERS, J., 2007.‘Learning in the outdoor environment: a missed opportunity? Early Years: An International Research Journal, 27(3), pp.255-265. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 1993. The Universal Playground: A Planning Guide. Victoria, British Columbia: Queens Printer for British Columbia
MITTLER, P., BROUILLETE, R. and HARRIS, D., 1993. World Yearbook of Education: Special Needs Education. London: Routledge
MOORE, R. and WONG, H.H., 1997. Natural Learning: Creating Environments for Rediscovering Nature’s Way of Teaching. Berkeley, CA:MIG Communications.
MORTON, K., 2012. Campaign calls for volunteers to help boost outdoor play in the community. Nursery World. Available from : http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1113265/campaign-calls-volunteers-help-boost-outdoor-play-community [accessed 19/11/2014]

MOSS, S., 2012. Natural Childhood. Swindon: Natural Trust.

NICHOLSON, S., 1974. ‘The Theory of Loose Parts’. In : Alternative Learning Environments. Stroudsburgh, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

NIRJE, B.A., 2003. Normaliseringsprincipen. Lund:Studentliterature
OESTREICHER, M., 1990. ‘Accessible recreation: 20 years Behind the Times’. Parks and Recreations. 25(8).pp. 52-55
O’HANLON, C., 1995. Inclusive Education in Europe. London: David Fulton Publishers
OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION, 2001. Evaluating educational inclusion. HMI 235 www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications (accessed 17/10/2014)

OLIVER, M., 1996. Understanding disability: from theory to practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

OLSEN, H., THOMPSON, D> and HUDSON, S., 2011. ‘Outdoor Learning: Supervision is more than watching children play’. Dimensions of Early Childhood.39(1).pp.3-4. Available from: http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.library.edgehill.ac.uk [Accessed 15/11/2014]

PARRY, M. and ARCHER, A., 1975. Two to Five. London: Macmillan

PIJL, S.J. and MEIJER, C.J.W., 1991. Does Integration count for much? An analysis of the practices of integration in eight countries. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 3(2), pp. 63-73

PLAY ENGLAND, 2013.Play England: Freedom To Play. Our Work. Available from: http://www.playengland.org.uk/our-work.aspx [accessed 15/11/2014]

PLAY SCOTLAND 2003. Play and Inclusion www.playscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/.../Playandinclusion.doc [Accessed 4/11/2014]

POTTS, P., 1995. Whats the use of history after history. Understanding Educaitonal Provision for disabled students and those who experience difficulties in learning. British journal of educational studies 43(4).pp. 398-411

RENNIES, S., 2003. Making play work: the fundamental role of play in the development of social relationships.In F.BROWN, ed. Play work: theory and practise. Open University Press

REYNOLDS, M.C. and AINSCOW, M., 1994. Education of children and youth with special needs : an international perspective. In T.HUSEN and T.N. POSTLETHWAITE, eds.The International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd edn. Oxford : Pergamon.

RICHARDS, G. and ARMSTRONG, F., 2008. Key issues for teaching assistants: Working in diverse and inclusive classrooms. London: RoutledgeFalmer
RICHMOND, R., 1979. ‘Warnock – Found wanting and waiting’.Special Education – Forward Trends, 6 (3), pp.8-10.
RIVKIN, M.S., 2000. Outdoor Experiences for Young Children. Available at: www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC/Outdoor-XP.htm [Accessed 1/11/2014]

ROAF, C and BINES, H., (eds) 1989. Needs, Rights and Opportunities. London, Falmer.
ROBERTSON, J., 2014. Maths Outdoors In the Early Years: Ideas, suggestions and activities. Creative Star Learning
ROGERS-WARREN, A. and WARREN, S. F., 1980. Mands for verbalization: Facilitating the display of newly trained language in children. Behaviour Modification,4, pp 361–382.
RYDER-RICHARDSON, G., 2010. Outdoor Matters. Available from : http://outdoormatters.co.uk/about-outdoor-matters/ [Accessed 15/11/2014]

