La inclusión educativa es una cuestión que preocupa cada vez más en diferentes ámbitos y niveles. Sin embargo, por muchos avances que se hayan pretendido realizar para lograr una inclusión educativa plena del alumnado, esta siempre seguirá comportando el mismo problema: el hecho de que unos incluyen y otros son incluidos. Por ello, este artículo reflexionará sobre algunas de las grandes problemáticas que presenta el paradigma de la educación inclusiva. Entre ellas, presentará, en primer lugar, lo que se ha venido a denominar como «sesgo inclusivo», referido al enfoque capacitista que prevalece en el trasfondo del paradigma inclusivo, que continúa erigiéndose sobre las capacidades del alumnado y lo etiqueta en función de ellas, condicionando y lastrando su inclusión. En segundo lugar examinará la ruptura que se produce entre la teoría y la práctica de la educación inclusiva, dificultando su adecuada implementación y promoviendo en su lugar acciones de carácter segregador. Y, en tercer lugar, abordará el lenguaje capacitista que predomina en este modelo para aludir a las diferencias humanas, fomentando las creencias, actitudes y estereotipos negativos que se mantienen acerca de la diversidad. Por último, y a fin de evolucionar hacia un modelo educativo holístico que permita superar las problemáticas que presenta el modelo inclusivo, se propone avanzar hacia la normalización plena de la diversidad y se reclama una verdadera escuela para todos, sin excepciones, que: ofrezca una educación justa, equitativa y de calidad para todos y cada uno de los alumnos, tome como base una pedagogía crítica, funcione como una comunidad de aprendizaje y ofrezca un diseño universal de aprendizaje que facilite la respuesta a las necesidades educativas personales de cada estudiante para desarrollar al máximo su potencial individual.

Palabras clave: educación inclusiva; inclusión; discapacidad; necesidades educativas; discriminación educativa; segregación escolar; oportunidades educativas; justicia social.

1. INTRODUCTION

Educational inclusion is an issue of growing concern in different areas and at different levels, even becoming a political, propagandistic, media and social objective. No matter how much progress has been made to achieve the full educational inclusion of students, it will always involve the same serious problem, intrinsic to its very nature and definition; that is, the fact that some ‘include’ and others ‘are included’ (usually people with disabilities and other minority groups). Thus, this approach is precisely the one that, paradoxically, keeps alive certain segregating practices and actions to achieve its goal, which, in turn, generate structural discrimination that renders people with disabilities invisible and legitimises and even denies the existence of such oppression against them (Student Council of the University of Malaga, 2019). In fact, this discrimination seems to be on the rise (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund [LCCREF], 2009), driven by distorted assumptions and beliefs about disability (Wallace, et al., 2003).

In this regard, people with disabilities are often portrayed as an invisible (Dunn, 2019) and marginalised minority group, which has suffered a long history of violence, oppression and discrimination (Keller, & Galgay, 2010). Specifically, in Spain, people with disabilities have been and continue to be victims of various forms of discrimination and restrictions to their enjoyment of and access to rights, education, work, information and services, as evidenced by numerous research papers and reports (e.g.: Ministry of Economy, Finance & Employment, 2021; de Cabo et al., 2003; de Ortúzar, 2018; García, et al., 2021; Gutiérrez, et al., 2021; Hernández, & Millán, 2015; Huete, 2013; Huete, & Pallero, 2016; INE, 2017, 2021; Moral, et al., 2020; Moral, 2021; Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo en España, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021; Observatorio Estatal de la Discapacidad, 2021; United Nations [UN], 2017, 2018; Otaola, & Huete, 2019; Pascual, 2016; Ramiro, & Ramírez, 2021; Rodríguez, & Cano, 2015; Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal, 2019, 2020, 2021; Silván, & Quífez, 2020, 2021; Valle, 2020; Villa, 2003).

These discriminations and restrictions are compounded by the bias, prejudice and ableism that permeates the thinking of our society and operates as a discourse of power and domination broadcast at numerous levels. It is therefore imperative to raise awareness among the population that such acts and attitudes are not, under any circumstances, acceptable (LCCREF, 2009). And in this respect, education plays a key role, since the educational environment is one of the contexts in which ableism is most evident (Rodríguez, 2021), especially in relation to the inclusion of students, producing a false dilemma between the objective of fostering the maximum personal development of each student and the differentiating action to be taken to achieve it (Del Pozo-Armentia, et al., 2020).

Therefore, this article will first address the various problems posed by the paradigm of inclusive education, and then propose and call for a holistic educational model that is anti-ableist, critical and personalised, in order to contribute to the achievement of a true school for all and the full normalisation of diversity.

