supporting inclusion, challenging exclusion
frequently asked questions on schooling for disabled children and young people
- Which children do you call disabled?
- Special schools have been specifically set up to cater for the needs of disabled children. Why deprive these children of such tailor-made provision?
- Well-resourced inclusion is very expensive. Doesn’t it make financial sense to have all relevant resources in one location and educate disabled children there?
- Mainstream school staff do not have the specialist equipment or training needed to cater for the needs of disabled children. How are we supposed to educate them?
- Disabled children would be teased and bullied in mainstream schools. Why subject them to harsh treatment?
- A disabled learner would take up too much of the teacher’s time. Why should other children’s learning suffer?
- Why does CSIE insist that all special schools should be closed?
- Inclusion is all right for some, but there will always be children for whom inclusion cannot work. Why insist that all means all?
Which children do you call disabled?
The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 defines a disabled person as one who has “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities” and provides clarifications and exclusions to this definition. Informed by the voice of disabled people, CSIE views disability as an experience arising from the interaction between a) people’s impairments and b) inflexible structures around them. For example, a wheelchair user in front of a ramp would not be disabled from reaching the door; in front of a flight of steps s/he would. The term “special educational needs”, by focusing on characteristics of the person and not their environment, seems inadequate.
Special schools have been specifically set up to cater for the needs of disabled children. Why deprive these children of such tailor-made provision?
Many of today’s special schools have evolved out of Health-managed Junior Training Centres, which were themselves set up at a time when disabled people were mostly seen as defective and/or objects of pity. Today many of these institutions remain, but the mentality that created them is increasingly called into question: as social values progress and people with unusual bodies or minds are increasingly appreciated and respected as people, it makes little social, educational or moral sense to maintain separate educational institutions for a small minority of children. At a time when personalised learning is a strong feature of mainstream schooling, there is no reason why tailor-made provision has to take place in separate institutions. CSIE suggests that with creative use of resources, including human resources, this question can be turned on its head: why deprive disabled children of the opportunity to grow up, learn and develop with their peers?
Well-resourced inclusion is very expensive. Doesn’t it make financial sense to have all relevant resources in one location and educate disabled children there?
Even if this did make financial sense, it would be a very poor argument for maintaining structures that lead people into living their lives in the margins. Disabled adults tell us that segregated education is inappropriate for disabled pupils because it perpetuates stereotypes, disempowers disabled people and keeps them at the margins of society. Isn’t it about time we started to listen?
That said, segregated schooling is very expensive too. Millions of pounds are spent each year to transport many children long distances twice a day, often by taxi with an escort. This makes neither financial nor educational sense.
Mainstream school staff do not have the specialist equipment or training needed to cater for the needs of disabled children. How are we supposed to educate them?
It might be worth clarifying what it means to ‘educate’ children and young people. Some see the principal aim of education as generating the workforce of tomorrow while others see it as preparing all young people for adult life. CSIE considers this a false dichotomy and suggests the two are not mutually exclusive; indeed, the former is part of the latter. It seems self-evident that preparing young people for adult life is one of the fundamental aims of education. If we want to prepare today’s pupils for tomorrow’s inclusive society, it seems pointless to work with some children in one type of setting and with others in separate institutions. All children and young people benefit from growing up, learning and developing with each other.
As for resources and training, of course they help. Accessing resources and training often requires funds, time and will. (And we all know what happens “when there is a will”.) Principles underpinning “special education”, however, are not all that different from principles underpinning “education”. Many mainstream school staff have been pleasantly surprised to find that creative ways to respond to the diversity of learners often emerge from their own resourceful thinking, sometimes in consultation with external agencies, always in consultation with young people and their families. This is not to say that inclusion is easy. But it is possible.
In the words of Micheline Mason, founder and former director of the Alliance for Inclusive Education,
“Appropriate resources are vital for the learning and development of disabled children. The most essential resource is free and abundant in mainstream schools: non-disabled children.”
Disabled children would be teased and bullied in mainstream schools. Why subject them to harsh treatment?
Recent research by Norwich and Kelly (2004) has shown that young pupils with statements of special educational needs for moderate learning difficulties were bullied as much in mainstream schools as they were in special schools. The researchers also found that pupils attending special schools experienced far more ‘bullying’ by children of mainstream schools and by peers and outsiders in their neighbourhood.
The abstract of Norwich and Kelly's article, Pupils' views on inclusion: moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools is available free (there may be a charge for the full-text).
Many schools that have included disabled pupils have found that children are far more accommodating than anticipated; it is usually adults who make stereotypical assumptions. In any case, a school which fosters inclusive values would be far less likely to see any mistreatment of any student.
A disabled learner would take up too much of the teacher’s time. Why should other children’s learning suffer?
The vision of an inclusive education for all learners does not equate to admitting all children and young people in mainstream schools as we know them. Much more than this, it is about restructuring mainstream provision so that every school can value, respect and support the learning and development of all children and young people.
National guidance suggests that the education of disabled learners falls within the remit of all teachers. Removing Barriers to Achievement, the Government’s Strategy for SEN (2004) states:
All teachers should expect to teach children with special educational needs (SEN) and all schools should play their part in educating children from their local community, whatever their background or ability.
At the same time, UK legislation for over 25 years has stipulated that disabled children should be educated in their local mainstream school, as long as this does not affect the efficient education of other children. This begs the question: what steps have been taken to restructure mainstream provision, so that the presence of disabled children is not seen as a threat to the education of others?
Why does CSIE insist that all special schools should be closed?
This is essentially a human rights issue. Undoubtedly a number of special schools have first-rate facilities and committed, knowledgeable and experienced staff. No matter how exceptional the setting, however, the fact remains that special schools are segregating institutions. They deprive disabled learners of the opportunity to grow up, learn and develop with their peers. Such discrimination goes against recommendations in international human rights instruments.
It is often difficult to imagine a system different from the one we know. The thought of closing down all special schools may, for the time being, appear too radical to some. CSIE firmly believes this to be a necessary step towards greater social justice and draws strength and inspiration from effective models of full inclusion in this country and abroad. As more and more mainstream schools review their culture, policies and practices and as an increasing number of mainstream schools are willing and able to include all learners, a perceived need to preserve special schools is expected to diminish.
From a financial point of view, an additional benefit of closing special schools is this: the high cost of maintaining separate institutions for a small proportion of learners can be redirected to support inclusive provision. All running costs can be saved and staff time restructured to support learners in mainstream settings. In a well-documented report on a special school which closed, a simple and effective system is described: each member of staff who, in the special school, was responsible for a class of ten pupils, subsequently spent half a day a week supporting the inclusion of each of these pupils in a mainstream school footnote 1.
Inclusion is all right for some, but there will always be children for whom inclusion cannot work. Why insist that all means all?
It might be worth exploring what assumptions lie behind this question. What is it that is believed to make inclusion impossible for some pupils? If it is the culture and organization of mainstream schools as we know them, are these seen as fixed and rigid, set beyond the possibility of change? The notion of schooling emerged in a society where disabled people had no place and from which they were routinely intentionally removed. Society has been changing and disabled people are increasingly claiming their rightful place in it. How is education choosing to respond? What is education’s answer to the claim that established systems act as disabling barriers for some children and young people? CSIE sees this as a human rights question, to which education is urgently called upon to find an answer.
It sometimes helps to consider the same issues in a different context. If you, the reader of this text, were to become disabled (and most of us will, probably in later life) how would it feel if you were denied access to your regular place of work or leisure? How would it be if you were told that, instead, you should attend an alternative place of work or leisure, which is tailor-made for your needs and full of other people like you? You may well value some contact with others who are, for example, wheelchair-users or partially sighted, but would you be happy to have this instead of your regular contact with existing friends and colleagues?
Let us now return to the issue of schooling for disabled learners. If it is thought that a pupil “cannot access the curriculum” is it, in principle, better to turn the pupil away or to make every effort to make the curriculum relevant and accessible to this pupil? Please allow us to reiterate: inclusion is not easy, but it is possible. For all learners. In its autumn 1995 bulletin (volume 2, number 2) the National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, at the Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York, reported the following statement from the Ontario School District:
All students with disabilities who live in the school district have the opportunity to be totally included in the regular classroom and the extracurricular activities of their school. The only criteria for a student to attend any of our six elementary schools, our middle school or our high school is they must be breathing.
Inclusive education for some but not others is simply not inclusive education. After all, seeing disabled people as essentially different from non-disabled people is only one way of meaning-making; it focuses more on difference than on sameness. We are all good at some things and need help with others. And we probably all find it frustrating if other people define us by what we need help with.
Footnote 1
Jupp, K. (1992) Everyone belongs: mainstream education for children with severe learning difficulties. London: Souvenir Press. Back to question >>
Page last updated: Wednesday 12 January 2011