Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Disability Equality in Education

  Disability Equality in Education welcome this opportunity to submit evidence and would welcome the opportunity to follow this up with oral evidence.

1.  WHAT IS DISABILITY EQUALITY IN EDUCATION

  Disability Equality in Education is the leading training and consultancy organiation in the UK for Inclusion and disability equality.

  Disability Equality in Education (DEE)since its inception as a charity in 1996 has been working extensively with the public sector, primarily with Local Education Authorities and schools, developing their capacity to meet new requirements under part 4 of the DDA Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. DEE has delivered training on inclusion to 65,000 education professionals in schools all over the country in 120 LEA's. A DEE survey undertaken by Oxford Brookes University in 2001 found that in 91% of their training events, trainers had been rated as good or excellent. Six months later, a telephone survey revealed that 60% of the client organisations had changed their working practices as a result of the DEE training. The average figure for 2004-05 overall training was rated at 95% good or excellent.

  Disability Equality in Education is a Charitable Company Limited by guarantee, but despite the unique and valuable work we do to build the capacity of mainstream schools all over the country we are currently having to prepare to wind up as we do not have core grant anymore. Surely our work should be supported by Government?

  DEE has also worked towards empowering and educating disabled people about their rights, the social model and self activity. DEE has run 27 training the trainer courses ranging from two to four days involving 430 disabled people. These took place in Glasgow, Carlisle, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Halifax Nottingham, Leicester, Loughborough, Birmingham, Bristol, London, Newham, Essex, Southampton and Cardiff on various dates.

  Two of these courses were for young disabled people (30) and two were tailored to meet the needs of adults with learning difficulties (35). In addition DEE has run courses for parents of disabled people and non-disabled allies. This has led to a network of 160 trainers and consultants, many of whom have worked with local authorities on managing change and key disability legislative changes. The network has held five annual conferences attended by over 120 participants. In addition DEE have organised four anti-racism courses for trainers and five advanced trainers courses involving 136 disabled people. This project was funded by the Big Lottery from 2002 to 2005.

2.  INTRODUCTION

  Education is a fundamental element of ensuring disabled children and young people are included in society, achieve their potential and flourish as human beings. The recent, and not so recent experience of education for disabled people is of massive under-achievement and segregation, which leads to high non-employment, poverty and lack of worthwhile social relationships.

  The UK Disabled Peoples Movement is clear that inclusive education, which develops the capacity of mainstream schools to meet the diverse needs of all learners, is the way to achieve this transformation to give effective education to disabled people. Involving disabled people in the identification and removal of social, organisational, environmental and attitudinal barriers is the key to developing inclusive education and ending segregation.

3.  PROVISION FOR SEN PUPIL'S IN "MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS"

  Recent Government Statistics suggest that all but 14.9% of pupils with statements and those on the school action plus stage of the code of practice are attending mainstream schools.

Figure 1

PLASC DATA FOR ENGLAND 2004 BY TYPE OF SCHOOL AND IMPAIRMENT

PLASC Impairment	Primary	Secondary	All Special Schools	Total	Percent of Total	Rank
Specific Learning Difficulties	41,780	41,250	750	83,780	14.2%	3
Moderate Learning Difficulty	83,310	58,100	28,520	171,930	29.2%	1
Severe Learning Difficulty	7,340	3,070	21,620	32,020	5.4%	5
Profound and Multiple LD	1,150	260	6,380	7,780	1.3%	10
Behaviour, Emotional & Social Difficulties	52,560	61,930	12,390	126,890	21.5%
Speech, Language & Comm Needs	50,130	10,720	3,040	63,890	10.8%	4
Hearing Impairment	6,090	5,130	1,740	12,960	2.2%	9
Visual Impairment	3,510	2,650	1,000	7,170	1.2%	11
Multi-Sensory Impairment	510	180	170	860	0.014%	12
Physical Disability	11,790	7,540	5,330	24,660	4.1%	8
Autistic Spectrum Disorder	15,950	6,710	8,610	31,260	5.3%	6
Other Difficulty/Impairment	12,180	12,370	9,990	25,530	4.3%	7
	286,300	209,910	89,550	588,730	100%

Source DfES SEN Statistical Bulletin. November 2004

  3.1  Figure 1 suggests 6.2% of secondary and 6.7% of primary pupils are disabled in January 2004. This indicates that only 15.2% of these disabled pupils attend state special schools. The largest groups of impairment are Moderate Learning Difficulty (29%), followed by Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties (21%), Specific Learning Difficulties (14.%) Speech, Language and Communication Needs with (10%), Severe Learning Difficulties (5.4%) and Autism with (5.3%). Although many disabled children have more than one impairment respondents were asked to only record one. Sensory and physical impairments which are usually thought of as the main groups of disabled people, together only represent 7.6% of the total.

  3.2  The 2005 figure has recently been released and the overall number of disabled pupils is up by 11,000 to 597,770 with only 14.9% attending special schools. The overall figure includes maintained and non-maintained special schools but not hospital schools, independent schools or pupil referral units or children in secure children's homes. The figures for these groups add another 70,000 children, but this includes all those with non-statemented special needs in independent schools and PRU's as well as those with statements. If all those pupils with non-statemented and statemented SEN are added together they equate to 17.8% of the total school population.

  3.3  The proportion of disabled pupils included varies greatly LEA by LEA and indeed school by school. This demonstrates it is not to do with the type or degree of impairment, but policies of the Authority, the school and its ethos.

  3.4  Where do disabled children go to school? Examining where disabled pupils go to school (ie special or mainstream) there is huge local variation, which depends both on geography and LEA policy. (See Figure 2) Although, overall the figures show a 0.02% national decrease in segregation in special schools, PRU's, independent and hospital schools, they mask huge variations. Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Manchester, Lambeth and Islington all urban areas with a traditionally high level of segregation who have adopted a conscious policy to develop more inclusive practice all showed reductions in segregation ranging from 0.51% to 0.20%.

  3.5  Equally Wolverhampton, Milton Keynes, Southwark, Staffordshire and Hammersmith and Fulham all increased segregation by between 0.26 and 0.18%. Segregation has historically been a product of urban areas and municipal socialism. Rural areas such as Cumbria and North Yorkshire have found it more impractical to move children around and have resourced mainstream schools. Newham and Barnsley, Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City have over the last 15 years adopted conscious inclusion policies and this shows.

  3.6  The postcode lottery of destinations of special versus mainstream schools for disabled young people cannot be justified. Disabled pupils in Newham are 24 times less likely to be segregated than their counterparts in South Tyneside. Given the different outcomes of special versus mainstream education as regards achievement and social relationships these figures seriously challenge government policy on inclusion.

  3.7  Nationally Ofsted (2004) has found little or no change in progress towards inclusion, despite Government intentions. This contradicts popular perception that there has been a big move of children from special schools to mainstream schools. Figure 3 on inclusion shows that there is almost as large a proportion of children in segregated settings as there were six years ago. A rapid increase in the numbers in Pupil Referral Units (an increase of 25% 2001-03) has helped to maintain this. In addition disabled children from state schools have increasingly been placed in independent schools supported by a LEA funding and statement. This has gone up from 6,600 in 2001 to 7,930 in 2005.