2. PROBLEMS OF THE INCLUSIVE PARADIGM

2.1. The "inclusive bias"

As already mentioned in the introduction, the inclusive education paradigm has an implicit problem that could be defined as "inclusive bias", since in order for some to 'be included' it is necessary for others to 'include', thus perpetuating discrimination and the risk of exclusion of those who are deemed to need to 'be included' and sustaining the power of those who can (or cannot) 'include' them. In short, it could be argued that the "inclusive bias" reflects an ableist approach that underlies the paradigm of inclusive education and therefore prevails in current Spanish educational legislation; since despite the fact that Act 3/2020, of 29 December, which amends Act 2/2006, of 3 May, on Education (LOMLOE, 2020) seeks to shift the focus on to the needs of each student, it is actually still based on the psycho-pedagogical diagnosis of students who show certain difficulties and who are labelled as "students with specific educational support needs" and even, within this, as "students with special educational needs" (LOMLOE, 2020). In other words, it actually continues to be based on students' abilities and labels them accordingly, perpetuating an ableist perspective on students, which affects and hinders their full inclusion (García-Barrera, 2017).

The same is true of the Spanish Disability Strategy 2012-2020 (Government of Spain, 2021), which established the importance of ensuring that children with disabilities are properly integrated into the mainstream education system with the necessary individual support. To this end, it proposed the following strategic lines of action: promoting the early detection of 'special educational needs', strengthening the ongoing training of teachers and promoting inclusive education at all educational stages with the necessary support (Cano, & Rodríguez, 2015). However, the new roadmap of the Spanish Disability Strategy 2021-2030 will pursue the same objective, in line with the European Union (which has adopted a similar EU-wide framework for the same period, called "NextGenerationEU") (European Commission, 2020) and the Spanish Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan (Government of Spain, 2021). This is because available statistics show that, despite the "high percentage of educational inclusion, there is a discriminatory structural pattern of exclusion and segregation towards students with disabilities, which is based on an ableist mentality" (Rodríguez, 2021, p. 9).

2.2. Rift between theory and practice

Another major problem with the inclusive paradigm is its implementation, as there is a wide rift between its definition at a theoretical level and its expression at a practical level (Álvarez-Álvarez, 2013), and it seems to be forgotten that the success of inclusive education does not lie in the mere presence of students with disabilities in mainstream schools.

According to the latest available data from the National Institute of Statistics, for the academic year 2019-2020, there are a total of 8,286,603 students enrolled in mainstream education in Spain, of which only 38,068 are in special education: 27,384 in specific special education centres and 10,684 in special education units in mainstream schools.

On the other hand, according to data from the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MEFP) for the same academic year (2019-2020), the number of "students with specific educational support needs" enrolled in regulated non-university education would amount to 18.3 % (730,100 students), 9.0 % would receive special educational attention (745,794 students), and 2.3 % would receive educational support in mainstream schools because they have "special educational needs" (a total of 183,725 students). Of the 18.3 % of students "with specific educational support needs", 30.4 % (221,792 students) would have "special educational needs", representing 2.7 % of the total number of students enrolled in regulated non-university education (MEFP, 2021).

Therefore, in Spain, only 0.4 % of students would be enrolled in special education courses, compared to 9.0 % who would be enrolled in ordinary centers receiving "different" attention from ordinary and 7.3 % who would find, supposedly, "included" and cared for in an "ordinary" way.

All these data highlight two important issues: the first and foremost is the fact that the current inclusive paradigm continues to label students according to supposed 'specific educational support needs' or 'special educational needs'. This, again, would be linked to the 'inclusive bias' explained in the previous section, as such labelling discriminates and distinguishes them from other learners, based on an ableist approach and hindering their possible inclusion on equal terms. And the second issue, also linked to the first, refers to the rift that exists between inclusive theory and practice, as there is still a high percentage of students outside mainstream classrooms (9.0 % in total, according to MEFP data, 2021) and whose right to receive a quality inclusive education is being violated, in breach of Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006).

Furthermore, of the 2.3 % of students who receive educational support in mainstream schools because they have "special educational needs", the majority are taught in special classrooms for more than 20 % of the school day (Ramberg, & Watkins, 2020), spending more hours in them the more significant their difficulties are (Wendelborg, & Tøssebro, 2011).

