Paradoxes and Axioms in Inclusive Education: Fostering Dialogue and Critical Reflection

This article aims to re-examine the concept of inclusive education by challenging several axioms underlying theoretical, ethical, and moral principles against some paradoxes associated with inclusive practices. The research design prioritised an in-depth, interpretive exploration of relevant scholarly literature, policy documents, and theoretical texts to identify key themes and principles, following the thematic analysis method. An axiom can be defined as a statement or proposition accepted as true that serves as a basic assumption or principle upon which a logical system or theory is constructed. Although axioms are considered self-evident or well-established statements that do not require demonstration within the context of a system, they can be challenged by associated paradoxes as apparently self-contradictory statements that, upon closer inspection, may disclose hidden or non-obvious truths and reveal unexpected insights. Despite their distinct nature, paradoxes and axioms share similarities. Both are starting points for contemplation and deeper analysis, potentially leading to new understandings and theories to resolve apparent contradictions.

Introduction

The Plea for Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is based on the principle that education is a fundamental right of all students, especially those at risk of marginalisation, to full access and effective attendance in both formal and informal educational settings (UNESCO, 2017; United Nations, 2006). An effective inclusion that aims for the holistic development of all students requires reforms in policy and practice, guided by ethical leadership (Ainscow, 2020; Slee, 2011) and supported by collaboration among the different actors (teachers, families, support professionals, and communities) to endure the holistic development of all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Loremanet al., 2010). Genuine consultation with students and their families is essential to ensure that students have a voice in the decision-making process which affects their education and promotes self-determination and self-advocacy (Kennyet al., 2023; Maweneet al., 2025).

Within such principles, inclusive schools recognise the right of every student to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of national or ethnic origin, gender, religion, and social status, and provide the human, pedagogical and material resources required to meet the diversity of students and their needs (Mittler, 2000; Slee, 2011; UNICEF, 2021).

Inclusive education, aimed at providing equitable opportunities for all students, is filled with several tensions and paradoxes (Florian, 2014; Slee, 2011) derived from the complexities of balancing individual needs, institutional structures, and societal norms (Graham & Slee, 2008).

Inclusive practices intended to integrate all students can inadvertently reinforce existing dependencies and perpetuate exclusion (Armstronget al., 2010; Florian, 2014). This occurs when inclusion is implemented through deficit-based approaches that focus on students’ limitations rather than their strengths, or when inclusion is measured against hegemonic norms, often those of the dominant culture or majority group (Mittler, 2000). For example, policies that claim to guarantee equal opportunities may standardise expectations in ways that privilege certain groups, thereby marginalising others who do not fit those norms (UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006).

Efforts to include can sometimes highlight differences, leading to “other” practices (Graham & Slee, 2008). For example, tensions between the individualisation required for true inclusion and the standardisation inherent in most assessment practices may undermine inclusive goals as students are measured against fixed criteria to their educational backgrounds and abilities (Loremanet al., 2010). Criteria for inclusion can be fluid and subjective, shifting according to teachers’ perceptions and preconceptions, and societal expectations, which can blur the lines between inclusion and exclusion (Florian, 2014). Given that inclusion often operates within well-established boundaries of what is considered “normal” or “adequate” (Slee, 2011), teachers may unconsciously create new forms of exclusion and reinforce gender, ability, or ethnic stereotypes by adjusting their teaching based on perceived group characteristics.

Inclusive education can be best understood as an ongoing process rather than a fixed product (UNESCO, 2017). However, educational systems tend to treat inclusion as a product to be achieved, resulting in policies and practices that may not reflect the lived realities and complexities of diverse classrooms (Ainscow, 2020). Inclusive education is neither a straightforward nor a universally positive process. It is marked by ongoing tensions between ideals and realities, individual needs, systemic constraints, and the desire to celebrate diversity while navigating deeply embedded social norms (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Slee, 2011). The recognition of and critical engagement with this kind of tension is essential for the creation of genuinely inclusive learning environments (Graham & Slee, 2008). As Shyman (2015) put it, “[t]he concept of inclusive education is most certainly a tenet of a type of educational reform. The challengeis to take the rhetoric of such educational reform and transform it into actual school and classroom practices” (p. 354).

