The possibilities for equal opportunities for pupils with SEN in education have been a major topic in debates and scholarly articles for a long time. It has been argued that factors such as ethnicity, social class and gender all impact on equal opportunity and inclusion. Potter (1995) explains that integration approaches emphasises on needs of special students; changing and remedying special students; various benefits which SEN children through integration; professionals, specialist expertise and formal support; and technical interventions such as special teaching and therapy. The inclusion approaches on the other hand, emphasises on the rights of all students; changing the school to accommodate SEN children; benefits of including SEN children to all students; informal support and the expertise of mainstream teachers; and good teaching for all (Potter, 1995). Additionally, Excellence for All (1997) defines inclusion as the notion through which SEN children not only receive their education in the mainstream school, but also join fully with their peers in the curriculum and the life of the school. Centre for Studies in Inclusion also explains that inclusion is more than a policy requirement, and that it is a moral position which values and respects every individual and which welcomes diversity as a rich learning resource. However, in contrary to the ˜Centre for Studies in Inclusion' perception about inclusion, evident shows that inclusion practices do not welcome diversity as a rich learning resource. For instance, inclusion practices have been found to label more boys than girls as SEN children. Critics of inclusion practices maintained that this is not just because, there is a significant developmental difference in different genders, but because there is over concentration on difficult pupils (boys). Again, critics of inclusion practices have argued that pupils from ethnic minority such as Black/Afro Caribbean and Asian Origins