Figure 2

PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS IN SEGREGATED SETTINGS, 2002 AND 2004 BY LEA TOP 10 INCLUDERS AND SEGREGATORS

	2002	2004	Overall Change		2002	2004	Overall change
England: 148 LEAs	0.84	0.82	-0.02
Top 10 includers 2004				Top 10 segregators
Newham	0.15	0.06	-0.09	South Tyneside	1.41	1.45	+0.05
Rutland	0.22	0.23	+0.01	Wirral	1.35	1.34	¸0.01
Nottinghamshire	0.45	0.45	0.00	Halton	1.26	1.32	+0.06
Nottingham	0.47	0.47	0.00	Knowsley	1.43	1.32	¸0.11
Cumbria	0.43	0.49	+0.06	Stoke-on-Trent	1.41	1.23	¸0.18
Barnsley	0.43	0.50	+0.07	Birmingham	1.09	1.21	+0.12
East Riding Yorkshire	0.45	0.50	+0.05	Lewisham	1.19	1.21	+0.02
Havering	0.53	0.51	-0.02	Brighton & Hove	1.22	1.20	¸0.02
Herefordshire	0.53	0.51	-0.02	Manchester	1.42	1.16	¸0.26
Kensington & Chelsea	0.51	0.51	0.00	Middlesborough Rotherham	1.20 1.20	1.16 1.16	¸0.04 ¸0.04

Source: Rustemier, S, and Vaughan, M, (2005) Segregation Trends LEAs in England 2002-04 CSIE Bristol 2005.

Figure 3

NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN ALL SPECIAL SCHOOLS (INCLUDING PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS) AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND 1999-2005

1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
1.4	1.38	1.37	1.37	1.39	1.38	1.39

Source: Ofsted October 2004. The 2004 and 2005 figures from DfES (2005) Statistics SFR 24/2005.

"A minority of mainstream schools met special needs very well and others are becoming better at doing so….more schools than before see themselves as inclusive and are keen to be identified as such. However, by no means do all schools regard themselves as having the experience, skills and resources to make effective provision."—Ofsted (2004).

  3.8  What appears to be happening is that a minority of schools, perhaps 10-15% have embraced the inclusion agenda and are proud of their achievements. A much larger number of schools have accepted the principle of inclusion, but don't know how to implement it and have not really changed their attitudes and practices. A minority of schools are actively against inclusion and think it will lower standards (Ofsted 2004, DfES RAP 2005).

4.  MODELS OF PROVISION—INCLUSION AND INTEGRATION?

  4.1  Inclusion and integration are often used interchangeably with inclusion being more common recently. However, there is now considerable consensus that integration or placement is not inclusion. Integration is the placement or location of disabled pupils or students in mainstream or ordinary settings where they largely need to fit in or adapt themselves to the mainstream setting. The disabled person needs to overcome the barriers that exist. If the integrated placement does not work then they can always be placed in a segregated special school or unit where the expertise is supposed to exist to meet their special educational needs. This way of thinking is based on the medical model of disability which draws on an oppressive ideology of disabilism reinforced by stereotypes in popular culture such as comics, films, TV and literature. The medical model views the issue of difference as negative and a problem rooted in the person and their impairment. This needs to be rehabilitated and/or fixed.

  4.2  The Warnock Report outlined the idea of integration in 1978. Only the fullest form of "functional integration" began to approach what is required for inclusion. However Warnock's Report was based on a medical model and individual approach as opposed to a right's based approach.

"The first form of integration relates to the physical LOCATION of special educational provision where special units or classes are set up in ordinary schools. It may be the most tenuous form of association. Even so it can bring worth-while gains [and can] offer handicapped and non-handicapped children the opportunity of familiarising themselves with the other.

The second form of integration which we have identified relates to its SOCIAL aspect, where children attending a special class or unit eat, play and consort with other children, and possibly share organised out-of-classroom activities with them.

The third and fullest form of integration is FUNCTIONAL integration. This is achieved where the locational and social association of children with special needs with their fellows leads to joint participation in educational programmes. Functional integration makes the greatest demands upon an ordinary school, since it requires the most careful planning of class and individual teaching programmes to ensure that all the children benefit, whether or not they have special educational needs."—(DFES 1978 p 100-101).

  4.3  Special educational needs are "needs which are different to or additional to those provided for in an ordinary or mainstream school"( DfES 2001b). This is a variant of medical model thinking, which is largely still based on measuring differences from normality and ameliorating or fixing the defects identified. If this view is adopted then it follows that some disabled children can be integrated, but those with the more significant or less commonly occurring impairments must be taught were the expertise about their impairments exists in special schools or units. (Mason 2000)

  4.4  Inclusion on the other hand is a right's based approach to the education of disabled pupils and students and others subject to exclusionary pressures. The right to attend and fully participate in the educational and social life of the mainstream school or college is accepted. Inclusion is a dynamic and ongoing process in which managers, staff, pupils or students, parents and the local community address and remove barriers so all can achieve their potential and flourish socially and academically. This process of restructuring and removing social, environmental, organisational and attitudinal barriers can apply to any mainstream school or college that progressively make adjustments or accommodations to include disabled pupils and students. (Rieser 2000)

  4.5  Fundamental to this right's based approach is the adoption of a "social model" of disability thinking. The social model was developed by the Disabled People's Movement in the UK in response to the oppression faced as disabled people. The discrimination and lack of rights disabled people face largely arise from society rather than being the result of impairment-the loss of physical, sensory or mental function. The Social Model shows how disability is created by lack of access, lack of understanding, lack of awareness and oppressive attitudes and behaviour to disabled people. The Social Model maintains that it is not our impairments that need to be changed—it is barriers in society. Social Model thinkers say that the human rights of disabled people are denied. The Social Model stresses the fact that if barriers are removed and we are given the support we need to take part in society on an equal basis as a right, not a favour, then society will change and disabled people will be truly empowered. (Oliver 1996)

  4.6  Inclusive education aims to equip all people with the skills needed to build inclusive communities. Alliance for Inclusive Education (1999).

  "Inclusive education is based on the following principles:

1.  A person's worth is independent of their skills or abilities.

2.  Every human being is able to feel and think.

3.  Every human being has a right to communicate and be heard.

4.  All human beings need each other.

5.  Real education can only happen in the context of real relationships.

6.  All people need support and friendship from their peers.

7.  Progress for all learners is achieved by building on things people can do rather than what they can't.

8.  Diversity brings strength to all living systems.

9.  Collaboration is more progressive than competition.".

5.  WHAT CHARACTERISES SUCCESSFUL MAINSTREAM PROVISION?

  5.1  Disability Equality in Education recently carried out the Reasonable Adjustment Project for the DfES(2006). We visited over 40 schools across the country that wanted to share their inclusive practice and have it filmed. This followed on from a previous DfES funded project in 2000 "Count Me In", where 12 mainstream schools had been visited. During 2004 the Alliance for Inclusive Education(2004) also visited 20 schools—"Snapshots of Possibility".

  5.2  None of the schools in these projects were different in resources or general intake to the schools that surrounded them but they had developed the capacity to include a wider diversity of pupils. They also all reported that their attainment test results for all pupils had improved and exclusion decreased as they developed their inclusive ethos and practice.

  5.3  A number of key factors emerged as vital in developing this approach. These are enabling factors that support the development of good inclusion. School leaders/managers need to ensure they and their staff develop effective anticipatory reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils. The following enabling factors appear to be key to this process, both in practice and policy across the school.