Axioms of Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is grounded in several foundational principles or axioms that inform the claims for equitable and accessible learning environments for all students, a commitment to human rights and dignity and the belief in the transformative power of education.

Commonly accepted axioms include:

a) All students have the right to participate fully in education: This assertion recognises that every student deserves access to meaningful learning opportunities regardless of their background or ability (UNICEF, 2021).

b) Diversity is a resource, not a problem: Inclusive education is built on the belief that differences among students (in ability, background, identity) enrich the learning environment and should be valued (UNESCO, 2020).

c) Equity is not synonymous with equality: This axiom challenges the notion of equal treatment by highlighting the difference between equity and equality. Equality is based on the principle of universality, which states that the same rules govern everyone and have the same rights and duties. Equity builds on the principle that people are not all equal, creating an imbalance that requires adjustment to ensure fair treatment in providing what each student needs to succeed (OECD, 2023).

d) Learning is relational and context-dependent: The effectiveness of inclusion depends on the relationships among students, teachers, and the broader community, as well as on adapting teaching and learning to specific contexts rather than applying universal solutions (UNESCO, 2017).

e) Continuous reflection and adaptation: Inclusive education requires ongoing critical reflection on practices, policies, and assumptions to identify and address emerging paradoxes and barriers (UNESCO, 2020).

These axioms inform the design and delivery of inclusive education by:

• Acknowledging that segregation (e.g., special schools or classes) is incompatible with true inclusion, as all students should be educated together in a comprehensive system (UNESCO, 2020).

• Requiring ongoing professional development and ethical leadership to ensure that teachers are equipped to meet diverse needs (EASNIE, 2022).

• Emphasising the importance of the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and needs-based funding to support the accessibility and participation of all in education (OECD, 2023).

These axioms are widely recognised in international frameworks, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and serve as an ethical and practical foundation for building inclusive education systems and informing inclusive practices at the school and classroom levels (United Nations, 2006).

Paradoxes in Inclusive Education

The axioms described above are widely recognised in international frameworks, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and have served as ethical foundations that inform inclusive education systems and school practices (United Nations, 2006) aimed at providing equitable learning opportunities for all students, regardless of their abilities, backgrounds, or identities. However, the field is rife with paradoxes, that is, contradictions and tensions that challenge the practical realisation of true inclusion. Paradoxes in inclusive education arise when well-intentioned policies or practices produce unintended exclusions or reinforce inequalities (Corcoranet al., 2019). Key paradoxes include:

a) Inclusion vs. Exclusion: Inclusion is defined in relation to exclusion; to include some, boundaries must be drawn, which inherently means that others are excluded. This creates a fluid and sometimes ambiguous boundary where the criteria for inclusion can shift, often based on subjective judgments by teachers or institutions (UNESCO, 2020).

b) Normativity vs. Diversity: Efforts to include students often rely on normative standards (e.g., ability levels and behavioural expectations) that may not reflect the diverse realities of all students. For example, teachers may use fixed criteria for skill or effort, which can marginalise students who do not fit these norms, even when the intent is to be inclusive (Norwich, 2022; OECD, 2023).

c) Individualisation vs. Standardisation: Inclusive education values recognising each student’s uniqueness, but practical constraints (curriculum, assessment, classroom management) often push for standardisation. This tension can lead to practices that favoure conformity over genuine accommodation of differences (EASNIE, 2022; Florian & Graham, 2020).

d) Agency vs. Compliance: Inclusion is sometimes constructed as students’ ability to conform to existing group norms rather than empowering them to exercise agency or redefine participation. Students may be “pushed” into inclusion, with their preferences or experiences overlooked (Artileset al., 2020; UNICEF, 2021).

e) Intersectionality: Paradoxes become more complex at the intersection of identities such as gender, ethnicity, and ability. Teachers may unintentionally reinforce stereotypes or other students by applying different standards or expectations based on these intersecting identities (Crenshaw, 2021; Gillbornet al., 2022).

f) Assessment Paradox: Assessment practices intended to support inclusion can inadvertently reinforce exclusion if they are not flexible or responsive to diverse student needs. The drive for measurable outcomes may conflict with the ethos of valuing all students equally (Grahamet al., 2020; OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2020).

