Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Mainstreaming children and young people with special educational needs (SEN)

Dr Anne Pirrie
The SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow
Anne.Pirrie@scre.ac.uk

Water: it has no taste, no smell, no colour, and yet it is the most important thing in the world.
Paul Coelho (2001) The Devil and Miss Pryn

Introduction

This paper comprises a series of reflections arising from a research project commissioned from The SCRE Centre at the University of Glasgow by the Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED). The study began in January 2004, and the final report is currently under consideration by the Scottish Executive.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 on all those involved — pupils, parents and teachers, as well as other professionals and agents who support pupils with SEN.   The legislation that introduced what is now commonly referred to as the 'presumption of mainstreaming' came into effect in Scotland in August 2003.

The research was commissioned when the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act was still at the draft stage.   One of the changes enshrined in the new act was the adoption of the term Additional Support Needs, which is considerably wider in scope than its predecessor. This change in nomenclature signals a general recognition that all children or young people may have additional support needs at some stage in their school career. In sum, the political consensus is that it is not necessarily exceptional to experience additional support needs – although in some cases the support needs will be exceptional.

It is no small irony that precisely at the moment that the term ‘mainstreaming’ is gaining currency, the very notion that there is such a thing as the mainstream – that is, a prevailing direction of opinion, fashion, etc, is open to question. And there are some indications from the data that special schools are becoming rather less 'special'.

Research objectives

The specific objectives of the proposed research were as follows:

• To monitor any changes in the number and proportion of pupils with SEN who are educated in mainstream schools/remain in special schools since the introduction of the presumption of mainstreaming.
• To determine the policy response at local-authority level to the presumption of mainstreaming.
• To investigate the ways in which the infrastructure of mainstream pre-school, primary and secondary schools, and the nature of their curricula facilitate or inhibit the mainstreaming of pupils with SEN.
• To explore attitudes to the mainstreaming of pupils with SEN; and to explore the practical and social implications of the presumption of mainstreaming.
• To gauge the impact of mainstreaming on the personal and social development of all pupils; and upon their attainment.
• To explore the changing role of special schools, and the changing demands on staff in the special education sector and in mainstream schools.
• To review the development of training materials for teaching and non-teaching staff in relation to the presumption of mainstreaming.

The research methodology comprised a survey of policy and practice in the 32 local authorities in Scotland; a survey of free-standing special schools; and focused visits to 12 sites, as detailed in Table 1.

As the final report is still under consideration by the Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED), I am not in a position to provide a detailed account of the findings. The main purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide an opportunity for reflection and debate around a number of key issues. It begins with a brief overview of the political climate in which the research was commissioned and the key policy developments that have impacted on this area of enquiry, particularly in Scotland.

The challenges posed by the policy framework

When Graham Donaldson (senior chief inspector) told the audience at the Count Us In conference in Edinburgh on 30 November 2004 that ‘inclusion is not easy, but it’s also not optional', he provided a succinct overview of the policy environment in which the evaluation was conducted. It also sets the parameters for the research team. Our remit was to draw upon a range of quantitative and qualitative evidence in order to suggest ways of making inclusion that little bit easier. We also hoped to make a significant contribution to the debate on the potentiality and limitations of inclusion. This was not as easy as it might appear. The political context in which the research was commissioned posed two main challenges for the research team. The first of these was the tacit assumption on the part of the education policy community that there is a 'Year Zero' in respect of the inclusion of children and young people with SEN in 'ordinary' classrooms. The evidence from our study suggests that that the movement to mainstream began well in advance of the implementation of Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, and that the legislation merely added additional impetus to a process that had been underway since the reorganisation of Scottish local authorities in the mid-to late-1990s. The second stems from the fact that parental choice has been enshrined in Scottish legislation since the 1981 Education (Scotland) Act. The salience of parental choice is what makes inclusion a contingent, means-oriented project rather than one governed by the logic of instrumental rationality. The co-existence of two distinct viewpoints, namely a strong parental preference for children to attend their local school and an equally strong preference for specialist provision, presents a challenge for policy-makers.   The latter may be disappointed to learn that there are no clearly-discernible trends in respect of a seamless 'movement to mainstream' across the country. The picture is messy; the jigsaw puzzle rendered more difficult to complete by the fact there appear to be pieces of an earlier unsolved one left in the box…

The legislative framework

The key piece of legislation is Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, which states that in carrying out their duties to provide school education to a child of school age, education authorities should, except in ‘exceptional circumstances’, provide that education in a mainstream school rather than in a special school. The circumstances under which a decision may be made to educate a child in a special school are as follows: where education in a school other than a special school would not be suited to the ability or the aptitude of the child; would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for the children with whom the child is being educated; or would result in unreasonable public expenditure being incurred.