In this respect, there is a rift between what is theoretically desired and what happens in practice. That is, education systems guarantee two rights to all students: "the right to learn according to their possibilities and the right to learn in common with their peers of similar ages" (Marchesi, & Hernández, 2019, p. 47). In turn, both rights relate to the fourth Sustainable Development Goal of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) 2030 Agenda, which calls for both the achievement of inclusive, equitable and quality education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities for all (UNESCO, 2016). But this is not the case in most educational situations, where it is forgotten that it is not enough for pupils to study together in the same mainstream classroom, but that it is necessary to ensure that all can enjoy the best conditions for learning and develop their individual potential to the fullest.

Furthermore, the current Spanish education law (LOMLOE, 2020), despite a firm commitment to educational inclusion, still leaves a loophole open for some students to be placed in special education centres, and therefore does not represent real progress in this respect, as was the case with the Warnock report (1978). This report argued that all students have educational needs and proposed that the classification of disability should disappear, but, contradictorily, it also pointed out that the needs of certain students could be considered "special" and different from those of others. Thus, the concept of "special educational needs" began to take root internationally with the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), which again committed the error of calling for inclusive education for all students, with the exception of those who, for "compelling reasons", should not attend mainstream schools.

However, special education centres limit the socio-affective development of their students to a group of people who are not representative of society in general, which hinders their subsequent labour and social integration, since "society finds it difficult to admit those it does not know" (Casanova, 2011, p. 15). In other words, it is just as important for these students to learn alongside their peers as it is for their peers to learn alongside them.

Another of the rifts between the theory and practice of educational inclusion stems from the mercantilist policies that govern much of the Spanish educational model, which permits and encourages the privatisation of education and the implementation of selective access mechanisms based on socio-economic criteria, academic performance and ethno-cultural background, which undoubtedly contributes to producing high rates of school segregation (Murillo, et al., 2018) and undermines the right of all children to receive a fair, equitable and quality education. Therefore, to overcome this type of discrimination, it is necessary to focus on equal access systems and to eradicate all forms of arbitrary selection in school access (Duk, & Murillo, 2019).

Finally, a clear rift between inclusive theory and practice can be seen in the barriers resulting from curriculum design. On the one hand, at the international level (UNESCO, 1990) there is a commitment to a flexible curriculum open to diversity, a recommendation followed by Spain (LOMLOE, 2020), whose legislation, contradictorily, at the same time allows curricular adaptations for those students who need them (López-Melero, 2011), contributing to the stigmatisation and pathologisation of difference (Echeita, & Calderón, 2014). This is a segregating and discriminatory practice with respect to such students, preventing them from benefiting from the common curriculum that has been designed for all students (or rather for a non-existent "average" student). Another impediment arising from curriculum design is the current overload of objectives and content, which prevents diversity from being adequately addressed in mainstream classrooms (Dabdub-Moreira, & Pineda-Cordero, 2015). Therefore, the curriculum must be designed under a competency-based approach that takes into account the guidelines of Universal Design for Learning (Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST], 2018; Instituto de Tecnología Educativa [ITE], 2009).

2.3. Ableist language

The last of the problems has to do with the mutual structuring of language and knowledge, and more specifically, with the fact that the language used to refer to human differences undoubtedly influences the attitudes held about diversity (Marchesi, & Hernández, 2019) and the educational models that are implemented (López-Melero, 2011).

For this reason, in recent decades, certain changes in nomenclature have have been made to replace existing negative labels and stereotypes about human differences, as they undoubtedly lead to discrimination and segregation and hinder progress towards the full normalisation of diversity.

Thus, for example, to speak of "special educational needs" follows an ableist approach that interprets the abilities of some as "normal" and those of others as "different", worse or less valid. The same is true of "specific educational support needs", which implies that the abilities of others are "non-specific" or that these others do not require any educational support, which is impossible, as we all need some kind of support in order to learn. Therefore, it is necessary to free our educational approach from this ableist view and opt for a model of full normalisation in which it is assumed that all people have their own characteristics and educational needs (García-Barrera, 2013; Rodríguez, 2021), different from one another, and that they should be treated as such, without labels, biases or prejudices, within an education that is "special" for all. The latter is important in order to put an end to "special education", which, in addition to labelling those who receive it, implies that there is nothing special about any other type of education.

In the educational context, it is also necessary to use the concept of equity rather than equality, as it is more precise in terms of the need to cater for uniqueness and human diversity in all its fullness and richness, viewing its implicit and explicit differences in a positive way, and considering them as a great learning opportunity (Ainscow, 2001; Barth, 1990; Freire, 1993; López-Melero, 2011; Stainback, & Stainback, 1999).