—  Vision and values based on an inclusive ethos-welcoming diversity.

—  Having a "can do" attitude in making adjustments.

—  Identifying barriers to learning and achievement and finding practical solutions.

—  Developing strong collaborative relationships with pupils and parents.

—  Empowering pupils to have a meaningful voice.

—  Low exclusion rates linked to positive approaches to challenging behaviour.

—  Strong leadership by senior management and governors.

—  Effective staff training and development.

—  Drawing on the expertise of outside agencies and working with special schools.

—  Maximising opportunities for funding and using it flexibly.

—  Meeting the impairment specific needs of pupils sensitively.

—  Regularly undertaking critical reviews and evaluation which involve all staff, pupils, parents, governors and outside agencies.

—  Good communication between head, staff, staff, pupils, parents and outside agencies.

  5.4  In recent years there has been a rapid growth of Teaching Assistants working under the direction of the teacher. The class or subject teacher is responsible for the learning of all pupils in their class. When planning and working well together the quality of learning and teaching dramatically improves not just for disabled pupils but also their non-disabled peers. The Inclusion chapter in the National Curriculum (QCA 2000) gives statutory advice to all teachers on how to develop a more inclusive curriculum:

—  setting suitable learning challenges;

—  responding to pupils diverse needs; and

—  overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of pupils.

  5.5  However, the Qualifications & Curriculum Authority carried out a survey in 2003 and found very few teachers aware of these principles. Furthermore, Ofsted found few schools making substantial adjustments to the curriculum (Ofsted October 2004 p 13).

  5.6  The Government's strategy for SEN over the next 10 years puts improving the capacity of mainstream schools to includes a diversity of pupils at the heart of its approach (Removing Barriers to Achievement DfES 2004). However, there is still an issue of Government priorities—narrow interpretations of improving standards and introducing PFI and City Academies, together with full delegation of budgets to schools—all of which are in certain ways in conflict with the inclusion policy.

  For example the loss of ring fenced Standards Grant for developing inclusive practice has meant that many schools who need training in the theory and practice of inclusion and disability equality training are not having this training. In far too many schools we find that the SENCO is seen as the one responsible teacher when a whole school approach needs to be taken, led by the Headteacher and Senior Management Team. There is significant evidence from the Reasonable Adjustment Project that points to the fact when this whole school approach is taken, then an inclusion ethos develops and schools are able to accommodate successfully a wider range of disabled pupils.

  Schools and their leaders need incentives to prioritise the development of their inclusive capacity.

  A key here is inclusion training for all initial teacher training, much more effective beginner and in-service professional development programme, as well as, recognition of inclusion as a political priority in education policy.

6.  PROVISION FOR SEN AND DISABLED PUPILS IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS

  6.1  Despite much talk of special schools as centres of excellence and repositories of expertise. There is a lack of evidence to back up such statements. Indeed the evidence from adults who attended such establishments is largely negative. They are disabled children grown up and their views should be listened to.

6.2  The views of disabled adults who attended special schools

  6.2  "Along with our families, we have been victims of a whole way of thinking about disability that is fundamentally mistaken. This thinking we call `The Medical Model of Disability'. It sees all our difficulties as a direct result of our impairments. It turns us into `patients' in need of treatment and cure, even when cure is not possible. A whole separate system has been developed on this model, called Special Education. We are diagnosed, labelled, and sent away or separated to have our `Special Educational Needs' met. Our ordinary needs, such as for love, friendship, security, play, and often education, do not get met, and this is why we are so against this process.

  Disabled people who are now adults still bear the scars from our early experiences of being forced to leave our families, of being alone and afraid, of being abused by strangers, of being de-valued, underestimated and bored. We remember being used as medical `Guinea Pigs', of being the victims of bullying and racism in our special schools, sometimes by the staff:

  We recall being over protected and denied the opportunities to grow up and develop social skills. We remember having very little meaningful education and leaving school completely unable to compete with other people our own age, even to further our own education.

  We all have painful memories of leaving school and all its false security with no confidence to interact with the mainstream world. Many disabled people never manage to re-enter ordinary life, but are condemned to live a parallel but separate life dominated by services and systems. This is especially true of residential provision.

  We are aware of the resulting ignorance and fear of disability that is inevitable when young disabled people are excluded from the lives of non-disabled people—an ignorance which forces disabled people to hide away, or be in the role of perpetual teacher, and which makes non-disabled people believe they need special training before they can be with us.

  With the changes in legislation, the transfer of SEN budgets to schools, and the growing body of examples of successful inclusive education, we do not believe there is any good reason for special schools to continue to exist. They exist only because of the reluctance of teachers to develop their skills, or the manipulation of parents' fears by professionals using the medical model of disability.

  The argument that special schools still serve the needs of those children with the most severe or complex impairments is the opposite of the truth. The children left in special schools are the most isolated, the most vulnerable, and the most in need of inclusion." (2020 Campaign)

  The "2020 Campaign" is an organisation of disabled people and their organisations campaigning for the ending of segregated education by the year 2020.

  6.2.1  "The experience of being hidden away, with the assumption that I was worthless, still haunts me with a terror I can't describe. Nobody should be put through that. Yet there are hundreds forcibly excluded from life everyday" (Maresa MacKeith)

  6.2.2  "The focus was on our physical impairments, not on giving you skills for your adult life. There was no `What is your career path?'—no focus, direction or outlook. School was a medical chemical bubble—sterile."—(Michelle Daley)

  6.2.3  "School wasn't about social skills and speech. It was about walking all the f**king time". "Chailey made me into a `supercrip'. I still have problems accepting support. Made me really insecure. Took a long time to realise that I'm intelligent and have any self-worth. I still feel very scared. Couldn't accept I am beautiful or loveable. I always try too hard. I've always got to be the best."—(Edwina McCarthy)

  6.2.4  "I wouldn't go to the loo at school because I was afraid of the dinner ladies who used to take us. They took our knickers down in full view and then sat us on the loo and left us for about 20 minutes. The whole of the dinner break went like that. I was very skinny and bony. Only weighed 3 and a half stone. It was so uncomfortable. There was no gentleness. No kindness. Very degrading. They ignored our impairments."—(Jane Campbell)

  6.2.5  "The worst times were between the ages of six and 11—Five years of sheer hell. The `care' staff team treated us disgracefully. Children with more significant impairments were targeted most and were regularly made fun of for the way they talked, walked or the way they looked. Many of the children who took longer to walk back to the dormitory from school were punished by being sent straight to bed without supper. Those of us who were more mobile were considered difficult and trouble-makers because we were able to speak up for ourselves.

