Bosky Blog: Learning - what matrices can teach us about inclusive education
I’ve been thinking lately about what matrices can teach us in learning. One of the things I’ve recently valued about working across education, publishing and heritage is that ideas rarely stay neatly within one discipline. Good ideas (and good people!) travel. They evolve, adapt and sometimes quietly reshape themselves for entirely different contexts. If you want to dig into one example of evolving approaches in education, you can take a look at this blog about emotional awareness in education.
In education we often draw on the work of researchers and educators who have helped shape how we understand learning. But some of the most useful insights sometimes come from outside education altogether.
Business strategy. Organisational leadership. Conflict resolution frameworks.
These fields have developed tools to help people think clearly about complex systems. One of the most useful is surprisingly simple: the matrix.
Why matrices matter
The Social Discipline Window
Another matrix that has stuck in my memory since my restorative practice training years ago is the Social Discipline Window. It maps two axes: control and support, creating four approaches:
• To (high control, low support)
• For (low control, high support)
• Not (low control, low support)
• With (high control, high support)
The most productive learning environments tend to operate in the ‘with’ quadrant: high expectations combined with strong support.
Teachers recognise this instinctively. Students thrive when they are challenged and supported – when learning is something we do with them rather than something done to them.
Individual children, however, have different tolerances for both challenge and support. Multiply that by 30 in a classroom and you begin to see just how complex a learning environment can be.
Thinking about change
These frameworks also connect with another idea increasingly used in education and social policy: Theory of Change.
A Theory of Change asks a deceptively simple question: what needs to happen for the change we want to see to become possible?
Rather than assuming improvement will happen automatically, it encourages us to map the steps between actions and outcomes. What knowledge needs to develop? What behaviours need to shift? What structures need to be in place?
When schools talk about becoming more inclusive, this kind of thinking can be particularly useful. Inclusion rarely happens through a single intervention (and I’m sometimes tempted to swap rarely for never here). It develops through a series of intentional changes – in understanding, teaching practice, language and expectations.
Mapping those changes helps schools move from aspiration to action.
Inclusion and recognising needs
This feels especially relevant given the ongoing conversations around the UK SEND White Paper and the broader push towards meaningful inclusion.
Prioritising inclusion doesn’t simply mean adding support structures. It also means recognising needs clearly rather than quietly brushing them under a metaphorical carpet.
Recently I noticed an interesting discussion on LinkedIn where Louise Selby, author of Morph Mastery and a dyslexia specialist, asked an important question:
Where does dyslexia fit if it is no longer placed within the ‘Cognition and Learning’ area of need?
It’s a good question because dyslexia is rarely about just one thing. It can involve a combination of factors including:
• literacy difficulties
• phonological processing
• working memory
• executive functioning
These overlapping elements highlight the complexity of learning differences. Simple categories do not always capture the full picture.
Frameworks such as matrices can sometimes help us visualise these intersections more clearly.
Learning from different lenses
Exploring frameworks such as the Boston Matrix, the Social Discipline Window, David Kolb’s experiential learning cycle – moving from concrete experience, to reflection, to conceptual understanding and then experimentation – and Theory of Change models reminds us how adaptable ideas can be.
None of these frameworks were originally designed for classrooms. Yet they offer ways of thinking that can illuminate educational practice.
Sometimes viewing education through the lens of another discipline allows us to see familiar challenges more clearly.
This may be particularly helpful when thinking about the ongoing journey towards inclusive education in the UK.
Because the question is rarely whether schools want to become more inclusive. Many already do. The real question is what enables meaningful change to happen in practice.
What are the main barriers to change towards inclusive practice in UK schools?
Is it time, training and resources?
Is it uncertainty about how to identify and support overlapping needs?
Or is it simply the challenge of shifting long-established systems?
A Theory of Change approach encourages schools to map this journey carefully. Schools might begin by asking a shared question:
What do we want learning to feel like for every child in our school?
From there, they can work backwards – identifying the conditions needed to make that experience possible. That might involve changes to curriculum design, staff development, assessment practices or the ways additional needs are recognised and supported.
But throughout this process, one principle must remain clear.
Children need to remain at the heart of the change.
Inclusive practice is not only about systems or frameworks. It is about lived experience – whether children feel understood, supported and able to participate fully in learning.
If we want education pathways to be successful, children’s perspectives must guide the changes we make.
Their experiences tell us far more about whether inclusion is working than any policy document ever could.
Frameworks and models help us think more clearly. But their purpose is simple: to help create learning environments where every child can engage, grow and thrive.
I’d be really interested to hear your thoughts.
What do you think are the biggest barriers to inclusive practice in schools at the moment? And what kinds of changes have you seen make the biggest difference for children?
I often return to the idea that learning is rarely linear. Children bring different experiences, strengths and challenges into the classroom, and meaningful education pathways recognise this complexity rather than trying to simplify it away. Frameworks, matrices and theories of change can help us think more clearly about the systems around learning, but they only matter if they ultimately improve children’s experiences. If we keep children’s curiosity, confidence and sense of belonging at the centre of our thinking, the structures we build around them have a far better chance of supporting genuinely inclusive learning.