Another example of change is proposed by López-Melero (2011), who advocates using the term "equivalent opportunities" rather than "equal opportunities", in order to emphasise the need to offer all students equivalent learning opportunities in terms of the possibilities provided for all learners to develop their individual potential to the fullest, but which need not be equal in the sense of being identical for all. This is closely related to the foundations of Universal Design for Learning and the idea that students do not have to learn by doing the same thing, in the same time and in the same way (CAST, 2018; ITE, 2009). In fact, precisely in order to respect their individual differences, the teaching process must also be diversified and enriched, offering each student everything they need to learn.

Therefore, considering all the above, it is necessary to move towards a model of full normalisation that puts an end to this type of conceptual burden that prevents the construction of a true school for all and a personalised education that responds to the individual educational needs of each student and to the demands of the new learning ecology we are currently immersed in (Coll, 2016; García-Barrera, 2013, 2021).

3. CALL FOR A SCHOOL FOR ALL

The call for a school for all (Ainscow, 2001; Arnáiz, 1996, 2003; UNESCO, 1990) is not new and is supported by various regulations and mandates, including the World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO, 1990), which initiated the inclusive education movement, stressing that its main objective was to respond to the needs of all students (Martínez, et al., 2010). However, as has already been explained in previous sections, educational inclusion faces an extremely complex problem (Cruz-Vadillo, 2019; Duk, & Murillo, 2016, 2018) from which numerous difficulty-solved issues arise. If we continue to move under an inclusive paradigm in which some 'include' and others 'are included', we will not be able to put an end to the discrimination and segregation that plague our education system.

It is essential to move towards a personalised educational paradigm in which no student is labelled or excluded, because building a true school for all, with no exceptions, is fair and necessary. And to lay the foundations for this, we must achieve full normalisation of diversity, realising that we are all part of it and that our individual differences enrich us and help us learn. To this end, the education system must be based on the principles of equity and social justice, transforming schools into learning communities (Flecha, & Puigvert, 2002) that implement a critical pedagogy (D'Antoni, et al., 2012; Freire, 1980; McLaren, 1997) that eliminates ableism and any other form of human discrimination (García-Barrera, 2021). Schools for all that offer every student equivalent opportunities (López-Melero, 2011) that enable them to develop their individual potential to the fullest, without exclusion (Echeita, 2006), within the framework of a learning experience tailored to their personal educational needs (García-Barrera, 2013). Schools that guarantee a fair and quality education for all, supported by Universal Learning Design (CAST, 2018; ITE, 2009) and the development of Personal Learning Plans (Coll, 2016).

But in order to achieve such a transformation, many other changes are required, some of which have already been mentioned in this article. However, it is worth reiterating the importance of teachers' attitudes towards diversity and inclusion and the provision of whatever support and help teachers and schools may require to enhance the learning of all students (Stainback, & Stainback, 1991). However, in order to accomplish this, firstly, the initial and ongoing training of teachers, managers, educational inspectors and other professionals in the field must be improved and updated and, secondly, all special education centres must be reconverted into centres for resources, specialised support and counselling for mainstream schools (Casanova, 2011; LOMLOE, 2020).

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The progress made in recent decades towards an inclusive educational model is clearly insufficient and incomplete, committing the errror of normalising the segregation of those who do not respond to the regulatory ideal and thus perpetuating all kinds of ableist practices, representations and actions (Rodríguez, 2021) that result in structural discrimination which is often concealed within the system. The language used in the inclusive model contributes to this, labelling individual differences as if only those related to learning difficulties were part of diversity. In this way, students with such differences are singled out and segregated, impeding their full inclusion (García-Barrera, 2013).

As discussed in this article, "if language is not changed, thinking will remain the same" (López-Melero, 2011, p. 41). In the case that concerns us, while we continue to talk about special or compensatory education, special educational needs, specific educational support needs, support classrooms, curricular adaptations, etc., segregation will continue to exist and be perpetuated as a commonly accepted practice in the educational sphere (Tilstone, et al., 2003; López-Melero, 2011). In short, discriminatory beliefs, attitudes and practices, stereotypes and oppression will continue to exist until the perception, understanding and language used with respect to individual differences changes and they are seen as an enriching element of human nature.