"These young and inexperienced `care' staff terrorised over us for almost four years. We all experienced constant ridicule and torment from people who were supposedly employed to `care' for us. I remember one young boy being dragged down two flights of stairs because he had wet the bed. On another occasion I remember a group of three or four `care' staff standing round a young boy (who had a significant speech impairment), as he ate his food, laughing at him because swallowing made him drool more. At the time we knew we were being treated badly, but we were so terrified that we didn't tell anybody. A friend and I tried to confide in a member of teaching staff but the backlash for `telling tales' was that we were sent to bed at 5 pm straight after supper as a punishment."—(Tara Flood)

  6.2.6  "I was forced to go to chapel. The Headmaster was a Reverend but I wasn't a Christian. They made me stand up and sing. I used to mouth something else. I thought `This is not my religion' but they tried to make me fit in."—(Haq Ismail)

  6.2.7  "After leaving school I had no social networks. I still feel affected because I didn't have the diverse experiences of a normal teenage life."—(Ali Kashmiri)

  6.2.8  "Some of the brighter children who were more physically able than I was and did not have a speech impairment left M School gradually there was a decline in the level of education as the school was left with fewer children. There were fewer subjects and the work became a lot less challenging. This is when I noticed that I was deteriorating mentally due to the lack of stimulation and it was extremely frightening."—(Sapna Ramnani)

  6.2.9  "We will be the labels they have given us. When they look at us they see the label. They do not see children who one day will be mothers or fathers, be bakers or carpenters, shop workers or office workers, artists or mountaineers, poets or politicians. This means that people with learning difficulties will leave school with no qualifications, unable to face any job interview, and with little or no idea of what they would like to do. It is not surprising that people with learning difficulties end up unemployed or in work experience or adult training centres for the rest of their lives".

  Special Schools—And Now We Are Different, People First—Scotland.

6.3  Achievement in special schools

  Bearing in mind that the majority of children in special schools( See Figure 1) have the same range of impairments as disabled pupils attending mainstream schools eg:

—  Moderate Learning Difficulty 32% special school population.

—  Behavioural Emotional and Social Difficulty14% special school population.

—  Autism Spectrum Disorder 11% special school population.

—  Physical and sensory impairments and speech and language 23%.

  Which leaves 31% with the label Severe and Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulty.

  So what are the outcomes of special school education compared to mainstream schools?

  Where is the best place to increase standards of achievement for disabled pupils?

  The answer to this is clearly in the mainstream when the capacity exists.

  6.4  Standards The evidence on standards is clear. A whole range of studies find few if any negative impacts on the attainment and achievement of pupils without SEN. (See literature review Dyson et al (2004) and Hegarty 1993).

  6.5  "Inclusion and Pupil Achievement (Dyson et al 2004, p 44), a research study commissioned by the DfES, took the National Pupil Data base and found that in high including Local Education Authorities, as measured by the low proportion of pupils sent to special schools, there was no negative relationship with attainment scores compared to LEAs where a higher proportion of pupils were sent to special schools. This applied across scores on all four Key Stage tests. This study did find a slight negative relationship between inclusions and attainment, but this was far less significant than variation from socio-economic factors. Schools with deprived populations often had high levels of inclusion. The between school variance was also very high which would suggest there are high including schools where attainment is high and these have much to teach other schools in developing their capacity.

  6.6  Comparing outcomes from this study which drew on the National Pupil Database for 2002 with scores for pupils in special schools it is clear any minor variation is outweighed by the significant differences between special school and mainstream attainment in Year 11. See Figure 4.

Figure 4

KS4 NATIONAL AVERAGE POINT SCORE 2002 FOR DISABLED PUPILS

All Year 11 pupils	38.55
Those with SEN non-statemented in mainstream	21.85
Those with SEN and statemented pupils in mainstream	16.99
Year 11 pupils in all special schools	2.4

Source: DfES National Pupil Data Base 2002 and Dyson et al (2004)

  64 is the maximum score for best 8 GNVQ/GCSE's at Grade A.

  6.7  Figure 5 shows similar findings in the KS4 GCSE/GNVQ annual Tables of the last few years. Prior to 1995 no data was reported for special schools: perhaps because it was not expected that children attending these schools could achieve in national tests.

Figure 5

GCSE & GNVQ—ENGLAND: 15 YEAR OLDS—2003 AND 2004

	Grade Year	5 A*-C	5 A*-G	1 A*-G + Entry Level In 2004	No Passes
All	2004 2003	53.4% 52.6%	86.4% 88.6%	95.8% 94.6%	4.2% 5.4%
Special Schools*	2004 2003	0.4% 0.9%	4.8% 5.4%	59% 32%@	41% 68%

  *  Community & Foundation Special Schools, PRU's and Hospital Schools.

  @  In 2004 the Government included entry level which is well below G level at GCSE in this category.

  7.14  A further piece of evidence about the successful outcome of inclusion comes from the London Borough of Newham. Since 1983 Newham has led the way on closing special schools and developing inclusive practice in its mainstream schools. The year 2000 was the first cohort of disabled students who previously would have attended special schools who had gone right through mainstream. Their attainment results are very interesting compared to national figures. (Figure 6). A comparison of Figures 5 and 6 is an indicator of the (low expectations and) poor results in the special schools. It shows that inclusion is better for disabled and non-disabled pupils.

Figure 6

NEWHAM AND NATIONAL KS4 GCSE/GNVQ RESULTS

	Number	GCSE 1A*-G %	5 GCSE A*-G	5 GCSE A*-C
Newham England	Average Average	99% 94.4%	93.2% 88.9%	36.3% 49.2%
Newham Mainstream with Statements£	101	88.3%(83)	60.6%(57)	4.25%(4)
Year 11 Project@	22	0%	0%	0%
JFK& Becton Special Schools*	8	0%	0%	0%
Total	131

  Source: DfEE Statistics Secondary performance Tables and What Next: Post 16 Opportunities for young disabled people living in Newham, Newham Council November 2001.

  @  This was a project for pupils with Behavioural difficulties run at the FE College.

  *  JFK/Becton were the remaining special schools.

  6.8  It is often argued that inclusion in Newham has been achieved by exporting many of the pupils with the most severe and complex impairments to other Boroughs. The Borough has 14 resourced mainstream schools and is planning one more. After this it will run this provision down as the capacity of staff to meet diverse needs in all schools increases. In addition more parents of disabled children are wanting them to attend mainstream schools. Figure 7 demonstrates that in 2004 only 117 pupils were in special schools out of the Borough and 78 in the remaining special school. All other pupils were on the rolls of mainstream schools.

Figure 7

NEWHAM PUPILS IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS: IN AND OUT OF BOROUGH SPECIAL SCHOOLS 2004

Numbers of Pupils in:
Residential Schools	28
Day Schools	77
Independent or non maintained	12
Total in out borough Special Schools	117  0.023%
JFK/Becton in Newham	78
Total in Special School& Percentage	195  0.039%*
Total Pupils in Borough	49,815

  Source: Newham Inclusive Education Strategy 2004-07.

  *  This figure is different to the numbers in Figure 2 and suggests such figures can only identify trends.

  6.9  Some would argue that it is unfair to judge special schools by mainstream standards after all they provide havens for children who can develop their social skills and be free of bullying.

  In fact, the National Bullying Survey (Smith et al 1995) found just as much bullying in special schools as in mainstream schools.

  But children, and especially disabled children need to develop social skills and friendships at school because they can be isolated in the community if relationships are not intentionally built.

