The context of special educational needs and inclusive education The history of special education in the United Kingdom dates back to the opening of the first schools for blind children, for example in Liverpool, Edinburgh, Bristol and London, at the end of the eighteenth century (Pritchard, 1963). Separate institutions for a few of the most serious ‘physically handicapped’ and ‘mentally defective’ children existed but the majority fared as best they could in a mixture of workhouses, asylums, ordinary elementary schools or none at all. Throughout the nineteenth century there were a small number of charitable and religious institutions which sought to educate children with a range of disabilities. For example, in London during 1899 some 2,000 ‘mentally retarded’ pupils were taught in 43 locations (Safford and Safford, 1996: 180). Stirred on by individual and charitable efforts, Government interest in special education was expressed through legislation in the 1890s that required school authorities to make provision, in their own or other schools, for the education of blind and deaf children from the age of five and seven respectively to sixteen. The scope of those children considered to be educable gradually widened. By 1918 further legislation provided for the compulsory education of ‘physically defective and epileptic’ children.

Figure 1 A lesson in Peterborough Special School in London, 1906. Most of the timetable involved simple lessons and basic crafts. Source: Greater London Picture Library

Despite these efforts, the general education system tended to reinforce the isolation of children with disabilities, as Gerald Turner recalled as a boy with cerebral palsy brought up in the 1930s: I wasn’t allowed to go to school with the rest because they said it wouldn’t be fair, that the other children might look at me. But I couldn’t understand that because I knew them all anyway. I saw them all and played with them in the village. I used to get so frustrated and scream a lot. I wanted to know what they were learning at school…I just had to watch my [brothers] go off to school and wish it were me (Humphries and Gordon, 1992: 45).

Children with ‘defects’ were best considered to be separated from ‘normal’ children.

One of the key themes in the development of special education is the growing distinction between types of special needs and the provision required (Halsey and Webb, 2000).

The 1944 Education Act had established eleven categories of ‘handicap’ and a limited recognition that mainstream schooling might offer some benefits. A few special schools which catered for ‘feeble-minded’ children, considered to have sufficient ability to benefit from an education (Pritchard, 1963). The first of several schools for pupils with cerebral palsy (‘spastics’) opened in London in 1947 and Edinburgh in 1948.

However, it took many years before pupils with disabilities were recognised as individuals who were entitled to a dignified education of their own. Up until the 1970s, disabled people were excluded from the full rights of citizenship (Borsay, 2005). It was not until 1971 that the rights of disabled children to an education were formally acknowledged (Tilstone and Layton, 2004). Traditionally, tests by doctors, psychologists and teachers were designed to try and pinpoint the nature of the learning difficulty within the child. In seeking to explain why children were ‘slow learners’, the prevailing view pointed to medical or biological causes rather than socio-educational factors, such as a shortage of texts pitched at the right reading level or a teacher who talks too fast.

Moment to reflect •

Can schools cause special needs?

This medical model has been criticised for dehumanising children though supporters argued that factors such as malnutrition, infection of the nervous system, or the consequences may all have a bearing on the normal progress of children in school. The medical model continues to exert some influence, for instance in explaining dyslexia.

Lewis (2001) suggests that some parents, teachers and children find learning difficulties easier to ‘accept’ if a ‘medical’ label is applied. She adds the obvious benefit for drug companies if medication, such as Ritalin, is adopted as the main prescription for a particular ‘condition’.

No one would deny that some learning difficulties are associated with the child but even in cases of severe brain damage or a serious sensory disorder, it is difficult to attribute all of the learning difficulties to any one factor (Montgomery, 1990). Invariably it is the interaction between the social and medical models that explains most difficulties.

Table 1

Changing models of disability

Medical model (c.1870-1970)

Social model (c.1970-2010)

• Child is faulty • Diagnosis

• Child is valued • Strengths and needs defined by self and others • Identify barriers and develop solutions • Outcomes-based programmes designed • Resources made available • Training for parents and professionals • Relationships nurtured • Diversity welcomed; child is welcomed

• Labelling • Impairment becomes focus of attention • Assessment, monitoring • Segregation and alternative services • Ordinary needs put on hold • Re-entry if ‘normal’ enough or permanent exclusion • Society remains unchanged • Society evolves Source: Rieser (2001), ‘The struggle for inclusion: the growth of a movement’ in Barton, L. (ed.) Disability, Politics and Struggle for Change, London: David Fulton

