supporting inclusion, challenging exclusion
news & events
Some more equal than others?
20 May 2010
No matter how long you have seen a storm coming, the deluge is still unpleasant.
The full programme for partnership government for the next five years was published today (Thursday 20 May), following discussions between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. In the section on schools, the government pledges to “prevent the unnecessary closure of special schools and remove the bias towards inclusion.”
We have looked for the good news, and found some. The government proposes a British Bill of Rights (the passage of which should see some interesting debates on children’s rights), pledges new money to fund the proposed pupil premium, promises to help schools tackle bullying and especially homophobic bullying, and says it will ensure that all new Academies follow an inclusive admissions policy.
Most ironically, the document’s opening statement on schools could have come out of CSIE’s mouth: “The Government believes that we need to reform our school system to tackle educational inequality, which has widened in recent years, and to give greater powers to parents and pupils to choose a good school.” Sadly, that is where the similarity ends. What constitutes educational inequality is evidently open to wide-ranging interpretations, as is the understanding of changes that are needed to enable all parents and pupils to choose a good school.
It is hard to imagine how this government would begin to justify its blatant disregard for the international call for the development of inclusive education. The Salamanca Statement of 1994 (which the then Conservative UK government had signed up to) was reaffirmed in 2009 through the UNESCO Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education (PDF). The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child has long established every child’s right to education without discrimination. The UK has ratified this Convention but in the most recent examination of its implementation, our country was, once again, criticised for marginalising disabled children and failing to enable their inclusion in society. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities establishes without a shred of doubt the right of all disabled people to equality and non-discrimination. Article 24 (Education) clearly calls for an inclusive education system at all levels, which enables disabled children and young people to access “an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live” (emphasis added).
Perhaps the government still intends to develop the capacity of mainstream schools to provide for the full diversity of learners. Shortly before the general election David Cameron, being confronted by an angry parent dismayed at Tory policy on education, had said: “I absolutely promise you I’ll never do anything to make it more difficult for children to go to mainstream school.” He went on to say that at the heart of his Party’s policy is the commitment to offer a real choice to all parents.
CSIE has written to the newly formed Department for Education, asking what choice is made available to parents of disabled children who want to exercise their child’s right to a mainstream education, i.e. those who want their child to go to school with their brothers, sisters, friends and potential friends from their local community. With the current emphasis on personalised learning, there is no reason why tailor-made provision has to take place in a separate setting. Knowing that many parents currently find that their local authority has not yet developed provision for all learners in ordinary local schools, we also asked how the Department plans to extend real choice to all parents and offered to help in this process.
We know that no battle for human rights has ever been fought without setbacks. No doubt when previous inhumane practices were in the process of being abolished, there must have been some who, steeped within an outdated frame of mind, vehemently opposed the abolition of slavery, or child labour, or… one day we may be able to say segregated education.
CSIE looks forward to the day when our society collectively and unanimously looks back in disbelief at the time when a small minority of young people were routinely ostracised from their local communities, in the name of their own good.
Note: some of the documents on this page are in PDF format. In order to view a PDF you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
Swift changes
12 May 2010
The UK finds itself in unchartered waters as the Conservative Party agreed to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and the new government took office yesterday (Tuesday, 11 May). The two parties have published their Coalition Agreement, presenting the positions agreed between the two parties on a range of issues where they had previously declared contrasting views. A final Coalition Agreement covering the full range of policy issues is expected to follow in due course.
The current Coalition Agreement, dated 11 May 2010, covers the following issues: Deficit Reduction; Spending Review (which includes a commitment to fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere); Tax Measures; Banking Reform; Immigration (which includes the long-awaited commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes); Political Reform; Pensions and Welfare; Education (see below); Relations with the EU; Civil Liberties (which include outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission); and Environment.
With regard to Education, the Coalition Agreement states:
SchoolsWe agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:
- that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand;
- that all schools have greater freedom over curriculum; and,
- that all schools are held properly accountable. Higher education
We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals
against the need to:
- increase social mobility;
- take into account the impact on student debt;
- ensure a properly funded university sector;
- improve the quality of teaching;
- advance scholarship; and,
- attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.
The Department for Education was formed today (Wednesday, 12 May) and will be responsible for education and children’s services. It takes the place of the Labour Government’s Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), whose name and colourful rainbow logo now belong to history. Conservative Party MP Michael Gove has been appointed Secretary of State for Education, while the Ministerial Team is expected to be named in the next few days. In an e-mail to civil servants Michael Gove said: "In the weeks ahead, I want us to offer all schools the chance to enjoy academy-style freedoms so that heads and teachers across the country can be liberated. This will be the focus of the legislation we hope to bring forward later this month." It is widely expected that legislation for education will be announced in the Queen’s speech on 25 May.
