Future schooling that includes children with SEN / disability

 

Introduction:

This submission arises from the recent work of the SEN Policy Options group which has been in existence as a network of people interested in policy and practice issues in this field - senior teachers, advisors, local Government officers, officers of national agencies, academic, researchers and voluntary organisation officers. The group (see current membership in appendix) has organised policy seminars for over 13 years and published 16 policy papers. It was initially funded by the ESRC and the Cadbury Foundation and more recently by NASEN.

 

There are two papers attached to these summaries, which were presented at a policy seminar held on September 22^nd 2005 at the Institute of Education, London University. The papers represent two approaches to envisaging how future schooling might provide for children and young people with SEN/disabilities. The methodologies for envisaging futures are different in the papers, but can be seen as complementing each other. Points arising from these papers are summarised below as they relate to the issues under consideration by the inquiry.

Future schooling: a scenario approach

Brahm Norwich, School of Education and Lifelong learning, University of Exeter.

and

Ingrid Lunt, Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford

These ideas are based on the outcomes of a workshop held about a year ago which considered future scenarios (see paper for details of participants, design of scenarios and methodology used in constructing them). Further work on the workshop outcomes was undertaken to formulate specific SEN implications. Three social scenarios for possible futures from 2020 were formulated as:

1. Inclusive citizenship - strong state role, focus on common good and culture

2. Extended choice and diversity - market style system, non-state providers, minimal state role.

3. Regulated choice/diversity - limits to diversification; state moderates user and provider competition.

(see full paper for more details about scenarios)

This submission considers the inquiry issues from the perspective of the 3 future scenarios. It is presented in the hope that considering multiple possible futures promotes flexible and adaptable strategic thinking.

 

1. Provision for SEN pupils in mainstream schools: availability of resources and expertise, different models of provision:

Inclusive citizenship	Extended choice and diversity	Regulated choice/diversity
Every child belongs to a mixed ability base group - these children learn together for at least half timetable - some ability and cross age grouping used for rest of time. This requirement is justified in terms of citizenship goals, as are the use of co-teaching, collaborative learning and peer tutoring approaches. There is within 'classes' both mixed and cross ability groups are used equally. Withdrawal of individuals and groups with disabilities is practised, but mainly before and after formal timetable periods. The facilities and staffing to operate 'extended schools' play a key role in maintaining additional provision required for those with disabilities.	There is a wide diversity of internal forms of ability grouping and learning support depending on orientation and kind of learning centre. Forms of grouping reflect the curriculum orientation and aims of the schools /learning centres. Diversity of forms are justified in terms of what is required to support learning set out in individual learning plans. Children with similar kinds and degrees of disabilities are found in quite distinct kinds of settings (even within the same school / learning centre), as parents and children have major say in placement and forms of provision.	Diverse forms of internal organisation are encouraged if consistent with the curriculum orientation and aims of the specific schools, and with the national core emphasis on self-determined learning and social goals. Ability and other kinds of groupings are encouraged, provided they do not engender excessive divisions between diverse children. Mixed ability groupings are required for at least 20% of formal learning times. Withdrawal of children with disabilities for learning support from mixed ability groupings is practised, so long as it is in keeping with learners' preferences.

2. Provision for different types and levels of SEN: provision for SEN pupils in special schools

Inclusive citizenship	Extended choice and diversity	Regulated choice/diversity
All schools are inclusive of all children in the neighbourhood, providing the common national curriculum geared to individual needs. There are no special schools, though about 1% with profound and multiple disabilities are mainly in self-contained groups in a variety of separate settings on short, medium and long term bases, but they have as much learning and social participation as possible with less significant disabled and non-disabled students. There are special centres for children with significant health conditions and children in need of social care where education services are provided.	School or learning centre specialisation is key aspect of school organisation. Given role of parental preferences, there has been an increase of learning centres specialising in disability, justified in terms of curriculum focus and philosophical orientation. Full diversity operates: special schools/centres have legitimate place, specialised settings co-located with general schools / learning centres, and 'inclusive' schools/centres which welcome all children with disabilities and provide as much social and learning participation in general settings as possible	Diversity of provision for children with disabilities gives a limited legitimacy to separate special schools/centres. Special schools and special classes for children with disability have to meet national legislated conditions for children to have minimum degree of learning and social participation with non-disabled. The inter-change sometimes involves teachers and children from the non-disabled settings participating in settings designed for children with disabilities.

 

3. Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils

Inclusive citizenship	Extended choice and diversity	Regulated choice/diversity
The full range of national outcomes is defined so that progress for all, including those with profound and multiple disabilities can be monitored. Differentiated 'national targets' are set for different groups that take account of social and individual circumstances. These situated targets make simple school performance comparisons difficult. However, schools that do not reach these targets consistently over several years are required to review and re-plan provision to meet these standards. Additional resources and advice are available to support these schools.	Raising standards is defined in specific and diverse ways to reflect the different kinds and levels of learning outcomes involved in the range of curricula. There is no standard national assessment framework or tests, but well developed assessment systems for diverse needs, abilities and interests, including children with profound and multiple disabilities (informed by national assessment framework in the form of guidance).	Standards are defined in programme specific terms, as well as a limited national core set of learning outcomes. These national outcomes are monitored selectively by sample national testing. Assessing learning progress in the diverse programmes is required to take account of the national assessment framework and principles, such as, taking account of learner differences, including those with disabilities.

 

4. How SEN is defined

Inclusive citizenship	Extended choice and diversity	Regulated choice/diversity
There has been a significant reduction in identification of those having educationally recognised disabilities from 16% in 2005 to about 5-6% in 2020. SEN concept has been abandoned and replaced by a tighter definition of educational disability defined in national terms. Children who were identified as MLD and SEBD have merged into the spectrum of children with differing abilities and attainments. A minority of children, previously described in these terms now identified in new educational disability dimensions, with specific national operational definitions.	There is no national classification of SEN/disability. Some believe there has been an expansion of the proportion of children identified professionally as having disability, through parental pressures. With no national classification there are few relevant statistics. Been increased recognition of new areas of disorder: e.g. Non- Verbal Learning Disabilities (NVLD), Disorders of Attention, Motor and Perceptual functioning (DAMP). Identification is conducted mainly by non-State agencies that serve learning centres and institutions (under national framework).	A national classification framework is used which is based on multiple dimensions of educationally relevant functional impairments, learning activity limitations and learning participation restrictions. This was designed on the basis of the WHO ICF scheme which was developed in late 1990s/early 2000s. Standardisation of identification and monitoring procedures based on ICF scheme is used to contain parental pressures for increased identification and to inform curriculum and pedagogic planning.

 

5. Legislative framework : system of Statements of need for SEN pupils

Inclusive citizenship	Extended choice and diversity	Regulated choice/diversity
All have entitlement to a defined range of 'individualised' learning experiences from an agreed set of institutions. Learners are consulted about their individual learning experiences. Additional allocations for all areas of disadvantage (including disability) are required by legislation. Additional allocations are made from central agency, with a regional structure, directly to schools and groups of schools/learning centres (in formal partnerships). Schools/learning centres are legally responsible for formulating and reviewing individual learning plans for all children (not just for disability) and ensuring maximum possible achievement of goals. All parents can access Tribunals to contest adequacy of educational provision after non-legal disagreement resolution procedures have been used.	All learners have rights to participate in forming individual learning plans. Minimal additional resources are available through vouchers to parents, which is set by legislation. Providers of special education services are held to account through user preferences and decisions; there is no specific legal basis for redress, other than 'duty of care'.	Individual learning needs are derived from continuous negotiations in terms of state prescribed agendas and with family and learner participation. There is general and flexible national commitment to entitlements. Learners are negotiate about their individual learning plans with parents/teachers. The general legislative framework supports additional resources for disadvantage, including disability. Direct education providers (e.g. maintained and non-State schools/centres) are legally responsible for individual learning plans for all children, but with specific additional requirements about the content and planning procedures for children with disabilities. The Local Government role in supporting the resolution of disagreements between direct providers and parents is part of its delegated responsibility from regional agencies.

 

 

Appendix

Policy Options Steering Group membership

Keith Bovair, Head teacher (NASEN representative); Professor Alan Dyson, School of Education, University of Manchester; Peter Gray, SEN Policy Adviser; Dr Seamus Hegarty, Director of the National Foundation for Educational Research; Claire Lazarus, DfES; Professor Geoff Lindsay, Warwick University; Professor Ingrid Lunt, University of Oxford; John Moore, Senior Inspector, Kent LEA; Professor Brahm Norwich, School of Education, Exeter University; Linda Redford, NCH Action for Children, Education Officer; Penny Richardson, Nottinghamshire LEA; Philippa Russell, Adviser DfES; Sonia Sharp, Rotherham LEA; Philippa Stobbs CDC; Eileen Visser, Ofsted; Professor Klaus Wedell, Institute of Education, London University

 

 

'DILEMMAS IN THE QUEST FOR INCLUSION' .

Klaus Wedell

 

EVERY CHILD MATTERS - A FUTURES SCENARIO? DILEMMAS IN THE QUEST FOR INCLUSION.

Klaus Wedell, Emeritus Professor, Institute of Education, University of London.

1. This paper assesses the problems of implementing inclusion within current education systems. It explores how the Every Child Matters (ECM), Extended Schools and other current policies might in future impact on inclusion for children and young people with special educational needs (SENs) in the context of an 'inclusive citizenship' scenario.

 

2. HOW SPECIAL NEEDS ARE DEFINED.

Since the Warnock Report's publication in 1978, it has been accepted that children's and young people's SENs are manifested in a continuum of severity as they affect

development and learning. This continuum reflects individual children's vulnerability and / or resilience to the negative factors in their own physical and other

make-up, and to factors within their developmental environment. The impact of these factors is relative to the responsiveness and support provided by universal and

specialist services, including schooling. This point is made in the ECM policy formulation, which emphasises the central ethos of valuing each individual child.

 

3. RAISING STANDARDS OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR PUPILS WITH SENS.

The paper refers to the widespread concern that the current subject-based National Curriculum does not cover, as a substantive goal, the competencies required for

successful adulthood in the 21st century. The ECM policy by contrast, stipulates the Five Outcomes, which are consistent with these broader aims for children's development and education, and by extension, are also relevant to meeting children's and young people's SENs. Several examples are cited of innovative curricular

developments aimed at addressing these goals.

 

The attainments of children and young people in general, and of those with SENs in particular, will have to be given credit in relation to this wider range of outcomes.

Correspondingly the paper argues that accountability for the efficacy of universal and of specialist services - including schools - will have to be assessed in relation to

these outcomes.

 

4. PROVISION FOR PUPILS WITH SENs IN 'MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS'.

The present searches for potential future education scenarios arises from the widespread acknowledgment that current education systems are not adequate to bring about the desired educational outcomes for the general range of

children and young people in the 21st Century. This inadequacy results from the rigidities inherent in current forms of school organisation and the current curriculum

and assessment requirements. These stand in the way of the requisite flexibility of response to the individual needs of pupils. The paper cites examples of these rigidities. It acknowledges that there are many of examples of good practice in schools that overcome the rigidities, but asserts that the good practice is achieved in spite of, rather than because of, the scope offered by the system. The paper considers the different context in which schools will operate under the ECM and Extended Schools policy scenarios. The integration of services - including education - will require a radical reconfiguration of schooling. For example, the operational interfaces between universal services and specialist services will alter the roles of teachers, quite apart from the Workforce Reform developments. The paper expresses a concern that the full implications of most of these changes have not been fully acknowledged and addressed. For example, the development of 'Personalised Learning' will demand that teachers acquire a greater understanding of the nature of child and adolescent development, and of the processes of learning and teaching.