  Recent research carried out by the Bolton "Data for Inclusion Project" asked children in 500 primary and secondary schools what made them happy or unhappy at school, and what makes a good or bad teacher:

  An overwhelming majority, (62.8%) of the 2,527 children surveyed said that it was "friends" that made them happy at school. There was specific mention of particular friendships but also friendly teachers and other friendly pupils. Feeling safe, making other children happy and being trusted by others also added to their happiness. Joe Whittaker, John Kenworthy and Colin Crabtree, Bolton Data for Inclusion Project

6.10  Increasing self-esteem and social interaction

  Improved attainment is certainly not the only or main reason why effective inclusion is better for disabled and non-disabled pupils and students. Dyson et al (2004 p 44) found evidence from teachers and pupils in their 16 case study schools that inclusion can have positive effects on the wider achievements of all pupils such as social skills and understanding. They also found that pupils with SEN make good progress academically, socially and personally. But also indicators that it may lead to social isolation and low self esteem. This is why the intentional building of relationships such as setting up circles of friends (See Newton & Wilson, 2003). Work by Wilson and Newton in Nottinghamshire has clearly demonstrated that planned interventions by adults can increase social inclusion, and reduce bullying and isolation of disabled pupils.

  6.11  "Growing up Unequal" (Hirst & Baldwin, 1994) was a study based on a stratified sample of disabled and non-disabled young people aged 13 to 22. This identified significant differences in life style between the disabled and disabled young people (see Figure 8.) Interestingly non-disabled young people reported higher self esteem than their disabled counterparts with those who attended special schools having the lowest self esteem of all.

Figure 8

DIFFERENCES IN SELF LIFE STYLE AND SELF-ESTEEM OF DISABLED AND

NON-DISABLED YOUNG PEOPLE

Results	A (disabled)	B (non-disabled)
	%	%
Living with parents	92.0	86.0
Gone on holiday with friends	25.0	52.0
Had a spare time job	22.0	32.0
Looked after siblings	34.0	57.0
Had own key	51.0	76.0
Paid work	35.0	67.0
Had a boy/girl friend	30.0	40.0
Difficulty making friends	35.0	20.0
Satisfactory. network with friends	57.0	74.0
Self esteem score	7.3	8.5
Disabled mainstream	7.5	—
Disabled special school	6.6	—
Internal locus of control	8.8	9.3

  The Survey used two stratified random samples of young people aged 13-22.

  A:  400 disabled people on OPCS category 1-10.

  B:  726 non-disabled young people.

  6.12  The Post-16 Transitions Study Wave 3 (Aston et al, 2005) is a study of 1,019, 19 year old disabled young people. 343 had attended special schools and 676 had attended mainstream schools. 62% of the whole sample said they spent three to seven nights a week with friends. 15% said they did not spend any nights a week with friends. For those who had attended special school not spending any nights a week with friends went up to 36% and for those who attended mainstream it came down to 8% (p 4).

  In transition arrangements and support given those who attended special school were least likely to be satisfied with their formal support (p 71). When asked about future perceived independence ie living away from home in two years time, those who attended mainstream schools were amongst the highest and those who attended special schools amongst the lowest in terms of perceived future independence (p 90). This group were also the least likely to be hopeful about the future.

  6.13  The self esteem and social relationships of disabled young people who attended special schools appear to be poorest. Disabled young people who attended mainstream schools have higher self esteem and more friendships and independent activity after leaving school. But non disabled young people have higher self esteem and are more independent on average. It could be argued that closing this self-esteem and friendship gap is one of the main aims of inclusive education.

7.  THE STATEMENTING PROCESS

  7.1  The statementing process provides an imperfect fall back system of safeguarding resources and provision for children identified with special educational needs. The shortcomings of the system were well demonstrated in the Audit Commission Report (2002) Special Educational Needs a Mainstream Issue. Many of the recommendations made have not been fully addressed.

  7.2  With the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) and SENDA (2001) coming from a rights base the shortcomings of the old Special Educational Needs system are thrown into sharp contrast . The provision disabled pupils need should largely be provided in every school with the capacity being developed and resourced.

  7.3  If a disabled pupil needs support then this should be provided by teachers and teaching assistants adequately trained to provide it and schools adequately resourced to make the provision. More commonly occurring needs for pupils such as speech and language, dyslexia, moderate learning difficulties, behavioural and emotional needs and autism can be funded through a formula to all schools. Lower incidence needs should be provided for by an exceptional needs fund held back from delegated funding as pupils with these needs do not occur in all schools and occur unevenly across mainstream schools.

  7.4  This type of system was put forward in "The Distribution of Resources to Support Inclusion" (DfES November 2001). Variants on this system have been in operation for a number of years in Norfolk, East Sussex, Nottinghamshire, Nottingham City and Newham to name but a few. In Nottinghamshire a survey of parental and teacher satisfaction was carried out in 1992 which showed over 90% satisfaction. Here funds were delegated to families of schools-typically one secondary, six or seven primaries and one special school and a committee of practitioners from each school would determine how many children at each school needed what level of support. The advantage of this system was that those who knew the child and their needs could tailor resources and provision to their needs without undergoing a lengthy assessment process to be determined by a distant panel.

  7.5  Central Support services for disabled pupils are and have been threatened by excessive delegation of budgets has had many negative consequences for the development of the capacity of mainstream schools and should be reversed. As Ofsted have said:

"Support and outreach services promoted inclusion and improved the life chances of many vulnerable pupils.

"The delegation of funding for support serivces had a negative effect on the provision for some pupils with SEN. It diminished the capacity of many LEAs to monitor the progress of pupils with SEN and reduced the range and quantity of specialist staff available to provide advice and support."—Ofsted (2005) Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and outreach services.

  What is needed is to replace statements is:

(i)  A national framework of resource levels which is nationally funded, but locally allocated to schools on the basis of need.

(ii)  There should be new Primary legislation to ensure that the school would have to provide for the needs of all pupils under an extension of the Disability Discrimination Act.

(iii)  Schools could be resourced for commonly occurring types and degrees of impairment.

(iv)  Low incidence needs would be determined by a multi-disciplinary assessment panel, which would visit the pupil at their school and determine the type of support they need, the training staff would need and the level of support and advice from LEA services. This would be carried out following the Italian model in a day or two rather than the six to 18 months currently.

(v)  The Local Authority would also provide inclusion monitoring officers who would regularly visit schools to observe practice and how provision is being made, to give advice and to generalise the good practice in the school.

(vi)  at a regional level specialist support teams would be developed to give advice and support for high tech support such as communication aids, support for blind, deaf and deaf blind pupils, those with extremely challenging behaviour and significant learning difficulties.

(vii)  All pupils should be on the roll of a local mainstream school with a phased run in time.

(viii)  Special schools should be co-located with mainstream schools or their provision moved to resource base provision within the mainstream.

(ix)  Special schools should be taken out of the funding formula, as part of the long term phasing out of them, instead they should provide outreach support and specific timed and evaluated short and medium term support to pupils who would remain on the roll of their mainstream school. For a few pupils this might involve intensive 1:1 support and counselling away from the mainstream site.

8.  THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION

  8.1  DEE has worked with many hundreds of parents of disabled children and we have learned that most, if not all parents start out wanting inclusion, ie they want their child to be welcomed into the world and given the respect and the resources they need and deserve. Unfortunately many families do not experience this. The uneven nature of the development of inclusive services from one LEA to another—indeed one school to another—means that many parents still experience hostility and rejection in their search for inclusion. Some of these parents find a better mainstream, whilst others are drawn into the segregated system. Here, they may find a sense of safety and security which was missing from previous placements. If they have been sufficiently seduced by the medical model they may feel that their child will be made "better" in the special school because of the promise of more therapies and specialist input.

