Shared Language Does Not Always Mean Shared Meaning: What Does Inclusion Really Mean?
Chapter 1: What Is Disability? (And Who Gets to Say?)
Lucy is walking down the hallway holding her teacher’s hand.
A general education teacher approaches with her class.
“Hi Lucy, how are you today? Taking a walk with your teacher?” she says.
Lucy makes a low sound—“hmm”—and shifts slightly closer.
She doesn’t respond with words.
The teacher pauses, then turns to her students.
“Oh… it looks like she doesn’t speak,” she says.
She leans toward them and begins whispering quietly.
Lucy tightens her grip on her teacher’s hand.
She pulls forward gently, as if to keep moving.
Her body leans toward the hallway ahead.
The teacher keeps walking.
“Lucy communicates with pictures and signs,” she says.
“She uses icons—like these.”
She gestures toward the picture cards hanging from Lucy’s lanyard.
Lucy briefly lifts one of the cards.
They continue walking.
What happened in that moment depends on how communication is defined.
Lucy communicated—through movement, gesture, vocalization, and visual symbols. These forms reflect multimodal communication, where meaning is expressed through multiple channels rather than speech alone (Light & McNaughton, 2014; Walker, 2021).
The term non-speaking refers to the absence of verbal speech, not the absence of communication. Many individuals who are non-speaking communicate effectively through augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), gesture, gaze, and other systems (Light & McNaughton, 2014).
When communication is defined through speech, other forms become less visible. Over time, this shapes how competence is interpreted and how participation is recognized.
This is not simply a matter of wording. It reflects broader systems of ableism, where certain forms of communication—particularly speech—are treated as more valid or more indicative of intelligence and participation (Oliver & Barnes, 2019).
Lucy was communicating. The question is whether the relational environment—particularly teacher interpretations and interactions—was prepared to recognize it.
Chapter 1 Glossary
Non-speaking
Refers to the absence of functional verbal speech as a primary mode of communication. This term does not indicate an absence of communication ability. Individuals who are non-speaking often communicate through gesture, gaze, facial expression, and AAC systems (Light & McNaughton, 2014; Walker, 2021).
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)
A range of tools and strategies that support communication beyond spoken language, including picture exchange systems, communication boards, gestures, and speech-generating devices (Light & McNaughton, 2014).
Multimodal Communication
Communication that occurs through multiple forms, including speech, gesture, movement, visual symbols, and technology. Meaning is constructed across these modalities (Walker, 2021).
Disability (Social Model)
A framework that understands disability as arising from the interaction between individuals and environmental or attitudinal barriers, rather than as an inherent deficit (United Nations, 2006).
Pathology Model of Disability
An approach that conceptualizes disability as an individual deficit requiring correction or remediation (Oliver & Barnes, 2019).
Ableism
Discrimination, prejudice, or systemic bias against people with disabilities, often based on the assumption that non-disabled individuals are superior or that disabled individuals need to be “fixed.” It manifests through inaccessible environments, normative expectations, and marginalization (United Nations, 2006; Oliver & Barnes, 2019).
Total Communication
An approach that integrates multiple modes of communication—including speech, gesture, sign, visual supports, and AAC systems—to support meaningful interaction. It prioritizes communication effectiveness rather than adherence to a single modality (Light & McNaughton, 2014).
Students are working in small groups.
Zoe sits with her group. A paraprofessional stands nearby.
One student reaches for markers. Another begins writing.
Zoe lifts a picture card.
“Oh—you want blue?” the paraprofessional says, handing her a marker.
The group continues working.
A student glances at Zoe, then looks back at the paper.
No one responds.
The teacher walks by.
“How’s everyone doing?”
Students answer.
The paraprofessional answers for Zoe.
Zoe continues working.
Zoe is included. She is present in the group. She is participating. But her participation is mediated. This moment highlights a distinction that often goes unnoticed: the difference between access, inclusion, and belonging.
Access refers to physical presence within a space (Spencer, 2008). Inclusion is often defined through that lens—as placement with support. But belonging is something different. Belonging is relational. It is the lived experience of being recognized, valued, and able to participate meaningfully within a community (Allen et al., 2021).
Zoe’s communication is acknowledged, but primarily through adult mediation. It is not fully taken up within peer interaction. She is present, but not fully part of the group.
This reflects a broader pattern in how inclusion is enacted—where students may meet the conditions for access, yet remain on the margins of shared interaction and belonging.
Policies are designed to create access, but access is experienced through interaction—interaction that can either create or limit opportunities for belonging. It is shaped by how communication is interpreted, how participation is structured, and how students are positioned within a space (Spencer, 2008).
Policies also carry cultural and linguistic assumptions, and their implementation depends on local context and power structures (Bray et al., 2014). At the same time, education systems are becoming more standardized while student populations become more diverse (OECD, 2025). This creates a gap.
Students may meet the conditions for inclusion yet still experience limited participation when those conditions do not align with how they communicate or engage. This is particularly relevant for culturally and linguistically diverse students. What appears to be a lack of participation may reflect a mismatch between institutional expectations (e.g., policies and classroom norms) and educators’ everyday interpretive practices, and students’ ways of interacting.
Understanding inclusion, then, requires looking beyond placement. It requires attention to how participation is recognized, how interaction is structured, and how students are positioned within a community.
Policy can open the door but what happens inside the room determines whether that door leads to participation—or remains symbolic.
Inclusion
A relational process that involves meaningful participation, engagement, and recognition within a community. Inclusion extends beyond physical placement and requires interaction and contribution (Banks, 2015).
Access
The ability to be physically present within a space or system. Access is necessary but does not ensure participation or belonging (Spencer, 2008).
Belonging
The lived experience of being recognized, valued, and accepted within a community (Allen et al., 2021; JHU SOE, 2019).
Participation
Active engagement in learning and social interaction, including opportunities to contribute meaningfully (Banks, 2015).
Equity
Providing individuals with the supports and conditions they need to participate fully, recognizing that needs differ (Banks et al., 2001).
Equality
Providing identical resources or opportunities to all individuals, regardless of differing needs (Banks et al., 2001).
Accommodation
Adjustments made to environments or expectations to reduce barriers and support participation (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004).
If you have any thoughts or reflections, I’d really appreciate hearing from you. What stood out to you, or challenged your thinking, as you read this?
You can reach me at: ayumi@gmail.com
Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th ed.). Routledge.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196–203.
Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2014). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (2nd ed.). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2021). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 438–461.
Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18.
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2019). The new politics of disablement (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Spencer, M. B. (2008). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In W. Damon et al. (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 696–740). John Wiley & Sons.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed.). Pearson.
Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Trends shaping education 2025. OECD Publishing.
Johns Hopkins University School of Education. (2019). Ethnic identity and multicultural skill development [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/329825970/b67458b953