Educational policies and practice of the past were contested by the new social movement, and welfare reform shifted from old ideas of institutional care to care in the community, epitomised by the Community Care Act (1990). Although it remained commonplace for disabled children to be educated within
Abigail Bryning
T6602254
specialist provision, old labels of “subnormal” and “in-educable” were replaced by a new language and philosophy of “special needs” and “learning difficulties”. The Warnock Report (1978) and the Education Act (1980) were keen to promote integration but failed to fully endorse the social model, remaining focussed on difference, needs and deficits (Hughes, 1998, p75). Philippa Russell highlights that the Children’s Act (1989) has made steps to advocate the rights of all children and the UNCRC requires all children to have the right to provision that achieves the “greatest ….. social integration possible” (Topic 11, p28). Since 1997, the labour government has continued the promotion of integration and have endeavoured to make the education system a more inclusive and unified service for all children (Topic 11, p27).
The case for an inclusive education system is a compelling one. Government policy argues that a good education “enables ….. achieve to the full and provides a firm foundation for adult life, we want all pupils to have regular opportunities to learn, play and develop alongside each other” (DfES, 2004b, p.8 in Topic 12, p27). Rieser and Mason (1990) strengthen this policy statement suggesting that “disabled children who have been educated in mainstream schools……do better educationally and socially, as long as the schools responded in a positive way to their special needs” (Topic 12, p37).
Disabled children have the same basic needs as their non-disabled peers. Ruth Marchant argues that in addition to these, there will be additional needs and that they have a right to expect these to be met ((in Reader, p219). If it was proposed that this could be done within mainstream provision then there would have to be a commitment to employment training and adaptation of the school environment.
Inclusive education is seen as a way of breaking down the ideas embedded within the individual medical construction of disability. It is suggested that the value that society attaches to a disabled child can be detrimental to their self-esteem. Society continues its attempts to anticipate and possibly prevent the birth of a disabled child and their arrival is often perceived to be a tragedy (Topic12, p33). After birth disabled children may experience periods of separation from their family, either as medicine seeks to remedy or rehabilitate or because of periods of respite care and residential education (Topic12, p36). This separation has the potential to damage important attachments and can negatively impact upon a child’s identity, self-worth and emotional well-being. By increasing the visibility of disability in society, individual difference can be recognised and celebrated as a positive sense of diversity, rather than simply ascribing value based upon prejudices and assumptions of desirable/undesirable. Inclusive education enables the child to build a positive self-perception and to maintain close bonds with families and peers. If delivered effectively, good professional practice allows the child a chance to access role models, encourages aspirations and avoids care that stigmatises disability (Audio cassette 3, 3, band 6).
However, it may be argued that specialist provision for disabled children is more likely to be able to meet individual need. The staff should have received in-depth training and there should be a greater availability of targeted resources. The physically safe, protective and enabling design of the school environment would be able to meet the child’s requirements, in turn benefiting their individual sense of security and level of confidence. In addition to being physically safe, as issues of difference are not highlighted by the dichotomy of normal/abnormal but instead a continuum of individual need, a child’s emotional well-being and self-esteem would also be protected (Topic11, p26). The ultimate aim of the social model and
Abigail Bryning
T6602254
inclusive, rather than integrated, education would be to provide professional practice that targets and responds to individual need in the same way (Aspis, Topic 12 Learning Resources, p).
There is a danger that in segregating disabled children solely on identified disability we are also assuming that impairment is the only defining aspect to the disabled child’s identity (Topic 12, pp30-32). Ruth Marchant argues that there is also a gendered, cultural and sexual dimension to every child’s identity; disability does not carry immunity to these influences (in Reader, p221). Inclusive education has the potential to challenge such simple constructions and validate additional subjective experience with a more individualised and tailored approach. A black, deaf pupil may experience different forms of prejudice and have a variety of needs. Practitioners need to be aware of how these issues can compound each other and acknowledge them, working in an open, non-discriminatory, non-oppressive and responsive way. Peter’s case study in the course material illustrates the sexual and cultural aspects of identity that influenced his educational experience in this way (Topic12, p32). Effective inclusive primary education would need to be attentive and responsive to the difficulties and experiences faced by all children on an individual basis, in order to promote self-worth and well-being.
A major pitfall of the medical model and subsequent segregated educational practice is that there tends to be a focus on condition, rehabilitation and cure. In doing so, the voice of personal and expert experience is often ignored (Topic 12, p22). If we move away from discussion surrounding impairments and deficits, and instead emphasise and utilise a capabilities approach, a disabled child will have a greater opportunity to participate. Using Sen’s Capabilities model professionals would more effectively recognise the disabled child’s ability to communicate their views, needs and wishes (Roche, in Reader, p81). Although methods of communication may need to be adapted within mainstream provision, as it can be difficult for some children to express their views, a disabled child can still be consulted at an appropriate level. Marchant suggests, in her article, that someone who is a good communicator with non-disabled children can also, with training and skill development, communicate effectively with disabled children (in Reader, p222,223). A commitment to enabling the child’s direct involvement and autonomy would be able to improve their Quality of Life (in Reader, p86).