There is no doubt that the educational response to diversity is complex and multifactorial, depending, among other aspects, on the ratio of students per teacher, the support staff available at the school, the resources available, the backing provided by educational administrations, legislative and regulatory support, etc.; but, especially and above all, on the skills, knowledge and experience of teachers, their attitude and perception of human differences, their sensitivity to the diverse personal educational needs of their students and their commitment to a fair and quality education for all. But, of course, in order to achieve this type of education, all of this must be accompanied by both thorough initial and ongoing teacher training (Marchesi & Hernández, 2019; Pinelli, 2015; Rizzo, et al., 2021) and a widespread change in the cultures and values that characterise both this training and social beliefs and behaviours (Camedda, & Santi, 2016; Marchesi, & Hernández, 2019; Martínez, et al., 2010) and, of course, educational policies that guide and support it and also guarantee the necessary resources to implement it successfully (Marchesi, & Hernández, 2019). Because if our education system continues to be subject to continuous political ups and downs without achieving a stable educational pact that involves everyone (Cruz, 2019; Fernández-Enguita, 2018; Novella, 2020; Pellicer, 2018; Tedesco, 2010), without excluding anyone or setting itself up against anyone (Cruz, 2019), and which finally abandons political polarisation (Fernández-Enguita, 2018; Collados, & Hernández, 2020), it will be difficult for schools to overcome all the problems described in this article and succeed in building a true school for all (Ainscow, 2001; Arnáiz, 1996, 2003; UNESCO, 1990) based on a holistic model and full normalisation.

This full normalisation must be based on a diversity made up of all human beings and their differences, viewed in a positive way whatever they may be (Caamaño, et al., 2022), requiring a shift in institutional policies to promote a change in mentality and attitude towards diversity, both educational (Forlin, 2010) and social, as it is essential to understand the complexity of difference, recognise discrimination and identify prejudices (Sapon-Shevin, 2017), both our own and those of others. Furthermore, for the personalised paradigm to be implemented successfully, it is necessary to carry out other actions at the educational level, such as making times, spaces, groups and school timetables more flexible, promoting interdisciplinarity between different subjects, guaranteeing the accessibility of the centre at all levels, reducing teacher-student ratios, providing each centre with the resources it needs, encouraging students to work at different levels according to their skills and knowledge, and so on.

Therefore, as the main line of action for the future, it is necessary to view diversity as an integrating framework for all individual differences, rejecting any kind of ableist or discriminatory approach to them. It is essential to work on the consolidation of this approach in order to achieve the full normalisation of the concept of diversity and to be able to achieve both a true school for all (Ainscow, 2001; Arnáiz, 1996, 2003; UNESCO, 1990) and a world in which we all have, finally and genuinely, the same rights and opportunities.

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M. (2001). Desarrollo de escuelas inclusivas: ideas, propuestas y experiencias para mejorar las instituciones escolares. Narcea.

Álvarez-Álvarez, C. (2013). ¿Puede superar el profesorado la quiebra teoría-práctica? Un estudio de caso. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 11(4), 109-127. https://bit.ly/3FJmhdo

Arnáiz, P. (1996). Las escuelas son para todos. Siglo Cero, 27(2), 25-34. https://bit.ly/3IgehCi

Arnáiz, P. (2003). Educación inclusiva: una escuela para todos. Aljibe.

Barth, R. S. (1990). A personal vision of a good school. Phi Delta Kappan, 7(7), 512-516. https://bit.ly/32hV1ou

Caamaño, T. , Castro, M. M., Rodríguez, J. y Marín, D. (Coords.). (2022). Lo que la diversidad esconde: Experiencias con tecnología al servicio de la inclusión. Tab edizioni.

Camedda, D., & Santi, M. (2016). Essere insegnanti di tutti: Atteggiamenti inclusivi e formazione per il sostegno. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale, 15(2), 141–149. https://bit.ly/32jWsmx

Cano, A., y Rodríguez, S. (Coords.) (2015). Discapacidad y políticas públicas. La experiencia real de los jóvenes con discapacidad en España. Catarata.

Casanova, M. A. (2011). De la educación especial a la inclusión educativa. Estado de la cuestión y retos pendientes. Revista Cuatrimestral del Consejo Escolar del Estado, 18, 8-24. https://bit.ly/3GO1qXK

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines. Version 2.2. Center for Applied Special Technology. https://bit.ly/3Anwo6r

Coll, C. (2016). La personalización del aprendizaje escolar. El qué, el por qué y el cómo de un reto insoslayable. En J. M. Vilalta (Dir.), Reptes de l'educació a Catalunya. Anuari d'Educació 2015. Fundació Jaume Bofill. https://bit.ly/3qLOFXP

Collados, L., y Hernández, M. A. (2020). LOMLOE: Entre decisiones políticas y necesidades reales de cambio. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 550. https://bit.ly/3rz9Mfr

Comisión Europea (2020). El momento de Europa: reparar los daños y preparar el futuro para la próxima generación. Comisión Europea. https://bit.ly/3nKtSlT

Consejería de Economía, Hacienda y Empleo (2021). Boletín informativo de personas con discapacidad. Paro y contratos. Dirección General del Servicio Público de Empleo. https://bit.ly/3Im5TRK

Consejo de Estudiantes de la Universidad de Málaga (2019). Guía básica de discapacidad y capacitismo. VI Jornadas de formación de representantes. 22-24 de marzo, Centro Eurolatinoamericano de la Juventud, Málaga, España. https://bit.ly/3qPC5qS

Cruz, M. (2019). Dar(se) cuenta. De qué pasado venimos… y a qué presente hemos ido a parar. ED Libros.

