The context of special educational needs and inclusive education
The history of special education in the United Kingdom dates back to the opening of the
first schools for blind children, for example in Liverpool, Edinburgh, Bristol and London,
at the end of the eighteenth century (Pritchard, 1963). Separate institutions for a few of
the most serious ‘physically handicapped’ and ‘mentally defective’ children existed but
the majority fared as best they could in a mixture of workhouses, asylums, ordinary
elementary schools or none at all. Throughout the nineteenth century there were a small
number of charitable and religious institutions which sought to educate children with a
range of disabilities. For example, in London during 1899 some 2,000 ‘mentally retarded’
pupils were taught in 43 locations (Safford and Safford, 1996: 180). Stirred on by
individual and charitable efforts, Government interest in special education was expressed
through legislation in the 1890s that required school authorities to make provision, in
their own or other schools, for the education of blind and deaf children from the age of
five and seven respectively to sixteen. The scope of those children considered to be
educable gradually widened. By 1918 further legislation provided for the compulsory
education of ‘physically defective and epileptic’ children.
Figure 1 A lesson in Peterborough Special School in London, 1906. Most of the
timetable involved simple lessons and basic crafts.
Source: Greater London Picture Library
Despite these efforts, the general education system tended to reinforce the isolation of
children with disabilities, as Gerald Turner recalled as a boy with cerebral palsy brought
up in the 1930s:
I wasn’t allowed to go to school with the rest because they said it wouldn’t be fair, that
the other children might look at me. But I couldn’t understand that because I knew them
all anyway. I saw them all and played with them in the village. I used to get so frustrated
and scream a lot. I wanted to know what they were learning at school…I just had to
watch my [brothers] go off to school and wish it were me (Humphries and Gordon, 1992:
45).
Children with ‘defects’ were best considered to be separated from ‘normal’ children.
One of the key themes in the development of special education is the growing distinction
between types of special needs and the provision required (Halsey and Webb, 2000).
The 1944 Education Act had established eleven categories of ‘handicap’ and a limited
recognition that mainstream schooling might offer some benefits. A few special schools
which catered for ‘feeble-minded’ children, considered to have sufficient ability to
benefit from an education (Pritchard, 1963). The first of several schools for pupils with
cerebral palsy (‘spastics’) opened in London in 1947 and Edinburgh in 1948.
However, it took many years before pupils with disabilities were recognised as
individuals who were entitled to a dignified education of their own. Up until the 1970s,
disabled people were excluded from the full rights of citizenship (Borsay, 2005). It was
not until 1971 that the rights of disabled children to an education were formally
acknowledged (Tilstone and Layton, 2004). Traditionally, tests by doctors, psychologists
and teachers were designed to try and pinpoint the nature of the learning difficulty within
the child. In seeking to explain why children were ‘slow learners’, the prevailing view
pointed to medical or biological causes rather than socio-educational factors, such as a
shortage of texts pitched at the right reading level or a teacher who talks too fast.
Moment to reflect
•
Can schools cause special needs?
This medical model has been criticised for dehumanising children though supporters
argued that factors such as malnutrition, infection of the nervous system, or the
consequences may all have a bearing on the normal progress of children in school. The
medical model continues to exert some influence, for instance in explaining dyslexia.
Lewis (2001) suggests that some parents, teachers and children find learning difficulties
easier to ‘accept’ if a ‘medical’ label is applied. She adds the obvious benefit for drug
companies if medication, such as Ritalin, is adopted as the main prescription for a
particular ‘condition’.
No one would deny that some learning difficulties are associated with the child but even
in cases of severe brain damage or a serious sensory disorder, it is difficult to attribute all
of the learning difficulties to any one factor (Montgomery, 1990). Invariably it is the
interaction between the social and medical models that explains most difficulties.
