Removing barriers to achievement - Response to the Government's SEN Policy

University Degree Education and Teaching

170508 Fiona Edwards

In response to the Government’s SEN strategy ‘Removing barriers to achievement’ a spokesperson for the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education said, “Segregated schooling does not lead to inclusion. It perpetuates discrimination, devaluation, stigmatism, stereotyping, prejudice and isolation. Disabled adults identify these conditions as the biggest barrier to respect, participation and a rewarding life in mainstream society”. Critically examine this viewpoint.

‘Removing barriers to achievement’, DCSF 1 (2004), is the Government’s strategy for special educational needs (SEN). This strategy follows discussion with a wide range of practitioners and policy makers in schools, Local Authorities, the health service and the voluntary sector as well as children and young people. The document sets out the Government’s vision for the education of children with SEN and disabilities. It covers four key areas:

Early intervention – to ensure that children who have difficulties learning receive the help they need as soon as possible and that parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities have access to suitable childcare.

• Removing barriers to learning – by embedding inclusive practice in every school and early years setting.

• Raising expectations and achievement – by developing teachers’ skills and strategies for meeting the needs of children with SEN and sharpening the focus on the progress children make.

• Delivering improvements in partnership – taking a hands-on approach to improvement so that parents can be confident that their child will get the education they need.

The Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) is an independent centre, set up in 1982, actively supporting inclusive education as a human right of every child. Its aim is to reduce the role of the special schools by pushing for all mainstream schools to be accessible to all. They are funded by donations from charitable trusts and foundations, with additional income from sale of publications and small grants for research or other projects. The CSIE website (Anon1), states that its work is ‘driven by a commitment to overcome barriers to learning and participation for all children and young people’. Their activities include lobbying and campaigning, research, training, consultancy and dissemination of information. The Centre cites its aims as ‘working towards raising public awareness and restructuring mainstream provision so that every school can value, respect and support the learning and development of all children regardless of ability, ethnic/cultural background or any other differences.’ It also argues that the right of every child to an appropriate and efficient education in his or her local mainstream school has been consistently endorsed in documents of national and international legislation and guidance. With regard to the education of disabled children, often referred to as ‘children with special needs’, CSIE campaigns for the gradual closure of all special schools. Apparently informed by disabled people and by national and international examples of inclusive education, CSIE considers special schooling an out-of-date system which ‘unnecessarily marginalises’ some children.

According to the literature available on its website, CSIE has for many years monitored the percentages of children and young people placed in ‘special’ schools in Local Authorities across England, based on figures provided by the Government, and has consistently found large variations between and within regions, despite all Local Authorities being bound by the same legislation and national policy on inclusive education. The Centre undertakes research which informs the understanding of inclusion as a human rights issue and investigates the problems of segregated schooling. Clearly CSIE concentrates all of its efforts on pursueing its case for total inclusion for every child in mainstream education, and to gradually close all special schools. It believes that every school should be funded and facilitated to ensure that it can accommodate any child with any special educational, physical or mental needs.

Thomas, Walker and Web (1998), suggest that arguments for inclusion are often linked to Human Rights. They go on to argue that ‘it is odd that although the arguments for inclusive schools seem overwhelming, ethically and empirically, the move to inclusion has been painfully slow’. Their reasons for this include curriculum modification, logistical and physical challenges where there are disabled children and provision of teaching and support staff to accommodate a diverse range of special needs.

The Government’s ‘Removing barriers to achievement’ strategy takes a more pragmatic view of inclusion, and concentrates on what is best for the child as an individual and how to achieve inclusion when and how ever reasonably possible. It states that ‘Children should be able, wherever possible, to attend a local mainstream school and parents should be able to feel confident that this is the right choice for their child. This will never be achieved by individual schools working in isolation or competing against each other’. The Government hopes that this strategy will see:

• Schools with the confidence to innovate and with the skills and specialist support they need to meet the needs of all pupils successfully

• Special schools providing education for children with the most severe and complex needs and sharing their specialist skills and knowledge to support inclusion in mainstream schools

• Schools working together to support the inclusion of all children from their local community, backed up by good quality specialist advice from the local authority and health services, working in multi-disciplinary teams as proposed in Every Child Matters

• Parents with confidence that, in choosing a local mainstream school, their child will receive a good education and be a valued member of the school community.