  8.2  Our experience also is that the parents who walk down this road realise, too late, that it does not lead to what they thought it would. Their young adults are completely isolated from their local communities, do not have social skills, have a very poor level of education, and are channelled down a route of further segregation, "discreet" courses in FE, or residential placements. In our view, this does not constitute "choice" for parents, it constitutes parents being forced to find refuges for their children because there is no real inclusion available to them. We also can see that this false choice denies their child certain basic rights—friendship with non-disabled children, an equal opportunity to gain an education, and a sense of belonging in the world and to develop their self esteem.

  8.3  Most parents do not have choice with the professionals making the choices in most cases by selecting admissions. Choice of various state educational settings is not a human right. The right to education provided by the State is a human right. The Convention on the Rights of the Child 13(3) provides for the liberty of parents and legal guardians "to choose schools" for their children, other than those established by the public authorities. That is, parents do not have the right to choose a specific type of public educational system for their children (this has been affirmed by the European Court of HR)—they only have the right to take their children out of the public education system and place them in a private system or home-schooling environment—as long as that system or environment conforms to minimum educational standards laid down by the State. Thus the right to educational choice in current international law refers only to the right to remove a child from public education, not to choose within it.

  8.4  Special Educational Needs' law states that parents can express a preference, but it is usually the education professional and the Local Authority who decide where a child disabled child will go to school. As long as there is a dual system of special and mainstream schools, LEAs have invested money and staff's jobs depend on filling the school roll there will be pressure exerted to fill those rolls. Of the £3.4 billion spent on special educational needs in England 60% is spent on maintaining the special school system (Audit Commission 2002).

  8.5  The financial and professional investment in the segregated system and the vested interests that arise is the main reason for continuing dominance of special schools despite Government policy to:

"Promote inclusion within mainstream schools, where parents want it and appropriate support can be provided, will remain the cornerstone of our strategy".

  8.6  A second reason is that the development of the inclusive capacity of the mainstream is not a priority.

  8.7  Thirdly, work on bullying and relationships is not seen a priority in most schools. This leads to some parents of disabled children in mainstream schools seeking alternatives and they become "Refugees" from the mainstream.

  8.8  Prior to education professional being involved with disabled children many medical professionals will have expressed views to parents about their child needing special education in a special school. The SENDIST Tribunal system allows parents to challenge the placement of their children by the LEA. The Annual Report for the Tribunal (SENDIST 2004) identifies 617 Tribunals where placement was the issue last year and a further 635 which were withdrawn or conceded. It needs to be remembered that placement in a mainstream school or an alternative mainstream school may have been the issue.

  8.9  This is clearly contrary to claims by David Cameron MP that:

"5,000 parents a year are now having to fight to take their children out of mainstream school and put them in special schools"—(Cameron September 2005).

  The Tribunal appeals also need to be seen in the context of there being 250,000 children with statements of special educational need and 60% of them being in mainstream schools. Presumably the vast majority of parents are satisfied with the placement of their disabled children. The Tribunals are also used to get LEA paid placements at non-maintained special schools such as the Scope schools and the increasing numbers of parents who are seeking a place in independent schools by this route. Parents for Inclusion (2004) have developed training for parents based on the thinking of disabled people to help them empower their disabled children and many have changed their minds about wanting a special school place for their child.

  8.10  There is evidence from work DEE carried out with black and ethnic minority parents of disabled children in the London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing that a large majority had not been made aware of the rights or been made aware of mainstream as an option for their children (Birdy, 2005). As most parents generally went to school, at times or in places, where inclusion was not an option they do not think their child's needs can be accommodated in inclusive mainstream settings.

  8.11  The poor outcome of segregated education compared to our experience of inclusive education has proved to us beyond doubt that the only choice a parent or child should have is between different mainstream schools. We are convinced that this will not happen until there is an end date set by the Government to the existence of Special Schools because unwilling mainstream schools have no motivation to change whilst they can "encourage" their challenging pupils to leave and go elsewhere. We also do not believe there will be a real commitment to put the necessary resources and training into teachers and school leaders whilst an expensive parallel education system is being maintained.

9.  HOW SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS ARE DEFINED

  9.1  As has been said there are since SENDA (2001) two ways of characterising disabled pupils and/or pupils with special educational needs which lead in different directions and lead to the pupil being viewed in different ways. This not only leads to confusion, but two different ways of thinking. See Figure 9.

Figure 9

/home/PKB/DATA/333262/33326201.EPS> DISABILITY RIGHTS/SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS: CONFLICTING PARADIGMS

  9.2  Special Educational Needs provides additional support or resources once it is established the child cannot function normally. They are seen as in deficit. This labeling very often leads to—integration or segregation in special schools. Disability rights approach based on anti-discrimination legislation for disabled children anticipates and identifies barriers and demands the restructuring of the policies, practices and ethos of the school so all pupils/students can be included to maximise their potential and educational and social achievements.

  9.3  The experience of the last three years suggests these approaches are not compatible as was the idea in the legislation.

  We now need to move to a full rights based anti-discrimination approach. This would mean that all pupils with differences in functioning due to an underlying impairment or because of the social situation would be entitled to have effective provision, as of right in the mainstream school.

  10.1  Provision for different types and levels of SEN including EBSD.

  DEE do not see meeting the needs of pupils with EBSD differently as other pupils who are different or disabled. Inclusive schools have never had an approach as characterized by their detractors of "One size fits all"

  10.2  Integration is about one size fitting all, but inclusion is not. Inclusion is about restructuring to remove the barriers within the school so that all pupils can achieve and flourish. This therefore does not mean all pupils doing the same activity at the same time or in the same way. For example, a pupil in Year 9 Science with significant learning difficulties can be working in a group doing a experiment as the time keeper, as this is on her IEP target. Another approach would be for the teacher to identify the essential knowledge or understanding they want all the pupils achieve and present it in a way that they all can by having a range of activities to suit the learning styles and aptitudes of the different students in the group.

  10.3  There is considerable evidence to suggest that peer tutoring and support can work in inclusive settings to the benefit of all students: they are getting different things out of the work.

  10.4  How a group is to be organised can be varied from whole class teaching, group work, individual and pair work, taking account of the varying needs in the group. For example, in a group with deaf sign language users it proves very useful to withdraw the deaf students sometimes to work on algebra with deaf instructors or for a blind student to be withdrawn to learn Braille with a Braille teacher.

  10.5  This whole approach comes down to collaborative working amongst the staff the management ensuring there is sufficient time for planning and resource development. This is not "one size fits all", but inclusion in practice.

  10.6  EBSD An Inclusive school must have an inclusive approach to challenging behaviour. Far too many schools see exclusion, either permanent or fixed term, as the answer. In reality, in all but a tiny number of cases, where the young person is a danger to themselves or others, this is and admission of failure. Schools have to develop systems that will prevent the need for exclusions. Educationalists need to see challenging behaviour in a wider context. The statement below puts the rise in challenging behaviour in this context of developing a "Social Model" of Behaviour.

  10.7  A number of studies have demonstrated overarching principles that work in reducing exclusions and creating an environment in the school which can deal with challenging behaviour effectively. Some of this behaviour is caused by pupils with underlying impairments such as ADHD or mental health issues and some due to factors in the child's social background which cause them to act out their hurt. Where schools have good whole school approaches which involve pupils the level of disruption and exclusions are much lower than in schools with similar intakes, but different approaches.

