Memorandum submitted by the Centre for
Studies on Inclusive Education
1. INFORMATION
ABOUT CSIE
1.1 The Centre for Studies on Inclusive
Education (CSIE) was established in 1982 to promote the education
of disabled and non-disabled children together in mainstream schools
and the gradual ending of the practice of educating disabled children
separately in "special" schools. In collaboration with
schools, local education authorities (LEAs), organisations of
disabled people, parents and academics it has developed expertise
on inclusive education, including the development and evaluation
of practical tools for implementing inclusive education in schools
and early years settings. CSIE closely monitors the development
of inclusive education at national and international levels, both
in practice and in the interpretation of the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child by the Committee on the Rights of the
Child, and is participating in the drafting of the new UN Convention
on the rights of disabled people.
1.2 Copies of some of the Centre's most
recent publications are provided as evidence for this inquiry
and outlined in this Memorandum. Further information about the
full range of CSIE's work can be found on the CSIE website (csie.org.uk)
as can links to other voluntary organisations pursuing similar
aims and work.
2. GENERAL STATEMENT
2.1 The Special Educational Needs and Disability
Act (2001) requires schools and colleges in England to make reasonable
adjustments so that disabled students are not disadvantaged. From
2006 schools are also required to promote disability equality.
Internationally, inclusive education is promoted in key human
rights instruments, notably UNESCO's Salamanca Statement (1994)
and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). A new
Convention on the rights of disabled people currently being drafted
at the UN is on the way to agreeing inclusive education as an
entitlement for all.
2.2 The Government's strategy for special
educational needs, Removing Barriers to Achievement, and
the effective examples and work towards inclusion taking place
in many schools, represent progress towards inclusive development.
But CSIE is deeply concerned that only two years into this strategy
and despite the promising examples of inclusion working, there
are renewed calls for segregated "special" provision.
In CSIE's view, it is unacceptable to rely on segregated schooling
as a solution to discrimination which still exists in some mainstream
schools and to difficulties in the early stages of a long-overdue
restructuring of mainstream education to become more inclusive.
Resorting to segregation and responding to discrimination and
difficulties with further discrimination is not a proper response
from a human rights perspective and undermines those efforts which
are being made in mainstream to uphold rights and develop inclusive
provision.
2.3 The evidence presented in this Memorandum
covers a number of the issues identified by the Committee, and
is organised under the following themes:
— inclusive education as a pressing
human rights concern (section 4)
— statistical evidence of variations
between LEAs in effecting inclusive education and of poor
— overall progress towards inclusion
(section 5)
— positive developments in inclusive
education (section 6)
— the damage caused by segregating
pupils into "special" schools (section 7)
— children and young peoples' views
supporting inclusive education (section 8)
— problems with the concept and definition
of "special educational needs" (section 9)
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 In light of the evidence presented,
CSIE hopes that the Committee will endorse the goal of inclusive
education for all children and young people and recommend that
the Government:
— honour the human rights aspects of
inclusion and renew its commitment to ensuring inclusive education
for all children and young people;
— focus on identifying the further
steps necessary to continue building the capacity of mainstream
schools to support the full diversity of pupils;
— increase efforts and resources for
awareness raising and training for inclusion, eg to tackle gaps
that have been identified by Ofsted;
— continue awareness raising on legislative
requirements to include children and young people and ensure their
implementation; and
— halt the building of new "special"
schools and ensure the effective transfer of resources from existing
ones to mainstream schools.
4. HUMAN RIGHTS
IMPERATIVE
4.1 There are compelling human rights reasons
for reducing segregation of children and young people "with
special educational needs" and ensuring inclusive education
for them all, without exception. An examination of international
human rights agreements and standards as they relate to inclusive
education was commissioned by CSIE and published in 2002 (Social
and Educational Justice—the human rights framework for inclusion,
written by Sharon Rustemier). As discussed in the report:
4.1.1 The UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child (1989), the UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993) and the UNESCO
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994) recognise
the rights of all children and young people to fully supported
inclusive education and the responsibilities of governments to
provide it.
4.1.2 Segregated schooling violates children's
right to inclusive education and breaches all four principles
underpinning the Convention on the Rights of Child—the principles
of non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, optimal
development, and listening to the voice of the child.
4.1.3 The existence of separate "special"
schools is seen in international human rights agreements only
as an interim measure until mainstream schools have developed
the capacity to accept all children.
4.1.4 Following its General Discussion on
the rights of children with disabilities in October 1997, the
Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors implementation
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically stated
that legislation that segregates disabled children into separate
institutions "for care, treatment or education" was
"not compatible with the principles and provisions of the
Convention". And in a General Comment in 2001 on the aims
of education the Committee made clear that denying disabled children
mainstream education alongside their non-disabled peers falls
far short of human rights standards.
4.1.5 According to international human rights
standards, parental choice in relation to their children's education
is limited by children's rights and the state is expected to constrain
parental choice when it violates the rights and best interests
of the child. A human rights based commitment to full inclusion
is incompatible with a view that parents should be allowed to
choose segregated education in "special" schools
4.2 Further evidence of the ongoing commitment
of the UN to inclusive education as a human rights issue is demonstrated
in the Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights
of the Child which are published three times a year to report
the results of the CRC's examinations of governments' progress
in implementing children's rights. Analysis by CSIE of these assessments
clearly demonstrates the Committee's ongoing concern with educating
disabled children in appropriately supported mainstream settings
rather than in segregated "special" provision.
4.3 The UN Ad Hoc Committee responsible
for the drafting of the new Convention on the rights of disabled
people completed its sixth session in August 2005 and expects
to finish its work at two further sessions in 2006. So far negotiations
on Article 17 (education) have shown agreement on inclusive education
as a human right for disabled pupils, although debate continues
on the extent to which education in separate groups should also
be an entitlement for some disabled pupils and what form, if any,
it might take. CSIE has submitted a series of position papers
as part of the ongoing discussions and these are available on
the Centre's website.
5. VARIATIONS
IN INCLUSIVE
PRACTICE
5.1 CSIE has for many years monitored the
percentages of children and young people placed in "special"
schools in LEAs across England, based on figures provided by the
Government, and has consistently found large variations between
LEAs, despite being bound by the same national Government policy
on inclusion and placement. Its most recent analysis covers placements
of pupils aged 0-19 in "special" schools and other segregated
settings during the period 2002-04 (Segregation trends—LEAs
in England 2002-04 Placement of pupils with statements in special
schools and other segregated settings, written by Dr Sharon
Rustemier and Mark Vaughan OBE). The analysis again showed that
the practice of inclusive education is unacceptably varied across
England, with wide variations in LEAs' placement of pupils with
statements of special educational needs in mainstream and segregated
settings.
5.2 By way of illustration of this variation
in practice, the latest analysis found that the five LEAs with
the lowest percentage of pupils segregated in England in 2004
were Newham (0.06%), Rutland (0.23%), Nottinghamshire (0.45%),
Nottingham (0.47%) and Cumbria (0.49%). In contrast, LEAs with
the highest percentage pupils segregated were South Tyneside (1.46%),
Wirral (1.34%), Halton and Knowlsey (both 1.32%), Stoke-on-Trent
(1.23%), and Birmingham and Lewisham (both 1.21%). This means
that in 2004 pupils with statements of special educational needs
in South Tyneside were 24 times more likely to receive a segregated
education than those in Newham, London.
5.3 The analysis also revealed that the
national percentage of 0-19-year-olds given a statement in "special"
schools and other segregated settings in England fell only marginally
from 0.84% in 2002 (103,721 pupils) to 0.82% in 2004 (101,612
pupils). One third of LEAs in England actually increased segregation
of disabled pupils over the three years under review. These findings
should be seen against a backdrop of legislative reform which
supposedly increased children's right to mainstream schooling.
6. POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
IN INCLUSION
6.1 Over the years, CSIE publications and
conferences have provided examples of inclusion working well in
practice. Work by other voluntary organisations and increasingly
by academic, government and other institutions, nationally and
internationally, has also shown how effective practice can be
achieved. The most recent work on inclusive practice by CSIE involved
a two year research study into the use of the Index for Inclusion,
a set of materials to help mainstream schools reduce barriers
to learning and participation written by Tony Booth and Mel Ainscow
and first published by CSIE in 2000. In 2005, CSIE published the
results of this study in Learning about the Index in Use,
written by Sharon Rustemier and Tony Booth, which illustrates
how the Index is being used and what can be learned from
these experiences in terms of the five phases of the Index
process—getting started with the Index, finding out
about the school; producing an inclusive school development plan;
implementing priorities and supporting development and reviewing
the Index process. The authors selected examples of inclusive
development using the Index from hundreds of positive examples
collected from primary and secondary schools across England.