 

The increased potential for flexible response to all pupils' needs will make it possible to achieve a correspondingly flexible grouping of pupils. Such groupings will be targeted at any one time, on a matching of the needs of individual pupils to specific intended outcomes of the broad curriculum. For example, the groupings would vary flexibly according to whether particular curricular objectives might be facilitated by involving a range of pupils, or whether a focus on a particular level of specific achievement might accelerate learning. The paper concludes that this emphasis on flexible matching for all pupils would then decouple stigma from the practice of grouping, and make the issue of inclusion irrelevant.

 

5. PROVISION FOR CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

The paper argues that the structural and operational development of the integrated services policies, along with more effective personalised learning capabilities among

teachers, will extend the scope for better responsiveness to the SENs of pupils in mainstream schools. It acknowledges that this will be an incremental process as

the full implications are addressed. During this period there will continue to be a demand for specialist provision for children and young people with more severe SENs. This provision may take the form of co-location of specialist provision in mainstream schools, or collaborative interaction between these and special schools, with the aim of achieving flexibility of response. The demands of economy of scale in meeting the full range of children and young people's SENs indicates that, as a previous Select Committee concluded (1986-7), provision has to be co-ordinated at relevant local or regional levels.

DILEMMAS IN THE QUEST FOR INCLUSION.

Paper for Policy Seminar on Future schooling: scenarios for special needs and inclusive education Sept 22^nd, 2005. Based on Gulliford Memorial Lecure, Birmingham University/NASEN, 14-10-04.

 

K. Wedell

 

The quest for inclusion was probably most clearly stated in the declaration emerging from the UNESCO conference in 1994:

'regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of ....achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system.' (UNESCO 1994)

However, while many would support this aspiration, it is also evident that the present education system in this and many countries still raises the dilemma that was evident already at that time:

'one is seeking the right for pupils with special educational needs to be included in.....educational environments which are predicated on misconceived assumptions about the homogeneity of pupils' learning needs.' (Wedell 1995a).

The dilemma has recently again been raised in a pamphlet by Mary Warnock (Warnock 2005). She has now expressed concern that mainstream schools are not able to provide appropriate education for some children who have particular kinds of need, and that these children can only be appropriately served in small separate 'specialist schools'. A debate was held in the House of Lords (Hansard 2005), at which a number of peers spoke in support of Baroness Warnock's assertions. The current relevant government minister, Lord Adonis, responded that the government's policy recognised the contribution of special schools, but that much progress had been made in the education which mainstream schools offered children and young people with special educational needs (Hansard 2005). So the dilemma persists. Warnock quotes a useful formulation by Dyson (2001), that there is 'an intention to treat all learners as essentially the same and an equal and opposite intention to treat them as different'.

 

My aim in this paper is to consider:

~ what are the factors in the education system which militate against responsiveness to children and young people's individual needs, and to special educational needs in particular?

~ what are the prerequisites which would contribute to an appropriate level of responsiveness?

~ what systemic changes might lead to the implementation of such responsiveness, and consequently begin to resolve the dilemmas?

I will confine myself to issues about education within the compulsory school age, and so will omit the whole topic of the preventive potential of pre-school provision.

 

The paper is based on the Gulliford memorial lecture which I gave in October 2004. I am attempting to build up a picture of what an inclusive education system might look like, with particular reference to the implications of current government policies. The Steering Group thought that this approach might complement that adopted in the other paper we are considering at this seminar, which sets out to examine alternative socio-political developments, and how these might impact on progress towards the aims of inclusion.

 

THE FACTORS IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM WHICH MILITATE AGAINST RESPONSIVENESS TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, AND TO SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN PARTICULAR.

Many have commented on the failure of current education systems to meet the demands of the 21^st Century. Already in 1993 in a chapter on Special Educational Needs in the National Commission on Education's Report I wrote:

'Seen from 25 years on, it will seem incredible that we did not use the scope for organisational and pedagogic flexibility which already exists to respond to the particular demands of the broad and balanced curriculum and of pupils' learning needs' (Wedell, 1993).

There is no doubt that the present government has expressed a commitment to the principle of inclusion, and over recent years there has been a remarkable development in policies and practices which have the potential to support inclusion. The government's policy paper on meeting children's and young people's special educational needs - Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES 2004a) - promotes many of these measures. None the less, the basic dilemma mentioned above still remains. Much of the legislation, and many of the policies and procedures seem to go no further than to 'soften the blow' of the current education system as it affects children and young people with special educational needs, to borrow a phrase from Pugach (1995). Parallel to these policies on inclusion, there is also an increasing awareness that there are rigidities in the nature of the education system itself, and of the curriculum and its assessment, which constitute barriers to the effectiveness of the education system in general . In this section I want briefly to attempt to refer both to the rigidities which affect education in general, and to identify their impact on developing the scope for inclusion in particular.

 

In previous papers on this topic, I have found it useful to illustrate the points I wish to make under my three headings with the help of matrices. Matrices can demonstrate the interaction between the elements of the features I want to mention. In the matrix in Figure 1 the vertical dimension refers to factors within the infrastructure of the education system, and the horizontal dimension to factors relating to the curriculum and its assessment.

 

Education system Curricular and assessment specifications

School system
Schools		Matrix one
classes

 

Figure 1

 

Turning first to the education system in general, the concern about its operation was acknowledged by Charles Clark when he was Secretary of State for Education:

'Children's services and education have been too compartmentalised. Services have not been joined up. Funding has been too fragmented. Children and learners have not had their needs addressed in a way what fits their specific needs' (DfES 2004b).

Since then, the government has issued its policy paper 'Every Child Matters' (DfES 2003) and a considerable number of related papers, particularly directed at meeting the needs of vulnerable children and young people. Special needs education has for long been facing the challenge of the vulnerable in our education system, who depend on the efficacy of education for their progress, in contrast to the more resilient pupils, who can draw on their own resources to compensate for the inadequacies in the system. More particularly, Local Authorities have been required to set up Directorates of Children's Services, and the education services have been incorporated as one among these services. Inspection arrangements also now include the whole range of the services provided by the Local Authority. An important aspect of these policies in relation to inclusion, is clearly that education services should not see their operation in isolation from other relevant services. However, the government's detailed recommendations have been focussed particularly on the health and social services, and to a much lesser degree on the education service, and so it has to be seen how far the integration of the education services with the others will develop. In the following, I will deal mainly with the current education system itself.

 

One of the systemic problems for education services, is the way in which policies sometimes act mutually to frustrate each other in their implementation. For example, the government's intention to give secondary schools independence from Local Education Authorities (LEAs) goes against one of the main conclusions already reached by the Education Select Committee in relation to the 1981 Act. The Committee stressed that an LEA should be able to exercise a clear and coherent special needs policy. (Education, Science and Arts Committee (1986-7). It remains to be seen how Academies will see themselves as part of the wider framework of special needs provision. Another example of policies acting contrarily was mentioned in a recent OFSTED report (2005). The inspectors found instances where the pressure on LEAs to delegate their funding to individual schools led to inefficiency in the operation of special needs support services (OFSTED 2005).

 

There is an increasing awareness of the rigidities in the way that schools operate within the system, and of how this produces its own difficulties. A well-known example of this rigidity is the transition from primary to secondary education. It has been shown that the adjustment demands made by the abrupt change in the organisation of schooling between these two phases is liable to cause a plateau, if not a temporary relapse in pupil progress. Current commentators on schooling (eg Leadbeater (2004) and Hopkins (2005) stress the need for schools in a locality to collaborate with each other. Overcoming transition problems is an example of what is needed. A recent account of the arrangements made by Special Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) shows how pupils can be helped to adapt in good time before the transition takes place (Wedell 2004). But this example also illustrates how these attempts represent efforts to 'soften the blow' which the very nature of the education system inflicts on children and young people.

 

Rigidities that frustrate effective inclusion within individual schools are mentioned in a number of reports. Leadbeater (2005) notes that secondary schools are the last 'Fordist' institutions: 'the bounded, stand alone school as a factory of learning will become a glaring anomaly in the organisational landscape.' The recent OFSTED report (2004) on progress in inclusion mentions that:

'For some schools, rigid timetabling, inflexible staffing and lack of inventiveness were handicaps to effective developments'.

Within many schools, the predominant approach to teaching and learning is still based on the grouping of pupils into classes. The rigidities this imposes on children and young people, and the problems for teachers have been widely recognised. The former head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) David Hargreaves commented (Hargreaves 2001):

'Pedagogy in schools is about mastering the art of controlling the behaviour of some thirty young persons of the same age, who are reluctantly enclosed in a room of modest size and who can be as easily managed as thirty kittens can be herded'.

Hartley (2003) comments:

'If the government retains a bias towards whole-class, traditional pedagogy, then the costs may be reduced, teachers may be tamed, high-stakes scores will rise, and procedures may be standardised. But the economic benefits are likely to be few in the long term'.

If these kinds of rigidities hamper the education of the general run of pupils, then it is hardly surprising that they hamper the flexibility that inclusion requires.

 

The government's drive to personalise the operation of public services has been directed at the role of the teacher in the classroom. Its pamphlet: 'A national conversation about personalised learning' (DfES 2004c) encourages a more responsive approach to teaching. The majority of teachers no doubt aspire to do this already, and it is obviously relevant if teachers were to engender inclusive in classroom practices. But, as Pollard and James (2004) in their critique of personalised learning rightly comment:

Personalised Learning challenges the mutual accommodations which often grow up in routine teacher-pupil classroom practices and calls for higher expectations, positive responses and new forms of learner-aware pedagogy.

David Hargreaves (2004), in a similar context, comments:

'conventional teachers are not trained to take the kinds of roles now outlined for them'.

Two essential elements of this training involve the study of child and adolescent development, and of the processes of teaching and learning. These have, over recent years, been given decreasing attention in the initial and further professional development of teachers.

 

All the above comments about the rigidities of the current education system have to be seen in contrast to the fact that there are plenty of schools which have developed flexibility and responsiveness, and achieved remarkable levels of inclusion. However, as Pollard and James (2004) comment, this does not, in itself, indicate scope to 'scale up' to general practice. Predominantly, these schools appear to have developed in spite of - rather than because of - the education system.

 

We can turn now to the rigidities inherent in the National Curriculum and its assessment. These aspects are represented in the horizontal dimension of Matrix 1. There have been considerable developments in reducing the original rigidities of the National Curriculum as it was first formulated, but there is increasing concern that the approach it adopts is itself no longer appropriate for children and young people in an information age (Beare 2001). A key proponent of this view is the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), which commented:

'We still have a curriculum model close to the one that prepared students for the much more stable and certain society of the 50s where we knew what a 'subject' was, and what you 'ought' to know about it. ..Employers are now looking for, but not finding, people who know how to manage themselves in a range of situations, who can recognise problems and how to resolve them, who know how to communicate. Young people know this too. (RSA 2002)

As far as pupils with special needs in inclusive settings are concerned, the Office of Standards in Education (OFSTED) reported:

'Nearly all schools felt restricted by the National Curriculum despite the inclusion statement' (OFSTED 2004)

The Audit Commission (2002) described the dilemmas faced by schools:

'Schools feel pulled in opposite directions by pressures to achieve better academic results.... and to become inclusive'.