Recognition of such paradoxes should encourage researchers and practitioners to thoroughly explore their available choices, especially when restricted by dominant ways of knowing/being.

Method

This paper is concerned with the re-examination of the concept of inclusive education through a critical analysis of the main principles that support the theoretical, ethical, and moral framework of inclusive education, which we call “axioms”, and challenging those axioms against the associated challenges and tensions of inclusive practices which we refer to as “paradoxes”. The research design prioritised an in-depth, interpretive exploration of relevant scholarly literature, policy documents, and theoretical texts to identify key themes and principles.

Data were primarily sourced through a comprehensive literature review and document analysis. Purposive sampling was used to select documents and texts that provide insights into and discuss explicitly foundational principles and frameworks of inclusion in education.

The collected data were analysed using critical thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), enabling identification and synthesis of prevailing themes related to the principles of inclusive education.

Results: Overview of Axioms and Paradoxes in Inclusive Education

By examining the interplay between paradoxes and axioms, educational theorists and practitioners can better understand and navigate the challenges in creating truly inclusive environments.

Table I provides an overview of the main axioms and associated paradoxes in inclusive education and some suggestions about potential strategies that school leaders and teachers may adopt to combine axioms and paradoxes to deal with the challenges of inclusive institutional and classroom practices.

Table I. Main Axioms in Inclusive Education, Associated Paradoxes and Coping Strategies

Main axioms	Associated paradoxes	Coping strategies
Education should ensure that all students have access to the same learning opportunities regardless of genre, ethnicity, religion, social status, cultural background.	Although the intention is to promote equality, not all students have the same needs or starting points. Ensuring equitable access often requires offering differentiated adaptations and resources, which may initially seem like a breach of the principle of equality, creating a tension between formal equality and real equity.	• Investing in ongoing teacher training, focusing on differentiated methodologies and inclusive teaching strategies. • Seeking additional resources, such as adapted materials and assistive technologies, to ensure that everyone has access to the same learning opportunities, promoting equity rather than just formal equality. Example: Using tablets with reading apps adapted for students with reading difficulties, in addition to offering materials in accessible formats, such as audio or Braille, to ensure that everyone can follow the classes effectively.
Inclusion should promote the full participation of all students in the school community.	Full participation can be difficult to achieve due to the different abilities, interests and needs of students. Furthermore, trying to include everyone risks overloading the school environment or causing some students to feel excluded because they are unable to follow certain activities, creating a challenge in the practical implementation of this principle.	• Creating flexible school environments that allow for different forms of participation, such as small group activities, collaborative projects, and the use of technology. • Promoting a culture of respect for differences and providing emotional and pedagogical support so that each student feels welcomed and can participate fully. Example: Creating small work groups where students with different abilities can collaborate, using resources such as interactive whiteboards or online platforms that allow everyone to participate, regardless of their limitations.
Diversity is a wealth that should be valued in schools.	Valuing diversity requires changes in school culture, teacher training, and specific resources. However, many schools still face resistance or structural limitations to truly valuing and integrating this diversity, which can create a discrepancy between the ideal and the reality.	• Developing awareness-raising and training programs for the entire school community, promoting a culture that values diversity. • Investing in external resources and partnerships can provide specialised support. • Implementing institutional policies that encourage inclusion and the appreciation of differences as part of the curriculum and school culture. Example: Holding awareness-raising workshops with the entire school staff and students, addressing topics such as respect for cultural, gender or ability differences, promoting a culture of inclusion and valuing diversity.

