Page  of

 To what extent do you agree that the Government has not opted fundamental reform of the education provision for pupils with SEN but has introduced “a new ‘programme of action’ (DfES 2004), that seems to change little” (Dyson, 2005, p.77).

Introduction

        The priorities of the UK government have shifted towards a competitive market driven economy. These changes have made education focus more on achievement and performance. Recent government policy has applied market principles to the running of schools, with every school in league tables making their league positions very important in attracting pupils and funding.  The inclusion of SEN pupils is becoming of secondary importance. This essay will evaluate the factors and reasons for the new programmes and the reasons there is very little change.

        The Warnock Committee produced the largest ever analysis of special education in the United Kingdom. The report was released towards the end of the 1970’s. The final report formed the basis for the 1981 Education Act. The report states that: “For some the obstacles are so daunting that, even with the greatest possible help, they will not get very far.” (DES, 1978, section 1.4).

The tone of the report was helpful and supportive to pupils who experienced the most difficulties in learning. Parents were encouraged to be equal partners with professionals in the education process. The report defined the goals of learning as being broader than knowing specific items of knowledge or skills.  The framework for SEN was established in the 1981 Education Act The main points of the Warnock report are that at any given time approximately one in six children are considered to have special educational needs. The special educational needs of these children are assessed individually by groups of professionals ranging from teachers to psychologists. These children can be catered for equally in mainstream or special settings.  The Warnock approach and ensuing Education Act 1981 had a welfare outlook where the state’s responsibility was handed down to the LEA’s.

  The Warnock framework didn’t include any diagnostic criteria, previously learners were categorised along the medical model on the basis of their handicaps. There were no distinct barriers around the children allowing groups of children to be moved around easily from schools. This has created conflicts for LEA’s who have limited budgets, but are obliged to meet the pupil’s needs once they have been identified. These contested boundaries do not advance the development of national inclusion policies. Inclusion is of secondary importance to meeting children’s individual needs.

Join now!

A statement issued by the New Labour government repeated the assertion of secondary importance of inclusion. “For some children, a mainstream placement may not be right or not right just yet. We therefore confirm that specialist provision-often, but not always in special schools-will continue to play a vital role.” (DfEE, 1998, p.13). The problems created by the Warnock framework have been highlighted in two reports from the Audit commission (2002a; 2002b). These reports were highly critical of the current system. Many policy makers and organisations had been calling for the dismantling of the Warnock framework.

The response of the government ...

This is a preview of the whole essay