It is not my intention here to provide a comprehensive account of the policy environment and the legislation in respect of children and young people with SEN. There have been significant analyses, including illuminating comparisons between Scotland and England (for example, Riddell, 2002; Riddell et al, 2000).

Table 2 provides a synoptic overview of policy and legislation in Scotland since it was recognised that every child had a right to education. (See Allan, 2003a; MacKay and McLarty, 2003; Brennan, 2004 for more detailed accounts of legislative change as it impacts upon Scotland; and for an overview of the attendant changes in nomenclature.)

In the global context, the key driver of the inclusive education agenda was the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). The Salamanca Statement recognised ‘the necessity and urgency of providing education for children, youth and adults with special educational needs within the regular education system’. It called upon all governments to ‘adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise’ (pp viii ff).

In the UK context, the publication of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) signalled the beginning of the inclusive education agenda in respect of young people with SEN. Warnock endorsed the principles of ‘integration’, while acknowledging that special schools represented the most effective provision for certain groups of pupils. In the Scottish context, the view taken in the HMI report published the same year (SED, 1978) was that the practice of withdrawing pupils into segregated remedial classes was counter-productive, in that it diverted attention from the extent to which appropriate curricula were being provided for all children.

Section 316 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA), which amends Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), also refers to the ‘duty to educate children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. This came into effect in Scotland, England and Wales in September 2002.

The creation of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) in 2000 was an important driver of change, and a tangible expression of the government’s commitment to disability rights in a broad sense. In response to the legislative changes contained in Part 4 of the DDA, the DRC subsequently published two separate codes of practice to explain the legislation – one for schools and one for post-16 provision. To support the legislation that is now in place, the Scottish Executive has also published guidance for schools and local authorities. Moving Forward! Additional Support for Learning (SEED, 2003) provides a framework for meeting the needs of children who require Additional Support for Learning (ASL); Inclusive Educational Approaches for Gypsies and Travellers (LTS, 2003) and Guidance on Education of Children Absent from School through Ill-health (SEED, 2001) have provided support for other vulnerable groups.

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act places additional duties on educational providers to develop accessibility strategies in respect of the built environment and the curriculum; and to improve communication with pupils with SEN and their families. There is a broad consensus that these are the hallmarks of a successful inclusion policy (Dyson et al, 2002). The act arose from widespread concern that the current assessment and recording system for children with SEN was outdated and overly bureaucratic (Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 2001; see also Allan, 2003b; Riddell Advisory Committee, SEED, 1999).

From the policy perspective, there is an evident tension between promoting social inclusion on the one hand (The Scottish Executive, 2000) and raising attainment on the other (SOEID, 1998; 1999). Questions continue to be raised by academics with established records in the field as to the extent to which these twin aims are compatible (for example, see Riddell, 2002).

From integration to inclusion

Many commentators have attempted to distinguish between integration and inclusion (see, for example, Corbett and Slee, 2000; Armstrong et al, 2000). However, as MacKay and McLarty (2003) point out, with some justification, the terms integration and inclusion ‘ often defy definition or description’ (p 822).

Broadly speaking, the shift in terminology from ‘integration’ to ‘inclusion’ can be said to reflect a change in emphasis from needs-based agenda to a rights-based agenda (Thomas, 1997; Ainscow, 1997). Evans and Lunt (2002) also argue that ‘while “integration” [is] largely a “disability” or SEN issue, inclusion is usually promoted from a wider principled and idealistic, or even ideological, perspective’ (p 3). The definition   proposed by the Scottish Executive is a case in point:

Social inclusion is about reducing inequalities between the least advantaged groups and communities and the rest of society by closing the opportunity gap and ensuring that support reaches those who need it most.

It appears that integration is generally construed as a pragmatic, politically-neutral form of service delivery, whereas inclusion has a strong ideological charge: it is something to strive for. Inclusion goes hand in hand with notions of ‘support for all’, of ‘celebrating diversity’ and embraces the whole school population. According to Mittler (nd), ‘there is a consensus that inclusion calls for a fundamental reorganisation of regular schools and classrooms in order to cater for a greater diversity of children’s needs in the community’. Inclusion can be described in very much the same terms as Bauman (2004) describes identity, namely as ‘an agonistic notion and a battle cry’ (p 21). It is not entirely coincidental that Allan (2003a) describes inclusion as ‘a political and social struggle which foregrounds difference and identity and which involves whole-school and teacher reform’.

The overall aim of the inclusive education agenda is to enable children and young people ‘to become fully participating members of their communities’ (SOED, 1994; see also Armstrong et al, 2000; Dyson 1999). The notion of full participation in the school community is, however, rarely adumbrated. For example, the Review Group in Inclusive Education (Dyson et al, 2002) set out to define participation. However, they do little more than reiterate a political agenda and provide rather incomplete definitions of the terms ‘culture’, ‘curriculum’ and ‘community’:

Inclusive education as defined is about the participation of students in key aspects of their schools: their ‘cultures’, that is their shared sets of values and expectations; their ‘curricula’, that is the learning experiences on offer; and their ‘communities’, that is the sets of relationships they sustain.

