Theoretical and Policy Context of Inclusive Practice
Inclusion, as a guiding principle (The Alliance for Inclusive Education, 2020), ensures that individuals, irrespective of abilities, backgrounds, or circumstances, can participate fully and meaningfully in education and society. The Social Model of Disability (Dwyer et al., 2025; Oliver, 1990, p.33) reframes disability as a product of social and environmental barriers rather than individual impairment. PCP aligns with this model by positioning individuals as active agents in defining their support needs and aspirations (Kirwan, 2018).
Whereas, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979, pp. 22–23) conceptualises development as occurring within interrelated systems—from the individual (microsystem) to broader structures such as policy and culture (macrosystem). Effective inclusion requires coherence across these levels, and PCP operationalises this ecological view by fostering collaboration between the individual, family, professionals, and community (Amali et al., 2023).
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1978, pp. 86–87) underlines the relational nature of learning, proposing that participation develops through guided interaction within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Recognising that inclusion is not merely about physical presence in classrooms but about meaningful participation, which is deeply shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts. In PCP, practitioners act as co-learners through shared decision-making.
Bourdieu’s (1986, pp. 243–245) concept of social and cultural capital illuminates how inequities in access to networks and knowledge perpetuate exclusion. PCP seeks to redistribute these forms of capital by empowering individuals and families to influence decisions and access resources.
Reflecting on my leadership practice, I have become increasingly aware of how policy frameworks such as the Children and Families Act (2014) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC, 2020, p.14) standards shape and legitimise inclusive approaches within my organisation. Aligning work with these policies strengthens accountability while reinforcing the moral purpose of inclusion. Within this context, Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) functions as both an ethical and practical tool to reduce barriers to participation and learning (Gray et al., 2022). Applying PCP principles in my setting has encouraged staff to reflect critically on assumptions and to engage learners as active partners in their own development—transforming inclusion from a policy requirement into a lived professional ethic.
Person-Centred Planning as an Inclusive Intervention
Person-Centred Planning (PCP) emerged from the disability rights movement of the 1980s (O’Brien & O’Brien, 1988, pp. 12–14) as a method for enabling individuals to shape their own lives. By shifting the power dynamic between professional and service user, PCP ensures decisions are made with rather than for individuals (Amundsen, 2024). PCP addresses multiple barriers: attitudinal, by challenging deficit-based assumptions; organisational, by restructuring support around the individual; communication, through accessible dialogue; and social, by fostering autonomy and belonging. Research demonstrates that PCP enhances engagement, autonomy, and well-being (Symonds, Brown & Black, 2020, p.128; Bavelaar, Mulder & Verbeek, 2023, p.71). Yet, as the SET Project highlights (Jordan et al., 2010, p.89), its success depends on practitioner belief systems and organisational culture, linking effective inclusion to leadership and reflective practice.
Reflective leadership is central to embedding PCP in practice. By critically examining assumptions and modelling adaptive decision-making (Zhang & Zhao, 2024), leaders create conditions for relational agency (Shotter, 2021; Edwards, 2005), enabling practitioners to collaboratively negotiate understanding, share expertise, and co-construct learning opportunities with learners. In my practice, engaging staff in reflective dialogue (Papadakis et al., 2024) has strengthened their capacity to view learners as active co-authors of their learning plans, fostering both empowerment and accountability. PCP operationalises these principles, situating inclusion within a relational, dynamic, and evidence-informed framework.
Measurable indicators such as engagement, satisfaction, and learner empowerment (Forlin et al., 2015, pp. 197–211) shift the focus from procedural compliance to lived experience.