In order to provide equality of opportunity, fulfil the inclusion agenda and to help all children achieve a high standard and reach their full potential, the government introduced the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act in 2001. This Act took effect from January 2002. The SEN and Disability Act 2001 delivered a stronger right to mainstream education, making it clear that where parents want a mainstream place for their child, everything possible should be done to provide it. The SEN Code of Practice provides practical advice to schools and other settings in carrying out their statutory duties to identify assess and make provision for children’s special educational needs. Separate guidance, Inclusive Schooling – Children with Special Educational Needs, DfES (2002), provides practical advice on the statutory framework for inclusion. In every school there is now a SENCO whose job it is to coordinate education for pupils with special needs. In my professional experience as a learning support assistant working with pupils with special educational needs, I feel that there has been a huge step towards inclusion in recent years. By having a SENCO in every school, special educational needs are being catered for and inclusion is happening on a wider scale than ever before. Inclusion is about much more than the type of school that children attend: it is about the quality of their experience; how they are helped to learn, achieve and participate fully in the life of the school. But in reality this is not always the case. Schools and early years settings still vary enormously in their experience in working with children with SEN, and in the specialist expertise and resources available to them from other schools, local authority education and social services, health, and voluntary organisations.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Government paper Every Child Matters is the basis for the Children’s Act 2004. It aims to improve opportunities and outcomes for young children, young people and families. This legislation is central to making inclusion happen in schools. Every Child Matters outlines five key outcomes for children: be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and achieve; make a positive contribution; achieve economic well-being. It recognises the need to bring specialist services together, working in multi-disciplinary teams, to focus on the needs of the child. This can be achieved in both special and mainstream schools. The Government have made a commitment to remove the barriers to learning that many children encounter in school. This will require sustained action over a number of years. The National Curriculum contains a statutory statement, ‘Inclusion – providing effective learning opportunities for all pupils’ Anon 4 (2008). All OFSTED inspections report on how schools are implementing this requirement. The statement forms a required baseline and over time, with the implementation of the disability discrimination and planning duties introduced by the SEN and Disability Act 2001, will bring significant improvements in access to education for disabled children and those with SEN. The implementation of the strategy for improving the quality of provision in early education and childcare settings will help both children and families. ‘The SEN and Disability Act 2001’ DirectGov (2009), amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 from September 2002, creating important new duties:

• for schools and many early years settings to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the education and other services they provide. This means that they must anticipate where barriers to learning lie and take action to remove them as far as they are able;

• for schools, most early years settings and local authorities to plan strategically to increase the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the curriculum, make the physical environment more accessible and ensure that written information is provided in accessible formats.

To help schools become more effective at responding to the needs of individual pupils the Government has launched an Inclusion Development Programme, DCSF 2 (2009). The programme supports partnership projects involving education, health and social care (in future through Children’s Trusts), voluntary organisations, higher education institutions, special and mainstream schools, and early years settings to develop and pilot effective practice. The aim is to develop an evidence base about what works and build consensus about how to implement good practice most effectively.

Each of these presents particular and growing challenges for schools. With autistic spectrum disorder, increasing numbers of children are being identified, presenting a wide range and complexity of needs. Children with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties pose similar challenges, too often leading to exclusion from school. Children with moderate learning difficulties in mainstream schools are the largest group with SEN but too often can find their needs overlooked.

The Inclusion Development Programme will support schools and early years settings through:

• teaching and learning resources for teachers and early years practitioners;

• training materials for, and advice on, effective deployment of learning support assistants;

• guidance on effective classroom strategies;

• models of good practice for working in multi-disciplinary teams;

• information about where to go for more specialist advice and support.

The Government wants to break down the divide between mainstream and special schools to create a unified system where all schools and their pupils are included within the wider community of schools. It hopes to achieve this through mainstream programmes by:

• Promoting greater staff movement across sectors, to share expertise and experience in working with children with higher levels of need. They also want to see more pupils moving between the sectors, using annual reviews of children’s statements to consider the scope for a dual placement or transition to a mainstream school.

• Encouraging more special schools – including those in the non-maintained and independent sector – to collaborate with their mainstream counterparts. Collaboration brings real benefits – building on the strengths of each sector, from management and leadership arrangements, through to tailoring the curriculum to meet the needs of individual children and assessing their progress using the P Scales (see appendix 1).

• Encouraging the participation of special schools in the Department of Education and Skills’ diversity programmes, DfES 1 (2009), including the Specialist School and Leading Edge Partnership programmes, to make the most of the skills and expertise in the special sector, by promoting collaboration, outreach, training and other activities

• Using the Department for Education and Skills’ capital funding strategy, including the Building Schools for the Future programme, to bring special and mainstream schools closer together physically, including co-locations.

Such schemes could also involve partnerships with non-maintained and independent schools.