The relationship between the conceptualisation of the National Curriculum and its assessment has also been called into question. The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (Department of Media, Culture and Sports 1999) commented:

'Assessment and inspection have vital roles in raising standards of achievement in schools. But they must support and not inhibit creative and cultural education. There is a need for a new balance...in the National Curriculum, and between the different forms and criteria of assessment and inspection. Raising standards should not mean standardisation, or the objectives of creative and cultural education will be frustrated' .

In a paper written for the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency Futures Project Gallagher (Gallacher 2005) refers to an NFER survey of 11-18 year-olds' views. She writes:

A disturbing picture emerged of a culture of compliance without engagement among even the brightest of our young people. The majority felt that schooling was relevant only for passing exams and jumping hurdles and had little relevance to their lives now or for the future.

The SENCO Forum, an electronic communication network of Special Needs Coordinators, made the following statement in their response to the consultation on the government's proposals for the Special Needs Action Plan (SENCO Forum 2003):

'Schools' achievement in supporting children's and young people's progress has to be recognised and valued in more than academic areas' (my italics).

 

The government's dilemma with regard to assessment was graphically stated by David Milliband when he was Minister of State in Education (Milliband 2004):

'Without accountability there is no legitimacy, without legitimacy there is no support; without support there are no resources; and without resources there are no services'.

Presumably, the summative data on the League Table of Schools are a consequence of this line of argument. However, acknowledging the need for assessment leaves open the major issue of validity. Time and again the criteria used have themselves been called into question. Hargreaves (2004) comments:

'our present system is dominated so heavily by the summative, that the formative assessment for learning is in constant danger of being squeezed out.

Paradoxically, one of the main points made in the government's pamphlet on Personalised Learning, is that assessment for learning is an essential element.

 

This discussion of the current education system and of the curriculum and its assessment shows an increasing consensus that neither serve the general range of children and young people adequately, let alone those with special educational needs. Paradoxically, many of the current government policies appear to acknowledge this, but yet fail to address the main underlying factors which present the dilemma. As Myers (2005) puts it:

We tinker with the system but in the main continue to operate our schools based on organisational issues rather than on what we know from a range of research about the best ways of creating optimal conditions for learning.

 

 

 

WHAT ARE THE PREREQUISITES WHICH WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF RESPONSIVENESS?

There is little disagreement now that education systems have to recognise the diversity of learners' needs. The present government's promotion of 'personalised learning' (DfES 2004c) includes an instance of this:

For schools, it means a professional ethos that accepts and assumes every child comes to the classroom with a different knowledge base and skills set, as well as varying aptitudes and aspirations..I(p7)

Significantly, this statement refers to 'schools' and 'classrooms', without recognising that one of the main implications of an inclusion policy is that this diversity has to be a fundamental determinant in planning an education system itself, not an 'add-on'. Starting from an acknowledgement of diversity follows from the principle that all children and young people are valued as individuals, and the government's document Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfEs 2004a) also affirms this:

'Inclusion is about much more than the type of school that children attend: it is about the quality of their experience; how they are helped to learn, achieve and participate fully in the life of the school' .

An extensive government funded research project on curriculum delivery for children with special educational needs in mainstream schools demonstrated already in 1988 that schools which put this principle into practice were likely to be more effective in moving towards inclusion (Evans et al 1988). One of the main implications of the critique of the current system of education set out in the previous section, is that the flexibility required for inclusion means that the rigidities of schools and the way they operate have to be overcome. It is only on this basis that it will be possible to achieve the de-coupling of stigma from diversity, and to make flexibility an entitlement. It is evident that, for this to occur, demands a major shift in the attitudes of pupils, school staff and parents in valuing the individual child and young person.

These kinds of argument have, of course, to recognise that the changes envisaged have to be developed over time - if only to accommodate the current general cynicism of the teaching profession. One may acknowledge the plea of those who want to push for full inclusion at the earliest moment and claim that nothing less than a radical change towards mainstreaming is the only way to achieve such a transformation in perception. However, others are concerned that under the present circumstances, this will turn some children into 'sacrificial lambs' on the altar of inclusion as some SENCOs have asserted (Wedell 2002). This is also the argument put forward by Baroness Warnock.

 

Figure 2 is an attempt to offer a framework within which the two main factors involved in valuing pupils as individuals can be approached in the context of education.

 

Curricular expectations

Pupil diversity	skills	knowledge	understanding	attitudes
		Matrix 2

 

Figure 2.

 

This matrix refers to the interaction between the concept of pupil diversity, and the concept of the curriculum. The latter is set out in terms of the main domains within the concept of the curriculum.

 

The understanding of the nature of diversity was already a major issue in the Warnock Committee's enquiry started in 1974. The disavowal of categorisation, and the promotion of the concept of the continuum of need has formed the basis of discussion about diversity ever since. The concept of diversity has also been an issue in drawing up the two successive versions of the Code of Practice. The second version (DfES 2001) moved on to formulating four main areas of function:

- communication and interaction,

- cognition and learning,

- behaviour, emotional and social development,

- sensory and / or physical needs.

and so avoids any implications of categorisation. Unfortunately the recent attempt to use schools' Pupil Level Annual Schools Census arrangements already misuses these dimensions through the attempt to categorise children for the purposes of data collection.

 

Lewis and Norwich (1999) have proposed a conceptualisation of the diversity of pupils' learning needs which serves the aims of inclusion very well. They propose three types of need:

- needs which are common to all (eg motivation)

- needs which are common to some, but not to others (eg hearing impairment)

- needs which are unique to an individual (eg complex needs).

This model recognises that an individual child may have needs which fall into each of the three types. The first type of need obviously comes within the responsibility of all teachers. The next two demand increasing varieties and levels of expertise, and this illustrates the way in which provision for inclusion could progressively become integral to education systems. The analysis shows that the scope for effective inclusion is very much dependent on advances in overcoming the rigidities mentioned in the previous section - quite apart from the attitudinal progress in valuing individual pupils.

 

Just as the consideration of pupil diversity represents a new point of departure in conceptualising educational provision, so the reconsideration of the curriculum and its aims has also to start from a new direction. The reasons for this were indicated in the quotation from the RSA mentioned above, which addressed the issue of relevance. The Government's Every Child Matters paper has provided a surprisingly unacknowledged input on aims through its formulations of the intended outcomes of integrated children's services. The paper proposes five outcomes: that children and young people should:

- be healthy,

- stay safe,

- enjoy and achieve,

- make a positive contribution, and

- achieve economic well-being.

In so far as education services are now to be integrated with the other services of the Children's Directorates, these outcomes presumably also constitute the aims of education. As yet, there has been little or no discussion about how each school is intended to include the five outcomes within its annual School Improvement Plan, but they will presumably now be key criteria in the Joint Area Review inspections .

There have been a number of initiatives to review the curriculum in the light of concerns about relevance. The RSA, in response to its concerns mentioned earlier, initiated a new approach to the curriculum called 'Opening Minds'. This is based on the importance of what it terms 'competences', which should be a priority outcome promoted through the way that the informational content of the curriculum is presented. The competences are listed as: learning, citizenship, relating to people, and managing information. The approach has been piloted in seven secondary schools (RSA 2003). The findings indicate that pupils' achievement in the competences is significant and that the current National Curriculum levels are maintained as well. The schools using this curricular approach are also adapting their pedagogical methods and are producing very positive attitudes to learning among the pupils, and to teaching among the teachers. One of the most significant outcomes appears to be a dramatic reduction in behaviour problems among pupils.

 

The emphasis on the pupil's awareness of the capacity to learn is also advocated by Claxton (2002), who focuses on what he terms 'learning power'. These approaches attempt to meet the learning needs of children and young people in the 21^st Century. It is argued that the burgeoning of information, and the ease of access provided by ICT, has put a premium on the capacity to manage information which is considered to be as crucial as the acquisition of it. Similarly, the rate of change in the economy is rapidly reducing the availability of jobs-for-life, and so making the capacity for adaptability and motivation to learn essential. Industry and commerce are demanding these capacities. So the concerns which are very familiar within special needs education are now being regarded as crucial within the wider sphere of education. Of particular importance is the finding that these kinds of foci in education are having a significant impact on children's self-esteem, and consequently on the reduction of behaviour problems. Hopefully, the current enquiry on how to deal with behaviour problems in schools will recognise the potential impact of these approaches to the curriculum. They have obvious relevance to enhancing schools' capacity to make a positive contribution to inclusion.

 

Curricular reform has, of course, also to include a new approach to assessment. It is evident from the discussion in the previous section that the innovative curriculum approaches illustrated above challenge current assessment approaches. For example, it is accepted that the competences included in the RSA curriculum lend themselves to formative rather than summative approaches. The curriculum emphasises the value of collaborative learning, a point also stressed in the government's pamphlet on Personalising Learning (DfES 2004c) The competences involved are most relevantly manifested in peer group situations, and these challenge current methods of individual assessment. If these competences are regarded as valid, problems of assessing them evidently are there to be overcome.

 

 

WHAT SYSTEMIC CHANGES MIGHT LEAD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH RESPONSIVENESS, AND CONSEQUENTLY BEGIN TO RESOLVE THE DILEMMAS?

It is probably appropriate to stress again at this point in the argument, that I am very aware of the current cynicism among schools staff about exhortations for further change in the education system. This faces one with the dilemma that making proposals for change itself evokes a negative response. The main justification for my argument so far, has been that there is already a wide-spread concern about the problems in implementing inclusion, coinciding with a growing awareness that the current system of education is itself failing to prepare young people for their adult lives. My main concern so far has been to stress that if progress is to be made towards inclusion, then there has to be a realistic facing up to the changes which are required over the longer term. The members of the SENCO Forum made the following statement in their response to the consultation on the government's proposals for the Special Needs Action Plan:

'If the aims of inclusive education are to be realised, schools have to provide a much higher level of flexibility in the way that learning and teaching take place. Schools have to achieve an ethos which decouples the stigma associated with individual needs from the implementation of inclusive practice.' (SENCO Forum 2003)

The following discussion will focus on the scope to increase flexibility in educational provision in the future - to meet the individual needs of pupils in general, and consequently to increase the potential of mainstream provision to meet the special educational needs of pupils. Much of the discussion will relate to instances of innovatory policy and practice which have the potential for scaling up towards achieving progress on inclusion. It is obviously a moot point as to whether such goals are likely to be acceptable within future socio-political scenarios, and the companion seminar paper will deal with this issue. If the goals are indeed accepted, then progress towards them will inevitably be gradual. However, it will be apparent that the concept of a school and its organisation will itself also progressively alter, with the result that the contexts which lead to distinctions between inclusion and segregation are likely to dissolve.

Nature and levels of expertise

 

Varieties of pupil groupings and locations

 

 

 

Teaching

and learning approaches

 

Matrix 3

 

Figure 3

 

The previous two sections of this paper have indicated that developments have to occur in the implementation of at least three main features of educational provision - teaching-learning approaches, the nature and levels of expertise, and the variety of pupil groupings and locations. These three features are again presented in the form of a matrix in figure 3 (previous page), to emphasise the inter-relationship between them in practice.

 

Teaching - learning approaches. The importance of teaching - learning approaches has certainly come to the fore in the present government's emphasis on 'personalising' learning. A recent conference on the future role of teachers run by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA 2004) speculated on the likely future functions of teachers in 2020. One of the underlying issues was the changing emphasis in teacher roles from transmitting curricular content to supporting and facilitating learning. This is not a new issue, but is one which the knowledge revolution now pushes to the fore, because of the wider scope for independent access by learners to information particularly through ICT. Similarly, the kinds of curriculum innovation mentioned in the previous section require a different relationship between teachers and pupils. These conceptions of teaching also recognise the active role of the learner, and the importance of acknowledging this in ensuring the learner's motivation. This point about the interaction of the teacher and learner is graphically made in figure 4, which a Dutch colleague Luc Stevens taught me many years ago.

Student

Task

 

Teacher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4

 

The challenge is to be able to see the orientation of the model as reversible - facing towards or away from the teacher. The purpose of the figure is to illustrate whether the triangle in the middle, representing what the child is learning, is seen from the perspective of the learner or the teacher. In other words, it poses the question whether teachers have the flexibility to see the learning task through the eyes of the individual learner - and to modify their teaching approach accordingly. It has often been said that the effective teaching and learning which goes on in special needs education just reflects good practice in teaching. A recent government-funded review of research findings was aimed at discovering whether there was a fundamental difference between special needs approaches, and educational approaches in general (Davis and Florian 2004). The researches concluded that:

'questions about whether there is a separate special education pedagogy are unhelpful... the more important agenda is about how to develop a pedagogy that is inclusive of all learners'.

However, they also found, not surprisingly, that some 'access' aspects of need did involve some differences, for example in the case of hearing impaired pupils. These issues have been extensively considered by Norwich and Lewis (in press 2005). They introduce the concepts of continua of 'deliberateness and intensity' of pedagogic practice. Wedell (1995) has stressed the higher levels of understanding of both the nature of child and adolescent development, and of learning processes which teachers have to apply in responding to greater difficulties in learning among pupils. Teachers have to know what determines learning at different ages, and in different circumstances, and they also need to be able to use the evidence of pupils' response to decide how and when they should alter their teaching approaches. Pollard and James (2004) in their critique of the government's Personalised Learning policy comment that too little has been said about the challenge posed to professional training, but it is good to find that a start is being made in one initial teacher training programme (Golder et al 2005).

 

The curriculum developments mentioned in the previous section also focus on the importance of collaborative learning among pupils, and the teacher's role in promoting this. Furthermore, many schools already extend this practice by encouraging peer support in meeting pupils' learning needs - both among same-age pupils, and in arranging for older pupils to support learning in younger ones. Some schools have also developed peer counselling among pupils, to cover a variety of personal difficulties including bullying. Now that schools will be taking note of the wider aims included in the Five Outcomes promoted within the Every Child Matters policy, there will need to be a greater emphasis on pupils taking responsibility for their peers. These approaches are likely to make a major contribution to schools' capacity to respond to individual needs and more generally to promote pupils' role in enhancing social cohesion.

 

Another main resource in children's and young people's learning which has been stressed in special needs education - and increasingly in education generally, is the contribution of parents (eg Wolfendale 1997). She has pointed out that the 'equivalent expertise' which parents bring through their knowledge of their children over time, should be acknowledged and utilised by teachers and other professionals who have contact with them. There has long been a concern that teachers should involve parents in the process of their children's learning at school, and indeed to link this with the learning that goes on at home. Needless to say, this becomes even more important with respect to children and young people with special educational needs, where teachers need all the help they can get in extending their responsiveness. It has also been recognised that collaboration between schools and pupils' families is an essential element in achieving a level of mutual understanding which can make a major contribution to the prevention of behaviour problems.

 

There are no doubt many teachers for whom the above developments already constitute a part of their learning-teaching approaches. However, the full scope of these practices certainly represent a major change in roles. They not only demand the high level of understanding of learning processes mentioned above, but also management and inter-personal skills. In particular, there is the issue of the balance between these functions, and teachers' role in the transmission of information. The scenarios considered in the TTA discussions (TTA ) point to the likely development of teachers' roles towards becoming 'Learning Mentors' who help and direct pupils in their study, particularly through the use of ICT resources.

Sutherland (2004) refers to research into children's and young people's scope to gather information through computers at home, and McLean (McLean 2005), points up the repertoire which ICT can offer to match the learning styles of individual children. In whatever way this balance in teacher function develops, it is very clear that the increased demands made on them will require more time for thinking and planning. However, the comment that the workforce reform policies will leave teachers time to 'do what they are best at - teaching' hardly begins to acknowledge what 'teaching' may entail.

 

The nature and levels of expertise.

In special needs education, it has long been recognised that pupils' progress can only be achieved if there is effective collaboration between teachers, other education support staff and other professionals. This point is also reflected in the government's paper 'Removing Barriers to Achievement' which stresses the need for teachers to work with professionals in other services. It is also relevant to the Government's Workforce Reform policies, which have lead to the extensive employment of teaching assistants. Learning Support Assistants have of course long been employed within the provision specified in Statements.

 

Working out the most effective ways to capitalise on collaboration between the varieties and levels of expertise involved however presents an on-going challenge. An attempt to develop a single framework for a children's workforce is represented in the current consultation on a Children's Workforce Strategy (DFES 2005) Several government departments are also involved in this enterprise to 'improve the outcome of the governments' investment in professional services to the public' (Wells, C, 2005) The Strategy makes a number of proposals. These range from a consideration of a profession prevalent in continental Europe of 'social pedagogue', to devising a nine-level scheme of qualifications which can be applied to all staff involved. It is not my intention in this paper to evaluate the scope of this strategy, apart from recognising the scale of this future endeavour. There is no doubt that working towards the quality of collaboration which is being sought depends on developing a mutual understanding of the respective roles and functions of all those providing support for individual children. Working on the organisation of our local Education Action Zone, my colleagues and I were constantly concerned to match the nature and level of service expertise to the particular patterns of children and young persons' learning needs. Inevitably this was often more dependent on the personal qualities of the individual staff member, than on a formal level of qualification or service label.

 

The government's Extended Schools policy specifies the setting up of 'Full Service Schools', with a co-location of different services. This brings teachers into partnership with a range of other professionals. From an efficiency point of view, the co-location of relevant agencies means that teachers will be able to share the demands which pupils' individual needs present. Consequently, these kinds of developments have the potential for increasing schools' capacity to meet a wider range of individual pupil needs, but they also imply a very different concept of a school. It is well-known that the quality of collaboration involved in this kind of arrangement cannot just be achieved by diktat. A review of the relevant literature (Warmington et al 2004) has indicated the complex nature of the mutual understanding which has to be developed if the interaction involved is to become both effective and efficient. One example of this challenge will be in achieving a common understanding of the respective professional roles in promoting the Five Outcomes proposed in the Every Child Matters policy with regard to schools' conception of their curricular aims. Another challenge with respect to meeting the more particular needs of individual pupils is implementating the Common Assessment Framework which aims to provide a framework for identifying and meeting children and young people's needs within and across services.

 

It is evident that this dimension of the Matrix is currently a major topic of the government's attention, linked to the 'Every Child Matters' policy. It is hardly surprising that the implementation of these policies is perceived as initiating a huge change in the context of education services in the future. The Extended Schools policy certainly leads potentially to a very different conceptualisation of the role and function of schools, and to the management of provision at all levels.

 

Grouping and location of learning. Flexibility of pupil grouping, to match learner needs and the demands of the curriculum is clearly at the heart of progress towards inclusion. This matching will apply to all pupils and will vary for individuals across a range of purposes. Consequently, if this is carried out within an over-riding ethos where all children and young people are valued as individuals, it becomes possible to decouple grouping from stigma, and so to overcome one of the major dilemmas about inclusion. For example, Dyson et al (2004) found that schools with good levels of academic achievement and which were regarded as inclusive, did not necessarily adopt a rigid regime of in-class inclusion.

 

Flexibility of grouping and location of teaching and learning can be envisaged both within a school of the future, and across schools and other locations. Within schools, grouping should be dependent on curricular demands and pupil needs. Both large and small groupings can serve their function. For example, it has been widely recognised that tutor group sessions can become one of the main activity times which have the objective of creating positive inclusive attitudes. Unfortunately, tutor times are often not allocated the status they deserve within the aims of the broad curriculum, and consequently in the schools' timetables. As indicated above, small group teaching and learning, if seen as opportunities for flexibility rather than exclusion, does not need to evoke a perception of segregation. Reports on the SENCO Forum indicated that rigid in-class inclusion sometimes makes it very difficult to offer pupils the intensity of support they need to make accelerated progress. It can be argued that this is just a sign that classroom activities have not been sufficiently differentiated. But it can also be seen as an indication that grouping as a whole has not been sufficiently organised to match learner needs with particular curriculum objectives. For example, support to provide accelerated progress in basic skills such as literacy and numeracy may well be most effectively carried out in small groups of children at similar levels. On the other hand, supporting pupils to take part in oral activities on topics and in project work is correspondingly best achieved within larger groupings. Furthermore, within the aims of workforce remodelling, it may well be best for the teacher to take time to focus on the particular learning needs of those pupils who need additional support, while the teaching assistant, or another teacher in a team-teaching context, support a larger grouping of the remaining pupils within the teachers' objectives for the session. Quite apart from ensuring that the skill levels of the staff are appropriately allocated, such an arrangement illustrates how status can be ascribed to small group work, in order to avoid stigma. Research on the views of pupils with special needs (Norwich and Narcie 2004) shows that they do not necessarily oppose withdrawal help, their preferences seem to be much more expediential.

 

The OFSTED criticisms of current attempts at inclusion mentioned in the first section of this paper indicate that flexibility in timetabling and grouping are essential for extending schools' scope to be inclusive. Leadbeater () cites schools which are regarded as being at the forefront of personalised learning where the whole organisation of the education offered to pupils at any time is based on analysing the match between the purposes of the curriculum and the individual learning needs of pupils. This can clearly be seen as the organisational goal towards which the above description of practice is aimed. Here again, it has to be said that such practice is far from the prevalent approaches to school management.

 

There are signs of increased flexibility in collaboration among schools. In rural areas where primary schools are small, there are already examples of extensive collaboration. Schools have formed clusters, or formed pyramids with their local secondary school. There are arrangements for children within particular age groups in the various primary schools to come together - or to join with pupils in the early secondary school years to extend the scope of activities which can be offered. The scope offered by these forms of collaboration also question the need for large schools at primary or secondary level, with all the behaviour and other associated problems found.

 

Cooperation between schools has for some years taken place to extend the support which they can offer to pupils with special educational needs (Evans et al). This has taken a variety of forms, including the shared employment of support staff such as Special Needs Coordinators. Evans et al (1999) cite an instance where, within a pyramid grouping, the secondary school contributed to the funding of special needs support in the participating primary schools, in order to ensure that pupils made good progress before transition. The extent to which these collaborative arrangements have depended on the initiative of the participating schools, or on Local Education Authorities varies. The research found that there has to be a well-judged balance between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' initiatives. Similarly, the preservation of collaboration also requires a similar balance. It is important to emphasise this, in the light of the current trend to reduce the role of local authorities as mentioned earlier.

 

The move to go beyond the concept of the 'stand-alone' school is also reflected in developments which link mainstream and special schools. Within a general progress towards inclusion, there is clearly a stage where the capacity of mainstream schools is insufficient to meet the whole range of children's and young people's special needs. Such a statement is obviously contested by some. However, the House of Lords debate following Mary Warnock's recent pamphlet, mentioned at the start of this paper, is only one indication that both expediency and the right-to-choice considerations will maintain special schools for some time to come. Consequently, it is clearly desirable that the role and function of special schools is planned to offer appropriate complementarity to mainstream special needs resources in respective areas, and the Regional Partnerships appear to offer coordination above the level of the LEA. If meeting the needs of children and young people is to be secured, the economies of scale require planning at that level.

 

Collaboration between mainstream and special schools occurs in a wide variety of ways. One form is represented by the outreach support from special schools mentioned by OFSTED (2005). Location of special schools on a mainstream school campus, or even the location of a special 'school' within a larger mainstream school provides opportunities for shared expertise and facilities - and so a stepping-stone towards inclusion. Collaboration between special and mainstream schools through the out-reach of specialist expertise from the former, and through the sharing of facilities on the part of the latter, can avoid a hermetic separation between both forms of provision.

 

Capitalising on resources for education generally also has to include flexibility in location of learning outside schools. Hargreaves (2001) indicated:

'We need to forge new links between the curriculum for teaching that guides what is done in schools...and the curriculum for learning, by which each individual shapes an agenda for a life-long education that includes only some of the time in formal educational institutions.....We need to learn far more about how people learn in natural and authentic situations.'

Some of the various projects within the government's Extended Schools Policy are examples of how opportunities for flexibility are being used for learning and development to be offered in a wider range of settings. Out-of-school activities can, for example, be designed to provide experiences which amplify learning in school. Consequently there does not necessarily have to be the distinction which Hargreaves draws between learning at school and elsewhere. Project work can involve out-of-school activity in the locality, and indeed provide the 'authentic situations' which Hargreaves mentions. Breakfast and after-school clubs make a major contribution to achieving the Five Outcomes of the 'Every Child Matters' Strategy. Collaboration between schools and colleges emphasises the importance that schools see themselves as a part of the local learning community. Some of the Extended School provision also enables adults to use the school's facilities for learning, often through the use of schools' ICT facilities. These offer opportunities for adults and children and young people to learn side by side, and so encourage continuing learning among young people.

 

The foregoing indicates how the scope for flexibility in the variety of pupil groupings and locations of learning can have a significant impact on the scope for achieving inclusion in mainstream schools, and so begin to make the distinction between inclusion and segregation irrelevant.

 

CONCLUSION

In this paper I have reviewed the increasing awareness that the rigidities of the current education system is not serving the education and development of many children and young people in general, and by extension, many of those with special educational needs. I have argued that these circumstances by extension militate against the realisation of inclusion. Many of the current government's proposals for change have the potential to increase the requisite flexibility within the system, and so to allow greater responsiveness to individual needs. The policies promote the values which underlie a quest for inclusion, and justify the necessary balance between the mutual accommodation and assimilation of the system and the individual.

 

However, flexibility places much greater onus on the decision-making capacity of the professionals and others involved. This flexibility in decision-making demands a grasp of conceptual frameworks on the basis of which the decisions can be validated. The section of the paper dealing with the understanding of the issues underlying curriculum and the diversity of individual need illustrate two important areas within which a grasp of relevant conceptual frameworks is required. An understanding of the issues underlying cross-service collaboration is another important area mentioned. The need for these and other areas of understanding have not been adequately acknowledged in the policies proposed. Pollard and James (2004) make this point in their critique of the proposals for personalised learning. For example, they show that some of the projects within the ESRC-funded research programme on teaching and learning are establishing rationales for some of the relevant issues. The conceptual frameworks will also have to become an essential component of the training required for professionals and others.

 

The present government's policies certainly offer an encouraging context within which relevant conceptual frameworks for future services for children - including education services - need to be applied. Correspondingly the arguments for overcoming the dilemmas posed by the quest for inclusion will have to be soundly grounded, if they are to be resilient to the vagaries of some of the socio-political scenarios which will be discussed at our seminar.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Audit Commission (2002) Special educational needs: a mainstream issue, London:

Audit Commission

Beare H, (2001) Creating the future school, London: Routledge Falmer.

Claxton G, (2002) Building learning power, Bristol: TLO Ltd.

Davis P, and Florian L, (2004) Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with

special educational needs: a scooping study: Research report 516, London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Department for Education and Skills (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of

Practice, London: DfES

Department for Education and Skills (2003), Every child matters, Annesley, DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (2004a), Removing Barriers to Achievement,

Annesley, DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (2004b), Five year strategy for children and

learners, Cmd 6272, London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Department for Education and Skills (2004c) A national conversation about

personalised learning; Annesley: DfES.

DFES (2005), Children's Workforce Strategy - a strategy to build a world-class

workforce for children and young people, Annesley: DFES.

Department of Media, Culture and Sport (1999), All our futures: creativity culture and

education (Report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education), London: DCMS.

Dyson A (2001), 'Special needs in the twenty-first century: where we've been and

where we're going', British Journal of Special Education, 28, (1), 24-29

Education, Science and Arts Committee (1986-7) Special Education Needs: the

Implementation of the Education Act 1981, London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Evans, J, Lunt I, Wedell K, Dyson A (1999) Collaborating for effectiveness, Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Evans P, Ireson J, Redmond P, and Wedell K, (1988) Curriculum research for pupils

with moderate learning difficulties, Final Report to the Department for Education and Science: Project Report No. MLD (87) 2, London: DES.

Gallagher, C (2005) Designing a curriculum for the 21^st Century, in: QCA: Futures -

meeting the challenge: www.qca.org.uk/futures

Golder G, Norwich B, and Bayliss PD (2005) Preparing teachers to teach pupils with

special educational needs in more inclusive schools: evaluating a PGCE development. British Journal of Special Education, 32 (2) 92-99.

Hansard (2005a): July 14^th Column 1265 et seq. www.parliament.uk/hansard/

hansard.cfm

Hansard (2005): July 14^th Column 1306 et seq. www.parliament.uk/hansard/

hansard.cfm

Hargreaves, D H (2001) Speech at RSA/SHA conference: Opening minds, increasing

opportunities: the future of the school curriculum.

Hargreaves, D H (2004) Learning for life, Bristol: Policy Press.

Hartley, D (2003), New economy, new pedagogy? Oxford Review of Education 29

(1) 81- 94

Hopkins, D (2005): Why can't every school be a great school? Times Educational

Supplement July 1^st, p1.

Leadbeater, C (2005) The shape of things to come: personalised learning through

collaboration, Annesley: DfES

Lewis A, and Norwich B, (1999) Mapping a pedagogy for special educational needs,

Research Intelligence, 69, 6-8

McLeann N, (2005), Personalised learning: ICT enabling universal access in: QCA,

Futures - meeting the challenge, www.qca.org.uk/futures

Milliband, D (2004) Speech at DfES, DEMOS, OECD conference: Choice and voice

in personalised learning.

Myers, K (2005) Do we still need schools? In: QCA 2005: Futures - meeting the

challenge: www.qca.org.uk/futures

Norwich B and Lewis A (2005) How specialised is teaching children with disabilities

and difficulties? Paper submitted to Journal of Curriculum Studies

Norwich B, and Narcie K, (2004) Pupils' views on inclusion: moderate learning

difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools, British Educational Research Journal 30 (1) 59-64.

Office for Standards in Education (2004) Special educational needs and disability:

towards inclusive schools, London: OFSTED.

Office for Standards in Education (2005): Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and

outreach services (HMI 2452) London: OFSTED

Pollard A and James M (eds) (2004) Personalised Learning: a commentary by the

Teaching and Learning Research Programme, TLRP and ESRC.

Pugach M C (1995) On the failure of imagination in inclusive schooling, Journal of

Special Education, 29 2 212-23

Royal Society for the Arts (2002) Opening Minds: project update, London: RSA

Royal Society for the Arts (2003) Opening minds: taking stock, London: RSA.

SENCO Forum (2003), Response to the consultation on the DfES Special Educational

Needs Action Programme.

Sutherland, R (2004) InterActive education: teaching and learning in the information

age, in: Pollard A and James M (eds) (2004) Personalised Learning: a commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, TLRP and ESRC.

Teacher Training Agency (2004) ITE Futures Conference, http://itefutures.tta.gov.uk

UNESCO (1994), The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special

needs education, Paris: UNESCO

Warmington P, Daniels H, Edwards, A, Brown S, Leadbetter J, Martin D, Middleton D

(2004) Interagency collaboration: a review of the literature, Learning in and for interagency working, TLRP/ ESRC.

Warnock, M (2005) Special educational needs: a new look. Impact no.11 Philosophy

of Education Society of Great Britain.

Wedell K (1993), Special Education: the next 25 years. National Commission on

Education Briefing No. 14, London: National Commission on Education.

Wedell, K (1995a), Making inclusive education ordinary, British Journal of Special

Education, 22, (3) 100 - 104

Wedell, K (1995) Putting the Code of Practice into practice, London: Institute of

Education.

Wedell, K (2002), Points from the SENCO Forum: 'All teachers should be teachers for

special needs' - but is it yet possible? British Journal of Special Education, 29, (3) 151

Wedell K, (2004), Points from the SENCO Forum: Supporting pupils with special

educational needs across the primary-secondary transition, British Journal of Special Education, 31 (3) 163

Wells, C, 2005, quoted in: AEP/NAEIAC 2005, Conference Report

Wolfendale S, (1997) Partnership with parents in action, Tamworth: NASEN.

 

 

 

Future schooling that includes children with SEN / disability: a scenario planning approach

 

Brahm Norwich and Ingrid Lunt

 

Introduction and background

This paper describes the project which was undertaken by the SEN Policy Options group to examine policy options relevant to the education of children and young people with SEN/disabilities. The Group has been in existence as a network of people interested in policy and practice issues in this field - senior teachers, advisors, local Government officers, officers of national agencies, academic, researchers and voluntary organisation officers - who have organised policy seminars for over 13 years and published 16 policy papers. The future schooling project arose from the wish to try a different approach to the usual format of twice yearly afternoon seminars in which invited people presented papers on relevant policy and practice topics and the invited participants discussed the arising issues intensively in small groups.

 

Over the last decade the seminars have re-visited some topics several times, such as additional resourcing for SEN/disability. Other recent topics have been the 14-19 curriculum developments, support services for inclusion, inclusive developments, (insert other areas). It has taken 18 months from the Steering group decision to embark on the "future schools" project to the production of this paper. In this paper we describe the process and stages of the projects, the outcomes and some commentary on their significance.

 

The spur for the project was the wider interest and use of future scenario planning and its recent application to public services, beyond its origins in the commercial-industrial sector[1]. What was promising about scenario planning was not that it would be prescient about the future, but that it gives more than a statistical measure of a possible future; it can give a sense of what it will feel like in that future. It has the potential to improve strategic thinking by considering multiple possible futures, and in so doing it promises to enhance flexibility and adaptability. Scenario planning has been likened to "remembering the future", though "the stories woven by the scenario planners revolve around a question or problem"[2]. Another advocate of the approach has described it as a discipline for "creative foresight in the contexts of accelerated change, greater complexity and genuine uncertainty."[3]

Having decided to adopt a scenario planning approach, we were pleased to find that it had already been used for futures in the education service, by the Teacher Training Agency, the DfES and by the OECD. For example, the CERI-OECD[4] exercise produced six scenarios based on three main categories: i. attempting to maintain the status quo, ii. re-schooling and iii. de-schooling. There are two scenarios in each of these categories:

i. Attempting to maintain the status quo

a. bureaucratic school systems continue

b. teacher exodus - meltdown scenario

 

ii. Re-schooling

a. schools as core social centres

b. schools as focussed learning organisations

iii. De-schooling.

a. Learning networks and the network society

b. Extending the market model.

 

It was clear that these exercises were useful in considering future options for the school system in general terms, though not from the perspective of SEN/disability, and in terms of the continuing political and economic agendas about equality, markets and diversity. So the plan was to focus the futures project on scenarios which arose from these considerations.

Workshop objectives and methods

The aim of the workshop was to explore the scope for an educational response to two different socio-political scenarios, as a basis for evolving the Group's view of the issues around meeting the needs of those requiring special educational approaches. The workshop tools that were used were similar to many employed in scenario-building. In this case the tools are almost exclusively those that are employed in industry. The Group consisted of the members of the Policy Options Steering Group and some invited participants - see appendix for participant list. It took place in a residential conference centre where work began from the afternoon of the first day and carried on till the afternoon of the next day. The group facilitator was Dr Barry Mills, who has a background in business strategy planning, in the development and management of operational performance improvement programmes and in change management. His methods derive from Columbia Business School (Don Hambrick and Peter Tushman) and have since been developed in interaction with many workshop groups for for-profit organisations. After discussions about the applicability of industry-based techniques to this situation with the Policy Options planning group, it was agreed that the 'top end' of his toolset, which is concerned with basic strategy formulation and visioning, was appropriate to this situation. In his view, it would be applicable to a Government style White Paper analysis and drafting processes in any sector.

 

The plan for the workshop was to develop and evaluate two possible ways forward for schools and learning. These represented quite different scenarios. Of course there were many other possibilities, but it was hoped that the choices of the two bases, upon which to focus and build, would enable many issues to be explored and would subsequently allow interpolation and inform the future consideration of other alternatives. The aim of the workshop was to create knowledge-based scenarios through the participation of informed stakeholders. In the case of the actual workshop, the process was undertaken twice and then the two alternatives compared.

 

To initiate the process, the workshop group was offered, sequentially, two basic models of scenarios and was then invited to complete a description of these scenarios, in the form of societal, political and educational aspects. These scenarios could be considered as areas on a two dimensional map as a basis from which to consider the scope for polarised scenarios, against which then to explore teaching and learning conditions for optimal delivery.

 

The map had two axes, a horizontal axis that ran from State Decisions (left) to Parental Decisions (right). An intersecting vertical axis ran from Differentiation (top) to Commonality (bottom). Two socio-political contexts were envisaged: one in the top right quartile was labelled Choice and Diversity and the other in the lower left, Inclusive Citizenship.

 

There was considerable discussion at the start of the workshop around how meaningful these definitions were and concerning the possibility of paradoxical characteristics. It was decided that better names could be applied: 'state decisions' was replaced by 'centralism / top downism' and 'parental decisions' was replaced by 'distributed decisions/self determined decisions. For the vertical axis, 'differentiation' was replaced by 'diversification' and 'commonality' was replaced by 'universal entitlement'. The final version of the axes with the two starting scenarios is represented in figure 1 below.

 

Figure 1: Dimensions for scenario identifying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Universal entitlement

 

 

 

 

 

These scenarios which represented two quite different but plausible outcomes of the interplay between possible social and political developments were then used as the units of further speculation and analysis, before a consideration of the implications for schooling and learning. The two scenarios were then elaborated in terms of the following general social, economic and political aspects:

1. Finance for basic welfare/education services

2. State/public and private sector roles

3. Culture/user behaviour

4. Organisational development

5. Provision variations

The next stage involved using these features to explore the characteristics of education systems and learning which the group believed would best perform in the scenarios, as described. That is, how best could school educational systems operate and learning be achieved, given the opportunities and constraints which result from each scenario? This assumed that the basic value systems persisted throughout the socio-political changes. This task was approached in terms of the question: "if we woke up this morning and found that ..... what would we do?"

 

To articulate these points, the group developed a set of 'vision statements' which, between them, described as fully as possible the future characteristics which would ensure delivery of the subject scenario. To facilitate the process, the group was offered 10 statement headings, for possible adoption. In discussing the content and wording of these, the group agreed on the following 10.

1. Workforce / skills.

2. Content of learning.

3. Teaching and Learning (Pedagogy).

4. Organisational Structures.

5. Funding.

6. Partnerships / Relationships.

7. Accountability (including Stakeholders)

8. Assessment.

9. Learners.

10. Admissions

 

For clarity, the group was asked to phrase the statements in the present tense, as if they were now true. Workshop members were also asked to provide some 'metrics' or criteria for the statements, which could subsequently be used to monitor their delivery. This process of deriving the 'metrics' usually helps to better define the statements. To make best use of the time, the vision statements were addressed in two sub-groups, presenting back to each other. The final stage of the workshop was concerned with comparing and contrasting the two scenarios which had been developed. This identified commonalities and disparities. During the workshop, flipcharts, post-its, handwritten overheads were used to enable on-going discussion and spontaneity. These were collected and collated to form a written record of the workshop.

 

Outcomes of the workshop

There was about half an hour to review the outcomes at the end of the workshop. The flip chart records were subsequently written up by the facilitator and circulated to participants. Further email communications between participants through the Steering group's email network gave opportunities to review the outcomes. In concluding this review of the workshop outcomes, the authors decided to progress the project in these two ways:

1. to introduce new scenarios which would enable greater specification of the starting ones, and

2. to examine the significance of these elaborated scenarios for specific aspects of specific SEN/inclusion policy and practice.

 

The need for the first aim arose from a sense that the choice and diversity scenario was more difficult to formulate and that there was much variation within the group about what the vision statements would be like in this scenario. The need for the second aim arose from a sense that the group had spent an intensive period of work on general school system vision statements, but had not yet managed to deal with specific SEN / disability implications.

 

New and more specific scenarios

One way of doing this would be to introduce a third axis to enable the starting scenarios to be split into two scenarios. Another was to go back to the starting axes and identify one or two scenarios in the two empty quadrants. The latter seemed to be a more coherent way forward for the following reasons. The specification of the choice and diversity scenario was the one needing greater detail and perhaps splitting into two versions. Developing a third scenario which represented the pressures for diversification, but with more central controls, seemed to offer a means of doing this. This involved developing a scenario in the diversification/ centralism quadrant (see figure 2 below). The other empty quadrant (universal entitlement/distributed decisions) was not addressed as it seemed unlikely to provide a future scenario - one in which un-regulated individualised actions supported universal entitlements. So, it was decided to rename the initial choice and diversity scenario the extended choice and diversity scenario, to emphasise the more extensive focus on choice, while the new third scenario was named regulated choice and diversity, to emphasise the central state regulation of the exercise of choice.

 

Figure 2: Re-designing the scenarios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Universal entitlement

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specifying initial scenario and developing a new scenario

Further work was needed in elaborating the vision statements for the initial two scenarios in the context of a new third scenario. The workshop vision statements for the future school systems became the starting point for outlining each scenario in terms of 11 vision statements. Refining the initial two scenarios was done alongside the construction of the third scenario in terms of first the general features and then school system vision statements, with reference to the vision statements of the initial two scenarios.

 

Significance of scenarios for SEN and inclusion policy and practice

With reference to the general features of the three scenarios and their corresponding vision statements for the school system, the specific implications for SEN / inclusion policy and practice were derived in terms of vision statements in these areas:

 

1. Identification and areas of SEN

2. Curriculum and pedagogy

3. Additional resources

4. Legal and organisational basis for additional resource allocation

5. School specialisation including future of special schools

6. School admissions and exclusion

7. Internal school / centre organisation: grouping, settings, support

8. Raising standards

 

These further elaborations were done using a matrix to enable cross-referencing between the three scenarios and the various vision statement areas. The process also involved referencing back to the general social, economic and political features of the scenarios and the vision statements for the school systems to enable consistency in designing the scenario as far as possible. The descriptions in the cells of the matrix were the source of the following textual presentation of the three levels within each scenario.

 

Figure 3: Stages in building scenarios

 

General features of scenarios

 

Specifying scenarios of general school system

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specifying scenarios in terms of SEN/disability

 

 

 

 

Scenario outlines

Specifying general features of the scenarios

Scenario 1: Inclusive citizenship

Society is considered as a whole with a significant state role based on prescriptive and formulaic procedures. There is a minimal private sector role. Consensus building is a priority with a focus on the common good and a common culture ('same boat', 'fly the flag'). There are state sources (high tax base) to finance basic welfare and health services, and the state application of funds. People tend to be compliant to a democratic state. Users accept what is provided; there is a provider-led service ethos. Users assume responsibility is located with state and state authorities. Common institutions involve democratic accountabilities and a guiding principle is that provision variations are reduced to a minimum.

 

Scenario 2: Extended choice and diversity

The State acts as an enhanced broker in a market style system in which non-state providers respond to user preferences. The State only provides a 'safety-net' through limited use of vouchers. Individuals' income determines choice of provision, though this includes philanthropic support. The user acts as a consumer in the system with a low tax base. There is minimal control/prescription (the State is reactive and interactive rather than proactive and interventionist). It is based on an entrepreneuralism which leads to new models and viabilities (diverse provision). Diverse cultures, groupings and new alliances are welcomed. There is an individualism in which individuals exercise their preferences (based on principle of transfer of power to users) depending on private affordability in a system of competition between users for provision and providers for users. Change, flexibility, customisation are key priorities. Coordination and management involve flatter hierarchies and there are dispersed contenders for management roles. Wide variations in provisions are tolerated within broad and minimal national standards, which reflect socio-economic diversity.

 

Scenario 3: Regulated choice/diversity

The State leads and moderates the private and voluntary sector role. The State supports choice (e.g. vouchers with limits to use of private funds). There are limits to the use of individual income as financial sources; but some degree of mixing of private and state funds. The State has a counterbalancing role to redress negative impacts of market style outcomes and variations. Diverse cultures are encouraged within a loosely linked common culture. The State moderates user and provider competition. Authorities provide frameworks for organisations and their development with a priority for user participation for new developments. Diversity is only tolerated within specific national standards.

 

Specifying school system vision statements for the three scenarios

Scenario 1: Inclusive Citizenship

Content of learning: curriculum

A substantial broad curriculum content (with strong focus on cognitive and meta-cognitive aspects as well as social and citizenship aspects) is specified by the State. There is a blending of academic and work-related learning recognised in programmes for 14-16 year olds. The content is reviewed periodically in terms of Government and stakeholder interests. The State also monitors implementation through

inspection style formal quality assurance that focuses on educational centres achieving standards.

 

Learners

Learners have entitlement to a defined range of 'individualised' learning experiences from an agreed set of institutions, which will lead to a defined set of outcomes. Learners are consulted about their individual learning experiences. Every learner receives their entitlement with no age limit, a commitment to lifelong learning and with a strong institutional base.

 

Teaching and learning

The State determines what counts as appropriate teaching and learning with reliance on 'evidence informed' bases for these prescriptions (informed by practitioner perspectives as well). There is extensive use of state-developed ICT to support multi-pace differentiated teaching, learning and assessment. This scenario depends on an objectivist outcomes oriented pedagogy.

 

Organisations and structures

Every learner attends a local learning centre or school. Every centre aims to meet high quality standards set by the State. There are regional agencies within a national framework which are responsible for planning and continuity of learning sites. State school education is compulsory between 5-16 years, with formal monitoring of admission and attendance practices. The direct role for Local Government in education is confined to supporting school improvement within the national / regional system.

 

Admissions and exclusions

The State determines who goes to which school and the conditions under which children transfer. In this system the aim is that every child receives an appropriate learning programme in a school/learning centre setting where the intake reflects a mix of attainments and social backgrounds (the end to single sex, faith and independent schools).

 

Funding and resources including ICT, buildings

Resourcing is differentiated by analysis of need. A comprehensive model of need reflecting democratic accountability is in place. The level and focus of spending is prescribed and allocated through national formulae. Funding is used for intended purposes and this is monitored through the use of audit trails. Funding is no longer a Local Government role.

 

Accountability

The State prescribes the accountability mechanisms against standards, outcomes and processes (including a range of methodologies) are evaluated. A standards and external monitoring system is in place.

 

Assessment

All children are assessed against the range of nationally prescribed outcomes. A national summative and teacher based assessment framework is in place. The system of assessment takes account of learner differences and is fit for purpose. Teacher judgements are checked and corrected by comparison with a sampling of national test results and locality-based moderation.

 

Workforce skills

The workforce, including teachers and teaching assistants (TAs), is trained to national standards. It is deployed flexibly to meet the full range of learning needs. The State manages the workforce in terms of supply and meeting standards; learning centres do not have significant on-going staff vacancies.

 

Scenario 2: Extended choice and diversity

Content of learning: curriculum

Stakeholders, learners and their families determine the content of learning. Curriculum content reflects socio-economic, faith, regional, sectional and other differences. A general curriculum framework is specified by the State, which is confined to processes and procedures for curriculum design and review. The framework focuses on enabling children to identify their own learning needs and finding ways of meeting these. There are diverse curriculum development organisations (for profit and voluntary/charitable) as well as curriculum programme information and advice organisations.

 

Learners

Individual learning needs are identified through a process of giving learners as much autonomy and responsibility for their learning as possible. Learners have rights to participate in forming individual learning plans. They have access to a rich variety of learning paths, can access information and they are supported to make informed choices.

 

Teaching and learning

There is a range of teaching and learning opportunities available to enable learners and families to make an informed choice about preferred styles and centres of learning. There are flexible learner groupings, various sites for learning (including home and others, including work-related settings), a range of learning facilitators and modalities of learning (extensive use of privately developed ICT). This scenario depends on a learner centred self-determining pedagogy.

 

Organisations and structures

Every learner is required by the State to have an individual learning plan between ages 5-19 years. User groups (charities, voluntary organisations, commercial organisations, parent groups etc.) have a role in planning and providing continuity, quality and a range of learning opportunities/sites. The State specifies general procedures for school level management of all learning centres/ schools, all of which have charitable status.

 

Admissions and exclusions

All learners have rights to suitable learning opportunities that meet their individual needs and preferences. Providers are required to demonstrate fair entry and exclusion criteria and practices as possible, given their programme goals and children's learning characteristics.

 

Funding and resources including ICT, buildings

The level of funding is within the control of learners and their families, on the one hand, and commercial and voluntary organisations, on the other. Funds are also supplemented by the State in terms of minimum needs; a model of minimum need is in place in which State funds are channelled through voluntary and commercial organisations.

 

Accountability

Providers are expected to have clear academic, vocational and group/community standards that are expressed in terms of their own relevant outcomes. Users' decisions and preferences become the basis for local accountability systems.

 

Assessment

Assessment systems are diverse and correspond to individual educational programme routes. There is a general national assessment framework with principles (about a strong formative focus, for example) and procedures acting as exemplars, not requirements for dispersed local systems. Local, commercial, employer and university/training designed and managed assessment systems are in place.

 

Workforce skills

The workforce is drawn from a range of different backgrounds and professions and brings a range of different skills to the learning context within a quality assured system. Alternative frameworks have been developed for the supply of the workforce, including a community basis. Providers devise their own forms of quality assurance.

 

 

Scenario 3: Regulated choice and diversity

Content of learning: curriculum

There is a flexible common state specified core - with a focus on self-determined learning and social goals. There is scope for stakeholders, learners and families to specify content and orientation within a broad national framework. The State regulates alternative curriculum development and advisory organisations.

 

Learners

Individual learning needs are derived from continuous negotiations between state prescribed agendas and family and learner participation. There is a general and flexible national commitment to entitlements. Learners are consulted about learning needs but negotiate in forming plans with parents/teachers

 

Teaching and learning

There is general State guidance about 'appropriate' teaching-learning approaches and settings. There are extensive partnerships and negotiations between diverse educational organisations and providers about determining teaching approaches within guidelines that emphasise social goals. There are also partnerships about the extensive use of ICT. This scenario depends on a teacher-learner negotiated pedagogy.

 

Organisations and structures

The State requires every learner to have an individual learning plan (ages 5-19 years) which includes the provision required to meet learning goals. There is a mix of state maintained schools and non-State learning centres. More expensive non-state centres and schools are required to provide state funded studentships. Regional agencies monitor and regulate overall continuity and coverage of all provision. Local Government has a delegated role from regional agencies for all provision in their areas.

 

Admissions and exclusions

All learners have rights to suitable learning opportunities that meet their individual needs and preferences. The State requires that all providers do not discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and disability for entry/exclusion to provision.

 

Funding and resources including ICT, buildings

There are adequate common levels of funding that are set by State and the setting of these levels are informed by a semi-independent agency. Provision of funding comes from mix of sources - State, commercial and voluntary organisation partnerships, with State contributing a significant proportion. There are limits to the use of individual income as financial sources; but some degree of mixing of private and state funds.

 

Accountability

Specific standards are set locally by providers within the prescribed general standards framework. Internal monitoring and evaluation by providers is the basis for accountability systems with users' decisions and preferences taken into account.

 

Assessment

Assessment systems relate to the diversity of local educational provision/routes. But, they have also to conform to the general centrally prescribed common framework of summative assessment (with clearly defined social and learning to learn outcomes). Taking account of learner differences in assessment is a national requirement.

 

Workforce skills

There are national standards for entry and preparation of workforce. This includes flexibilities about non-teacher groups involved in provision. The workforce supply and quality assurance are coordinated by national agency.

 

Specifying scenarios for SEN and inclusion policy and practice

The next and final stage used the vision statements of the three school system scenarios to examine how key aspects of special needs and inclusive education policy and practice will operate under these different scenarios, taking the future as the period between 2015-2020.

 

Scenario 1: Inclusive Citizenship

Identification and areas of SEN

There has been a significant reduction in identification of those having educationally recognised disabilities from 16% in 2005 to about 5-6% in 2020. The SEN concept has been abandoned and has been replaced by a tighter definition of educational disability defined in national terms. The MLD and SEBD terms have also been abandoned; yet a minority of children, previously described in these terms, are now identified in new educational disability dimensions, with specific national operational definitions. The rest in these categories have merged into the spectrum of children with differing abilities and attainments.

 

Curriculum and pedagogy

The substantial broad national common curriculum (with strong cognitive and meta-cognitive focus) applies to all learners, except those in the profound and multiple learning disabilities range of achievements, who have an adapted functional version of the national framework. For other aspects of disability, adaptations are prescribed nationally in terms of pedagogic methods (pace, timing, setting, group size, intensity of strategy use and adapted materials) in ways that do not undermine standards of attainment. The State determines what counts as appropriate pedagogic strategies for different dimensions of educational disability, relying on 'evidence informed' sources.

 

Additional resources

Disability is one of several areas for additional compensatory resource allocation. Other areas of disadvantage include low achievements (including academic attainment/ social skills) and English as additional language, all encompassed in the same legislative system. A comprehensive model with nationally prescribed formulae is in place. Most children in mild disabilities areas (the old MLD, SEBD and mild SpLD categories) now receive additional allocations under a different 'low achievers' heading.

 

Legal and organisational basis for additional resource allocation

Additional allocations for all areas of disadvantage (including disability) are required in legislation. Specific national indicators are prescribed which take account of needs arising from disabilities, not just low achievements. Additional allocations are made from central agency, with a regional structure, directly to schools and groups of schools/learning centres (in formal partnerships). Schools/learning centres are legally responsible for formulating and reviewing individual learning plans for all children (not just for disability) and ensuring maximum possible achievement of goals. All parents can access Tribunals to contest adequacy of educational provision after non-legal disagreement resolution procedures have been used.

 

School specialisation including future of special schools

All schools are inclusive of all children in the neighbourhood and provide the common national curriculum with adaptations to teaching-learning approaches based on individual needs. There are no special schools, though about 1% with profound and multiple disabilities are mainly in self-contained groups in separate settings on short, medium and long term bases, but they have as much learning and social participation as possible with less significant disabled and non-disabled students. There are special centres for children with significant health conditions and children in need of social care where education services are provided.

 

School admissions and exclusion

The State determines who goes to which school/centre and the conditions under which pupils transfer into and out of school/centre. All schools/centres have intake of children that reflects a mix of attainments and social background factors. This was the basis for the closure of single sex, faith, ability, disability selective and fee paying independent schools.

 

Internal school / centre organisation: grouping, settings and support

Every child belongs to a mixed ability base group - these children learn together for at least half timetable - some ability and cross age grouping used for rest of time. At secondary age, mixed ability requirement reduces to minimum of 40% of timetable. This requirement is justified in terms of social/citizenship goals, as are the use of co-teaching, collaborative learning and peer tutoring approaches. Teachers and their assistants are generally well prepared for co-teaching and working with mixed ability groups. There is a requirement that within 'classes' both mixed and cross ability groups are used equally. Withdrawal of individuals and groups with disabilities is practised, but mainly before and after formal timetable periods. Learning support is conceived mainly as a service and not a place. The facilities and staffing to operate 'extended schools' play a key role in maintaining additional provision required for those with disabilities.

 

Raising standards

Raising standards is defined in terms of the broad outcomes defined in national curriculum framework. The full range of outcomes is defined so that progress for all, including those with profound and multiple disabilities can be monitored. Differentiated 'national targets' are set for different groups that take account of social and individual circumstances. These situated targets make simple school performance comparisons difficult. However, schools that do not reach these targets consistently over several years are required to review and re-plan provision to meet these standards. Additional resources and advice are available to support these schools.

 

Scenario 2: Extended choice and diversity

Identification and areas of SEN

There is no national classification of SEN/disability. Some believe there has been an expansion of the proportion of children identified as having disability, through parental pressures. However, with no national classification there are few relevant statistics. There has been increased recognition of new areas of disorder: e.g. Non- Verbal Learning Disabilities (NVLD), Disorders of Attention, Motor and Perceptual functioning (DAMP). Identification is conducted mainly by non-State agencies that serve learning centres and institutions (under national framework).

 

Curriculum and pedagogy

The loose national curriculum framework and the growth of diverse curricula to serve diverse interests facilitates the development of distinct disability specific curricula and pedagogic approaches. Specialist 'therapeutically' orientated curricula and pedagogic approaches emerge in response to parental interest in addressing functional impairments. This has led to the increased merging of educational and learning based health and mental health interventions.

 

Additional resources

As the level of funding is mainly determined by family income and voluntary organisation contributions, additional resources for disability come from these sources. The State provides minimal additional vouchers for disability. However, the State provides strong tax incentives for charitable donations to disability organisations, so supporting voluntary organisation contributions to schooling. Voluntary organisations play a major role in funding and providing education services for children with disabilities.

 

Legal and organisational basis for additional resource allocation

Minimal additional resources are available through vouchers to parents, which is set by legislation. Providers of special education services are held to account through user preferences and decisions; there is no specific legal basis for redress, other than 'duty of care'.

 

School specialisation including future of special schools

School or learning centre specialisation is a key aspect of school organisation: specialisation is enabled in the areas of curriculum / teaching focus and level, faith and philosophical orientation. Given the role of parental preferences and decisions, there has been an increase of disability specialised schools/learning centres justified in terms of curriculum focus and philosophical orientation. Full diversity operates: special schools/centres have legitimate place, specialised settings co-located with general schools / learning centres, and 'inclusive' schools/centres which welcome all children with disabilities and provide as much social and learning participation in general settings as possible

 

School admissions and exclusion

Providers are required by legislation to demonstrate fair entry criteria in terms of gender and ethnicity. Entry selection can only be geared to children's characteristics that are related to nationally permitted areas of school specialisation: faith, learning abilities and disabilities. Fair exclusion criteria in terms of individual characteristics and social factors are also required by legislation.

 

Internal school / centre organisation : grouping, settings, support

There is a wide diversity of internal forms of ability grouping and learning support depending on orientation and kind of learning centre. These internal forms of grouping (including new forms of grouping other than by academic ability) reflect the curriculum orientation and aims of the schools /learning centres. Diversity of forms are justified in terms of what is required to support learning set out in individual learning plans. Children with similar kinds and degrees of disabilities are found in quite distinct kinds of settings (even within the same school / learning centre), as parents and children have major say in placement and forms of provision.

 

Raising standards

Raising standards is defined in specific and diverse ways to reflect the different kinds and levels of learning outcomes involved in the range of curricula. There is no standard national assessment framework or tests, but well developed assessment systems for diverse needs, abilities and interests, including children with profound and multiple disabilities (informed by national assessment framework in the form of guidance).

 

Scenario 3: Regulated choice and diversity

Identification and areas of SEN

A national classification framework is used which is based on multiple dimensions of educationally relevant functional impairments, learning activity limitations and learning participation restrictions. This was designed on the basis of the WHO ICF scheme which was developed in late 1990s/early 2000s. Standardisation of identification and monitoring procedures based on ICF scheme is used to contain parental pressures for increased identification and to inform curriculum and pedagogic planning.

 

Curriculum and pedagogy

The national curriculum framework (with core focus on self determined learning and social goals) applies to all learners, though stakeholders are encouraged to adapt or suspend elements of it when they have an 'alternative' framework. The national curriculum agency facilitates 'alternative' curriculum and pedagogic developments in partnership with stakeholder organisations/groups. Pedagogic diversity is encouraged through partnerships between the Agency and other groups and organisations.

 

Additional resources

An adequate level of additional resources for disability is set by State as part of general national framework for additional resources to address social disadvantage. Significant funding comes from tax, but also non-state organisations and family income. State provides incentives for voluntary and commercial organisation to contribute to additional resourcing. There are varied mechanisms for additional resource allocations.

 

Legal and organisational basis for additional resource allocation

The general legislative framework supports additional resources for disadvantage, including disability. Direct education providers (e.g. maintained and non-State schools/centres) are expected to raise funds from non-state sources to be matched by state funds. These providers are legally responsible for individual learning plans for all children, but with specific additional requirements about the content and planning procedures for children with disabilities. The Local Government role in supporting the resolution of disagreements between direct providers and parents is part of its delegated responsibility from regional agencies.

 

School specialisation including future of special schools

Diversity of provision for children with disabilities gives a limited legitimacy to separate special schools/centres. Special schools and special classes for children with disability have to meet national legislated conditions for children to have minimum degree of learning and social participation with non-disabled. The inter-change sometimes involves teachers and children from the non-disabled settings participating in settings designed for children with disabilities.

 

School admissions and exclusion

The State requires that all direct providers do not discriminate on the basis of gender, ethnicity, faith, learning abilities and disability for entry and exclusion to provision. When curriculum programmes are geared to abilities and disabilities, entry criteria can be applied to select only a large minority of the children fitting the criteria.

 

Internal school / centre organisation : grouping, settings, support

Diverse forms of internal organisation are recognised and encouraged so long as they are consistent with the curriculum orientation and aims of the specific schools, and with the national core emphasis on self-determined learning and social goals. Ability and other kinds of groupings (cross age, similar interests etc.) are encouraged, provided they do not engender excessive divisions between diverse children. Mixed ability groupings are required for at least 20% of formal learning times. Withdrawal of children with disabilities for learning support from mixed ability groupings is practised, so long as it is in keeping with learners' preferences.

 

Raising standards

Standards are defined in programme specific terms, as well as a limited national core set of learning outcomes. These national outcomes are monitored selectively by sample national testing. Assessing learning progress in the diverse programmes is required to take account of the national assessment framework and principles, such as, taking account of learner differences, including those with disabilities.

 

Commentary and conclusions

Returning to the areas of the 'vision statements' it is possible to identify commonalities and differences in these areas. For the workforce, there may be common standards, though these are likely to be differently defined, and the scenarios lead to very different degrees of control and autonomy (relevant to issues about the role of the GTC, Unions and the professionalism of the workforce). The content of learning is likely to differ according to the different scenarios, according to state or individual interests and who has responsibility for determining this; for pupils with SEN this relates to questions of a 'special curriculum', and to the Warnock Report's position about common goals. Although teaching and learning may involve commonalities across the three scenarios, there will be differences in terms of learner-centred and learner-determined contrasted with externally determined approaches; this relates also to questions of a 'special' pedagogy. Organisational structures are likely to differ according to the degree of national or local control, and the degree of supported diversity, for example in terms of increase or reduction in the number of special schools, and indeed the growth in the number of alternative learning environments. Resource allocation and funding is clearly a key area for education; the problem may be summarised, as for other such provision, in terms of limited resources (limited by tax level), unlimited demands and contested priorities. The three scenarios lead to very different resourcing policies. The extent of partnerships and collaboration differs across the scenarios, and here the competition/collaboration tension inherent in current policy is clearly articulated. Accountability is different across the three scenarios: its nature, purpose and extent. All scenarios envisage a clear assessment system in place, though its nature and accountability differ. Under admissions, all learners are entitled to an education, but there is considerable variation in choice and therefore in nature of provision.

 

Although the scenarios have been deliberately constructed to create 'pure' versions of policy, they are useful to help us consider the implications of socio-political visions which relate to basic values which we assume will be enduring over the next 15 to 20 years. The advantage of this kind of scenario approach is that it enables holistic and inter-connected thinking that shows the logical outcomes for the general 'school' system and provision for the minority identified as 'having SEN/disabilities'. The approach adopted in this project also started with the general social scenario, working from there to the corresponding scenarios for the general 'school' system and only then to SEN/disability matters. This direction reflects the assumption in the project about the dependence of SEN/disability policy and practice on wider social and general 'school' policy and practice.

 

During the workshop we noted how much easier it was to fortunate the Inclusive Citizenship than the Extended Choice and Diversity scenario. This could be because the former scenario is more familiar with the public service ethos of the workshop participants, but also because as participants most of us had some negative views about the latter scenario. The Choice and Diversity scenario was also less coherently and specifically formulated than the Inclusive Citizenship one, which is one of the reasons for introducing the third scenario. The versions of the Inclusive Citizenship and Extended Choice and Diversity scenarios presented in this paper veer away from the more 'scary' versions that are heard in some political debate. The Inclusive Citizenship scenario is presented as 'softer' and as more participative than some versions associated with Stalinist visions of an over-socialised society. The Extended Choice and Diversity scenario is presented as having more social coherence and minimum standards than some visions of a divided, unequal and over-individualised society. Some may see the third scenario - Regulated Choice and Diversity - as a version of new Labour's 'Third Way' policies. This was not the intention as the scenario was derived from the basic options available at the start of the project. A close reading of the vision statements for the general 'school' system and for the SEN/disability aspects also shows that there is a significant mismatch between Government policies and the detail of this scenario. One of the ways in which the Regulated Choice and Diversity scenario differs from new Labour policy since 1997 is that it sets out some of the options and directions for the school system associated with this particular vision. It also shows what options are inconsistent with the scenario. The new Government interest in 'personalised learning', for example, does not fit solely with this scenario. There are aspects of 'personalised learning' that are consistent with each of the scenarios presented in the paper. This might be because the introiduction of ideas of 'personalised learning' are not inter-connected with other aspects of Government school education policy.

 

In conclusion it is important to mention that what is presented in this paper is based on the outcomes of the workshop. However, in order to progress the project it was necessary to go beyond the conclusions of the workshop. The ideas presented in the paper may therefore not reflect the views of all the workshop participants. We see the response to this seminar paper and the other one by Klaus Wedell as an opportunity to further refine and adapt the scenarios and bring the project to some conclusion.

 

Appendix

 

Workshop participants:

Alan Dyson, University of Manchester. Peter Gray, SEN Policy Consultant. Seamus Hegarty, NFER. Martin Johnson, IPPR. Judy Larsen, Headteacher. Ingrid Lunt, Institute of Education, University of London. Barry Mills, (Facilitator). John Moore, Kent LEA. Brahm Norwich, University of Exeter. Sophia Parker, DEMOS. Nick Peacey, SENJIT. Penny Richardson, Nottinghamshire LEA. Sonia Sharp, Leeds LEA. Phillipa Stobbs, Council for Disabled Children. Eileen Visser, OFSTED. Klaus Wedell, Institute of Education, London University.

 

 

 

---

[1] Peter Schwartz, The art of the long view: paths to strategic insight for yourself and your company. New York, Doubleday

[2] Window on the Future: a scenario planning primer. South Wind design Inc. 2001. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

[3] Pierre Wack, quoted in Scenarios, www.gbn.org/AboutSceanriosDisplayServlet.srv, accessed 17.5.04

[4] CERI-OECD .....