The landmark Warnock Report (DES, 1978) advocated a move away from seeing special needs in ‘deficit’ terms. The Report acknowledged that some disabled children would always attend special school, and that integration was good for some children but not for others. The independence of the committee has since been questioned, for it is now

apparent that the members were forced to accept the case for integration well before the report was published. Jackson (TESS, 11 November 2005) argues that the last-minute incorporation of clause 10 in the 1976 Education bill (which legislated for provision of special education in ordinary schools) was the result of pressure applied by an influential lobby who wanted physically handicapped (but intellectually able) children to attend ordinary rather than special schools. According to Jackson, this pressure group succeeded in outmanouvering the government and others, in case the Warnock Committee did not give unqualified support for integration. Baroness Warnock herself saw the concept of SEN as a very fluid one, and she regarded special needs as something a child might have in certain circumstances, when faced with particular learning tasks.

Warnock (DES, 1978) also drew a distinction between different forms of integration. The report pointed out some children may move from special to mainstream schools (locational integration), experience social integration (by mixing for leisure) and benefit from functional integration, where children are mixed socially and intellectually. In some cases, you may observe that children with SEN are sitting within the mainstream class receiving support from an additional adult, but are not engaging with the rest of the class (Smith, 2006). Many of Warnock’s recommendations were picked up by the 1981 Education Act which re-iterated two groups of special needs pupils: the larger group (20 per cent) of the school population who would at some time or another would be in need of support and a smaller sub-group of these pupils (2 per cent) who would require special provision through a statement of needs. Mainstream schools were required to teach pupils with SEN, but there were important provisos - parental wishes, the efficient use of

resources, and the effect on other children. However, through the 1980s government policy was focused largely on integrating children from special to mainstream schools.

By the early 1990s policy direction was influenced in the wider context of the human rights movement and its commitment to equal opportunities. Two key international developments were the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) and the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994: 11) which sets out that ‘the fundamental principle of the inclusive school is that all children should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have’. The intention is for all pupils to be accepted and benefit from the school’s ‘common wealth’ (Thomas et al., 1998:9). The introduction and subsequent revision to the National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) has resulted in a higher profile for inclusion.

Presently, inclusion is set very much in a broader social agenda that covers health, welfare, vocational training and employment. In this sense disability is now seen as a socially constructed problem and the key is how well society adapts the environment to suit the individual, rather than the person’s condition (Waller, 2009). Unfortunately it is easier for a disabled person to be ‘socially invisible’ because of the barriers they face in accessing the environment built by the able-bodied (Dare and O’Donovan, 2002). Legally, every school must have an accessibility plan, showing how they intend to improve accessibility for disabled pupils.

According to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001), disabled children cannot be discriminated against in terms of admissions, education services (such as the curriculum, school trips and sports), and exclusions. The Act recognises two forms of discrimination. First, if a child is treated ‘less favourably’ because of his/her disability and such action cannot be justified on ‘material and sustained’ grounds. So, for example, it would not be allowable to prevent a child going on a school visit because of his diabetes. Second, the school can be accused of discrimination if it does not take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that disabled children are not at a substantial disadvantage compared to the other pupils in the school. For instance, you may have a hearingimpaired child in your class who would be substantially disadvantaged if you, as the teacher, continued to speak while facing away from him to write on the board.

Table 2 sets out the major historical developments in the provision of SEN in England and Wales. For Scotland, a very good summary of legislation since the 1990s is provided by HMIE (2008) in its Inclusion Manual (available at http://www.hmie.gov.uk/). In Northern Ireland, information relating to relevant legislation can be accessed at: http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/7-special_educational_needs_pg/special_needslegislation_pg.htm

Table 2

Important developments in the history of provision for SEN in England and Wales since 1944

1944 Education Act

Local Education Authorities to decide whether a child needed special educational treatment. If considered ‘uneducable’ children were cared for by health and social services and were not entitled to receive

statutory education

1947 Education Act 1970 Education Act 1978 Warnock Report, The Education of Handicapped Children and Young People 1981 Education Act 1988 Education Act 1991 - UK adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1994

