Findings from the Meta-Project on Inclusive Education
The “Needs-Based Diagnostics in Inclusive Education” funding directive, issued by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), funded 28 research projects that explored the topic and developed tools for practical application in educational settings. Its work was accompanied by a meta-project on inclusive education, also funded under this initiative. The results and tools produced by these projects are presented in two edited volumes compiled by the meta-project, focusing on subject didactics, professionalization, specific support services, and transitions to vocational education. To mark the volumes’ publication, UniReport spoke with Prof. Dieter Katzenbach, who co-leads the project together with Prof. Michael Urban.
UniReport: Germany ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009. How would you currently assess the state of inclusion in Germany, and what role does the funding directive play in this context?
Dieter Katzenbach: First and foremost, we must remember that inclusive education is not a passing educational trend but a human rights obligation that Germany committed to when it ratified the UN Convention in 2009. Inclusive education encompasses much more, of course, but its non-negotiable foundation is that children and adolescents with disabilities should no longer be segregated into special kindergartens or special schools, but instead attend the same kindergartens, schools, and classes as their peers. More than 15 years after ratification, we unfortunately must acknowledge that implementation remains sluggish in Germany and, in many places, in danger of stalling completely.
That said, some progress has been made: the number of children and adolescents identified as having special educational needs and being taught inclusively in mainstream schools has risen significantly. Be that as it may, the number of students enrolled in special schools has not decreased. This may sound paradoxical, but it’s because more children than ever are now being classified as requiring special education compared to 15 years ago. That explains the increase in inclusively educated students without a corresponding decline in special school numbers.
Additionally, we must acknowledge that the demands of inclusive education pose enormous challenges for educators, many of whom were and still are inadequately prepared. That’s why the first phase of the BMBF’s inclusive education funding program – focused on training educational professionals – was extremely important. The now-completed second phase, which focused on diagnostics, addressed a key element of inclusive education.
Needs-based diagnostics are intended to help implement inclusive education as effectively as possible. How do you assess its role?
“Needs-based diagnostics” is a term coined by the BMBF that captures the fact that “diagnostics” can mean very different things.
In everyday language, diagnostics is often associated with medicine, usually in the context of illness – or disability. This medicalized understanding still plays an important role in education, especially special education, where diagnostics determine whether and what type of special educational support a child is entitled to. This understanding focuses on a personal trait of the child – often one that is socially undervalued.
For a long time, this notion has been critically debated in educational and school pedagogy – especially concerning the benefits and harms such diagnoses can cause. The key issue is that “status diagnostics” provide no guidance for how to help the child didactically or pedagogically. That’s why, under the lens of inclusion, the learning process takes center stage. Inclusive education is not about sorting children into the most suitable (special) school form but about designing individualized support within inclusive learning groups. For this to work, teachers need practical tools to identify students’ learning levels without excessive effort.
There’s also another layer to diagnostics, tied to a modern understanding of disability. The UN Convention does not define disability as a personal trait, but rather as a restriction of social participation, arising from the interaction between individual impairments and societal/environmental barriers. This reframes the focus toward identifying barriers in the learning environment rather than deficits in the students themselves. In other words, needs-based diagnostics means identifying external obstacles that prevent students from learning and participating.
The volumes target educators, policymakers, administrators, and researchers. What key findings do they offer for these audiences?
Interestingly, the funded projects reflected all three of the diagnostic models we just discussed. Some projects examined special education assessments and uncovered highly problematic practices. These findings are of critical interest to education policymakers and administrators.
Other projects, from a subject-didactic perspective, developed tools – often digital – to assess student progress in specific subjects. These tools are also very useful for individual teachers.
There are also developmental documentation tools for early childhood education, particularly relevant at the kindergarten-to-elementary school transition. Additional projects focused on identifying learning barriers, producing practical instruments for everyday teaching and school development.
The projects developed a wide range of diagnostic tools for use across educational stages – from early childhood to adult education. In such a diverse landscape, how can effective transfer succeed? What conditions are necessary?
The transfer of research into educational practice remains a major challenge – not just in Germany, but globally. What we’ve learned over the past decade is that simple transfer models don’t work. The idea that research can calculate what works in the classroom and that practice should then just “apply” it is unrealistic.
What has become clear is that transfer only succeeds through dialogue. Practitioners must test and adapt research findings to their specific context without compromising the core insight. That process requires time, trust, and mutual engagement.
This demanding form of transfer can only succeed through dialogue – which, in turn, requires two things: time and trust. We have found that there is strong interest in such dialogue on both sides – within academia and in practice. However, the necessary structural conditions for it have so far only been partially developed. A key requirement is the allocation of time. In academic practice, the usual cycle still applies: projects run for three years, after which the final reports and results are published – but by then, no one has any time left for the dialogue, which should actually begin once the results are available. This is where funding practices urgently need to change. We also observe that schools and educational institutions lack both the time and staff to maintain this dialogue on a continuous basis.
Questions: Stefan Katzenbach, Meta-Project Team on Inclusive Education
The volumes have been published as open access by Waxmann Verlag:
Kompetenzbereiche – Fachdidaktik
Professionalisierung – spezifische Unterstützungsangebote – Übergänge in die berufliche Bildung