The proportion of the school population educated in special schools varies greatly between local authority areas, reflecting both the historic pattern of provision and local commitment to supporting the inclusion of children with higher levels of need in mainstream settings. Parents’ rights to choose a mainstream place for their child have been strengthened but it is recognised that some children have such severe and complex needs that they require more specialist provision than is currently available in most mainstream schools. Local authorities have an important strategic role to play in planning a spectrum of provision needed to meet children’s needs within their area. According to the Government they should take account of the following considerations:

• The proportion of children educated in special schools should fall over time as mainstream schools grow in their skills and capacity to meet a wider range of needs.

• A small number of children have such severe and complex needs that they will continue to require special provision.

• Children with less significant needs – including those with moderate learning difficulties and less severe behaviour, emotional and social needs – should be able to have their needs met in a mainstream environment.

However, successful special schools have an important contribution to make in preparing mainstream schools to support their inclusion:

• Reorganisations need to be carefully planned, involving active consultation with parents. It is critical to ensure that high quality provision is available locally before special school places are reduced,

• co-locating special and mainstream schools, the development of resourced provision and special units in mainstream and dual registration can all help children to move between special and mainstream schools and support transition to mainstream education, as can effective use of specialist SEN support services.

Unesco (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), states on it’s website, www.unesco.org, that:

“Inclusive education is based on the right of all learners to a quality education that meets basic learning needs and enriches lives. Focussing particularly on vulnerable and marginalised groups, it seeks to develop the full potential of every individual. The ultimate goal of inclusive quality education is to end all forms of discrimination and foster social cohesion”. Unesco (2009)

In November 2008, Unesco’s International Conference on Education took place. It’s theme was ‘Inclusive education: the way of the future’ Anon 2 (2008). Diane Richler (2008), president of Inclusion International, presented reasons for inclusion for all on the basis of the ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ which states that:

• persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability;

• persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;

• reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;

• persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;

• effective individualised support measures are provided in environments that maximise academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

Unesco’s view is also idealistic, and does not take into account what everyone wants, however, it’s research does look at inclusion that happens successfully in some schools in some other countries. Inclusion should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Parents need to consider the needs of their own child, the capacity of the school to meet these needs, and their own preferences. The success of a full inclusion placement is dependent to a very large extent on the attitude and expertise of both the classroom teacher and the assistant assigned to the special education student. If the teacher is so focused on preparing the class to do well on standardised testing, he or she would have little time to spend on a student who needs work to be differentiated. Where there is a one to one assistant assigned to the special needs student they are likely, in my experience, to have little training or experience in assisting the student with a disability to be part of the classroom. It should also be remembered that people become friends and socialise with people with whom they have things in common. Pupils will help and enjoy the ‘novelty’ of having a disabled person in their class initially, but, due to the nature of a child, they are likely to choose to socialise with other able bodied children as a preference. Pupils with disabilities who have good social skills may do well in full inclusion in the early years, but as they become older, and especially as they reach puberty, they become more and more socially isolated in full inclusion. When male-female interest develops, it can be very lonely for the pupils with disabilities, who are left out of the loop.

The learning matters website, Anon 3 (2006), argues that difficulties in learning often arise from an unsuitable environment – inappropriate grouping of pupils, inflexible teaching styles, or inaccessible curriculum materials – as much as from individual children’s physical, sensory or cognitive impairments. Children’s emotional and mental health needs may also have a significant impact on their ability to make the most of the opportunities in school, as may family circumstances. This does not necessarily agree with the CSIE’s view that inclusion in a mainstream school is the right place for everyone and tends to take a more pragmatic view of the needs of children in school.

It would seem that the Government has a more realistic and attainable aim for inclusion, in the short term at least. By accepting that the way forward could be to join the forces of the mainstream and special schools and use the skills and experience of each other to provide a fulfilling and workable educational experience to all children. This will remain the case until such time that funding and training has been provided in order to ensure that every child can attend a mainstream school and be adequately provided for both mentally and physically. As things stand, it would be impossible to accept every child, regardless of SEN or disability, into many, if not most, mainstream schools. The lack of training on working with children with disabilities and other medical issues, and lack of facilities available in many mainstream schools, would simply be putting the child’s welfare and safety at risk.

The Government has considered these problems and is working with the Teacher Training Agency and higher education institutions to ensure that Initial Teacher Training provides a good grounding in the core skills needed for teaching in today’s diverse classrooms, including:

• Planning and teaching for inclusion and access to the curriculum

• Behaviour management and awareness of the emotional and mental health needs of pupils (to build their self-esteem as learners).

• Assessment for learning (learning skills).

• An understanding of where professional advice may be needed.