1995

1996 2000 2000 2001 2001

2005

Special schools established to teach children with severe learning difficulties, while special classes were to be set up within mainstream schools to teach children with milder learning difficulties No child was considered to be uneducable Words like ‘handicapped’ ‘educationally subnormal’ and ‘mongol’ were removed and replaced with ‘special educational need’ which could not be met by mainstream teachers alone. Report advocated that as many children as possible should be educated in mainstream classes and that provision should be put in place to ensure this Local Education Authorities and school governors to make provision for SEN; effectively extended provision to more children previously labelled ‘handicapped’. Introduces National Curriculum and reinforces duty to consider SEN provision Article 23 states the disabled child should have effective access to and receive education which encourages the fullest possible social integration and individual development The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of SEN (DfE, 1994) introduced: Children with SEN split into two categories, those who required multi-disciplinary support and regular review, and those whose needs could be met through additional support within the school. The former qualified for a Statement of Need and /or an Individual Education Plan, whilst the latter would have their needs recorded in an IEP or some other school based document Disability Discrimination Act defined disability as ‘a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse affect on a person’s ability to perform normal day-to-day activities’ Education Act states ‘children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty, which calls for special educational provision’ Revised National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) introduced, containing inclusion statement. Schools have a responsibility to provide a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils Index for Inclusion first published by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE); materials to support participation of all children Revised Code of Practice introduced along with SEN Toolkit, containing practical advice on how to implement the Code Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA), amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. From 2002, it was against the law for schools to discriminate against children for a reason related to his/her disability Disability Equality Duty (DED) requires schools to take a more proactive approach to promoting disability equality and eliminating discrimination. Primary schools are required to publish disability equality schemes

2007

Equality and Human Rights Commission established, charged with enforcing disability laws and sharing good practice

Inclusion debate Inclusion is a hotly contested subject. For instance organisations such as the Alliance for Inclusive Education call for the closure of all special schools by 2020. In Scotland, evidence submitted to an Inquiry into Special Educational Needs (2001) suggests that ‘there is general endorsement of the policy of inclusion but, at the same time, support for individual special schools.’ Critics of inclusion want to see special schools continue to serve as part of the provision for SEN and question the capacity of mainstream schools to meet the needs of all learners. Mary Warnock, seen as the modern-day founder of inclusion, has re-considered much of her original thinking since the 1970s. In recent years Warnock has proved very controversial, advocating for instance the abortion of children with Down’s Syndrome (cited by Riddell, 1996) She believes that inclusion and statements are not working and that SEN provision needs to be completely reviewed. She feels that pupils with SEN in mainstream schools are often taught apart from other pupils and do not receive the attention from teachers (rather than assistants) that they deserve. Her recommendation is for children with statements to be taught in small specialist schools. Moreover, she argues that pupils with SEN should only be accommodated in mainstream schools when they have the capacity to do so. Warnock has succeeded in stirring up debate over the question of SEN provision with critics claiming that her work contains ‘a mixture of important historical insights, but also a reflection of naivety, arrogance and ignorance on the part of the author’ (Barton, 2005: 1).

Task •

Download a copy of ‘Reasons against segregated schooling’ from the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education website: http://www.csie.org.uk/publications/reasons-against-seg-04.pdf. Try to find alternative views in responding to the arguments presented.

Critical reflection: read Barton’s (2005) critique of Warnock’s views, available at http://www.disability-archive.leeds.ac.uk/. How do these views compare to your own experiences?

Today, social inclusion – accepting and valuing children with severe emotional and behavioural problems in mainstream schools – has widespread support, but can cause genuine anxiety in schools. Tomlinson (1982: 80) pointed out that teachers may be willing to accept the ‘bight, brave child in a wheelchair’ but are less receptive to the ‘average’ child with special needs – ‘the dull, disruptive child.’ Twenty-five years or so later, it remains the case that many mainstream schools feel the additional pressures brought by the inclusive agenda, particularly the admission and retention of pupils with social and behavioural difficulties. Ofsted (2003) reports that although most schools see inclusion as a positive development, their provision for pupils with SEN was no broader than it was before government legislation.

In contemporary education, inclusion tends to be seen as ‘the right thing to do’ (Tod and Ellis, 2006: 280). Across Europe, there has been a significant drive to develop inclusive educational policies and practices. In Italy, where legislation for integration of pupils with learning difficulties into mainstream schools was introduced in 1971, children are regarded as having Special Rights (rather than Special Needs). The emphasis is on

listening to the voices of all children (Nutbrown et al, 2008) and the principles of inclusive education apply to all schools, including special schools (Farrell, 2000).

