Case Example 1:
Adult Discrimination in a West Midlands Residential Care and Learning Setting
James, an 18-year-old adult learner with moderate learning disabilities, lives in a West Midlands residential care home. Despite expressing a strong desire to access digital learning platforms (Ainscow, 2025; Menase, 2024; Ainscow et al., 2006) to develop his literacy and vocational skills (Porta and Todd 2024), staff routinely made decisions about his daily activities (Calabria & Cheswick, 2023) without consulting him, citing “safety concerns.” He was rarely involved in planning meetings (UNESCO, 2009) and had little control over his schedule, reflecting what Sarchet (2024) and Oliver (1990) term institutional disabling practices. As a leader, I initiated a reflective review process informed by Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) (Bourne and Jankowicz, 2024) and structured reflection (Johns, 2025). This facilitated critical examination of staff assumptions, language, and organisational routines that inadvertently constrained James’s autonomy, echoing findings from the SET Project (Jordan, 2018; Jordan et al., 2010, p. 90). Inclusion-focused training, grounded in Boyle and Topping’s (2012) framework, emphasised dialogue, empowerment, and learner choice, fostering a shared understanding of inclusion as relational, reflective, and active. The intervention aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979), demonstrating how changes in microsystems (staff–learner interactions) and mesosystems (coordination across residential and educational settings) facilitated development. Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective (1978) underscores the importance of social scaffolding in co-constructing knowledge, while Edwards’ (2005) concept of relational agency highlights collaborative negotiation of support across the team. Within three weeks, James began co-designing his daily routines, integrating accessible online learning, and his participation, confidence, and self-efficacy increased. This transformation also reflects Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory and Bourdieu’s (1986) social capital framework, as his networks expanded and he was redefined as an active learner rather than a passive service user. Sustaining progress required reflective supervision and ongoing leadership support, revealing both inclusion’s fragility and the transformative potential of relational, theory-informed leadership. The case shows how reflective, ethical leadership within PCP can dismantle barriers and promote autonomy and participation (Carrington et al., 2024).
Case Example 2: Educational Discrimination in a West Midlands School-Based Care Setting
Amira, a ten-year-old with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), attended an after-school club in Birmingham where staff frequently excluded her from group activities, assuming sensory overload would make participation distressing. Rather than adapting the environment, they isolated her—a practice that violated her right to participation (Shotter, 2021) under the Children and Families Act (2014) and residential childcare frameworks (2015).
Through PCP-led co-production with her family, the setting introduced noise-cancelling headphones, visual timetables, and a peer “buddy” system. Guided by Vygotsky’s (1978, p. 87) theory of guided participation and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, pp. 22–23) ecological coordination, collaborative and reflective practice enabled Amira’s gradual reintegration into group learning. Over several weeks, she began participating in group activities and initiating peer interactions with increasing confidence. Observation data reflected inclusive indicators identified by Forlin et al. (2015, p.123), notably improvements in engagement, emotional well-being, and peer relationships.
However, as Slee (2018, p.55) cautions, genuine inclusion extends beyond observable behavioural changes; it requires confronting cultural and structural attitudes that perpetuate exclusion. This case illustrates that while practical interventions foster visible inclusion, their sustainability depends on ongoing advocacy and reflective organisational change. Echoing critiques of PCP (Needham, 2011; Goodley, 2014), this experience reinforced that inclusive leadership must be relational, critically self-aware, and attentive to systemic conditions shaping practice.