  10.8  DfEE Research on Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream Schools by University of Birmingham found Successful Inclusive practice of pupils with EDB was supported by:

an emphasis on values.

  Five common features were found underlying good practice.

—  Leadership—Head teacher and senior management teams who provided effective leadership.

—  Especially in Values.

—  Ethos and Aspirations for the school.

  Sharing Values—A core of staff who work together to promote values of the school. Working with all pupils in ensuring these aspirations are realised in practice.

  Behaviour Policy & Practice—A consistent and well-monitored behaviour policy where approaches taken with EDB pupils are an extension of the behaviour policy for all pupils.

  Understanding EDB—Key members of staff understand the nature of EDB and distinguish it from sporadic misbehaviour.

  Teaching Skills and the Curriculum—Effective teaching skills for pupils with EDB are the same as those for all pupils, including learning from one's actions and teaching an appropriately challenging curriculum.

  In good practice schools, behaviour policies are periodically reviewed and revised by the majority of staff (DfEE Research report 90).

10.9  Do We need a new generation of special schools?

  "We must invent a new kind of specialist school that can cater properly not only for children with specific disabilities which render them unable to function in large schools, but also for children with needs that arise from social disadvantage. It is my strong conviction that these must be small schools". (less than 200) (Warnock 2005). As can be seen from Figure 1 there are very large numbers of pupils being educated in the mainstream who have identified impairments and count as disabled.

  10.10  If those pupils with moderate learning difficulty, autism and behavioural emotional and social needs they amount to 331,120 on school action plus and statements these are divided into schools of 200 we would need 16,550 new special schools. At a cost of at least £1 million per year to run this would add an additional 60% to the annual education budget. Where does one stop in excluding from the mainstream? Remembering this does not take account of a further 800,000 at school action.

  10.11  Historically the numbers in special schools grew throughout most of the last Century, peaking in the 1970s when some 50,000 children who had been deemed in-educable under the eugenicist Mental Deficiency Act were transferred into Learning Difficulty special schools (see Figure 10). Despite moves to inclusion as was seen in Figure 3 the numbers in special and segregated settings has remained very stable for the last seven years.

  10.12  Demographically the main causes of impairment in the first half of the last Century have declined with polio, diphtheria and small box in decline. Modern obstetrics is leading to a growing number of children with high medical dependency and profound and multiple impairments. There has also been a significant growth in the diagnosis of autism, ADHD and dyslexia in recent years. There is also a perceived growth in pupils with difficult behaviour, though research on behaviour identifies this more with a lack of whole school consistency and effective behaviour policies.

  10.13  Following the Special School Working Report (2003) Government have been funding the rebuilding of new model special school to address the more severe needs and in 2004-05 allocated an additional £165 million to this task.

  10.14  As a counter this Parents for Inclusion (Broomfield 2004) argue that it is precisely the pupils with the most significant degrees of impairment who need to be included to prevent the development of social isolation and low self-esteem that has been so commonly reported for special school pupils. There were only one parent who supported segregation and no disabled people represented on the special school working group. The rest were made of professionals with a vested interest.

  10.15  What is needed is not a generation of new special schools but the consistent support for improving the capacity of mainstream schools. Any other approach would be a breach of Human Rights Law.

Figure 10

NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND WALES: 1897-2005

Year	No of Children	Year	No of Children
1897	4,739	1955	51,558	*
1909	17,600	1965	70,334	*
1914	28,511	1967	78,256	*
1919	34,478	1977	135,261	*+
1929	49,487	1987	107,126	*+
1939	59,768	1999	105,958	*+@
1947	40,252*	2000	104,991	*+@
		2005	104,790	+

*  Hospital schools not included + Includes Severe Learning Difficulty Source Cole 1989 based on Chief Medical Officer, Ministry of Education, Dept of Education and Science Annual Reports and @ DfEE 13/99 15/2001, 24/2005 SEN Statistics includes Non Maintained Special schools and Pupil referral Units. From 1999 Wales excluded from figures.

11.  THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PROVISION AND THE EFFECT OF THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 2001, WHICH EXTENDED THE DDA TO EDUCATION

  11.1  Firstly there should be no moving back from the implementation of the DDA to cover schools. Many schools have shown themselves willing and able to meet the duties to not treat disabled pupils less favourably and to make reasonable adjustments. However many more do not take this duty seriously as has been demonstrated by Ofsted.

"It was clear from visits to a wide range of schools that attitudes and practices have been slow to shift. SENCO's in almost half the primary and secondary schools visited identified the perceptions of staff as a major barrier to effective inclusion."—(Ofsted Oct 2004 p 9)

  11.2  The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Amendment Act (2005) will lead to new duties on schools, LEAs and Ofsted to promote disability equality from December 2006. When carrying out their functions public authorities must have due regard to the need to:

(i)  Promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons.

(ii)  Encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.

(iii)  Promote equality of opportunity.

(iv)  Eliminate disability related harassment.

(v)  Eliminate unlawful discrimination.

  11.3  Ofsted will have a duty to check that all schools are implementing this duty. Any member of the public can seek a judicial review if they have grounds for believing the school or LEA are not carrying out this duty and the DRC or successor Equal Opportunities Commission can seek a court order if they have evidence that the school does not have a Disability Equality Scheme.

  11.4  At the United Nations a convention on the rights of people with disabilities is being negotiated. At the August Ad Hoc Committee the UK Government led the European Union Delegation and put forward a strong position of the:

"inclusiveness of the general education systems. Where exceptionally the general education system does not adequately meet the needs of persons with disabilities, State parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure effective forms of education, bearing in mind the goal of full inclusion"—European Union Proposal Article 17, 3 August 2005.

  11.5  The Draft Article 17 that was a result of a day and half debate at the United Nations currently emphasises an inclusive education system.

"1.  State Parties recognise the right of all persons with disabilities to education. With a view to achieving this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, State Parties shall ensure an inclusive [system, including pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, vocational training] [at all levels] and life long learning directed to:

(a)  The full development of the human potential and sense of dignity and self worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity.

(b)  Enabling all persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society.

(c)  The development of persons with disabilities, personality, talents, creativity as well as mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.

2.  In realizing this right, States shall ensure:

(a)  that all persons with disabilities can access inclusive, quality, free primary and secondary education to the extent possible in the communities in which they live;

(b)  reasonable accommodation of the person's requirements;

(c)  the development of initial and continuing training which incorporates disability awareness, the use of appropriate communication means and modes, educational techniques and materials to support persons with disabilities, for all professionals and staff who work at all levels of education; and

(d)  persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the genera education system, to facilitate their effective education. In exceptional circumstances where the general education system can not adequately meet the support needs of persons with disabilities States Parties shall ensure that effective alternative support measures are provided, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

(e)  that persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on account of their disability, and that [children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary and secondary education on account of their disability . . ." Facilitators Draft, 11 August 2005.

  If this is pointing the direction to international law in the area of inclusive education then the Government position needs to be more clearly working towards an inclusive school system.