The CSIE’s view is idealistic. Whilst they have researched and asked the opinions of both children, and the parents of children, with disabilities and other SEN, and have come to the conclusion that they ALL believe that they should be able to have access to mainstream schooling, in practise the parents and children would probably come to the same conclusion as the Government that there is a place for special schooling, and that this facilitates inclusion in its own way. This approach of joining resources eliminates total segregation of schooling. It would allow pupils in mainstream school to work alongside disabled and SEN pupils and this would help to reduce discrimination and prejudice, allow participation in mainstream society and, at the same time, provide for special needs in the ways that a mainstream school might not be able to due to restrictions such as lack of facilities and training.

The case of inclusion for someone with behavioural problems raises the question of whether they should be put into mainstream schooling when they are disrupting the education and wellbeing of others. Having recently attended a special school for children with behavioural difficulties, I could see why there is a requirement for these ‘special’ schools. The Clifford Centre in Totton, Hampshire, provides education for pupils which have been excluded from school or who are only allowed to attend school on a part-time basis due to their behaviour. The children that they accommodate are aged between 6 and 11. The Staff from the Centre also visit these children in their schools to monitor their behaviour, help pupils to develop their social skills and assist with the transition from year 6 to year 7. It is unfortunate that most of these children come from poor backgrounds with broken families and family members who have been sent to prison. Some of them are on the Child Protection Register. However, whilst there is great sympathy towards some of these children, the welfare and education of the rest of the school has to be taken into account. Some of these pupils perpetuate discrimination by their own behaviour. By allowing them to attend a special school they are given the chance to experience being valued and avoiding isolation. For some pupils who attend a special school they, and their parents, feel happier that they have this available to them. They feel that they would not receive the same level of provision that they have from a special school in a mainstream school. An example of one parent’s concerns are voiced on a special needs forum; Viv (2009), asks the question “How do your [mainstream] schools manage to take the children that need hoisting and more have physical disabilities away [on school outings]? Where do your schools go and how do they manage the lifting and handling health and saftey issues?” This clearly makes the point that mainstream schools cannot, at present, be fully inclusive. It would be seen as removing their human right to choice to enforce every child to go into mainstream schooling by removing the provision of special schooling. It just isn’t suitable, at present, for everyone.

The statement by the CSIE that ‘segregation does not lead to inclusion’ can be argued on many levels. Not least by the argument that going to a special school is better than not going to school at all. For some severely disabled children, going to a special school is inclusion for them. The alternative might be not to go to school at all, not to have any social interaction or the opportunity to participate in activities that would not otherwise happen for them. Many mainstream schools do not even have a lift to accommodate wheelchairs, let alone fully trained teachers and support staff who can accommodate such a broad spectrum of learners. Surely, if children with severe learning difficulties and/or disabilities were to be forced to attend mainstream school, if the CSIE were to have it their way and all special schools were closed, then segregation would still happen due to the restrictions of encompassing everyone under the same umbrella. This would lead to these children being educated separately for many subjects to ensure inclusion within the school building but not in the way intended.

In the field of education, inclusion involves the process of reform and restructuring of the school as a whole, with the aim of ensuring that all pupils can have access to the whole range of educational and social opportunities offered by the school. This includes the curriculum on offer, the assessment, recording and reporting of pupils’ achievements, the decisions that are taken on the grouping of pupils within schools or classrooms, pedagogy and classroom practice, sport and leisure and recreational opportunities. The aim of such reform is to ensure access to and participation in the whole range of opportunities provided by a school to all its pupils and to avoid segregation and isolation. Such a policy is designed to benefit all pupils, including those from ethnic or linguistic minorities, those with disabilities or learning difficulties and children who are frequently absent or those at risk of exclusion. Although there is a great deal that schools can do to work for inclusion, there are limits to what any one school can do on its own. There has to be a systematic change. Mittler (2000) argues that the creation of the National Curriculum in 1988 could have introduced a policy in England and Wales to accommodate the changes necessary. ‘Unfortunately, it was introduced in such a hurry that children with SEN were initially overlooked in an avalanche of demands for a ten subject curriculum, each with its programmes of study, attainment targets and multiple assessment procedures tied to key stages’. Mittler goes on to suggest that the head teacher, governors and SENCO are, in different ways, responsible for ensuring that all pupils have access to the whole curriculum and the whole range of experiences provided by the school. But Inclusion demands more than this. ‘The essence of inclusion is that there must be scrutiny of what is available to ensure that it is relevant and accessible to the whole range of pupils in the school’.