Inclusive education is a multifaceted and developing area, frequently marked by conflicts, challenges, and contrasting values (Corcoranet al., 2019). By exploring the relationship between paradoxes and axioms, educational theorists and practitioners can gain deeper insights into and manage the difficulties of establishing genuinely inclusive settings. It must be noted that combining paradoxes and axioms does not eliminate and resolve all tensions in inclusive education; instead, it involves accepting complexity and promoting a thoughtful, flexible mindset to foster a reflective, adaptive approach. By adhering to the fundamental axioms and associated confronting paradoxes, teachers, teacher educators, and policymakers can foster educational settings that are more responsive, equitable, and inclusive. Instead of trying to eradicate paradoxes, successful inclusive education should recognise and address them (Ferdman, 2017). This entails acknowledging that various interpretations and conflicts can serve as a source of depth and creativity in creating inclusive methods, guaranteeing that all tiers of the educational framework-from policymakers to teachers-align with inclusive principles while also remaining adaptable to tackling contradictions as they emerge. In practical terms, the relationship between axioms and paradoxes presents several dilemmas for teachers trying to balance the demands of the overall educational system with the practices of inclusion. Teacher professional development and open dialogue among stakeholders-teachers, students, families, and policymakers-are essential to tackle the challenges and barriers to inclusive education (Jardinez & Natividad, 2024), which involves resolving contradictions and refining principles, in other words, negotiating ways of addressing paradoxes and refining axioms in context.

Discussion: Teacher Training to Equip Teachers to Manage Inclusion Axioms and Paradoxes

Teacher training is crucial for preparing teachers to navigate the complex and often paradoxical realities of the profession (Ferreira & Reis-Jorge, 2022). In the case of inclusive education, teacher training is essential to build schools where all students can thrive. By focusing on inclusive mindsets, practical strategies, collaboration, and continuous learning, teacher training programmes (TTPs) empower teachers to create classrooms that celebrate diversity and ensure equitable opportunities for every student. For such purposes, TTPs must be tailored to the specific contexts of teachers and students, with the involvement of all local stakeholders, supported by adequate policies, resources and collaborative work.

TTPs aimed at familiarising teachers with the pedagogical foundations of inclusive education, with an emphasis on the value of diversity and the right of all students to participate fully in learning, must equip teachers with the understanding and abilities to (i) implement the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction, modify teaching methods and materials to fit students’ individual learning preferences and needs; and (ii) choose the appropriate strategies to create student-focused, supportive, and adaptable classroom settings that encourage participation, teamwork, and respect among all students (Moscato & Pedone, 2024; Rusconi & Squillaci, 2023). Effective TTPs for inclusive education should address not only the practical aspects of inclusion but also the deeper philosophical, social, cultural, emotional, and ethical dimensions that underlie the paradoxes that teachers encounter (Forlin & Chambers, 2011).

a. Critical Reflection and Cultural Competence

TTPs can be a crucial way of assisting teachers in critically analyzing their preconceived notions, biases, and actions concerning diversity and inclusion. This process includes reflecting on and reevaluating one’s personal stance towards other cultures, embracing differences, increasing awareness of intercultural matters within both educational institutions and society, and recognising and utilising the diverse resources that students contribute to the learning environment (Moon, 2004).

b. Strength-Based and Asset-Based Approaches

TTPs should shift away from deficit-based models that highlight student deficiencies and instead focus on the strengths and abilities of all learners. This shift helps teachers avoid perpetuating exclusion through well-meaningful yet limited inclusion strategies. Teachers are encouraged to acknowledge and build on students’ current skills, cultural backgrounds, and viewpoints, thereby creating a truly inclusive classroom atmosphere (Marin, 2014).

c. Social and Emotional Learning and Belonging

Creating a feeling of belonging is essential for inclusion. TTPs must increasingly integrate social and emotional learning (SEL) frameworks to prepare teachers to foster empathy, self-awareness, and healthy relationships among students (Ferreiraet al., 2025). In this respect, effective practices such as peer collaboration, restorative approaches, and classroom traditions that enhance trust and respect are important.

d. Teachers with Adaptive Teaching Skills

Teachers must be equipped to modify their teaching and assessments to meet various learning styles and requirements. Training should focus on techniques for differentiated instruction, assess the effectiveness of classroom strategies, and engage in collaborative problem-solving with peers and specialists (Lenzet al., 2004).