However, the debates about inclusive education are complex (Farrell and Ainscow, 2002). The Select Committee on Education and Skills (3rd Report, 2005-6) acknowledged that changing government definitions on inclusive education has added to the confusion within the profession. Elsewhere, a recent review of special schools in Northern Ireland by the inspectorate highlighted the lack of an agreed definition of SEN and the major challenges schools face in managing diversity within the current educational climate (Lambe and Bones, 2008). Philosophically, questions have been asked about the ideology of inclusion (Croll and Moses, 2000; Thomas and Loxley, 2001). Warnock herself (2005) now believes that inclusion has been taken ‘too far’, driven by political correctness rather than on what is in the best interests of the child. Fundamentally, the matter of whether inclusion infringes upon the rights of others cannot be dismissed – for instance, parents who wish to send their children to a special school or parents of mainstream peers who worry over how their children’s education may be affected by the presence of pupils with, for instance, severe behavioural difficulties.

The inclusion requirements of the National Curriculum in England centre around three elements: • • •

Setting suitable learning challenges Responding to pupils’ diverse learning needs Overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of pupils

Source: http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/inclusion/index.aspx

As teachers, you need to consider where possible barriers to learning lie and take action to remove them as far as possible. Sometimes only minor modifications are necessary to planning and teaching. For instance, one trainee provided a group of pupils who had reading difficulties with a tape recording of a poem that the class was studying, while another ensured that her worksheets for a visually-impaired child had a larger than usual font size, fewer words and a double line space.

One of the major barriers to overcome is the mindset of individuals and the perceptions they hold about disabilities (Ofsted, 2004). Training is required to ensure that teachers and assistants are fully aware of how pupils see their experiences. For staff training purposes, Cheminais (2006) recommends producing a CD or video on a typical school day from the perspective a particular child.

Task •

How would you respond to the following comments? Is he a Down’s syndrome? Is she spastic? Will he get better? Does he always do that? Can’t you keep her still? Have you tried a dairy-free diet? Can you claim compensation? His poor parents What a shame Poor little thing She should never have been born

(Foley, et al, 2001: 216-217)

Although the Westminster government has made a clear commitment to inclusion, the Audit Commission’s (2002) report on special needs and the recent Primary Review in England reports widespread scepticism about the effectiveness and efficiency of much of the guidance (Daniels and Porter, 2007). Ofsted (2004) reported that many schools still do not see themselves as having the skills, experience or resources to provide effectively for children with SEN. This is despite evidence that increasing numbers of children with SEN are making good progress in mainstream classes (Florian et al, 2004) although research is inconclusive on the academic and social effects of either inclusion or separate schooling (Lindsay, 2007). It seems that after 30 years of movement in one direction, the pendulum could be swinging back towards segregation.

Critical reflection: Farrell (2001: 7) suggests that arguments in favour of inclusion based solely on human rights are ‘logically and conceptually naïve’ – to what extent do you agree?

References Barton, L. (2005), Special Educational Needs: an alternative look, available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/barton/Warnock.pdf Borsay, A. (2005), Dare and O’Donovan, (2002), DES (1978), Warnock Committee Report, London: HMSO. Farrell, P. and Ainscow, M. eds. (2002), Making Special Education Inclusive, London: David Fulton. Halsey and Webb Humphries, S. and Gordon, P. (1992), Out of Sight. The Experience of Disability 19001950, Plymouth: Northcote House. Lewis, A. (2001), ‘Charlotte’s Web: special educational needs in mainstream schools’, in Richards, C. ed. Changing English Primary Education, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books, 79-93. Riddell, M, New Statesman, 25 October 1996, cited on http://www.behaviour4learning.ac.uk/viewArticle.aspx?contentId=10977 Montgomery, D. (1990), Special Needs in Ordinary Schools, London: Cassell. Nutbrown, C. et al (2008), Early Childhood Education, London: Sage.

Pritchard (1963), Safford and Safford (1996), Smith, C. (2006), ‘From special needs to inclusive education’ in Sharp, J. et al., eds. Education Studies, Exeter: Learning Matters, 142-149. Tod, J. and Ellis, S. (2006), ‘Inclusive Approaches’ in Grainger, J. et al., eds., Learning to Teach in the Primary School, 279-290. Tomlinson, S. (2005), Education in a post-welfare society, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Tilstone, C. and Layton, L. (2004), Child Development and Teaching Pupils with Special Educational Needs, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, Paris, UNESCO, available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF Waller