6.2 In addition, one of the briefing papers
prepared by CSIE for the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Committee
drafting the new Disability Convention gives information about
examples of inclusive education from countries across the world
(Briefing (2) from the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education
(CSIE) July 2005, Ending Segregation and Developing Inclusive
Education—A Worldwide Movement). The briefing gives
access information and a brief summary of relevant content for
nine different websites. The Inclusion Week Magazine, published
in 2002 as part of CSIE's Inclusion Week from 11-15 November,
which saw more than 250 inclusion events, also contains positive
examples of inclusive development in schools across the UK and
overseas.
7. DAMAGE OF
SEGREGATION
7.1 A 2003 report from CSIE illustrates
the damage of segregation to individuals and society, drawing
on the substantial bodies of educational and social psychological
evidence. The Case Against Segregation Into Special Schools,
A Look At The Evidence, by Dr Sharon Rustemier, shows how
segregated schooling is linked with stigma, stereotyping, prejudice
and discrimination—the very conditions which disabled adults
identify as among the biggest barriers to respect, participation
and a full life.
7.2 This analysis of research shows that
segregated "special" schooling has been associated with
impoverished social experiences, abilities and outcomes; reduced
academic experiences in terms of curriculum provision, outcomes,
examination opportunities and accreditation; lower student aspirations
and teacher expectations; high absence rates; difficulty in re-integrating
into mainstream; poverty in adulthood; and poor preparation for
adult life. Negative consequences for segregated pupils identified
in the research also include depression, abuse, lack of autonomy
and choice, dependency, lack of self-esteem and status, alienation,
isolation, fewer friends, more restrictive interpersonal relationships,
bullying and limited life-styles.
8. CHILDREN'S
AND YOUNG
PEOPLES' VIEWS
SUPPORTING INCLUSION
8.1 CSIE has made efforts over the years
to include the views of children and young people in its publications
and conferences. Although this is not an area which is part of
the Committee's terms of reference for this inquiry, we suggest
it is, nevertheless, an important area for consideration when
investigating special educational needs. When young peoples' views
have been sought as part of educational research and in other
forums they have spoken out against segregation and put forward
a vision of an inclusive school as their preferred choice of learning
environment.
8.2 As a project for Inclusion Week (see
paragraph 6.2), CSIE summarised and amalgamated its work and that
of other bodies so that young peoples' views could be presented
in a Young Voices feature throughout the Inclusion Week
Magazine.
9. PROBLEMS WITH
THE DEFINITION
OF "SPECIAL
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS"
9.1 CSIE's experience indicates there are
considerable limitations with the practice of identifying and
labelling some children as having "special educational needs"
and selecting them for separate treatment within mainstream or
in separate "special" schools. The root of these problems
is the association of a definition of "special educational
needs" with a medical view of disability and difficulty in
learning as resulting from personal deficit and difference. Such
an association is not only disrespectful and hurtful to the young
people themselves but has repercussions for the way they are supported
to learn.
9.2 Using a label of "special educational
needs" and a medical model of disability when educational
difficulties occur deflects attention from barriers in the environment
such as inaccessible buildings, inflexible curricula, teaching
and learning approaches, and school organisation and policy. The
responsibilities of schools and other institutions in these situations
are considerably weakened. A "special educational needs"
label can also lead to lower expectations by teachers of pupils'
potential and, together with other group headings such as "ethnic
minority", "gifted and talented" and "English
as an additional language", contributes to a fragmentation
of schools' efforts to respond to the full diversity of students.
9.3 An alternative way of approaching disability
and educational difficulty is through a social model which views
the problems children and young people experience in school not
as stemming primarily from their impairments, whether cognitive
or physical, or from their social and economic circumstances,
but from barriers to learning and participation inherent in the
school setting itself or arising from interactions between students
and their schools. Inclusive education can be understood as the
practical outcome of a social model approach to disability and
difficulty in learning and it is this approach which is adopted
in the Index for Inclusion referred to in paragraph 6.1.
9.4 A medical or individual model of disability
and educational difficulty with its categorisation of difference
as "special educational need" is still embedded in Government
policy and legislation and is operating in schools alongside a
social model. This creates considerable problems for all those
trying to pursue inclusive education. The social model and the
medical model are radically different approaches with the potential
to produce radically different experiences for pupils. A social
model approach looks towards making resources available in mainstream
settings and adapts and restructures mainstream curricula and
classrooms to respond to the full diversity of children. A medical
model, on the other hand, focuses on diagnosis, labelling and
segregation into "special" services and settings. Such
a gulf in understanding means that trying to operate both at the
same time or to amalgamate them risks conceptual incoherence and
forces a moral dilemma on school staff.
9.5 This short review of problems with the
definition of "special educational needs" completes
CSIE's memorandum of evidence to the Committee.
September 2005
| 
