Evidence from Research and Policy
Principles identified by Page et al. (2023), citing Boyle and Topping (2012), resonate deeply with my approach to inclusive education. Collaborative practice, adaptive pedagogy, and reflective engagement with learners’ perspectives align closely with efforts to foster an environment where learners co-construct knowledge.
Through adapting pedagogy to individual needs and engaging reflectively with learners’ feedback, I acknowledge that inclusion is a dynamic dialogue rather than a fixed outcome. PCP embodies these principles by positioning individuals as co-authors of their learning plans. Similarly, the SET Project (Jordan 2018; Jordan et al., 2010, pp.91–92) shows that professionals who view ability as dynamic are more likely to implement adaptive, person-centred strategies.
Forlin et al. (2015, pp.122–123) reinforce this by advocating measurable “inclusive indicators,” shifting the focus from procedural compliance to lived experience. Collectively, this evidence situates PCP within an empirically grounded, relational paradigm of inclusion.
Theoretical Arguments For and Against PCP
PCP draws on disability studies, sociocultural learning, ecological systems theory, and inclusive leadership. The Social Model of Disability (Oliver, 1990, p.33) reframes exclusion as a societal failure (Peer & Reid, 2016), positioning PCP as a tool for empowerment through co-construction of solutions (Sanderson & Lewis, 2012, p.47). Vygotsky’s (1978, p.86) sociocultural perspective emphasises co-learning and scaffolding, while relational agency (Edwards, 2005) foregrounds shared problem-solving and mutual recognition, highlighting the relational dimension of inclusion.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) situates PCP across micro- to macrosystem levels, ensuring coherence between individual, institutional, and policy contexts. Bourdieu (1986, pp.243–245) demonstrates how PCP redistributes social and cultural capital, enabling marginalised learners to access networks and resources. Reflective leadership underpins these practices, modelling adaptive, ethical decision-making and fostering a culture of shared responsibility.
Yet PCP is not without limitations.
The Social Model may underplay functional support needs, as seen in James’s engagement with online learning (Goodley, 2014, p.59). Relational learning depends on skilled facilitation, which can falter when staff attitudes are unreflective, as observed in Amira’s initial exclusion (Vygotsky, 1978, p.87). Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Bourdieu (1986) warn that structural hierarchies persist without active leadership and genuinely shared authority. Procedural compliance, staff shortages, and bureaucratic pressures risk tokenistic implementation (Damant et al., 2025), while intersectional inequities require systemic reform (Slee, 2018; Crenshaw, 1991). These critiques underscore that PCP’s transformative potential depends on reflective leadership and relational agency, operationalised within a systemic, ethically grounded, and co-productive framework.