Children’s rights after the election
04 May 2010
The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) wrote to the children’s spokesperson for each of the three main political parties asking how they would protect the human rights of children, were they to form the next Government. Today, CRAE has published their responses. In their responses to six broad children’s rights questions, Ed Balls (Labour) and David Laws (Liberal Democrats) indicate how their Parties would approach the Government's legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Michael Gove (Conservatives) declined to respond to the questions and directed CRAE to his Party's Election manifesto.
CRAE has produced a short briefing paper which explains the reasons behind the six key questions asked and presents the politicians’ answers in an easy-to-read table.
That isn’t choice
28 April 2010
“That isn’t choice; that is actually putting barriers up for parents who want their children to be part of their local community” says London parent Jonathan Bartley, speaking about the rhetoric of parental choice without the political will to enable the choice of mainstream for all.
Mr Bartley has described how he was on his way to a hospital appointment with his son Samuel, who was in his wheelchair wearing his local school uniform. They were approached by a Conservative Party official asking if they would like to meet David Cameron, who was talking nearby, and accepted the invitation. They were then positioned in an appropriate place, the photographers gathered around them and soon David Cameron appeared and was introduced to them. Did Conservative Party officials see a disabled child and assume his parent would welcome Tory support for segregated education? Not this parent.
The two men, although sharing the experience of being father of a disabled son (Mr Cameron’s son Ivan died last year), spoke with passion about their opposing views on education priorities for disabled children or those said to have special needs. See how the BBC and Sky News reported their exchange.
Mr Bartley voiced a strong concern about Tory plans to end “the bias towards the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools”, as expressed in the Conservative Party Manifesto, and spoke of his family’s two-year struggle to get a place for Samuel in his local mainstream school. "His two sisters go there, it's our local school, we have had to struggle for two years and in the end the Secretary of State had to intervene. There is a bias against inclusion and you are saying there's a bias for it."
Mr Cameron said that his Party wants to give a choice to all parents. With his hand on his heart, he added: “I absolutely promise you I’ll never do anything to make it more difficult for children to go to mainstream school.” He went on to say: “At the moment, people don't get what they want. You didn't get what you wanted, I didn't get what I wanted. We both had to fight. We are going to make it easier by making sure that statements [of special educational needs] are not provided by local education authorities, they are provided by someone separate.”
Reflecting on the experience later, London parent Jonathan Bartley said “I don’t know what they were hoping for, maybe a good photo opportunity. But I hope actually this has put special needs firmly on the election agenda because it hasn’t been discussed so far.” He also explained more about his position: “Actually, you need a bias towards inclusion. You have to make it happen. The problem, the failure I think of this [current] government has been that it’s talked about inclusion but it hasn’t actually pushed to make it happen. You’ve got to resource mainstream schools. You’ve got to provide a culture of inclusion. You’ve got to invest in the training and the support and that actually hasn’t always happened. And so now to say because that hasn’t worked and a lot of parents have been let down and now want to send their children to special schools, now to say they are going to reverse what’s been going on, which is already a bad situation, will make it worse. That isn’t choice; that is actually putting barriers up for parents who want their children to be part of their local community.”
The Conservative Party is not alone in talking the talk of “parental choice”. The three main political parties maintain that mainstream education is a matter of parental choice. At the same time, a number of practitioners still believe that mainstream education is not possible for some children. The contradiction has not yet been acknowledged and a minority of children continues to be consistently excluded from their local community. Many mainstream schools operate in ways which rule out the presence, participation and achievement of children perceived to have most complex needs. Despite the rhetoric of “parental choice”, schools that turn disabled children away are neither challenged nor encouraged to develop more inclusive provision for all. CSIE has questioned the DCSF about this and constantly seeks ways to address this discrepancy. We invite our readers to keep asking the question: how will the government enable the choice of mainstream for parents who are told that, in their local authority, there is no suitable mainstream provision for their child?
New CSIE publication
13 April 2010
CSIE is delighted to announce the release of our new publication: Developing a single equality policy for your school: a CSIE guide.
Written for, and in collaboration with, school leaders, this is a practical resource to help schools comply with existing legal duties to promote race/ethnicity, disability and gender equality and to promote community cohesion. Much more than offering help to complete a paper exercise, the guide invites schools to explore their position on a range of equality issues and to shape provision in line with it.
The guide outlines the existing legal duties and suggests how the new Equality Act is likely to affect these when it comes into force. It then sets out a practical framework for writing and reviewing a single equality policy and presents two examples of existing policies. The guide’s content, presentation and practical suggestions can support schools in considering fundamental principles of equality for all, particularly those at risk of discrimination or marginalisation.