  11.6  Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES 2004) talks of building the capacity of mainstream schools to include a wider diversity of disabled pupils. However, there is little evidence of concrete programmes or cash incentives to establish this. If as Ofsted suggest the major problem is one of barriers of attitude then this needs to be addressed as much more of a priority.

12.  RECOMMENDATIONS

  The following recommendations need to be implemented to address the current anomalies in the school system and to ensure the proper development of an inclusive education system:

  1.  We need an inclusive school system based on the principles of equality that has the capacity to meet the academic and social needs of all learners.

  2.  End the confusion between integration and inclusion by having a national definition and explanatory notes.

  3.  Schools and their leaders need incentives to prioritise the development of their inclusive capacity.

  4.  Set targets for all LEAs to reach increasing lower levels of reliance on special schools.

  5.  Support parents through Sure Start and other schemes who have a disabled child with Empowerment and disability equality training so they can become strong allies in the rights, growth and development of their child.

  5.  Mandatory inclusion training for all initial teacher training, much more effective beginner and in-service professional development programme.

  6.  Recognition of inclusion as a political priority in education policy.

  7.  What is needed is to replace statements is:

(i)  a national framework of resource levels which is nationally funded, but locally allocated to schools on the basis of need.

(ii)  There should be new Primary legislation to ensure that the school would have to provide for the needs of all pupils under an extension of the Disability Discrimination Act.

(iii)  Schools could be resourced for commonly occurring types and degrees of impairment.

(iv)  Low incidence needs would be determined by a multi-disciplinary assessment panel, which would visit the pupil at their school and determine the type of support they need, the training staff would need and the level of support and advice from LEA services. This would be carried out following the Italian model in a day or two rather than the six to 18 months currently.

(v)  The Local Authority would also provide inclusion monitoring officers who would regularly visit schools to observe practice and how provision is being made, to give advice and to generalise the good practice in the school.

(vi)  at a regional level specialist support teams would be developed to give advice and support for high tech support such as communication aids, support for blind, deaf and deaf blind pupils, those with extremely challenging behaviour and significant learning difficulties.

(vii)  All pupils should be on the roll of a local mainstream school with a phased run in time

(viii)   Special schools should be co-located with mainstream schools or their provision moved to resource base provision within the mainstream.

(ix)  Special schools should be taken out of the funding formula, as part of the long term phasing out of them, instead they should provide outreach support and specific timed and evaluated short and medium term support to pupils who would remain on the roll of their mainstream school. For a few pupils this might involve intensive 1:1 support and counselling away from the mainstream site.

  8.  The Government learns to take pride in, and publicly defend the wonderful progress which it has helped to bring about in the field of inclusive education and disability rights.

  9.  The Government put all its resources into building the capacity of the mainstream system to be fully inclusive by the year 2020.

  10.  The Government sets a related date by which time there will be no further need for segregated schools.

  11.  The Government does not build any new special schools but puts the resources into "enhanced" mainstream schools, following well documented and highly successful models all across the UK.

  12.  The Government creates a new post within mainstream schools called "The Inclusion Facilitator" to work with children with high level support needs. (This role would be informed by the social model of disability and behaviour, and the Independent Living Movement and would go a long way to alleviate the fears of parents.)

  13.  The Government helps to fund the highly skilled and knowledgeable voluntary sector, especially organisations led by disabled people and parents, who are uniquely placed to assist in the building of the capacity of the mainstream to become inclusive.

REFERENCES Alliance for Inclusive Education (2000) www.allfie.org.uk

Alliance for Inclusive Education (2004) "Snapshots of Possibility: Shining Examples of Inclusive Education" London.

Aston, J, Dewson, S, Loukas, G, Dyson, A,(2005) "Post-16 Transitions: a Longitudinal Study of Young People with Special Educational Needs (Wave Three" DfES, London Research Report RR655.

Audit Commission (2002) "Special educational needs: A mainstream Issue" London www.audit-commission.gov.uk

Booth, T, Ainscow, M, Black-Hawkins, K, Vaughan, M, and Shaw, L (2000) Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, Bristol.www.inclusion.uk.com

Broomfield, A, (2004) "All our Children Belong" Parents for Inclusion, London

[e-mail]

Cameron, D, (2005) "Has Inclusion in early years settings gone too far? " p 6 Early Years Educator September 2005.

Department for Education and Science (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. (Warnock Report) Cmnd 7212. HMSO p 100-101.

Department for Education and Employment 1997 "Excellence for All", Green Paper.

Department for Education and Skills (2001a) "Inclusive Schooling" November 2001 DfES/0774/2001.

Department for Education and Skills ( 2001b) "The Special Educational; Needs Code of Practice" 581/2001.

Department for Education and Skills (2001c) "The Distribution of Resources to Support Inclusion" LEA/080/2001.

Department for Education and Skills (2003) "The Report of the Special Schools Working Group".

Department of Education and Skills (2004) "Removing Barriers to Achievement :The Government's Strategy for SEN" Dfes/0117/2004.

Department of Education and Skills (2005) "Special Educational Needs in England January 2005" SFR 24/2005.

Department for Education and Skills (2006) forthcoming "Making it Happen: The Reasonable Adjustment Project".

Disability Equality in Education (2002) Inclusion in Schools Course Book. DEE

www.diseed.org.uk

Dyson, A, Farrell, P, Polat, F, Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F (2004) "Inclusion and Pupil Achievement" DfES ,London Research Report RR578.

Hegarty, S (1993) Reviewing the literature on integration. European Journal of Special Needs Education 8(3), 192-200.

Hirst & Baldwin (1994) "Growing Up Unequal" Social Policy Unit, York.

Mason, M, (2000) "Incurably Human" Working Press London.

Maresa McKeith in Rieser, Red. "The Voice of the Excluded" in Ainscow, M and Mitler, P eds. (2000) Including the Excluded: Proceedings of 5th International Special Education Congress. University of Manchester.—Maresa, aged 15, is a wheelchair user and is non-verbal.

National Association for Special Educational Needs (2002) Policy document on inclusion. NASEN.

Newton, C, & Wilson, D, (2003) "Creating Circles of Friends" Inclusive Solutions Nottingham [e-mail]

Newham Borough Council (2004) "Inclusive Education Strategy 2004-07" Newham Council, London, 00307/EDU.

O'Brien and Forest (1992) "Person Centred Planning" Centre For Inclusion Toronto.

Oliver, M, (1996) "Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice" MacMillian, London.

Ofsted(2004) "Special educational needs: Towards inclusive schools" HM2276, October 2004.

Rieser, R, (2000) "Special Educational Needs or inclusive education: the challenge of disability discrimination in schooling" Ch 8 in Cole, M, Education, Equality and Human Rights Routledge, London.

Rustemier, S, & Vaughan, M, (2005) "Segregation trends-LEAs in England 2002-04: Placement of Pupils with statements in special schools and other segregated settings". CSIE, Bristol.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (2004) "Annual Report 2004-04" DfES London www.sendist.gov.uk/uploads/SENDIST%20Annual%20Report%202004.pdf

Sebba, J and Sachdev, D (1997) "What works in Inclusive Education". Barnardos, London.

UNESCO (1994) Salamanca Statement of the UNESCO World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality.

Warnock, M, Baroness (2005) "Special educational needs: a new look", Impact, No 11 Published by the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, London, June 2005.

October 2005

---

---

---

Prepared 6 July 2006