Table 1
Changing models of disability
Medical model (c.1870-1970)
Social model (c.1970-2010)
• Child is faulty
• Diagnosis
• Child is valued
• Strengths and needs defined by self and
others
• Identify barriers and develop solutions
• Outcomes-based programmes designed
• Resources made available
• Training for parents and professionals
• Relationships nurtured
• Diversity welcomed; child is welcomed
• Labelling
• Impairment becomes focus of attention
• Assessment, monitoring
• Segregation and alternative services
• Ordinary needs put on hold
• Re-entry if ‘normal’ enough or permanent
exclusion
• Society remains unchanged
• Society evolves
Source: Rieser (2001), ‘The struggle for inclusion: the growth of a movement’ in Barton,
L. (ed.) Disability, Politics and Struggle for Change, London: David Fulton
The landmark Warnock Report (DES, 1978) advocated a move away from seeing special
needs in ‘deficit’ terms. The Report acknowledged that some disabled children would
always attend special school, and that integration was good for some children but not for
others. The independence of the committee has since been questioned, for it is now
apparent that the members were forced to accept the case for integration well before the
report was published. Jackson (TESS, 11 November 2005) argues that the last-minute
incorporation of clause 10 in the 1976 Education bill (which legislated for provision of
special education in ordinary schools) was the result of pressure applied by an influential
lobby who wanted physically handicapped (but intellectually able) children to attend
ordinary rather than special schools. According to Jackson, this pressure group succeeded
in outmanouvering the government and others, in case the Warnock Committee did not
give unqualified support for integration. Baroness Warnock herself saw the concept of
SEN as a very fluid one, and she regarded special needs as something a child might have
in certain circumstances, when faced with particular learning tasks.
Warnock (DES, 1978) also drew a distinction between different forms of integration. The
report pointed out some children may move from special to mainstream schools
(locational integration), experience social integration (by mixing for leisure) and benefit
from functional integration, where children are mixed socially and intellectually. In some
cases, you may observe that children with SEN are sitting within the mainstream class
receiving support from an additional adult, but are not engaging with the rest of the class
(Smith, 2006). Many of Warnock’s recommendations were picked up by the 1981
Education Act which re-iterated two groups of special needs pupils: the larger group (20
per cent) of the school population who would at some time or another would be in need
of support and a smaller sub-group of these pupils (2 per cent) who would require special
provision through a statement of needs. Mainstream schools were required to teach pupils
with SEN, but there were important provisos - parental wishes, the efficient use of
resources, and the effect on other children. However, through the 1980s government
policy was focused largely on integrating children from special to mainstream schools.
By the early 1990s policy direction was influenced in the wider context of the human
rights movement and its commitment to equal opportunities. Two key international
developments were the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United
Nations, 1989) and the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994: 11) which sets out that
‘the fundamental principle of the inclusive school is that all children should learn
together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have’.
The intention is for all pupils to be accepted and benefit from the school’s ‘common
wealth’ (Thomas et al., 1998:9). The introduction and subsequent revision to the National
Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) has resulted in a higher profile for inclusion.
Presently, inclusion is set very much in a broader social agenda that covers health,
welfare, vocational training and employment. In this sense disability is now seen as a
socially constructed problem and the key is how well society adapts the environment to
suit the individual, rather than the person’s condition (Waller, 2009). Unfortunately it is
easier for a disabled person to be ‘socially invisible’ because of the barriers they face in
accessing the environment built by the able-bodied (Dare and O’Donovan, 2002).
Legally, every school must have an accessibility plan, showing how they intend to
improve accessibility for disabled pupils.
According to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001), disabled
children cannot be discriminated against in terms of admissions, education services (such
as the curriculum, school trips and sports), and exclusions. The Act recognises two forms
of discrimination. First, if a child is treated ‘less favourably’ because of his/her disability
and such action cannot be justified on ‘material and sustained’ grounds. So, for example,
it would not be allowable to prevent a child going on a school visit because of his
diabetes. Second, the school can be accused of discrimination if it does not take
‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that disabled children are not at a substantial disadvantage
compared to the other pupils in the school. For instance, you may have a hearingimpaired child in your class who would be substantially disadvantaged if you, as the
teacher, continued to speak while facing away from him to write on the board.
Table 2 sets out the major historical developments in the provision of SEN in England
and Wales. For Scotland, a very good summary of legislation since the 1990s is provided
by HMIE (2008) in its Inclusion Manual (available at http://www.hmie.gov.uk/). In
Northern Ireland, information relating to relevant legislation can be accessed at:
http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/7-special_educational_needs_pg/special_needslegislation_pg.htm
Table 2
Important developments in the history of provision for SEN in England
and Wales since 1944
1944 Education Act
Local Education Authorities to decide whether a child needed special
educational treatment. If considered ‘uneducable’ children were cared
for by health and social services and were not entitled to receive
statutory education
1947 Education Act
1970 Education Act
1978 Warnock Report, The
Education of Handicapped
Children and Young People
1981 Education Act
1988 Education Act
1991 - UK adopted the United
Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child
1994
1995
1996
2000
2000
2001
2001
2005
Special schools established to teach children with severe learning
difficulties, while special classes were to be set up within
mainstream schools to teach children with milder learning difficulties
No child was considered to be uneducable
Words like ‘handicapped’ ‘educationally subnormal’ and ‘mongol’
were removed and replaced with ‘special educational need’ which
could not be met by mainstream teachers alone. Report advocated that
as many children as possible should be educated in mainstream classes
and that provision should be put in place to ensure this
Local Education Authorities and school governors to make provision
for SEN; effectively extended provision to more children previously
labelled ‘handicapped’.