This CSIE guide is particularly relevant to:
- Ofsted’s emphasis on equality and diversity
- Schools’ statutory duty to promote race, disability and gender equality
- Schools’ statutory duty to promote community cohesion
- Developing inclusive provision for all learners
Copies are available at the reduced price of £15 each or £12 each for orders of 10 or more, if ordering directly from CSIE. Review copies are also available; please email admin@csie.org.uk stating your name, address and details of where your review will appear.
Disability Hate Crime
15 March 2010
On 10 March David Askew, a 64-year-old man with learning difficulties, collapsed and died at his home in Manchester after ten years of "baiting" and “relentless bullying” by local youths. Neighbours claimed he had been "tormented to death.” He was called names by young people who threw eggs and bricks at his house, kicked the door and took his money and cigarettes. A postmortem examination is being held, and the coroner has pledged to “ensure that no stone remains unturned.” An 18-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. Police claim that they had tried to take measures to protect David. However, neighbours claim to have stopped complaining to them a year ago "because nothing gets done." David’s death coincides with the announcement that 10 Leicestershire police officers are under investigation over the deaths of Francecca Hardwick (who had learning difficulties) and her mother Fiona Pilkington in September 2009 ( www.csie.org.uk/news ) after being bullied by neighbours. The inquest jury in this case found that police inaction contributed to their deaths, and that their calls for help had not been prioritized. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has commented that there is substantial work still left to do in this area.
Although the media give such incidents more column space than before, it is clear that institutionalised disablism is still inherent in our police and public services, despite Mencap’s call after the Leicestershire tragedy for hate crimes against disabled people to be treated as seriously as racist offences. A civilised society extends its respect and protection to all, on an equal basis. Likewise, the institutions of a civilised society – its systems of education, housing, leisure and employment – extend an invitation to all, with the result that people grow up with a mutual appreciation of each other and of the full range of human diversity. Without this, the tragedies of David and Francecca will be repeated. The conclusion has to be drawn that ours is not yet a civilised society.
Report of the Salt Review
04 March 2010
The Salt Review published its final report and submitted it on 25 February to the Secretary of State ( www.dcsf.gov.uk/saltreview ). The Review was commissioned as one of several measures aimed at providing better support for disabled children and/or those said to have special educational needs.
The Salt Review specifically focused on the decline in supply and training of what it refers to as “specialist” teachers, for children identified as having “severe” or “profound and multiple” learning difficulties. It notes “the very positive policy to promote inclusion” in recent years, but notes that specialist training was accordingly removed from Initial Teacher Education and offered instead through continuing professional development. This was done on the expectation that any teacher may have to teach a child or young person with high level support needs (those the report identifies as having “severe” or “profound” learning difficulties). The Review calls this “a gap left in the system,” and places much emphasis on providing the “distinctive pedagogical approaches” needed to fill it.
Some of the report’s recommendations are encouraging. It acknowledges that some children and young people – nearly a quarter of the population it looked at – are in mainstream, and anticipates that this percentage will increase. It appropriately suggests that some ordinary schools feel unable to provide for young people with high level support needs, thus evading the common deception that some children’s needs are so “profound” that they cannot be included in mainstream. Finally, the report makes training recommendations that are specifically for mainstream schools: local authority provision of “bespoke induction” for mainstream teachers; clarification of the routes by which teaching assistants can qualify as teachers; and the funding of special schools as leaders to train mainstream schools in how to deliver support (though it does not address the problem of how this can be achieved by a sector whose own resources are stated to be in a weak condition).
Most of the report’s recommendations concern the segregated sector. In particular it notes the absence of younger teachers here: 45% of special school staff are aged over 50, but only 27% of mainstream staff. While stopping short of asking for the reintroduction of “specialist” routes in initial teacher education, it seeks to remove certain “myths”: that initial teacher education cannot take place in a special school, or that newly qualified teachers have to complete their first year in a mainstream school. What effect this will have remains to be seen. An alternative interpretation of the above evidence might be that younger teachers have themselves grown up in a more inclusive society and do not want to work in places where children visibly lack the company of brothers, sisters, friends or potential friends from the local community.
One question remains: training and expertise for what purpose? What is it that we want to achieve? When disabled young people and/or their parents are asked what they want to gain from education, they rarely fix their gaze on conventional attainment targets, which may even be irrelevant to them; instead, they often focus on social relationships of their own and a place in the wider community. If that is the case, then the kind of expertise needed surely lies more in the area of person-centred planning than of traditionally conceived lessons. In fact the basic pedagogic principles are the same for educating all children. It is not so much skills or training that are needed: above all it is a willingness to find ways to include all young people in ordinary local schools, the support to do so and the confidence that comes from this experience. No matter what professional development opportunities are available, unless ordinary local schools become more willing to make space for everyone, teachers will not be able to build up the confidence that the report suggests they lack.
Note: some of the documents on this page are in PDF format. In order to view a PDF you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
Page last updated: Friday 03 September 2010