Those who bear a torch must accept that it will inevitably flicker on occasion…

Table 3 provides an overview of what the literature suggests are the main differences between integration and inclusion. It also suggests how these have evolved from the earlier notion of segregation. Table 3 is not intended as a rigid categorisation. Rather, it is a potentially useful starting point for describing and analysing a complex and largely contingent reality.

Table 3: a typology of segregation, integration and inclusion

Table 3 represents a veritable force-field of competing priorities and juxtaposed values that are not mutually exclusive. For example, it is evident that one has needs as well as rights. It is also clear that there is no rigid dichotomy between a medical and a social model of disability, as has been suggested by some commentators, including some disabled academics and organisations that represent disabled people (Barnes et al, 1999; Barnes, 2002; Barnes et al, 2002). Dewsbury et al (2004) argue that to posit a clear distinction between these two models gives rise to an ‘anti-social model of disability’. Dewsbury et al are in the business of designing assistive technologies, and are primarily interested in the ‘ordinary, practical and procedural concerns’ of disabled people – in their particular case individuals with psychiatric problems. The authors question the validity of some of the assumptions that underlie the social model and suggest that

…the Social Model of disability can be profoundly ‘anti-social’ in that … it can either ironicize ordinary experience, treating it as somehow partial and flawed in its ignorance of what is really going on … or can privilege versions of ‘experience’, which equally attend to socio-political matters, but which leave the ordinary practical business of getting on with one’s life unattended to. (p 145)

And as Brennan (2004) points out, ‘even one of the strongest proponents of the social model … incorporates a personal biography into one of his most influential accounts’ (see, for example, Oliver, 1996).

The tension between inclusion versus specialist provision is one that spans the domains of both policy and research, and has spawned many an ideological divide (Hegarty, 1993; Percy-Smith, 2000; Booth and Ainscow, 2000). As Norwich has pointed out, a degree of ‘ideological impurity’ is inevitable in a system that is attempting to balance competing values, those of equality, individuality, social inclusion and – last but not least – feasibility (Norwich 1996; 2000). Neither is systemic adaptation the preserve of inclusion, as some degree of institutional adaptation is also required for, say, the introduction of unit-based provision for small groups of children.

It is clear from above that the notions of integration and inclusion are far from self-evident facts of life. Indeed it might be argued that what is interesting is the current fascination with inclusion, rather than the notion of inclusion itself. Furthermore, there appears to be an overwhelming preoccupation with the perceived gap between what is and what ought to be in respect of inclusion. The question then is would we recognise inclusion if it were staring us in the face?

Instrumental rationality vs goal rationality

Our findings suggest that conceptions of inclusion vary considerably across local authorities in Scotland. The qualitative data gathered from the twelve study sites (see Table 1.1) also indicate variations at school level. The task facing the research team was a formidable one. It was far more complex than assembling even the most challenging of jigsaw puzzles. As Bauman (2004) has pointed out, solving a jigsaw is essentially a goal-oriented activity – you know what you are aiming at, even if it does take you a while to assemble the full picture of distant snow-capped mountains. Working towards inclusion, on the other hand, is a contingent, means-oriented activity. You start from what you have, and try to figure out how you can order and reorder the components to get a pleasing picture. In sum, the first case (solving a jigsaw puzzle) is guided by the logic of instrumental rationality (selecting the right means to a pre-determined end); the second (working towards inclusion) follows the logic of goal rationality (achieving the best possible ends with the available means). This would suggest that examples of good practice are of limited hermeneutic and predictive value if they are presented as blueprints for success. It is not so much the end-product that is of interest, but the process through which it evolved, and the lessons learned along the way. For as Mittler (nd ) has pointed out, ‘inclusion ... is a road to travel rather than a destination.’

From my perspective as a martian in the playground, a relative newcomer to research in the field of special needs education, I would like to end on a provocative note. It strikes me that the pervasive road metaphors and the frequent references to political and social struggles indicate that the pervasive approach to inclusion in the academic community is guided by the logic of instrumental rationality. Once again, the jigsaw analogy may serve us well. Imagine that you are trying to complete a jigsaw with some friends and acquaintances, but that only two or three of the company have actually seen the picture on the outside of the box.   That puts you in a very difficult position. There you are, on the periphery, trying to get a slice of the action…Sooner or later you'll decide to give up and go home. And perhaps that is precisely what the others had in mind. But there is another dimension to this. Consider the travel business as a further analogue. Is it conceivable that a travel agent would exhort all his clients to visit the world's most perfect resort, and once they'd come home attempt to convince them that there was no need ever to go on holiday again? That is clearly nonsense, and the travel industry would collapse overnight if its members attempted to do such a thing. I hazard the observation that the same might be true of the special needs industry. Now, just where did I put that one way ticket?