Introduces National Curriculum and reinforces duty to consider SEN
provision
Article 23 states the disabled child should have effective access
to and receive education which encourages the fullest possible social
integration and individual development
The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of SEN
(DfE, 1994) introduced: Children with SEN split into two categories,
those who required multi-disciplinary support and regular review, and
those whose needs could be met through additional support within the
school. The former qualified for a Statement of Need and /or an
Individual Education Plan, whilst the latter would have their needs
recorded in an IEP or some other school based document
Disability Discrimination Act defined disability as ‘a physical or
mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse
affect on a person’s ability to perform normal day-to-day activities’
Education Act states ‘children have special educational needs if they
have a learning difficulty, which calls for special educational provision’
Revised National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) introduced,
containing inclusion statement. Schools have a responsibility to
provide a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils
Index for Inclusion first published by the Centre for Studies on
Inclusive Education (CSIE); materials to support participation of all
children
Revised Code of Practice introduced along with SEN Toolkit,
containing practical advice on how to implement the Code
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA), amended
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. From 2002, it was against
the law for schools to discriminate against children for a reason
related to his/her disability
Disability Equality Duty (DED) requires schools to take a more
proactive approach to promoting disability equality and eliminating
discrimination. Primary schools are required to publish disability
equality schemes
2007
Equality and Human Rights Commission established, charged with
enforcing disability laws and sharing good practice
Inclusion debate
Inclusion is a hotly contested subject. For instance organisations such as the Alliance for
Inclusive Education call for the closure of all special schools by 2020. In Scotland,
evidence submitted to an Inquiry into Special Educational Needs (2001) suggests that
‘there is general endorsement of the policy of inclusion but, at the same time, support for
individual special schools.’ Critics of inclusion want to see special schools continue to
serve as part of the provision for SEN and question the capacity of mainstream schools to
meet the needs of all learners. Mary Warnock, seen as the modern-day founder of
inclusion, has re-considered much of her original thinking since the 1970s. In recent
years Warnock has proved very controversial, advocating for instance the abortion of
children with Down’s Syndrome (cited by Riddell, 1996) She believes that inclusion and
statements are not working and that SEN provision needs to be completely reviewed. She
feels that pupils with SEN in mainstream schools are often taught apart from other pupils
and do not receive the attention from teachers (rather than assistants) that they deserve.
Her recommendation is for children with statements to be taught in small specialist
schools. Moreover, she argues that pupils with SEN should only be accommodated in
mainstream schools when they have the capacity to do so. Warnock has succeeded in
stirring up debate over the question of SEN provision with critics claiming that her work
contains ‘a mixture of important historical insights, but also a reflection of naivety,
arrogance and ignorance on the part of the author’ (Barton, 2005: 1).
Task
•
Download a copy of ‘Reasons against segregated schooling’ from the Centre for
Studies on Inclusive Education website:
http://www.csie.org.uk/publications/reasons-against-seg-04.pdf. Try to find
alternative views in responding to the arguments presented.
Critical reflection: read Barton’s (2005) critique of Warnock’s views, available at
http://www.disability-archive.leeds.ac.uk/. How do these views compare to your own
experiences?
Today, social inclusion – accepting and valuing children with severe emotional and
behavioural problems in mainstream schools – has widespread support, but can cause
genuine anxiety in schools. Tomlinson (1982: 80) pointed out that teachers may be
willing to accept the ‘bight, brave child in a wheelchair’ but are less receptive to the
‘average’ child with special needs – ‘the dull, disruptive child.’ Twenty-five years or so
later, it remains the case that many mainstream schools feel the additional pressures
brought by the inclusive agenda, particularly the admission and retention of pupils with
social and behavioural difficulties. Ofsted (2003) reports that although most schools see
inclusion as a positive development, their provision for pupils with SEN was no broader
than it was before government legislation.
In contemporary education, inclusion tends to be seen as ‘the right thing to do’ (Tod and
Ellis, 2006: 280). Across Europe, there has been a significant drive to develop inclusive
educational policies and practices. In Italy, where legislation for integration of pupils
with learning difficulties into mainstream schools was introduced in 1971, children are
regarded as having Special Rights (rather than Special Needs). The emphasis is on
listening to the voices of all children (Nutbrown et al, 2008) and the principles of
inclusive education apply to all schools, including special schools (Farrell, 2000).
However, the debates about inclusive education are complex (Farrell and Ainscow,
2002). The Select Committee on Education and Skills (3rd Report, 2005-6) acknowledged
that changing government definitions on inclusive education has added to the confusion
within the profession. Elsewhere, a recent review of special schools in Northern Ireland
by the inspectorate highlighted the lack of an agreed definition of SEN and the major
challenges schools face in managing diversity within the current educational climate
(Lambe and Bones, 2008). Philosophically, questions have been asked about the ideology
of inclusion (Croll and Moses, 2000; Thomas and Loxley, 2001). Warnock herself (2005)
now believes that inclusion has been taken ‘too far’, driven by political correctness rather
than on what is in the best interests of the child. Fundamentally, the matter of whether
inclusion infringes upon the rights of others cannot be dismissed – for instance, parents
who wish to send their children to a special school or parents of mainstream peers who
worry over how their children’s education may be affected by the presence of pupils
with, for instance, severe behavioural difficulties.
The inclusion requirements of the National Curriculum in England centre around three
elements:
•
•
•
Setting suitable learning challenges
Responding to pupils’ diverse learning needs
Overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and
groups of pupils
Source: http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/inclusion/index.aspx
As teachers, you need to consider where possible barriers to learning lie and take action
to remove them as far as possible. Sometimes only minor modifications are necessary to
planning and teaching. For instance, one trainee provided a group of pupils who had
reading difficulties with a tape recording of a poem that the class was studying, while
another ensured that her worksheets for a visually-impaired child had a larger than usual
font size, fewer words and a double line space.
One of the major barriers to overcome is the mindset of individuals and the perceptions
they hold about disabilities (Ofsted, 2004). Training is required to ensure that teachers
and assistants are fully aware of how pupils see their experiences. For staff training
purposes, Cheminais (2006) recommends producing a CD or video on a typical school
day from the perspective a particular child.
Task
•
How would you respond to the following comments?
Is he a Down’s syndrome?
Is she spastic?
Will he get better?
Does he always do that?
Can’t you keep her still?
Have you tried a dairy-free diet?
Can you claim compensation?
His poor parents
What a shame
Poor little thing
She should never have been born
(Foley, et al, 2001: 216-217)
Although the Westminster government has made a clear commitment to inclusion, the
Audit Commission’s (2002) report on special needs and the recent Primary Review in
England reports widespread scepticism about the effectiveness and efficiency of much of
the guidance (Daniels and Porter, 2007). Ofsted (2004) reported that many schools still
do not see themselves as having the skills, experience or resources to provide effectively
for children with SEN. This is despite evidence that increasing numbers of children with
SEN are making good progress in mainstream classes (Florian et al, 2004) although
research is inconclusive on the academic and social effects of either inclusion or separate
schooling (Lindsay, 2007). It seems that after 30 years of movement in one direction, the
pendulum could be swinging back towards segregation.
Critical reflection: Farrell (2001: 7) suggests that arguments in favour of inclusion based
solely on human rights are ‘logically and conceptually naïve’ – to what extent do you
agree?
References
Barton, L. (2005), Special Educational Needs: an alternative look, available at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/barton/Warnock.pdf
Borsay, A. (2005),
Dare and O’Donovan, (2002),
DES (1978), Warnock Committee Report, London: HMSO.
Farrell, P. and Ainscow, M. eds. (2002), Making Special Education Inclusive, London:
David Fulton.
Halsey and Webb
Humphries, S. and Gordon, P. (1992), Out of Sight. The Experience of Disability 19001950, Plymouth: Northcote House.
Lewis, A. (2001), ‘Charlotte’s Web: special educational needs in mainstream schools’, in
Richards, C. ed. Changing English Primary Education, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books,
79-93.
Riddell, M, New Statesman, 25 October 1996, cited on
http://www.behaviour4learning.ac.uk/viewArticle.aspx?contentId=10977
Montgomery, D. (1990), Special Needs in Ordinary Schools, London: Cassell.
Nutbrown, C. et al (2008), Early Childhood Education, London: Sage.
Pritchard (1963),
Safford and Safford (1996),
Smith, C. (2006), ‘From special needs to inclusive education’ in Sharp, J. et al., eds.
Education Studies, Exeter: Learning Matters, 142-149.
Tod, J. and Ellis, S. (2006), ‘Inclusive Approaches’ in Grainger, J. et al., eds., Learning
to Teach in the Primary School, 279-290.
Tomlinson, S. (2005), Education in a post-welfare society, Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Tilstone, C. and Layton, L. (2004), Child Development and Teaching Pupils with Special
Educational Needs, Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1994) The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, Paris,
UNESCO, available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
Waller