e. Teachers’ Lifelong Professional Growth

The complexities of inclusion are constantly changing and dependent on the context. Teacher training programs should highlight the significance of continuous learning, inspiring teachers to enhance their skills regularly and reflect on their practices as classrooms and student demographics shift. Opportunities for professional development are crucial for teachers to remain informed about current research, regulations, inclusive methods, and changing societal expectations. This can be through participation in pre-service and/or in-service programmes, or teachers’ involvement as researchers of their own and others’ practices (Reis-Jorgeet al., 2020).

f. Exclusionary Practices and Advocating for Change

Teacher education should not be limited to classroom strategies; it should also encourage teachers to challenge institutional and systemic barriers to inclusion, advocate for policy changes, collaborate with families and communities, and work collectively to transform school culture into greater equity and belonging (Ferdman, 2017; Sailor, 2015).

g. Addressing the Paradoxes Directly

TTPs should increasingly recognise that inclusion is not a static achievement but an ongoing process entailing contradictions, such as balancing individual needs with standardised curricula or promoting diversity while maintaining group cohesion. By explicitly addressing these paradoxes, teachers are better equipped to navigate thoughtfully in practice (Savolainen, 2009).

Thus, teacher training is foundational in equipping teachers to recognise, navigate, and manage the paradoxes of inclusion, not by offering simple solutions, but by fostering a mindset of reflection, adaptability, and advocacy for all students.

Conclusion: Integrating Axioms and Paradoxes towards an Inclusive Model

Numerous axioms underlie of inclusive education. Every student is entitled to receive quality education and participate in mainstream environments, and diversity is regarded as a valuable asset rather than a shortcoming. Central to educational practices are equity and justice, which necessitate that educational systems evolve to accommodate the needs of every student, rather than requiring students to adapt to existing systems (Sailor, 2015). Some contradictions arise in connection with these axioms. The notion of equality is debatable as it may create a conflict between formal equality and genuine equity, potentially overwhelming the school environment in attempts to encompass all individuals (Corcoranet al., 2019).

Many teachers receive inadequate training in inclusive practices, differentiated instruction, and effective classroom management for diverse student populations (Ferreira, 2022). This lack of proper teacher preparation can hinder the success of inclusive education and may cause some teachers to feel resistant or hesitant. Continuing professional development is essential to provide teachers with the necessary skills to adapt curricula, implement inclusive teaching strategies, and cultivate a culture of acceptance and respect among students (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Moscato & Pedone, 2024). Inclusive teaching methods contribute to narrowing educational disparities, enhancing academic performance, and supporting the social and emotional growth of students. Teachers experience increased confidence and fulfilment when they successfully address the needs of all learners, which helps foster a positive school environment. By challenging biases and encouraging fairness, training in inclusive practices promotes a more welcoming and supportive atmosphere for everyone (Florianet al., 2017).

Conventional educational curricula and assessment techniques often do not meet the diverse learning requirements of students, negatively impacting those who require alternative strategies or assistance. There is an increasing demand for more adaptable and inclusive assessment methods, such as portfolio-based or project-based evaluations that enable all learners to showcase their knowledge and abilities (Marin, 2014). To ensure that education is accessible for every student, curriculum developers and teachers should focus on Universal Design for Learning principles instead of retrofitting existing materials. This approach ensures that learning environments remain adaptable and responsive to stduents’ varied needs.

Successful inclusion hinges on robust cooperation among teachers, support staff, families, and community partners. Continuous investment in teacher development, infrastructure, and support services is essential for sustaining inclusive practices. Engaging in discussions about these elements while reflecting on the principles and contradictions of inclusive education can encourage dialogue among educational stakeholders and stimulate critical thinking among all involved (Forlin & Chambers, 2011). Although progress has been made, challenges still exist, such as teacher shortages, funding limitations, and inconsistent application of policies (Ferdman, 2017). Ongoing advocacy and innovative approaches are crucial to ensure that inclusive education is prioritised as a main objective rather than merely a restricted practice.

Inclusive education is rapidly advancing, influenced by technological breakthroughs, evolving societal norms, and increasing acknowledgement of diversity as an asset in learning settings. The trajectory of inclusive education depends on how well schools and communities tackle attitudinal, structural, technological, and policy-related obstacles to establish genuinely equitable and supportive learning environments for every student.