References

ALLAN, J (2003a) Inclusion for All? Beyond Support for Learning, in Scottish Education (2 nd edition. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.

ALLAN, J. (2003b) Daring to think otherwise? Educational policymaking in the Scottish Parliament, Journal of Education Policy, 18 (3), 289-301.

ARMSTRONG, F., ARMSTRONG, D., BARTON, L. (eds) (2000) Inclusive Education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. London: David Fulton.

BARNES, C., MERCER, G. and SHAKESPEARE, T. (1999) Exploring disability: a sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity.

BARNES, M. (2002) Disability Cambridge: Polity.

BARNES, C, BARTON, L. and OLIVER, M. (2002) Disability Studies Today London: Polity.

BAUMAN, Z. (2004) Identity Cambridge: Polity.

BOOTH, T., AINSCOW, M. with BLACK-HAWKINS, K. (2000) Index for inclusion, developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: CSIE.

BRENNAN, M (2004) Deafness, Disability and Inclusion the gap between rhetoric and practice, Policy Futures in Education, 1, 4, pp 668-685.

CORBETT, J. and SLEE, R. (2000) An International Conversation of Inclusive Education, Inclusive Education, in F. Armstrong, L. Barton, D. Armstrong (eds) Policy, Contexts and Comparatives Perspectives. London: David Fulton, 1: pp 133-146

Department for Education and Science (DES) (1978) Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO.

DEWSBURY, G., CLARKE, K., RANDALL, D., ROUNCEFELD, M. and SOMMERVILLE, I. (2004) The anti-social model of disability, Disability and Society, 19, 2, pp 145-158.

DYSON, A. (1999) Inclusion and inclusions: theories and discourses in inclusive education, in H. Daniels and P. Garner (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

DYSON A., HOWES, A. and ROBERTS, B. (2002) A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting participation by all students (EPPI-Centre Review) In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

EVANS, J and LUNT, I (2002) Inclusive education: are there limits? European Journal of Special Needs Education, vol 17, no 1, pp 1-14

HEGARTY, S. (1993) (2 nd Edition) Meeting special needs in ordinary schools: an overview. London: Cassell.

Learning and Teaching Scotland (2003) Inclusive Educational Approaches for Gypsies and Travellers. Dundee: Learning and Teaching Scotland.

MacKAY, G and McLARTY, M (2003) Educational Support for Children with Disabilities, in Scottish Education (2 nd edition) Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.

MITTLER, P. (nd) Building bridges between special and mainstream services, http://www.eenet.org.uk/theory_practice/build_bridges.html

PERCY-SMITH, J. (ed) (2000) Policy Responses to Social Exclusion: Towards Inclusion? Buckingham: Open University Press.

NORWICH, B. (1996) Special needs education or education for all: connective specialisation and ideological impurity, British Journal of Special Education, 23, 2, pp 100-104.

NORWICH, B. (2000) Inclusion in education: from concepts, values and critique to practice, in   H. Daniels (ed) Special Education Reformed: beyond rhetoric? London: Falcon Press.

OLIVER, M. (1996) Understanding disability: from theory to practice. London: Macmillan.

RIDDELL, S., ADLER, ML, FARMAKOPOULOU, N and MORDAUNT, E. (2000) Special needs and competing policy frameworks in England and Scotland, Journal of Education Policy, 15, 6, pp 621-635.

RIDDELL, S. (2002) Policy and Practice in Special Educational Needs Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

Riddell Committee (1999) Report into the education of children with severe/ low incidence disability. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc04/ridm-02.htm

Scottish Education Department (1978) The Education of Pupils with Learning Difficulties in Primary and Secondary Schools in Scotland: a Progress Report by HM Inspector of Schools. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Scottish Executive (2000) Social Justice: a Scotland where Everyone Matters: Annual Report 2000. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office

Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) (2001) Guidance on Education of Children Absent from School Through Ill-health. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Scottish Parliament Education, Culture and Sports Committee (2001) Report on the Inquiry into Special Educational Needs. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

Scottish Office Education Department (SOED) (1994) Effective Provision for Pupils with Special Educational Needs (ESPEN) Edinburgh: SOED.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) (1998) Setting Targets – Raising Standards in Scottish Schools. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) (1999) Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland’s Schools. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.

THOMAS, G (1997) Inclusive schools for an inclusive society, British Journal of Special Education, 24, 3, pp 103-107.

UNESCO (1994) Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

Table 1: Overview of case-studies

Table 2: policy and legislation in respect of children and young people with SEN in Scotland

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact