remove LEA powers to run
separate, special schools
c) While the Centre welcomes
the important moves in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill
towards basic rights for disabled people which will enhance their
life opportunities we regret that the discrimination inherent
in separate special schooling for disabled pupils and perpetuated
by them is not covered by the draft Bill.
d) It is our view, based
on evidence, that segregated 'special' schooling is not only itself
discriminatory under human rights principles but perpetuates discrimination,
devaluation, stigmatization, stereotyping, prejudice and isolation
- the very conditions which disabled adults identify as among
the biggest barriers to respect, participation and a full life.
This discrimination is maintained even though there is no compelling
body of evidence that segregated 'special' education programmes
have significant benefits for students. (Please see the following
CSIE publications for further background material: The Human
Rights Approach to Inclusive Education; The Case Against Segregation
in Special Schools - A Look At the Evidence; Reasons Against Segregated
Schooling; and Reference List for The Arguments Against Segregated
Schooling ).
e) It is CSIE's recommendation
that the draft bill should take steps towards removal of the final
legal barriers to mainstream schooling and the phasing out of
separate special schools by 2020 as part of its measures against
disability discrimination. Disability discrimination law should
also play a part in ensuring that appropriate mainstream education
is guaranteed by law for all pupils within their local areas without
resort to current assessment and 'statementing' procedures to
obtain necessary support. In our view these assessment and 'statementing'
procedures are based on an outdated medical view of disability
as individual defect which is a barrier to inclusion. Inclusion
in local mainstream schools with appropriate support needs to
become a matter of routine entitlement for all pupils not subject
to stressful - and we would argue stigmatizing and discriminatory
- procedures for some.
f) The Disability Rights
Commission has set out a short-term and reducing role for special
schools and called for their ongoing evaluation in relation to
development towards a more inclusive mainstream education service.
The Government has also acknowledged that their current ten year
strategy for special educational needs, which proposes retaining
separate 'special' schooling for disabled pupils with serious
and complex needs, may be open to review in the light of mainstream
development.
g) Moves towards reforming
disability discrimination law and education law to a framework
as outlined in our evidence to the joint committee would, in our
view, have three main advantages:
- It would provide considerable incentive for mainstream
schools to move ahead with making themselves fully accessible
to all
- It would allow for the transfer of existing resources
from 'special' to mainstream settings and target the vast majority
of new investment into the mainstream
- It would guard against possible 'dumping' of
disabled pupils in mainstream without appropriate support, while
avoiding stressful, stigmatizing and discriminatory 'statementing'
procedures.
h) If such reforms are
not made we are concerned that the commitment and creativity of
mainstream schools to fulfill their human rights responsibilities
and include the full diversity of pupils will be weakened and
they will continue to find it easier to turn to separate 'special'
schools to handle learning situations they perceive as too difficult.
2) Extending the provisions of the DDA to cover
examining bodies
a) The Disability Rights
Commission has made a convincing argument that failure to include
examination bodies in the scope of the DDA leaves a substantial
gap in the legislation, puts disabled students at an unfair disadvantage
and prevents them from progressing into their chosen area of work
or study.
b) CSIE's own experience
and contact with students supports the DDA's evidence that some
disabled students have difficulties in getting their needs met
in examinations and are unable to turn to the law for redress.
We consider current voluntary arrangements for adjustments for
disabled students as regulated by the Joint Council for General
Qualifications Bodies and the Scottish Qualifications Authority
are inadequate in practice for safeguarding the rights of disabled
students and strongly recommend that the draft bill should set
out provisions for bringing examination bodies within scope of
discrimination legislation.
CSIE, February 2004.