It has been documented that disabled children are more vulnerable to abuse. Their vulnerability is increased because they tend to be more isolated, in the care of many more adults than disabled children, in institutional care, and in potentially stressful parent/child relationships (Reader, p222). They can also be subject to many more personal intrusions as a result of their need for personal assistance. There is a strong traditional perception that children are dependent on adults and having a disability compounds this notion of dependence (Reader, pp96-97). By facilitating a child’s contribution, listening to and respecting their views and acknowledging that adults do not always know best, a disabled child can become the expert of their experience, take responsibility and gain confidence to develop their contributions further and challenge any abuse of their rights (Reader, p95). Good educational practice needs to recognise the potential risks faced by disabled children and work in a protective manner.
Philippa Russell’s account on the course audio material supports the disabled child’s right to participation. She argues that inclusion is the key to empowerment, but also acknowledges that transport difficulties,
Abigail Bryning
T6602254
family poverty and other factors can act as a barrier to this right. She believes that, with the time and skill of practitioners, participation could still be facilitated (Audio cassette 3, band 5).
It is easy to assume that by simply moving disabled children into mainstream schools the disabled child’s experience of social exclusion, prejudice and oppression would be eradicated. This is not necessarily the case. Fully inclusive education would involve restructuring the school system to respond to the needs of all children and account for all aspects of their identity. Many mainstream schools now have integrated services for “Special Educational Need” (Topic 12, p37). This is not equal to inclusive provision. In the case study, describing the inclusion of two Downs Syndrome pupils in mainstream provision, it is demonstrated how providing services on-site within a specialist unit fails to erase inequalities within the education system (Topic 12, pp38-39). The special education system, in this way, fails to adopt the Social Model of disability and although it increases the visibility of disability it doesn’t challenge the dichotomy of difference; Simon was not allowed the opportunity to fully participate in the same way as other pupils.
Inclusive practice needs to provide opportunities for all pupils to achieve their full potential. It must be resourced properly and careful not to treat the disabled child in a tokenistic way (Topic 12, p40). It should not ignore the impact of physical impairment but, rather, acknowledge the child’s right to respect, opportunity and participation.
In conclusion, the political agenda that is moving away from the previously dominant medical model of educational provision, to a more inclusive system projected by the new Social model, appears to be positive. Importantly, mainstream provision may not be viable for all children. However the decision to segregate must be based upon the views and needs of the child and not assessed in terms of resources or “containment”. If practice learns to access children on individual need, acknowledging diversity on a continuum, it will challenge old perceptions of disability and ultimately the social exclusion and oppression of disabled children. Careful attention needs to be given to the structural environment of the school, communication, learning of information and skills and the perceptions of disability that society holds. In doing so, as professionals we recognise the importance of identity, self-esteem and the rights of the child. We also can recognise the impact these factors have on a child’s educational experience. The Rights based approach adopted by the Social model, works with Sen’s capabilities approach. It promotes practice that encourages participation and involvement. This has been supported by key legislation such as the Children’s Act (1989) and the UNCRC. Good professional practice will go further than integration. It will endeavour to ensure full participation and equal opportunity for all children to meet their individual potential. Inclusive education would not deny difference but work individually with celebrated diversity. It does not seek to treat all children the same. Instead effective practice attempts to balance meeting the particular needs of individuals whilst recognising a child’s humanity (Reader, p219).
Abigail Bryning
T6602254
References
Marchant, R. (2001) “Working with Disabled Children” in Foley, P., Roche, J., and Tucker, S (Eds) Children in Society: Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave/Milton Keynes, The Open University (course reader)
Roche, J... (2001) “Quality of Life for Children” in Foley, P., Roche, J., and Tucker, S (Eds) Children in Society: Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave/Milton Keynes, The Open University (course reader)
Hughes, G. (1998) “A Suitable Case for Treatment? Constructions of Disability” in Saraga, E. (ed) Embodying the Social: Constructions of Difference, Routledge, The Open University
Lansdown, G. (1998) “Children’s Welfare and Children’s Rights” in Foley, P., Roche, J., and Tucker, S (Eds) Children in Society: Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice, Basingstoke, Palgrave/Milton Keynes, The Open University (course reader)
The Open University (2005) K204 Working with Children and Families, Audio Cassette 3, Band 4-6
The Open University (2001) K204 Working with Children and Families Topic 11 “Exploring Primary Education
The Open University (2001) K204 Working with Children and Families Topic 12 “Living and Working with Disabled Children