Cruz-Vadillo, R. (2019). A 25 años de la Declaración de Salamanca y la educación inclusiva: Una mirada desde su complejidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 13(2), 75-90. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782019000200075

D'Antoni, M., Gómez, J., Gómez, l., y Soto, J. (2012). La escuela en cuestionamiento. Diálogos sobre la resistencia escolar en procesos pedagógicos emergentes. Arlekín.

Dabdub-Moreira, M., y Pineda-Cordero, A. (2015). La atención de las necesidades educativas especiales y la labor docente en la escuela primaria. Revista Costarricense de Psicología, 34(1), 43-58. https://bit.ly/3IoHPgX

de Cabo, G., Gago, D., y González, A. (2003). La Situación Laboral de las Personas con Discapacidad en España. Centro de Estudios Económicos Tomillo. https://bit.ly/33yd3nk

de Ortúzar, M. G. (2018). Justicia, capacidades diversas y acceso igualitario a las tecnologías de la información y comunicación: el impacto de la desigualdad relativa en el cuidado de la salud. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 6(1), 91-111. https://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.06.01.05

Del Pozo-Armentia, A., Reyero, D., & Gil, F. (2020).The pedagogical limitations of inclusive education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(10), 1064-1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1723549

Dunn, D. S. (2019). Outsider privileges can lead to insider disadvantages: some psychosocial aspects of ableism. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 665-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12331

Duk, C., y Murillo, F. J. (2016). La inclusión como dilema. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 10(1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782016000100001

Duk, C., y Murillo, F. J. (2018). El mensaje de la educación inclusiva es simple, pero su puesta en práctica es compleja. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 12(1), 11-13. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782018000100001

Duk, C., y Murillo, F. J. (2019). Segregación escolar y meritocracia. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 13(1), 11-13. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782019000100011

Echeita, G. (2006). Educación para la inclusión o educación sin exclusiones. Narcea.

Echeita, G., y Calderón, I. (2014). Obstáculos a la inclusión: cuestionando concepciones y prácticas sobre la evaluación psicopedagógica. Àmbits de Psicopedagogia i Orientació, 41, 67-98. http://hdl.handle.net/10630/7809

Fernández-Enguita, M. (2018). Bases para acordar el futuro de la educación. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 488, 74-78. https://bit.ly/3GO3jnd

Flecha, R., y Puigvert, L. (2002). Las comunidades de aprendizaje: una apuesta por la igualdad educativa. REXE, Revista de Estudios y Experiencias en Educación, 1(1), 11-20. https://bit.ly/3rBF1qa

Forlin, C. (Ed.). (2010). Teacher Education for Inclusion: Changing Paradigms and Innovative Approaches. Routledge.

Freire, P. (1980). La Educación como Práctica de Libertad. (27ª ed.). Siglo XXI.

Freire, P. (1993). La pedagogía de la esperanza. Siglo XXI.

García, I., Ortega, E., Sanz, R., y Zalakaín, J. (2021). El impacto de la pandemia COVID-19 en las personas con discapacidad. Dirección General de Políticas de Discapacidad. https://bit.ly/3nKVVBy

García-Barrera, A. (2013). Proponiendo un concepto nuclear latente en educación: las Necesidades Educativas Personales (N.E.P.) [Tesis doctoral, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid]. Biblos-e Archivo. https://bit.ly/33QZFdE

García-Barrera, A. (2017). Las necesidades educativas especiales: un lastre conceptual para la inclusión educativa en España. Ensaio, 25(96), 721-742. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40362017002500809

García-Barrera, A. (2021). Controversias inclusivas de la LOMLOE: Avanzando hacia un modelo de normalización educativa plena. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 14(2), 254-266. https://bit.ly/3Im2xhy

Gobierno de España (2021). Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia. Gobierno de España. https://bit.ly/3fMpFtw

Gutiérrez, B., González, A., y Otero, A. (2021). Situación actual del empleo de las personas con discapacidad en España. En Red de Investigación e Innovación Educativa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Virtual Conference on Educational Research and Innovation (pp. 669-670). Adaya Press. https://bit.ly/3IpWRmJ

Hernández, J., y Millán, J. M. (2015). Las personas con discapacidad en España: inserción laboral y crisis económica. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 3(1), 29-56. http://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.03.01.02

Huete, A. (2013). La exclusión de la población con discapacidad en España. Estudio específico a partir de la Encuesta Social Europea. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 1(2), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.01.02.01

Huete, A., y Pallero, M. (2016). La situación de las personas con capacidad intelectual límite en España. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 4(1), 7-26. http://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.04.01.01

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) (2017). El Salario de las Personas con Discapacidad. Explotación de la Encuesta Anual de Estructura Salarial 2015 y de la Base Estatal de Personas con Discapacidad. Principales resultados. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. https://bit.ly/3InpzEF

Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) (2021). El Empleo de las Personas con Discapacidad (EPD). Principales resultados. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. https://bit.ly/3rzgZMx

Instituto de Tecnología Educativa (ITE) (2009). Educación inclusiva: iguales en la diversidad. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. https://bit.ly/3FPYmsO

Keller, R. M., & Galgay, C. E. (2010). Microaggressive experiences of people with disabilities. En D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 241-267). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF) (2009). Confronting the new faces of hate: Hate crimes in America. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. https://bit.ly/3rH1MsV

Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOMLOE). https://bit.ly/3tMxszv

López-Melero, M. (2011). Barreras que impiden la escuela inclusiva y algunas estrategias para construir una escuela sin exclusiones. Innovación Educativa, 21, 37-54. https://bit.ly/3FIrK3S

Marchesi, A., y Hernández, L. (2019). Cinco dimensiones claves para avanzar en la inclusión educativa en Latinoamérica. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 13(2), 45-56. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-73782019000200045

Martínez, R., de Haro, R., y Escarbajal, A. (2010). Una aproximación a la educación inclusiva en España. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 3(1), 149-164. https://bit.ly/3nMRXIx

McLaren, P. (1997). Pedagogía crítica y Cultura Depredadora: Políticas de Oposición en la Era Posmoderna. Paidós.

Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (MEFP). (2021). Estadística de las enseñanzas no universitarias. Alumnado con necesidad específica de apoyo educativo. Curso 2019-2020. https://bit.ly/3tLyQlQ

Moral, E. (2021). Las minimizaciones de la discapacidad como microagresiones capacitistas. Dilemata, Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas, 13(36), 35-53. https://bit.ly/3Iq1bCt

Moral, E., Huete, A., y Díez, E. (2020). ¿Soy lo que ves? Microagresiones capacitistas y visibilidad de la discapacidad. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 8(2), 7-31. https://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.08.02.01

Murillo, F. J., Duk, C., y Martínez-Garrido, C. (2018). Evolución de la segregación socioeconómica de las escuelas de América Latina. Estudios Pedagógicos, 44(1), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052018000100157

Novella, C. (2020). ¿Qué pacto educativo necesitamos en España para cumplir con los indicadores del ET 2020? Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 36, 74-97. https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.36.2020.26132

Observatorio Estatal de la Discapacidad (2021). Vida Laboral de las Personas con Discapacidad 2019: situación y retos de la inclusión en el empleo. Observatorio Estatal de la Discapacidad. https://bit.ly/3tMxTd7

Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo en España (2016). Informe general. Principales resultados. Informe 1. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/3fKRRNg

Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo en España (2017). Informe general. Principales resultados. Informe 2. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/3GTuFby

Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo en España (2018). Informe general. Principales resultados. Informe 3. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/33ylHSO

Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo en España (2019). Informe general. Principales resultados. Informe 4. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/3GO9O9B

Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo en España (2020). Informe general. Principales resultados. Informe 5. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/350l1Wq

Observatorio sobre Discapacidad y Mercado de Trabajo (2021). Informe general. Principales resultados. Informe 6. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/35cHT5h

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU). (2006). Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad y Protocolo Facultativo. Naciones Unidas. https://bit.ly/3FJ5nLL

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU). (2017). Informe de la investigación relacionada con España bajo el artículo 6 del Protocolo Facultativo. Advance Unedited Version. Comité sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad. https://bit.ly/3GR9Qxw

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU). (2018). Observaciones de España acerca del informe del Comité sobre la investigación realizada en virtud del artículo 6 del Protocolo Facultativo de la Convención. Comité sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad. https://bit.ly/3fI6Fwb

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (1990). Declaración mundial sobre Educación para Todos. Marco de acción para satisfacer las necesidades básicas de aprendizaje. UNESCO. https://bit.ly/3IolobN

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (1994). Informe final. Conferencia mundial sobre Necesidades Educativas Especiales: Acceso y Calidad. UNESCO y Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. https://bit.ly/3FSMJBg

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). (2016). Educación 2030: Declaración de Incheon y Marco de Acción para la realización del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible 4: Garantizar una educación inclusiva y equitativa de calidad y promover oportunidades de aprendizaje permanente para todos. UNESCO. https://bit.ly/3Aj56OF

Otaola, M. P., y Huete, A. (2019). Capacitismo: un fenómeno sociodemográfico. Actas de coordinación sociosanitaria, 25, 179-198. https://bit.ly/3InkuMK

Pascual, V. C. (2016). El derecho de voto de las personas con discapacidad y, en especial, de las personas con discapacidad psíquica o intelectual en derecho internacional. Su recepción en España. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 4(2), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.04.02.06

Pellicer, C. (2018). Buscando la diferencia. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 488. https://bit.ly/3FPv2Tl

Pinnelli, S. (2015). La pedagogia speciale per la scuola inclusiva: Le coordinate per promuovere il cambiamento. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale, 14, 183–194. https://bit.ly/3FHVoGI

Ramberg, J., & Watkins, A. (2020). Exploring inclusive education across Europe: some insights from the European agency statistics on inclusive education. FIRE, Forum for International. Research in Education, 6(1), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.32865/fire202061172

Ramiro, M. A., y Ramírez, P. (2021). El acceso a los medios de transporte aéreo por las personas con discapacidad orgánica. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 9(1), 179-195. https://bit.ly/3rxdrKC

Rizzo, S., Frolli, A., Cavallaro, A., Sinigaglia, G., & Scire, S. (2021). Social Representation of Disability and Teachers. Education Sciences, 11, 266-278. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060266

Rodríguez, S. (2021). Educación y capacitismo: los límites de la educación inclusiva en España. Dilemata, Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas, 13(36), 5-18. https://bit.ly/3FMXmWo

Rodríguez, S., y Cano, A. (Coords.). (2015). Discapacidad y políticas públicas. La experiencia real de los jóvenes con discapacidad en España. Catarata.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2017). On the impossibility of learning “not to see”: colorblindness, invisibility, and anti-bias education. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies Journal, 6(1), 38-51. https://bit.ly/3ArsTfl

Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (2019). Informe del Mercado de Trabajo de las Personas con Discapacidad Estatal. Datos 2018. Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. https://bit.ly/33XCVJ6

Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (2020). Informe del Mercado de Trabajo de las Personas con Discapacidad Estatal. Datos 2019. Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. https://bit.ly/3GRsfdl

Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal (2021). Informe del Mercado de Trabajo de las Personas con Discapacidad Estatal. Datos 2020. Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. https://bit.ly/3GRCyhB

Silván, C., y Quífez, L. E. (2020). Efectos y consecuencias de la crisis de la COVID-19 entre las personas con discapacidad. 2020. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/3fLWtTq

Silván, C., y Quífez, L. E. (2021). Efectos y consecuencias de la crisis de la COVID-19 entre las personas con discapacidad. 2021. ODISMET y Fundación Once. https://bit.ly/3Kzr30v

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1991). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms. Facilitating learning for all students. Brookes Publishing Co.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1999). Aulas inclusivas. Narcea.

Tedesco, J. C. (2010). Diez notas sobre el pacto social y educativo. Avances en Supervisión Educativa, 12, 1-3. https://bit.ly/3nLQzGa

Tilstone, C., Florian, L., y Rose, R. (Coords.). (2003). Promoción y desarrollo de prácticas educativas inclusivas. Editorial EOS.

Valle, R. (2020). La protección de los derechos de las personas con discapacidad en situaciones de crisis. La emergencia sanitaria del COVID-19 en España. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 8(2), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.08.02.04

Villa, N. (2003). Situación laboral de las personas con discapacidad en España. Revista Complutense de Educación, 14(2), 393-424. https://bit.ly/3FO0GAu

Wallace, B., Carter, R., Nanin, J., Keller, R., & Alleyne, V. (2003). Identity development for «diverse and different others»: integrating stages of change, motivational interviewing, and identity theories for race, people of color, sexual orientation, and disability. In B. Wallace & R. Carter (Eds.), Understanding and dealing with violence: a multicultural approach (pp. 41-91). Sage. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231723.n2

Warnock, H. M. (1978). Special education needs. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Wendelborg, C., & Tøssebro, J. (2011). Educational arrangements and social participation with peers amongst children with disabilities in regular schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903131739