The argument for inclusion is strong and the benefits of inclusion cannot be denied: meaningful friendships; increased appreciation and acceptance of individual differences; increased understanding and acceptance of diversity; respect for all people; prepares all students for adult life in an inclusive society; opportunities to master activities by practicing and teaching others; greater academic outcomes and greater resources for everyone are just some of the ideals of inclusion. The CSIE argues that segregated schooling perpetuates discrimination, devaluation, stigmatism, stereotyping, prejudice and isolation. The CSIE have chosen these words because they are strong – it is their sole aim to secure inclusive education for everyone in mainstream schooling. They have cited that they are the voice for disabled people in the UK, and that this is what disabled people want. Their argument is very biased and has given no consideration to the need for some special schools nor for the rights of people to have the choice. Their argument may be valid to a point, however, without some segregation, and therefore denying some people the opportunity to experience life with others like themselves, isolation and devaluation may be felt more deeply. Prejudice and discrimination would still happen in an inclusive setting, due to a lack of social skills in some members of society. In the short term, and until such time that funding and training is provided, it would seem that the Government are finding a realistic route towards inclusion for all, whilst being aware of the benefits of inclusion it is also recognising that inclusion in mainstream schooling isn’t necessarily suitable or wanted by everyone.

References:

Anon 1, available online at http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/human-rights.shtml, accessed 3/6/09

Anon 2 (2008), Inclusion International, available online at http://www.inclusion-international.org/en/ii_priority_areas/ie/index.html, accessed 6/6/09

Anon 3 (2006), Overcoming Barriers to Learning, available online at http://www.learningmatters.co.uk/sampleChapters/pdfs/184445052X-5.pdf, accessed 9/6/09

Anon 4 (2008), National Curriculum, available online at http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/organising-your-curriculum/inclusion/statutory_inclusion_statement/index.aspx, accessed 5/6/09

DCSF 1 (2004), Removing barriers to achievement – The Government’s strategy for special educational needs, available online at: . standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/84855, downloaded 3/6/09

DCFS 2 (2009), available online at /primary/features/inclusion/sen/idp, accessed 7/6/09

DfES 1 (2009), Standards and Effectiveness Unit (SEU), available online at www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/seu, accessed 10/6/09

DirectGov, (2009), available online at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/ DisabledPeople/EducationAndTraining/DG_4001076, accessed 5/6/09

Mittler, P, (2000), Working Towards Inclusive Education – Social Contexts, David Fulton Publishers, London

Viv (2009), Parent’s Forum, available online at http://www.specialneedsuk.org/parents/index.htm, accessed 10/6/09

Richler, D (2008), available online at http://www.inclusion-international.org/site_uploads/File/ICE%20Richler.ppt#2, accessed 8/6/09

Unesco (2009), available online at http://www.unesco.org/en/inclusive-education, accessed 6/6/09

Walker, G, Walker, D, and Webb, J, (2001), The Making of the Inclusive School, Routledge, London

Appendix 1

The P scales

The P scales area provides guidance to support the effective use of P scales in order to improve outcomes for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) who are working below level 1 of the National Curriculum.

Reporting P scales is mandatory from September 2007, this means that schools must now use P scales to provide data for pupils with SEN who are working below level 1 of the National Curriculum.

The use of P scales is central to our commitment to recognise the attainment and progress of pupils with SEN, aged 5-16, who are working below level 1 of the National Curriculum. As mainstream schools and settings become more inclusive there will be an increasing need to include P scales in the whole school assessment and planning cycle as part of the continuum of learning and development. It is our intention that this site includes links and references to existing materials, processes and initiatives to support the use and alignment of P scales within that whole school perspective in both special and mainstream schools and settings.

The P scales are designed to provide a common basis for measuring the progress of pupils for whom the early levels of the National Curriculum are not appropriate.

For P scales to be effective in raising standards for pupils with SEN they must be applied with rigour and consistency and be included in the same cycle of moderation used to ensure robust judgements for National Curriculum levels above level 1. Moderation is essential if judgements of pupils' attainment and progress are to be accurate and consistent in order to usefully inform planning and provision.

Moderation can be carried out within school groups, across the whole school and between partnerships of schools or local authorities. It is particularly valuable when moderating evidence for pupils with SEN that where possible, there is some discussion with the pupil and with others who may know the pupil in different contexts.

Moderating against the P scales allows colleagues with a range of experience and viewpoints to come to a common agreement and understanding about the level of a piece of evidence. Evidence may include for example, an observation, a photograph, video or audiotape or a piece of pupil's work.

Moderating a selection of evidence should allow staff to develop more consistent judgements than when assessing a pupil's level of achievement at a later date.

http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/97261