SHEEHY, K., HALL, K., COLLINS, J., BENJAMIN, S. and NIND, M., 2004. Saturated models of pupildom: Assessment and inclusion/exclusion. British Educational Research Journal. 30(6). Pp. 801-817.
SLEE, R., 1995. Changing theories and practices of discipline. London: Falmer
SLEE, R., 2001.’Inclusion in practice’: Does practice make perfect? Educational Review. 53(2) pp.113-23.
SORSBY, C., 2004. Forging and strengthening alliances: learning support staff and the challenge of inclusion. In: F. ARMSTRONG and M. MOORE, eds. Action Research for Inclusive Education: Changing places, changing practices, changing minds. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Pp. 48-63.
SMITH, P. K. and CONNOLLY, K., 1980. The ecology of preschool behaviour. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
STANDARDS AND TESTING AGENCY, 2012. Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Handbook. STA/13/6106/e. London: Standards and Testing Agency.
STEWART, N., 2011. How Children Learn: The Characteristics of Effective Learning. London: British Association for Early Childhood Education
THOMAS, G. and LOXLEY, A., 2001. Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press
THOMPSON, S., 2011. ‘Connecting children with nature: Where the wild things come to play’ The Irish Times. Available from: https://www.outdoorsmatters.co.uk/uploads2011 {accessed 20/11/2014]

TOMLINSON, S.,1982. A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
TORQUATI, J., GABRIEL, M., JONES-BRANCH, J. and LEEPER-MILLER, J., 2010.’Environmental Education: A natural way to nurture children’s debelopment and learning’. Young Children: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 65(6).pp.98-104. Available from: http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.library.edgehill.ac.uk/ehost [Accessed1/11/2014]

TOUHILL, L., 2012.’Sustained shared Thinking’. National Quality Standard: Professional Learning Programme. 43(1). Pp.1-2.
TOVEY, H., 2011. ‘Achieving the balance: Challenge,Risk and Safety’. In: WHITE, J., ed. Outdoor provision in the Early Years. London: SAGE Publications. Pp 86-95.
UNESCO, 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. World Conference on Special Needs Education, Access and Quality. Available from: www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF (accessed 12/10/2014)

UNESCO, 1995. Review of the Present Position in Special Education. Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO (2000) The Dakat Framework for Action. Education for all: Meeting our Collective Commitments. Available from: www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf (accessed 12/10/2014)

VIPER 2013. ‘Lack of aspiration’ VIPER: Voice, Inclusion, Participation, Empowerment, Research. Available from: http://viper.councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk/findings/lack-of-aspiration [Accessed 2/11/2014]

VLACHOU, A.D., 1997. Struggles for inclusive education: an ethnographic study. Disability, human rights and society. Buckingham, Open University Press

WALTON, A. and GODDARD, G., 2012. Supporting Every Child. 2nd ed. SAGE: London

WATERS, J., and MAYNARD, T., 2010. ’Whats so interesting about outside? A study of child-intiated interaction with teachers in the natural outdoor environment’. European Early Childhood Education and Research Journal. 18(4). Pp.473-483.

WELLHOUSEN, K., 2002. Outdoor Play, Every Day: Innovative Play Concepts for Early Childhood. Cengage Learning: London

WHITE, R.,1979. ‘The Adventure Playground as a Therapeutic Environment’. In: Designing for Therapeutic Environments: A Review of Research. Chichester, GB: John Wiley and Sons.

WHITEBREAD, D., 2012. Development Psychology and Early Childhood Education. London: SAGE Publications.

WILLIAMSON-SIEGFREDSEN, 2007. ‘Developing pedagogical appropriate practise’. In: AUSTIN, R.,ed .Letting the outside in: Developing teaching and learning beyond the classroom. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books Ltd

WINTER, S., 1994.Creating Play environements for children with special needs. Childhood Education, 71(1), 28-32

WILSON, R. A., 1997. ‘The Wonders of Nature – Honoring Children 's Ways of
Knowing’. Early Childhood News, 6(19)

WOLFF, P., 1979. The Adventure Playground as a Therapeutic Environment. In: Designing for Therapeutic Environments: A Review of Research. Chichester, Great Britain: John Wiley and Sons

ZELAIETA, P., 2004. From confusion to collaboration. Can special schools contribute to developing inclusive practices in mainstream schools? In: ARMh3, F., & Moore, M (eds)(2004). Action research for inclusive education: changing places, changing practices, changing minds. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

ZINC, R. and BURROWS, L., 2008. ‘Is what you see what you get?’.The production of knowledge in-between the indoors and the outdoors in outdoors education’. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.13(3).pp.251-265. Available from: http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.library.edgehill.ac.uk [Accessed 15/11/2014]

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society/supporting-pages/the-social-model-of-disability

References: AINSCOW, M., 1991.Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton Publishers AINSCOW, M., 2007 ARMSTRONG, D., 2005. 'Reinventing inclusion ': New Labour and the cultural politics of special education '.Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), pp.131-151. ARMSTRONG,F., 2002. The historical development of special education: humanitarian rationality or ‘wild profusion of entangled events’? History of education, 31(5), Pp. 437-456 ASHMAN, A ASHTON, B., 2008. Super patients should use their powers wisely. Health Service Journal.pp.1 BARTON, L., 1988 BENSON, K., STONEHOUSE, A. and GUJER, M., 2012. ‘Nurturing Creativity’ .National Quality Standard Professional Learning Programme e-newsletters. Available from: http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au.nqsplp/ [Accessed 1/11/2014] BILTON, H., 2010. Outdoor Learning in the Early Years: Management and Innovation. London: Routledge BODROVA, E BOOTH, T. and AINSCOW, M., 2002. Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education BRODIN, J BROWN, F., 2003. ’Compound Flexibility: The role of playwork in child development’. In: Brown, F.,ed. Playwork Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press BRYCE-CLEGG, A.,2013.’ABC Does Wigan 2013’ CANNING, N., 2010.’The Influence of the Outdoor Environment: den-making in three different contexts’.European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 18(4).pp.555-566. CAPEUK, 2011. A journey into creative learning: One small step for Early Years One giant leap for children. Leeds City Council: Arts Council England-Creative Partnerships. CHILVERS, D., 2011. As long as they need: the vital role of time .In: WHITE, J., ed. Outdoor Provision in the Early Years. London : SAGE Publications. CHRISTENSEN, K.M., 2004.Creating Inclusive Outdoor Play Environments; Designing for Ability Rather Than Disability Available from : http://www.adventureislandplayground.org/Keith%20Christensen%20article.PDF {Accessed 2/11/2014] COBB, E., 1977. The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood. New York, Columbia University Press. COUNCIL FOR LEARNING OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM, 2006. Learning outside the classroom manifesto. Available from : http://www.lotc.org.uk/about/manifesto/ [Accessed 15/11/2014] DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, 2012.Early Years Foundation Stage: Revised Edition, Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Department for Education/ Early Education DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, 2014 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT, 1999. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. Report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education.London:Dfee DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2001 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2003. Every Child Matters Agenda. London: DfES DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2004 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2006. Implementing the Disability Act in Schools and Early Years Settings. London:DfES DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, 2007 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE, 1978. Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People ( The Warnock Report). London: HMSO DOWDELL, K., GRAY, T DUNNE, L., 2008. Discourses of Inclusion. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, September 2008 DUNNE, L..,2009. ‘Discourses of Inclusion: A Critique’.Power and Education 1(1) Available from www.wwwords.co.uk/POWER (accessed 1/11/2014) DUNNE, L.,2009 EKINS, A., 2012. ‘The Changing Policy context’. In: The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs: Impact and Implications for SENCOs and their schools. Oxon: Routledge. ELLIS, M.J., 1973 FARRELL,P. and AINSCOW,M., 2002. Making Special Education Inclusive. Fulton: Abingdon FEATHERSTONE, S Figure 4 .ASD Teacher, 2012.Understanding the Social ad Medical Model of Disability. Available from : http://asdteacher.com/medical-and-social-model-of-disability/ [Accessed 1/11/2014] FJORTOFT, I. and SAGEIE, J., 2000. ‘The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children: Landscape Description and Analysis of a Natural Landscape’ Planning, 48(1/2), pp. 83-97 FORLIN, C., KEEN, M., and BARRETT, E., 2008 GARRICK, R., 2011. ‘Creating a dynamic, versatile and flexible environment’. In : WHITE, J.,ed. Outdoor provision in the Early Years. London: SAGE Publications. Pp. 57-85. GIBSON, S. and BLANDFORD,S., 2005. Managing Special Educational Needs. London: David Fulton. GRANT, C., 2011.Children Growing Up disconnected from their natural world. Nursery World. Available from: