Inclusive Education at the Crossroads: Exploring Effective Special Needs Provision in Global Contexts [1 ed.] 9781032202150, 9781032202167, 9781003262701

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Series editor foreword
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
About the authors
1. The progress of inclusion and the elephant in the classroom
2. The Salamanca Statement: Guidance taken to its (il)logical conclusion
3. International views of inclusion: Myths, confusions and the denial of reality
4. Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide
5. School leadership and management of SEND
6. Perspectives of parents on the inclusion of children with SEND
7. Inclusion of pupils with different types of SEND
8. Government policy and legislation for SEND provision in England
9. Research on effectiveness of inclusive education and special education
10. Equity, excellence and inclusive special education
11. Inclusion and special education or inclusive special education? The way forward
Index

Citation preview

Inclusive Education at the Crossroads

Inclusive Education at the Crossroads explores the short and long-term effectiveness of government plans to reform policy for special needs education, confronting difficult questions on policies about inclusion and suggesting alternative ways forward for achieving more effective education of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Inclusion has been a central concern for education systems globally for over three decades. However, has preoccupation with inclusion been at the expense of effective education for children with SEND? Where do policies for inclusion lead, and do they amount to the special education reform that is needed? What do the worldwide experiences of inclusion and special education reveal about how to improve the quality of education systems for all children in the future? How effective is the provision for children with SEND today? Through this informative and topical book, Gordon-Gould and Hornby shine an interrogating spotlight on current provision for SEND and ask if current legislation and policy inadvertently reinforce problems and if they cause many children with SEND to fall short of their potential, as well as preventing many schools from improving their levels of overall academic attainment. Inclusive Education at the Crossroads provides theory and research for teachers, school leaders, SENDCos, governors, policy makers, researchers, parents, post graduate students and anyone seeking practical solutions to meeting the needs of pupils with SEND in any global context. It will encourage open debate about the essence of educational inclusion in order to stimulate creative thinking among all stakeholders. Philippa Gordon-Gould has worked as a teacher and SENDCo with a special interest in dyslexia in primary and secondary schools in East Anglia, UK, and draws on her experience as a teacher in the United States and Europe. Garry Hornby is a former mainstream school and special class teacher and educational psychologist. He is currently Emeritus Professor at the University of Plymouth in the UK and Associate Professor at the University of Silesia in Poland.

Connecting Research with Practice in Special and Inclusive Education Series edited by Philip Garner

This new series represents a commitment to supporting the emergence of applied research in Special and Inclusive Education. It comprises an authoritative collection of books which examine in depth the key issues being experienced in the field, both currently and into the future. These have been selected to illustrate both national and international dimensions of a chosen theme in Special and Inclusive Education. Each book has been commissioned from leading writers each of whom has substantial experience in their topic and who is also recognised for their capacity to connect a body of systematic evidence to the needs of a practitioner audience. Authors contributing to the series are often practitioners or practitioner-researchers themselves. On Educational Inclusion An Exploration of Meanings, History, and Issues Edited by James M Kauffman Establishing Pathways to Inclusion Investigating the Experiences and Outcomes for Students with Special Educational Needs Richard Rose and Michael Shevlin Contemporary Approaches to Behaviour and Mental Health in the Classroom Weaving Together Theory, Practice, Policy and Educational Discourse Emma Clarke Inclusive Education at the Crossroads Exploring Effective Special Needs Provision in Global Contexts Philippa Gordon-Gould and Garry Hornby For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Connecting-Research-with-Practice-in-Special-and-Inclusive-Education/ book-series/CRPSIE

Inclusive Education at the Crossroads Exploring Effective Special Needs Provision in Global Contexts Philippa Gordon-Gould and Garry Hornby

Cover image: © Getty Images First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Philippa Gordon-Gould and Garry Hornby The right of Philippa Gordon-Gould and Garry Hornby to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-20215-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-20216-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-26270-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701 Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

To each of our grown-up children from our respective families who have taught us so much and given us so much pleasure and pride in what they have achieved in overcoming the challenges they’ve each encountered. Wishing them happiness always. Adam, Ben, Daniel, Juliet, Olivia and Richard.

Contents

Series editor foreword Foreword Preface Acknowledgements About the authors

viii x xii xiv xv

1 The progress of inclusion and the elephant in the classroom

1

2 The Salamanca Statement: Guidance taken to its (il)logical conclusion

10

3 International views of inclusion: Myths, confusions and the denial of reality

28

4 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

46

5 School leadership and management of SEND

77

6 Perspectives of parents on the inclusion of children with SEND

97

7 Inclusion of pupils with different types of SEND

119

8 Government policy and legislation for SEND provision in England

142

9 Research on effectiveness of inclusive education and special education

168

10 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

179

11 Inclusion and special education or inclusive special education? The way forward

197

Index

215

Series editor foreword

A number of years ago, I had the pleasure of working alongside Garry Hornby and an assorted group of practitioners and researchers in developing a piece of work that was published as Enabling Inclusion: Blue Skies…Dark Clouds (O’Brien, 2001). At that time, Garry pointed to what is an abiding dilemma in meeting the learning and social needs of all children. He stated that ‘A common confusion among many educators is that of confusing the rhetoric of full inclusion with the reality of the situation in school’ (p. 7). He drew on research which indicated that whilst a high proportion of practitioners agreed with the principles of inclusion, far fewer believed this to be realistic for every single child. These sentiments continue to provide a backdrop for current policy and practice, and for the substantive content of this book, driven by an experienced practitioner, Gordon-Gould. A regrettable default position adopted by those who advocate so-called full-inclusion is that those who continue to scrutinise or seek exceptions to inclusive education are themselves part of the problem. On the contrary, informed discussion – which sets aside preconditioned views and fixed positions – provides a healthy arena in which professional and academic insights can flourish. In contributing Inclusive Education at the Crossroads to this series, Philippa and Garry maintain this questioning stance. They do so in ways that offer evidence drawn from recent research and that seek to add potency and meaning to an ongoing educational quest. Young learners, and those who support them in various ways, are at the very heart of what this book is about. Its authors do not adopt a fixed or polarised stance; such an approach would inhibit the kind of expansive thinking required to give greater sense of meaning and purpose to future formulations of inclusive education. Their inference is that policy makers and practitioners are involved in a complex and longer-term process, in which the agenda and its accompanying pathway(s) require flexibility, whilst retaining the student at its centre. The 11 chapters of Inclusive Education at the Crossroads offer the reader fuel for this long march. None attempt to subvert the challenges with generalities or expectant platitudes. Inclusive education is complex and contested, populated by fiefdoms and predilections. Recognition of this is the strength of the book’s content: each chapter contributes to finding a way forward, so that an inclusive

Series editor foreword

ix

experience in education, correctly the birth right of all, can be a greater reality than is presently the case. — Professor Philip Garner, Series Editor, Brunel University London

References O’Brien, T. (Ed.) (2001) Enabling Inclusion: Blue Skies…Dark Clouds. London: The Stationery Office.

Foreword

Life is complicated, so seeking to simplify it is understandable. However, as the aphorism states, ‘For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.’ Therefore, ‘Seek simplicity, but distrust it’ is sage advice. It is easy to overlook the need for distrusting simplicity, because distrust is always meaningless without further explanation. But apparent simplicity requires elaboration and nuance to challenge irrational thinking (Specter, 2009). Inclusion, and its misplaced association with equity, particularly inclusion in education, is one of those issues about which people are tempted to seek simplicity. Gordon-Gould and Hornby explain precisely how the supposedly simple solution of full inclusion (the ‘all means all’ concept) is not worthy of our unquestioning trust, as it is a misrepresentation of realities regarding disabilities, schooling and teaching. A great temptation of many is reduction of educational inclusion to an apparently simplistic solution to avoid the hard decisions that go with options for the location of education for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The appeal of this reductio ad absurdum approach to the question of place of education has enormous political appeal and fits well with many nations’ (and the United Nations’) discomfort with ambiguity in law, regulation and statements of policy. Gordon-Gould and Hornby trace the history and current international popularity of the idea of full inclusion in education, even in the face of its logical absurdity and practical infeasibility, as a solution to the challenge of appropriate education for all children with disabilities. They take us on an evidence-based exploration of the realities of supporting special needs in the classroom, the incongruities between the international aims of the human rights inclusion movement and the realities of implementing full inclusion. Admirably, Gordon-Gould and Hornby do not merely point out the problems and inanities of the full inclusion movement but suggest a way forward that makes much better sense. They are supportive of inclusion where it is appropriate, not mindless insistence that general education is or can be made effective for all learners. Theirs is an approach that puts children’s welfare first, not an ideology that assumes children can be best served only in general education classrooms. Theirs is a humane approach that puts children’s well-being and learning ahead of where

Foreword

xi

their bodies are located, that recognizes differences in children’s needs, including needs that require specialized, atypical environments. — James M. Kauffman, Emeritus Professor, University of Virginia, USA

References Specter, M. (2009). Denialism: How irrational thinking hinders scientific progress, harms the planet, and threatens our lives. Penguin.

Preface

It has become clear to us as authors that there is a danger special education provision may be side-lined by education systems, as an adjunct to mainstream schooling, or be eradicated altogether. In our experience, the integration of high-quality special school education and special class provision, with mainstream schools, within wider education systems, is essential for the effective education of children with a wide range of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The reality that special education schools and classes are being closed down in many countries around the world, due to pressures on education systems to become more ostensibly ‘inclusive,’ provided the motivation for our investigation into this trend, while exploring the effectiveness of the implementation of inclusion in mainstream schooling. As a teacher, and particularly as a Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENDCo), I (Philippa) became deeply uncomfortable with the mismatch between the legitimate rights of children with special needs in schools and the reality of what my colleagues and I could provide for them. It became imperative for me to investigate whether there were better, alternative means, by considering the function of not just teachers and school leaders but the whole education system, from government policies to pupils in the classroom, and to discover what could be learned from other school systems around the world. Garry wanted to share his experiences of supporting the development of young people with special needs as a parent, teacher, educational psychologist, researcher and professor. He wanted to share evidence about effective implementation of organisational and pedagogical strategies that provide quality education for children with special needs. He wanted to share his longstanding scepticism about the inclusion agenda and discuss whether it has been improving or degrading education provision for young people with SEND internationally. He intended that a thorough evaluation of relevant research, theory and practice would suggest a more constructive and productive way forward. Driven by our own personal, family and professional experiences, we have used this opportunity to work together to draw on our different roles in teaching, research and parenting. Our individual searches coalesced in a mutual

Preface

xiii

quest for answers, and we resolved to write this book for anyone who is interested in the issue of inclusion in the education of young people with SEND. The book is therefore based on our personal and professional experiences of involvement in the education of young people with SEND, as well as our review and evaluation of theory, research and practice on this in the academic and professional literature. In various chapters, we use our experiences as practitioners along with our interpretations of theory and research evidence to illustrate the points we are making. We consider that this provides a richer more comprehensive perspective of the issues we address, which makes the book more interesting and accessible to teachers, parents, other professionals, administrators, researchers and policy makers. — Philippa Gordon-Gould, Suffolk, UK and Garry Hornby, Barbados, West Indies – July 2022.

Acknowledgements

From Philippa: my loving thanks to my husband, Tony, for his unerring invaluable support, keeping me grounded during moments of doubt; my thanks also: to Jane Dupree for passing on her understanding and knowledge about young people with dyslexia and how they learn; to Philippa Stobbs from the Council for Disabled Children, whose seminar discussions at the TES show were invaluably helpful; to friends for their wise counsel; personal support and understanding; to Tom Hunt, MP who had the courage to share publicly his own struggles with dyspraxia and dyslexia; to Sharon Roper whose friendship and support during challenging times; to all the children I have ever taught for all they have taught me; and to Garry who has given me the courage of my convictions and taught me so much on an immeasurably inspiring working journey together. From Garry: thanks to my wife Marcia for insightful feedback throughout the process and for putting up with me doing another book; to colleagues who have provided support and acted as mentors over the years; to the parents and children with SEND from whom I have learned so much; and to Philippa, who has been an absolute pleasure to work with. We would both like to thank James Kauffman for writing the foreword and encapsulating the essence of our book’s message so eloquently. Finally, we would both like to thank Alison Foyle for granting us the opportunity to write the book and for being understanding throughout the delays. Much appreciated.

About the authors

Philippa Gordon-Gould (BA (Hons); SpLD (Dip); PGCE (MFL); NASENCO) works as a freelance teacher in primary and secondary schools and as a Special Educational Needs consultant. She was born in Hampshire, England, and completed a music degree at the University of Leeds. Her first job was as a teacher of English as a modern foreign language in France where she continued to study flute at the Lille Conservatoire and French at the University of Lille. She lived most of her early married life abroad and spent nearly four years in the USA where she worked at the Philadelphia College of Performing Arts and started to raise her family. She later lived in Munich and Frankfurt for three and a half years before returning to Cheshire where she gained experience teaching music. Following her husband’s professional moves, she then relocated with four young children to Antwerp where she lived and worked for five years while supporting her children in becoming fluent Flemish speakers. She taught English as a foreign language to primary school children through verse and song at a Rudolph Steiner school. On returning to England, she settled in Suffolk where she continued to teach music and English language to children with dyslexia. She trained to become a classroom teacher as a mature student in 2008 at Christchurch University in Canterbury where she specialised in teaching French. Since then, she has worked across all age groups from 4–16 in a range of schools including Montessori, mainstream primary, middle and secondary as well as special schools. Married and living in East Anglia, she now has four independent adult children and since 2017 has trained and worked as a SENDCo in primary and secondary schools. Garry Hornby (BSc, MA, DipEdPsych., PhD, CPsychol., FBPsS) is an Emeritus Professor of Education at the Institute of Education at the University of Plymouth in the UK. Garry was born in England and completed a degree in physics at the University of Leeds. His first job was as a counsellor/care worker in a residential school for emotionally disturbed and intellectually disabled children in the USA. He then worked as a secondary school teacher of mathematics and science in England and New Zealand. From there he went on to teach a special class for children with moderate learning difficulties in Auckland and subsequently trained as an educational psychologist at Auckland University. He worked as an educational psychologist, and then a teacher educator at the Auckland College of Education, before returning to England.

xvi About the authors He then worked as a lecturer and researcher at the Universities of Manchester and Hull, where he obtained his PhD. He also worked as a consultant on special needs education for the Ministry of Education and lectured for two years at Erdiston College and the University of the West Indies in Barbados. In 2002 he moved to Christchurch, New Zealand, where he was a professor of education at the University of Canterbury for 12 years. During 2016 and 2017 he was Director of Research at the Institute of Education at the University of Plymouth in the UK. He is married to a Barbadian and they have two adult sons, now living in Barbados. Garry’s teaching and research is in the areas of educational psychology, special education, counselling and guidance, teacher education and parental involvement in education. He has published over 200 journal articles and book chapters, and 15 books in the field of education, including: Counselling in Child Disability (Chapman and Hall, 1994); Improving Parental Involvement (Cassell, 2000); Mental Health Handbook for Schools (Routledge. 2002); Counselling Pupils in Schools: Skills and Strategies for Teachers (Routledge, 2003); Meeting Special Needs in Mainstream Schools (2nd ed.) (David Fulton, 2000); Parental Involvement in Childhood Education: Building Effective School-Family Partnerships (Springer, 2011); Inclusive Special Education: Evidence-based Practices for Children with Special Needs and Disabilities (Springer, 2014); and Essential Evidence-Based Teaching Strategies: Ensuring Optimal Academic Achievement for Students. Springer (2022).

1

The progress of inclusion and the elephant in the classroom

Introduction The contentious issue addressed in this book is how to provide effective education for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) within the context of international pressure towards full inclusion and national pressure to raise educational standards. This is a central question for policies governing all school systems globally as they are held accountable, on the one hand for improving levels of academic achievement (OECD, 2018), and on the other hand by ambitions towards an idealistic vision of full inclusion (UNESCO, 2020). At the same time, it is becoming evident that coping with increasing numbers of children with SEND is an important component in the success of both of these aims. Taking this into account and the diversity and complexity of the special needs they present, we reflect on the extent to which it is possible to address all special educational needs effectively within mainstream classrooms, while at the same time improving academic standards overall. The book focuses on theory, research and practice on SEND to question whether schools are in a position to develop the potential of all children or whether current policies on inclusion could be instrumental in holding them back. Hence, it considers whether the issue of SEND is the ‘elephant in the classroom.’ That is, whether failure to take into account the inability of teachers to effectively provide for the wide diversity and complexity of SEND in mainstream classrooms will doom all attempts to achieve a high level of inclusion and improvements in overall academic standards.

Definition of terms We have used the generic term special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in this book and do not distinguish between implications for those with a learning difficulty or a disability without a learning difficulty. We have taken this approach to include all those children for whom education systems are required to make appropriate accommodations to enable them to fully access relevant learning. In other words, SEND refers to all those pupils with additional needs for learning in a similar sense to that used in Scotland by DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-1

2

The progress of inclusion

referring to ‘additional support needs’ (Scottish Government, 2022). Since the acronym ‘SEND’ is considered a potentially more all-encompassing word, now widely understood in England, and many other parts of the world, we decided to use it throughout this book. We consider the inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools to be a worthwhile objective so long as it can contribute to the greater purpose of educating pupils effectively and supporting them appropriately. The most important inclusion for young people with SEND is experiencing inclusion in their communities once they have completed their education. Inclusion in mainstream classrooms and schools is only justifiable when it contributes to this goal. Therefore, inclusion in mainstream schools for its own sake is not considered an appropriate goal in the education of children with SEND. For this reason, we reject the notion of full inclusion, as this means that all pupils will be placed in mainstream classrooms regardless of whether it will benefit them or not in the long term. We consider that it is more important for young people with SEND to experience an appropriate, high quality and effective education which prepares them to be as independent as possible and to feel included in their communities following school, than to be included in the mainstream during their time at school. For education to be effective, it needs to be of high quality and to meet the needs of the individual. A high-quality education enables students with SEND to fully explore and realize their potential through relevant curricular and extra-curricular activities. It equips them with the social, vocational, life and academic skills they need to progress effectively with self-efficacy. It enables them to become as independent as possible and to feel, as well as to be, included and valued within their communities. Essentially it is about self-actualization – a chance to become one’s best self, along with the necessary skills to pursue one’s strengths while positively managing one’s learning difficulties or disability.

The focus of this book This book looks back at the trajectory of policies for the inclusion of young people with SEND since the worldwide agreement at Salamanca, Spain (UNESCO, 1994) and considers some of the influences that have been relevant to developments of SEND provision today. It also discusses, from the perspective of their historical and cultural identities, the ways in which different countries have responded to the call for inclusive education, in terms of policy and its implementation. The book invites readers to consider fundamental questions about the trend towards inclusive education and whether this has so far served countries well in their progress towards improving education for young people with SEND. It questions whether countries should be continuing to strive for inclusion, in terms of where children are educated, or should be focusing more on adapting legislation and policies to support the process of meeting their needs appropriately, wherever that may be. It proposes that inclusion is at a crossroads in terms of how countries

The progress of inclusion

3

think about the way in which they can make effective educational provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We, therefore, do not seek to avoid difficult questions but grapple with how inclusion is implemented and how the idealistic objectives of inclusion can collide with providing optimal learning for all. The book demonstrates how inclusion raises more questions than answers, more problems than solutions, and how current assumptions about inclusion may inhibit the pursuit of alternative ways forward and ultimately impede our progress towards building more equitable and effective education systems. It is considered that a balance has to be struck between promoting a simple concept of human rights, as associated with inclusive education, and the central goal of any nation’s education system, which is to insure that children’s rights to a high-quality education are upheld. We propose that the main responsibility of an education system is to be fully responsive to the learning needs and potential of individuals in a way that will ultimately enable them to become competent, fulfilled and socially included citizens, able to be as economically independent as possible.

Questions about reforming special education Doubts about both special and inclusive education being able to meet the needs of young people with SEND effectively have featured in the research literature since the 1980s. However, the process of evaluating the effectiveness of either system has not been without research biases endorsing the value system of those supporting one approach over another. In recent years this has principally been about the endorsement and promotion of an inclusive agenda over special education. It is now considered timely that a more objective assessment of inclusion should be considered, in light of the international experience of stakeholders over the past 30 years, together with the findings of more recent research worldwide. It appears to us that concerns about the trend towards inclusion are coming to a head, and that current policies and practices need to be urgently re-evaluated, with a focus on finding the best way forward for SEND provision. It is intended that this book will provide information on theory and research for parents, teachers and school leaders with which to voice their concerns about the effects of current practice in different education systems. It also highlights lessons from the experiences of a wide range of countries that can point to emerging, practically informed solutions for policy makers in their respective contexts. The book reflects on the extent to which the global trajectory towards the inclusion of increased numbers of children, with greater degrees of SEND, may have come at the price of reduced attention to their individual learning needs. It also questions to what extent this has come about as a result of pressure from sources such as the United Nations, the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for countries to subscribe to an idealistic philosophy of full inclusion.

4

The progress of inclusion

It considers the various phases of implementation of the inclusion agenda that countries are currently going through and questions how their efforts are being evaluated and steered by overseers of what could be considered an imperialistic directive from the United Nations and its associates. The book highlights the impact on young peoples’ lives when education systems seek to minimize the need for early identification of special needs in pursuit of adopting the ideals of full inclusion. The consequences of the various attempts towards implementing full inclusion are considered and whether the closing down of special schools and special classes, along with the loss of specialist pedagogical skills and resources, is a move likely to serve the best interests of vulnerable children and society as a whole in the long run. The inclusion movement appears to have taken on a relentless momentum of its own in which multiple interdependent interests of people in positions of political influence and power direct the fate of those with none. However, it is the unevenness of experience that contributes to divisive views about each educational system’s effectiveness and therefore to the concept of inclusion itself. For example, a family whose young child receives a maximum amount of legally protected support from a well-resourced school in combination with other outside services will have a very different experience of the effects of inclusion from a family of a senior school child whose needs have gone undocumented and unsupported for years. The teachers of classes with one or two consistently well supported children will have a very different experience of the effects of inclusion from a teacher with a class in which 40% of pupils have SEND and therefore likely to have long-term unmet learning needs. It is the implementation of inclusion and how it affects the lives of the full range of children and young people with SEND that concerns us. For many, especially those in areas of high disadvantage, inclusive policies are often experienced as having detrimental consequences, exacerbating rather than ameliorating the social divisions between those able to aspire to success and those who are not. The apparently equitable aim of inclusion, in practice, therefore, is not all that it appears. In the name of community cohesion, tolerance of diversity and equal opportunities, policy makers and educators around the world may be becoming inadvertently complicit in creating a compelling veneer of apparently equitable inclusive education that does not meet the needs of many young people with SEND. In this way the inclusion agenda may be blinding society to its real consequences on the lives and prospects of young people with SEND who are unable to speak out for themselves.

Landmark initiatives and the seeds of inclusion It is important to take a step back and consider the original intention behind the initiatives that have converged to bring about the current momentum towards ever greater inclusion. A turning point occurred in Western education systems in the 1970s when the international focus on the education of children with SEND was influenced by three major initiatives. First, was the

The progress of inclusion

5

normalization principle (Thomas, 2017) inspired by the Swede, Bengt Nirje, and originally proposed in North America by Wolfensberger (1972) in his book, The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. Normalization was introduced as a principle that aimed to enable people with severe or profound intellectual disabilities to experience normal patterns of everyday life, such as living in the community and undertaking normal day-to-day activities. Its initial focus was on de-institutionalization of children and adults with severe or profound intellectual disabilities who were being kept in large remote institutions for the whole of their lives. The principle of normalisation influenced the closure of many of these institutions in countries around the world which led to children and adults with disabilities starting to be integrated into their communities. This was an important step forward in the recognition of the human right to a life within the community as far as possible. It also led many countries to implement laws that mandated the right for all children with disabilities, who might not otherwise have previously received an education, to be included within their respective education systems. The principle of inclusion of children with disabilities into mainstream education began to be increasingly aligned with the concept of human rights. Initially it was recognized that physical disability need not be a barrier to children and young people accessing the common curriculum. Whilst physical disabilities would not present an inevitable barrier to accessing learning in the same way as others, intellectual disabilities presented a more complicated challenge. However, the principle of inclusion as a human right for anyone with any sort of disability started to take root. When pupils with intellectual impairments started to be seen as sharing the same rights to inclusion as others in mainstream schools, it set a precedent for public education systems. The second initiative was the implementation of landmark legislation, when the US Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, known as Public Law 94–142 (EAHCA, 1975) protecting the rights and meeting the needs of children and youth with disabilities and their families. The key aspects of this have since been maintained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), which specifies six principles for the education of children with special needs: 1) zero reject, which requires that the education system cannot exclude students with special needs or disabilities and must provide special education services when needed; 2) non-discriminatory evaluation, which requires that children are evaluated fairly and that parents receive guidelines about special education and related services available; 3) free and appropriate education, which requires schools to put in place legally mandated documents referred to as Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for all children identified as having special educational needs; 4) least restrictive environment, which requires schools to educate children with peers of the same age to the maximum extent appropriate; 5) procedural due process, which includes safeguards for children and their parents, including the right to sue if the other principles are not carried out and 6) family and student participation, which requires that parents and students are fully involved in designing and delivering programmes.

6

The progress of inclusion

These six principles underpinning the IDEA provide children with SEND and their families in the USA with an assurance of an appropriate education. However, because of the requirement of the least restrictive environment, IDEA sowed the seeds for consideration of the inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools. So the years between 1975 and 2004 saw the promotion of such movements as the Regular Education Initiative, Mainstreaming, Integration and then Inclusive Education, all of which were underpinned by the principle of ensuring a least restrictive environment. The third significant landmark initiative was the publication of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) in the UK. This marked the first comprehensive review of special education in the UK and was the basis for subsequent legislation, from the Education Act of 1981 to the Children and Families Act of 2014. It was highly influential in the UK and internationally. The report replaced previous terminology with the term ‘special educational needs’ (SEN), emphasised the rights and role of parents and recognised that one in five children had special needs at some time in their lives and, for one in six, this was long-term. It implied that the continuum of children’s special needs should be met by a continuum of provision but suggested that this special education provision should be integral to general education, as opposed to being separate from it. This was widely viewed as encouragement for the integration of children with SEND into mainstream schools, and triggered a global trend towards the development of legislation linking human rights to ever greater levels of inclusion in ‘public’ or ‘mainstream’ schools, despite the fact that the way in which such legislation would be implemented in practice had not been worked out. Nearly 30 years later, Warnock (2005) published a pamphlet entitled, Special Educational Needs: A New Look in which she expressed serious concerns about the implementation of some of the 1978 Reports’ policy ideas, including a critical review of the effects of inclusion on children with SEND. In it she referred to inclusion as, ‘possibly the most disastrous legacy’ of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978), since, ‘there is increasing evidence that the ideal of inclusion, if this means that all but those with the most severe disabilities will be in mainstream schools, is not working (Warnock, 2005, pp. 30–32).’ She concluded that inclusive education should be rethought and redefined in order to allow children with SEND to be included in the ‘common educational enterprise of learning, wherever they can learn best’ (Warnock, 2005, p. 13). She went on to argue for the continued need for special schools for some children with SEND and stated, ‘the dogmatic special school closure lobby must recognize that for some children special schools are the best or indeed the only option’ (quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 129). However, Warnock’s warnings were largely ignored at that time. The practice of inclusion as far as possible had been accepted as being progressive and in everyone’s best interests. By the time Warnock’s pamphlet was published in 2005, the inclusion bandwagon had already left the station. In the past 20 years, the inclusion bandwagon has rolled on relentlessly without much success in achieving its goals, while getting increasing push-back

The progress of inclusion

7

from those attempting to implement it, leading to the present situation where it appears to have stalled at a final crossroads. Therefore, we believe that a new direction needs to be taken if a disastrous breakdown of provision for children with SEND is to be prevented. Perpetuating the rhetoric and attempts to enforce inclusion, in the face of increasing evidence that full inclusion is an ‘impossible dream’, is self-defeating. We propose that this is mainly because it fails to take full account of the ‘elephant in the classroom’, that is, the substantial numbers, diversity and complexity involved in supporting children’s SEND, which make extreme forms of inclusive education, especially full inclusion of all children with SEND in mainstream classrooms, unworkable. In the chapters that follow, the end of the road for full inclusion is signalled and the need to chart a more realistic way forward is proposed.

Overview of key themes in the book In Chapter 2, we consider the UNESCO (2020) review of key international agreements, committing nations to the development of full inclusion policies. We show how an international consensus for establishing a global human rights-based entitlement to education, irrespective of any disability, morphed into ideological imperatives about inclusion without proper evaluation of how they were to be implemented. In Chapter 3 we then raise questions about the meaning of inclusion and commonly held assumptions concerning the promise of full inclusion. In Chapter 4 we consider how the definition of inclusion has been interpreted and integrated into different nations’ education legislation in a demonstrative attempt to recognise inclusive education as a human right for all. We consider both what is lost and gained as inclusion has been introduced and implemented in a range of different countries around the globe. We then consider the perspective of different stakeholders, including school leadership, teachers, parents and children respectively, on the implementation of inclusion in England in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. We draw attention to the importance of effective coordinated leadership, funding and accountability. We challenge the commonly held assumption that the success of inclusion is largely to do with teacher attitudes and explore the inconsistency of both recognising the value of parental involvement while at the same time overriding parents’ opinions. The classroom experience of teachers and pupils with and without SEND is central to this middle section of the book, which highlights the importance of adequate resourcing and appropriate support. What it means to belong – a subject first raised by Mary Warnock and since used to corroborate arguments both for and against inclusion – is considered with respect to how children are able to identify with others in their immediate educational environment. In Chapter 8 we assess the effects of inclusive policy reform and legislation in England and consider to what extent that has improved access to a high quality of education for children with SEND. We propose recommendations for legislative reform that would address the need for early assessment and hold accountable the governance of all types of schools, whether Academies, Multi-Academy Trusts,

8

The progress of inclusion

Local Authority maintained or independent, for high quality provision of SEND at all levels. Chapter 9 examines research evidence on whether inclusive education or special education programmes are more likely to result in young people with SEND being included in their communities after they leave school, by reporting the findings of outcome studies of students with learning or behavioural difficulties who had experience of both options. Chapter 10 uses the widely different education systems of Finland, New Zealand, USA and Barbados to illustrate the importance of the inter-relationship between mainstream schools and special education for the overall benefit of education systems. It demonstrates how over-emphasis on either special education or inclusive education, to the exclusion of the other, jeopardises both equity and excellence within national education systems, and leads to poorer overall educational outcomes. It proposes that a balance of both high-quality special education and effective inclusive education, within a comprehensive service delivery model, will result in superior overall educational outcomes. Chapter 11 sums up the lessons learned from over 30 years of experience of working out how the concept of inclusion can be implemented in countries around the world. We raise the question of whether the unintended consequence of an idealistic aspiration of inclusion has over-reached itself in what it hoped to achieve and may have inadvertently hijacked and side-tracked the pursuit of high-quality educational experiences for young people with SEND.

Concluding comments The progress of the inclusion agenda has been relentless, but further progress is being thwarted by ‘the elephant in the classroom’ – that is silence about the real challenges faced by mainstream schools concerned with meeting the needs of an increasingly wide range, number and complexity of children with SEND. We sense that among teachers, academics and politicians, there has been an unacknowledged censorship around the debate about inclusion that has gone on for too long. We consider how the way in which children are assessed and government statistics are presented, have given us an inaccurate picture of the true number and extent of the pupils who require special or additional support, and that this has been done for the sake of cost-cutting and expediency, justified by the philosophy of inclusion. This book brings that debate to life by presenting theory, research evidence and examples of practice which highlight the practical difficulties of pursuing high levels of inclusion in mainstream classrooms. It demonstrates how current policies and practices may deprive some children and young people with SEND from being included in their communities in the long-term in contradiction to the goals of espoused theories of inclusion. As an alternative, the book proposes the implementation of Inclusive Special Education, in which the best features of special education and inclusive education are combined in a collaborative model.

The progress of inclusion

9

The book represents a departure from previously written books on the subject of inclusion as it speaks to a wider audience. It seeks to galvanise parents and teachers into speaking openly about their concerns and contributing to the debate that has in the past been dominated by academics and policy makers, who may be remote from the real-life experiences of other stakeholders. It is hoped that the book will influence future policy and practice in the education of young people with SEND in the direction of providing more effective education that is able to prioritise excellent educational outcomes for all.

References DES (1978). Special educational needs: The Warnock Report. HMSO. EAHCA (1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law (PL) 94– 142, 20 USC 1401. IDEA (2004) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. No. 108– 446, 20 U.S.C. OECD (2018). Programme for International Student Assessment: 2018 Results. OECD. Scottish Government (2022). Schools: Policy: Additional support for learning. https:// www.gov.scot/policies/schools/additional-support-for-learning/. Terzi, L. (ed.) (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. Continuum. Thomas, S. (2017). Normalization. https://wolfwolfensberger.com/life-s-work/normaliza tion. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO. UNCRPD (2006). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-therights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. UNESCO (2019). Cali commitment to equity and inclusion in education. UNESCO. UNESCO (2020). Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Global Education Monitoring Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718. Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. National Institute on Mental Retardation.

2

The Salamanca Statement: Guidance taken to its (il)logical conclusion

Introduction We argue that, at this time, it is essential to stop and question the path that we are on with regard to inclusion for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). This chapter seeks to examine the current trajectory of inclusion by looking closely at how it was launched and has been subsequently supported by the United Nations through reference to the international agreement made at Salamanca, Spain (UNESCO, 1994). We explore the societal mindset that led to, and perpetuates, the continued influence of this agreement, and reconsider some theory and research, in the years since 1994, which might be fruitfully heeded. For all the good intentions that surround inclusion, there are important lessons to be learned from the international literature that might steer us in a more practicable direction. We consider how England, along with other nations, have confronted the dilemmas posed by the Salamanca Statement and the subsequent UN commitment to it and ask whether, in our haste to defend children’s rights to an idealised view of inclusion, we might be in danger of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

UNESCO agreement at Salamanca and the Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (1994) The UNESCO conference in Salamanca, Spain, in 1994 was a political initiative in response to international concerns that, globally, 350 million children were at that time excluded from education altogether. It consolidated much of the important work done by the United Nations Education for All initiative (EFA) to address the educational needs of poor and disadvantaged minority groups and those with disabilities (UNESCO, 1990). The conference agreement, as formulated in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), was designed to instigate a specific focus on enabling children with special educational needs to be included in national education systems. It pointed to the need for new social and economic policies worldwide to bring about the relevant reforms that would be necessary in ordinary schools for this to be implemented. It argued that regular schools should DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-2

The Salamanca Statement

11

recognise it as a human right that they accommodate children with all types of diversity, including the majority of those with special educational needs and disabilities (UNESCO, 1994). These worthy goals of educational entitlement as a human right for children with any type of disability only started to become problematic when that right became merged with the idea that to be ‘included’ all children should be educated in the same physical space. Essentially, the idea of place, rather than appropriateness of educational provision, started to dominate political thinking and became intrinsically associated with equality (Kauffman & Hornby, 2020; Kauffman et al., 2022). As a result, this rights-based argument has established an accepted foothold in the minds of political leaders worldwide that all children should ideally have a right to an education within a mainstream classroom. However, as some writers have pointed out, ‘it failed to identify a source for this right beyond the fact that it was claimed’ (Cigman, 2007, p. 7). What it did appear to do was to conflate the needs of children with learning disabilities with those of children with all other kinds of diversity which, for the purpose of education, we consider problematic, as explained in the following statement: Disability is a unique kind of diversity that requires special consideration in education [and]… responses different from those of all other diversities. Inclusion does not apply in the same way to all possible forms of diversity when it comes to learning. To assume that disabilities warrant the same thinking and action as any other form of diversity is a mistake (Kauffman et al., 2022, pp. 205–206). The significance of the ideals of the Salamanca agreement were twofold. Firstly, their apparent simplicity and indisputably moral intent belied a wealth of underlying complexity. Secondly, the way in which so many countries around the globe coalesced so rapidly around them led some people to suggest that inclusion became more about winning a reputation for being a human rights issue than about having a pedagogical objective (Magnussen, 2022). Their reasons for doing so were as important as they were varied and reflected economic historical, cultural and social differences. These factors led to different approaches to its implementation, the effectiveness of which are discussed in Chapter 4.

UNCRPD and General Comment No 4 of Article 24 (2016) The influence of the Salamanca Statement contributed to the assumption that, because education is a basic human right, inclusive education would be the best way of combatting discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation. This is the underlying assumption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006), the content of which was heavily influenced by the Salamanca Statement (Felder, 2019).

12 The Salamanca Statement The years that followed publication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reinforced the link between human rights and inclusive education with the adoption of Article 24, a legally binding international human rights treaty addressing the rights of people with disabilities, in December 2006. Article 24 established the narrative that nations should ensure an inclusive education system at all levels, and that children with special educational needs should receive the support required within the general education system and should not be excluded on the basis of disability (UNCRPD, 2007, 24:2). This came into force in 2008 and was ratified by the UK Government in 2009 and later by 168 other States, with 87% of the member states of the UN ratifying it by November 2016. Ratifying the treaty legally binds nations to upholding the rights of persons with disability including, if necessary, modifying their own legislation to comply with the treaty. However, when the UK government ratified the UNCRPD in June 2009, it placed two restrictions on its obligations relating to Article 24. One was that the UK’s definition of a ‘general education system’ should include ‘mainstream and special schools, which the UK Government understands is allowed under the Convention’ (UNCRPD, 2017:50–53). The other restriction was that the UK ‘reserves the right to send disabled children to special schools outside their local area where more appropriate provision is available elsewhere’ (ALLFIE, 2022). The UK is one of only two countries to have placed such restrictions on Article 24. An explicit contradiction to the intentions of the UK and the declared meaning of inclusion by the UN became apparent when, in 2016 an addendum to the UNCRDP was published as General Comment Number 4 (UNCRPD, 2016) which was reported to have been forced through by influential leaders on the UNCRPD Committee, despite the disagreement of some members. Controversial claims were made in General Comment No 4 of Article 24 which aimed to further cement the rights of all disabled children to education within mainstream settings and confirm the relationship between rights and a fully inclusive education system. For example, ‘States parties must recognize the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. Education is integral to the full and effective realisation of other rights’ (UNCRPD, 2016, p. 42). Critically, General Comment No. 4 aimed to define inclusion by what it is not, that is to say, not involving any segregation by environment. Inclusion of all children within the same environment was determined to be the only socially acceptable form of education. Presumably, in order to attempt to justify this, General Comment No 4 claimed that children with disabilities educated in segregated settings receive an education of inferior quality. This outrageous claim was not backed up by reference to any research evidence and has since been strongly challenged (Hyatt & Hornby, 2017; Kauffman & Hornby, 2020; Kauffman et al., 2022). Furthermore, the conflation of human rights with fully inclusive education was an unsubstantiated presumption, especially as it could lead to a failure of school systems to provide appropriately for all students with SEND, as

The Salamanca Statement

13

suggested by the following quotation: ‘High quality education for all requires that we not disregard the atypical needs of any human being…there is nothing more unequal than the same and invariant education treatment of people with unequal learning capabilities’ (Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 214). After General Comment No 4 was published, the UK Government refused to acknowledge any compliance with it (ALLFIE, 2022). In response, in 2017, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2017) recommended that the UK withdraw its reservation to Article 24 saying, among other things, that it was concerned about the ‘persistence of a dual education system that segregates children with disabilities’ and about school authorities refusing to enrol students with disabilities who were disruptive to other classmates (UNCRPD, 2017). The UK has not withdrawn its two reservations – the first of which keeps its definition of an inclusive system and the second reserves the right to send disabled children to special schools outside their local area. The UK statement remains as: 1

2

‘The United Kingdom government is committed to continuing to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff, which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children. The general education system in the United Kingdom includes mainstream, and special schools, which the UK government understands is allowed under the convention.’ (Interpretive Declaration on Education – Convention Article 24 clause 2 (a) and (b)) ‘The United Kingdom reserves the right for disabled children to be educated outside their local community where more appropriate education provision is available elsewhere. Nevertheless, parents of disabled children have the opportunity as other parents to state a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated.’ (Reservation: Education – Convention Article 24 clause 2(a) and 2(b)) (ALLFIE, 2022)

The UN Cali commitment to Inclusion and Equity in Education In a determination to set in stone international recognition of the need for inclusion, as defined by the 1994 Salamanca agreement, a UNESCO International Forum on Inclusion and Equity in Education was held in Cali, Columbia, in September 2019. It reaffirmed the UNESCO commitment to the human rights agenda reflected in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the Education 2030 Framework for Action. It defined ‘inclusion’ as a process ensuring participation in ‘equitable and inclusive quality learning opportunities for all children’ without discrimination, and it called on governments and other stakeholders to ‘accelerate efforts to build on achievements since Salamanca’ (UNESCO, 2019:5). The association between equity and the ideals of full inclusion, however, has been challenged, as explained in the following quotation:

14 The Salamanca Statement A society dedicated to fulfil the needs of all PWD [persons with disabilities] does not depart from ideals of equality if, at some stage in their educational course, students follow different curricula in different settings. Quite the contrary, it extends equality in the direction of fairness and justice, and in our view this is the best way of maximizing learning (Anastasiou et al., 2018, cited in Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 214).

The 2020 UNESCO review of the 1994 agreement at Salamanca After nearly three decades, an evaluation of the original Salamanca agreement was made through a review by UNESCO in their report published at the beginning of 2020 (Towards Inclusion in Education: Status, Trends and Challenges, The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 Years On). Whilst the overall aspiration of the Salamanca agreement might have seemed a worthy ideal and an economically beneficial one for the 92 countries involved, the review (UNESCO, 2020) acknowledged that considerable complexity and challenges were found within the detail of its implementation. While considering the benefits and frustrations of the initiative, the Foreword of the review seeks to reaffirm its ambition for full social inclusion in schools. This is despite concerns from some researchers that, ‘tensions need to be recognised and addressing them requires resolutions to be found, resolutions that may involve some balancing and trading off between principles’ (Norwich, 2013, p. 110).

UNESCO (2020) recommendations Action 4 of the UNESCO recommendations is concerned with curriculum and assessment procedures with all learners in mind, but with little explanation of how such a wish list should be implemented in reality. It recommends the following future policy developments: 1

2 3

All students to be assessed on an on-going basis, bearing in mind each learner is unique, so sensitivities regarding cultural, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds need to be taken into account. A safe and inclusive learning environment should be created, free of violence and discrimination of any kind. Teachers need to gauge the effectiveness of their teaching for all of their students and should know what they need to do to enable each student to contribute and learn as well as possible (UNESCO, 2020, p. 31).

For many schools in the UK, with a typical 35% of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom are from single-parent families and well over 20% experiencing some form of educational difficulties (Black, 2019; Lindsay et al., 2020), with the present levels of resourcing and funding, it is considered that miracles would be needed to meet such expectations.

The Salamanca Statement

15

Comments on the key justifications of the UNESCO review The UNESCO (2020) review report upheld the three main justifications for the Salamanca agreement: 1) educational: requiring schools to educate all children together and for them to develop ways of teaching that respond to each child’s differences; 2) social: the intention that inclusive schools should influence future generations to become more tolerant of special needs and disability by educating all children together; and 3) financial: the assumption that it is less costly to educate children together in the mainstream than in different types of special schools. Educational There is an inherent contradiction in the UNESCO (2020) reports’ message which aims to reinforce the expectation that schools ‘find ways’ of adapting curricula to individual needs that would simultaneously benefit all children. That is, ‘ways’ of teaching that would benefit all children would not need to be adapted to individual needs. However, this is contradictory since once a curriculum is adapted, it may no longer be suited to those for whom it was originally designed. This is discussed later in this chapter. Social If the main purpose of inclusion is to ensure positive attitudes to difference in a future non-discriminatory society, should it be done at the expense of providing an appropriate education for all? Could such a goal not be equally well, if not better, achieved through other means such as the promotion of after-school socially interactive extra-curricular activities? In this way children could be encouraged to interact through shared enjoyment of mutual interests and hobbies that would not highlight their learning differences as it would in the classroom. Many valuable skills and capabilities are attained by way of learning outside of the school environment, so this approach may be preferable. The UNESCO (2020) report also emphasises the benefit of community interaction and support as an important aspect of inclusion, but this need not be the prerogative of mainstream schooling. In our experience, there are plenty of examples of how school links can be made with a community, whether it is a mainstream or special school, as described by Warnock in her pamphlet (Warnock, 2005). The steep rise in parents’ choice to home educate children in recent years is also an indication of many parents’ perceptions that their child’s well-being can be better served by alternative links with the community (Clark, 2020). The basic assumption, that inclusive education can be used to combat exclusion and marginalisation via international legislation such as in Article 24 of UNCRPD, is challenged by some researchers as not implementable. Felder, for example, argues that the community aspects of inclusion cannot be governed via rights without being experienced and accepted by students as valuable (Felder, 2019).

16 The Salamanca Statement Financial The UNESCO report has the clear expectation that inclusion will bring about cost savings through the reduction of separate special facilities. The reality is that instead of specialist staff and facilities for SEND being concentrated in a few special schools, those skills and additional staff will be needed to provide the support necessary in all mainstream schools, which are far greater in number. Therefore, either the quality of provision would be considerably diluted or, as previously predicted, if inclusion of special needs in mainstream schools were to somehow be made appropriate and effective, the costs would be at least as high overall as funding for SEND in special schools (Warnock, 2005). Looking back, the original Warnock Report admitted to not having been in a position to anticipate such costs, and priorities for development were made without any financial analysis (Lindsay et al., 2020). Twenty-seven years on, we have seen costs for the provision for children with SEND in the UK rise exponentially, partly due to administrative costs, increased numbers of assessments, coordination of services and having contentious tribunals to settle disputes. Research carried out by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, suggests that, ‘there is no ideal way to fund inclusion’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 35). The cost implications of inclusion, many believe, have never been properly considered (Kauffman, 2002). It is ironic that this expectation of cost-savings on education may have encouraged a wide range of world leaders to support the move towards promoting full inclusion. Even if it were the case, this appears to take a short-term view, since in reality, the needs of a child rarely diminish as a result of services not being provided, although of course they may be more easily ignored. More importantly, the costs of not addressing special needs at the school level are likely to be much greater in the long-term through increased costs in adult life such as through disability benefits and unemployment payments.

Difficulties recognised by the UNESCO report From the recent review (UNESCO, 2020), there has emerged a recognition of ongoing difficulties with the implementation of the Salamanca ideology. It reports that the vast majority of countries still maintain at least partially segregated special education settings to provide for a large proportion of their children with special educational needs (Kauffman & Hornby, 2020). Significantly, 258 million children remain excluded from any form of education at all, while 617 million children and young people are not achieving minimum proficiency levels in reading and maths (UNESCO, 2020). As acknowledged in the foreword of the report (UNESCO, 2020), the reasons for this lack of progress towards full inclusion has much to do with how it relates to the social, cultural and economic contexts of each nation. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The foreword of the UNESCO (2020) report also highlights the need for ‘relevant’ quality, equitable and effective educational opportunities, which

The Salamanca Statement

17

signals how progress needs to be steered in a more realistic direction. However, this more pragmatic view of educational ‘inclusion’ does not appear to be followed through in the details of the report. The UNESCO recommendations following the review cite the Cali Commitment Statement about equity and inclusion in education (UNESCO, 2019) and its original prescriptive all means all approach. To what extent that phrase could or should be taken literally has been a continuous source of controversy for education leaders and reflects ‘sloppy thinking’ about how full inclusion can be universally implemented (Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 214). This has prevented UNESCO from being able to take a more definitive lead for countries struggling to educate those young people with special educational needs (UNESCO, 2020). Therefore, following publication of the report, the concept of ‘inclusion’ remains a contentious issue.

The definition of the word ‘inclusion’ In the UNESCO review, there is clearly a concern about how the word ‘inclusion’ has been interpreted in different ways around the world – a subject that is discussed in more depth in Chapter 3. The Cali Commitment (UNESCO, 2019) emphasises the need for clarifying its definition of the word, and the UNESCO report starts by acknowledging how ‘confusion regarding what is meant by inclusion and equity has often made progress difficult’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 9). The review aims to make the development of a nondiscriminatory society the primary responsibility of education establishments and for ‘inclusion’ to firmly bind together the concepts of learning and equity. Having conceptualised as synonymous the notions of inclusion and equity, the report draws the unequivocal conclusion that every learner matters and matters equally. The implication is that a child, however appropriately placed in a special school, because he or she is not in an inclusive setting, does not matter equally with others. This is of course an obfuscation of the truth as testified by many teachers and parents of children in special schools (Farrell, 2006). It justifies the fallacy that to make separate provision for those with SEND can therefore be judged as discriminatory and as such is morally indefensible. As Norwich observes, the word ‘inclusion’ sets itself up as a ‘self-insulating concept’ (Norwich, 2013, p. 160). In this way the word ‘inclusion’ is used emotively to paralyse any claim that may question its application to the education of students with special educational needs, thereby closing down any debate about the premise of the claim. It is a specious argument, however, to suggest that treating students in this way is treating them equally, because experience informs us that those with different abilities may well thrive better in different environments. The UNESCO interpretation is that ‘inclusion’ should be perceived as primarily a social concept of fairness and precludes the possibility of ‘exclusion’ from mainstream education as providing any sense of fairness (Farrell, 2006). Some argue, however, that inclusion itself is an unfair policy involving a refusal to discriminate between seemingly relevant criteria (Farrell, 2006). Most notably ‘inclusion’ is typically not defined in terms of any aspirations of educational

18 The Salamanca Statement achievement but by its central aim of social inclusion, and not the provision of high quality and appropriate education that might enable participation on a more equal basis in society. However, it is this high quality, appropriate education that is so desperately needed by many students around the globe with high levels of special educational need.

Implementation of inclusion On the surface the Salamanca agreement (UNESCO, 1994) was a politically neat solution to a worldwide problem at apparently minimal cost. However, this has proven to be anything but the case. In practice, the UNESCO (2020) review has shown that it has proved to be an extraordinarily challenging undertaking for nations to coordinate professionals from their education, health and social care institutions, within reconstructed legal frameworks, intended to apply to all their schools. This suggests that it was a top-down decision imposed on local practitioners assumed to be capable of managing and implementing it. Efforts to do so have proved to be like forcing bits of misshapen pieces into a highly complex international jigsaw puzzle. The vast majority of countries were not in a position socially, economically or culturally to implement the main objectives. The ambiguity around what inclusion would and should look like meant that it inevitably became open to interpretation by respective nations, with regard to legislation, as well as its implementation in practice. Nevertheless, UNESCO clearly expected state maintained mainstream schools to shoulder the full responsibility of the endeavour, responding to the full range of the increasingly diverse special needs and disabilities they might encounter. The UNESCO assumption was that the human rights-based reasoning for the agreement would insulate it from all other concerns (Norwich, 2013). Nations were told that they ‘should accommodate’ those with special educational needs within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting those needs and ‘should find ways of successfully educating all children’ (UNESCO, 1994:3). ‘What should be done’ was given unchallenged precedence over identifying pedagogy that was capable of meeting all special educational needs. Nonetheless, in the UNESCO (2020) review, it was acknowledged that the major challenge confronting schools was in developing a child-centred pedagogy capable of successfully educating all children. A cause for concern was that teachers in mainstream schools were expected to be not only specialists within their own field but also experts in the full range of special educational needs and disabilities. However, special needs expertise amongst teachers in mainstream schools cannot reasonably be expected to match the same level of these skills that would be typical of teachers in special schools (Norwich, 2013). Despite its stated conviction about the way forward, the review (UNESCO, 2020) shows clear ambivalence about its success. The intervening 27 years have represented a time of profound importance in terms of cultural and social developments, including a greater social understanding of diversity and global investment in efforts to meet the needs of diverse groups of learners. Some

The Salamanca Statement

19

claim that, ‘educational mainstreaming has probably been the single most effective device in minimizing stigma’ (Nussbaum, 2013, as cited in Felder, 2019, p. 226). This would signal progress on the main aim of furthering inclusion. Some have argued, however, that it was the element of compulsion that led special schooling [in the past] to be stigmatised (Norwich, 2013, p. 105). More importantly, in our anxiety to eliminate the stigma of certain groups with SEND, have we inadvertently also let them down in other ways? Whether the possibility remains for stigma to continue to be minimised, while also making special needs provision more effective, is one of the main reasons for this book. Taken to its logical conclusion, implementing full inclusion in practice, as prescribed by UNESCO (2020), is a vast ambition with almost infinite parameters. The real measure of its success, as prescribed by social policy, would be for all students, regardless of need, not to feel excluded or different in any way, but to feel a sense of identification with their peers, to feel a sense of belonging and have a sense of genuine achievement and social status amongst their peer group. In addition, none of their special needs would be an obstacle to their learning or their sense of status amongst their peers, and any such obstacles would be overcome by the necessary steps taken and adjustments made by school staff to remove them. However, current research shows that even those countries exemplified as successful models of inclusion still struggle to demonstrate many of these aspirations, as demonstrated in Chapter 4.

Unanticipated factors affecting implementation The UNESCO (2020) report stresses how ‘context matters’ but fails to take this sufficiently into account. Ideologies that may work in some better funded schools, fortunate enough to enjoy appropriate levels of staffing and other resources, with relatively low levels of learning and behavioural difficulties, or low rates of disadvantage, when translated into schools with the opposite characteristics, inevitably face completely different challenges. The geographical and cultural context of each school anywhere in the world is critically important. When schools are required to allocate resources, space, facilities and crucially support staff, it is the numbers, severity and diversity of SEND exhibited by students, that affects their capacity to meet pupils’ needs appropriately. Where those numbers are high and the diversity of need is great, this becomes an overwhelming undertaking, with few schools able to do so with any degree of success. On restricted budgets and therefore minimal levels of requisite staffing, it becomes virtually impossible. Inevitably, schools find creative ways of supporting students who are unable to make good progress within the classroom, by designing alternative spaces away from the distraction of other peers, where their more immediate needs can be directly addressed, either through one-to-one support, within a small group or sometimes by online independent learning. Many students look forward to this opportunity of segregated space which can take the form of anything from temporary short periods to frequent regular periods of time outside the classroom, or

20

The Salamanca Statement

to attending a full-time special needs class or unit within the school grounds. In this way, by force of necessity and recognition of the practical realities of inclusion, many schools have started to expand the concept to include such options, which covertly calls into question the underlying ideology of inclusion. If in setting up such segregated spaces, schools are to provide effective and appropriate provision for different types of SEND, the teaching skills and funding necessary to resource such provision should be properly accounted for. Will world leaders, such as those associated with UNESCO, reflect on this expanded interpretation of inclusion, adjusting policy and guidance accordingly to ensure that the quality of education for different types of SEND is protected? Or will they aim to clamp down on it, interpreting it as a sign of insufficient moral will by schools to make inclusion work, and attempt to even more rigidly enforce the original dogma of Salamanca?

Class size, number, proportion and degree of SEND in a classroom There are other notable factors that affect the capacity of schools to include large numbers of students with SEND. It is essential, for example, that there is greater account taken of the effect of class size on a teacher’s ability to manage SEND students appropriately, at the same time as ensuring the optimal learning of non-SEND students in their class. Account must also be taken of the potential impact of the number and proportion of students with severe SEND on other learners in a classroom, and on the ability of schools as a whole, staff and students, to function in an optimal way for all involved (Kart & Kart, 2021; Warnock, 2005). Research has established that the attention necessary to support children with severe behavioural needs hugely affects the teacher’s ability to help the whole class make progress (Kristoffersen et al., 2015). Therefore, the types of SEND present in the classroom is also of critical importance. A child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a class consisting of children with different difficulties and needs may be considerably less disruptive than in a class containing several other children with ADHD. It is important therefore to consider, not only the numbers and proportions of children with SEND in an inclusive class, but also group composition and how the number and type of special needs interact with one another. To this extent, inclusion in practice can be seen to be far more complex than simply considering how we might remove the barriers to learning for an individual child. In our experience, class teachers regularly attest to this. It was clearly a concern of Mary Warnock’s when she wrote her review of special educational needs provision (Warnock, 2005), and it continues to be an enduring concern for schools at the start of a new academic year when trying to work out the make-up of its classes.

The Salamanca Statement

21

Overlooking and mitigating inequalities Within the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), there appears to be a misplaced determination to overlook the unequal distribution of learning abilities within our society. Inequality is understandably regarded as an aspect of the experience of vulnerable children and young people. The question is to what extent such inequity can be mitigated. Whilst access to a higher physical elevation may be overcome by a slope for wheelchair users, there are no obvious adjustments that can remove the inherent difficulty of some children to reach the attainment of their non-disabled peers. It is misleading to parents and unfair to children themselves to claim that there might be, if only sufficient adjustments were made (Farrell, 2006). By placing the responsibility on mainstream schools to remove all conceivable barriers to learning, the sense of failure and stigma for some children can be compounded. With an insufficient level of resources and expertise, schools can be setting themselves up to fail. When this happens, it reinforces children’s own sense of failure and confidence that success is possible. It can also deprive children of receiving the most appropriate direct instruction that would enable them to realise some measure of success without comparison to their more able peers. In addition, it can deprive children of the necessary self-knowledge to discover their own resources to overcome difficulties and build the self-esteem essential for later effective participation in society. Rather than avoiding recognition of SEND by attempting to homogenise perceptions of the education population (Cigman, 2007), a more supportive approach would be to help individuals recognise their special needs or disabilities for what they are, alongside their strengths (James, 2016). Overcoming disability then becomes about the interplay between the extra efforts and determination required by the individual, and the specialist support and guidance from those most able to provide support for them, within an appropriate environment. In this way strategy is put before ideology rather than the other way round, as is the case with ideology of inclusion (Mock & Kauffman, 2002).

Attitudes towards teacher practitioners Those most involved with the implementation of policies that have resulted from Salamanca are, of course, teachers themselves. The effectiveness of inclusion policies relies heavily on teachers to cooperate with their implementation, despite the lack of consideration about whether such policies are in their best interests. Teachers will only buy into an idea that is truly workable, as a systemically practicable way of day-to-day working, but not just as an ideological set of principles. Despite acknowledging that many teachers are ‘too busy to properly adopt inclusion’ (Ainscow, 2021), the latest UNESCO report is critical that it is the attitudes of teachers that makes inclusion difficult to implement. It states that ‘they should develop ways of teaching that respond to individual differences that therefore benefit all children’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 11). However, it is arguably

22

The Salamanca Statement

the willingness of policy makers to commit to listening to those expected to implement policies that is crucial in making the concept of inclusion more implementable. The assumption implicit in the Salamanca Statement, that all children inevitably benefit from the same ways of teaching, has been questioned by practitioners and researchers for a number of years (Norwich, 2013; Webster, 2017, 2021). Such ‘ways of teaching’ are unspecified by UNESCO (1994), while evidence suggests that a change of ‘attitudes’ and ‘hard work’ will not be enough to ensure implementation (Farrell, 2006). However, this has become the UNESCO rationale for promoting the inclusion of pupils with less severe levels of SEND into mainstream classrooms, with the expectation that most SEND can be addressed in this way by teachers alone, since support staff, such as teacher assistants, are most often reserved for classes with students who have the highest level of special needs. The UNESCO (2020) report lacks analysis of the reasons for resistance to inclusion on the part of teachers and how, other than by persuasion with moral arguments, this might be overcome. To understand why it is not straightforward to ‘make teachers understand inclusion,’ is an important step towards resolving how our system of education might become more effective. We consider some actual day-to-day experiences of teachers in mainstream schools in Chapter 5.

Reckoning with the worldwide problems of implementation The recent report (UNESCO, 2020) describes a wide difference in interpretation and implementation of inclusive policies around the world. The ambition of the report nonetheless continues to assume that inclusion should progress in the direction of all children being educated in the same space. As if to reiterate his concerns, Ainscow, who led the drafting of the UNESCO (2020) report, discusses the issue of implementation in a podcast (Ainscow, 2021). He discusses how, after such a long time, inclusion ‘is still a struggle,’ describing it as ‘technically simple’ but ‘socially complex.’ This is an echo of the statement in the report that, ‘the complexity arises…when we try to put this message into practice’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 25). It insists there should be a ‘collective will to make it happen’ and by way of proof that full inclusion could work effectively if only countries tried harder, the report points to countries with more equitable education systems having more inclusive systems (UNESCO, 2020, p. 20). It is important to consider, however, whether this is a fair conclusion to draw since PISA data (OECD, 2018) shows that, generally, richer more equitable countries have more successful education systems. In countries where the economic disparities between rich and poor are greater, it may be considerably harder to achieve effective school systems with high levels of inclusion. If the reasons for the difficulties countries face in implementing genuinely inclusive policies have to do with national social complexities, this needs further analysis. For this reason, the implementation of inclusion in different nations around the world is discussed in Chapter 4. It is worth

The Salamanca Statement

23

considering an inverse causal relationship to the one suggested by the UNESCO report. That is to say, there may be greater potential to implement effective inclusion in schools within more economically equitable societies, rather than the suggestion that inclusive schools inevitably lead to more equitable societies.

Raising standards and inclusion The report (UNESCO, 2020) highlights the effects of increasing pressure to improve the rankings of education systems on global league tables as creating new barriers to progress in relation to inclusion and equity. This implies that these are competing interests and there may be a clear incompatibility between the two. However, desirability of outcomes appears only to be seen in terms of progression towards full inclusion rather than improving the quality and appropriateness of educational provision (UNESCO, 2020). Whereas, the reality of implementing full inclusion makes the twin goals mutually exclusive. Schools are said to ‘have a duty to provide an appropriate educational environment for every child without exception’ (Cigman, 2007, p. 7), an easy statement to make, yet it completely overlooks the need to consider whether it might actually be practicable.

Parental views and human rights of the child In Action 6 of the report it states, ‘Particularly crucial is the engagement of families’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 35). Many parents whose children have struggled in inclusively oriented mainstream schools seriously doubt that this is a priority for UNESCO (see Chapter 6). There is a patronising sense that what is best for the child can be dictated from the top down rather than recognising the very real value of parental understanding of what is needed for their own children (Cigman, 2007). The report claims, on the one hand, to value the need for parental engagement, and on the other, that parents need to be told how to think. It goes so far as to say that parents themselves are restraining progress towards the global ideal of inclusion and that this resistance to inclusion from parents may come about as a result of concern about seeing the support they have fought so hard for disappear (UNESCO, 2020). Such parental anxiety may be perfectly justified given the experience of many students with SEND in mainstream schools today. The rights-based argument sometimes sounds like a duty argument by suggesting that all parents have a duty to send their children to a mainstream school, irrespective of the nature or severity of the child’s SEND (Cigman, 2007). ‘Parents’ of course are the general public, and as such are an essential voice in the discussion about the national direction of SEND provision. The voice of the public needs to be heard within the cultural, social and economic context of each nation state. The question here is in what sense do the authors of this report really consider that parents are the ‘most important

24 The Salamanca Statement partners’ (UNESCO, 2020). There’s a clear dichotomy between the recognition of the need for parental involvement and the value placed on parental views when they get in the way of the single-minded pursuit of the rights-based inclusive agenda. The report concludes that, ‘most importantly, the views of young people must be sought and valued, particularly from at-risk groups’ (UNESCO, 2020, p. 28). If this is to be effective, those views need to include ones from those children (presumably supported by parents) who would prefer to be educated in a specialist provision (Cigman 2007). Other research reflects on the loss of parental confidence in legal documents to secure the provision of support for high levels of pupil need (Lindsay et al., 2020). It is frequently acknowledged in this UNESCO (2020) report and elsewhere (Hornby, 2011) that parental support is central to the success of a child’s education, but many now question whether parents and children have any say or power to influence decisions about education (Norwich, 2013). The ambivalence about parental voice expressed in the report seems all the more surprising given that the main justification for full inclusion is the protection of the child’s human rights.

Models of inclusion In the face of considerable resistance by parents, in the case of Ireland (see Chapter 3), active consideration is being given to the possibility of adopting the New Brunswick or Italian model of full inclusion (Banks, 2020–2021). The assumption is that if all special schools were closed, children would be better served by greater resources and more highly trained teachers within mainstream classes. Many Canadian parents, and more recently a Canadian government minister of education, strongly oppose this argument (Burgos, 2020). The feasibility of it is discussed in the next chapter, but the justification for taking such an approach is that, for the most part, existing systems around the world do not comply well enough with the UNESCO view on equity and the human rights of the child. It also does not consider how much expertise risks being lost from education systems as a whole when special schools close, or what long-term damage could be done by taking this approach. The UNESCO (2020) report leaves us with two essential questions for the future, about whether aiming to include all children in a common setting is in their best interests, and whether in trying to do so, national governments are willing and able to appropriately provide the funding requirements necessary to implement this. Will government ministers, worldwide, double down on the enforcement of existing inclusion policies, or will they listen carefully enough to health care specialists, school leaders, teachers and teacher assistants, parents, and to children themselves when considering how to make the adjustments necessary to ensure that the quality of education is not downgraded in the single-minded pursuit of a rights-based inclusion agenda?

The Salamanca Statement

25

Evidence for inclusion Notably, the UNESCO agenda has been primarily about promoting progress towards inclusion rather than evaluating the effects of inclusion on all those involved. This has been despite earlier critics questioning whether the relative effectiveness of different educational approaches should be based on evidence rather than values and ideologies and stressing the importance of separating discussions about rights and values, from that of effectiveness (Hornby, 1999; Lindsay, 2007). Research evidence, perhaps showing negative effects of inclusion, may be rejected, not as a scientific argument but because such evidence cannot be used as the basis for what ought to be. If poor outcomes are found, as appear to be the case, they are used as a reason to drive society to greater efforts to discover how to implement a policy seen as inherently correct (Lindsay, 2007, p. 3). Given the very clear international policy imperative promoting full inclusion over recent decades, Hornby (1999) and Lindsay (2007) have questioned the extent that the development of inclusive education has been evidence-based. More than 20 years after this issue was first raised, there are still concerns about the promotion of an apparently misguided vision of full inclusion despite the lack of research evidence for its benefits (Carter, 2021; Kauffman & Hornby, 2020; Kauffman et al., 2022).

Concluding comments In this chapter we have considered how the aspirational movement towards full inclusion at the turn of the 21st century, driven by the Salamanca UNESCO agreement of 1994, has, despite its worthy intentions, triggered many unintended problems that are yet to be resolved. We have aimed to shine a light on what the original aspirations have come to mean in practice and whether a rights-based universal agreement to inclusive mainstream education should be the most pervasive theme of international education policy for young people with SEND in the future. By understanding how the challenges of the implementation of inclusion policies have played out in different economic and cultural contexts worldwide, we can begin to consider how pragmatic and effective solutions might be found. From there it might be possible to develop enough political will and serious consideration of the investment necessary for effective education of children with SEND to be viewed as a priority. This is necessary, in our view, for countries to make real progress towards developing more equitable and effective education systems.

26 The Salamanca Statement

References Ainscow, M. (2021). In Banks, J. (Ed.). Podcasts: Inclusion Dialogue is based on conversations with international experts on how we can implement inclusive education and teach to diversity in schools around the world. http://bankoninclusion.com/419-2/ ALLFIE (The Alliance for Inclusive Education) (2022). The UN and the human right to inclusive education. Article 24. https://www.allfie.org.uk/campaigns/article-24/ Banks, J. (2020–2022). Inclusion Dialogue. 26 episodes. https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/p odcast/inclusion-dialogue/id1541011089 Black, A. (2019). A picture of special educational needs in England – an overview. https:// doi.org/gh7d4c Burgos, M. J. (2020,Feburary 24). Education minister calls for review of classroom inclusion policy. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ inclusion-policy-education-nb-cardy-1.5473448 Carter, J. (2021). SEND assessment: A strengths-based framework for learners with SEND. Routledge. Cigman, R. (2007). A question of universality: Inclusive education and the principle of respect. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 775–793. https://doi.org/dds9jt Clark, D. (2020,November 7). Big increase in number of Devon students being home educated. North Devon Gazette. https://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/more-s tudents-than-ever-now-beingeducated-at-home-6046356. Farrell, M. (2006). Celebrating the special school. Fulton. Felder, F. (2019) Inclusive education, the dilemma of identity and the common good. Theory and Research in Education, 17(2), 213–228. DOI: https://doi.org/gzfm. Hornby, G. (1999). Inclusion or delusion: Can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 14(4), 152–157. Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education: Building effective school-family partnerships. Springer. Hyatt, C. & Hornby, G. (2017). Will UN Article 24 lead to the demise of special education or to its re-affirmation? Support for Learning, 32(3), 288–304. James, G. (2016). Transforming behaviour in the classroom: A solution-focused guide for new teachers. Sage. Kart, A. & Kart, M. (2021). Academic and social effects of inclusion on students without disabilities: A review of the literature. Education Sciences, 11(1), 16. https://doi.org/g2rt Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Crockett, J. B., Felder, M., … Smith, C. R. (2022). Parents’ and educators’ perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities. In C. Boyle & K. A. Allen (Eds.). Research for quality inclusive education: Sustainable development goals series, pp. 205–217. Springer. Kauffman, J. & Hornby, G. (2020). Inclusive vision versus special education reality. Education Sciences, 10(9), 258. https://doi.org/gk9xk2. Kristoffersen, J. H. G., Kraegpøth, M. V., Nielsen, H. S. & Simonsen, M. (2015). “Disruptive School Peers and Student Outcomes,” IZA Discussion Papers 8823, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). https://hdl.handle.net/10419/108705. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/ mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1–24. doi:66nbh. Lindsay, G., Wedell, K. & Dockrell, J. (2020). Warnock 40 Years on: The Development of Special Educational Needs Since the Warnock Report and Implications for the Future (p. 3). https://doi.org/gmf6r5

The Salamanca Statement

27

Magnússon, G. (2022). From Salamanca to Sweden: Inclusive education as a policy in transit. International Encyclopaedia of Education (4th ed). https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-818630-5.12022-6 Mock, D. R. & Kauffman, J. M. (2002). Preparing teachers for full inclusion: Is it possible? The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202–215. https://doi.org/c8xsrd Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. Routledge. OECD (2018). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA 2018 results. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm. UNCRPD (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. https://www. ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disab ilities#24 UNCRPD (2007, 24 January) Article 24 – Education. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Disability. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/con vention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-24-education.html UNCRPD (2016). Article 24: Right to inclusive education: General comment No. 4. UNCRPD (2017). Concluding observations on the initial report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHa ndler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhspCUnZhK1jU66fLQJyHIkqMIT3RD aLiqzhH8tVNxhro6S657eVNwuqlzu0xvsQUehREyYEQD%2bldQaLP31QDpRcmG 35KYFtgGyAN%2baB7cyky7. UNESCO (1990). Education for All. (EFA). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs.World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5–9 March 1990. UNESCO. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED370207.pdf. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain. UNESCO (2019). Cali commitment to equity and inclusion in education. International Forum On Inclusion and Equity in Education. Cali, Columbia. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370910. UNESCO (2020). Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. UNESCO. Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. In L. Terzi (Ed.) (2010). Special educational needs: A new look (2nd Ed.). Continuum. Webster, R. (2017, December 10). To you from TES: The myth of inclusion. https:// www.tes.com/magazine/archive/toyoufromtes-myth-inclusion Webster, R. (2021). Who benefits from inclusive education and how? (with Norwich, B. and Gray, P.) Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/who-bene fits-from-inclusive-education-how/

3

International views of inclusion: Myths, confusions and the denial of reality

Introduction Three myths about inclusion have been perpetuated over the past 30 years that have been influential and contributed to the current controversial and therefore somewhat dysfunctional situation in the fields of inclusive education and special education. First came the myth that full inclusion was recommended by the Salamanca Framework (1994). It was not. The second myth is that full inclusion has been shown to be a feasible approach to meeting SEN in education systems, referring to Italy and New Brunswick as examples of its success, which they are not. The third myth is that there is convincing research evidence that inclusive education has been more effective than special education in achieving successful outcomes for young people with SEN. There is not. These three myths are addressed in this chapter to provide a context for considering international views about inclusion. Typical confusions about inclusion and common myths about special education are discussed to explain the wide range of global interpretations of inclusion that are due to the challenges and contradictions pervading attempts at its implementation. Finally, the issue of denial of reality of the worldwide situation regarding inclusive education is addressed.

Impact of Salamanca Framework for Action on Special Needs Education The first myth is about the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), which was the result of a conference held in Salamanca, Spain. Its focus was to address international concerns about the 350 million children globally who were at that time completely excluded from nations’ education systems. This had been highlighted at the World Conference on Education for All, held in Jomtien, Thailand (UNESCO, 1990), which pledged to universalise primary education and massively reduce illiteracy by the end of the decade. The Salamanca conference agreement had a specific focus on enabling children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) to be included in national regular education systems. It stated that regular schools with an DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-3

International views of inclusion

29

inclusive orientation can, ‘provide an effective education for the majority of children’ (our italics) and concluded that, ‘Finally, special schools or units within inclusive schools – may continue to provide the most suitable education for the relatively small number of children with disabilities who cannot be adequately served in regular classrooms or schools,’ (UNESCO, 1994, section 9). So it is clear that the Salamanca Statement considered that all children with SEND should be included within nations’ education systems, but recognised that, although the majority of them would be included in mainstream schools, a minority would need to be educated in special schools or classes within mainstream schools. Therefore, the Salamanca statement did not support the idea of full inclusion of all children with SEND being included in mainstream classrooms within regular schools. Unfortunately, many authors have referred to the Salamanca statement, explicitly or by inference, as if it recommended full inclusion (e.g. Ainscow, 2007, 2020; Ainscow, Slee & Best, 2019; Slee, 2018; Warnes, Done & Knowler, 2022). This is clearly untrue, but has been repeated so many times, often along with the battle-cry ‘All Means All’ (see SWIFT schools, 2021), that many educators and parents have been led to believe the myth that this was recommended by the Salamanca Statement. That many people have believed this myth, which has been repeatedly disseminated through journal articles, books, websites and official documents, has contributed to the overall myth, which is that full inclusion is a realistic aim for the education of children with SEND. One consequence of this is the promotion of the policy of full inclusion by General Comment Number Four of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 24 (UNCRPD, 2016), which effectively calls for the end of special education as we know it. General Comment Number Four called for all countries to implement fully inclusive education systems as soon as possible. This was partly based on the controversial statement that children with disabilities educated in segregated settings receive an education of inferior quality, which has been strongly disputed (Anastasiou, Gregory & Kauffman, 2018; Hyatt & Hornby, 2017). Given this unsubstantiated claim, important questions about the implications of moving to and operating fully inclusive education systems, and also about the future of special education provision, need to be addressed. This is necessary because the policy directive of UNCRPD Article 24 foreshadows the extinction of special education as it exists today, along with the loss of decades of development of expertise, techniques and technology for effectively educating children with SEND.

Feasibility of full inclusion The second myth, that full inclusion is feasible, because it already exists in Italy, and has done so since the national government was reported to have closed all special schools in 1977, is promoted by those who support the feasibility of full inclusion of all children with SEND, with no exceptions, as a viable option (see Ainscow, 2020; Anastasiou et al., 2015; Begeny & Martens, 2007). However,

30 International views of inclusion careful examination of the education system in Italy shows that it is not, and has never been, an example of a full inclusion model. Firstly, since 1977, Italy has maintained public funding for special schools, and in 2011 there were reported to be 71 special schools or separate settings (EADSNE, 2012). There is also separate funding for specific types of disabilities (Demo, 2020). Three types of disabilities are recognised: disabled, learning disabled, and disadvantaged. Disabled children typically do not follow the National Curriculum but work on an adapted curriculum as determined by their individualised education program (IEP). Children with disabilities in mainstream schools have a support teacher assigned to their class. However, there is ambiguity about the roles of these support teachers regarding the extent that they work with the whole class and also with the extent to which they work inside and outside the classroom with the disabled student. Anastasiou, Kauffman and Di Nuovo (2015, p. 439) concluded that, ‘Despite the promises of full inclusion, the everyday reality in Italian classrooms is more complex… it seems that an informal “backdoor” special education has been constructed and developed by schools at the local level to address specialised educational needs.’ More recently, the feasibility myth is being perpetuated by holding up the education system in the Canadian province of New Brunswick as an example of the success of full inclusion. ‘In the last three decades, this small Canadian province has implemented a model of inclusive schooling for all students, including those previously served by special education programmes’ (AuCoin, Porter & Baker-Koroykov, 2020, p. 314). However, despite the fact that their full inclusion model was implemented over three decades ago, there are no published studies evaluating its effectiveness in educating children with SEND, or comparing such outcomes with other Canadian provinces that have maintained special schools and special classes. Whereas, a Google search turned up many newspaper articles reporting teachers and parents complaining that their children with SEND are being denied an effective education because of the full inclusion model (e.g. CBC News, 2017; Doherty, 2012). There are also articles critical of the New Brunswick full inclusion model by local education experts (e.g. Bennett, 2017) and by the New Brunswick Education Minister, who has called for a review of the inclusion policy, because it, ‘isn’t working effectively for students with developmental disorders, other students in the classroom and teachers’ (CBC News, 2020). Ainscow (2021), who has promoted the feasibility of full inclusion for many years, has recently revealed a more nuanced view of this in a podcast interview. Within the context of explaining that he sees inclusion as a process, he commented that ‘there probably never will be an inclusive school, it’s an impossible dream.’ Further, when he was asked whether special schools and classes can exist within an inclusive system, he replied, ‘I think a pragmatic way forward… is the creation of networks of schools… If you can create that sense of schools supporting one another, clearly you could start to integrate segregated provision… into the system.’

International views of inclusion

31

This is a very important clarification, especially for countries, such as Ireland, which is reported to be currently considering dismantling its special education system in order to implement full inclusion based on the New Brunswick model (Shevlin & Banks, 2021). Realising that achieving full inclusion has not been feasible in any other country (Imray & Colley, 2017) and that fully inclusive schools may be an ‘impossible dream’ should make policy makers in Ireland extremely wary about what they are proposing will take the place of a well-established and comprehensive system of special education. This is a good reason for exposing the widely disseminated myth about the feasibility of full inclusion.

Effectiveness of inclusive education The third myth is that there is convincing research evidence for the effectiveness of inclusive education that demonstrates it is more effective than special education interventions for children with SEND. Because of the practical and ethical issues making it difficult to conduct randomised control trials of inclusive versus special education interventions it ought to be clear that making a definitive statement about the superiority of either of these options is not possible. But this has not stopped some writers from claiming that there is a research evidence base for the superior effectiveness of inclusive education (e.g. de Bruin, 2020; Sailor et al., 2021; SWIFT schools, 2021; Waldron & McCleskey, 1998). Such claims usually cite studies or reviews of studies that have serious flaws in their research methodology, in particular lack of random or matched selection of participants into intervention and control groups. That is, most studies do not take into account potential selection bias due to the placement of children with more severe disabilities or higher levels of special needs in special classes or special schools. Since those with less severe disabilities or lower levels of special needs are the ones more likely to be placed in mainstream school settings, it is logical to expect that their outcomes would be greater than those in special education placements. Therefore, any inferences from such studies about superior academic and social outcomes of children with SEND placed in mainstream classrooms being due to their inclusion rather than special education placement are clearly invalid (e.g. Cosier et al., 2013; Hehir, 2016; Hehir et al., 2012; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015). This demonstrates that a definitive statement about the superiority of either of these options is clearly not possible and confirms that there is no convincing research evidence that inclusive education is more effective than special education interventions for children with SEND. One example of this is a widely cited series of studies that perpetuates this myth, based on the long-term follow-up of young people with special needs in Norway. It makes claims about the superiority of achievement of students with learning difficulties educated in mainstream classes over those educated in special classes (Markussen, 2004; Myklebust, 2002). The major problem is that selection of students into the mainstream or special education classes is not clear from the articles but, as suggested above, is likely to have been done on the basis that those with greater levels of difficulties were placed in special classes.

32

International views of inclusion

So, it is not surprising that those educated in mainstream classes had higher levels of achievement. It is therefore impossible to rule out a selection bias that would clearly invalidate the findings that are reported in these articles. In fact, several reviews of the literature over the past 30 years have concluded that there is no consistent evidence for the advantage of either special education or inclusive education (Cook & Cook, 2020; Dalgaard, et al., 2022; Hegarty, 1993; Lindsay, 2007; Stephenson & Ganguly, 2021). Also of relevance are the findings from a major source of evidence for the effectiveness of interventions in the field of education, that is, Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of meta-analyses. The reported effect size for inclusive education interventions is 0.25, which is well below the average of 0.4 found by Hattie for interventions overall. Whereas, Response to Intervention, which is used in both special education settings and mainstream schools, has an effect size of 1.09, which is well above the average. Over the past 20 years several studies have emerged which have found that special education interventions can be effective in improving the outcomes of young people with SEND. For example, Hanushek, Kain and Rivkin (2002) used repeated performance measures to identify programme effects by comparing achievement gains of students who spent time in both special education and regular education. They found that, on average, special education programmes had significantly beneficial effects on performance, and that this was particularly true for students with learning disabilities and those with emotional disturbance. Likewise, Hurwitz et al. (2019) compared students’ performance on standardised tests before, during and after special education placement and found that students’ scores not only improved but showed a sustained trajectory of academic growth following their involvement in special education. Further, Schwartz, Hopkins and Stiefel (2019) found that academic outcomes for students with learning disabilities improved following their entry into special education and that the impacts were largest for those who entered during earlier grades. Finally, Hornby (2021) reported on three studies, the findings of which suggest that special education at the secondary school level can be more effective in achieving inclusion in society post-school than inclusion in mainstream schools. Furthermore, a recent study has demonstrated that special education interventions, in addition to improving outcomes for children with SEND, can have a broader impact on education outcomes. Anastasiou, Sideridis and Keller (2020) reviewed data from 67 countries involved in the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2009/2010 on the proportion of student populations receiving special education services, the total number of years of schooling for the average child and reading achievement at age 15 years. They found that, across the countries involved, the greater the proportion of children receiving special education services, the greater the total number of years of schooling for the average child, and the higher the reading outcomes a country achieves. They concluded that extensive special education provision in schools was related to better reading performance and more years of schooling for children from countries all around the world.

International views of inclusion

33

So it is clear that special education can be effective in improving education outcomes for children with SEND. However, more research studies are needed to investigate the comparative effectiveness of special education and inclusive education interventions. Nevertheless, based on currently available evidence, it would seem that perpetuating the myth that there is convincing research evidence that inclusive education is more effective than special education in achieving successful outcomes for young people with SEND is absolutely unjustified. Understanding the context of such issues requires being aware that there are a number of confusions about inclusion.

Confusions about inclusion Several confusions are apparent in the literature on inclusion. It is important to identify and challenge these since, as Warnock suggested, ‘At the heart of our thinking about education there is confusion of which our children are casualties’ (Warnock quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 13). There are confusions about definitions, rights, identification, peers, aetiology, intervention models, goals, curricula, reality, finance, means and ends, and research evidence. These 12 confusions are briefly outlined below with further details provided in Hornby (2014, 2015). Definitions The term inclusion is used in various ways, for example, to refer to inclusive schools or an inclusive society. As noted in Chapter 2, the Cali Commitment (UNESCO, 2019) defined the word ‘inclusion’ as a process ensuring participation in ‘equitable and inclusive quality learning opportunities for all children without discrimination.’ This explains why there is confusion of social inclusion with inclusive education for children with disabilities. Social inclusion in education refers to inclusion in mainstream schools of children with a wide diversity of differences, such as race, sexual orientation and religions. However, disabilities are a different kind of diversity requiring a different response from the education system (Kauffman & Hornby, 2020). Nevertheless, proponents of full inclusion conflate disability with other forms of diversity, treating diversities as if they all mean the same thing as far as the education of children with SEND is concerned. Rights An important confusion concerns the rights of children with SEND. A typical argument put forward in favour of full inclusion is that it is a basic human right of all children to be educated alongside their mainstream peers. To segregate children for any reason, is considered by many who support full inclusion to be a denial of their human rights. However, there are two main confusions here. First of all, there is confusion between human rights and moral rights

34 International views of inclusion (Thomson, 1990). Just because someone has a human right to a certain option doesn’t mean that it is an obligation or that it is morally the right thing for them to do. Thus, although their human rights allow children with SEND to be educated alongside their mainstream peers, for some of them this may not, morally, be the right or best option. As Warnock puts it, ‘What is a manifest good in society, and what it is my right to have… may not be what is best for me as a schoolchild’ (quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 36). A second aspect of the rights confusion concerns priorities. As well as their right to be included, children also have a right to an appropriate education suited to their needs. ‘It is their right to learn that we must defend, not their right to learn in the same environment as everyone else’ (Warnock, quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 36). That is, the right to an appropriate education that meets children’s specific needs is considered more important than the right to be educated alongside their mainstream peers. Therefore, it cannot be morally right to include all children in mainstream schools if this means that some of them will be denied the right to receive the education most suited to their needs. Thus, although their human rights allow children with SEND to be educated alongside their mainstream peers, for some of them this may not, morally, be the best option. Identification There is confusion about the effects of identifying children’s disabilities. To supporters of the inclusion of all students in general education, with no exceptions, identification can result in labelling children with disabilities, thereby stigmatising them, and therefore should be avoided. So, if children are identified as having disabilities, there is considered to be a risk of negative labelling, whereas, if they are not identified there is a risk that their special needs will not be met. Also, it needs to be considered that being stigmatised is not necessarily a result of identification but the fact that their disabilities themselves mark them out as different from other children in some way (Kauffman, 1989, 2005, 2008; Kauffman & Badar 2013). Peers Another confusion is related to one of the proposed hallmarks of full inclusion, that children with disabilities are educated alongside their age peers in mainstream classrooms. However, many children with disabilities are more comfortable alongside peers with shared interests and similar abilities or disabilities to themselves, than alongside peers who do not have similar disabilities and merely have the same chronological age. As Warnock pointed out, ‘Inclusion is not a matter of where you are geographically, but where you feel you belong’ (quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 34). So many children with SEND are happier and learn more effectively when they are with peers who are similar to themselves.

International views of inclusion

35

Aetiology Over the past few decades, awareness has grown about how social and environmental factors can influence children’s development and functioning. However, some proponents of full inclusion have taken this social perspective to its extreme to suggest that disabilities are entirely socially constructed and to deny the impact that impairments can have on children’s learning. Taking such a narrow view of the aetiology of SEND causes confusion for teachers and parents and can be highly detrimental (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011; Warnock, 2005). Intervention models It is sometimes suggested that special education is based solely on a medical or deficit model. In fact, special education interventions are influenced by educational, psychological, sociological and medical approaches, as well as other treatment models, as well as the law and social policy. No matter the theoretical viewpoint (e.g. applied behavioural analysis, cognitivism, Piagetian or Vygotskian approaches, information processing theory, social learning theory, systems theory), it is research evidence that underpins intervention approaches used in special education (Kauffman, 2020). This is an important aspect of special education because of the need to avoid controversial interventions, such as gentle teaching, learning styles, facilitated communication and other interventions lacking support of research evidence (Foxx & Mulick, 2016; Hornby, 2014). Goals Including children with SEND in mainstream schools driven by the need to achieve high predetermined academic standards (e.g. National Curricula or age-level Common Core Standards) results in the goals of education for many of these children being inappropriate. Instead, the main goals of education for children with SEND should be tailored to their special needs to ‘assist them to become economically active and provide them with the skills needed in everyday life, offering training in skills that respond to the social and communication demands and expectations of adult life’ (UNESCO, 1994, p. 10). This becomes even more an issue with students who have severe disabilities (Kauffman, Travers & Badar, 2020). Curricula Supporters of full inclusion demand that all children with disabilities should be entitled to have access to the same curriculum as other children. However, inclusion in a mainly academic curriculum that is unsuitable for the learning needs of many children with SEND may contribute to the development of

36 International views of inclusion emotional or behavioural difficulties that can lead to their being disruptive and being excluded from schools. The priority for children with disabilities must be that they have access to curricula that are appropriate for them, not that they are fitted into curricula that were designed for the mainstream population (Fuchs et al., 2014; Kauffman, Travers & Badar, 2020; Kauffman et al., 2019). The delivery of such personalised curricular may be more effective if given by specialists in a space away from other peers to avoid pupil self-consciousness. Reality Full inclusion requires that all children with disabilities be educated in mainstream classrooms. However, the reality of the situation in most mainstream schools is that, because of insufficient input on teaching children with SEND in initial teacher education courses, limited in-service training, insufficient material and financial resources, and insufficient support staff, many teachers do not consider that they work in a sufficiently supportive environment to effectively implement a policy of even temperate inclusion, let alone one of full inclusion (Farrell, 2010; Mitchell, 2019). Finance A key confusion is about the relative cost of provision for children with SEND in mainstream or special facilities. At first sight special schools, special classes and resource rooms appear more expensive, so inclusive education seems to be the cheaper option (OECD, 1999). However, placing sufficient resources in mainstream schools means spreading the necessary support over a larger number of schools rather than keeping it within a smaller number of special schools, so this may not be the case. In fact, SEND provision will be costly, if it is appropriate, irrespective of where it is – mainstream or special schools. What is clearly true is that, if the education system does not enable young people with disabilities to achieve independence after they leave school, then the cost to society will be far higher in long-term unemployment and welfare benefits. Means and ends An important confusion is whether inclusion is a means to an end or an end in itself. Proponents of full inclusion argue that any separate placement is morally wrong because a key goal of education should be to fully include individuals in the community in which they live. Therefore, the argument goes, they ought to be included in their local mainstream schools. A sense of community, however, is not derived from simply being physically present in a setting with others. In fact, a sense of alienation may build up when students feel they cannot effectively identify with the needs and abilities of those around them. Meaningful participation and inclusion in society after leaving school is the most important end that educators should be seeking. Since community, for

International views of inclusion

37

many people today, has less to do with experiencing a common geographical space, a greater sense of community can be more often found with those that share common interests than those living in the same area. Therefore, inclusion in mainstream schools may for some be a means to that end but should not necessarily be considered an end in itself. A dedicated, separate setting is a possible means to the end of inclusion in the society post-school and may be more effective in achieving that end than inclusion in mainstream schooling (see Hornby, 2021). Research evidence As noted above, there is confusion about the research base for inclusive education, with many supporters of inclusion appearing to believe that an adequate research base for the effectiveness of inclusive schools already exists. However, reviews of the research evidence in support of inclusion to date have been inconclusive, suggesting that an adequate research base for the effectiveness of inclusion has not been established (Cook & Cook, 2020; Dalgaard, et al., 2022; Farrell, 2010; Lindsay, 2007; Stephenson & Ganguly, 2021). In fact, as we have observed from recent anecdotal evidence of inclusive education, particularly when inadequately resourced, some school systems have experienced significantly negative effects on the quality of education, as seen in Germany (see Chapter 4).

Myths about special education in light of inclusion Kauffman et al. (2018) have suggested that there are 12 common myths about special education which are often cited by writers who are in favour of inclusion. These are outlined below. Special education isn’t actually special, it’s just good teaching The suggestion that the skills teachers use with students who have SEND are just the same as, or extensions of, the same skills that they use with typically developing children reflects a misunderstanding of the challenges of providing effective education for young people with SEND. Special educators need to have knowledge of specialised techniques and programmes as well as specialised teaching skills over and above those that regular education teachers possess (Kauffman, Hallahan & Pullen, in press). Special education does not close the achievement gap Some supporters of inclusion suggest the goal of special education is closing the gap between the mean achievement of those with and those without disabilities. This is irrational and demonstrates misunderstanding of the implications of educational disability (Kauffman, 2005). The gap that can and should be closed is that between what children with SEND are capable of achieving with appropriate

38 International views of inclusion teaching and what they will achieve without this (Kauffman, 2008). Full-inclusion approaches have also yet to prove the ability to close this gap or that between achievement of those with and without disabilities. Special education creates low expectations Many people have lower expectations of children with SEND than those students can achieve, sometimes because of bias, prejudice, or ignorance, while other people have unreasonably high expectations of them. The role of special education is to have expectations that are attainable depending on students’ abilities, strengths and weaknesses (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018). Thus, special education creates reasonable expectations for children with SEND that may well be lower than those for students without disabilities but are realistically attainable. The authors have experience of dropout rates of young people with SEND from mainstream schools being aggravated by a sense of failure compared to peers due to unrealistic expectations. Special education promotes deficit thinking Deficit thinking rhetoric implies that special educators tend to see only deficits in children with SEND. Such rhetoric is used in the field of disability studies to ignore the specific characteristics of disability and neglect the need for dedicated care of those who can benefit from special education services (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2019). When children with SEND do have impairments in learning, they can benefit from special education. Denying the reality of special educational needs or denying what children with SEND can achieve under optimal instruction is not helpful. What is helpful is seeing realities, being aware of weaknesses, while focusing on the strengths of children with SEND and enabling them to become as independent as possible. Identifying disabilities is a big problem Identifying disabilities is sometimes difficult, but as children get older it becomes easier. Denial of disability may be more common than difficulty in identification, especially when the disability is not obvious. Regardless of the difficulty of identification of disability, a bigger problem is making certain that all children with SEND receive appropriate instruction (Kauffman et al., 2018). In our experience both children and parents can feel a huge sense of relief from having a disability recognised. Children do not need to be told something is wrong – they work it out intuitively. Identifying that difficulty helps to give them the language to articulate what is wrong, to understand their difficulties better, to recognise they are not alone, to know that support is available and to come to terms with their difficulty in a way that enables them to see the possibilities rather than the constraints of their disability.

International views of inclusion

39

Disabilities are just another type of diversity Disabilities are, indeed, a kind of diversity. However, they are not like any other kind of diversity when it comes to education. It is most obviously different from diversities of colour, religion, sexual orientation and many other diversities that can and should be included in regular classrooms. Whereas those with SEND require different responses from educators since treating them like everybody else will not address their special needs and therefore will provide them with an inferior education (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2012). Special education should be based on values, not science Valuing individuals for who they are and valuing their abilities are essential in education. However, in the matter of instruction, scientific evidence of effectiveness is essential and must guide the interventions used by special educators (Wiley, Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2019). Special education does not work if separate from general education Separate special education has been said not to work in that it does not fit the inclusionist model of locating children with SEND in general education classrooms studying the standard curriculum. However, separation of children with SEND from general education does not prevent special education from working in that it helps them learn the skills they need using an alternative curriculum in a different setting (Kauffman et al., 2018). All educators need to be able to teach all kids In an ideal world, all teachers would be able to teach all kids. However, preparing all educators to teach all students is similar to the idea of preparing all members of any profession, such doctors or engineers, to perform competently in every type of case or job they might encounter, which is clearly impossible. The idea is contrary to the notion of specialised training and competence. Students, including children with SEND, deserve teachers with specific training appropriate for their learning needs (Kauffman, Hallahan & Pullen, in press). Special education teachers need to adjust teaching to kids’ learning styles Learning styles is one of many ideas that have intuitive appeal but are not supported by scientific evidence. The effectiveness of adjusting instruction to accommodate learning styles of children with SEND is not supported by corroborating evidence (Riener & Willingham, 2010).

40 International views of inclusion Restructuring is the key to improving schools Restructuring in the form of rearranging school organisation and responsibilities of staff, and so on, may address weaknesses in existing systems and thereby improve student learning to some extent, but is not the most important variable in transforming schools. It is improving instructional strategies based on scientific evidence of effectiveness that is the key to improving school learning. Cultural and organisational changes can shape the conditions of instruction, but a specific focus on the implementation of evidence-based teaching strategies is the key to improving schools (Hornby & Greaves, 2022). Special education was created by educators, not parents Many educators have been advocates for children with SEND and their appropriate education. However, the support and advocacy of parents of children with disabilities have been the most critical factor in the creation of special education law, local policy, developing appropriate education and the provision of many specialised facilities (see Martin, 2013). Therefore, parents have as much at stake in ensuring the effectiveness of special education as educators (Apsland et al., 2021)

Denial of the international reality of inclusion As noted in Chapter 2, General Comment Number Four of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 24 (UNCRPD, 2016) effectively calls for the end of special education in order for all countries to implement fully inclusive education systems as soon as possible. However, in contrast, the feasibility of this aspiration has been tested by attempts to implement inclusive education in 92 countries around the world, providing very different outcomes within local, social, cultural and economic contexts. This is reported in the recently published Global Education Monitoring Report on Inclusive Education (UNESCO, 2020), which presented international survey findings suggesting that predictions of the demise of special education may be premature. The report stated that ‘National policies emphasize segregation in 5% of countries, partial segregation in 45%, integration in 12% and inclusion in 38%.’ Furthermore, the report stated that ‘Worldwide, laws emphasize segregation in 25% of countries, partial segregation in 48%, integration in 10% and inclusion in 17%.’ Therefore, it is clear that, in reality, the global picture is one in which the vast majority of countries maintain partially segregated or fully segregated special education settings to provide for a large proportion of their children with special educational needs and disabilities. This is far from the UNCRPD (2016) vision of all countries moving to fully inclusive education systems. It seems that, currently, at most, only a minority of young people with special educational needs and disabilities may be being educated in fully inclusive schools, despite most countries having ratified UNCRPD Article 24.

International views of inclusion

41

It has been repeatedly acknowledged that context is critical to the practical implementation of the UNESCO aspiration for inclusion (Banks, 2021). It is therefore essential for each country to make its own critical assessment of whether inclusion, as prescribed by a cross-cultural international agreement, is likely to enable the best possible education system for everyone to thrive within their own contexts. Acceptance, rather than denial of this reality, may bring about greater consensus within countries for creating the most balanced, harmonious educational provision possible for everyone: teachers, parents and children with SEND alike. In Chapter 4 we examine the realities of inclusion and special education in several countries around the world including some that are held up as being examples of being more inclusive, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway and Estonia. We also examine other countries considered to be ‘working towards’ inclusion and currently deemed to be less inclusive, but in some cases, ironically, demonstrating a more supportive approach towards SEND, such as Ireland, Germany and Singapore. This provides an opportunity to consider the various different reasons for: why some countries might appear to have more inclusive educational systems; why inclusion is more likely to be effective within certain social contexts; the different ways in which teachers in the classroom meet SEND needs in different countries; and the importance of greater professional collaboration time to discuss and resolve the strategies of support necessary for each particular child on a regular basis. Also, it is an opportunity to consider whether other countries share similar problems but, due to their different cultural, social and procedural systems, are differently placed to overcome them.

Concluding comments This chapter has discussed myths and confusions about full inclusion and special education that have been widely disseminated over the past 30 years. Perhaps instead of the mythical and unattainable vision of full inclusion, a more realistic and practicable approach for the education of SEND should be adopted, based on the findings of the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report on Inclusive Education. The findings of this report suggest that it is necessary to consider the balance of provisions for children with SEND, in terms of special, and inclusive education, that is evident in various countries throughout the world. This is addressed in the following chapter, while drawing parallels with the education system in England.

References Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 3–7. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.

42 International views of inclusion Ainscow, M. (2021). Every learner matters, and matters equally. Podcast interview with Joanne Banks, 11 February 2021. https://audioboom.com/posts/7795510-every-lea rner-matters-and-matters-equally. Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). Editorial: The Salamanca Statement 25 years on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(7–8),671–676. Anastasiou, D., Felder, M., Correia, L., Shemanov, A., Zweers, I., & Ahrbeck, B. (2020). The impact of Article 24 of the CRPD on special and inclusive education in Germany, Portugal, the Russian Federation, and Netherlands. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed). On Educational Inclusion: Meanings, History, Issues and International Perspectives, pp. 236–245. Routledge. Anastasiou, D., Gregory, M., & Kauffman, J.M. (2018). Commentary on Article 24 of the CRPD: The right to education. In I. Bantekas, M. Stein, & D. Anastasiou (Eds). Commentary on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, pp. 656–704. Oxford University Press. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77, 367–384. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2012). Disability as cultural difference: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 139–149. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2019). Cultural politics, ideology, and methodology in disproportionality research: A rejoinder. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30, 105–110. Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: description and reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 429–443. Anastasiou, D., Sideridis, G. D., & Keller, C. E. (2020). The relationships of socioeconomic factors and special education with reading outcomes across PISA countries. Exceptionality, 28(4), 279–293. Apsland, T., Datta, P., Forbes, F., & Talukdar, J. (2021). Muted voices: The views of families on specialist schools. Australian Special Education Principals Association. www. asepa.edu/au. Begeny, J. C. & Martens, B. K. (2007). Inclusionary education in Italy: A literature review and call for more empirical research. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 80–94. Bennett, P. (2017). Inclusion model a ‘race to the bottom’ says policy expert. November 20, 2017. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/paul-bennett-inclusion-cri ticism-new-brunswick-1.4408435. CBC News (2017). ‘They consider that education, I guess’: Father of autistic boy speaks out. CBS News, November 15, 2017. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ new-brunswick/education-inclusive-autistic-piper-quispamsis-1.4401329. CBC News (2020). Education minister calls for review of classroom inclusion policy. CBC News, February 24. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/inclu sion-policy-education-nb-cardy-1.5473448. Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2020). An examination of highly cited research on inclusion. In Kauffman, J. M. (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives (pp. 130–159). Routledge. Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2013). Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485448. Dalgaard, N.T., Bondeejerg, A., Viinholt, B. C. A. & Filges, T. (2022). The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(4), e1291.

International views of inclusion

43

De Bruin, K. (2020). Does inclusion work? In L. Graham (Ed.) Inclusive education for the 21st Century: Theory, policy and practice, pp. 55–68. Taylor and Francis. Demo, H. (2020). I think it’s important that we try to look at the tensions that arise from having special measure for specific groups of students. Podcast interview with Joanne Banks, 25 February 2021. https://audioboom.com/posts/7808466-i-think-it-s-important-tha t-we-try-to-look-at-the-tensions-that-arise-from-having-special-measur. Doherty, H. (2012,June 5). Autism advocate raises concerns over inclusive education. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/autism-advocate-ra ises-concerns-over-inclusive-education-1.1202276. EADSNE (2012). Special Needs Education: Country Data 2012. EADSNE. Farrell, M. (2010). Debating special education. Routledge. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., & Jordan, N. C. (2014). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge? Exceptional Children, 81 (2), 134–157. Hanushek, E. A., Kain J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). Inferring programme effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584–599. doi:10.1162/003465302760556431. Hegarty, S. (1993). Reviewing the literature on integration. European Journal of Special Education, 8, 194–200. Hehir, T. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Instituto Alana. Hehir, T., Grindal, T., & Eidelman, H. (2012). Review of special education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/hehir/2012-04sped.docx. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. Springer. Hornby. G. (2015). Inclusive special education: development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42, 257–256. Hornby, G. (2021). Are inclusive education or special education programmes more likely to result in inclusion post-school? Education Sciences, 11(6), 304. https://doi. org/10.3390/educsci11060304. Hornby, G., & Greaves, D. (2022). Essential evidence-based teaching strategies. Springer. Hurwitz, S., Perry, B., Cohen, E. D., & Skiba, R. (2019). Special education and individualized academic growth: A longitudinal assessment of outcomes for students with disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, doi:10.3102/0002831219857054. Hyatt, C., & Hornby, G. (2017). Will UN Article 24 lead to the demise of special education or to its re-affirmation? Support for Learning, 32, 288–304. Imray, P., & Colley, A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: Long live inclusion. Routledge. Kauffman, J. M. (1989). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Journal of Special Education, 23, 256–278. Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Waving to Ray Charles: Missing the meaning of disability. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 520–521, 524. Kauffman, J. M. (2008). Would we recognize progress if we saw it? A commentary. Journal of Behavioural Education, 17, 128–143. Kauffman, J. M. (Ed.). (2020). On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives. Routledge.

44 International views of inclusion Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2013). How we might make special education for students with emotional or behavioural disorders less stigmatizing. Behavioural Disorders, 39, 16–27. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (in press). Creeping normality: Special education’s problem of a new normal. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Kauffman, J. M., & Hornby, G. (2020). Inclusive vision versus special education reality. Education Sciences, 10(9), 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090258. Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Politics, civil rights, and disproportional identification of students with emotional and behavioural disorders. Exceptionality, 17, 177–188. Kauffman, J. M., Schumaker, J., Badar, J., & Hallenbeck, B. A. (2018). Where special education goes to die. Exceptionality, 27, 149–166. Kauffman, J. M., Travers, J. C., & Badar, J. (2020). Why some students with severe disabilities are not placed in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 28–33. Kauffman, J. M., Wiley, A. L., Travers, J. C., Badar, J., & Anastasiou, D. (2019, March 5). Endrew and FAPE: Concepts and implications for all students with disabilities. Behaviour Modification, 177–198. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/ mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1–24. Markussen, E. (2004). Special education. Does it help? A study of special education in Norwegian secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(1), 33–48. Martin, E. W. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal special education legislation 1965–1981. Bardolf. Myklebust, J. O. (2002). Inclusion or exclusion? Transitions among special needs students in upper secondary education in Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(3), 251–263. OECD (1999). Inclusive education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Author. Oh-Young, C., & Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014. Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change 42(5), 32–35. Sailor, W., Skrtic, T. M., Cohn, M., & Olmstead, C. (2021). Preparing teacher educators for statewide scale-up of multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(1), 24–41. doi:10.1177/0888406420938035. Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., & Stiefel, L. (2019). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. http://www. edworkingpapers.com/ai19-86. Shevlin, M., & Banks, J. (2021). Inclusion at a crossroads: dismantling Ireland’s system of special education. Education Sciences, 11, 161. Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. Routledge. Stephenson, J., & Ganguly, R. (2021). Analysis and critique of the advocacy paper: Towards inclusive education: A necessary process of transformation. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 1–14. doi:10.1017/jsi.2021.23. SWIFT schools (2020, April 12). www.swiftschools.org. Terzi, L. (Ed.). (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. Continuum. Thomson, J. J. (1990). The realm of rights. Harvard University Press. UNESCO (1990). World Conference on Education for All. Jomtien, Thailand: UNESCO. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO.

International views of inclusion

45

UNESCO (2019). Cali commitment to equity and inclusion in education. Cali, Colombia: International Forum on Inclusion and Equity in Education. https://unes doc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370910. UNESCO (2020). Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Global Education Monitoring Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718. UNCRPD (2016). General Comment No. 4 - Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education. http://www.refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html. Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The impact of a full-time Inclusive School Program (ISP) on the academic achievement of students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 395–405. Warnock, M. (2005). Special Educational Needs: A new look. Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Warnes, E., Done, E. J., & Knowler, H. (2022). Mainstream teachers’ concerns about inclusive education for children with special educational needs and disability in England under pre-pandemic conditions. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22(1), 31–43.

4

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

Introduction Tensions concerning the inclusion of children with SEND in England have been intensified by the way in which schools are managing the contradictions between the conflicting twin policy efforts of complying with existing legislation for inclusion while improving overall levels of attainment (Ball, 2010). Such tensions are magnified by regional and school differences in the identification of types and degrees of SEND in children and young people throughout the country (Hutchinson, 2021). This chapter highlights similar issues in other countries in relation to the implementation of inclusive education policies following their ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006). This has proven to be far from unproblematic and has raised many questions and concerns about the process of implementation of inclusion worldwide. We consider that it is becoming increasingly important to recognise the need to respect the unique differences between cultural histories, economies and social policies when comparing the success or otherwise of inclusion in countries around the world (Plate, Peacock & Tomlinson, cited in Koepfer et al., 2021). There is also increasing debate about the subject of evidence-based policy at European and international levels, which is raising awareness of the need to develop stronger connections between research, policies and education practices related to inclusion. Equally important appears to be the need for greater involvement and regard for the participation of all the different stakeholders and improvement in the dialogue between them (Ianes et al., 2020). What makes assessment of the value of inclusion so problematic is that there is no single universal view of how it is defined or what it involves (Boyle & Anderson, 2020; Engsig & Johnstone, 2014; Fitzgerald et al., 2021; Kauffman & Hornby, 2020; Squires, 2020). Nor is there universal agreement about the way in which data needs to be collected to form any comprehensive understanding of the relative effectiveness of inclusion, both between and within different countries. The UNESCO (2020, p. 15) report suggests that ‘context matters’ and in this chapter we show that the context within which inclusive policies are enacted is arguably the most important factor. We consider how cultural, social DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-4

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

47

and economic factors affect the ability of different countries to adopt and implement an inclusive agenda. Local beliefs, values, attitudes and knowledge about SEND vary considerably between countries and are an intrinsic part of local and historical contexts. We argue therefore that a single universal education policy about inclusion, cannot be equally relevant to all countries. Approaches to inclusion are affected by a range of issues. Disability, for example, disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, which are disproportionately represented around the world. Results from the World Health Organisation Survey (WHO, 2011) indicate a higher disability prevalence in lower income countries than in higher income countries and significantly, that economically disadvantaged people within countries are also at an increased risk of disability. Therefore, these issues are considered when we investigate the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006) on the implementation of inclusion in various countries around the world.

Impact of the UNCRPD on development of inclusion in selected countries Portugal As recently publicised in a news report (TPN/Lusa, 2021), Portugal is one of the countries praised in the Salamanca Statement review 25 years on (UNESCO, 2020) as an example of a fully inclusive education system. However, a recent research study conducted on the basis of the 2018 TALLIS findings demonstrated that considerable difficulties have been experienced by teachers in Portugal with the effective implementation of recent policies on inclusion (Lopes & Oliveira, 2021). Similar problems have been outlined by Alves, Pinto and Pinto, (2020) suggesting that there were serious limitations to the aspirations of the new 2018 legislation, promoting the ideals of inclusion, which were to be introduced into all schools in Portugal. A ‘lack of clarity regarding the processes’ was highlighted stating that the policy enactment had been described as being a ‘jumbled sometimes ambiguous, messy process’ (Alves et al., 2020, p. 284) and that few schools had adopted it. It seems from this research, that Portugal’s education system may not be as supportive of the achievement of all learners as is claimed in the UNESCO (2020) document. Lopes and Oliveira (2021) state that educational models mandated at the district or government level do not have the school personnel’s full compliance and that support for it is mixed. Their study showed that the resistance from many teachers towards inclusion, was to do with how they did not consider it to be workable. They also pointed out that, despite the legislation, most teachers do not receive training on how to simultaneously meet the needs of students with high levels of SEND while also meeting the learning needs of those without SEND (Lopes & Oliveira, 2021). They cited other studies that found a lack of

48 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide interest on the part of Portuguese teachers in SEND training compared to their need for strategies to deal with classroom discipline, and that negative teacher attitudes could often be traced to inadequate resourcing. They described how teachers accepted the values of inclusion in principle, but found its implementation was an ‘inextricable challenge’ (Alvis et al., 2020, p. 282). In other words, teachers felt a moral obligation to implement inclusion, but lacked the knowledge or support to deal with it effectively. The Lopes and Oliveira (2021) study also examined the issue of collaboration between special education and regular education teachers, considered to be an essential part of inclusive education. They showed how this was far from being a reality, in part, because there were insufficient numbers of special education teachers. They pointed out the double bind put on mainstream teachers by expecting them to be responsible for all students, without the necessary collaboration with specialist educators. They argued that the broad level of responsibility for every student requiring all types of specialist support was similar to expecting ‘competent general practitioners to meet all the more specialist medical needs of their patients’ (Lopes & Oliveira, 2021, p. 11). Lopes and Oliveira (2021) also drew attention to the high levels of stress and burnout in teachers that contributed to their inability to cope with classroom challenges. This was attributed in part to the dual pressure of meeting the demands of inclusion and accountability for student achievement which they considered had affected their health and well-being. The study cited the clear lack of appropriate human resources to implement the law and reported that the process of implementing inclusive education had the potential to compromise educational success. They noted that the reduction in special education provision also discouraged the take up of specialised training, thereby making it less likely that teachers in mainstream schools will acquire the skills to deal effectively with the full range of students with SEND. Our Portuguese colleague expressed concern that due to the pressure of inclusion: Teacher training courses are increasingly empty, and the country faces a severe teacher recruitment crisis. Emergency measures are being taken, but several studies show that, by 2030, Portugal may not be able to replace a third of the teachers who will retire. The profession is no longer attractive (Lopes, 2022, personal communication). The recommendations made by the OECD to Portugal following their most recent inclusion review have essentially remained unchanged: a) strengthening governance and financing; b) creating strong collaboration strategies to support inclusion, although it does not say between whom; c) expanding teacher training opportunities, although it doesn’t say how, d) strengthening strategies for monitoring and evaluating inclusive practices (Cerna, 2022).

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

49

Italy Another country cited by UNESCO (2020) as demonstrating a fully inclusive model is Italy, which represents the most long-term example of attempts to implement a fully inclusive national education system (Anastasiou et al., 2015). Despite a full inclusion policy being in place since the 1970s, a review of the research into the Italian system raises important questions about whether attempting to implement full inclusion may actually undermine the quality of the education provided and lead to many children feeling excluded within their ‘inclusive’ school (Anastasiou et al., 2015). The most obvious concern is that schools appear to be overburdened with the demand created by inadequate material and staffing resources that are unevenly spread (Anastasiou et al., 2015; Ianes, Demo & Dell’Anna, 2020). As noted in the previous chapter, research also shows that there is a general reluctance to address SEND in secondary schools, with an overemphasis on socialisation at the expense of academic learning (Devecchi et al., 2012). Mainstream class teachers generally pass the teaching of students with disabilities on to support teachers, but cuts in funding have affected the availability of support teachers and their training. Their retention rate is poor due to lack of support from principals, poor collaboration with colleagues and a sense of feeling treated like second class citizens. Support teachers, although fully qualified teachers with an additional year of specialist training, suffer similar feelings of marginalisation to that often voiced by teaching assistants in the English system. There is also clear concern amongst some staff about the real value of inclusion for some children with high levels of need. One support teacher described how inappropriate it was for many children to be educated in mainstream schools and complained, ‘The school is like a parking lot. This is not inclusion; this is forced integration’ (Devecchi et al., 2012, p. 178). Paradoxically, in 2011–12, after over four decades of a national policy of full-inclusion, Italy, at 2.3%, had one of the lowest percentages of formally registered students with SEND in Europe, (compared with Cyprus at 6.96%, Greece at 3.18% and Portugal at 3.19%), along with low levels of recognition of specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia and dyscalculia. This percentage of registered special needs reflects the levels of identification of students with SEND for which provision is legally protected. If we recognise the generally accepted premise that approximately 20% of school age children (Statistics Finland, 2019; Warnock, 2005) have some need of additional educational support, it is important to consider the large percentage of children whose support needs are not protected by such legislation. Whilst legislation may be aimed at providing mandatory support for this low percentage (2.3%) of students registered with SEND, it does not allow for any protected provision of support needed by the remaining 13–18%. Therefore, in this respect, ‘there is no evidence that Italy’s full inclusion system has materially expanded the rights [of children with SEND]’ (Anastasiou et al., 2015, p. 4).

50 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide In addition, there remains a scarcity of empirical evidence supporting the ability of Italy’s inclusive system to provide a quality education for students with SEND (Marsili et al., 2021). Research shows that there is an ongoing gap between legislation and the practical difficulties of implementation. It is concerning that research to date has focused mainly on processes moving towards inclusion rather than on assessment of the effectiveness of either academic or social outcomes (Nepi et al., 2013, 2014, cited in Ianes et al., 2020, p. 258). Italy also has its fair share of parental complaints, which are often about the allocation of insufficient hours of specialised support. For example, in the academic year 2010/11, 10% of families of children with SEND had lodged a court appeal to obtain increased hours of support. Post-school, fewer than 19% of young people with SEND were reported as having regular employment (Anastasiou et al., 2015). Far from being a model for other countries to emulate, Italy’s inclusive education system stands as an example of how the practice of inclusion can be ineffective, if not counter-productive, with regard to its essential purpose. Spain In line with many other countries in Europe, the 1970s in Spain marked the beginning of the development of special education as an integral part of the education system as a whole. From then on, a series of legislative measures were rapidly introduced. Following a change in the Spanish Constitution in 1978 a series of policies requiring schools to include pupils with SEND were introduced and a historically selective system gradually became a much more comprehensive one. As for many other European countries, the process of integration was significantly influenced by the original UK Warnock Report (DES,1978) and began in earnest in 1985, while special schools and special units remained an option for those whose needs could not be met in mainstream classes (Rao et al., 2014). An Education Act introduced in 1990 required that all students, regardless of their educational needs, were to be taught in mainstream classes, but with the ambiguous caveat that when this was not possible, they could be taught in separate classes (Rao et al., 2014). This initially led to Spain being considered to have one of the most inclusive educational systems in Europe (p. 157) and Salamanca became renowned for having been the place where the international UNESCO (1994) agreement was signed. However, the ambiguity of the mandate for all students to be placed in mainstream classes and schools, except for when it was not possible, left it open to different interpretations (Rao et al., 2014). In addition, since 2008, SEND provision has been affected by a number of funding cuts in response to a declining global economy. This was followed by a reduction in resources and general support for pupils with SEND. Furthermore, disparities in the way in which SEND was recognised, were exposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), highlighting that some types of SEND were going unrecognised (Rao et al., 2014).

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

51

Children with high levels of special needs were assessed by teams of qualified specialists employed by the local education authorities in cooperation with parents and teachers in response to referrals made by a school counsellor (comparable with the SENDCo in UK schools). Those identified as needing SEND support could choose between attending a mainstream or special school. Otherwise, teachers were expected to adapt their teaching to support the needs of the majority of children with special needs who did not receive any recommendations of specific support. In a report produced in 2012 (Rao et al., 2014), Spain was found to be following the trend in the UK towards recognising the need for greater parental involvement in educational decisions. This included recommendations for parents to be given a wider choice and greater autonomy regarding the choice of setting they wanted for their children. As we have seen in Sweden and the UK, the move towards developing a system that offers greater parental choice, can also have the unintended consequence of promoting what is seen to be a less equitable system. Despite teacher support for the principle of inclusion, research on teachers working in the Spanish education system in 2014 showed that they did not think it was easy to implement, in terms of their time, resources, support and training (Rao et al., 2014). Teachers were generally found to apply teaching strategies to support the group as a whole rather than use more specialised practices. Rao et al., (2014) also found that the current training for teachers working with SEND in inclusive classes was not considered adequately effective. Contrary to expectations, a news report estimated that within the 10 years since 2009, the number of students in special education schools had increased by 18% and accounted for 16.5% of the total number of students with high levels of need (EFE Agency, 2019). This is seen as due to parental resistance to the UN report criticising Spain for not complying with the right for all children to be educated within mainstream schooling. In the view of Ana Delgado, director of the Cepri Special Education School in Madrid, inclusion does not work. He argued that students can gain an appreciation of their equality with their peers through leisure time activities at ordinary general centres for youth support (Delgado cited in EFE, 2019). Elvira Rodriguez, head of studies at Nuestra Senora de las Victorias Centre in Madrid, likened the need for special education to being referred to a specialist doctor for more specific care than can be provided by a general practitioner. In her view: ‘inclusion is not produced by the simple fact of being in an ordinary school.’ She maintained that special education was ‘the most appropriate and recommended option to achieve personal autonomy and the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities’ (Rodriguez, cited in EFE, 2019). Perhaps in a pragmatic response to what has been learned about the consequences of an inclusive classroom approach, the Spanish system continues to offer a continuum of services from mainstream to segregated provisions (Rao et al., 2014).

52 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide Germany In Germany, special education and its teachers are highly valued, therefore, since the pressure to ratify the UNCRPD (2006), many in Germany have been resistant to relinquish a prized aspect of its education system (Ahrbeck & Felder, 2020) from which no child is excluded (Anastasiou et al., 2020). Special education teachers in Germany have traditionally been trained to Master’s degree level in one to two years of intensive specialist training, in addition to their initial teaching degree, to be able to teach students with SEND. As a result, they have always been held in high regard, and the education of children with SEND has been highly valued by society. Currently, 42% of pupils with SEND in Germany are educated in mainstream schools and 58% in special schools. In the years since the UNCRPD (2006), the number of pupils with SEND in mainstream schools doubled and the number of special schools decreased. Since the increase in numbers of pupils with SEND in mainstream schools, more classrooms have been considered to be without adequate supports (Ahrbec & Felder, 2020; Anastasiou et al., 2020). Following ratification of the UNCRPD Treaty in 2009, Germany received a first monitoring review of its implementation in 2015. This monitoring used a redefinition of the original meaning of the UNCRPD Article 24 (2007), as it was at the time of Germany’s ratification (2009), to include the requirement of abandoning special education schools and classes. In its monitoring review, the CRPD committee (2015) criticised Germany for its continued use of special schools and claimed that segregation was contravening the rights of the child (Anastasiou et al., 2020). The committee recommended a national strategy for inclusion for the whole country which in itself contravenes the German constitution because the central government does not prescribe an educational plan of action to its separate federal states (Anastasiou et al., 2020). The criticism was strongly rebutted by the government in its response stating that the educational system in Germany ‘builds on the right of parents to decide whether to send their children to mainstream or special schools as guaranteed by the constitution’ (article 6(2), German Statement, 2016, quoted in Anastasiou et al., 2020, p. 9). Ironically, the rationale for reducing the number of special schools, was to enable students with SEND to choose to attend inclusive mainstream schools (Anastasiou et al., 2020), whilst it failed to recognise that this would deny the choice of parents and children who wanted to attend a special school. Significantly, the value of parents’ views as expressed in an array of previous international human rights documents, such as the Salamanca Review (UNESCO, 2020), is contradicted by General Comment No. 4 of the UNCRPD (2016) in which the Committee states that, the right to education was the right of the child not the parent (Anastasiou et al., 2020). Many parents and teachers have expressed concern about the deficiency of support for SEND in inclusive education and reject the closure of special schools (Anastasiou et al., 2020). This supports our own research which exposes a barely hidden intention of the CRPD Committee to disenfranchise the voice of parents by making

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

53

paternalistic claims of its views about children’s rights on behalf of vulnerable children who are not in a position to either defend or question it. The monitoring body for the implementation of the UNCRPD (2015), criticised the German system on the basis that operating special education schools was seen to undermine the principle of inclusion and was perceived to be more costly. Contrary to this view, in Germany special schools are not seen as a human rights violation but as building on the rights of parents to decide on the place for their child’s education (Ahrbec & Felder, 2020). Parents and teachers have been shocked at the criticism by some that the German desire to retain separate special education schools is entrenched in ideas developed during the Nazi era. Such attitudes seem at best to represent an inappropriate attempt to undermine the continued positive existence of special education in the system as it is today (Ahrbec & Felder, 2020). In states where inclusion has been strongly promoted, significant problems have emerged including reports of students being sent home from school when teachers have been unable to manage their behaviour. This illustrates the indefensibility of the UNCRPD claim that the closure of special schools would lead to better quality provision in inclusive schools (Anastasiou et al., 2020). It also illustrates how, following the closure of special schools, sufficient funding for the appropriate resourcing of SEND is not guaranteed to be transferred to inclusive settings. Contrary to previous UN claims in the Salamanca review report (UNESCO, 2020), it has been: estimated that effective specialized services in general education classrooms cost as much as 3.5 times those provided in special schools. This fact has been severely underestimated by state governments, and thus politicians continue to call upon teachers’ positive attitudes toward inclusion as the main factor for its success (Buhr, 2017, as cited in Anastasiou et al., 2020). This has prompted Ahrbeck and Felder (2020, p. 9) to state: ‘To claim that special education is inherently evil denies significant empirical evidence such as this.’ We concluded that rather than dismantling its special education system, many Germans consider that it should be developed further to include students with SEND in education more successfully. In addition, there is research evidence to show that well-developed special education components of education systems are associated with higher overall levels of reading ability in children than those in inclusive education systems (Anastasiou & Keller, 2018). Poland Poland has a history of valuing education, and traditionally it has had a wellstructured special education system which comprised a choice of special schools. These included schools such as the ‘Good Education Academies’ that provided education for many students with high levels of different disabilities (Bartnikowska & Antoszewska, 2017). Individual programmes of study were

54 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide also provided for students with a savant syndrome demonstrating special abilities and regulated by the Minister of National Education. Historically, Poland’s flexible school entry system has taken into account the respective developmental stage of each child before they start school. If a child’s school entry was deferred, due to a special educational need or disability (SEND), they could start school at 6, 7 or 8 years old after one year in kindergarten. There was also a flexible approach to when a child is ready to make the transition from one school stage to the next, so that a child could be up to 16 years of age before moving on from primary school, if necessary, and up to 24 years before leaving secondary school. A prescription (or certificate) for the support of children with profound intellectual disabilities, continues to be given for specialist activities by qualified staff in special pre-schools closest to their home (Bartnikowska & Antoszewska, 2017; Eurydice, 2014). Since the Education Act of 1991, Poland has made provision for children with SEND in all types of schools, ‘according to their individual developmental and educational needs and predispositions’ (Bartnikowska & Antoszewska, 2017, p. 101). A small-scale study in 2011 provided data to suggest that integration of children with SEND in Polish mainstream schools worked well in the early stages of education, but that it struggled to provide for and integrate older children into those settings. This research concluded that Poland had taken important but faltering steps towards educating all children in mainstream schools (Starczewska et al., 2012). Special schools continue to exist for pupils with visual and hearing impairments or physical disabilities and for children with behavioural and emotional disorders. Every pupil with SEND from kindergarten onwards has an Individual Programme for Education and Therapy (IPET) that is drawn up by specialists each year. Decisions about placement in mainstream schools or different types of special schools are made on the basis of types of difficulties that affect learning, so certificates are used to confirm types of SEND in individual pupils. Diagnosis is provided by psychological-educational counselling centres on referral by the school with parental consent. Parents whose children are diagnosed with a long-term disability are given a choice of special or mainstream schools, although those with a specific learning difficulty (such as dyslexia) now have no choice but to attend a mainstream school. Schools are required to provide psychological and educational assistance in the form of therapeutic activities, additional support classes, speech and language therapy and social engagement therapy. Since 2016, with the increased global expectation of progression towards greater inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools, it has been a legal requirement for mainstream schools attended by children with autism or complex disabilities to employ additional teachers with qualifications in special education. Each student is expected to have an individual therapeutic program developed by a specialist team of teachers, tutors and specialists. However, the financial resourcing of the legal requirements of adequate provision for inclusion within mainstream schools has proved problematic (Bartnikowska & Antoszewska, 2017) and the transition process from a system of segregated

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

55

SEND provision to a more inclusive approach has been fraught with challenges for school practice (Lewicka-Zelent & Chimicz, 2019). A survey of parents’ views conducted by the Ombudsman for Children in 2018 (Lewicka-Zelent & Chimicz, 2019) identified many of the difficulties being experienced. They reflected challenges faced, to varying degrees, by other countries in their efforts to implement inclusive policies. In 2017, legislation in Poland obliged school employees to recognise the rights of SEND pupils to receive psychological and pedagogical assistance. This gave parents a greater sense of the duty on schools to provide for their children’s legal rights to an appropriately resourced inclusive mainstream education, which parents began to detect as being violated. This set in motion an increasingly adversarial relationship between parents and educators. A similar response by some parents to inclusive legislation has been seen in England and other parts of Europe. As in other countries, emphasis has been placed on the importance of schools working cooperatively and fostering good relations with parents (DfE, 2015). Parents in Poland who had a concept of what to expect in terms of support for their children from their previous experience of a special school, or from their child’s pedagogical assessment, perceived mainstream schools as lacking in either will or awareness of their new legal duties to their SEND children. From the parents’ point of view, it was easy to see how the teaching staff and school management were at fault when they became aware that their children were not receiving the support they had been led to expect from the legislative changes (Lewicka-Zelent & Chimicz, 2019). Whilst it may have appeared straightforward to produce legislation that matched the aspirations of the UNCRPD for a radically more inclusive approach, this was introduced in Poland before the processes of implementation had been properly worked out. It was not clear how school management leaders would be enabled to train and recognise how to support a school-wide approach. Neither was it clear how teachers would be given adequate support and training, to use a range of differentiated strategies while balancing the meeting of special needs with those of the rest of the class. In addition, there was a lack of sufficient data analysis at both a national and individual school level, to anticipate the funding necessary for the additional support staff and appropriate equipment required. Furthermore, the school buildings themselves were found to be inappropriately designed for many students with high levels of need. Part of the difficulty also came from a lack of clarity about who could realistically be included within the mainstream and who could not (Lewicka-Zelent & Chimicz, 2019). Polish parents found that the number of specialists at each school did not correspond to the real needs of the children, so many children with SEND would have to travel considerable distances to be placed at a mainstream school that could offer them sufficient support. They also reported that bullying was a significant problem and that ineffective management of student aggressive behaviour by teaching staff had not been resolved, resulting in a proportion of children with SEND being unable to take part in activities such as school trips. All these factors have been shown to impact the physical, emotional, intellectual and social development of children as

56 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide Poland has struggled to adapt to the expectations of greater inclusion (Lewicka-Zelent & Chimicz, 2019). As in many countries, for Poland, the real impact of large numbers of children with high levels of SEND in mainstream classrooms, had not been anticipated, and the process of effective implementation is still being worked out some time after legislation was introduced (Lewicka-Zelent & Chimicz, 2019). In response to their difficulties, a restructuring initiative was set up in July 2021 by the Polish Ministry of Education and Science in cooperation with the European Commission’s Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) (EASNIE, 2021). In the current economic climate, it is questionable to what extent the necessary resources and skills can effectively be developed to improve the implementation of the reforms aspired to. Ireland As mentioned in the previous chapter, Ireland has been considering a process of radical transformation to its approach in providing education for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (Shevlin & Banks, 2021). It is a country that has a history of a highly valued comprehensive special education system. Nevertheless, as one of the latest countries to ratify the UNCRPD (2006) in 2018, it is now considering its direction of travel towards full inclusion (O’Brien, 2019). The issue has been discussed at some length in a series of interviews with international experts (Banks, 2020–2022) using the Canadian province of New Brunswick as the model example of full inclusion. Their thoughts and comments have contributed to a wider national discussion of the idea first put forward by the National Council for Special Education (NCSE, 2019). Proposals are being considered to close all special classes and special schools in favour of all students, with the full range of disabilities, being placed in mainstream classes (O’Brien, 2019). As part of its reasons for doing so, the NCSE have argued that by not adopting the policy of full inclusion, ‘Ireland may be in breach of a UN convention’ (O’Brien, 2019). However, the rationale for such a move must be questioned, as it is crucial for Ireland to consider the purpose of such a radical change and what it hopes to gain in the long run. At the moment, Ireland’s index of social inclusion at 83% is among the highest in the OECD (with an average of 76%) (OECD, 2020a). The country has other enviable assets in its existing school system such as two years of a new government subsidised early childhood programme aimed at improving access to high quality Early Childhood Care and Education (2019–2028). A high level of school choice is open to parents involving a range of church schools, mixed and single sex schools, as well as schools specialising in different types of SEND (citizensinformation.ie). Nonetheless, rising levels of disadvantage, that are becoming typical throughout Europe, are gathering momentum in Ireland. In recent years, the school population has become more diverse, with a growing concentration of children with immigrant backgrounds. Numbers of pupils with special

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

57

educational needs in mainstream schools have increased, as have the number of special classes in mainstream schools (OECD, 2020a). Contemplating a root and branch transformation of the educational system by bringing in legislation for full inclusion may initially appear to offer a solution for these issues but may also prove to be an unhelpful deflection from the focus of other important OECD recommendations. These focus on the need for a reduction in the rates of early school leaving, improving tertiary education, setting up apprenticeships, increasing labour participation of vulnerable groups and getting young people into employment or training (OECD, 2020a). Other serious concerns have been raised about the underfunding of education in Ireland and the administrative workload on teaching principals leading to unsustainable working hours and stress levels, particularly for schools with special needs classes (OECD, 2020). Ireland invests a smaller share of national wealth in education than the average in other OECD countries so perhaps the focus of attention should be on the OECD recommendations that resources are maximised and ensuring that quality within existing school structures are not affected by budget issues (OECD, 2020a). A recent report from the Ombudsman for Children’s Office has highlighted the inadequacies of the Government’s planning for every child to have access to an education appropriate to their needs. It has also simultaneously criticised the Department of Education for generating ‘solutions that contain some element of separation’ (Ombudsman do leanai for children, 2022). Separation, it claims, contradicts the State’s obligations under the UNCRPD to provide for an inclusive education system. The Ombudsman’s description of inclusion remains ambiguous about what full inclusion really means when it states that, ‘any failure to include children with SEN within the mainstream school system, for any reason other than to facilitate their effective education, constitutes discrimination’ (OCO, 2022, p. 53). Ironically, this ‘other than’ statement alludes to the essential function of special schools that facilitate effective education of children with SEND. The response of the Irish Government to the Ombudsman’s criticism has been to approve an Education Bill, ‘which aims to compel schools to open special classes within six to eight weeks’ (Banks, 2022, p. 2) but which Banks highlights as ‘at odds with our obligations’ to the country’s ratification of the UNCRPD. This demonstrates the muddle in which the Irish Education system has found itself while trying to meet the expectations of the UNCRPD as well as the wishes of parents, and the needs of children with SEND themselves. Concerns about discrimination appear to be at the heart of the Irish proposals for a nationwide full inclusion approach. However, greater discrimination may occur when policy makers and school leaders fail to provide an appropriate education for those in need of it. The solution should not be to include them all in a model of full inclusion, which after 40 years, has yet to prove itself as a convincing means to an effective education, but to find innovative mechanisms to enhance the quality of existing provision. A more constructive way forward may be found by following the suggestions of Irish academics, such as Fitzgerald et al. (2021), who present an alternative view based on the theory of Inclusive Special Education, which is described in Chapter 10.

58 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide Estonia Estonia has a history of special education in which most students with SEND have attended special schools. Its extensive network of special education schools and programmes aimed to ensure that children with special needs have access to public education locally. They offer free textbooks and school lunches and easy physical access to primary and secondary schools (Santiago et al., 2016). Recent legislative changes regarding inclusion have caused the number of pupils with SEND in mainstream schools to increase (EASNIE, 2017) and there has also been a corresponding but unexpected increase in the number of pupils with SEND in special classes taught by special education teachers within mainstream schools (Rais et al., 2016, cited in Leijen and Bacal, 2021). Research by Santiago et al. (2016) considers funding arrangements to be a problem because funding for SEND has not been ring-fenced and has been used by schools for other assigned purposes (Santiago et al., 2016). This is a similar problem to that found in other countries, such as the UK (see Chapter 8). There is also teacher concern about a lack of support specialists, including special needs teachers, speech therapists and psychologists (Rais & Somer, cited in Leijen & Bacal, 2016). Public opinion is hesitant about inclusion. There have been several articles published in 2020 in Estonian newspapers arguing that inclusive education is a dream or ideology that does not take into account actual circumstances or reality. For example, in a national newspaper in June 2020 (Kupper et al., 2020, cited in Leijen et al., 2021) a group of ‘master’s in education’ students stated that although they supported the idea of inclusive education, it is ‘only justified if it is carefully organized and sufficient support is available,’ and added that inclusive education is certainly not suitable for students with more severe special needs (Leijen et al., 2021, p. 3). Leijen et al. (2021) point out how teachers do not receive enough guidance about how to work with pupils with SEND and the rest of the class at the same time. This is also an important consideration in England where SEND training tends to focus on learning about strategies to support different types of SEND, but does not fully take into account the reality of juggling the meeting of a wide variety of SEND needs, including behavioural difficulties, at the same time as meeting the learning needs of those without SEND in the rest of the class. The concern of these researchers is that if teachers are not sufficiently supported to be able to manage these problems effectively, there may be an increase in behavioural problems, drop-out rates, and developmental delays or academic deficits (Leijen et al., 2021; Squires, 2020). Latvia Latvia is now cited by UNESCO (2020) as having one of the most inclusive education systems in the world. Despite this questionable claim, the efficacy of the implementation of the new policies has not yet been evaluated. This is

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

59

especially important given that Latvia is the third poorest and most marginalised country in Europe and is currently also experiencing a dramatic and increasing gap between the poor and the rich (Lokenbaha, 2019). Considering the difficulties faced by other poor countries in implementing policies of inclusion, this claim calls for further investigation. Traditionally, Latvia has maintained a structured approach to meeting the needs of children with SEND through schools specialising in different kinds of need, including different degrees of intellectual disability and mental health difficulties (Eurydice, 2022). Since Latvia’s ratification of the UNCRPD (2006), the country has taken gradual steps towards increasing levels of inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools, although according to recent reports, in practice this has been slow and strongly resisted (Spundina, 2021). It is estimated that while 67% of mainstream schools are implementing inclusion, there are many schools that refuse to enrol children with SEND (Spundina, 2021). At the time of the UNESCO (2021) report on Latvia, amendments were being made to the country’s General Education Law that would legally require children with all types of SEND to be admitted into mainstream schools from September 2020 (Euridice, 2022). However, although, in theory, schools cannot refuse to teach a child, full inclusion is far from the reality. Families surveyed by Latvian Radio, and stories on social media, suggest that refusal to enrol children with disabilities is standard practice and pupils are rarely admitted to their school of first choice (Spundina, 2021). Reasons cited for this are lack of staff, no speech and language therapist, no special tutor, and lack of teacher knowledge about how to support pupils with SEND. The Ministry of Education has stated that teachers would ‘never be fully prepared to work in inclusive classes’ (Spundina, 2021). A study by Nimante, at the University of Latvia, of both new and experienced teachers evaluating their readiness to work in inclusive classes found that only 11% felt comfortable with the idea (Nimante et al., 2019; Spundina, 2021). Nimante concluded that inclusion would fail because it is inadequately resourced. There are a number of obstacles to inclusive education in Latvia that are directly related to insufficient support specialists (speech therapists, psychologists, special education teachers), inadequate infrastructure, equipment, material resources and teacher training; and underfunding of schools (Nimante et al., 2019). In addition, there is an assumption by the author of the Latvian Public Broadcasting report that, for children with severe developmental disabilities, the most appropriate place for learning is in special schools and that because of this special schools will remain (Spundina, 2021). The difficulties faced by Latvia with implementing inclusion can also be understood within the context of rapidly rising social inequality, and that since 2012, the country has not implemented its anti-discrimination policy (Lokenbaha, 2019) making inclusion a challenge not only for schools but also for the society as a whole (Spundina, 2021).

60 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide North Macedonia North Macedonia ratified the UNCRPD (2006) in December 2011. Subsequently, a new Law on Primary Education (2019) promoted by the United Nations, determined that primary education should prepare for full inclusion of students with disabilities (Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC], 2020). Since the Covid-19 pandemic, therefore, North Macedonia has been bracing itself to face closure of all special schools and implementation of a policy of full inclusion throughout all schools (CRC, 2020; Euridice, 2021; UNICEF, 2018). To put this expectation of the UNCRPD into context, North Macedonia only gained independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. It was reported in 2017 to be one of the poorest countries in Europe (Krajewski, 2017). Like other Balkan countries, reforms are viewed as necessary in business, governance and digitalisation to help close the gap with other EU countries (Bozinovska, 2021). In this respect, the country has been very dependent on foreign investors from the UK and Germany to help stabilise its new governmental structure (Krajewski, 2017). North Macedonians have experienced increasing ethnic segregation in education since the end of the 1990s civil war, following forced ethnic mixing with the Albanians (Bloodworth, 2020). The Macedonian language had been given legal precedence over Albanian as the language of instruction, causing huge resentment and social unrest. Resolution came in the form of the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) in which linguistic groups making up 20% or more of the population were provided official language status in schools and could attend school in their mother tongue (Bloodworth, 2020). Inclusion for this country is more complicated by its history of making efforts to improve ethnic understanding and reconceptualise its identity as a more cohesive society. The EU, whose interests are to invest in the country’s post Covid-19 recovery (Eurydice, 2021) appear to also consider the atmosphere ripe for the development of inclusion policies relating to disability. Although the EU may opportunistically recognise this as the moment to encourage the introduction of a radical policy of full inclusion, there are signs that this has been met with hostile resistance. Currently, less than 50% of Macedonian mainstream secondary schools, are reported to have any students with disabilities (UNICEF 2018). As a rule, students with SEND in the past have been educated in special schools. Of regular primary schools, 88.2% were reported to consider inclusive education to be difficult to implement in practice, with factors such as poor physical conditions, lack of materials, lack of teacher training, lack of teaching assistants, lack of specialists and lack of support from professional services cited as some of the reasons. In some areas of the country, there is reported to be deeply rooted social rejection of the concept of inclusion and a widespread opinion that students with disabilities do not belong in mainstream schools (UNICEF, 2018). Understandably, priorities for parents are that their children attend a school close to where they live, and that transport is well organised. Therefore, it is

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

61

clear that imposition of full inclusion is mostly out of synchrony with the current cultural outlook and expectations of the society. Schools are reported to be confused by the lack of a clearly established manner of identifying and recording students with SEND, which has to be confirmed by a medical certificate, although it is not required by law. A lot of students with SEND have documentation pending while it is being processed or are without documents at all. Most schools do not have the expertise to implement inclusion. For example, one student with SEND was reported to have been admitted to a school but dropped out a month later when he discovered he was not accepted by the other students (UNICEF, 2018). The current selective entry criteria to mainstream schools means that many students with SEND don’t even apply (UNICEF 2018). The UNICEF report (2018) states that currently a school in which there are students with disabilities is seen by Macedonians as an inclusive school. The report suggested that some teachers express their desire to accommodate students with SEND rather than accepting the students’ entitlement to it. Within the culture and social context of Macedonian society, this attitude could be recognised as an initial step towards inclusion rather than one that falls short of the UN ideal. Instead, however, it appears that UNICEF is impatient to impose its world view on a society that is far from ready for it socially, educationally or financially. It seems that there is a lack of respect for the fact that national culture needs to make its own shifts towards what it recognises as a priority in terms of human rights in its own time and in step with its own economy. After all, the subtlety between what we now consider to be ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’ is something that has developed in Western countries over the last two decades. The need for considerably more investment in primary school education, including the physical infrastructure of schools has been recognised by the EU as a high priority, exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic (The World Bank, 2021). The double-bind that this places on North Macedonia, however, is that with outside investment and support, comes outside influence over its own policies. For a country whose first priority is to make progress towards building a more ethnically inclusive education system by resolving cultural barriers of language, custom and practice and strengthening its economy, the imposition of a policy to construct a system to include all students with disabilities in mainstream schools may introduce more risks than benefits (UNRIC, 2021). The zeal of the UN to pressure countries into superimposing sudden fundamental changes on their education systems might be compared to that of the Christian missionaries in Africa in the 19–20th centuries. It is an attempt at establishing apparent equality in education before there is full sense of human equality within the society. What may appear to be utterly justifiable to those delivering the message may be regarded by the indigenous people as patronising control of those whose culture and society are in a different place, and are not ready for it. This reinforces the point that economic and historical factors are critical to the way in which nations can or are willing to implement the notion of inclusion within their respective education systems.

62 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide India In India, more than one in every four Indian children with disabilities in the 5–19 age group do not attend school. The percentage of children attending schools is lowest among those with multiple disabilities, mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities, as more than 50% of these children do not attend school (UNESCO, 2019). Access to any sort of education and support services for children with SEND in India has been closely linked to the economic situation, and there has been considerable disparity between provision in wealthier urban areas and poorer rural areas (Rose et al., 2021). The priority therefore has been to ensure that those with disabilities are included in some way within the education system as a whole. Legislation has been introduced to promote the concept of inclusion, but research has suggested that it has been inadequately defined. A recent study revealed that there is still a wide gap between legislation and practice that is evident from the responses of both parents and professionals (Rose et al., 2021). However, fortunately, some children who have previously been denied access to formal education have started to attend special or mainstream schools (Rose et al., 2021). There is a lot of teacher resistance to including children with SEND in the same class as those without SEND, so many parents and teachers consider that special school provision may remain the better option. In some areas there are specialist teachers who are seen as important enablers of greater inclusion, but they are usually shared between three to four schools. Investment in training is focused mainly on specialist rather than general classroom teachers. There is anxiety on the part of many parents about having access to adequate specialist support as well as just attending school (Rose et al., 2021). Parents are left with the responsibility of arranging the support where it is not otherwise available. Inclusive education and therapeutic provision are at an early stage of development, but parents are now more aware of the rights of their children to gain access to appropriate schooling and attitudes towards those with disabilities is improving. In her interview with Joanne Banks, as part of the previously mentioned series that explored the merits of full inclusion, Narayan (Banks, 2020) defined inclusion as preparing each child to be included in the community and society in the long run, not necessarily being in the same class, but that teaching and learning should be meaningful to each specific child. Narayan was clear that it was necessary for social reform and prosperity to come before inclusive education (Narayan, in Banks, 2020). Canada As noted in the previous chapter, the province of New Brunswick was held up in the UNESCO (2020) review as a model of full inclusion. However, Canadian provinces have independent jurisdiction over their education policies and have varying definitions of and policies for inclusion. The type of support offered also varies in terms of small group support and segregated classes. A

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

63

small number of special schools also exist in most provinces and certain groups of students, in particular those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, are supported in segregated settings in Canadian school systems (Reid et al., 2018, cited in Whitley & Hollweck, 2020). One comparative study of approaches to inclusion across the four Canadian provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec found that the implementation of inclusive education legislation has proven to be problematic and that curriculum objectives have focussed more on social inclusion than on academic inclusion. Also, that ‘interactions between peers, which are at the crux of the inclusion process, continue to be largely mediated by adults, rather than the students themselves’ (Belanger & Gougeon, 2009, p. 301). A study conducted to examine parents’ views of inclusion in Alberta found that they had very mixed views. Some worried about social acceptance and whether their children would receive sufficient instructional time, expressing unease about the skills of teachers to meet their needs appropriately (Loreman, 2009). Canada is an example of a country that includes large rural sparsely populated areas. Since the funding of special needs provision is of great importance to those formulating education policies, it is also worth considering how demographic factors might bias decisions about inclusion and segregated placements. The demographic of the New Brunswick province is rural, with a population of three quarters of a million people spread over 28,000 square miles. Most of the inhabitants live in small towns or villages. This is very different from populations found in large cosmopolitan areas, making it more difficult to justify the expenditure of maintaining special schools throughout the sparsely populated province within reasonably commutable distances for all children. Therefore, could at least part of the agenda to promote the concept of full inclusion in areas such as New Brunswick have been a matter of financial expediency rather than solely for the principle of full inclusion? If so, the corollary is that in more densely populated towns and cities where there are many mainstream schools, it is of greater financial expediency for there to be a high concentration of specialist resources available within a few local specialist schools. This brings to mind the difference between the more effective SEND support experienced by schools in the boroughs of London than in the outlying coastal areas of the UK. It may also explain other research, such as that into disparities between different regions of the Russian Federation, which found that the greater the population density, the better the education, suggesting urban settings provided better quality education in comparison to rural ones (Kulagina, 2019 cited in Anastasiou et al., 2020). Australia Unlike New Zealand (discussed in Chapter 10), which has a national system of education, each of the states of Australia differs in their approach, policies and resourcing of mainstream schools, and a range of school options continue to be

64 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide offered across all state systems (Chambers & Forlin, 2021). In Western Australia, students with SEND had in the past been educated on separate sites in small classes with special education trained teachers supported by teacher aides (Chambers & Forlin, 2021). Students with less severe levels of SEND were accommodated within remedial classes in mainstream schools. In response to the Salamanca agreement (UNESCO, 1994), there has been increasing pressure to develop policies of greater inclusion. Since the 1980s, before there was any legal mandate to formalise it, reports such as the Western Australian Beazley Report of (1984) and the Gow Report (1985) raised concerns about the practice of inclusion and found that, ‘the problems associated with implementation were impeding its progress’ (cited in Chambers & Forlin, 2021, p. 119). The Shean Report (1993) then reviewed the equity of services provided to children with SEND in Western Australia and argued that inclusion was not appropriate for all and that it would be important to retain the existing range of placement options (Chambers & Forlin, 2021). Despite these concerns, as part of the worldwide movement towards inclusion (UNESCO, 1994; UNCRPD, 2006) the Australian government introduced legislation (Department of Education Skills & Employment, 2005) requiring schools to make appropriate adjustments to enable all students with SEND to access education in the same way as everyone else. In some states, some special schools were closed down and high numbers of unqualified teaching assistants were employed in mainstream schools. Notable policy omissions included a lack of clarification about the identification and provision of pupils with specific learning disabilities (dyslexia) (Chambers & Forlin, 2021). This was identified as a key concern considering that not being able to read profoundly affects the normal participation of young people in society. There are currently strongly divergent opinions in Australia about the value of pursuing the policy direction of full inclusion. The credibility of particularly influential claims by Cologon (2013, 2019) about the effectiveness of inclusion in Australia has recently been thrown into doubt by the analysis and critique of this work by Stephenson and Ganguly (2021). In addition, a project to explore the perspectives of families of students with disabilities regarding their children in special schools across all states found that there are high levels of satisfaction (91%) with the services provided by special schools in Australia (Apsland et al., 2021). This was the first study of its kind to specifically survey this group of parents, guardians and carers of such students. In this study, many parents expressed concern that special schools may close and be replaced by mainstream schools. Some asserted the right for their children to attend a special school and claimed, ‘it is discrimination to insist that our child goes to mainstream’ (p. 41). Parents strongly voiced their opinion that there is no substitute for the knowledge, skills and the rich repertoire of support and training that Australian special school staff currently demonstrate in meeting the educational and developmental needs of children with disabilities. There was also a demand for more special schools and more specifically trained teachers (Aspland et al., 2021).

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

65

In an ABC Australian radio interview, a mother expressed her frustration that her disabled son could not be offered a school place in a special school, class or unit as, she felt that a mainstream placement would not be suitable and that a mainstream placement is not an ‘inclusive placement’. It is considered by some that mainstream education is used as a proxy for inclusive education and an ‘ineffective way of delivering education and has poor outcomes for students from diverse backgrounds, including disability’ (Longfellow, 2020). Another parent stated, While I am a believer in the benefits of inclusion, it doesn’t automatically follow that inclusion is always the best choice for every child. Sometimes the decision to mainstream a child appears to be based on appeasing the anxieties of their parents as well as the ideology of the education system (Sharman, 2015). It is interesting to note how in the long-run, parent opinion can be seen to drive policy. In the 1970s parent advocacy led to a greater acceptance of learners with disabilities. Now parents are more concerned with playing an active and effective role in school related decisions (Chambers & Forlin, 2021). As in other parts of the world, there are rising concerns about increasing inequality due to low income, poor social and health care, and criminal activity, much of which is linked to lack of educational attainment. On the one hand, researchers such as Boyle and Anderson (2020) view this as justification for making greater efforts to implement a full inclusion agenda. On the other hand, it can be argued that the evidence cited above, along with that from other countries around the world, demonstrates that reduction in the quantity and quality of special education available to countries attempting to adopt full inclusion can be counterproductive. It explains how specialist knowledge and resources can easily become diluted and less effective to meet the needs of many students with high levels of SEND and that these concerns are reasons to provide disadvantaged groups with more, not less, focused time and specialist attention, which can often only be provided through special education. Sweden Like other Scandinavian countries, Sweden has a reputation for its inclusive approach to education. However, this has been changing in recent years as headteachers and parents have become less positive towards inclusion and more in favour of traditional special education. Recent research also shows a high level of ambivalence about the extent to which Sweden wants to practice inclusion (Magnússon, 2022). Funding for SEND has been deemed uneven and insufficient. Headteachers also consider they are limited in their leadership by

66 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide certain policies, lack of authority on economic issues and personnel decisions (Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2013 cited in Magnússon, 2022 p. 8). Recently it has been reported that 60% of principals have left their position within three years and 80% within five years. There has been increased stress within the system as teachers have been expected to adapt their teaching to increasingly diverse pupils with SEND in ever larger classes with limited support (Magnússon, 2022). Schools with a particular focus on SEND are becoming more common and receiving increased legitimacy through parental choice. There is now a high level of school choice in Sweden, but Magnússon (2022) explains the rise in segregated schooling as being related to a less equitable Swedish education system. It could be argued that the inequality in the education system is a symptom of poorly matched provision of resources and specially trained teachers for the levels of needs, and that segregated settings are seen to be compensating more effectively for this. Similar pressure for more special schools by parents across all social groups within the English system are recognisable after decades of Government policy attempts to reduce their number. Denmark In 2012, drastic measures were introduced to dismantle Denmark’s special education system with an inclusion law stipulating that, over a period of three years, 10,000 students with SEND were to leave their special schools to enter mainstream schools (Egelund & Dyssegaard, 2019). As a result, the mainstream school system suffered from an attempt to simultaneously introduce a Salamanca-inspired, equity-focused form of inclusion along with an accountability-focused education system. The law stated that 96% of all students must be educated within regular classrooms and that, simultaneously, 80% should be proficient in reading and maths in national tests by 2015. This demonstrated the paradoxical conflict between a discourse of equity on one side and a discourse of excellence on the other. An increasing number of Danish teachers do not consider that they have the pedagogical competences or resources to support many children with SEND while ensuring that all students in their classes are learning and feeling included in their class communities (Egelund & Dyssegaard, 2019; Ensig & Johnstone, 2014). In-service training was found to be focused too much on ideology and too little on practices in the classroom. Specialist services and resources had been intended for the inclusion of all those needing them but were often used for acute needs only. The rate of exclusion from school has increased since 2015 and there has been a continuing rise in children and youth receiving a psychiatric diagnosis. The goal of 96% of all children in regular schools was subsequently removed from the Inclusion Act in 2016 by the Government (Egelund & Dyssegaard, 2019). The change in direction has led to a growing increase in ‘supplementary education’ in almost all schools with huge variation between schools. This demonstrated that teachers were reporting a low degree of acceptance of the

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

67

principles of inclusion (Egelund & Dyssegaard, 2019). There was a distinct difference in perspective between headteachers and teachers with regard to supporting the principle of inclusion, reflecting the difference between the ambition of schools to be more inclusive and the experience of day-to-day practice. Special education (within the mainstream) and the money to support it, was only targeted at students who needed more than nine weekly hours of support in class, or special education away from their class. Effective expenditure per student decreased by 12% and more teachers experienced a lack of resources and support, in contradiction to the aims of the inclusion law (Egelund & Dyssegaard, 2019). A brief comparison between Norway and Finland Since these two countries are generally viewed by others as some of the most inclusive and equitable in the world, they are interesting to briefly consider side by side. It is helpful to consider a comparative study of these education systems (Sundqvist & Hannas, 2020) since, it sheds light on the reasons for the relative educational success of Finland compared to its neighbour Norway, which was referred to in Chapter 3. Research has shown that small-group education using ‘impairment-focused teaching strategies’ is still used in both countries, but that the needs of pupils with SEND in Finland are more often targeted in a special class, either full-time or part-time, whereas most children with SEND in Norway receive part-time support provided in mainstream classes or small groups in mainstream schools (Sundqvist & Hannas, 2020). In Finland, highly qualified special education teachers are engaged in implementing special education, while in Norway relatively poorly qualified teaching assistants (guided by a mainstream teacher) have greater responsibility for implementing SEND support. Under Finnish laws, pupils receiving special support can still be placed in special classes on a full-time basis, whereas in Norway there is a strong emphasis on avoiding the use of special classes. In Norway there are also policies restricting the option of dividing pupils into permanent groups based on specific criteria (Sundqvist & Hannas, 2020). Of Finnish pupils receiving special education, 35.6% attended a special school or a special class at a mainstream school on a full-time basis, whereas only 8% of pupils in Norway received special education in special classes or schools on a full-time basis (Euridice, 2019; Statistics Finland, 2019); Sundqvis & Hannas 2020). Finland Finland is well known for its successful education of children with and without SEND (Hancock, 2011; OECD, 2015; OECD, 2020b). However, contrary to assertions made by the UNESCO (2020) report, Finland does not have a fully inclusive education system and has not dismantled its special education system (Hancock, 2011). There is also a significantly high level of identification of

68

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

children with SEND, as 30% of students receive some kind of special help during their first nine years of schooling, which is almost double that recognised as having SEND in the UK in 2020 (Tomlinson, cited in Koepfer et al., 2021). In 2019, 22.3% of Finnish pupils in mainstream schools received part-time special education (Eklund et al., 2020). Special education provision is extensive and free from pre-school through to vocational training. Children with specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, are supported mainly through part-time special education. Support for all children and differentiations are provided when necessary, including specialist instruction and placement in special settings (Ahrbeck & Felder, 2020, p. 10). When trying to learn useful lessons about the successful implementation of education policy from a country such as Finland, it is important to consider the context of its demographics, cultural and social system. It is a sparsely populated country just over half the size of London (Annastasiou & Keller, 2010). Despite its size, Finland is ranked as one of the most competitive economies in the world. It is officially a bi-lingual country including Finnish and Swedish with a small Saami (Lappish) minority in the north of the country. Although the vast majority speak Finnish as their first language, schools are grouped along Finnish and Swedish linguistic lines with kindergartens also in the three languages (Annastasiou & Keller, 2010). Culturally, it is a relatively homogeneous society compared to many parts of Europe and the USA, although it has received increasing numbers of refugees in recent years. Other factors make a significant difference, such as traditionally positive national attitudes towards the value of education and a broad consensus between policy makers, educationalists and the public on the future direction of the economy. As a result, there is a general acceptance of the need for high quality educational provision for all, involving extended training of teachers, who have a high-status in the society (Tomlinson, cited in Koepfer et al., 2021). In the 1970s, with a rapidly growing population and economy, and growth of the middle class following the Second World War, a new approach to the education system was developed. Increasing numbers of parents wanted a highquality education for their children so the focus of reform was driven by a popular wish to make the education system accessible for all children regardless of their socio-economic background or where they lived. Free comprehensive schools replaced the former two-tier grammar and civic schools (Jordan, 2019). The gradual reforms were the long-term result of many years of research and consideration, and it was steady progress over a long period of time that contributed so much to its success (Jordan, 2019). In the 1980s external school inspection was transferred to self-evaluation by the profession and in 1994 reforms to the national curriculum gave teachers more autonomy in how and what they taught (Jordan, 2019). Teachers were given a lot of independence and teaching became highly respected as a career choice. The continued importance of teachers being held in high esteem cannot be underestimated, as highlighted by Plate and Peacock in their study of teachers’ learning experiences in schools in England and Germany (see Koepfer et al., 2021).

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

69

Arguably, the success of the Finnish system with its relatively equitable culturally homogenous society has allowed for a more consistent approach to education, specifically addressing the needs of children with SEND across the country. However, since the European-wide rise in numbers of immigrant children, the country has experienced a rise in unemployment, an increase in lower income families and a decrease in social equity, which has presented the education policy with increasing challenges (Eklund et al., 2020; Tomlinson, cited in Koepfer, 2021, p. 70). There are many factors that have contributed to the success of the overall approach to education within the Finnish school system. A number of factors play a part, including the focus on providing equal access for all to quality education (Jordan, 2019). It has a highly competitive teacher selection system followed by a minimum five-years of training. Graduates are required to obtain a Master’s degree in education, and those specialising in special needs education complete a sixth year of training. Teachers have a long tradition of specialising in addressing the challenge of enabling students with SEND. There is a high level of consultation between teachers about how to resolve educational challenges. Classes are small and many schools are small enough so that teachers know every student (Hancock, 2011). Unlike, many other Scandinavian and European countries, Finland does not use national rankings to show differences between students or schools, or have a regular accountability focus, as seen in Denmark and England. Schools are governed by specialist educators and not businesspeople or politicians. Teachers and children spend fewer hours in classrooms, with breaks between each lesson, and are not expected to begin school until the age of 7 years. Classes are taught by the same teacher throughout the first five years of primary (7 to12 years), making the issue of building relationships with children very much more possible than where a child is expected to move from one teacher to another each year. Between the ages of 16 to 19 years, students can choose between a general or vocational education which can be completed in two to four years. They also have the option of following an apprenticeship or to repeat a 10th grade class at school. Most significantly, teaching for this age group is vertically grouped across ages so that students can follow a modular course at their own pace to suit their interests (Anastasiou & Keller, 2010). Finland offers three years maternity leave and subsidised day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds where the emphasis is on play and socialising. Children for whom Finnish is a second language attend special language classes early on from highly trained language teachers. Schools provide free food, health care, counselling and taxi service, where needed (Hancock, 2011). Up until 2010, Finnish special education placements had steadily increased and not been directly affected by the inclusion movement. The majority of parents of students with disabilities supported the idea of separate special schools and saw it as an essential form of education. Teachers’ trade unions had expressed serious reservations about inclusion especially with regard to secondary schools, possibly because at that stage of learning the focus was more on developing subject

70 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide knowledge than on personal development (Saloviita, 2020). Essentially, they recognised that special needs education formed ‘part of the national goal of high-quality education’ (Anastasiou & Keller, 2010, p. 160). Finland delayed ratification of the UNCRPD agreement until 2016 when the complexities of an increasingly diversified society, as experienced by other nations, began to challenge its ability to maintain its success in international ratings. Increasing inequalities are emerging that are related to socio-economic status, immigrant background and gender which have come under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development spotlight since the Covid-19 pandemic (OECD, 2020b). There is an increase in unemployment amongst the young despite high skill levels, which is seen to be affected by highly selective tertiary admissions and long study periods delaying entry into the labour market. Attempts to increase participation in higher education has put public funding under greater pressure (OECD, 2020b). As for any other country, our understanding of Finland’s successful education system is dependent on our understanding of the society as a whole. It is also this that affects its ability to maintain equity and an effective approach to education. Above all it is its striving for good quality provision for children with SEND that is a valued part of the country’s education system, rather than a focus on inclusion into mainstream classrooms for ideological reasons.

Concluding comments It can be seen from this review how various countries responding to pressures to implement inclusion have encountered challenges related to their respective social, economic and educational contexts. The experience of different countries illustrates how a common international policy does not easily translate into a single method for implementation of effective practice. The UNESCO expectation that all countries should agree to a uniform concept of full inclusion, based on a human rights argument, may be superficially credible when viewed in the bubble of a conference room, but once seen in the light of vastly different national contexts, begins to disintegrate as a feasible approach to enabling education systems to provide effective provision for all children, including those with SEND. This is all the more of a concern for countries that are only just beginning to appreciate the importance of providing effective education for children with special needs. Before attempts at rapid imposition of full inclusion were made, poor countries such as Latvia and North Macedonia had not had the chance to experience a transition period through which a democratic approach to creating policies to support the education of SEND could be developed. Furthermore, what in one country may be taken for granted as a basic human right, such as access to books and higher education, may in another be considered a luxury where access to a balanced diet or clean drinking water is the overriding human right. The process of inclusion in mainstream schools may seem less important than ensuring that their education is effective and relevant for their future careers.

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

71

There is an apparent assumption from UNESCO that inclusion will, of itself, enable countries to progress towards a more equitable way of life, but our review of a wide range of countries demonstrates that, if inclusion leads to a reduction in the quality of provision and resources for SEND, the process may do more to undermine rather than support the quality of education needed to promote societal equity. It is clear from this that, whilst each country is at a different stage in terms of progress on inclusion post ratification of the UNCRPD, they all have much in common in terms of the difficulties they face with regard to resourcing and provision of effective quality education. The ratification of the UNCRPD (2006) has taken on a profound significance for countries that strongly identify with an ambition to uphold the most progressive of human rights. But they are not in a position to discriminate between different elements of the Treaty. Whilst most of its ambitions may be acceptable, the UNCRPD Article 24 General Comment Number 4 (2016) does not allow room for countries to use their own judgement and to reject the notion that special schools should not have any place in the education of their children with SEND. Therefore, countries such as Australia, Poland, Spain and Ireland have found themselves in the acutely awkward position of having to consider whether to risk contravening a treaty, which they have considered morally obligated to ratify, or discarding a system that has in the past served them well and has the potential, with appropriate investment, to serve them even better in the future. The experience of different states in Germany has proven to be a considerable cause for anxiety, as the expectation of full inclusion persists despite evidence to show that it is negatively affecting the quality of provision for SEND as well as significantly increasing public expenditure. Other countries demonstrate the unintended consequences of full inclusion when they are unable to adequately fund appropriate provision in mainstream settings. An example, of this is the Russian Federation, where particularly high rates of home schooling have developed in areas with the highest rates of inclusion and insufficient capacity to provide the necessary SEND support (Anastousiou et al., 2020). Rather than striving for a universal ideal prescribed by the United Nations and its associated agencies, countries should in our view have the autonomy to set their own priorities, learn from the mistakes and successes of their own and other countries, and decide for themselves what is likely to serve the education of their young citizens with SEND in the best possible way. Rather than maintaining the pretence of implementing effective inclusion within the mainstream, we would argue that there should be an honest reckoning with how good quality special education can be effectively supported and developed alongside mainstream education, with an evidence-based evaluation of progress made by each nation. In the next four chapters we consider the way in which legislation and other factors affect decisions about implementation of inclusion policies at the level of all stakeholders, including school leadership, teachers, teacher assistants and parents, as well as children with SEND themselves.

72 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

References Ahrbeck, B., & Felder, M. (2020). Analysis of barriers to inclusive schools in Germany: Why special education is necessary and not evil. Education Sciences, 10(12), 358. https:// doi.org/gk9xkz. Alves, I., Pinto, P. C., & Pinto T. J. (2020) Developing inclusive education in Portugal: Evidence and challenges. Prospects, 49, 281–296. https://doi.org/hrsj. Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Nuovo, S. F. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: description and reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 429–443. https://doi.org/gmbfh5. Anastasiou, D., & Keller, C. (2018). The relationships of socio-economic factors and special education with reading outcomes across PISA countries. Exceptionality, 28(4), 279–293. https://doi.org/g8gt. Anastasiou, D., & Keller, E. (2010). Special education in Finland: A system beyond the uniformity of a globalized ideal. Education Sciences - Special Issue, 155–167. Anastasiou, D., Felder, M., De Miranda Correia, L. A., Shemanov, A., Zweers, I., & Ahrbeck, B. (2020). The impact of Article 24 of the CRPD on special and inclusive education in Germany, Portugal, the Russian Federation and Netherlands. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.). On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/g8g7. Aspland, T., Datta, P., Forbes, F., & Talukdar, J. (2021). Muted voices: The views of families on special schools. Australian Special Education Principals Association. https:// www.asepa.edu.au/Muted_Voices.pdf. Ball, S. J. (2010). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/fcvnnv. Banks, J. (2020–2022). Inclusion Dialogue. 26 episodes. https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/p odcast/inclusion-dialogue/id1541011089. Banks, J. (2020, December, 17). Interview with Professor Jayanthi Narayan [Audio podcast episode 4]. In Inclusion Dialogue. https://audioboom.com/posts/7751618-inter view-with-professor-jayanthi-narayan. Bartnikowska, U., & Antoszewska, B. (2017). Children with special educational needs (SEN) in the Polish education system. International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, 6(3) 100–108. Beazley, K. (1984). Education in Western Australia: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in Western Australia. https://web.education.unimelb.edu.au/ curriculumpoliciesproject/Reports/download/WA-1985-BeazleyReport-1984.pdf. Belanger, N., & Gougeon N. A. (2009). Inclusion on the agenda in four different school contexts in Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec). https://doi.org/fnjztw. Bloodworth, A. (2020). Education (de)segregation in North Macedonia: The intersection of policies, schools, and individuals. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 310–328. https://doi.org/gg7gws. Boyle, C., & Anderson, J. (2020). The justification for inclusive education in Australia. Prospects, 49, 203–217. https://doi.org/g8m8. Bozinovska, A. (2021). North Macedonia’s growth projected high, but economy still faces risks. The World Bank, Press Release: October 2021. https://www.worldbank.org/en/ news/press-release/2021/10/21/north-macedonia-s-growth-projected-higher-but-eco nomy-still-faces-risks. Cerna, L. (2022). Towards a more inclusive education system in Portugal. OECD Education. https://oecdedutoday.com/portugal-inclusive-education/.

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

73

Chambers, D., & Forlin, C. (2021). An historical review from exclusion to inclusion in Western Australia across the past five decades: What have we learnt? Education Sciences, 11, 119. https://doi.org/gj2qnz. CRC (2020). Republic of North Macedonia Information of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CRC/Shared%20Docum ents/MKD/INT_CRC_NGO_MKD_43794_E.pdf. Department of Education, Skills and Employment (2005). Disability Standards for Education. Australian Government. https://www.dese.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005. Devecchi, C., Dettori, F., Doveston, M., & Johnston, J. (2012). Early Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/fzkz33. DfE (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education. EASNIE (2021a, July 29). European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. https://www.european-agency.org/news/greater-inclusion-poland. EASNIE (2017,July 21). Research on inclusive education in Estonia. https://www. european-agency.org/news/research-inclusive-education-estonia. EFE Agency (2019). News. Students in special education increased by 18% in the last decade. Madrid. https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/alumnos-educacion-especial-aum entan-ultima_1_1610458.html. Egelund, N., & Dyssegaard, C. B. (2019,June). Forty years after Warnock: Special needs education and the inclusion process in Denmark. Conceptual and practical challenges. Frontiers in Education, https://doi.org/g82d. Eklund, G., Sundqvist, C., Lindell, M., & Toppinen, H. (2020). A study of Finnish primary school teachers’ experiences of their role and competences by implementing the three-tiered support. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(5), 729–742. https://doi.org/hrv9. Engsig, T. T., & Johnstone, C. J. (Sept, 2015). Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark? The paradoxical policies of inclusive education – lessons from Denmark. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(5), 469–486. Eurydice (2014). The system of education in Poland. https://education.org.pl/wp-con tent/uploads/2018/08/the-system_2014_www.pdf. Eurydice (2021,February 2). Republic of North Macedonia. Special Educational Needs Provision within Mainstream Education. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-poli cies/eurydice/republic-north-macedonia/special-education-needs-provi sion-within-mainstream-education_en. Eurydice (2022,February 2) Latvia. Separate special education needs provision in early childhood and school education. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eur ydice/content/separate-special-education-needs-provision-early-childhood-a nd-school-education-34_en. Fitzgerald, J., Lynch, J., Martin, A., & Cullen, B. (2021). Leading Inclusive Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Post-Primary Schools in Ireland: Does Provision Mapping Support an Integrated, School-Wide and Systematic Approach to Inclusive Special Education? Education Sciences, 11, 168. https://doi.org/gk9xks. Gubbels, J., Coppens, K. M., & de Wolf, I. (2018). Inclusive education in the Netherlands: how funding arrangements and demographic trends relate to dropout and participation rates. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(11), 1137–1153. https://doi.org/hgcq. Hancock, L. (2011,September). Why Are Finland’s Schools Successful? Smithsonian Magazine. www.smithsonian.mag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-successful-49859555.

74 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide Hutchinson J. (2021). Identifying pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Education Policy Institute. Ianes, D., Demo, H., & Dell’Anna, S. (2020,October). Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive developments, and challenges. Prospects, 49, 249–263. https://doi.org/ghv4xh. Jordan, E. (2019, September, 2). Education reform in Finland and the comprehensive school system. Centre for Public Impact. https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/ca se-study/education-policy-in-finland. Kauffman, J. M., & Hornby, G. (2020). Inclusive vision versus special education reality. Education Sciences, 10(9), 258. https://doi.org/gk9xk2. Kenny, N., McCoy, S., & Mihut, G. (2020). Special education reforms in Ireland: changing systems, changing schools. https://doi.org/gmk7kt. Koepfer, A., Powell, J. W., & Zahnd, R. (2021). International handbook of inclusive education: Global, national and local perspectives. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Krajewski, D. (2017,March 12). Four Facts About Poverty in Macedonia. The Borgen Project. https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-macedonia/. Leijen, A., Arcidiacono, F., & Baucal, A. (Sept 2021). The dilemma of inclusive education: Inclusion for some or inclusion for all. Frontiers in Psychology. Lewicka-Zelent, A., & Chimicz, D. (May, 2019). Barriers in Polish inclusive Education in the Opinion of Students’ Parents with Special Educational Needs. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 3, 107–117. https://doi.org/hdgb. Lokenbaha, A. (2019,July). Latvia is the third poorest country in the European Union. http:// socisdg.com/en/blog/latvia-is-the-third-poorest-country-in-the-european-union/. Longfellow, L. (Oct. 2020). Inclusive education in South Australia: Rhetoric or reality. https://inclusiveeducationplanning.com.au/uncategorized/inclusive-educatio n-in-south-australia-rhetoric-or-reality/. Lopes, J. L., & Oliveira, C. R. (April, 2021). Inclusive education in Portugal: Teachers’ professional development, working conditions, and instructional efficacy. Education Sciences, 11, 169. https://doi.org/gk9xkt. Loreman, T. (2009). Parent perspectives on inclusive Education in rural Alberta, Canada. Exceptionality Education International, 19(2), 21–36. https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/ index.php/eei/article/view/7641/6258. Magnússon, G. (2022). From Salamanca to Sweden. Inclusive Education as a Policy in Transit. International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-818630-5.12022-6. Marsili, F., Morganti, A., & Signorell, A. (August, 2021). The Italian leadership on inclusive education: Myth or reality? Science Insights Education Frontiers, 9(2), 1241–1263. NCSE (2019,October). Policy advice on special schools and classes. An inclusive education for an inclusive society? Progress Report. https://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ Progress-Report-Policy-Advice-on-Special-Schools-Classes-website-upload.pdf. Nimante, D., Rascevska, M., Umbrasko, S., & Sumane, I. (2019). Teachers necessary support for inclusion of children with special needs. ECER Conference on Inclusive Education. https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/48705/. O’Brien, C., (2019, December). Is Ireland ready for a ‘total inclusion’ approach for special education? The Irish Times. Dublin. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/educa tion/is-ireland-ready-for-a-total-inclusion-approach-for-special-education-1. 4109360. OECD (2020a,June). Education Policy Outlook: Ireland. www.oecd.org/education/p olicy-outlook/country-profile-Ireland-2020.pdf.

Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide

75

OECD (2020b,June). Education Policy Outlook: Finland. https://www.oecd.org/educa tion/policy-outlook/country-profile-Finland-2020.pdf. Ombudsman for Children’s Office (2022). Plan for Places. Dublin: Author. Rao, S., Cardona, M. C., & China, E. (2014). Special education today in Spain. Special Education: International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe. Advances in Special Education, 28, 147–180. Emerald. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10. 1108/S0270-401320140000028012/full/html. Rose, R., Narayan, J., Matam, S., & Sambram, P. R. (March, 2021). A comparison of provision and access to inclusive education for children with disabilities in a metropolitan city and a rural district in Telangana state, India. Education Sciences, 11, 111. https://doi. org/gk9xkw. Saloviita T. (2020). Teacher attitudes towards the inclusive education in Finland. Scand J Educ Res, 64(2), 270–282. https://doi.org/ghvwfj. Santiago, P., Levitas, A., Rado, P., & Shewbridge, C. (2016). OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia. https://doi.org/gmp46m. Sharman, R. (2015,June). Can inclusive education do more harm than good? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/can-inclusive-education-do-more-harm -than-good-43183. Shevlin, M., & Banks, J. (2021,April). Inclusion at a crossroads, dismantling Ireland’s system of special education. Education Sciences:11, 4, 161. https://doi.org/gj62xf. Spundina, L. (2021,June 14). Inclusive education in Latvia: theory and practice. Latvian Public Broadcasting. https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/education/inclusive-educationin-latvia-theory-and-practice.a408913/. Squires, G., (2019). A European consideration of early school leaving as a process running through childhood: a model for inclusive action. IJPE & EYE:48(3), 332–343 https:// doi.org/gpxbpp. Starczewska, A., Hodkinson, A., & Adams, G. (July 2012). Conceptions of inclusion and inclusion education: A critical examination of the perspectives and practices of teachers in Poland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(3), 162–169. https://doi. org/bqbjb2. Statistics Finland (2019,June). Official Statistics of Finland: Special education 2018. Statistics Finland. https://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2018/erop_2018_2019-06-19_tie_001_en.html. Stephenson, J., & Ganguly, R. (2021,August). Analysis and critique of the advocacy paper: Towards Inclusive Education: A Necessary Process of Transformation. Australia: Wellbeing and Mental Health Research. Macquarie University. Sundqvist, C., & Hannas, B. M. (2020). Same vision – different approaches? Special Needs education in light of inclusion in Finland and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(5), 686–699. https://doi.org/gmxvdm. The World Bank (2021). North Macedonia special focus note: Primary education: Seize the opportunity to build back better. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 702191612175099920/pdf/North-Macedonia-Special-Focus-Note-Primary-EducationSeize-the-Opportunity-to-Build-Back-Better.pdf. TPN/Lusa (2021, January, 8). Inclusive Portugal praised by UNESCO. The Portugal News. https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2021-01-08/inclusive-portugal-pra ised-by-unesco/57570. UN CRPD Committee (2015,May 13). Concluding observations on the initial report of Germany. Un Doc CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/ concluding-observations/crpdcdeuco1-concluding-observations-initial-report-germany.

76 Challenges of implementing inclusion worldwide UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education:World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain. UNESCO (2019). N for Nose: State of the Education Report for India 2019: Children with Disabilities. UNESCO. UNESCO (2020). Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. UNESCO. UNESCO (2021). Global Education Monitoring Report. Latvia. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. https://gem-report-2020.unesco.org/wp -content/uploads/2021/02/Latvia.pdf. UNICEF (2018,June). Inclusion of children and youth with disabilities in mainstream secondary education. Research report. https://www.unicef.org/northmacedonia/rep orts/inclusion-children-and-youth-disabilities-mainstream-secondary-education. UNRIC (2021). How the European Union and the United Nations Cooperate. https:// unric.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/02/Leporello_EU-VN_e.pdf Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. In L. Terzi (Ed.) (2010). Special educational needs: A new look(pp.11–45 (2nd Ed.). Continuum. Whitley, J., & Hollweck, T. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Current policy reform in Nova Scotia, Canada. Prospects, 49, 297–312. https://doi.org/g83g. WHO (2011). The World Report on Disability. Summary. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-di sability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability.

5

School leadership and management of SEND

Introduction The criticism levelled by the UNESCO (2020) review at the way in which inclusion has been working in various countries around the world, is about difficulties with its implementation, as highlighted in Chapter 4. Likewise, the concerns raised in England by the Parliamentary Select Committee Review of SEND (HoC ECR, 2019) both before and since the start of the global pandemic, were all to do with implementation of provision for children with SEND. Currently, contradictions and discrepancies are considered to be inherent in the implementation of inclusion in mainstream schools in England. We have observed that most of these contradictions stem from three key areas of contention – expectations of teachers, student behaviour and curriculum issues, which are addressed in this chapter. Also, in this chapter, we aim to highlight the impact of legislation on school leadership and the practical implementation of inclusion by SENDCos and teaching staff within schools. We discuss stresses on the roles of teachers, teaching assistants, school leaders and SENDCos, and demonstrate that conflicts of interest can exist between each of them. For children with SEND the question is whether inclusion provides them with a genuine sense of being included or whether they are the victims of an inclusion policy in which they have no choice but to take part and that they may not always benefit from.

The impact of legislation to reduce identified numbers of SEND Expectations of teachers When evaluating the real impact of inclusion, it is vital to consider the expectations and practical feasibility of including the wide range and levels of special educational needs that are common in the majority of classrooms. It is important to consider what it is like to manage the inclusion agenda within the four walls of a classroom and how much this is integrated by school leadership into the functioning of the whole school. It is also important to consider what the expectations on teachers really are and why, despite all the DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-5

78 School leadership and management of SEND journal articles, books, training courses and resources sold to schools to support the implementation of inclusion, the desired vision of inclusion is still proving to be more like an indistinct mirage than a realistic possibility. The following description of special educational needs and the effects of higher quality teaching, quoted from the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015), provides an idea of the UK Government’s expectations for inclusion in mainstream schools at the time of the SEND reforms introduced in 2014, and also by the time of the 2015 amended version of the Code of Practice (DfE, 2015). A pupil has SEN where their learning difficulty or disability calls for special educational provision, namely provision different from or additional to that normally available to pupils of the same age. Making higher quality teaching normally available to the whole class is likely to mean that fewer pupils will require such support. Such improvements in whole-class provision tend to be more cost effective and sustainable (SEND CoP, 2015: 6:15). It may seem reasonable that the SEND Codes of Practice 2014 and 2015 (DfE, 2015) state how the responsibility for meeting the needs of all children with SEND primarily lies with teachers, but in this section we challenge this assumption by exploring the implications for both teachers and whole-school practice. Following the Children and Families Act of 2014, the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2014) reduced the three levels of SEND support that were mandated in the previous Code of Practice (DfES, 2001): SEND Action, SEND Action Plus, and Statements of SEN, to two identifiable levels of SEND: students on SEND support and those requiring Education and Health Care Plans (EHC plans). Whilst this may have appeared to be a positive step of simplification, the main effect, by removing the lower category of SEND Action, was to reduce the number of children recognised as having SEND on school registers. These became the group of children whose needs, it was advised, could be met by high-quality whole-class teaching without the need to identify them. As a result, the group of children formerly identified as SEND Action became overlooked, while the numbers of children with high levels of SEND in classrooms increased (Long et al., 2020), and led to many students with special educational needs going unrecognised. This was because the increased teacher responsibility towards SEND was rarely sufficiently matched by additional training, resources and funding to make it possible to fulfil this expectation (Gibbons, 2021). Kauffman et al. (2022) have identified inadequate resourcing as being of critical importance to the attitudes of teachers towards inclusion. Resolution of this problem is essential for policies to support inclusion to move forward. However, there is a lack of acceptance that failure of implementation is anything but to do with attitudes or limitations on the part of teachers to meet the instructional needs of pupils, irrespective of the numbers and levels of SEND involved. This amounts to pressure on teachers to regard themselves as solely

School leadership and management of SEND 79 responsible for the success or otherwise of the implementation of inclusion, which in turn exacerbates rather than supports positive attitudes towards inclusion. However, ‘the assumption that general education teachers should be expected to meet all of the special educational needs of all SWD [students with disabilities] all of the time has no solid empirical evidence’ (Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 211). Another factor at play, placing teachers under increased pressure, is a phenomenon partly exposed, as families learned more about their children’s needs, during the pandemic lockdowns. It became clear that an increasing number of children with high levels of special educational need had not been assessed for, or granted EHC plans, by local authorities (Gibbons, 2021). Since these children’s needs were obvious to teachers and parents, they became the next most important category of children to be prioritised for the attention of school staff and resources. Those pupils with lower levels of need, despite being on the SEND register or not on the register at all, commanded the least amount of attention, and therefore received minimal specialised teaching. As researchers have pointed out, ‘the idea that good special education is simply good teaching and that one need not specialize…reflects gross ignorance of the task’ (Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 213). The policy change noted above marked a significant legislative shift in the implementation of inclusion in England and an increase in pressure on teachers who were expected to organise and manage in-class provision. In many schools this was proving impracticable, in contradiction of the expectation that schools could, as far as possible, continue to promote inclusion in line with the new policies. The unreasonableness of this expectation is supported by the following quotation. In education, differentiation is often presented as an easy, or at least eminently doable, solution to teaching diverse groups. Inclusion of the most difficult students in general education is sometimes presented as something all teachers worth their salt can accomplish with a little extra effort, a little help, and/or reasonable determination (Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 213). Government spending on SEND is determined by a projected estimation of average numbers in each area and by local authorities for each school. The resistance to identifying accurate numbers of pupils with SEND is partly driven by a rights-based agenda (Ainscow, Slee & Best, 2019; Farrell, 2010; Kuntz & Carter, 2021) concerned with eradicating the stigma of labelling, which has provided governments with justification for reducing spending on their specialist education. Many countries have experienced similar pressures for teachers to absorb a reduction in the identification of SEND. An example is in Sweden, where mainstream schools have been feeling the effects of altered legislation since 2014 (Magnussen, 2022). The percentage of pupils in primary schools requiring a high level of special support, (comparable to those on EHC plans in England)

80 School leadership and management of SEND dropped from 14% of primary school pupils in 2014 to 5% in 2018/19. Notably, this still represents a figure significantly higher than the national average percentage of children on EHC plans in England, which has risen each year since 2014 to 3.7% in 2020. However, this change in Sweden has meant that children in mainstream classrooms who formerly would have had documentation to demonstrate their difficulties and the types of adjustments required, were indistinguishable from those without such needs. In a similar way as in England, teachers in Sweden were suddenly expected to adapt more of their teaching to meet an increasingly wide range of SENDs in the classroom (Magnussen, 2022). There are parallels, too, in terms of other consequences, in that places for children with SEND outside mainstream schools and in special schools in Sweden have been on the increase, which is comparable to the rise in the numbers of children in special classes and special schools in England since the 2014 legislative changes.

Multi-Academy Trust leadership Accountability of Multi-Academy Trust leaders for the distribution of funds for SEND Some policy makers have explained the inadequate school response to SEND support and behaviour as being mainly attributable to the poor coordination of health and social services support for schools (HoC, 2011:5.2). This may be a major contributory factor. However, it is clear to us that the coordinated response of such services is also dependent on the full engagement of Academy Trust leaders who have detailed information about the needs of all pupils with SEND at their respective schools. This is essential since funding for SEND in schools is provided directly to Academy Trust leaders for its distribution in their schools. The funding is received by Academy Trusts in two forms: 1) notional funding for SEND provided by the Education and Skills Funding Agency for pupils who lack any legal mandate for support; and 2) additional top up funding provided by the local authority for pupils who have been recognised as having high levels of SEND and for whom support is theoretically legally protected. In each case the funding is provided directly to the MAT leadership to use at their discretion for the support of SEND in their various member schools. However, there are no safeguards in place to ensure that the funding will be used appropriately for the benefit of SEND in the way it is intended. Typically, the SENDCo in each school is the only person with a full awareness of the different levels of SEND in each school year group. Unless the SENDCo has the authority to work directly with the Academy Trust leadership, in order to ensure that the allocated funding is made available to their school for the appropriate support of SEND pupils, there is no means by which MAT leaders can be held accountable for the large Government sums of money being provided for this purpose.

School leadership and management of SEND 81 Many Academy Trusts have not heeded the Government advice to ensure a close working relationship exists between the SENDCo, the headteacher and the governing body of the school. Instead, the role of SENDCo is often kept at arm’s length, in a middle leadership position, without the authority to assess the distribution of funds for SEND. Also, the governing body is specific to each school and has no powers to hold the leadership of MATs accountable for the spending of their SEND budget. In other words, there is no oversight of the MAT leadership’s use of funds. An inevitable tension therefore exists between the SENDCo, whose main concern is with recognising and addressing the needs of students with SEND, and the school leadership whose priority may be to reduce its SEND provision costs in order to make broader spending decisions for the school as a whole. The SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) makes a strong recommendation for the headteacher and SENDCo to work together, on the assumption that this would be enough to ensure funding is used for its prescribed purposes, with enough flexibility for schools to use their discretion according to the variable levels of SEND intake each year. In reality, this flexibility is often taken advantage of and the notional budget easily becomes absorbed into other undetermined school costs. This means that financial support for SEND pupils in many areas of the country may not be properly protected by the leadership of Academy Trusts, so there is no way of knowing whether or not the current Government funding for SEND (as inadequate as it may be) is being used effectively.

School leadership How inspection concerns override schools’ focus on the needs of the child One thing that drives coordinated action for students with SEND in UK schools is the imminent prospect of an Ofsted inspection. The way in which SEND provision interacts with behaviour management, high expectations and curriculum are typically high on the agenda of schools due for an inspection. An illusion of inclusion (Hornby, 1999) is often maintained but it can easily become just an expected school leadership mantra. The realities of how it should be achieved in practice are often not woven into the fabric of school management systems because to do so would require vastly more staff, resources, and funding than is available, as well as greater understanding by the school leadership of the need to do so. Therefore, in anticipation of an Ofsted visit, the school’s SEND register will be up-to-date, the impact of intervention data documented, annual reviews completed and a standard SEND policy presented on the school website. Whether or not a school is actually ‘ready’ for its next inspection, the overall focus and public face of most schools, is similar to that presented by predictably similar wellknown high street shops in England, irrespective of which town you are in. Since talk about the importance of inclusion is a key marker of success, all teaching and support staff will be well aware of the positive message about inclusion that they should convey in the hope of securing a ‘Good’ inspection rating.

82 School leadership and management of SEND

School leadership knowledge of SEND and funding transparency Headteachers are not required to have any in-depth knowledge of SEND or about how implementation of SEND policy should be effectively planned for. This lack of understanding regarding implementation is a systemic problem. It is not only to do with the limited understanding of many headteachers of SEND issues, but also about limited appreciation by local authorities and Academy Trust leaders responsible for funding SEND provision. There is often a glaring absence of willing and transparent cooperation about available funding for SEND between local authorities, Academy Trusts leaders and headteachers. This makes advance planning just about impossible for mainstream school SENDCos, who effectively act as intermediaries between the headteacher, local authority and the implementation of SEND support in the classroom. For SENDCos, teachers, teaching assistants and parents, this is a constant source of frustration. Continuing professional development (CPD) is a key aspect of ensuring that quality professional practice is maintained throughout any school. When it comes to SEND, however, many headteachers only have a limited grasp of the SEND requirements specific to their school (Moore, 2019; Reeve, 2017), let alone an understanding of the breadth and depth of skills needed by teachers and support staff to address SEND appropriately. Headteachers nonetheless, do conform to the expectations on them to spread the intention of inclusion among their teachers. These issues are illustrated by events at one school in England, as noted below. At this school, it was observed that the headteacher’s main objective for some CPD sessions at the start of the academic year appeared to be to ensure that all teachers had a thorough understanding of the value of inclusion, as the legislation requires. The precise way in which it might be implemented in this particular school was left to others to work out without any coordinated advance planning with the leadership. Structures to support the expected inclusion had not been properly developed, or the procuring of resources suitably planned. In this way a leadership masquerade of inclusion was maintained in the vague hope that teachers would somehow know what to do, and the SENDCo being relied upon to sort it all out. This reinforces the statement by Reeve (2017, p. 3) that, ‘We talk about every teacher being a teacher of SEN but this won’t happen until every leader is a leader of SEN.’ What was lacking during the staff training sessions at this school was not only a focus on specific detail about each child with SEND but the time needed to plan and discuss the management of each student, given their level of need, as well as others with different SEND in each class. In practice, with only the occasional support of Teaching Assistants (TAs), teachers were expected to make all ‘reasonable adjustments’ (SEND CoP: DfE, 2015) necessary for meeting the needs of a wide range of SEND students, with limited information, inadequate staffing and poor technological resources. Given the limited

School leadership and management of SEND 83 resources, highest priority had to be given to adapting lessons and resources for those with the highest identified level of need, as prescribed by students’ EHC plans. In this case, as in many others, the reality of what this might entail in terms of staffing, resources, timetabling and curriculum adjustment, was totally inadequate. In preparing for the arrival of their new year 7 intake, schools often consider that an important inclusive strategy is to emphasise the need for SEND students to ‘make a fresh start.’ This can sometimes feel like a euphemism for overlooking any previous concerns about a child’s difficulties and need for support. One wonders how it could possibly happen without the requisite funding for support and interventions in place, especially for those with high levels of special needs when schools are unprepared financially to receive them. During two days of CPD SEND training at the school at the start of the new academic year, no consideration was given to a number of critical factors that would have made a ‘fresh start’ feasible. There was no time allocated to consider how many SEND students would be in each class at any one time; what type or degree of SEND this would involve; and how ‘reasonable adjustments,’ as expected by the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015), could be consistently made across the school for the anticipated challenging behaviour of certain students with a range of high-level needs. These included social, emotional and mental health difficulties (SEMH), Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and a number of other neurological disorders. Nor was there time to consider what curriculum adjustments, additional resource materials and necessary support would be made available for each student. It was considered enough to ensure that each teacher knew in principle which of the four main categories of special needs identified in the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015) that they could expect in their classes, that is to say: communication and interaction; cognition and learning; social emotional and mental health; physical and sensory. The most important legally binding information about how the school could be seen to be meeting the minimum legal requirements for each child with an EHC plan was assumed to be able to be sorted out by the SENDCo. Her role was to guarantee, in time for an anticipated Ofsted visit, that the school could prove it was ‘legally compliant.’ Given that the statutory provision for each student often entailed a long wish list of requirements from the local authority that no teacher could reasonably implement without considerable support and training, this represented an expectation that was guaranteed to fail. The need for ‘SEN support’ in schools is based on the assumption that pupils are already receiving ‘high quality teaching that is differentiated and personalised to meet the individual needs of the majority of children and young people’ (DfE, 2015: 1.24). The supposition by the school leadership that high quality in-class teaching, referred to as ‘Quality Teaching First,’ could meet all these needs appropriately, in addition to those listed on the SEND register as needing SEND support, was based on compensating for the shortfall in support staff, appropriate intervention programmes and technology. It was therefore the lack of information and appropriate support provided to teachers at the start of a new academic

84 School leadership and management of SEND school year that created so much anxiety and a sense of impending doom in the teachers and support staff. Responsibility for the oversight of the school’s inclusion programme was taken on by the Academy Trust leadership team. Their interest appeared to be primarily to keep to a minimum spending on SEND. Therefore, their interest only went as far as ensuring the minimum legal requirements were met, at least in theory, if not in practice. Therefore, the language of requirements written into EHC plan forms was interpreted to require the minimum essential provision, irrespective of whether it conformed to the real needs of the students. The most serious elephant in the classroom in this school has hardly been mentioned. The original estimate in the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) was that 20% of the school population would have SEN at some time in their school lives. Research has consistently confirmed over the past four decades (Black, 2019) that the estimated national average prevalence of children with SEND in schools at any time is approximately 20%. However, in some areas of high deprivation, it may be as high as 35% (Black, 2019). In England, currently, a total of a little over 15.9% of school pupils are estimated to have SEND (DfE, 2021). However, in 2021, only 3.7% of pupils had EHC plans. That leaves an overall average of 12.2% additional children with SEND in schools without any statutory support. What teachers really want to know at the start of the new academic year is not simply that they should meet the needs of SEND students in their classes, but how as well as who and what would be supporting them as teachers to achieve this? In our experience, in England, few teachers are lacking in the desire to do everything possible to include and meet the needs of all children in their classes. For most teachers, their own SEND toolkit of knowledge has sufficient strategies and programmes for meeting the needs of many different types of learning difficulty, and their respective subject knowledge and experience of differentiating the curriculum is relevant for the task. In most cases teachers have developed the interpersonal skills needed to build strong relationships and implement a consistent school behaviour policy. However, without the necessary resources, staffing and adequate technological equipment, such qualities just leave them with a huge sense of frustration at the gap between what they hope to achieve with their students with SEND and what is genuinely achievable in practice.

The role of SENDCos The National SENDCo Workforce Survey showed that there is a serious underestimate nationally of the workload involved for SENDCos. It found that SENDCos are typically not allocated enough time to complete their work effectively and are routinely pulled away to perform other duties in a majority of schools (Moloney, 2021). The survey warned that millions of children and young people with SEND will be left vulnerable for decades to come if the SENDCo workforce isn’t given more time, resources and support to meet the

School leadership and management of SEND 85 needs of all children with SEND. Much of the reason for this is a lack of understanding by senior school leaders of what is involved in overseeing dayto-day support for the wide range and number of special needs that can exist in a mainstream school, as suggested in the following quotation. a growing experience … across the country [is that] SENCOs are doing their level best to support the reforms and improve the experiences and outcomes for children with SEN but all too often they are coming up against barriers from within their own schools (Reeve, 2017).

Conflict of interest between the headteacher and SENDCo There is an inherent conflict of interest in the English system between the roles of SENDCos and headteachers. It is significant that the SEND Code of Practice strongly advises that the SENDCo has: an important role to play with the headteacher and governing body, in determining the strategic development of SEN policy and provision in the school. They will be most effective in that role if they are part of the school leadership team (SEND CoP, 2015: 6:87). However, the reality is that many SENDCos, despite their experience and level 7 qualifications specifically preparing them for the role, are not part of the school senior leadership team. They are often relegated to a position in middle management where they are supervised by another member of the senior leadership team, often the deputy headteacher, who may or may not have a particular interest in or knowledge of SEND. In theory, this positioning can be said to meet the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015) advisory requirement that the SENDCo should be part of the leadership team, but it does not address the key issue of ensuring leadership accountability for appropriate SEND provision. The reason it is important that the head and the SENDCo work closely together is that, when it comes to the funding of SEND, the two roles have conflicting interests to resolve. The school SEND budget is received either directly from the local authority or via the Academy Trust and is ‘notional,’ which means that although it is intended ‘for the school to provide high quality appropriate support’ as stated in SEND CoP (DfE, 2015:6.96), it is not ringfenced for pupils with SEND. The headteacher’s over-riding concern is to administer funds throughout the school for whatever projects seem the most necessary. Inevitably, the SENDCo’s primary concern is to ensure enough money is appropriated to the provision needed for SEND students. If the number or level of need of identified students with SEND increases from year to year or within a year, the headteacher will be expected to draw more funds from the school’s notional budget to provide for those extra students, leaving less money available for other school projects. It is therefore in the interests of the headteacher to keep the identification of SEND to a minimum.

86 School leadership and management of SEND

Stress for teachers and pupils with SEND: Implementing ‘high expectations’ Pressure on teachers to meet the needs of their students with SEND and have high expectations for their achievement can contribute to a stressful learning environment for teachers and students alike. Teachers concerns about this are discussed in a recent research-based article (Warnes, Done & Knowler, 2022) which points out that pressure on teachers to demonstrate overall improvement and progress amongst their students is high. The phrase ‘high expectations’ as appears in the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015:6) has become a familiar school catchphrase during CPD training, but what does it mean in practice? The SEND CoP (DfE, 2015:6) states that, ‘Teachers should use appropriate assessment to set targets which are deliberately ambitious.’ It is clearly not enough to hope and expect something to happen without understanding what it might involve. There is much more to understanding what pedagogical expectations should be when supporting a child with high levels of learning difficulty than mainstream schooling typically allows for (Farrell, 2010). It is important, when gathering school data to inform evidence-based practice, that we are aware of teacher bias related to the pressure to demonstrate success for the records, when what we are looking for is whether children make real progress and feel a sense of their own success. The actual school experience and struggles of a child, and frustrations of parents, as revealed in meetings with SENDCos, are not always reflected in the data recorded by teachers. All too often, ‘incremental achievement inflation’ becomes more serious over time and the impact is more detrimental to the child’s needs as the real learning gap between them and their peers widens as they get older. This may well not be deliberate on the part of teachers but may start out as an unconscious positive bias resulting in recording of a subtle or debatable achievement. If a new teacher, in a subsequent academic year, does not concur with the earlier achievement recorded, she may be fearful of undermining her own ability to show how the child has made progress in her class, by recognising the child as having been at a lower starting point. On one occasion a senior advisor to a primary school, keen to show the school data in the best possible light, and with an eye on an anticipated Ofsted visit, was overheard to admonish a teacher for marking a child down from his earlier recorded scores. ‘It is impossible,’ he insisted, ‘for a child to un-achieve what he has already achieved.’ He had either overlooked or missed the point entirely.

Teaching assistants The primary role of a teaching assistant (TA) is to offer teachers support in providing assistance for the range of pupils in the class and to support everything they do. The reality for most teaching assistants is that they are often used as student support staff, assigned to an individual pupil with particularly high levels of need to enable the school to meet their minimum statutory obligations

School leadership and management of SEND 87 of provision. In this way the school can be seen to be subscribing to the ‘inclusion’ agenda. In England, this involves students who have gained an EHC plan. While other students in the class may at times benefit from this additional adult in the room, many SEND students without an EHC plan, may rarely if ever receive any additional support, other than that available from the teacher. In this sense they are not being properly included in teaching support aimed at meeting their needs. Many TAs are well trained and experienced in a specific area of SEND and could potentially offer more invaluable whole class support or lead focused interventions of support under the direction of teachers. However, this classroom resource is often lost in situations where the majority of the TA’s time is committed to the individual support of one or two students with particularly high levels of need as mandated by their EHC plans. The dilemma for both the TA and the SENDCo is that, where schools are short staffed, they will inevitably prioritise their legal obligations to students with EHC plans, which leaves many children with learning needs that are not recognised as severe, such as students with dyslexia and dyspraxia, without the support they require. As has been frequently recognised by these authors, omitting to provide appropriate timely support for students with specific learning difficulties is a missed opportunity that impacts on the long-term potential of not just the individuals concerned but also of society as a whole (Carroll, 2020; Derbyshire, 2022; Fabelo, 2004). It is a long-term risk we cannot afford to overlook. Meanwhile, students being provided with personalised support, as prescribed by their EHC plans, often become increasingly resentful as they grow older, about what has been identified as necessary, since it makes them feel more conscious of having different needs from those who do not have this support. The reality of seamlessly providing adequate support for these students successfully within the classroom is a vision that seems to have been seriously underestimated. One of the greatest concerns for teaching assistants is their lack of timetabled and remunerated communication and planning time with the teachers in whose lessons they support SEND students. Research has emphasised the importance of an effective working relationship between TAs and teachers, and found that TAs cannot be effective in their roles without essential timetabled preparation and planning time with teachers (Sharples, Webster & Blatchford, 2015). Despite this knowledge, teaching assistants are rarely afforded the time by school leadership teams to make the necessary plans with teachers prior to supporting students in the classroom. A number of difficulties arise, especially in secondary schools, when students are moving from one teacher to another throughout the day. It is important that practical ways in which it could be achieved are thought about by the leadership team, because, if specific TAs have been allocated to individual students, they would need to spend time with each of the subject teachers in whose lessons they are required to provide support. An alternative is for each TA to be allocated to a subject teacher, but this then means the student may suffer some detriment from having a different TA for each subject and lack the consistency of support they require. TAs are paid

88 School leadership and management of SEND by the hour, and tight budgets often mean those hours are limited to within the teaching day when students are present. Another alternative is for TAs to shift their hours to do their planning work with teachers earlier or later in the school day. A commonly cited difficulty with this is that TAs are often responsible for taking their own children to and from school. For a TA on low pay, it may amount to loss of earnings if childcare has to be employed to take over this parental commitment. Another problem with this arrangement is that, often TAs are needed as continuous support for an individual pupil who requires their presence throughout the entire school day. The solution to finding regular time for teachers and TAs to work together is therefore not one that can easily be found without a genuine recognition by the local authority, Multi-academy Trust and school leadership of the need to invest in doing so.

Overlooked levels of need and confusions about inclusion in the SEND CoP (2015) There is often confusion in schools about how to recognise and identify students with SEND, leading to many students being overlooked. To a certain extent this arises as a result of the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015), which is highly cautious about what can and cannot be considered ‘SEN,’ citing examples of those that cannot be considered to have SEN as those: ‘including persistent disruptive or withdrawn behaviour’ (6:21); ‘bullying or bereavement’ (6:22); ‘slow progress and low attainment’ (6:23); and ‘English as a foreign language’ (6:24). It then defines the four broad areas of need under whose categories schools are permitted to define SEN (communication and interaction; cognition and learning; social emotional and mental health; physical and sensory). This exposes the definition of ‘SEN’ as being far too narrow and prescriptive to serve as a model for inclusion and for recognising all learning needs. Nonetheless, it goes on to advise that other issues may be the cause of the difficulties and that ‘early intervention can significantly reduce the use of more costly intervention at a later stage.’ (6.21). Essentially, this expects schools to put in place additional support for children who have not been recognised as having SEND. However, within current policy it is difficult enough to justify school expenditure on those who have been identified as having SEND without considering those who have not. The apparent intention is to limit official SEND numbers as far as possible, which in the short term might lead to savings for the government and local authorities, but in the long run does immense damage to the prospect of those whose learning needs have been expediently overlooked. Scotland took a significant step in addressing this narrow definition of learning need and replaced the term SEN with ‘Additional Support Learning Needs,’ which included any pupil who would benefit from extra help to overcome barriers to their learning (EIS, 2019). Under their new law, the term applies to any child who needs more or different support to what is normally provided in schools. This can include: having English as a foreign language, being bullied, being exceptionally able, being a young carer or parent, moving

School leadership and management of SEND 89 home frequently, having a parent in prison, difficulty in controlling behaviour, changing schools frequently, or missing school because of a long-term illness (EIS, 2019). In 2019, the needs of students recognised in this way represented 30.9% of the school population (SCSC News, 2019). Clearly this level of identification represents a significantly higher level of funding commitment to support meeting pupils’ special needs and their inclusion.

School SEND data – accuracy of the SEND register One common strategy to ensure SEND register numbers are kept to a minimum appears to be to pressure SENDCos into believing that they have inappropriately identified SEND because their numbers do not conform to national average data. The most recent government statistics (National Statistics, 2020–21) show that numbers of children with SEND have increased in the last three years after a marked decrease between 2010 and 2017. The official conclusions drawn from this (DfE, 2021) are that the previous decline was as a result of more accurate testing for SEND since 2010. In light of what has been discussed about the influence of government policy on national data, it is more likely that recognition of actual numbers has been artificially suppressed. In our experience, a significantly greater problem is that far too many students with SEND go unidentified, and that the true numbers, nationally, are kept artificially low as real numbers rise (Warnes et al., 2022). This rapid rise in the last two years appears to at least partly reflect pent-up parental frustration released by the effects of the pandemic lockdowns. The protracted process of Assess, Plan, Do, Review by schools and the requirement by local authorities and headteachers to demonstrate the impact of tried interventions, acts as a convenient brake on this process of identification. Much of the time, the resources, intervention programmes and support staff are not available to put the necessary interventions in place for their impact to be shown to be effective or otherwise. Many students’ needs are overlooked or downplayed during the course of this lengthy process for no reason other than lack of resources and staff. ‘It is the headteacher or principal’s attitude and commitment to SEN that has really made the biggest impact’ (Reeve, 2017). This suggests that if headteachers do not have a good appreciation of the SEND needs in their schools and have other ambitions, it is easy to see why they may want to keep the SENDCo and their appeals for more funding at arm’s length. This creates an extra buffer between parental demands and the leadership responsible for decisions on spending since it is the SENDCo, rather than the headteacher, who is seen as the person responsible for the effective provision of SEND. It is to them that parental complaints and frustrations about delayed identification and ineffective provision is inevitably directed. At a minimum, students with EHC plans are likely to engage the headteacher’s attention to ensure the school can be seen to be legally compliant in time for the next Ofsted inspectoral visit. The process of identifying SEND and especially the

90

School leadership and management of SEND

obtaining of an EHC plan is a tortuous process experienced by all – SENDCo, teachers, parents and most of all, students themselves. Along that route is a process known as the ‘graduated approach,’ as prescribed by the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015). It describes, meticulously, the coordinated steps a school should take to build a sufficiently strong case to the local authority to carry out an assessment of the student and grant an EHC plan.

Graduated approach or an excuse for a protracted process of SEND assessment The workload provided by high numbers of students with SEND in a class (Warnes et al., 2021), the policy drive to place responsibility for failures on the teacher, and the systemic reluctance to identify SEND appropriately, combine to make the graduated approach unmanageable. Identification marks the first of four steps for teachers in the graduated approach process, but although some children who need assessment are identified, there are still many more who are not. The SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) states what is expected from the approach: Where a pupil is identified as having SEN, schools should take action to remove barriers to learning and put effective special educational provision in place. This SEN support should take the form of a fourpart cycle through which earlier decisions and actions are revisited, refined and revised with a growing understanding of the pupil’s needs and of what supports the pupil in making good progress and securing good outcomes. This is known as the graduated approach. It draws on more detailed approaches, more frequent review and more specialist expertise in successive cycles in order to match interventions to the SEN of children and young people (SEND CoP: DfE, 2015, 6:44). The action involved here assumes that a pupil with learning needs will be identified at an early stage. If this were really the case, it would be reasonable to expect that any inherent learning needs that were not short term would have been identified in a child’s early years at school. The sad reality is that this is often not the case. For example, many students with potentially underlying neurological disorders are identified at secondary school from year 7 to 11 and beyond, and are being referred to SENDCos as cause for concern and possible candidates for assessment. The workload involved in monitoring the four stages of the graduated approach, requires consistent persistence on the part of teachers who may be trying to support up to a third of their class in this way. At the secondary school stage when children are moving from one teacher to another, the limited contact makes that process lengthier and more disjointed. Teachers are fearful that before raising a concern they should be able to substantiate that they have tried everything possible through their teaching and have a legitimate reason to consider a deeper assessment needs to be made. They may have had previous requests for this rejected. At

School leadership and management of SEND 91 the point when those concerns make sufficient impact to be noticed, an aspect of the students’ learning or behaviour has usually reached a critical stage, and it becomes evident to the teacher and the SENDCo that an underlying difficulty has been overlooked. It is easy to see why this happens in classrooms that are already overstretched. Teachers can feel that they are in a double bind. Previous teachers may have found the bar to having a child officially recognised with SEND to have been too high causing them to assume the problem was with their teaching rather than the child’s difficulty. This in turn leads to further delay in identification and appropriate early intervention. Sadly, by the time students reach year 10 or 11, many have accepted the support they need will never be there and adopt alternative and often negative coping strategies. Ironically, the raising of early concerns are often not initiated by the teachers via the SENDCo but by parents who have met with resistance throughout the child’s school career when trying to assert that their child has significant special needs. By this stage new secondary difficulties may have emerged so a large proportion of a SENDCo’s time is spent in discussion with parents about their child’s current difficulty. This is a sad reflection of teachers’ real ability to recognise and support students in the way they would have liked while having to attend to a large class with the obligation to prioritise those children officially identified with high levels of need or having existing EHC plans. Another significant factor is the child’s response to intervention and support at the secondary school stage, as adolescent students will be increasingly keen to avoid any recognition of being different from others around them or admit to any additional need or vulnerability. Segregation is often triggered when it is clear that a student is only prepared to fully engage in study out of the presence of their peers. When a minimal amount of SEND support does not prove effective in class, pressure builds from teachers and parents alike for an application for an EHC plan. In no other way can parents expect sufficient funds to be released to provide their child with the specialist attention, support or change of provision that they need. By this time, many of those with serious unmet needs frequently begin to display severe behavioural challenges or mental health symptoms.

Delays in making EHC assessment of needs referrals The SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) maps out the legal time-frames within which a child’s EHC plan should be produced, from the time of raising the initial concern to implementation of the plan. In light of recent news reports in which it was stated that it can take up to five years for an EHC plan to be processed, the mandate for the inclusion of high levels of need in mainstream schools seems rather hollow and evidently unimplementable (Adams, 2021). Within school, once a concern is raised, the laudable process of Assess, Plan, Do, Review designated in the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015) to exemplify the best approach to school assessment, in practice becomes a stalling process for appropriate intervention and support of a large proportion of SEND pupils.

92 School leadership and management of SEND Much of a SENDCo’s time and effort are spent trying to prove the need for the additional funding required to put interventions in place. The above statement (SEND CoP, 2015:6.44) assumes that additional staff and resources are available to provide supportive interventions at the early assessment stage of the ‘graduated approach.’ They are often not available, except for the most severe cases. Follow-up assessment of need in successive cycles assumes the availability of funds to do so. In practice, all available resources for interventions are often already consumed by the needs of those with established EHC plans. The SEND CoP (2015) policy directives for EHC plans are clear but they fail to fulfil their intended outcome in practice (Gibbons, 2021). As suggested: ‘EHC Plans should be clear, concise, understandable and accessible to parents, children, young people, providers and practitioners. They should be written so they can be understood by professionals in any Local Authority’ (SEND CoP, 2015: 9:61). Even once an EHC plan has been granted by a local authority, provision for children with high levels of need in practice often does not match what is recommended (Keer, 2021). This is a major concern since the EHC plan is a legal document. This leaves schools and local authorities vulnerable to SEND tribunal appeals. Another problem once an EHC plan has finally been granted by a local authority is that the wording is often found to be open to interpretation. The recommendations can seem almost deliberately vague with wording such as ‘TA or teacher support as required’ or recommendations for the teacher to use ‘evidence based teaching strategies/interventions’. This has become a ubiquitous catch phrase that does not specify what strategies or interventions are needed specifically for the student in question or how their provision is to be funded. It can mean very little in practice for most parents who have been struggling for long periods of time to get the necessary support for their children in mainstream schooling.

The Ofsted effect on curriculum adjustment for SEND Responsive curriculum adjustment is often inhibited by school leadership with an eye on Ofsted inspections and the desire to be seen to be ‘inclusive’. There are competing expectations on school leaders for all children with SEND to be included in a broad and balanced curriculum (SEND CoP, DfE, 2015; UNESCO, 1994) at the same time as a curriculum, ‘which is capable of setting suitable learning challenges for the diversity of learners (including those with SEN) for which “reasonable adjustments” should be made’ (SEND CoP, 2015:6). It becomes clear to many children and their parents over time that certain aspects of the curriculum are causing them more stress and anxiety than benefit and yet school leaders are often reluctant to make necessary adjustments by recognising this. SENDCos regularly come up against this resistance for which it is clear that, for some children with SEND, their difficulty with learning a foreign language has a lot to do with their underlying language processing difficulties, dyslexia or memory difficulties. In an effort to find a constructive way

School leadership and management of SEND 93 forward, it’s often the parents who are keen to suggest their children substitute their foreign language learning for some focused instruction in a subject that will be more essential to their future prospects, such as English or Maths. What appears to be the obvious solution often becomes a source of tension between the apparent wishes of the parent and child and the school leadership. The source of the tension is again to be found in an inadvertent expectation set out in the SEND CoP (DfE, 2015) which states, ‘All pupils should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum’ (our italics). What sounds like a worthy principle of education for everyone becomes a stumbling block in its interpretation by senior leadership teams in their ability to think flexibly about what may quite clearly be in the best interests of the child. However, the statement that follows is equally important. ‘In many cases…[this] will mean that pupils with SEN and disabilities will be able to study the full national curriculum.’ This implies that the CoP (DfE, 2015) acknowledges that not all cases, or even in most cases, that pupils with SEN would be able to study the full national curriculum – only ‘many cases’. There is of course another disincentive for such a flexible approach to a child’s curriculum needs, and that is resources. Inclusion is attractive in part because it serves everyone under one roof with one teacher. Once students are removed to study something different elsewhere, another member of staff, if not additional resources, have to be found with implications for further spending on SEND. It is clear that the implementation of a flexible curriculum for SEND within a mainstream environment requires substantial resources and a flexible leadership mindset.

Inclusion – a strength or hindrance to school progress? A conflicting set of aspirations has been placed on the shoulders of school leaders. It comprises conflicting expectations to simultaneously develop an ‘all inclusive’ school environment and an ambition for all students to achieve the highest possible standard of achievement in public qualifications. Since both aspirations are part of the job description – and anybody not willing to promote the view that inclusion is an unquestionable benefit for all would not be offered a leadership position – it presents headteachers with an unspoken set of conflicting interests. In England this is sometimes resolved in different clandestine ways according to the dominant outlook of the leadership and the current school inspectorate (Ofsted) rating of the school. A school’s image is central to its survival, as good inspection ratings and satisfied parents determine its future success. If good examination results can be allowed to speak for themselves, then the image of apparent inclusion can be projected as a secondary value through politically acceptable messages and effective marketing. School prospectuses and websites serve this job well while good inspection reports can be relied upon to reassure everyone that pupil behaviour is appropriately managed.

94 School leadership and management of SEND For the ‘Good’ school, the ‘inclusion’ message can afford to come second in importance to the academically successful one. For the poorly rated, underfunded school (the mechanism for school funding of SEND is discussed in Chapter 8) where the proportion of disadvantage and SEND are high and average achievement is low, inclusion has to be the central message, with high aspirations for all coming as a close second. Ofsted approval could not be won any other way and hope for achieving a ‘Good’ rating would remain out of sight. It is easy to see why a one-sided view of inclusion has persisted without scrutiny. The cheapest options for promoting inclusion, of course, are the most attractive ones. If the headteacher can provide continuing professional development for teachers in combination with a message about how inclusion can be best fostered through the development of positive teacher attitudes, two birds have been killed with one stone. Attitudes can be changed without spending a penny, and a critical first step has been taken in the whole-school improvement plan. What is often forgotten, however, is that positive attitudes are usually developed as a result of positive experiences. Teachers are beginning to voice their concerns, and research is beginning to demonstrate how they can no longer be ignored (Warnes et al., 2022). In other words, creating a climate and environment in which teachers can teach effectively is more likely to create positive attitudes. The opposite of course is true. Where the climate is not supportive and does not provide the appropriate resources, staffing or alternative options for children with certain levels of SEND, the experience of staff will be negative. Efforts by school leaders to change attitudes will be a perpetual uphill struggle as high staff absence rates and staff retention will continue to be a problem in failed efforts to reconcile conflicting expectations of implementation of the government policy of inclusion and the experience of parents and children and young people with SEND.

Concluding comments We have discussed how implementation of inclusion, as generally interpreted by government policy and school leaders, is an ideologically based social aspiration with sometimes contradictory goals. A misplaced determination to promote it in mainstream schools can lead to a stressful and self-defeating environment for both students with SEND and teaching staff alike. The fear of exclusion can prevent genuine recognition of individual needs, in relation to making appropriate accommodations for behaviour, curriculum and expectations, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the mainstream educational system. Inclusion does not need to be about including everyone in the same space, following the same curriculum, but about including everyone in a learning community that provides every pupil with the opportunity to realise their potential.

References Adams, R. (2021, May 13). Pupils in England ‘waiting up to five years for special needs plan.’ The Guardian: International Edition. https://www.theguardian.com/education/

School leadership and management of SEND 95 2021/may/13/pupils-in-england-waiting-up-to-five-years-for-special-needs-plan-says -ofsted. Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). Editorial: the Salamanca Statement: 25 years on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8),671–676. Black, A. (2019, August 6). A picture of special educational needs in England – an overview. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/gh7d4c. Carroll, J. (2020). Review 1: Current understanding of causes and identification of SpLDs. In Government Office for Science, GOS (Ed.), Current Understanding, Support Systems, and Technology-led Interventions for Specific Learning Difficulties (pp. 5, 10). (https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 926052/specific-learning-difficulties-spld-cst-report.pdf. Derbyshire, E. (2022, January 24). Dyslexia: To identify or ignore?BERA Blog post. https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/dyslexia-to-identify-or-ignore. DES (1978). Special educational needs: The Warnock Report. HMSO. DfE (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years: Department for Education. DfE (2014). Children and Families Act 2014. c. 6. 3 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov. uk/ukpga/2014/6/part/3/enacted. DfE (2021). Special educational needs and disability: an analysis and summary of data sources. Department for Education. DfES (2001). Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. DfES/581/2001. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 273877/special_educational_needs_code_of_practice.pdf. EIS (2019, May). Additional Support for Learning in Scottish school education: Exploring the gap between promise and practice. https://www.eis.org.uk/Content/ images/education/ASN/ExploringTheGap.pdf. Fabelo, T., Austin, J., & Gunter, A. (2004). The impact of ignoring dyslexia and reading disabilities in the criminal justice system: What we know and need to know. JFA Associates/The Institute. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/31531072/theimpact-of-ignoring-dyslexia-and-reading-disabilities-in-the-. Farrell, M. (2010). Debating Special Education. Routledge. Gibbons, A. (2020, November 3). Exclusive: Tutoring demand outstrips forecasts by 500%. Times Education Supplement. https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-exclusive-tutor ing-demand-outstrips-forecasts-500. Hornby, G. (1999). Inclusion or delusion: Can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 14(4), 152–157. House of Commons Education Committee (2011). Behaviour and Discipline in Schools. First Report of Session 2010–11: 2. London. Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Crockett, J. B., Felder, … Smith, C. R. (2022). Parents’ and educators’ perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities. In C. Boyle & K. A. Allen (Eds.). Research for quality inclusive education: Sustainable development goals series, pp. 205–217. Springer. Keer, M. (2021, May 14). 15000 disabled learners with EHCPs but no provision: The EHCP figures for 2021. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/ 15000-disabled-learners-with-ehcps-but-no-provision-the-ehcp-figures-for-2021/. Kuntz, E. M., & Carter, E. W. (2021). Effects of a collaborative planning and consultation framework to increase participation of students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Safe Journals, 46(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/gjh4d8.

96 School leadership and management of SEND Long, R., Roberts, N., Danechi, S., & Loft, P. (2020, April, 16). Special Educational Needs: support in England. House of Commons Library. Briefing Paper, Number 07020. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//36825/1/SN07020.pdf. Magnussen, G. (2022). From Salamanca to Sweden: inclusive education as policy in transit. International Encyclopaedia of Education. https://doi.org/g7fw. Moloney, H. (2021, June, 24). Overworked, underpaid SENDCOs mean children with SEND “will be left vulnerable for decades.” SNJ. https://www.specialneedsjungle. com/overworked-underpaid-sencos-mean-children-send-left-vulnerable-decades/. Moore, C. (2019, April 29). Poor leadership and SEND ignorance fails disabled children. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/school-leadership-and-send-ignorance/. National Statistics (2020/21, June 24) Special educational needs in England. Academic Year 2020/21. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/specia l-educational-needs-in-england#dataDownloads-1. Reeve, M. (2017, September 28) School leadership and SEND ignorance. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/school-leadership-and-send-ignorance/. SCSC (2019, December 10). Almost A Third of Pupils with Additional Support Needs while support falls. SCSC News. https://www.thescsc.org.uk/almost-a-third-of-pup ils-with-additional-support-needs-while-support-falls/. Sharples, J., Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2015, March). Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants. Guidance Report.Education Endowment Foundation(EEF).https://maxim isingtas.co.uk/assets/content/ta-guideportrait.pdf. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Salamanca, Spain: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427. UNESCO (2020). Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. UNESCO. Warnes, E., Done, E. J., & Knowler, H. (2022). Mainstream teachers’ concerns about inclusive education for children with special educational needs and disability in England under pre-pandemic conditions. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22(1), 31–43.

6

Perspectives of parents on the inclusion of children with SEND

Introduction A key question to be considered is, ‘Who should be the arbiters of whether or not inclusion works?’ This leads to another important question: ‘Is there a democratic mandate for inclusive education requiring the closure of all special schools?’ In 1970s, legislation in many countries, such as the England and USA, was impacted by parental efforts to include children with disabilities in mainstream schools. More recently parents are demonstrating more nuanced views, less concerned with focussing on where their children are educated and more on the quality of education they receive (Kauffman et al., 2022). We fought to have some students with disabilities treated differently, given more opportunity, more intensive instruction, more individually tailored curriculum, more carefully designed instruction. It’s time to renew the commitment to students with disabilities and to ensure the programs and resources necessary to fulfil that commitment (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017, cited in Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 206). In the podcast discussions conducted by Joanne Banks, the question of whether there should be a closing down of all special schools in order to promote the full inclusion agenda was posed to a range of researchers in relation to the real possibility of this happening in Ireland (Banks, 2021). We propose that, in the final analysis, the most compelling evidence is not so much to be found within academic research studies or the views of school leaders, but within the experiences, views and aspirations of parents of young people with SEND. In England, Government initiatives such as the Lamb Inquiry report (2009) and legislation such as the Children and Families Act (CAFA) (DfE, 2014; DfE, 2015) have attempted to acknowledge this and recognise the essential input of parents in decisions about their children’s educational provision. The role of the local authority to support and involve children and young people by listening to their voices and the views and wishes of their parents, so that they are able to participate in an informed way, is a key message in Part 3 of the Children and Families Act, 2014. In this chapter, we explore parent responses to the way policies at school, local and national levels DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-6

98

Perspective of parents on inclusion

have been affected by the approach taken towards inclusion in England. We use academic literature, to support a series of anecdotal stories to illustrate the significance of parents’ involvement with their children’s educational experiences.

Mixed messages about reforms on listening to parents’ voices Despite the intentions of legislation to reform policy and practice for the education of children with SEND, parents in the UK have become increasingly concerned about how the education system does not appear to be working effectively for a growing number of these children (Weale, 2019). Around the country, parent groups, such as the Campaign for Change – Suffolk SEND for Change (CCSS, 2021), have formed in an attempt to speak out about the way in which SEND support is provided. For over 30 years, questions have been raised in the academic literature about the effectiveness of inclusion policies (Hornby, 1992, 1999) and important misgivings voiced about their implementation (Warnock, 2005). More recent research has opened up discussion about the common difficulties of putting legislation on inclusion into practice (Lehane, 2016) and exposed the disconnect between opinions expressed by academics and the views of teachers and other practitioners (Black, 2019). In addition, we now have growing evidence of implementation difficulties experienced in many different parts of the world (e.g. Chambers & Forlin, 2021), as demonstrated in Chapter 4. These difficulties were not unforeseen, as concerns raised in earlier publications, frequently ignored in the years since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), questioned the wisdom of persisting with an increasingly ideological interpretation and promotion of inclusion. Research has drawn attention to the contradictory messages inherent within legislation on SEND that impact its effective implementation (Castro & Palikara, 2016). In the UK the SEND Code of Practice advises that early assessment and intervention are most effective at preventing long-term problems. However, many parents find that, when a child does not make expected progress over a significant period of time, establishing the right to obtain support is further impeded and undermined by the length and complexity of the process involved (DfE, 2015:6 & 9). This process, of gaining a thorough assessment of needs and thereby the support that children with SEND require, is governed by protracted procedures over a supposedly maximum 20-week period, which, in reality, is commonly overrun (DfE, 2015: 9.41–9.42; HoC ECR, 2019). Since local authorities are responsible both for the assessment of children with SEND and the funding of that support, they have an understandable incentive to keep the numbers of children identified to a minimum. With many local councils in financial deficit and under pressure to find savings (Belger, 2021a), increasingly, local authorities have found reasons to avoid taking on all but the minimum number of referrals and many applications are turned down (Harris, 2017; HoC, 2019).

Perspective of parents on inclusion

99

The increase in demand from parents for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) (DfE, 2021) may in part reflect schools’ lack of ability to respond appropriately to SEND needs without the enforcement of a legal document (HoC, 2019). Despite it being their right to request such a referral (DfE, 2015:9) many parents face considerable resistance from schools, due to the lengthy process and large amount of paperwork and documented evidence needed. As a result, plans of support are often created as a last resort in reaction to accumulated evidence of failure, rather than having in place consistent measures to assist or prevent failure along the way. The demand for such assessments to demonstrate the extent of a child’s failure often comes from exasperated parents at a stage in the child’s education that may be too late to enable intervention to be optimally effective. Some parents have had to wait up to five years for their child to be granted an EHC plan (Adams, 2021). Many parents, while being compelled to take responsibility for their children’s learning during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, have re-evaluated their children’s experience of school and raised questions about what should change (Keer, 2021a). There was a 27% increase in home education between 2017 and 2018, a disproportionate number of which involved children with SEND (Ofsted, 2019). During these two years, 27,000 children and young people with EHCPs were educated out of formal schooling. Some of these were waiting for a placement named in their EHCPs to become available, others were not receiving any form of education or training. This number increased by 60% from 2019 to 2021 during the pandemic lockdowns (Ofsted, 2019). For parents, this highlighted how the system lacks sufficient coordination of services, funding support and appropriate school options to meet the needs of their children with SEND.

The changing parental voice – from initial concern to court case Recent research has shown that parental views on inclusion and special education depend to some degree on their own educational experiences (Satherley & Norwich, 2021). On the one hand, some parents have felt particularly resistant to the idea of sending their children with SEND to special schools. This is understandably true of people who themselves suffered from a negative school experience and felt disenfranchised in society as a result. The testimony of many adults who were excluded from mainstream schools in the 1950s and ’60s expresses the lasting pain and humiliation of feeling socially marginalised. This concern may have been attributable in part to the way in which the traditional grammar school/secondary modern system separated out those who were considered to be able to succeed academically and go on to university. Others may have had a poor personal experience at a special school and felt it neither targeted their specific difficulty nor enabled them to move on to the mainstream when they felt capable of more. Parents with these experiences are understandably anxious not to transfer their sense of having felt ‘othered’ onto their children (Cigman, 2007). In the minds of many, however, these grievances have since been falsely conflated with experiences of children with special needs in segregated settings.

100 Perspective of parents on inclusion Opinions about inclusion and segregation, therefore, are as varied as they are aligned with positive and negative personal experiences. One researcher reported ‘inclusion’ in mainstream school as ‘remembered with anxiety and education in a special school [as] a welcome improvement’ (Farrell, 2006, p. 27). In our experience, support in mainstream schools is highly variable and often appears to favour those with obvious physical difficulties or more familiar disabilities such as Down syndrome. Inclusion for them can be seen by parents as a way of normalising their children’s apparent differences for as long as possible. Sometimes, however, as children progress through the school system, questions are raised as to whether such ‘inclusion’ continues to serve their best interests. Struggling socially as well as academically in a mainstream school can be more damaging and isolating for their children than parents might have imagined. An example of this was observed at a secondary school in the East of England where a couple of Down syndrome girls, two years apart in age, spent most of their time socialising with one another, effectively isolated from their more able peers. They were taught an individualised curriculum in separate small groups for some subjects and remained with their peer group classes for others. All their work was individually adapted by their class teachers and delivered by a teacher aide (TA) since the concepts being taught to the rest of the class were too difficult for them to access. A TA also needed to be on hand to assist when necessary with their personal care. They could not interact meaningfully about their learning with their peers, who offered them tolerance and kindness rather than a sharing of ideas or genuine friendship. For the older one, the gap was especially pronounced. They were essentially provided with a wholly adapted parallel school experience that isolated them from their peers whether or not they were learning within the same classroom. One wonders how much happier they might have been working alongside several others with similar disabilities and sharing in similar learning appropriate for their own skill sets. The whole curriculum might then have been more flexibly adapted to enable them to engage in learning practical living skills of greater benefit to them. In the minds of the children’s parents, the right to a place in a mainstream school had overridden all consideration of the appropriateness of their learning in that place. In contrast, many parents worry that their children’s special educational needs can easily go completely unnoticed in mainstream settings. The Parliamentary Select Committee Review (HoC, 2019) was particularly critical of the poor identification and support for those children without EHCPs. Research supports the lack of assistance for children who are clearly struggling to cope in school but lack an identifiable special need or disability. From their study, Castro and Palikara (2016) reported that, ‘a child without a diagnosable SEND or who does not specifically “fit” into any of the predefined SEND types may need considerable support to achieve participation’ (p. 4). Where school staff are unfamiliar with special needs or unable to recognise a condition, they can lack the confidence to refer them for a more thorough professional assessment. This contributes to lingering frustration on the part of parents and a prolonged period of inadequate support for the child.

Perspective of parents on inclusion

101

In England, it is clear that parents experience mixed support for their children with SEND, which varies according to geographical area, as well as from school to school. It is recognised that the provision of assessments and support depends to a large extent on the will and resources of the school leadership and local authority. It is also clear from our experience that the make-up of the school and of individual classes is crucially important to the way parents perceive their children are being successfully supported. On the one hand, there are parents who have seen their children benefit from appropriate levels of intervention and support. Often this has been in cases where needs have been highly evident from early on in a child’s educational career and in areas where well-designed EHCPs have been effectively used to put specific and good quality levels of support in place, assisted by appropriate funding. These successes may be seen as examples for the public of what works best in the English system. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that for a significant number of children with SEND, appropriate levels of support are not in place and in many cases apparent conformity to minimum legal requirements masks the real experience of parents of children with SEND (HoC ECR, 2019). What is striking about many stories we have personally witnessed is how similar they are in terms of trajectory. Typically, these have involved failed attempts to assess, implement or sustain support for their children’s needs for any meaningful length of time. Some of these frustrations continued from the moment their child entered school to the time they were about to leave. It has become clear that within our current school system, many problems are both foreseeable and predictable. One after the other, there are tragedies of failure waiting to happen. Unmet needs compounded with further unmet needs, year after year throughout children’s educational careers. The tragedy is that those who benefit from appropriate provision often represent the minority, particularly in areas of the country where funding is short and disadvantage is high. Too many have not had the chance to benefit from appropriate interventions in the early days of their schooling or had their support withdrawn too prematurely so that their underlying difficulties continued to affect their later learning. This has often been to do with budget restrictions on such services as speech and language and occupational therapy. In our experience, countless stories from anxious and frustrated parents have started from the first day of each new school year and continued week after week from one term to the next. It is clear parents’ anxiety increased as their children grew older, especially in the lead up to a period of transition to a new school stage when the imminent prospect of their need to adapt to a new environment was brought sharply into focus. One example for us was the story told by the mother of a boy in year 11 (15 years old) with severe memory difficulties. This affected his ability to remember how in previous days he had learned to perform basic everyday tasks such as tying his shoelaces. At school, he had very weak attainment scores in almost all his subjects, and his mother described how she had been trying to get recognition and support for her son since leaving primary school. In his early primary

102 Perspective of parents on inclusion school days, he had received multiple assessments and a brief period of speech and language therapy, but all signs of this had long since been dropped from his secondary school records. Now, as he approached his GCSE examination years, his memory difficulties made learning across the curriculum hugely problematic. No specific label could be determined despite his unhappiness and frustration about the increasing gap between himself and his peers. No effective response or cohesive plan of support had been put in place for many years. His mother explained that a similar course of events had affected his elder brother, who after years of struggle, had finally received an EHCP just in time to transfer to college in year 12, when she felt it was already too late. The damage, she said, had been done and she could see the same thing was happening to her second son. The Academy Trust to which the school belonged severely restricted funding from the school’s notional SEND budget for the provision of educational psychologist assessments, so no such assessment was ever granted. Some determined parents in this situation with sufficient resources of their own, might pay to have their own private assessment, but for others the cost is out of reach. The mother of this boy said she felt her son had been ‘consigned to the dustbin of education’. When listening to parents expressing their views about what they most wished for in the education of their children, invariably, their priorities were for them to be happy, to have a sense of belonging, a sense of wonder about the world and learn more today than they knew yesterday. Recent studies found that knowing that their children feel included while they learn is more important than their being part of a mainstream environment calling itself inclusion (Satherley & Norwich, 2021). A quality education for children with SEND involves an important sense of connectedness and identification with those in their immediate environment who share their day-to-day activities and learning interests.

Exclusion within inclusion ‘Exclusion within inclusion’ was a central concern of Mary Warnock’s review (Warnock, 2005) in which she argued that many children with SEND suffer from feelings of exclusion within mainstream schools. In 2022 this is still one of the most common concerns raised by parents about their children with SEND. Often, parents who have expressed the most concern to us are those whose children display no visible disability. They want someone to hear and understand all the worry that they have gone through over the years in the desperate hope that they might at last persuade someone to put things right. After years of struggle, they have reached the conclusion that mainstream schooling is not working for their child with SEND. An example from our own experiences was of a parent whose academically able daughter had high functioning autism. Her entry to a mainstream secondary school in year 7 was assumed to be a matter of course despite her parents’ concern about the prospect. Despite the personal support made available to her at critical

Perspective of parents on inclusion

103

points in the day by the school support staff, her anxiety levels about going into class were so high that she would frequently spend lessons hiding in the girls’ cloakroom. No specific reasons for her anxiety could be identified other than her general fear of working in large classroom groups. At recreation times, she would take refuge in a protected special needs unit and would never join her peers outside. At home she displayed high levels of stress, anxiety and anger related to her experiences at school. Her parents felt they had been given no choice but for her to continue to stay at the school. They knew the difference a special school provision had made for her elder brother, but because her needs were less well understood, she did not meet the local authority (LA) criteria to qualify for a place at a special school. For this family it felt like forced inclusion. For the LA, their position was justified by her normal levels of academic ability. Other authors have pointed out that, due to the political framing of inclusion as an educational right, many parents sense they have a moral duty, if not a legal one, to subscribe to mainstream inclusion (Cigman, 2007; Felder, 2019). Parents are left feeling that there is an inherent lack of respect for their rights, on behalf of their child, to make an informed choice of their own. In recent years there appears to have been a gradual shift in the attitude of many parents of children with SEND, from a desire to uphold the notion of a rights-based entitlement to mainstream schooling, to one of an honest appraisal of what is the most appropriate provision for their child. The Covid-19 pandemic has served to put many parents more in touch with their children’s experiences of school recognising how, with age, their children with SEND become more aware of the painful gap opening up between themselves and their peers. They see them become more vulnerable to the damaging effects of poor peer relationships and the impact that can have on their willingness to be included in a mainstream environment. We are becoming increasingly aware from talking to parents that what they most want is an effective response to their children’s needs, not simply false reassurance that everything will be fine in a mainstream school simply because it is supposed to be. Increasing rates of school refusal by children with unmet SEND needs became an increasing concern even before the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic lockdowns. Parents reacted with support groups such as ‘Not Fine in School,’ whose website reported 783,000 persistent absentees, including 325,000 of more than 25 days, 40% of which were unexplained (Morgan, 2019). ‘The reality is that in too many cases, the education system is failing to give all children an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential and the consequences for children and families are catastrophic’ (Morgan, 2019).

Impact of bullying If there is a common anxiety parents have for their children with SEND it is that they are vulnerable to becoming victims of bullying. One major premise for the adoption of a full inclusion approach globally, described in the UNESCO (2020) review, was that it should promote social diversity and

104 Perspective of parents on inclusion tolerance in future societies. While in theory this sounds like a plausible expectation, a closer look at the practice often speaks a different story (DfE, 2017; UNESCO, 2018). Parents have shown great concern when witnessing their children’s needs not being met while their connections with their peer group have been weakened. The consequences can be significant and longterm. A typical response is for children in this position to become easily stressed, angered, frustrated or disaffected. These feelings are inevitably more common in school areas of high disadvantage where SEND needs are not properly resourced. Some research shows that, despite the aspirations of the UNESCO (2020) review, incidents of bullying in schools seem to be getting worse, not better. One-third of the globe’s youth are bullied. Low socioeconomic status is a major factor in youth bullying within wealthy countries, and immigrant-born youth in wealthy countries are more likely to be bullied than locally-born youth (UNESCO, 2018). Furthermore, children with disabilities continue to face disproportionate amounts of bullying and violence in their schools and communities (ABA, 2020; Gonzalez-Calatayud, 2021; Long et al., 2020a). In the UK, children reported that they had been bullied for a diversity of reasons, such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and having special educational needs. Research by the Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA, 2020) has shown that children with SEND are considerably more likely to be bully victims than their non-disabled peers. One example from an Ofsted report showed that many pupils in the school felt that bullying was ‘commonplace,’ with some pupils reporting that they were too scared to go to school, and that there were areas of the school where they did not feel safe. Another study showed that one in three pupils with SEND experienced bullying in mainstream schools (DfE, 2017; Tirraoro, 2020). Of pupils with SEND, 37% reported being bullied, based on other pupils’ attitudes or assumptions towards them in mainstream schools (Tirraoro, 2020). Children on the autistic spectrum have been found to be particularly vulnerable (Castleton, 2018). A large all-purpose mainstream school will not be in a position to promote tolerance of diversity if it cannot fundamentally protect the dignity and well-being of such vulnerable groups. In our experience, many children who lack status within their class group as a result of weak social, academic or sporting skills can easily become vulnerable targets or side-lined by their peers. Stressful school environments can become places of recrimination and contribute to the poor detection of bullying despite anti-bullying policies being in place. If insufficiently supported by staffing, students in large mainstream settings can struggle to cope with significant mental health, medical, health or learning needs, causing them to experience huge amounts of stress. In the long run, the impact on students and teachers alike, of an unsupportive environment, affects everyone’s ability to function in a positive, friendly way that is conducive to effective learning. It is particularly important to recognise the difference between the experiences of children with a range of special educational needs in the early years and primary schools from that of their experience at the secondary school stage. Research on

Perspective of parents on inclusion

105

full inclusion systems in Canada have shown that academic inclusion at the Primary School stage is considerably more achievable than in secondary school (Belanger & Gougeon, 2009). Classroom experiences that children may accept unquestioningly when they are very young, may later be interpreted negatively when they recognise how something has adversely affected them. Children increasingly start to question as they get older and develop more independent thinking skills. As part of this process, they start to define who they are and with which groups they identify. They become more aware of those who do and don’t fit in, for a range of different reasons. If their learning begins to be negatively affected by the adverse behaviour of other children, then they may be tempted to re-evaluate their previous early childhood acceptance of them and start to ostracise them. Research in Canada has shown that, contrary to expectations, one common problem arising within full inclusion environments is that children and families start to form their own inner niche groups (Belanger & Gougeon, 2009). We have come across too many stories in England than could be retold here of children feeling as if they are on the psychological perimeters of their mainstream school. This reminds us of Mary Warnock’s warning about the unacceptable situation of children being ‘physically included but emotionally excluded’ (Warnock, 2005, quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 32). Whatever may be the merits of deploying the rhetoric of human rights in the demand for inclusion …it may lead to insensitivity to their needs and culpable disregard for evidence of how children can flourish and what factors may prevent their flourishing (Warnock, 2005, quoted in Terzi, 2010, p. 36).

A nurturing environment: why some parents value special schools Parental requests for EHC plans are often, understandably, an urgent attempt to secure appropriate protection as well as learning support for their children. As witnessed by the study of parents in Australia discussed in Chapter 4 (Aspland et al., 2021), it is also understandable that parents would regard a special school or a segregated special support unit, with its own protected recreational space, as providing a safe refuge away from the competitive jockeying for attention and status that is inevitably part of the mainstream experience. Critical, however, to the success of such an alternative environment is that of appropriate funding to support adequate space, good resources and, essentially, the retention of highly trained specialist staff.

Parental assertion of children’s rights to SEND provision In a House of Commons report (Long et al., 2020b) the problems faced by parents navigating the system were emphasised and the process described as: ‘an

106 Perspective of parents on inclusion adversarial, hard-to-navigate system, with parents needing to fight for support they are entitled to, and too many parents having to take their case to tribunals – providing an unfair advantage to more knowledgeable parents’ (Long et al., 2020b, p. 28). Parents may eventually feel vindicated by the high rate of success they experience with their tribunal cases against local authorities since the vast majority are lost, withdrawn or conceded by local authorities (LGL, 2019). This demonstrates how time consuming and disproportionately costly it is for the rights of many children with SEND to be upheld, both for parents and local authorities (Keer, 2020a). In addition, ambiguities about such rights arise from an unequal presumption in law that parents’ rights to a mainstream education for their children should be protected at all costs (CAFA: DfE, 2014), while there is no equivalent protection of parents’ rights to a special education, should they wish it (Farrell, 2006). Parents cannot simply say, ‘the provision here is not good enough; a special school would be more appropriate for my child,’ since the Act (2014) also says: ‘Children and young people without EHCPs must be educated in a mainstream school’ (CAFA: DfE, 2014, 34/2). This is despite the Act also stating that local authorities ‘must have regard to the views, wishes and feelings of the young person and the child’s parents’ (CAFA: DfE, 2014: 19). These mixed messages about respect for parents’ wishes and a mandate for inclusion lead parents to feel that any special provision within a mainstream school is something they have to fight for. This is a scenario that is aggravated by their perception of a predisposition of local authorities to determine EHCPs more on the basis of funding criteria than on the child’s actual needs (HoC, 2019; Keer, 2020b). There was a 13% rise in registered appeals concerning EHCPs during the year 2019–20 from the previous year, which highlights the inadequacies of the local authority system to appropriately assess children’s needs and make necessary provision available (HoC, 2019; Keer, 2020a). A colleague whose child has ADHD had become so distressed by his experience at his mainstream school that she did all she could to have her child assessed for an EHC plan. When asked to explain the problem, she said, ‘He doesn’t want to write anything anymore; he doesn’t like his teacher and compares his school to prison.’ Despite the years of difficulties that the child had suffered with no adequate support to make school a satisfactory experience, the local authority rejected the parents’ request for an assessment of his needs. ‘I made an appointment with his GP to see if we can get any help with his mental health; I’m so worried about him and feeling utterly drained, as the situation is getting worse and worse,’ his mother continued. She explained that she was at a breaking point; her attempt at appealing the decision had also been rejected; she was now being forced to take time off from work as a teacher in order to care for her son and initiate legal proceedings. ‘I now have to go to a pre-court mediation session to resolve the battle,’ she said. ‘Frankly, we are so desperate, and the situation is so bad, I may have to threaten them [the local authority] with sending him to [X independent school] at £60K a year.’

Perspective of parents on inclusion

107

This is one parent’s plea for advice, but it is a common story we are all too familiar with in secondary schools. Despite SENDCos doing their best to find the necessary resources of support within their schools, they often do not have the means to prevent such problems (HoC, 2019). More often than not the parents of children suffering in this way are seeking a placement for their child at an alternative provision, as a last resort, long after they have become frustrated and disillusioned with what the mainstream school can offer and long after their child has started to experience mental health difficulties. We have also worked with many parents at secondary academies whose children had finally been placed in special schools after being traumatised by their adverse experiences in the mainstream. The ultimate decision to move them had often come far too late. Even more heart-breaking is when this is a case of early childhood trauma being compounded by further mainstream school experience induced trauma. One warm sunny day when huddled amongst friends around an outside table overlooking a beautiful garden, belonging to their highly nurturing special school, one child hesitantly retold his story. He described one harrowing bullying event after another that finally led him to his present haven of tranquillity. The child adamantly explained how he ‘never wanted to ever go back to a mainstream school again.’ Each of the pupils at the school had similar stories to tell and felt permanently scarred by the compounding negative effects of an inappropriate school environment on their pre-existing needs. Had there been either an earlier recognition of their needs and greater early investment in appropriate support, considerably less damage might have been done to their psychological well-being as well as their education prospects in the long-run. The teacher and mother of the child with ADHD was fighting to ensure that her son did not suffer a similar fate. ‘I’m the only person who can fight for what my son most needs,’ she explained. A website set up by lawyers to offer advice to parents and professionals about the implementation of SEND legislation for children in England described how: One of the principal reasons for the Children and Families Act 2014 and the introduction of the so-called SEND Reforms was that parents far too often had to battle to get the support their child with SEN and/or a disability needed (Reeve, 2017). Ironically, the number of appeals since the reforms of 2014 have increased not decreased (Keer, 2021c). Shocking to us was the sudden awareness of what this need for ‘fighting’ revealed about the system and how those who could fight were the lucky ones. What about all those who had neither the resources, knowledge nor confidence to battle the system for what their child with SEND most needed? Twenty-seven years after her initial 1978 report, Mary Warnock warned that local authority assessments were more concerned with available resources than with need and that this would inevitably lead to conflict with parents (Warnock, 2005). She explained that as long as there was a need for legal disputes, provision

108 Perspective of parents on inclusion for children with high needs would be unequal and benefit wealthy and better-informed parents (Warnock, 2005). At the same time, we are aware that parents and teachers alike are left with a sense of guilt about the situation that where one child gains another loses out and the hard-won support for one child can affect the chances of other children receiving even a minimal amount of support. ‘This isn’t right. Something has to change!’ one parent declared. Although, the Covid-19 pandemic brought parental feelings into focus, a number of campaigns were previously instigated by parents against local authorities for failure to make adequate provision for SEND, including the Bristol judicial review and the Hackney and Surrey High Court challenge (see Keer, 2018; Weale, 2018). Another high-profile case was launched by parents, who formed a SEND Action campaign group, in an attempt to hold the government to account for failures to enable local authorities to make adequate SEND provision. It was the first ever coordinated court action by parents against the government and despite its limited success, in which judgement was reserved (Tirraoro, 2019a), it represented a growing public impatience with the current situation (Tirraoro, 2019b).

Parental demand for local authorities to provide special schools As the number of special schools has been reduced in line with inclusion policies, so the pressure on the existing ones has increased with a 40% rise in numbers attending special schools in the years from 2007–2019 in the UK (DfE, 2021). From 2020–2021 the number of resourced provisions within the mainstream increased faster than the parallel reduction in special needs units (Gov.uk, 2020/ 2021; Keer, 2021b). There is a view among parents that the government is allowing local authorities in some parts of England to pursue an agenda that is antagonistic to special schools and special needs units, effectively denying parents any real choice (Farrell, 2006; Satherly & Norwich, 2021). Appeals against local authority decisions to assess or make appropriate provision for SEND are also increasing (DfE, 2021). In 2019 in England, 6,720 appeals were completed, an increase of 14% on the previous year with 30% more going to a full hearing (Keer, 2020b). Local authorities allocated about £55m of their scarce resources towards defending appeals. In all it is estimated that around £200m has been spent by local authorities defending appeals through Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) from 2014 to 2020, of which 95% were lost in favour of parents (Keer, 2020a). Worryingly, that number only represents the small proportion of parents that are willing and able to fight for what should be provided without the need for such appeals. In September 2020, there were over 190 pupils in the city of Bristol who were waiting in mainstream schools to take up the special school placements named in their EHCPs. This is thought to be symptomatic of a similar pattern in many other parts of the country (Keer, 2021a). Many parents have tried to campaign for the retention, or building, of new special schools as they felt strongly that mainstream schooling would be inappropriate for their children.

Perspective of parents on inclusion

109

When parents are turned down by local authorities for a special school place, a tribunal hearing is of little use if there are no special school places available. In a number of local authorities, parents decided they had no choice but to raise the profile of their personal cases with a public campaign, knowing that many other parents in a similar position would be prepared to support them. One such case was Carly’s petition, in Norfolk (BBC News, 2021) which caught the attention of the national news. She spoke up for her own son and others in the county. After months of public campaigning, and thanks to raising her son’s profile on the national news, she was finally granted a place for him to start at a special school in January 2022. Another parent in the community had a 4-year-old child, not yet toilet trained, with Down syndrome. His vision, hearing and speech were impaired, and he was highly emotionally volatile. Nonetheless, the local authority expected him to attend a mainstream school. ‘This is a crisis for my child,’ his mother said, ‘and for hundreds of other children and their families… I don’t know what the answers are but somebody needs to find them, and fast’ (BBC News, 2021).

Demand for special school places exceeding provision With an increase of 13% year-on-year of EHCPs in mainstream schools (including units, resource bases, and non-specialist independent schools), it was estimated that in 2021 there were 15,000 young people with identified SEND with EHCPs but no provision for them, a problem that appears to exist throughout England (Keer, 2021a). Over 5,600 children and young people with EHCPs were listed as ‘awaiting provision’ and outside of education in January 2021, as there was a rapid increase following the start of the pandemic. Since there is often a mismatch between official government records and local authority reports, it is thought that this may only represent the tip of the iceberg. As of January 2021, local authorities reported that 15,000 children and young people with EHCPs weren’t in any form of education, employment or training at all. That number has nearly doubled over just two years. Whilst it’s likely that the pandemic has played a part, there were over 11,000 young people in this category in the months prior to lockdown (Keer, 2021a). The parent and professional ‘Campaign for Change group (Suffolk Send)’ was set up to instigate positive change within Suffolk County Council’s SEND department. Its purpose is to make changes to current policies, to improve communication and transparency and for there to be enforcement of delivery of the legal requirements of support for children with SEND. However, the group’s efforts to have their recommendations met have been frustrated by the lack of an independent audit of the local authority. The group has written to the council calling for immediate and decisive action to deal with ‘failing systems,’ asking for more than investment alone. They claimed that council officers were engaged in ‘a spiralling process of cost-saving through ever more desperate attempts to avoid their statutory duties’ (Sandalls, 2021). They demanded an independent legal audit of the county’s Special Educational Needs and Disability processes as well as staff training.

110 Perspective of parents on inclusion An East Anglian news report described how, despite significant efforts on the part of the school to persuade a young anxious autistic child to attend school, the child would do everything possible to make themself sick to avoid going. Despite 22 advisory documents from different professionals, an EHCP assessment request was refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence, resulting in the child receiving no education for 16 months. The county is relatively poorly funded compared to other areas of England (Sandalls, 2021), impacting significantly on children without EHCPs, who nonetheless require high levels of support. Whilst in theory it is possible to apply for additional funding for children without an EHCP, the process of applying for high needs funding for new applicants, or upgrading existing ones, remains fraught with requirements to produce large quantities of evidence (SCC, 2022). The many additional hours of work involved serves as an understandable disincentive for schools, which are often deterred from claiming for high level funding unless it has been already approved through an existing EHCP.

School leadership accountability for SEND to parents Whilst there have been recent efforts to update the Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2022), without more specific requirements it is unlikely to recommend the solutions parents are looking for. For example, there is no requirement for a school to demonstrate the specific way in which different types and degrees of SEND are supported or the staffing levels committed to providing that support. There is no requirement to show exactly how a child’s EHCP is being implemented or how funding from the High Needs budget is accounted for. There is no requirement to assess the process through which the headteacher and SENDCo inform one another about SEND needs in the school or how they work out the best way to distribute the full range of funding it receives for the support of all pupils with SEND. There is no requirement for schools to demonstrate to Ofsted how many children with high levels of SEND are being supported in a mainstream classroom by a single teacher at any one time, or the range or levels of need of the students involved. There is no specified SEND training requirement for teachers of special needs units or other special resource provisions. There is no need for schools to demonstrate any evidence-based pedagogical programmes of support. There is no requirement to provide evidence of how teachers are supported by the leadership team in classes where there is a child with particularly challenging behaviour. There is no requirement for Ofsted to have discussions with teachers at all levels about how they are coping with the delivery of their subject to the full spectrum of pupil needs in their class and whether they feel appropriately supported. There is no need to check whether there is anyone with training in the SEND Code of Practice on the board of governors to represent the children in the local area (Ofsted, 2022). As long as these more specific measures for the implementation of support for pupils with SEND are not an integral part of the inspection process, schools and local authorities will remain unaccountable to parents for the funding and quality of provision made for their children with SEND.

Perspective of parents on inclusion

111

The merging of special schools with ‘alternative provision’ Children in special schools can also feel excluded, not because they aren’t in a mainstream school but because the special school itself is not sufficiently resourced to cater for a diverse range of needs. The children themselves are often the first to recognise that they do not fit the provision in the way they had hoped. For example, a special school in East Anglia, where one of the authors worked, had a focus on social, emotional and mental health. It was later amalgamated, by an Academy Trust, with another special school for autism. The same special school then also started to include children with moderate learning difficulties. The unintended consequence was that in one class of 12 children, there was such a wide range of SEND that none of the children’s individual needs could be properly met, as explained below. One very capable ASD student was happy that he did not have to go to a mainstream school anymore because his hyper-sensory needs and idiosyncratic social behaviour made him feel uncomfortable in a busy mainstream environment where he felt overwhelmed by sensory stimuli. Neither did he feel he fitted into his class in his new special school because it was largely for children with severe behavioural issues and attachment disorders. He was a highly motivated individual from a supportive, stable home but had no chance of realising his own potential in either setting. He knew that he was more able than the rest of the class but did not want to be given different work because his main aim at that point in his life was to fit in and not feel different from those around him. He was continually distracted by the tension and unpredictable atmosphere created by other children in the class. Their behaviour was not only challenging but posed an almost continuous sense of physical and psychological risk to the safety and well-being of himself and everyone else in the class. Another child was rejected by the other pupils because he was by far the greatest risk to them physically. He assaulted other children and members of staff on a regular basis and made everyone feel unsafe. In response, he felt angry because of their rejection which helped to perpetuate the cycle. Clearly, he needed to be educated away from other children on a one-to-one or even two-to-one basis. The latter arrangement would have been both for the protection of other children and himself while undergoing the necessary therapeutic help he needed. Another child, at an age of 4 years, was intellectually and emotionally working below his peers. Although he blithely accepted the situation, and staff did their best to personalise his learning, it was clear that he required a different level of attention and personalised curriculum that could give him more time, expertise and focused attention. In addition, two other students felt out of place and unable to participate in the learning because of self-consciousness about their gender. The special school was ill equipped to meet the learning and emotional needs of many students whilst they were aiming to meet such a wide range of different and high levels of needs. It had inadequate funds to afford the

112 Perspective of parents on inclusion additional staffing levels necessary to make the provision effective. Many of the staff lacked the expertise to manage serious behaviour outbursts and felt physically unsafe. The building itself was dilapidated with an atmosphere of 1950s functionality at best,. Its dire need for refurbishment included cordoned off rooms still containing asbestos. The classroom resources were minimal, lacking basic equipment like flip charts, whiteboard pens, a library of well catalogued books and laptops for students. Essentially it was more reminiscent of a prison than a modern school and reinforced the view (Cigman, 2007) that these SEND children had been side-lined into a category of those who did not deserve any greater respect. It was a shocking indictment of what is deemed acceptable by a new academy trust in the post 2014 era of SEND reform. It is easy to see that in such a ‘special school,’ the lack of consideration for what was really necessary to support its vulnerable children, the impression of being a place of last resort would be perpetuated. Schools such as this are in contrast to some other special schools with highquality well-resourced specialist provision. Whilst we consider the future value of special education provision as an alternative to mainstream schooling, we argue that its success should be evaluated on the basis of evidence of student outcomes of inclusion into their communities, post-school (see Chapter 9). Since many young people with high SEND needs have experienced their learning environments as psychologically unsafe, alternative school placements need to offer them the time and opportunity to rehabilitate and overcome their anxieties about learning and socialising. If a school does not inspire confidence and happiness, there is little hope for anyone to learn.

Tutoring – ‘inclusion’ or ‘segregation’? The understandable response for many parents who recognise that their child needs help to address gaps in their learning is through one-to-one tutoring. This requires a quiet separated space away from other children and distractions. This style of learning could hardly be further removed from the experience of learning in a classroom of 29 other students. Arguably, tutoring could be considered simultaneously the ultimate form of inclusion and segregation. It separates a child completely from their peers while giving them a uniquely personalised curriculum and pedagogy that is developed specifically for them. Previous research has asserted that the most effective interventions for students with disabilities employ intensive, individualised instruction, combined with careful and systematic monitoring of students’ progress, irrespective of the educational context (Hocutt, 1996, cited in Lopes & Oliveira, 2021, p. 2). Since the pandemic lockdowns, there has been a dramatic increase in parental demand for one-to-one tutoring (Rowe, 2021). The UK Government’s response for children who had fallen far behind during the pandemic was to establish a National Tutoring Programme (NTP) (DfE, 2021–2022) for the most disadvantaged pupils (Gibbons, 2020a). This was an endorsement of the idea that ‘segregated’ education is the most appropriate response to helping children overcome their learning gaps.

Perspective of parents on inclusion

113

Lessons could be planned exclusively and holistically around the child’s individual needs. In this way children are totally included in the entire learning process in a way that is exclusive to them.

Positive and negative exclusion When a school system doesn’t work, families take matters into their own hands and opt out. The failure of the theory of inclusion to be able to prove that it can be effectively implemented (see Chapter 3) pushes parents to respond in any way they can in the interests of their own children. Forcing society to accept a policy of inclusion of a small but significant minority of pupils with SEND, without considering its consequences for other pupils, can cause families to fall back on their own intuitive understanding about what their children most need. Some choose to battle through the courts for a special school place, either state-funded or in an independent school. For some with the resources to do so, the only option is clear – to withdraw from the mainstream and spend a large proportion of their income on private school fees. For others, the solution is found in home-schooling.

Home-schooling – why it’s on the rise The House of Commons Education Select Committee (HoC, 2019) raised concerns about the under reporting of the rise in number of students receiving home education. A survey of councils in 2020 identified a 38% increase in elective home education between 2019 and 2020, which is thought to have been on the rise since 2012 (Belger, 2021b). There are many different reasons why parents choose to home educate their children, but one frequent reason given is that over time they have experienced increasing frustration about the lack of support available for their children while they were in the school system. ‘Parents/carers sometimes felt that their concerns in relation to SEND and well-being were not taken seriously by school staff, leaving them feeling isolated and powerless’ (Smith et al., 2020, p. 5). From our own experience in schools, we recognised that such decisions sometimes followed long periods of school refusal, as also discussed in a Guardian report (Millar, 2020). ‘The best thing I could ever have done for my five children who, after a miserable time, are now happy and thriving.’ These were the words of one mother in Suffolk who recently spoke to one of the authors about her eight years’ experience of home-schooling following a critical decision that her dyslexic children’s best interests were not being served well within their mainstream school. Observing this mother’s children spontaneously interacting as integrated and confident individuals, one would hardly wish for anything more for them. She explained how happy and confident they had become, as well as significantly more motivated to learn, since she had become their teacher at home. There is an implied disdain amongst much of the UK education fraternity for those who choose to home educate. However, much could be learned from

114 Perspective of parents on inclusion those who take the initiative to do so seriously. Many children have gained huge benefits from giving up their place within their local school and receiving a more relevant and appropriate education at home. We have met many home-schooled children who come across as happy, relaxed, socially integrated and successful in their learning. Again and again, we hear the main reasons for home-schooling are: a) to improve the emotional well-being and mental health of the child; b) to provide appropriate support to overcome an unmet educational need; c) to provide children with an appropriate and relevant curriculum; and d) to facilitate positive social contact and prevent bullying. What more could a parent want than for their children to be well motivated to learn, and to be confident, happy and socially integrated? That is not to say it would be possible or desirable for every parent to choose to home-school their children, but where it can be done willingly and well, it may be a preferable option and arguably more ‘inclusive’ than a poorly resourced ‘inclusive’ mainstream school.

Concluding comments In this chapter we have considered what parents want for their children and have examined the factors that affect this. There is a clear disparity around the UK between those who receive adequate provision for their children with SEND and those with little hope of it. The tragedy is that so many families have had to fight hard for what is their child’s legitimate right to an appropriate education. The Government has had to respond to pressure from parent groups and been forced to spend more on SEND, yet the increase in funding is not expected to be enough to improve provision for the majority of children. The UK Government has so far resisted the (UN CRPD, 2016) call for greater levels of inclusion and, after a period of closing special schools down, has now reasserted its right to maintain special schools in England. Local authorities that were relatively well-funded have tended to have a higher percentage of pupils in special schools or resource bases in mainstream schools (Gibbons, 2021b), reflecting differences in provision in different parts of the country. It seems clear that there would be strong resistance to a move towards full inclusion by parents, since for many their experience of SEND provision in mainstream schools has been a cause for concern and frustration. Many parents in counties across the country have little sense that equitability is to be found in inclusive mainstream schools. Their primary concern is to secure high-quality provision whether it is in the mainstream or a special school. Research over time has repeatedly shown that the involvement of parents is essential in facilitating optimum outcomes for the education of children with SEND (Hornby, 2011; Kauffman et al., 2022). It is arguably a democratic response to listen to parents’ views and allow them to help shape future policy for SEND. In the words of Brahm Norwich, ‘We need a much more democratic participative approach to this idea of inclusive education’ (Norwich cited in Banks, 2021). The pressure group website known as ‘Special Needs Jungle’

Perspective of parents on inclusion

115

has enabled parents to better understand government policy and the incongruities of its implementation. It has provided them with a space to discuss the realities of SEND provision in schools and it has exposed how their rights as parents to an effective education for all children with SEND is far from being achieved. It also enables parents and other professionals to have an informed debate about the future of special education provision.

References ABA (2020). Anti-Bullying Alliance. Do children with SEND experience more bullying? https://anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/tools-information/all-about-bullying/at-risk-groups/ sen-disability/do-children-send-experience-more. Adams, R. (2021, May 13). Pupils in England ‘waiting up to five years for special needs plan. Special educational needs. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/educa tion/2021/may/13/pupils-in-england-waiting-up-to-five-years-for-special-needs-plansays-ofsted. Banks, J. (2021a, March 4). Interview with Professor Brahm Norwich [Season 1, Audio podcast episode 14]. In Inclusion Dialogue. https://audioboom.com/posts/7814450-inter view-with-professor-brahm-norwich. BBC News (2021, March 10). Norfolk parents push for tribunal over shortage of special school places. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-56338717. Belanger, N., & Gougeon, N. A. (2009). Inclusion on the agenda in four different school contexts in Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec). Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/fnjztw. Belger, T. (2021a, May 19). Councils in deficit told to find SEND savings in exchange for £100m bailouts. Schools Week. News. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/councils-recei ve-conditional-send-special-needs-school-funding-bailouts/. Belger, T. (2021b, July 26). MPs tell government to ‘shake up status quo’ on home education. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/elective-home-education-schoo ling-guidance-dfe-rules-mps/. Black, A. (2019). A picture of special educational needs in England – An overview. Frontiers in Education, 4(79). https://doi.org/gh7d4c. CCSS (2021). Suffolk County Council is failing. Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. https://www.suffolksendcrisis.org/. Castleton, S. (2018, November). I’ve been bullied at school for most of my life. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/ive-been-bullied-at-school-for-m ost-of-my-life-how-siena-is-helping-other-autistic-schoolchildren-like-her/. Castro, S., & Palikara, O. (2016, November). Mind the gap: The new special educational needs and disability legislation in England. Frontiers in Education, 1(4). https://doi.org/ g54m. Chambers, D., & Forlin, C. (2021). An historical review from exclusion to inclusion in Western Australia across the past five decades: What have we learnt? Education Sciences, 11, 119. https://doi.org/gj2qnz. Chatzitheochari, S. (2020, June 29). Bullying Experiences of Disabled Children and Young People in England. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/chatzitheo chari/childhooddisability/. Cigman, R. (2007). A Question of Universality: Inclusive Education and the Principle of Respect. Journal of Philosophy of Education. https://doi.org/dds9jt.

116 Perspective of parents on inclusion DfE (2014). Children and Families Act 2014. c. 6. 3 (UK). https://www.legislation.gov. uk/ukpga/2014/6/part/3/enacted. DfE (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education. DfE (2017). Preventing and tackling bullying: Advice for headteachers, staff and governing bodies. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/623895/Preventing_and_tackling_bullying_advice.pdf. DfE (2021). Education, health and care plans: England 2021. National statistics. https:// www.gov.uk/government/statistics/education-health-and-care-plans-england-2021. DfE (2021–2022). National Tutoring Programme. https://nationaltutoring.org.uk/. Farrell, M. (2006). Celebrating the Special School. Fulton. Felder, F. (2019, September 5). Inclusive education, the dilemma of identity and the common good. Theory and Research in Education, 17(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/gzfm. Gibbons, A. (2020a, November, 3). Exclusive: Tutoring demand outstrips forecasts by 500%. TES magazine online. https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-exclusive-tutor ing-demand-outstrips-forecasts-500. Gibbons, A. (2021b, October, 25). SEND: Government to pledge 30,000 new school places. TES Magazine. https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/specialist-sector/sendgovernment-pledge-30000-new-school-places. Gonzalez-Calatayud, V., Roman-Garcia, M., & Prendes-Espinosa, P. (2021). Knowledge about bullying by young adults with special educational needs with or without disabilities (SEN/D). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 622517. https://doi.org/hjrp. Gov.uk (2020/21). Special educational needs in England. https://explore-education-sta tistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england. Harris, J. (2017,September 5). “People give up”: the crisis in school support for children with special needs. The Guardian: International edition. https://www.theguardian.com/ education/2017/sep/05/crisis-in-support-for-sen-children-ehc-plans. Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: is placement the critical factor? Future Child, 6(1), 77–102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8689263/. Hornby, G. (1992). Integration of children with special educational needs: Is it time for a policy review? Support for Learning, 7(3), 130–134. Hornby, G. (1999). Inclusion or delusion: can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 14(4), 152–157. https://doi.org/c89f5k. Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education: Building effective school-family partnerships. Springer. House of Commons Education Committee Report (2019, October 23). Special educational needs and disabilities. First Report. HC20. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201919/cmselect/cmeduc/20/20.pdf. House of Commons Education Committee (2019, October 23). HC20. First Report. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmeduc/20/20.pdf. Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Crockett, J. B., Felder, M., Hallahan, D. P., Hornby, G., Lopes, J., Pullen, P. C., & Smith, C.R. (2022). Parents’ and educators’ perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities. In C. Boyle & K. A. Allen (Eds.). Research for quality inclusive education: Sustainable development goals series, pp.205–217. Springer. Keer, M. (2018, August 6). Legal victory for Bristol parents against SEND cuts – what does it mean for other areas? Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle. com/legal-victory-bristol-parents-against-send-cuts-what-mean-other-areas/.

Perspective of parents on inclusion

117

Keer, M. (2020a,December 11). 95% of decisions in favour of parents, but nobody wins at The SEND Tribunal. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/ 95-decisions-favour-parents-nobody-wins-send-tribunal/. Keer, M. (2020b, December 15). Blockbusting: What’s Happened to the £780m in Extra SEND Funding? Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/ blockbusting-whats-happened-780m-extra-send-funding/. Keer, M. (2021a, May 14). 15000 disabled learners with EHCPs but no provision: The EHCP figures for 2021. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/ 15000- disabled-learners-with-ehcps-but-no-provision-the-ehcp-figures-for-2021/. Keer, M. (2021b, June 25). SEND in schools 2021: Waiting for the other shoe to drop? Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/send-schools-2021-waitin g-other-shoe-drop/. Keer, M. (2021c, December 10). Councils wasted £253 million fighting parents at the SEND. Tribunal since 2014 reforms. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjun gle.com/councils-wasted-253-million-fighting-parents-send-tribunal-2014-reforms/. Lamb, B. (2009). Report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and Disability Information. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9042/1/Lamb%20Inquiry%20Review %20of%20SEN%20and%20Disability%20Information.pdf. Lehane, T. (2016). “SEN’s completely different now”: critical discourse analysis of three “Codes of Practice for Special Educational Needs” (1994, 2001, 2015). Educational Review, 69(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/g6z8. Local Government Lawyer (LGL) (2019, October 29). MoJ data suggests 95% of SEN Tribunal cases lost, withdrawn or conceded by local Authorities, claims charity. https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/education-law/394-educationnews/41778-moj-data-suggests-95-of-sen-tribunal-cases-lost-withdrawn-or-conced ed-by-local-authorities-claims-charity. Long, R., Roberts, N., & Loft, P. (2020a, February 4). Bullying in UK Schools. House of Commons Briefing Paper. 8812. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/ documents/CBP-8812/CBP-8812.pdf. Long, R., Roberts, N., Danechi, S., & Loft, P. (2020b, April, 16). Special Educational Needs: support in England. House of Commons Library. Briefing Paper, Number 07020. Lopes, J. L., & Oliveira, C. R. (2021). Inclusive Education in Portugal: Teachers’ Professional Development, Working Conditions and Instructional Efficacy. Education Sciences, 11(4), 169. https://doi.org/gk9xkt. Millar, F. (2020, November, 14). ‘It was damaging him’: the spiralling number of children refusing to go to school. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ education/2020/nov/14/it-was-damaging-him-the-spiralling-number-of-childrenrefusing-to-go-to-school. Morgan, F. (2019, October, 19). Is school “refusal” really refusal? Navigating a System designed for neurotypical children. Learning Disability Today. https://www.learningdisa bilitytoday.co.uk/2019/is-school-refusal-really-refusal-navigating-a-system-designed-for -neurotypical-children#:~:text=‘Not%20Fine%20in%20School’%20is,the%20same%20 support%20to%20thrive. Ofsted (2019, October). Exploring moving to home education in secondary schools. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 936259/Exploring_moving_into_home_education.pdf. Ofsted (2022). School inspection handbook. https://www.gov.uk/government/publica tions/school-inspection-handbook-eif/school-inspection-handbook.

118 Perspective of parents on inclusion Reeve, M. (2017, September 28) School leadership and SEND ignorance. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/school-leadership-and-send-ignorance/. Rowe, S. (2021). The UK’s rise of ‘Shadow Education’ – an overall benefit or a contribution to further inequality? https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/socialpolicy/2021/05/07/the-uks-ri se-of-shadow-education-an-overall-benefit-or-a-contribution-to-further-inequality/. Sandalls, K. (2021,June 4). Parents call for independent audit of council’s SEND services. East Anglian Daily Times. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/education/suffolk-countycouncil-send-audit-called-for-8023824. Satherley, D., & Norwich, B. (2021). Parents’ experiences of choosing a special school for their children. European Journal of Special Needs Education. https://doi.org/g3cv. SCC (2022, March) High Needs Funding. Suffolk County Council. https://suffolklea rning.com/inclusion/high-needs-funding/. Smith, K., Dickerson, C., & Smith, J. (2020). Exploring the reasons why people home educate in Hertfordshire. Full Report. https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/micro sites/local-offer/media-library/documents/full-report-exploring-the-reasons-why-p eople-home-educate-in-hertfordshire-pdf842kb.pdf. Terzi, L. (ed.) (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. Continuum. Tirraoro, T. (2019a, October 7). A setback at the High Court, but parents’ SEND action goes on. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/setback-a t-high-court-parents-send-action-goes-on/. Tirraoro, T. (2019b, June 28). Judge: A remarkable achievement for parents to take the government to court. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/ judge-a-remarkable-achievement-for-parents-to-take-the-government-to-court/. Tirraoro, T. (2020, October 13). More than one in three disabled pupils experience bullying in mainstream school, plus other concerning SEND stats. Special Needs Jungle, https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/more-one-in-three-disabled-pupils-exp erience-bullying-mainstream-school-other-concerning-send-stats/. UNCRDP (2016). Article 24: Right to inclusive education: General comment No. 4. United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). http s://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/Con ventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#24. UNESCO (2018, October 1). New SDG 4 Data on Bullying. Institute for Statistics. http://uis.unesco.org/en/news/new-sdg-4-data-bullying. UNESCO (2020). Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. UNESCO. Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: A New Look. In L. Terzi (Ed.). Special Educational Needs (pp. 11–45). Continuum International. Weale, S. (2018, October, 31). Families go to high court to oppose Hackney’s SEN cuts. The Guardian online. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/31/families-go-tohigh-court-london-to-challenge-hackney-council-sen-special-educational-needs-cuts. Weale, S. (2019, October 23). Special educational needs reforms ‘failing generation of children.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/oct/23/sp ecial-educational-needs-reforms-failing-generation-of-children/.

7

Inclusion of pupils with different types of SEND

Introduction In this chapter we focus on implications for the UNESCO (2020) agenda of working towards full inclusion of the wide variety of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) experienced by children attending mainstream schools. Currently, legislation applicable in England acknowledges that a full range of SEND exists in schools (DfE, 2014a & b; DfE, 2015a). However, it does not address how teachers should manage the full diversity of SEND and implement the support that should be provided within mainstream classrooms. As we will see in Chapter 8, it is this ambiguity in national legislation that contributes to inclusion being so complicated and challenging for many schools. If inclusion is to provide effective support for children with SEND, it is vital that governments, as well as teachers and schools, recognise the extent and degree of special needs that must be provided for. To clarify exactly what this means, the specific issues that need to be addressed for each type of SEND present in mainstream schools are outlined below.

Implications of specific SEND for inclusion Children with speech and language difficulties In 2020, speech, language and communication represented 21.9% of all SEND needs in England and was the most common type of SEND amongst all the recorded learning difficulties (DfE, 2021). Of students with speech and language difficulties only 23.7% have an EHCP, which means that the majority of them do not. Therefore, mainstream school teachers need specific skills and a good awareness of the extensive support needed by pupils with a wide range of frequently unidentified speech and language difficulties. Teachers need to not only recognise the different symptoms of speech and language difficulties but also understand their different underlying causes in order to support them effectively. These are mainly skills over and above those developed in their initial training. One of us worked with a child aged four years who was noticeably reluctant to engage and interact with other children, which for nearly a year her teacher DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-7

120 Pupils with different types of SEND put down to laziness and inappropriate behaviour. When the child was finally seen by a specialist, she was found to have a severe and complex speech disorder, which qualified her for a two-year placement at a special unit for children with speech and language difficulties. It was hoped that the child would continue to have support for as long as she needed it after she returned to mainstream education, but this wasn’t something that could be taken for granted. Many students with these types of needs are discharged from specialist support services well before they reach secondary school, yet their difficulties continue to have a significant effect on their learning. Mainstream high school subject teachers are expected to compensate for these difficulties with the few simple support strategies learned during their initial training and some incidental training on occasional Continuous Professional Development days. However, in many cases this is not enough to provide effectively for such children (Gallagher et al., 2019). The effects of developmental language disorders can have a long-term impact on school performance and personal development, well-being and mental health, as well as employment prospects (Langbecker et al., 2020). A disproportionate number of these children drop out of school and as adults experience socio-economic hardship. The consequences of not providing sufficient ongoing support for children with any form of language impairment from early on in their development can therefore have a long-term impact on the individual’s prospects and has implications for the wider society (Langbecker et al., 2020). Children with specific learning difficulties Specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) are amongst the most common types of special educational needs, affecting up to 15% of the population (APPG, 2019), with dyslexia representing 5–10 % of the UK population (Carroll et al., 2020). The UK Government data reports that SpLDs make up 12.2% of all types of SEND in education (DfE, 2021). A key difficulty in knowing precise numbers of those affected is at least partly due to inconsistencies about diagnosis (Carroll, 2020). Despite the devastating impact of unaddressed SpLD needs (APPG, 2019), schools have a very poor rate of identification (APPG, 2019; Carroll et al., 2020) and only 3.6% of those pupils with SpLDs are provided with EHCPs to address their difficulties (DfE, 2021; Valance & Rothwell, 2020). In view of the fact that these difficulties involve the acquisition of the most fundamental academic skills, including reading, writing, number and receptive and expressive language skills, they are the most relevant to providing children with the foundations for all their future learning. When the significance of these difficulties is overlooked, it has profound consequences, not just for individuals, but for society as a whole. In our experience, we have found that it is the inadequate identification and support of pupils with SpLDs that is the greatest source of parental concern, the ill effects of which are compounded by time and age, impacting significantly on students’ long-term prospects. It is important for schools to recognise the degree to which pupils experience these difficulties, as they exist on a wide

Pupils with different types of SEND 121 spectrum and can commonly co-exist with other types of special needs. Amongst the population of children with SpLD, it is estimated that 52% of them also have Developmental Co-ordination Disorder (DCD) or dyspraxia that can affect both gross and fine motor skills (Dyspraxia Foundation, 2022). Recent research also demonstrates the importance of not only early identification but also ongoing monitoring and the need to reassess to what extent those difficulties can affect a student’s learning over time (Carroll et al., 2020). It is all too easy to dismiss SpLDs because of their not causing an overall cognitive impairment, but they can certainly affect cognitive functioning (Carroll, 2020). Within the school learning environment and in adult life they can be debilitating for pupils if not addressed appropriately at the right time. The problem of emotional exclusion within mainstream schools experienced by children with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs and ASD, as described by Warnock (2005) (cited in Banks, 2010), can be equally experienced by children with severe forms of dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia. Typically, students with these difficulties do not initially present teachers with challenging behaviours. They present differently from those with SEMH or autism because their symptoms are not directly linked to inappropriate behaviour, although of course, secondary behavioural issues may emerge in response to their frustrations. Simply because students do not make life difficult for the teacher, or other students, does not mean that they are in an environment in which they feel included. In our experience, parents of dyslexic children complain about this problem regularly, despite the common support strategies employed in the classroom. The distress it causes children can easily be overlooked, particularly in many busy senior school classrooms in which a sense of shame can cause them to do their best to avoid being noticed (APPG, 2019). One example of this was of a severely dyslexic 12-year-old boy in a senior school in the East of England, who had developed an ‘art form’ out of keeping a low profile and not drawing anyone’s attention to what he could not understand. Amazingly, he had managed to dupe many teachers into believing that he was coping just fine, despite being able to read few of the basic instructions written on the board. Neither could he read the text or any of the explanations in the books to which teachers were referring. Nonetheless he gave the appearance of coping and kept on smiling. It eventually became apparent that he had acquired a few very good friends on whom he could rely to discretely copy from. His beautiful handwriting, his attentive look and his ability to concentrate on completing tasks as asked made him a master of disguise. He could sit through hours of lessons each day and learn almost nothing. Some local authorities such as Warwickshire and Staffordshire (Bodkin, 2019) and leaders in education have jumped into the dyslexia debate to attempt to discredit the existence of it as a condition and an excuse not to consider it within their criteria as worthy of funding for additional provision. This is despite dyslexia being recognised in the Equality Act 2010 (DfE, 2014) as a potentially substantial and long-term condition deserving of ‘reasonable adjustments.’ It is shocking that any such debate should arise since most of the

122 Pupils with different types of SEND argument about its existence is concerned with the clinical difficulty in narrowing down criteria for a formal diagnosis. Such is the case with many medical, as well as SEND, conditions that lie on a spectrum that often overlap with other conditions. It should not be a reason to restrict full appropriate assessment and support of children with specific learning difficulties. Recent parliamentary bill debate (Hancock, 2022) has considered concerns about labelling children as the rationale for not introducing assessments for all children at the point of school entry. An alternative proposal was for a universal assessment of year 6 pupils at the end of primary school. The unfounded anxiety about labelling reflects a position of paralysis between rational recognition of the need to address needs early and appropriately and the desire to conform to an ideological view of inclusion that aims to jettison labelling on principle. How many undiagnosed adults today with dyslexia would regret having been labelled if it had led to more appropriate teaching and support before they suffered a sense of failure? Arguably, refusal to address the needs of children with dyslexia has only one positive outcome, that is reduced expenditure for government and education authorities in the short term. The negative long-term outcomes are a massive strain on the public purse when we consider how many children’s potential careers are blighted by lack of appropriate provision. Thus, inadequate remedial action will continue to cost national economies far more in the long run (Emanuel, 2016). The reality is that nearly all classrooms from early childhood education through to secondary schools will have at least one to three pupils with some degree of SpLD that will have a long-term impact on their progress if not effectively addressed and supported (Hancock, 2022). Children with moderate learning difficulties Adults with moderate learning difficulties (MLD) or moderate intellectual impairment, make up the highest percentage of the population without qualifications in the UK (Office for National Statistics, 2019). Research suggests that about 2.5% of all pupils have MLD (Emmerson & Hatton, 2008). Many but not all of them will have an EHCP, and about 26% of those children that do are educated in mainstream schools (Public Health England [PHE], 2020). Mainstream teachers therefore are in practice already required to meet the needs of many children with MLD. Children with moderate learning difficulties are typically assessed as having IQs in the 50 to 75 range and can be working at levels between 1 and 6 years behind their age peers. The extent to which teachers need to adapt their teaching cannot be underestimated particularly as the gap with the pupils’ peers widens as they go through secondary school. Government guidance for teachers states that: Their needs will not be able to be met by normal differentiation and the flexibilities of the National Curriculum’… [they] have much greater difficulty than peers in acquiring basic literacy and numeracy skills and in understanding concepts. They may also have speech and language delay,

Pupils with different types of SEND 123 low self-esteem, low levels of concentration and underdeveloped social skills (DfE, 2003, p. 6, cited in Farrell, 2010). It is therefore necessary to provide such students in mainstream classes with an individualised curriculum which, depending on a school’s resources, may or may not be supported, at all times, with the help of a teaching assistant. It is perhaps unsurprising that children with MLD are markedly more likely to be excluded than children with no SEND (PHE, 2020). They are also considerably more likely to be excluded than those with severe learning difficulties or profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) who are usually accommodated in special schools or with high levels of one-to-one support in mainstream schools (PHE, 2020). Research shows that it is untenable to pretend that students who need to learn basic social and self-care skills will receive appropriate teaching for this within a mainstream classroom (Kauffman et al., 2022). This suggests that the needs of many students with MLD in mainstream schools are unlikely to be appropriately addressed, given the current level of resources. That is, they are being inadequately supported in a supposedly inclusive environment. An example of this was when one of the authors met a child described as working at ‘pre-key stage one’ levels in English and Maths when she was transitioning from her primary to a mainstream secondary school. This meant she was effectively six years behind her peers and yet she had not been provided with an EHCP to ensure any protected level of provision. Teachers were nonetheless expected to adapt their teaching for her within the mainstream classroom. This was a significant challenge that took secondary school teachers into the realm of the early primary school curriculum with which they had little experience. The additional instruction and support time needed by that child was inversely proportionate to the time available to her class teachers, whose attention was required by a number of other pupils with SEND, as well as all those without, in the rest of the class. Yet more concerning is that for children in this position, the stress on them increases as they grow older and more aware of the widening gap between them and their class peers, both academically and socially. The above is a clear example of what Mary Warnock would call ‘exclusion within inclusion’ (Warnock, 2005 p. 32, cited in Terzi, 2010), despite all staff efforts to make ‘environmental accommodations’ to mitigate that effect. Sadly, children with MLD are less likely to be able to articulate or even recognise their feelings of detachment and isolation from their peers until they are considerably older. By this time there is a very real risk that the opportunity to help them make the best of their strengths, and acquire the essential social, vocational and living skills they need in order to be included in their communities, has been lost (Hornby, 2021; Kauffman & Hornby, 2020). Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) can present some of the most complex challenges for teachers. It covers such a wide spectrum of need that the precise

124 Pupils with different types of SEND type of support must be adapted for the individual characteristics of each student. Many ASD students find it difficult to understand the nature of working in groups (Cigman, 2007) so a large busy classroom is inherently challenging. Most teachers have some information to help with their support of children with ASD but find it difficult to adapt their support to the precise degree and complexity of each student’s needs which vary from one individual to another. Students with ASD are particularly susceptible to being triggered by students in the class with other types of SEND. Anticipating their anxiety levels and triggers can be a constant challenge for teachers and can inevitably deflect the student from being able to focus fully on their learning. This not only impacts on their stress levels, but those of the rest of the class, and has a knock-on effect on the teacher’s ability to manage others with additional needs. Over 30% of students in the UK with ASD (as their primary difficulty) have EHCPs, which means they make up the highest proportion of SEND students with a legal mandate for support (DfE, 2021). ASD students are also the most at-risk group for being excluded of all those with EHCPs. From 2011–2018, exclusions of children with ASD increased by at least 44% in every part of England (Ambitious about Autism, 2018) and made up about 59% of all exclusions. Whilst teachers must prioritise meeting their needs as part of the school’s legal requirement, ASD is also the most commonly identified type of SEND for parent EHCP appeals (DfE 2021). Some children with ASD learn strategies that enable them to cope well in a mainstream school environment while others do not (Cigman, 2007). For those who do not cope well, the negative effects can do long-term damage to their school careers. The difference may be in part to do with the ability of the school environment to adapt to the support necessary but is equally to do with the degree of difficulty the child presents. For this reason, there needs to be careful consideration of whether it is realistic to assume that all children with ASD should be included in mainstream schools. The Equality Act (2010) (DfE, 2014a) protects the interests of the individual from not being treated in a way that is similar to others if it means being discriminated against. ‘Indirect discrimination occurs when treating all pupils in the same way results in putting pupils with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage’ (CSIE:2, 2018; DfE, 2014a). It could be argued therefore, that assuming all pupils with ASD should by default be included in mainstream schools, is inadvertently discriminating against them. Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder The percentage of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) varies considerably between countries (Polanczyk, 2007; Walsh, 2021), from between 2% to over 9%, depending to a large degree on methods of diagnosis. In the UK it is thought to affect approximately 5% of children (AHSN, 2021). As one of the most commonly reported types of SEND (Walsh, 2021), research indicates that the prevalence is significantly higher amongst economically disadvantaged groups

Pupils with different types of SEND 125 (Ogundele, 2012). From a teacher’s point of view, additional training, experience and pupil knowledge is needed to manage students with ADHD in mainstream classes. Evidence suggests that the child’s difficulties are likely to become more obvious in a secondary school environment than primary, since identification increases significantly as pupils grow older (Saline, 2021). Notably, ADHD and ADD do not feature as a type of SEND within the statistics published by the DfE (2021). The numbers are subsumed within other categories, such as SEMH, ASD or SpLD, with which ADHD often displays co-occurring symptoms (Avni et al., 2018; Carroll, 2020; Zablotsky, 2020). The challenges for teachers in mainstream classrooms are considerable, not just because of ADHD students’ difficulties in being able to concentrate on learning for any length of time, but because of their difficulties in controlling their responses to inadvertent triggers in their immediate environment. High levels of teacher skill are often necessary to support children in learning how to manage their behaviour when interacting in a classroom with their peers. In our experience, the challenges escalate rapidly when there is more than one child with the condition or other students with high levels of SEND in the class. External factors make life more difficult for the student if their own needs are exacerbated by anxiety or other co-occurring emotional or mental health difficulties. Nearly two-thirds of children with ADHD have at least one other condition, including anxiety, depression or learning disabilities (Saline, 2021). It is a condition which, due to manifesting different symptoms in boys, schools are often slower to recognise in girls. However, there is now a growing awareness of previously undetected ADHD in girls (Saline, 2021). All students with severe ADHD require high degrees of teacher attention, preparation and follow-up time which can add to stress levels affecting everyone in the class. Currently, we are not aware of any policies to limit the number of children with ADHD or other students with SEND in one classroom, and yet the onus is on a single teacher, often without the support of an additional adult such as a TA, to make appropriate adjustments for each of their students with SEND. When, at a minimum, a teacher detects the need to invest time in building a strong relationship with a student, it is often not realistically achievable when they are working without support, and contact is limited to less than three lessons a week. An ADHD student’s behaviour challenges can often deflect attention from an awareness of other underlying difficulties. This is especially true when a school knows there is little chance of a local authority assessment leading to an EHCP for a student who appears able but whose behaviour is challenging. All too often, we have seen how this lack of official recognition, despite having a clinical ADHD diagnosis, can leave students without an EHCP and lacking any meaningful support throughout most of their school careers. They are left unprotected by the law that states, ‘schools have a legal duty to make “reasonable adjustments” for disabled students’ (DfE, 2014b). This is another reason why it can be unhelpful to use levels of attainment only to draw a distinction between those eligible or otherwise for legally protected provision via an EHCP.

126 Pupils with different types of SEND Children with conduct disorder or disruptive behaviour The effects of conduct disorder, which presents as disruptive behaviour in the classroom, can also influence the well-being of a whole class and even an entire school. It may be the means children use to signal to those around them that something in their past or present has gone seriously wrong and has not been properly addressed. Continuing to include children who are sending this message in mainstream classes can both reinforce the damage to them and impact on everyone else. For example, findings of one study showed negative effects on other students’ academic outcomes, interpersonal skills, behavioural problems, and self-control, all of which are predictive of school and lifelong success (Gottfried, 2014). Research consistently shows that challenging behaviour can be related to students’ unmet educational needs, such as speech and language or learning difficulties (IPSEA, 2021; Lapointe, 2017; Meredith, 2021). Parliamentary advice to the UK Government was that ‘Many children with behavioural difficulties will also have underlying mental health conditions affecting their behaviour’ (HoC, 2010–2011:5.3). It also states: ‘There are also very strong links between significant behaviour difficulties and unmet communication needs,’ (HoC, 2010–2011:5.1). The Government’s own advice is that ‘When considering excluding a pupil, schools should consider any contributing factors that are identified after an incident of poor behaviour’ (DfE, 2018, p. 17). ‘Any attempt to prevent serious cases of disruptive or challenging behaviour must seek to recognize the needs of children classed as having behavioural, emotional, and social difficulties’ (HoC, 2011:5.1), and make ‘reasonable adjustments’ (DfE, 2015a) so as not to indirectly discriminate against them, as referenced in the Equality Act (2010) (DfE, 2014a). In practice, if those ‘reasonable adjustments’ are to be effective, they can require a considerable amount of coordination and understanding from teachers and leadership at the school. Advice received by teachers from SEND specialists is that, so as not to indirectly discriminate against students with SEND (DfE, 2014a), teaching staff should be consistent in their differentiated responses to them while being seen to be fair to the rest of the class. A study conducted recently by Warnes et al. (2021) demonstrated the high levels of concern and stress amongst teachers caused by the management of highly disruptive children included in their classes. However, teachers were reported to be conflicted about speaking out about the stress of managing children with severe behavioural difficulties in their classes, because doing so can invite school leadership criticism of their class management of pupils with SEND, which would put them under further pressure (Warnes et al., 2021). The link between severe student problem behaviours and teacher stress is well established (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2014, cited in Wienen et al., 2019; Warnes, 2021). The reported rate of work-related stress, depression or anxiety in teachers (2018–2019) was ‘statistically significantly higher than for workers

Pupils with different types of SEND 127 across all industries’ (HSE, 2020, p. 6). Several studies have also drawn attention to the fact that one of the leading causes of stress and poor teacher retention is misbehaviour in the classroom (Brunsting, Sreckovic & Lane, 2014, cited in Warnes et al., 2021; Ofsted, 2019). In addition, the House of Commons report on Behaviour and Discipline in Schools warned about the challenges faced by children with related emotional and social difficulties: ‘[Children with these] difficulties are some of the most challenging for schools to teach and unsurprisingly are by far the most likely group of children to be excluded’ (HoC, 2010–2011). A relevant study found that, the more pupils in a class that are perceived to have behavioural problems, the more negative the teacher’s perception of the behaviour of the other pupils in the class (Wienen et al., 2019). Problem behaviour in one child can encourage other pupils to act in a similar way, and the more frequent a behaviour the more it becomes normalised within a group (Ang et al., 2010, cited in Wienen et al., 2019). In addition, the stress caused to teachers influences their levels of resilience and tolerance, causing relationships to deteriorate, compounding their stress levels (Spilt, Koomen & Thijs, 2011, cited in Wienen). Schools are often keen to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards behaviour as a blanket approach intended to enable teachers to function effectively. Nonetheless, school leaders are expected to recognise the link between mental health difficulties and behaviour (DfE, 2018:3) and to be mindful of the legislative advice to adopt such a whole school approach to make the expected adjustments for those students recognised as having SEND (DfE, 2015a; DfE, 2018). The use of fixed term exclusions is an integral part of a school’s behavioural policy and is the inevitable outcome for many children whose behaviour does not improve as a result of lower-level sanctions. Permanent exclusions or other unofficial mechanisms for removing children such as the use of ‘managed moves’ (TES, 2020) can be an inevitable outcome if earlier sanctions have proved ineffective (NAS, 2020). Unsurprisingly, the findings of a recent report on this issue demonstrate that exclusion disproportionately targets students with high levels of learning difficulties (Timpson, 2019). So, including children with conduct disorders who are highly disruptive in mainstream classrooms presents risks to other students, teachers and to the children themselves. Children with hearing impairment Mainstream schools have had to rapidly adjust to a significant increase in numbers of hearing-impaired children since the 1980s, when almost all deaf children attended special schools or special units attached to mainstream schools. Since many schools for the deaf have closed, it is now more common for deaf children to attend mainstream schooling. According to the National Deaf Children’s Society, approximately 80% of hearing-impaired children now attend mainstream schooling without any specialist provision (West, 2018). A Guardian survey reported that more than a quarter of local authority services

128 Pupils with different types of SEND have only one specialist teacher of the deaf for every 80 hearing impaired students, and in some cases, it was one in every 100 (Weale, 2018). In 2018, it was reported that the number of specialist teachers of the deaf had been cut by 14%, while the number of children in need of support had increased by 31% (West 2018). For one headteacher this is a casualty of a misplaced policy of inclusion, as stated below: The majority of Deaf children now seem to be educated in mainstream schools which is a worrying trend for schools for the Deaf like ourselves. It means we are fighting to survive and safeguard the specialist provision that Deaf children need, including access to a Deaf peer group (Hennefer cited by West, 2018). As hearing loss is an unseen disability, it therefore can go undetected in mainstream schools for a number of years. Some research estimates that 15% of children between 6 and 19 years have some form of hearing loss (Victory, 2022). A number of international studies have shown that a mild form of hearing loss exists in approximately 23% of children (Elbeltagy, 2020). It has been found that any level of hearing loss can make a significant impact on early language development and the learning of basic academic skills (Elbeltagy, 2020; Victory, 2022). Other research shows that children with hearing loss typically underachieve by at least one grade level compared to their peers, irrespective of their underlying ability. Many parents feel that, at a critical time in their children’s early development, they are currently being failed by the system (Straaten et al., 2021). Deaf and hearing-impaired children need to develop strong social relationships as these are key predictors of both academic and life skills and are especially important during adolescence (Terlektsi et al., 2020). Outside the classroom, hearing-impaired students are at a social disadvantage with their peers in the mainstream school environment. One study showed that deaf pupils were less likely to have a friend in the same class than hearing pupils (Nunes, 2006). If they cannot easily communicate with their peer group, they cannot be said to be included. Furthermore, for deaf children whose main language is sign, they are more likely to feel included amongst other signing deaf children (Terlektsi et al., 2020). At one secondary school in the East of England, a child’s parents raised concerns about the effects of their son having missed out on the normal developmental stage for his early language development. This was due to an early childhood illness which had severely damaged his hearing, affecting his ability to express himself either verbally or in writing during his teenage years. In addition to his wearing of hearing aids, it was assumed by the school that the use of an in-class hearing loop system was sufficient to accommodate his needs. However, this did not make up for the teacher inconsistencies in using the system or the sometimes-painful level of feedback noise he experienced. Also, at recreation times it was difficult for him to make himself understood, as well

Pupils with different types of SEND 129 as to hear others, without standing very close and lip reading to work out what was being said. It was essential for staff to understand that his speech and language difficulties did not arise out of an inherent cognitive difficulty but was to do with a missed developmental stage associated with his former illness. It was only after considerable time and effort that the boy’s parents managed to persuade the school to hire a tutor to work with him on a one-to-one basis during English lesson times to help him recover some lost ground and overcome his language learning difficulties. Physical Education classes, or any other classes conducted outside of the classroom, were especially challenging for him, as well as other students in the school with hearing impairments, since outside it was not possible to use any assistive technology and therefore presented an additional level of risk. The National Deaf Children’s Society has recently expressed concern that, despite the known implications for learning, up to 40% of deaf children are not formally identified as having a special educational need (Daniels, 2019). Parents consider that, at a critical time in their children’s early development, they are being failed by the system (West, 2018) making it all the more imperative that appropriate support is provided if children are to be included in mainstream classrooms. Children with visual impairment The vast majority of children with visual impairment are educated in mainstream schools. Because it is not an obvious disability, identification of children who need assessment and accommodations in the classroom are often overlooked (McLinden et al., 2022). Therefore, teachers need to be aware of common signs of visual difficulties. Children with visual impairment can be clumsy, have poor hand-eye co-ordination, poorly formed handwriting, may hold books very close to their eyes, have difficulty in seeing the blackboard and can become tired more quickly that other children (Best, 1992). There is a wide range of levels of visual difficulty among school children and also several differing forms of visual impairment, each with different implications for the child’s education (Davis, 2003). A small proportion of this group is blind, and some of these children are educated in mainstream classrooms, with the teaching of Braille and orientation and mobility skills being key parts of the curriculum. However, the majority of visually impaired children have what is termed ‘low vision,’ which has a wide range of types and severities, each with specific implications for their education and for the technical devices that enable them to optimise their vision (Best, 1992; Hornby, 2014). Classroom accommodations include: seating the child in the middle toward the front of the classroom, making sure classroom lighting is suitable and eliminating glare from the child’s desk and the whiteboard. Technical accommodations include: ensuring children use the visual aids prescribed, either glasses or magnifiers; using worksheets with correct print size, enlarged if necessary and ensuring good contrast on any visual materials used (McLinden et al., 2022).

130 Pupils with different types of SEND It is clear that effectively including children with visual impairments requires a level of knowledge and understanding way beyond what the majority of mainstream class teachers possess. Therefore, support from a specialist teacher of the visually impaired is required to assess each visually impaired child’s needs and to organise individualised accommodations. Without this it is difficult to see how visually impaired children can be successfully included in mainstream classrooms. Children with physical disabilities The definition of disabled in the UK Equality Act 2010 (DfE, 2014a) applies equally to those who are physically or intellectually disabled. It states that a student has a disability if the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Significantly, it states that a student does not have to have a formal diagnosis. In reality, many children with physical disabilities also have learning difficulties, and schools need a range of different resources to make a number of different adjustments for them. In the SEND Code of Practice little distinction is made between physical and intellectual disabilities (DfE, 2015) in terms of how they should be included in mainstream schools. This is ironic because, in practice, implementing a policy of inclusion for students with physical disabilities is very different from inclusion for students with intellectual disabilities. A relatively small number of children with SEND (2.6%) are registered as having physical disabilities as their primary type of need (DfE, 2021). Despite this, they make up a relatively high proportion (4.9%) of SEND children receiving EHCP plans (DfE, 2021). This is probably because physical disabilities are more easily recognised and therefore supported because of being a visible disability. The Equality Act 2010 (DfE, 2014a) requires schools to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers a child may face because of their disability so that they can access and participate in education in the same way, as far as possible, as someone who is not disabled. This duty to make reasonable adjustments only applies if the child has a disability that meets the definition in the Equality Act (DfE, 2014a) (as above) and applies to staffing in schools as well as access to appropriate learning activities and materials. It states that alterations to physical features may form part of a school’s Accessibility Plan, which all schools are required to keep under review and must cover a period of at least three years. The aim of these is to incrementally improve provision over time (Scott, 2017). It is clear from this legal situation that the law appears to support and protect children with disabilities while at the same time leaving scope and interpretation for a varied level of implementation between different schools. This is particularly visible when considering adjustments made for those with physical disabilities, such as installing a lift, adapting toilet areas for wheelchair access, creating hygiene rooms and putting up handrails along hallways and ramps to complement outside steps. Making the required adaptations can involve a high degree of

Pupils with different types of SEND 131 initial expenditure for a small number of children. Such costs should be met by local authority funding, but gaining approval can take an inordinately long time as it did at one primary school we know of where they waited almost a year for one toilet to be adapted for use by a wheelchair bound 7-year-old. It is possible to imagine that eventually, all physical adaptations necessary will become a normal feature of school life and it will have been considered a worthwhile capital investment for the future provision of those with physical disabilities. However, apart from physical adaptations to the school environment, ‘reasonable adjustments’ for pupils can also involve a high level of hidden, often barely acknowledged, support from teaching assistants who may be involved with regular practical and medical support. Commonly, at least one teaching assistant is required to attend physiotherapy or speech and language therapy visits so that they can do follow-up exercises for students on a daily basis. They may also be required to support them in accessing lessons at the start and end of the day, to offer them safe protection from the crowds between lessons by escorting them, in advance of the mass arrival and exodus, from one classroom to another. Where a child’s needs are more complex, teaching assistants may also be required to help with a child’s personal care at regular intervals during the day, and at a moment’s notice. Despite these needs being frequent and regularly attended to, such work is treated as incidental, unpaid and often impinges on break and lunchtimes of the staff involved. When it comes to disability, schools can be seen to be highly inclusive on the one hand and exclusive on the other. This was illustrated most clearly at one primary school in the East of England where there was a child with cerebral palsy who was severely physically disabled but intellectually very able. To prepare for the bi-annual review of his EHCP, 14 different specialists would be invited to attend. With routinely consistent high levels of support, the child was able to function as a happy and popular member of the class. From a learning point of view, his teacher had few problems. All his physical needs were supported by the continuous one-to-one support of a teaching assistant. It was clear that the efforts to include him in mainstream school were proving successful, as long as the high levels of support could be consistently provided. The resources to maintain such a level of support, however, raised questions about how sustainable such inclusion would be in the long-term. In a different class at the same school, there was another child with high functioning autism, without an EHCP, whose mother was frequently called upon to remove him from class and help calm him down whenever a minor unforeseen eventuality had triggered a major melt down. His language processing difficulties meant that all his learning had to be adapted within a personalised curriculum. The classroom was a place of high stress for him and for others in the room with him. In the end, the mother of this child chose to leave her job, voluntarily exclude and home-school him. This raises many questions about the different challenges faced by schools to include children with different types of SEND.

132 Pupils with different types of SEND Children with medical needs Research shows that children with functional limitations that can be attributed to a chronic illness, or a health problem are at increased risk of poor school outcomes (Forrest, 2011). Unlike physical disabilities, the special needs of students with medical conditions can often go unseen and be all the more difficult for teachers to support appropriately as a result. Medical needs can overlap with physical disabilities, for example, the child with cerebral palsy mentioned above, also needed a feeding tube to be supervised at lunchtimes by a teaching assistant with plenty of spare time and patience. An essential aspect of inclusion, however, is to make adjustments necessary to enable students to continue to access their learning despite any medical needs. In 2014, Section 100 of the CAFA (DfE, 2014b) introduced a duty on schools in England to support pupils with medical conditions, and statutory guidance was set out for schools requiring them to have a medical conditions policy (DfE, 2015b). Nonetheless, many parents are not aware of the existence of such policies and in 2017 only one in 10 schools had evidence of an appropriate medical conditions policy (Health Conditions in Schools Alliance, n.d.). By 2021, according to our own research, only three out of ten of East Anglian secondary schools had any such policy. The special needs of students with medical conditions are unique to each individual child, and as such meeting their needs appropriately can become onerous and add unexpectedly to a teacher’s workload, particularly in schools that lack a coordinated policy or adequate staff training. Some medical conditions in students, such as cancer and multiple sclerosis, are known to the school on the date of a student’s admission. However, teachers are often not provided with the training to know in what ways different conditions can impact an individual’s ability to learn. This is especially true if a student has not been recognised as having any underlying learning difficulty. It can easily be assumed that students with medical conditions but without any recognised SEND do not need any extra consideration while in class, especially for older students not wishing to have any unwanted attention drawn to their condition, despite feeling unwell. For children to feel genuinely included, teachers need to have a sensitive awareness of students with medical conditions and feel able to anticipate their needs in a proactive and timely way. The onset of some chronic conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy can develop in children during their time at school. This can be an emotionally demanding time for the family, the effects of which staff need to be conscious of and aware of the importance of learning alongside the family how to respond and support the child in the management of the condition. A sudden diagnosis can also impact on the child’s relations with peers and teachers at the school, and can involve frequent periods of absence affecting the continuity of their learning (APPG, 2016; DfE, 2015b). The presence of a serious life limiting medical condition on a child can have a significant impact on the emotional climate in a class and entire school. Children and staff alike can feel caught up with the stress surrounding the needs

Pupils with different types of SEND 133 of that child. In one small primary school, it was clear that the entire school were involved with supporting a young child who had developed a brain tumour and in turn emotionally supported the family through their ordeal with songs and community rituals as they finally processed news of her death together. In our experience, teachers as individuals would like to do all they possibly can to make a young student feel protected and included in the classroom, especially those suffering from acute or chronic medical conditions that make school life all the more challenging for them. The reality is that severe suffering for many children can become common place and normalised by daily routines, making teachers feel inadequate to respond to individuals in the ways they would like. This adds to the stress involved in including children with medical conditions in mainstream classrooms. Children with traumatic brain injury and acquired brain injury When we consider the ways in which traumatic brain injury (TBI) or acquired brain injury (ABI) can affect a child’s ability to function in school, it’s important to be aware of the impact it can have on children’s well-being as well as their ability to learn. A TBI or ABI can cause tiredness, inattention, memory loss, difficulty with processing information, as well as difficulties with abstract thinking skills, reasoning, social skills, emotional regulation, irritability and feelings of frustration and anger (The Children’s Trust, 2022). Children may also sense a feeling of disorientation, since while many things in their environment appear to have remained the same as before their injury, their reactions to them and ways of coping can feel quite different. This list of difficulties makes us stop and question how many children in our mainstream schools with brain injuries might go undetected and unaddressed for long periods of time affecting their academic progress, social interaction and mental well-being. Teachers may make assumptions about what behaviour is and what is not related to the brain injury and become impatient with children who appear to be using it as an excuse. Comprehending the nuances that may occur over time when an ABI is superimposed on a developing child’s brain is key. Understanding the nature, diversity, effects and remedies for these potential long-term challenges requires the expertise of numerous specialists, including, educational specialists with specific training and experience in educating children with ABI (Eagan-Johnson & Grandinette, 2018, p. 53). Research shows that, ‘each brain injury is unique and multiple factors can affect functional outcomes’ (Eagan-Johnson, 2018, p. 1). It also indicates that children’s brains do not simply bounce back after injury (Giza & Prins, 2006, cited in Eagan-Johnson, 2018). Since it can take some time before the effects of an injury appear, parents themselves may be unaware of the impact an ABI has had on their child or that might be developing over time. This can mean that

134 Pupils with different types of SEND relevant information for the appropriate support of the child’s learning is not always passed on by the parents to the school staff. Effects of ABI may not be apparent to members of school staff in the early stages or subsequently. A lack of documented records of a student’s past brain injury may make it difficult for a school to monitor the onset of difficulties (Eagan-Johnson, 2018). The school’s SENDCo may not have the necessary information and understanding to advise teachers about what strategies of support might be most helpful. If people do not associate behaviour with an ABI, they may misjudge a child as being naughty and therefore overlook their underlying needs. This adds to the difficulties of including children with ABI or TBIs in mainstream classrooms. Children who are gifted or talented underachievers Another form of SEND is presented by children who are gifted, talented or highly able, but are not achieving to their potential and are considered to be underachieving (Hornby, 2014). For example, some gifted children may be performing at average levels in school subjects despite having ability levels that are well above the average. Other highly able children may develop behavioural difficulties because they are bored at school or find it difficult to relate to other children of their age, so they can be considered to have SEND (Callahan, 2011; Winebrenner & Brulles, 2012). Children who are intellectually or academically gifted typically find school-work easy and finish it quickly, and can be particularly observant, curious or adventurous and independent thinkers. They can demonstrate surprising knowledge or insight, think abstractly at an early age, show high levels of argument and problem-solving skills. Therefore, teachers need to ensure the pace of work is suitable, use questioning to probe for deeper understanding, increase the challenge level of some tasks set, organise extension and enrichment activities, and promote a class and school ethos in which high ability is valued. Since the closure of the Young Gifted and Talented Programme (Loft & Danechi, 2020), there has been no national definition in England of ‘more able’ or ‘gifted’ students. However, the Ofsted inspectorate expects teachers to ‘nurture, develop and stretch pupils’ talents and interests’ (p. 3). They have been critical of schools for not providing enough support for the ‘more able pupils’ and called on them to ‘improve curriculums, the transition between primary and secondary and their work with families to support aspiration’ (p. 3). Teachers are very conscious of the expectations on them to meet this need within their classrooms and it becomes an issue under the spotlight when preparing older year groups for public exams since it is the highest results that will win a teacher a reputation for excellence in their career. It is nonetheless clear that effective classroom provision for the needs of such students require an additional level of attention and careful planning by teachers (Renzulli, 2012). The ability of a teacher to meet this need can be compromised by the presence

Pupils with different types of SEND 135 of many other students who have high levels of SEND needs. It is also a question of well-being for children who risk suffering boredom and becoming demotivated by a lack of sufficient challenge and appropriate learning material (Schrag, 2019). The issue of the capability of teachers to meet high ability needs is compounded by the coexistence of a range of educational deficits, such as those experienced by pupils with dyslexia, ASD or ADHD (Hornby, 2014). This adds to the challenge of providing effective education for children considered to be gifted underachievers who are included in mainstream classrooms.

Twice exceptional children Twice-exceptional students are those who are identified as gifted or talented in one or more areas while also having a learning, physical, sensory or developmental disability (Reis et al., 2014). This includes students with various cognitive impairments, sensorimotor disorders, autism or Asperger’s syndrome, ADHD, or social, emotional and mental health problems. Identification of twice-exceptional students is more difficult than for those who are gifted or talented who are high performers in educational achievement or artistic activity. Twice-exceptional students are considered to have dual or multiple exceptionality, and are sometimes termed gifted learning disabled. In many cases, the abilities of twice-exceptional students are dominated by their disabilities, which contributes to the risk of marginalisation. For students identified as twice-exceptional, it has been suggested that their education should be carried out using programs designed for the gifted along with those for children with learning difficulties or disorders (Coleman et al., 2005; Coleman & Gallagher, 2015). Although not all twice-exceptional students exhibit lower levels of academic performance, it is likely that, compared to gifted children who do not have any difficulties, their high-level abilities will be less obvious. A recent review synthesised findings from 15 articles on teachers’ experiences concerning twice-exceptionality (Gierczyk & Hornby, 2021). The review highlighted factors determining the effectiveness of education for twice-exceptional students, including the need for teachers to have a thorough understanding of the needs of such students, as well as knowledge of the skills, strategies, and programmes from the fields of special education and gifted education that are most effective in facilitating their development. It was reported that, in order to enable twice-exceptional students to make appropriate progress, the primary focus should be on developing their skills and using their strengths (Coleman et al., 2005). Therefore, teachers must develop relevant competences and be aware of the importance of the school culture and environment in which they operate. It is clear that the needs of twice-exceptional students are best supported when special educators, gifted education teachers and parents collaborate effectively (Coleman & Gallagher, 2015). Overall findings of the review emphasise the importance of teacher preparation, the use of evidence-based strategies, and the need for teachers to focus on developing strengths just as much as remediating difficulties (Gierczyk & Hornby,

136 Pupils with different types of SEND 2021). This has implications for teacher preparation, the teaching strategies to be used, and the support organised by schools. First, programmes of initial teacher education and in-service education need to extend their work on children with disabilities, gifts, and talents to include the education of twice-exceptional students. This should involve providing knowledge and skills for identifying these students, working with colleagues and other professionals to assess and plan programmes for them, and on collaborating with parents to successfully implement programmes. Second, teachers must be able to use a range of strategies, based on evidencebased practices from gifted education and special education, to cater for the range of different learning styles of twice-exceptional students. Teachers must focus on building students’ confidence levels and developing their strengths, as well as remediating their weaknesses. Third, schools need to provide organisational structures that support teachers in implementing strategies such as Individual Education Programmes, curriculum differentiation and various other accommodations for twice-exceptional students. Most importantly, schools need to focus on providing favourable learning environments and supportive school contexts in which positive attitudes towards inclusion embrace the celebration of diversity, so that twice-exceptional students feel supported and can achieve optimally at school. It is clear that effectively educating twice exceptional students in mainstream classrooms is very difficult without teachers having extensive training and support from special education and gifted education specialists.

Concluding comments It is clear from the above that the wide range of SEND experienced by children at school, results in an extensive range of consequences and implications for their education and support in mainstream classrooms. In addition, many children with higher levels of need experience a range of co-occurring difficulties (Kauffman et al., 2022). In order for children with SEND to be successfully included in mainstream classrooms, their teachers would need to have the knowledge and skills to effectively provide appropriate programmes for all types and severities of SEND. Because there is such enormous diversity of needs, it is considered extremely difficult, if not impossible, for this to be done effectively for the wide range of children with SEND who would be placed in mainstream schools under a full inclusion policy, as is suggested by the following quotation: ‘The disgrace is that we have come to believe that special education is so not-special that it can be delivered by a generalist, busy teaching 25 other students’ (Kauffman et al., 2022, p. 259). This extremely difficult task is especially so if schools do not have the support of sufficient teacher aides, special education teachers, other specialists, such as physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and psychologists, or they are without the organisational support provided by pupil withdrawal strategies, resource bases or special unit classrooms. The UNCRPD (2016) aspirational vision of full inclusion does not take into account the information presented in this chapter on the extensive range of

Pupils with different types of SEND 137 educational requirements of children with SEND, which we consider to be the ‘elephant in the classroom’ that is seldom discussed but clearly critical to the success of any model of inclusion.

References Abdinasir, K. (2021, June 4). Behaviour and mental health: towards a new approach. Centre For Mental Health. https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/blogs/behaviour-a nd-mental-health-towards-new-approach. AHSN (2021, July). Focus ADHD – One Year Review (April 2020 – March 2021). Version 4.1. https://www.ahsnnetwork.com/app/uploads/2021/10/Focus-ADHD-o ne-year-review-final.pdf. All-Party Parliamentary Group (2019, April 24). APPG on Dyslexia and other Specific Learning Difficulties. https://cdn.bdadyslexia.org.uk/uploads/documents/About/Rep orts/Minutes-24-April-2019-APPG-for-Dyslexia-and-other-SpLDs.pdf?v=1562678668. Ambitious about Autism (2018, July 16). Exclusions of pupils with autism rocket in England, new data shows. https://www.ambitiousaboutautism.org.uk/about-us/m edia-centre/news/exclusions-pupils-autism-rocket-england-new-data-shows. APPG (2016, February, 26). Safety and inclusion of children with medical conditions at School. All Party Parliamentary Group for Diabetes. https://diabetesappg.files.wordpress. com/2017/04/appg-for-diabetes-report-on-safety-and-inclusion-of-children-with-medic al-conditions-at-school.pdf. Avni, E., Ben-Itzchak, E. & Zachor, A. (2018). The presence of comorbid ADHD and anxiety symptoms in autism spectrum disorder: Clinical presentation and predictors. Frontiers in Psychiatry. https://doi.org/ggw8w8. Barber, S., Woodhouse, J., Powell, T., Long, R., Beard, J., Kennedy, …& Sutherland, N. (2019, May 8). Acquired brain injury. House of Commons Library. Debate Pack, Number CDP 2019/-111. Best, A. B. (1992). Teaching children with visual impairments. Open University Press. https:// doi.org/dntmsr. Biglan, A., Flay, B. R., Embry, D. D., & Sandler, I. N. (2012). The critical role of nurturing environments for promoting human well-being. American Psychologist, 67(4), 257–271. https://doi.org/gjqz2q. Bodkin, H. (2019, January 11). Dyslexia no longer being diagnosed by councils who called the disorder ‘scientifically questionable.’ The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2019/01/11/dyslexia-no-longer-diagnosed-councils-called-disorder-scientifically/. Callahan, C. M. (2011). Special gifts and talents. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (eds.) Handbook of Special Education, pp. 304–317. Routledge. Carroll, J. (2020). Review 1: Current understanding of causes and identification of SpLDs. In Government Office for Science (Ed.), Current Understanding, Support Systems, and Technology-led Interventions for Specific Learning Difficulties (pp. 5–10). (https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926052/speci fic-learning-difficulties-spld-cst-report.pdf. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (2018,October 28). Equality Act: 2010. http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/equality-act-2010.shtml. Cigman, R. (2007). A question of universality: Inclusive education and the principle of respect. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 775–793. https://doi.org/dds9jt.

138 Pupils with different types of SEND Coleman, M. R. & Gallagher, S. (2015). Meeting the needs of students with 2E: It takes a team. Gifted Child Today, 38, 252–254. Coleman, M. R., Harradine, C., & Williams King, E. (2005). Meeting the needs of students who are twice exceptional. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 5–6. Daniels, S. (2019, February 13) ‘Lost generation’ of deaf children falling a grade behind at GCSE. National Deaf Children’s Society. https://www.ndcs.org.uk/about-us/news-a nd-media/latest-news/lost-generation-of-deaf-children-falling-a-grade-behind-at-gcse/. Davis, P. (2003). Including children with visual impairment in mainstream schools: A practical guide. David Fulton. DfE (2014a). The Equality Act 2010 and schools. Departmental advice for school leaders, school staff, governing bodies and local authorities. https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_ Advice_Final.pdf. DfE (2014b). Children and Families Act 2014. c. 6. 3 (UK). https://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/part/3/enacted. DfE (2015a) DfE) (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education. DfE (2015b). Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions. https://assets.publish ing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/803956/ supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions.pdf. DfE (2018, November). Mental health and behaviour in schools. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755135/Me ntal_health_and_behaviour_in_schools__.pdf. DfE (2021). Education, health and care plans: England 2021. National Statistics. https:// www.gov.uk/government/statistics/education-health-and-care-plans-england-2021. Dyspraxia Foundation (2022). Dyspraxia at a glance…What is Dyspraxia? https://dyspra xiafoundation.org.uk/about-dyspraxia/dyspraxia-glance/. Eagan-Johnson, B. & Grandinette, S. (2018). Addressing educational challenges: Following pediatric acquired brain injury. Journal of Life Care Planning, 16(1), 53–61. Elbeltagy, R. (2020). Prevalence of mild hearing loss in schoolchildren and its association with their school performance. International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, 24(01), e93–e98. https://doi.org/g56d. Emanuel, G. (2016, December 3). Dyslexia: the learning disability that must not be named. National Public Radio Education. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/12/03/ 502601741/dyslexia-the-learning-disability-that-must-not-be-named?t=1635525416299. Emerson, E. & Hatton, C. (2008, May). People with Learning Disabilities in England. Centre For Disability Research Report:1. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/em ersone/FASSWeb/Emerson_08_PWLDinEngland.pdf. Farrell, M. (2010). Debating special education. Routledge. Forrest, C. B. (2011, August). School outcomes of children with special health care needs. Paediatrics, 128(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/fnksg2. Gallagher, A. L., Murphy, C-A., Conway, P., & Perry, A. (2019). Consequential differences. In perspectives and practices concerning children with developmental language disorders: an integrative review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54(4), 529–552. https://doi.org/hr5x. Gierczyk, M. & Hornby, G. (2021). Twice-exceptional students: Review of implications for special and inclusive education. Education Sciences, 11(2), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci11020085.

Pupils with different types of SEND 139 Gottfried, M. A. (2014). Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis:36(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/gf5cfm. Hancock, M. (2022, June 15). Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill. House of Commons. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0031/220031.pdf. Health Conditions in Schools Alliance (n.d.). Welcome. Working collaboratively to keep children with medical conditions safe in school. http://www.medicalconditionsa tschool.org.uk/. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. Springer. https://doi.org/hr6b. Hornby, G. (2021). Are inclusive education or special education programs more likely to result in inclusion post-school? Education Sciences, 11(6), 304; https://doi.org/10. 3390/educsci11060304. House of Commons (HoC) (2010, November 8). Behaviour and Discipline in Schools. Memorandum submitted by Special Educational Consortium, Session 2010–11. https://p ublications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeduc/writev/behaviour/we55.htm. Independent Advisor of Special Education Advice (2021, September). Our response to the Government’s ‘call for evidence’ on behaviour management in schools. https://www.ip sea.org.uk/news/our-response-to-the-governments-call-for-evidence-on-behaviour-ma nagement-in-schools. Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Crockett, J. B., Felder, M., … Smith, C. R. (2022). Parents’ and educators’ perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities. In C. Boyle & K. A. Allen (Eds.). Research for quality inclusive education: Sustainable development goals series, pp. 205–217. Springer. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education: What it is and why we need it. (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Kauffman, J. M. & Hornby, G. (2020). Inclusive vision versus special education reality. Education Sciences, 10, 258. https://doi.org/gk9xk2. Kauffman, J. M., Jason, C. T., & Badar, J. (2020). Why some students with severe disabilities are not placed in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/gjh4f3. Langbecker, D., Snoswell, C.L., Smith, A. C., Verboom, J., & Caffery, L. J. (2020). Long-term effects of childhood speech and language disorders: A scoping review. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 10(1). https://sajce.co.za/index.php/sa jce/article/view/801/1542. Lapointe, V. (2017, February). What is your child’s Challenging Behaviour trying to tell you? A Guide for Families. Developmental Disability. https://pdf4pro.com/full screen/what-is-your-child-s-challenging-behaviour-trying-to-tell-you-5b7695.html. Loft, P. & Danechi, S. (2020,December 2). Support for more able and talented children in Schools (UK). Briefing Paper. House of Commons Library: 9065. https://resea rchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9065/CBP-9065.pdf. McLinden, M., Douglas, G., Hewett, R., Cobb, R., Keil, S., Lynch, P., … & Thistlethwaite, J. (2022). Promoting equitable access to education for children and young people with vision impairment: A route-map for a balanced curriculum. Routledge. Meredith, M. (2021, May 20). Does all misbehaviour communicate an unmet need? Times Educational Supplement. https://www.tes.com/news/does-all-poor-behaviourschools-communicate-unmet-need. Miller, J. (2020, August 26). DfE data release: SEND incidence and primary needs. Mime. Making information matter. https://www.mimeconsulting.co.uk/send-incidence-andneed-type/.

140 Pupils with different types of SEND NAS (2020, September, 21). Unlawful and unofficial exclusion. Exclusion in England. https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/education/exclusions/exclu sion-england/unlawful-and-unofficial-exclusion. Nunes, T., Prertzlik, U., & Olsson, J. (2006). Deaf children’s social relationships in mainstream schools. Deafness & Education International, 3(3), 123–136. https://online library.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/dei.106. Office for National Statistics (2019). Disability and education, UK: 2019. https://www. ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/disability/bulletins/ disabilityandeducationuk/2019#impairment-type-and-severity. Ofsted, (2019, July). Teacher well-being at work in schools and further education providers. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/936253/Teacher_well-being_report_110719F.pdf. Ogundele, (2012) How does socio-economic deprivation affect the prevalence of ADHD in Northwest of England? British Association for Community Child Health/ British Paediatric Mental Health Group/Young Persons Special Interest Group. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 97,(1). BMJ Journals. https://doi.org/hjbj. Polanczyk, G. V. (2007). The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(6), 942–948. https:// doi.org/fwk497. Powell, A. (2021, May 24). Disabled people in employment. House of Commons Library. Briefing paper: 7540. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/ CBP-7540/CBP-7540.pdf. Public Health England (2020, January 27). Chapter 1: education and children’s social care. Research and analysis. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/people-with-lea rning-disabilities-in-england/chapter-1-education-and-childrens-social-care-updates. Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014). An operational definition of twiceexceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 217–230. Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Re-examining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st Century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. Saline, S. (2022, January 21). ADHD Statistics: New ADD Facts and Research. ADDitude Inside the ADHD mind. https://www.additudemag.com/statistics-of-adhd/. Scott, K. (2017, June 21). Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Pupils: A Practical Guide. Hcrlaw. https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/reasonable-adjustments-disabled-pup ils-practical-guide/. Sharp, C., & Nelson, J. (2021,July). Recovering from Covid-19: What pupils and schools need now. National Foundation for Educational Research. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/m edia/4593/covid19_what_schools_and_pupils_need_now_policy_briefing.pdf. Terlektsi, E., Kreppner, J., Mahon, M., Worsfold, S., & Kennedy, C. R. (2020, February). Peer relationship experiences of deaf and hard-of-hearing adolescents. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 25(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/gh59zn. Terzi, L. (ed.) (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. Continuum. TES (2020, January 8). Managed moves ‘mask true scale of exclusions.’TES magazine. https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/managed-moves-mask-true-scale-exclusions. The Children’s Trust For children with Brain Injury (n.d.). Acquired brain injury explained. Brain Injury Hub. https://www.thechildrenstrust.org.uk/brain-injury-information/ info-and-advice/what-is-acquired-brain-injury/acquired-brain-injury-explained. Timpson, E. (2019, May) Timpson Review of School Exclusion. CP 92. DfE-00090– 02019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/a ttachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_review.pdf.

Pupils with different types of SEND 141 UNCRDP (2016). Article 24: Right to inclusive education: General comment No. 4. United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/ EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#24. UNESCO (2020). Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. UNESCO. Vallance, P. & Rothwell, N. (2020, December 1). Improving educational outcomes for learners with specific learning difficulties. Council for Science and Technology. https://assets.publish ing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968689/ educational-attainment-cst-letter.pdf. van der Straaten, T. F. K., Briaire, J. J., Dirks, E., Soede, W., Rieffe, C. J. & Frijns, J. H. H. (2021). The school career of children with hearing loss in different primary educational settings: a large longitudinal nationwide study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 26(3), 405–416. https://doi.org/hj2x. Victory, J. (2022, January 12). In kids, hearing loss can mimic learning disorders, leading to misdiagnosis. Healthy Hearing. https://www.healthyhearing.com/report/ 52433-How-hearing-loss-affects-school-performance. Walsh, M. (2021) ADHD statistics 2021. SingleCare Team. https://www.singlecare. com/blog/news/adhd-statistics/. Warnes, E., Done, E. J., & Knowler, H. (2021). Mainstream teachers’ concerns about inclusive education for children with special educational needs and disability in England under pre-pandemic conditions. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/gkdc6m. Weale, S. (2018, January 8). Educational support for deaf children in England ‘in complete disarray.’https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/08/educational -support-for-deaf-children-in-england-in-complete-disarray. West, E. (2018, August 5). Deaf Schools or Mainstream?British Deaf News. https:// www.britishdeafnews.co.uk/deaf-schools-or-mainstream/. Wienen, A.W., Reijnders, I., van Aggelen, M. H., Bos, E. H., Batstra, L., & de Jonge, P. (2018). The relative impact of school-wide positive behaviour support on teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour across schools, teachers, and students. Psychology in the Schools, 56(4), 232–241. Winebrenner, S. & Brulles, D. (2012). Teaching gifted kids in today’s classroom: strategies and techniques every teacher can use (third edition). Free Spirit. Zablotsky, B., Bramlett, M. D., & Blumbert, S. J. (2020). The co-occurrence of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/gbg92c.

8

Government policy and legislation for SEND provision in England

Introduction In previous chapters we have described the difficulties of meeting the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) as encountered by the main stakeholders concerned. In this chapter we consider the SEND policies and legislation driving implementation that may have contributed to many of these difficulties in the UK, with specific reference to legislation for England. The most recent reforms of education policy in the UK were comprised of the Children and Families Act (2014), and the two SEND Codes of Practice published in 2014 and 2015, that were revisions of earlier SEN Codes of Practice introduced in 1994 and 2001. The Codes (2014 & 2015) contain certain statutory elements of the Children and Families Act 2014, the Equality Act of 2010 and the Education Act 1996 and were introduced following a period of public consultation relating to the Government Green Paper of 2011 (DfE, 2011). Following the implementation of these Government reforms, in response to growing public complaints about the ineffectiveness of SEND provision in England, despite rising expenditure to support it, a comprehensive Parliamentary Education Select Committee SEND Review (HoC ECR, 2019) was set up to investigate their impact. The report (HoC ECR, 2019) following the review was severely critical of both the implementation and poor levels of accountability for those reforms. In view of the series of parliamentary debates that came in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, the newly proposed Government SEND reforms (DfE 2022), based on the Review Committee Report (HoC ECR, 2019), have been eagerly anticipated after being repeatedly deferred (Ofsted, 2021). The Government’s most recent Green Paper published on March 30, 2022 was put out for public consultation until July 2022. It was intended to pave the way for anticipated reforms, which are likely to involve changes to the current SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015; Keer, 2022, March 30). This was published at a similar time as the Levelling Up Schools White paper along with amendments issued in June (DfE, 2022; Holmes, 2022), which were intended to identify children needing help with targeted support in literacy and mathematics as exposed by the pandemic lockdowns. DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-8

Government policy for SEND in England 143 This chapter is concerned with considering what pitfalls might be looming for the proposed reforms by considering why past reforms have not worked well in England to date. This has been despite repeated efforts by successive governments, on both sides of the political divide, to address the problems of implementation and funding for the education of children with SEND. If new reforms are going to be of recognisable value, it is essential that lessons are learned about the realities of implementing provision for SEND from past and present experiences. This is particularly important as the country continues the expansion of its Multi-Academy Trusts, which provide governance and management to large groups of schools including primary, secondary and special schools. The difficulties encountered also need to be seen against the influential backdrop of the United Nations CRPD (2016), which seeks to impose ‘full-inclusion’ as an aspirational principle (involving the elimination of all special classes and special schools), on all member states, by the end of the decade (Anastasiou et al., 2020). This has spawned resistance by successive governments of the UK, which have tried to appease both those for and against unqualified movement in this direction (ALLFIE, 2022; Lehane, 2017). However, accepting that there are divided opinions has little to do with meeting the needs of children with SEND and even less to do with whether or not pupils feel included in the community in which they are educated (EUD, 2022), despite this being promoted by UNESCO (2020) as an important element of inclusion. We focus the debate on a non-political platform and a positive way forward by divesting the concept of ‘full inclusion’ from being irretrievably synonymous with children’s human rights. Instead, we aim to consider more objectively how the human rights of children with SEND are being served by the current practices of what has come to be termed ‘inclusion’ in education in the UK.

Investigating the aims of the watershed SEND Reforms of 2014 The House of Commons Education Select Committee (HoC ECR, 2019) report started by considering the intentions and effects of the reforms introduced since 2014. It stated: ‘The Children and Families bill of 2014 sought to place young people at the heart of the system’ (HoC ECR, 2019, p. 3). Following their investigation into the implementation of the reforms, the report concluded that the system was: Let down by failures of implementation, the 2014 reforms (DfE, 2015) have resulted in confusion and at times unlawful practice, bureaucratic nightmares, buck-passing and a lack of accountability, strained resources and adversarial experiences and ultimately dashed the hopes of many… There is too much tension between the child’s needs and the provision available (HoC ECR, 2019, p. 3). The report (HoC ECR, 2019) is highly relevant, as the problems exposed explain difficulties that continue to confront the Government three years since

144 Government policy for SEND in England its completion. The report not only spells out in some detail what went wrong with the SEND reforms of 2014 but also the conflicts of interests and inconsistencies between aspiration, policy and practice. In this chapter we discuss some of the reasons why, and give examples of how, policies with the best intentions can interact to make their implementation disastrous. Some early indications that the ambitions of the reforms would not be realised were highlighted by research at the time (Lehane, 2016). A lack of careful planning was evident from the oral evidence given at the 2020 Parliamentary Accounts Committee Review (PAC, 2020) which revealed that assessments of the trial ‘Local Pathways’ originally set up to examine the potential effectiveness of the reforms, were not completed before the Bill for the Children and Families Act was presented to Parliament (PAC, 2020). Feedback on the reforms was canvassed from the DfE when some parents were invited to a round table discussion to give their views to the Education Secretary. Despite the frustrating experiences described by parents, the widespread problems were put down to mere ‘teething problems’ (Tirraoro, 2016)! As we have seen from parent experiences cited in Chapter 6, feedback from parents on SEND provision has hardly improved since 2014. Three-quarters of parents surveyed by the National Autistic Society said their child’s school place did not fully meet their needs (NAS, 2021) and over a quarter waited more than three years to receive support for their child. The time taken for identification of children’s SEND was also an issue raised by the National Deaf Children’s Society survey which found similar dissatisfaction among parents (NDCS, 2020). The HoC Report (ECR, 2019) concluded: ‘The Department (DfE) did not need to preside serenely over chaos for five years to see that things were not quite going as planned’ (HoC ECR Report, 2019, p. 3). The most surprising thing for many stakeholders was that the findings came as such a shock. The problems were recognised as so entrenched in the fabric of the system that it seemed to put the Government into a state of paralysis as it grappled with the implications of how to respond (Long & Danechi, 2020; PAC, 2020) and a series of deadlines for reform were missed (Booth, 2021). The additional challenges raised by the three pandemic lockdowns between March 2020 and March 2021, diverted the focus of Government attention onto more immediate problems, such as how best to implement catch-up programmes for those students who had fallen behind (DfE, 2021a; NTP, 2020/21). Proliferation of ideas during the pandemic lockdowns The pandemic lockdowns yielded some interesting developments. The issues with Government SEND policy and the space for reflection on SEND provision, afforded by the school closures, gave rise to the sharing of ideas by professionals from a range of disciplines. This was mainly done remotely through a series of online virtual conferences both within the UK and internationally. Examples of these were the Schools and Academies Show 28–29 April 2021; CYP Now SEND conference 29–30 June 2021; TES SEND 8–9 October 2021 Conference;

Government policy for SEND in England 145 International Festival of Inclusion 14 December 2021; SEND Provision in England, WEdF policy conference 29 March 2022. Conference and webinar debates were open to practitioners and other interested stakeholders at all levels, and new perspectives were developed through interactions across the globe that would never otherwise have taken place. These exchanges of ideas online, meant that the pandemic years proved to be a highly creative brainstorming time on policies for SEND. It was potentially a great resource for the ongoing Government review. With so much to grapple with, it perhaps wasn’t surprising that a long period of procrastination held up the formulation of any policy developments. It appears that, in 2014 the Government intention was to pit conflicting pressure from the UN CRPD (2016) to ensure that human rights were inextricably linked to full-inclusion, against a strong national resistance to the idea of taking such an extreme position (Allfie, 2022). If, as suggested by the report (ECR, 2019), the reforms were indeed the right ones, the big question is why those intentions did not translate into effective practice. What were the possible reasons behind the prolonged disconnect between parents, practitioners and the Department of Education about their actual impact on day-to-day practice over the intervening years? These questions are discussed below by drawing attention to some of the contradictions between the intended aims of the reforms and the reality of their implementation.

Defining and identifying SEND or restricting a wider recognition of needs? A key aim of the 2014 reforms had been to define and therefore identify exactly what SEND meant, using the definition in the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015): ‘A pupil has SEN where their learning difficulty or disability calls for special educational provision, namely provision different from or additional to that normally available to pupils of the same age’ (DfE, 2015: 6.15). This ambiguous comparative definition was perhaps deliberately open to interpretation. The expressed intention was that ‘higher quality teaching normally available to the whole class [was] likely to mean that fewer pupils will require such support’ and that this should be the first response (DfE, 2015, 6.19) with the aim that ‘such improvements in whole-class provision [would] be more cost effective and sustainable.’ This section of the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) was clearly aimed at reducing the perceived over-identification of SEND, as recorded by data in 2010 (DfE, 2021b), and was intended to bring down the high costs of SEND provision. However, the actual effect of this approach has been for schools to deny the identification of special needs of many students, whose difficulties, far from disappearing, have become more pronounced as time has gone by. Instead of the special needs of children being identified and addressed early on, they have been overlooked and exacerbated, leading to rising numbers of SEND concerns.

146 Government policy for SEND in England

Improving provision or simply increasing the numbers of children with SEND within mainstream schools? Government policy underpinning the SEND Codes of Practice (DfE, 2014, 2015) made the assumptions that provision for children with high levels of SEND could be met by upskilling teaching staff through ongoing training, and it would simply be a matter of adapting their teaching for all types of learners. However, there was no mandate for the type or length of training that might be necessary, or funding provision to ensure that it happened. More significantly, there was no agreement about what specific skills would be required to make it possible. There was also a false assumption (but no safeguards) about how many children with high levels of need would be present in the classrooms of schools. This was a particular concern for areas of the country where levels of economic disadvantage and numbers of children with SEND were increasing. As a result, the funding to support the unexpected increase in numbers and levels of needs within mainstream schools was miscalculated and mismanaged, causing an unexpected rise (rather than decrease) in the number of children with unmet special educational needs. This chapter focuses on the separate policies on admissions (DfE, 2021c) and exclusions and highlights the contradictions of these, which together with the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) aim to be inclusive by both increasing admissions and preventing exclusions of children with SEND. All school governing bodies were required by section 324 Education Act 1996 to admit to the school a child with a Statement of SEN that names the school. Similarly, under section 43 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (CAFA 2014:43), the school named in an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) must admit the child. The Schools Admissions Code (DfE, 2021c) by itself appears simply to ensure it upholds the basic principle of free access to all schools without discrimination of any kind. ‘A parent can apply for a place for their child at any state-funded school in any area. If a school is undersubscribed, any parent that applies must be offered a place (15d p7–12)’ (DfE 2021c). However, there are inconsistencies between DfE policies that make this apparent freedom of parental choice implausible in practice. It is important to keep in mind the way in which three main school policies interact to affect the ability of schools to support SEND appropriately, that is to say the Schools Admissions Code (2021, Sept) section 15, pages 7 to 12; the SEND Code of Practice, sections 6 and 9; and The Exclusion Code for Mainstream Schools (2017) pages 10 to 12. The reality of parental choice For a child with high levels of SEND that has been legally recognised through the issue of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), the Schools Admissions Code guarantees a place in any mainstream school of the parents’ choice even where a school is over-subscribed, (SAC, 15:1.9). However, for many parents, this mandate of a ‘right’ to a place in a mainstream setting seems like a covert guise to

Government policy for SEND in England 147 limit the choice of schools available to them in practice. Parents are in reality often only being offered one option which is presented as a positive ‘choice’ in support of their child’s ‘human right’ to inclusion. The option, as it turns out, can lead to a dilution of the specialist skills and support they might otherwise have received for their child in a special school. Meanwhile, the Exclusions Policy (2017) makes it almost impossible for a school to exclude a child with an EHCP whom they are unable to support effectively. Far from supporting parental consultation and choice, the policy designed to promote it in the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) is undermined by the double speak born out by the admissions and exclusions policies mandated for mainstream schools.

To ensure the right to appropriate education for children with EHCPs For those parents whose children have Education, Health and Care Plans, as well as the right to a place in a mainstream school, there is intended to be a legal entitlement to an option of a place at a special school, if this is specified in the EHCP. As mentioned in Chapter 6, there is an unequal presumption in law that parents’ rights to a mainstream education for their children should be protected at all costs (CAFA: DfE, 2014) but there is no equivalent protection of parents’ rights to a special education should they wish it (Farrell, 2006). Furthermore, since specialist provision is expensive, there is an inherent incentive for LAs to restrict EHCPs that name a special school placement. Since many areas lack sufficient special school placements, there is a further disincentive for local authorities to specify the more costly provision of special schools outside the local community, which may also include additional transport costs. Although, on the surface, the best interests of the child appear to be protected, the parents of a child with an EHCP can have an uphill struggle to provide a good reason for why the local authority should be obliged to pay the costs of attending a school they consider is best suited to their child’s needs. Since the options of available special schools, often with long waiting lists, are few and far between in any given area, the net effect of the admissions policy (DfE, 2021c) is that irrespective of suitability, in many cases, the child with an EHCP has little choice but to attend their local mainstream school. The right to inclusion for children without EHCPs Importantly, children with high levels of special needs but who have not been granted an EHCP, have no means of attending an alternative more suitable school than the one available locally, unless their parents have the means and are willing to drive them to an undersubscribed mainstream school in another area. Whilst an oversubscribed school can refuse a child with SEND (but without an EHCP) on the basis of insufficient places, an undersubscribed school does not have this option. Since undersubscribed schools are less, rather than more likely to have a reputation for being a school that caters well for pupils with SEND, such an option can amount to an illusory choice.

148 Government policy for SEND in England Due to the strict admissions policy on inclusion, mainstream schools themselves also do not have a choice to advise parents towards more appropriate provision that can cater better to their children’s needs. Discriminating between those who can and cannot be appropriately supported in a school is not permitted by the Schools Admissions Code. A school must not: ‘take account of reports from previous schools about children’s past behaviour, attendance, attitude or achievement…’ (SAC, 2021:1.9g, p. 11) or ‘discriminate against or disadvantage disabled children, those with special educational needs’ (SAC, 2021:1.9h, p. 11). The fundamental principle underpinning the law is that where a parent of a child or young person with SEND wants a place in a mainstream school, it must never be denied on the basis that the mainstream is unsuitable, or that their needs or disabilities are too great or complex (SAC, 2021). However, it is important to consider that if the funding for resources and staff has severely impacted a school’s existing ability to make appropriate provision, it becomes even less able to meet the needs of pupils when it admits higher numbers and degrees of SEND children in need of that provision.

Improving outcomes through local authorities, schools and SENDCos working together The intention of the 2014 reforms was for most SEND provision to be funded by schools through local delegated notional budgets. This was to enable funding decisions to be left to local authorities (LAs) to anticipate school spending on the basis of their own local delegated budget formula. With this came the expectation that local authorities would hold schools to account to ensure that they would spend the first £6,000 per child per annum of its notional budget on appropriate SEND provision. The intended roles of the local authority and school as collaborative partners was simultaneously expected to be a supervisory one. Therefore, it did not recognise the inevitable conflict of interests between the local authority as assessor and provider of necessary funds, and the school leadership responsible for the spending of those funds on the delivery of the SEND provision as well as other school spending plans. Similarly, SENDCos were then put in a position of conflict with the school leadership team since the provision, of funds to resource pupils on ‘SEND support’ was perceived as discretionary and in competition with other spending needs of the school. It is clear from the SEND Code of Practice (2015) that SENDCos were expected to work collaboratively with the headteacher in the interests of SEND students in making decisions about the use of funding from the school notional budget (SEND CoP, 2015: 6.87, 6.90). However, if it is deemed necessary to hire an additional member of staff, it requires the school to initially draw on the delegated notional £6,000 per annum for a pupil whose needs may not be deemed severe enough to qualify for any additional assistance from the LA High Needs funding block. In addition, schools may be compelled by EHCP requirements set by the LA to use more of their delegated budget on supporting any stipulated provision. However, this does not take

Government policy for SEND in England 149 into account the overriding concern of Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) leadership to maintain control over their SEND spending by distributing it to school leaders on their own terms and by aiming to keep identification of SEND to a minimum. The intended position of SENDCos to work in an advisory role within the school leadership team was therefore at odds with the interests of MAT leaders. Inevitably, the Covid-19 pandemic, which exposed so many unmet SEND needs to parents and politicians, served to release a pent-up demand caused by the artificial suppression of real unrecognised SEND needs. Therefore, the aim of the 2014 reforms, to reduce the numbers of SEND, only achieved this goal in the short term, whereas the emerging unintended consequences have had a counterproductive effect in the longer term (DfE, 2021b). One way to address this conflict is to ring-fence funds for SEND. Doing so in advance of each school year would allow schools to properly plan for the pupils with SEND for whom they were expecting to make provision. The argument previously made against a ring-fenced budget by local authorities as that it would encourage more categorising of SEND children within schools and distinguish between the general need for support within the mainstream classroom and those who need additional specialist levels of support. Arguably, this is an operational issue rather than a fiscal one concerned with identifying requirements for essential support and it is unlikely that anyone but the school budgeting team would be aware of how the money is used. Originally, costs that would be incurred by schools making provision for the needs of pupils with EHCPs were anticipated by LAs to have reflected the previously estimated 2.8% percentage of all students with EHCPs. In 2020–21 the number increased significantly to 3.3% (DfE, 2021b). In practice, this represents an arbitrary and variable estimation of the nation’s percentage of pupils with SEND needing high levels of support. In most other countries this average is considerably higher, for example in Poland it is 8% and in the USA the equivalent number is 14%. In England LAs have been forced to recognise that many schools have been struggling to come close to meeting the needs of many students with high levels of SEND who had not been granted EHCPs but were clearly in need of them. It should be emphasised that it is also not enough to ring-fence LA spending on SEND. Once funding has been granted, schools should be held accountable for the use of ring-fenced funding, as part of any Ofsted inspection assessment, in accordance with a new mandatory legal requirement for the provision of all children with SEND, not just those with an EHCP.

Improving the assessment process for students with high SEND needs As we have seen in Chapter 6, when parents are concerned about the needs of their children, they can find themselves entangled in a cyclical loop of funding delay and frustration. ‘Parents and carers have to wade through a treacle of bureaucracy, full of conflict, missed appointments and despair’ (HoC ECR,

150 Government policy for SEND in England 2019, p. 3). A series of hurdles have to be overcome beginning with advice to parents that they should initially speak to their child’s teacher. There is an expectation in the SEND Code of Practice (2015) that good mainstream school teachers will ensure that high quality teaching meets most of the needs of pupils in their classes, so on first hearing of a concern, teachers may sense implied criticism and delay taking concerns to a higher level. Concerns that are eventually raised by the teacher may trigger an internal assessment process by the school SENDCo leading to a minimal framework of additional classroom support, which must be paid for out of the school’s notional budget. If difficulties persist, the next step is for further specialist assessments from outside services, at a cost, to be made. This can set up a conflict of interest between the concerns of teachers to be doing the right thing and the school’s financial ability to support them. Unlike LA maintained schools, MATs have the additional flexibility to choose whether or not to buy or dispense with such services. However necessary a specialist assessment is considered to be by the parents, the SENDCo or other teachers, MAT leaders may well consider it to be an avoidable cost, especially as it does not guarantee that a referral to the LA for an EHCP will be successful. This can amount to a cost-cutting measure which may impact on the assessment and level of support available to their pupils, as well as disparity between provision in different parts of the county. Without an endorsement of the special needs identified by an outside specialist, however, LAs may refuse to consider a school’s referral for an Education Health and Care Plan Assessment of Need (EHCAN), leaving the pupil with no legal mandate of support. Nonetheless, the onus is on the school to coordinate this information and produce evidence for the LA to justify a referral. ‘To inform its decision the local authority will expect to see documented evidence of the action taken by the school as part of SEND support’ (DfE, 2015, 6.63). However, this requirement in the SEND Code of Practice is at odds with the Children and Families Act 2014, which does not require any form of record keeping or any particular remedial action to have taken place (Nettleton & Friel, 2015, p. 61, 159). Some determined parents detect this disparity and use it to claim their rights to an immediate EHCAN using their own private Educational Psychologist’s report to support it. Since each LA has different funding resources, this inevitably produces an uneven level of support for SEND between schools and individuals. The HoC Report (ECR, 2019) was particularly critical of this unequal and unstandardised approach to assessment and support for students with high levels of need. Essentially, recognition and resourcing of actual SEND provision, therefore, fits a local funding formula rather than having the ability to appropriately respond to the needs of students within mainstream schools. Hard pressed LAs have a perverse incentive to set the bar for providing EHCPs inappropriately high, often overriding the parent’s request for legally protected provision. In addition, when deciding on the level of provision necessary for a child’s EHCP, there is an in-built bias for them to employ educational psychologists and other

Government policy for SEND in England 151 specialists known to be more restrained in making substantial recommendations for specialist provision in their EHCPs or being specific about the hours of necessary student support. Since it is a statutory duty for LAs to make the provision once it is set out in an EHC plan, and their funding policy cannot override it, it is in their interests to write plans in such a way as to keep the provision of additional staff or external specialists to a minimum (Nettleton & Friel, 2015, p. 62). The majority of expected provision written into plans by LAs that we have seen have placed the responsibility back on schools, in the expectation that they will use the existing notional funding from their own budgets to meet most of the requirements. Any reform of these procedures needs to recognise that there are currently no legally mandated inspectorate oversights to ensure the requirements are complied with. As this also suggests, a less onerous and more flexible approach for parents and schools to assess levels of need and define necessary provision would go some way to making for a more responsive system.

Promoting collaboration between education, health and social care services or diluting their separate responsibilities? A key aspect of the 2014 reforms was to transform the educational experiences of children and young people with special education needs and disabilities by coordinating the previously disjointed response of the educational, health and social services. This meant bringing parents together with specialist professionals from each of the three services to recognise and respond in the best way possible to the needs of their children with SEND. Some research warned that success of the reforms would depend on how well the three services collaborated (Norwich, 2014). However, LAs are now rarely involved in coordinated services assessment meetings at the instigation of an EHCAN request. Therefore, cooperation has proved to be a more administratively difficult task than was foreseen, with much of how it was to be done being left up to individual LAs to decide for themselves. LAs were expected to demonstrate, on a single extensive document, how each of these services would assess and support the needs of each child referred for an EHCP. The plans could be misleading, in that health and social care needs were included only in so far as they related to special educational needs. Despite the ‘person-centred approach’ in the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015), the HoC Report (ECR, 2019) highlighted the lack of effective cooperation between education and the other services to provide therapy or support. The report (ECR, 2019) stated that, in reality, the perception was that most SEND practitioners were being offered training in paperwork rather than in the cultural change supposed to be fundamental to the person-centred approach (ECR, 2019). The founder of the parent-led pressure group, Special Needs Jungle, told Schools Week that by trying not to be too prescriptive, the Government had left LAs to interpret the law in their own way (Tirraoro, 2019). It could be argued, however, that being prescriptive about the unachievable is the real danger zone. If anything, the Green Paper demonstrates a move towards being more prescriptive

152 Government policy for SEND in England about what LAs are expected to achieve, without working out how it should be done. The reality was that the recognition of ‘high needs’ by LAs was relative and highly variable. It was left to the discretion of each LA, whose criteria for who should or should not receive support, would be determined largely by their ability to fund them (ECR, 2019). Adding to the tension between services was the misconception by many from the start of the reforms that all pupils with ‘high needs’ would have an EHC plan supporting them until age 25. Tension between services was exacerbated by a lack of clarity about who was responsible for paying for what. This led to some schools and local authorities paying for interventions that should be provided by the health services (ECR, 2019). In the Government Green paper (DfE, 2022) it is acknowledged that: ‘The current SEND system does not prescribe in detail exactly who should provide and pay for local services, leaving it to local agreement and First-tier SEND Tribunals. Similarly, delivery of alternative provision is inconsistent across areas and schools’ (15, p. 12). Since 2014, the reality of the intended multi-service teamwork became increasingly difficult to achieve, as suggested by the statement that ‘huge gaps in therapy provision across the country are letting down all pupils but particularly those on SEN Support’ (HoC ECR, 2019, p. 4).

Conflict of interest between the LA twin role of assessment and funding of children with SEND Warnock proposed separating the functions of assessment from those of funding in her pamphlet, ‘Special Educational Needs: A New Look’ (Warnock, 2005) but disappointingly it was rejected by the Education and Skills Committee report in 2007 (ESC, 2007). The argument given was that all services should be integrated in order to provide a more holistic provision to meet children’s needs, maintaining that separate funding systems ‘would involve duplication of effort and additional complexity’ (ESC, 2007:3–4, p. 4). However, our experience has shown that the merging of these responsibilities has caused a great deal of unnecessary complexity and that separating them would make them more transparent and individually accountable. A cooperative relationship may be better established when separate responsibilities are more clearly defined without either service taking advantage of any funding ambiguities in the current arrangements. The conflict of interest between schools, parents and LAs demonstrates how assessment of children’s special needs can never be objective or impartial as long as both the assessment and funding provision are conducted by the same organisation. It is vital that the two functions are independent of one another. Despite the apparent difficulties of the three services being able to successfully work together and the shortcomings expressly pointed out by the ECR Review Report (HoC ECR, 2019), the Government Green Paper (DfE, 2022, March 31) makes no suggestion of how these problems could be resolved (DfE, 2022, March 31; Keer, 2022, March 31).

Government policy for SEND in England 153

Meeting the needs of students on SEN support but without EHCPs It appears that the intention of the Children and Families Act (CAFA, 2014) was to make schools accountable for providing for students with SEND with or without EHC plans (Nettleton & Friel, 2015). Where it is the case that a student does not have an EHC plan, enforcement of the Equality Act (2010:20) is provided by the duty on schools to make reasonable adjustments (Nettleton & Friel, 2015). However, this has not been effective since key issues highlighted by the HoC report (ECR, 2019) were both the inappropriate provision for students without EHCPs and the corresponding requests for more EHCPs, demonstrated by the significant increase in their numbers (DfE, 2021b) each year. The HoC report (ECR, 2019) also raises questions about the lack of accountability by maintained school and Academy Trust leadership for making use of their funding appropriately to make adequate provision for SEND in their schools and about the oversight of school adherence to their legal obligations. Significantly, until now, this has not been deemed to be a legal requirement by Ofsted (HoC ECR, 2019). The concerns raised by the HoC review (ECR, 2019) about the assessment and quality of provision for pupils without EHCPs do not appear to be addressed by the Government Green Paper (2022). Notably, for reasons highlighted earlier, Academy Trusts have been shown to have a lower rate of identification of children with SEND compared to LA maintained schools (Hutchison, 2021). This has contributed to the neglect of less severe but higher incidence special needs pupils (Norwich, 2014) which is important since research shows that there are higher rates of SEND amongst disadvantaged children (Shaw et al., 2016) and that two-thirds of Academy schools have lower attainment levels than the mainstream average (Jozwiak, 2018). There is little to suggest that regional schools’ commissioners who oversee the conversion of schools to Academies have been successful in bringing about improvements in outcomes (Kinross, 2018) despite the original intention that Academies would improve standards in disadvantaged areas (Norwich, 2014).

Reducing LA costs by reducing parental appeals to tribunals Since the 2015 Code of Practice (DfE, 2015), concerned parents were encouraged to exercise their rights to request a thorough assessment of their child’s special needs. Repercussions of reduced LA funding in the period from 2014 to 2021 involved inadequate support for SEND and an increase in parental demand for legally mandated support and more available special school places. The expectation was that, through joint decision making with parents, the LA’s own advice and support service would be able to provide impartial information to help resolve any disputes. In reality, the inadequate resourcing of provision throughout the country has led to a significantly increased number of court cases.

154 Government policy for SEND in England In the recent Government Green Paper SEND Review (DfE, 2022), it was admitted that ‘costs associated with tribunals since 2015 had increased year on year, demonstrating parents’ and carers’ increasing frustration with the system’ (DfE, 2022:10, p. 11). For school leaders and teachers to develop strong relationships with parents, it is vital that parents are given reason to believe that the system as a whole will work for their children and that the services they are being offered are genuinely acting in their children’s best interests. LAs and schools should be seen as working together in the best interests of the children by collaboratively working towards a common goal of offering them the most appropriate educational placement and support. Restricting the criteria for pupils to qualify for an EHCP, as suggested in the Government Green Paper (2022), is unlikely to reduce the level of need or the demand for necessary services by parents. This proposal, coupled with an added compulsion for parents to engage in mediation prior to any tribunal action, is likely to extend the period of delay in obtaining appropriate support and lead to greater parental frustration and resentment. There is an argument, therefore, that all provision for children identified as being in need of SEND support, should be legally protected.

Reducing the number of special schools, while increasing ‘alternative provision’ In accordance with the UK’s ratification of the UN CRPD (2006) in 2009, a clear intention of the 2014 reforms was to simultaneously improve the ability of mainstream schools to include pupils with high levels of special needs while reducing the number of special schools. In practice, the reverse has happened, as it has proved to be increasingly difficult for mainstream schools to make appropriate provision for pupils with high levels of SEND with decreasing levels of funding and resources available (Booth, 2022; DfE, 2020; DfE, 2021b). As a result, a number of Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) have set up their own specialist schools and alternative provisions (APs) either in the form of separate settings or as special needs provision classes within academies, following advice that they should do so from the Government (HoC EC, 2020). The discrepancy between the different types of special needs support set up by MATs across their schools leads to variable provision in different areas of the country (ECR, Oct 2019). In 2020, the Government announced that up to 3,000 new school places were to be created for children with SEND from September 2022 onwards (DfE 2020, July 19). The proposals reflect the many settings currently provided by MATs for those pupils who ‘are not receiving the right education and support’ in their mainstream schools. As well as providing for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, the Green Paper proposes establishing APs for children with medical needs (Tirraoro, 2022). What it does not do is to specify how pupils will be assessed for such provision and what levels of targeted professional support and adapted curricula they will receive. The strong government focus on

Government policy for SEND in England 155 ‘alternative provision’ is somewhat surprising given the relatively small percentage of children who attend them (Tirraoro, 2022, April 1) but may be explained by their frequent merger with special schools. The growth of APs may therefore reflect how MATs are absorbing traditional special schools into them to manage the UNCRPD expectation that special schools should close by 2030 (UN CRPD, 2016). Ambiguous political support for inclusion can cause unregulated processes to go undetected. This is particularly true of the English Government’s relationship with Multi-Academy Trusts. Whilst in the years since 2015, Governments have been keen to encourage the proliferation of Multi-Academy Trusts, they have it seems overlooked the social disadvantages and inequalities they are exacerbating. The benefits of greater autonomy, free from LA control, as extolled by the Government, has given them a greater freedom to differentiate amongst their intake, in a covert way, in their attempts to appear to be raising overall standards of otherwise failing schools (Norwich, 2014). The reinterpretation of ‘inclusion’ by Multi-Academy Trusts For mainstream schools the mandate for every child to have a right to a place can hamper their attempts to raise standards of attainment or to provide adequately for those with less severe levels of need. The response of aspiring Multi-Academy Trusts attempting to improve their overall attainment levels is to find other means of interpreting the mandate for ‘inclusion.’ For example, for those children with SEND that can be included in mainstream settings, vertically streamed special provision in separate classes is being introduced. For the most serious behavioural offenders, students are often eased out through a covert system of ‘off rolling’ (Tissot et al., 2019), that is, managed moves into other schools, Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) or ‘alternative provision’ (Graham et al., 2019). Large MATs that can afford to do so are building new special schools to replace the need for special needs units. In this way MATs) can claim to be ‘including’ their high needs students within their Trust in a way that ensures their schools are not overwhelmed by their legal obligations to be inclusive. However, as yet, there is no system of accountability to regulate such processes or for independent supervisory governing bodies to oversee them. Alternative provisions: a reactive rather than proactive response At present, ‘alternative provisions’ (APs) are school placements for children who have proved unable to cope with mainstream education, many of whom display severe emotional and/or behavioural difficulties. However, APs are often starved of the funding, highly skilled special needs educators, therapists and facilities to provide such children with the more personalised care and education that is so necessary for their support (Dove, 2021). Far from offering the highly professional approach necessary, such as that developed in Finland over 20 years ago, which provides a preventative system of special schools and

156 Government policy for SEND in England classes at the earliest possible time in a child’s educational career, many APs in England have arguably become dumping grounds for children who have nowhere else to go. With the increased number of AP school placements proposed by the Government Green paper (DfE, 2022) it should be a priority for the inadequacies of targeted specialist support to be addressed and properly funded. Following the 2014 reforms, there has been a false expectation that all children would benefit from a mainstream education by default, so little attention was given to the quality of provision for those pupils whose behaviour demanded that they should be recognised as needing something different. The greatest problem with APs used as an alternative to keeping children in mainstream schools has been that the process of moving children into them has often been a decision of last resort when all other options have failed. Due to school leadership concern to be seen as upholding the principles of inclusion, failure by students to function in an acceptable way has had to be demonstrated time and time again, over several years of a child’s educational life, before a decision to consider alternatives is judged to be in the child’s best interests. As a result, the painful exclusion process comes at the end of a long road of frustration and failure which is recognised as a humiliating rejection from the child’s mainstream setting. This is in stark contrast to a situation in which proactive pre-emptive action of assessing a child’s needs is taken to provide appropriate support at the point of school entry or as soon as difficulties become apparent.

Reducing the number of exclusions of children with SEND The Government has recognised that exclusion from schools particularly affects the most vulnerable: As well as having disproportionately high rates of exclusion, there are certain groups of pupils with additional needs who are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of exclusion. This includes pupils with EHC plans and looked after children. The head teacher should, as far as possible, avoid permanently excluding any pupil with an EHC plan or looked after child (DfE, 2017:23, p. 11). However, the hidden dilemma that needs to be addressed is whether by admitting children inappropriately, current legislation could be forcing schools to set children up for failure and potential exclusion. If an important aim is to prevent exclusions of vulnerable children who cannot be supported appropriately, does it not stand to reason that it would have been better not to have admitted them in the first place? In other words, we return to the issue of prevention through early identification and appropriate provision for pupils with SEND rather than insisting on relentlessly pursuing a policy of inclusion. Without addressing the predicament that the admissions policy puts on schools to admit children unsuited to coping in a mainstream environment, simply by highlighting the serious effects on young people of multiple and

Government policy for SEND in England 157 long-term exclusions, the Government apparently hoped their policy on exclusion would limit the ill effects of exclusion. This clearly did not take into account how appropriate the inclusion of certain pupils with SEND was in the first place. The Government has expressed concern that disruptive behaviour can be an indication of unmet needs (DfE, 2017; Timpson, 2019) and that there are serious detrimental consequences of exclusions on students with high levels of SEND (DfE, 2019; PAC, 2020). However, those on SEN support without EHCPs have been left particularly vulnerable without any legal protection from exclusion (PAC, 2020:17) or the ill effects of inappropriate provision. Secondary negative behaviour is often traceable to the lack of appropriate support for pupils with SEND as well as inappropriate responses to their behaviour management within mainstream environments. This is especially true of children with severe autism, mental health problems or attachment disorders (NAS, 2017; Sobel, 2017). However, the extent to which a school can ‘identify whether there are any causal factors and intervene early to reduce the need for a subsequent exclusion’ (DfE, 2017, p. 6) will depend on factors such as the resources available to the school, school-wide staff training, the extent of the child’s needs and the appropriateness of the mainstream environment (Harrison, 2019). Once a child with an EHCP has been admitted, schools now encounter exceptional constraints on their ability to exclude them (DfE, 2017). Although this appears to be supportive of the child, it may mean that in practice the child continues for years in an environment that is detrimental to both their well-being and that of others. It means that the child never has the opportunity to ‘recover’ in a smaller more nurturing environment with the level of staffing, attention and skill of a specialist setting. Other children with high levels of SEND within the school also suffer because the focus of attention and effort, which has to be exerted to contain the negative effects of the child in question, detract from their own needs being met. Whatever early experiences have caused children to behave in disruptive ways, their behaviour still has to be contained and others protected before therapeutic measures can be put in place to help address the underlying issues. Schools can be hugely disrupted by a child they are trying to include at all costs without the necessary resources and staffing to do so. Far from protecting such children from further harm, such a restrictive exclusion policy has contributed to poor pupil well-being, high rates of teacher stress and reduced pupil progress. It is not the intent behind the guidance of the Exclusions Code that is in itself the problem, but the combined effect of both this and the Schools Admissions Code that creates the handcuffing of the education system, rendering it unable to provide what is in the best interests of the child. At the moment, children with SEND are effectively being discriminated against due to being deprived of appropriate educational options.

158 Government policy for SEND in England

Parental choice for SEND more limited in areas of disadvantage Section 9 of the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) asserts that local authorities should provide additional levels of funding to meet high levels of need in areas of disadvantage. However, LAs with a shortage of funds will keep a tight grip on their willingness to do so by raising their own criteria for pupils to qualify for additional funding. Furthermore, in practice, high needs funding only amounts to a token contribution to the real costs incurred by schools. National data shows that there is a higher incidence of special educational needs amongst disadvantaged children (DfE, 2021b). Therefore, inevitably, schools in regions of high disadvantage are likely to be more adversely affected by having higher proportions of pupils with SEND. In certain regions such as parts of London, where funding has dramatically increased compared to coastal regions of the UK (Whittaker, 2019) or where there are higher numbers of special schools or special needs classes within schools, more appropriate provision for pupils with SEND is sometimes available. The extent to which these placements have been introduced by Academy Trusts, varies causing a disparity between regions. MAT leaders may attempt to keep their costs to a minimum by putting pressure on their schools to minimise the identification of SEND by ensuring that they keep such numbers in line with national averages. This means that, in some areas, high numbers of pupils with SEND go unrecognised, exacerbating the problem of unmet special educational needs in areas of greater disadvantage. Effects of over and under subscription on deepening inequalities In areas of the country where certain Academies have proved to be successful and popular, there are often other schools left under-subscribed and struggling. The ECR (HoC, 2019) and more recent research have shown that governance accountability of MATs for the admission of children with SEND has lacked transparency (West et al., 2022). The large number of students with significant special needs who lack EHCPs can be refused admission by more popular schools on the grounds of their over-subscription criterion. The corollary of this is that since under-subscribed (often less popular) schools cannot use the over-subscription criterion, to refuse admission of those children with SEND but without EHCPs, they become default placements for higher rates of disadvantage and higher numbers of children with SEND. In other words, in reality, parents living in less popular school areas, are left with little or no choice of school for a child who is without legally mandated SEND support in the form of an EHCP. If a parent of a child or young person with SEND wants them to attend a mainstream school, the LA can only refuse this if a mainstream placement would be ‘incompatible with the efficient education of other pupils’ and ‘there are no reasonable steps’ the LA could take to avoid this (CAFA, 2014:33:2b & 3). Whilst LAs are provided with this ‘get-out’ clause that appears to open up some ambiguity about their legal position, they are unlikely to use it for the

Government policy for SEND in England 159 purpose of refusing or advising a parent against the admission of a child to an under-subscribed mainstream school. Since the degree or complexity of their needs or disabilities, and the suitability of mainstream provision, is not a reason in law for refusal of a mainstream placement, under-subscribed schools are further disadvantaged as they are likely to have more limited resources to cope with a high intake of students with SEND who lack an EHCP. The reality is that many children with SEND in areas of disadvantage are in mainstream schools that are not able to make appropriate provision for them.

Cost savings and accountability to the local community For the coalition Government of 2014, the main intention of the human rights principles governing the reforms were entangled with a deeper underlying aim to reduce costs during a time of austerity (DfE, 2015). But it has been clear since 2014 that LAs were expected by the government to meet a set of obligations, regardless of whether or not they had the funding for them. It also appears that a primary intention of the current Government SEND review (DfE, 2022) is that it should lead to cost savings and cutbacks that could make their obligations yet more difficult to meet. Mainstream schools have received delegated funding via the LA, or in the case of Academies directly from the central Government Education Department (DfE), through the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). Despite the allocation of a notional £6,000 per child annual budget for SEND support, it was not ring-fenced for that purpose or for the support of specific children and was all too easily absorbed into general school running costs. Simply raising the amount of a notional budget, as appears to be the current plan to bring it more in line with inflation, is unlikely to prevent the problem of school accountability from continuing without clear ring-fencing of SEND funding by both LAs and schools. Additional funding for particularly high levels of special needs are applied for on an individual basis from a ‘high needs’ block of funding provided directly from the LA. This was intended for support and services for children that could be shown by schools to be costing them more than the total notional delegated £10,000 per annum. The hopeful expectation of the 2014 reforms was that, as mainstream schools became more skilled at including pupils with SEND, the number of children needing such high levels of funding would decrease. As we have seen, however, the reverse has been the case. As the focus of school staff has been on meeting their legally mandated obligations to students with EHCPs, increasing numbers of children without EHCPs have not had their needs met adequately, and demand for recognition of their difficulties has increased, leading to higher demand on LA expenditure (DfE, 2021b; HoC ECR, 2019). Much has been written about the poor levels of accountability of both Multi-Academy Trusts and Local Authorities, which has been an issue of concern for many years (Audit Commission, 2006; HC Education Committee, 2018; HoC ECR, 2019; Tirraoro, 2018, Keer, 2022). As made clear by recent analysis of the most recent Government Green Paper for SEND Reform (DfE,

160 Government policy for SEND in England 2022; LGA, 2022), this is of particular relevance to the anticipated reforms. Whilst MATs may have been seen as an improvement on the issue of perceived wasted use of funds by LAs (Keer, 2019), the level of autonomy that MATs now have for their spending of Government funds has particular significance for pupils with SEND. This is because, rather than Government funding being received by schools via the LA, for shared support of schools within a local community, it is mainly distributed to individual schools by the MAT leadership, which receives it directly from the Government’s Education and Skills Funding Agency. Although this may be viewed as a more direct funding relationship between the government and education, there is no independent scrutiny of how the funding is spent for the support of pupils with SEND within the schools. Within Academy Trusts, SEND is funded in two ways. Their main source of funding is via a notional budget received from the Education and Skills Funding Agency. As for LA maintained schools, the other source of funding is from the LA high needs block applied for by individual Academies for the additional support of specific pupils. MAT leaders then make decisions about how that funding is distributed and spent amongst its various academy schools. Whilst Academies themselves are inspected by Ofsted, MAT governance is not, which means there is no independent oversight of MAT spending of either of these funding streams for SEND (Baxter, 2018). The spending mechanism of these Government funds therefore is a major concern, as long as it remains unregulated. In light of reports demonstrating the potential for corruption (Hughes, n.d.; Sodha, 2018) and recent reports about record numbers of MAT non-teaching executives with average salaries exceeding £130,000 a year, accountability is clearly an issue for urgent investigation (Telegraph, 2022; TES, 2021). Differences between outcomes for Academies and LA maintained schools Recently, Gorard (2022), in an extensive study of the available data, has reported that he found no difference in Key Stage 4 outcomes between those pupils attending Academies and other school types, and that apparent differences in outcomes between school types were fully explained by differences between their pupil intakes. Since the majority of schools are now Academies (78% secondary and 37% primary in 2020) and current government policy is to continue this trend of converting schools to Academies, it is expected that all schools will follow the Academy model regardless of the lack of overall improvement of academic outcomes (Gorard, 2022). This has important implications for pupils with SEND. While Academies and MATs may give the appearance of implementing an inclusive approach, the reality may mean a focus on cost-cutting, leading to less effective education for pupils with SEND, along with no overall improvement in standards and achievement for all pupils in the school and local community. This makes it a bad time to be considering more restrictive policies mandating inclusion for the education of young people with SEND.

Government policy for SEND in England 161 In terms of raising standards, considerable doubt has been expressed about the impact of Academies on educational outcomes (Andrews et al., 2017; Gee et al., 2017; Gorard, 2022). The most obvious differences between schools were shown to be between ‘converter’ Academies – previously successful schools, and ‘sponsored’ Academies, which represent those schools forced to become academies as a result of previously poor performance (Gee et al. 2017). As a means of managing provision for specific pupils with identified high levels of SEND, MATs are increasingly establishing special provision classes within their Academies, or, they are utilising separate special schools, such as those converted from Pupil Referral Units adopted by the Trust, for pupils who have been excluded from mainstream schools. This can contribute to an apparent improvement of the MATs mainstream attainment outcomes, since pupils in these special schools and special provision classes are not typically counted in mainstream school data.

Concluding comments Following the House of Commons Education Select Committee written report (HoC ECR, 2020), the Public Report drew attention to how the complexities of the issue of provision for pupils with SEND need to be grappled with and lessons from past experience properly understood. As some researchers had earlier anticipated, the ‘radical’ reforms of 2014 ‘were not radical enough or radically new at all but merely extended, integrated and tightened up existing practices’ (Norwich, 2014, p. 415). From the discussion in this chapter it is clear that, for the issues to be addressed constructively, it is vital that pragmatism, not ideology or party politics, should play a key role. Despite the HoC ECR (2019) recommendations, and the Government’s response to them (HoC ECR, 2020), there is still much contradiction in the messages about provision and undefined concepts of ‘inclusion.’ The report recommended that all schools should be ‘inclusive’ (HoC ECR, 2019:42) without precisely defining what it means by the term. The recommendations left no doubt that the DfE should ‘fundamentally address the relationship between need and available provision’ (HoC ECR, 2019, p. 15). If the relationship between need and available provision is to be addressed, so does the question of how ‘inclusive’ a school can be to implement that provision. Leaving it undefined, continues to leave room for misinterpretation and misrepresentation of policies by those who seek to put funding considerations above appropriate provision. The implementation of a strong and effective SEND policy determines the well-being and optimal functioning of the whole school, affecting all students, teachers and support staff. Any new reforms cannot ignore the practical lessons of the last seven years which parents and professionals alike have brought to the attention of the government. Whatever idealised notions may be imposed, in the end what is needed in terms of quality of provision and funding, will inevitably rise to the surface and demand to be acknowledged.

162 Government policy for SEND in England The reforms of 2014 will only succeed if, with future revisions, they manage to harmonise theory and practice and capitalise on the goodwill and creative thinking of practitioners to enable workable implementation of reforms, rather than impose mandates that restrict and penalise those trying to act in the best interests of children with SEND. We propose that the following recommendations will help bring this about.

Recommendations based on critique of recent reforms in English legislation Interaction between mainstream and special school provisions requires:






A continuum of special education provision, including special schools, to be available in all local authorities and within the local areas of Academy Trusts. Flexibility for students to move from one type of setting to the other as judged necessary by parents, teaching staff and specialists. Choice of schools to be made by parents, specialists and teachers based on their discussions about students’ needs. Special schools and special provision classes in mainstream schools to be taught by specialist trained teachers. Ongoing interaction between mainstream and local special school staff providing support and advice regarding pupils and programmes.

Leadership structure of mainstream schools requires:




Fully qualified SENDCos to work in mainstream schools directly with specialists, headteacher and governing body, as members of Senior Management Teams. An evidence-based restriction and monitored number and type of high needs SEND admitted into mainstream schools and classes. Specialist inspectors with training and experience in the area of SEND to inspect provision in special schools, special needs classes in mainstream schools, as well as provision for pupils with SEND, with and without EHCPs, in mainstream classes.

Separation of assessment of need from funding of provision:




Establishment of a Specialist Assessment Agency in each LA, independent of schools and local authorities and staffed by specialists in all areas of SEND. Pre-school developmental screening assessment of all children prior to school entry, conducted by an independent Specialist Assessment Agency. Specialist Assessment Agency to provide advance guidance to parents and school leadership teams about SEND provision necessary for each new school year intake based on individual assessments.

Government policy for SEND in England 163



Open access to the Specialist Assessment Agency on request by concerned parents and schools without the need for lengthy evidence to be provided. Specialist Assessment Agency to work directly with SENDCos and teachers to assess pupils and provide guidance on an ongoing basis.

Learning structure includes:






Introduction of a multi-tier mandated system for intervention in schools to address needs of all levels of SEND in acknowledgement that around 20% of pupils may require additional support at some point in their education. Legally mandated IEPs for all children with SEND based on an independent assessment of need. Ongoing collaborative assessment of need between a Specialist Assessment Agency and teachers to annually update IEPs process. IEPs to involve education, health and social services (welfare) input where prescribed by a Specialist Assessment Agency. Consideration for some high needs pupils with SEND working progressively through grades for each subject at their own pace irrespective of year group, as proposed by Warnock (2005).

Funding allocation and accountability requires:








Independent inspection of Academy Trusts to ensure full accountability for school spending of all funds for SEND received from the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the LA. Inspection of LAs to ensure full accountability for funding SEND appropriately according to individual school needs. A single block of SEND funding from the LA (for maintained schools) or the Education and Skills Funding Agency (for Academy Schools) to replace notional and high needs block funding. Single block of SEND funding to be received directly by each school leadership team with responsibility for spending it specifically on SEND pupils. Funding to be on the basis of the prior knowledge of number and degree of SEND enrolled at each school at the beginning of each school year. All funding for SEND received by schools to be ring-fenced for SEND with accountability to the Specialist Assessment Agency, Inspectorate and School Governing body. Inspectorate and independent Governing bodies to have a mandate to ensure that provision for SEND by schools is in accordance with level of need and funding made available to schools or Multi-Academy Trusts.

References ALLFIE (2022). (The Alliance for Inclusive Education) Article 24. The UN and the human right to inclusive education. https://www.allfie.org.uk/campaigns/article-24/.

164 Government policy for SEND in England Anastasiou, D., Felder, M., Correia, L., Shemanov, A., Zweers, I., & Ahrbeck, B. (2020). The impact of Article 24 of the CRPD on special and inclusive education in Germany, Portugal, the Russian Federation, and Netherlands. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed). On Educational Inclusion: Meanings, History, Issues and International Perspectives, pp. 236–245. Routledge. Andrews, J., Perera, N., Eyles, A., Sahlgren, G. H., Machin, S., Sandi, M. & Silva, O. (2017). The impact of academies on educational outcomes. Education Policy Institute. School performance and leadership. file:///C:/Users/44785/Downloads/EPI_ -Impact_of_Academies_Consolidated_Report-%20(1).pdf. Audit Commission (2006). Special Educational Needs: separation of assessment of need from funding of provision. Education and Skills Committee. Select Committee Submission. June 2007. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/ cmeduski/memo/specialedneeds/ucm2802.pdf. Baxter, J. (2018, October 12). Multi Academy Trusts in England, are they really accountable? PuLSE Blog. http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/PuLSE-Blog/?p=32. Booth, S. (2021, July 2). Sector ‘in limbo’ as third SEND review deadline passes. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/sector-in-limbo-as-third-send-review-deadline-passes/ Booth, S. (2022, February 11). Special schools ‘bursting at seams’ – but DfE doesn’t collect. the data. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/special-schools-bursting-a t-seams-but-dfe-doesnt-collect-the-data/. CAFA (2014a). Children and Families Act:43. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 2014/6/section/43. CAFA (2014b). Children and Families Act:33:2b & 3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2014/6/section/33. DfE (2011, March). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability. Cm 8027. http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/p dfs/2011-green-paper-sen.pdf. DfE (2015, January). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/a ttachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf. DfE (2017, May) Exclusions Code for Schools Academies and Pupil Referral Units. https://a ssets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/921405/20170831_Exclusion_Stat_guidance_Web_version.pdf. DfE (2020, July 19). Thousands of places created in new special free schools. Gov.uk. Press release. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-places-crea ted-in-new- special-free-schools–2. DfE (2021, April 27). Guidance Catch-up premium. Gov.uk. https://www.gov.uk/gov ernment/publications/catch-up-premium-coronavirus-covid-19/catch-up-premium. DfE (2021, May). Special educational needs and disability: an analysis and summary of data sources. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/up loads/attachment_data/file/985162/Special_educational_needs_Publication_May21_ final.pdf. DfE (2021, September). School Admissions Code. Mandatory requirements and statutory guidance for admission authorities, governing bodies, local authorities, schools adjudicators and admission appeals panels. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governm ent/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001050/School_admissions_code_ 2021.pdf. DfE (2022, March). SEND Review: Right support, right place, right time Government consultation on the SEND and alternative provision system in England.

Government policy for SEND in England 165 CO 624. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/a ttachment_data/file/1063620/SEND_review_right_support_right_place_right_time_acc essible.pdf. Dove, S. (2021, June 31). Alternative provision infrastructure is at risk and that’s bad for everyone. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/we-must-act-fast-to-protect-our-pru-and-ap-infra structure/. Education Act (1996:324). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/324. Education and Skills Committee. (2006). Special Educational Needs: separation of assessment of need from funding of provision. The Audit commission memorandum. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeduski/mem o/specialedneeds/ucm2802.pdf. ESFA (2022). The Education Skills and Funding Agency. About us. https://www.gov. uk/government/organisations/education-and-skills-funding-agency/about. EUD (2022). UN CRPD Committee’s General Comment No 4 on the right to inclusive education. European Union of the Deaf. https://www.eud.eu/about-us/ eud-position-paper/all-inclusive-education/. Farrell, M. (2006). Celebrating the Special School. Fulton. Gorard, S. (2022). The ‘evidence-led education secretary’ isn’t being led by the evidence. Schools Week, Monday, 11th April. Graham, B., White, C., Edwards, A., Potter, S., & Street, C. (2019, May). School exclusion: a literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. DfE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/800028/Timpson_review_of_school_exclusion_literature_review.pdf. Harrison, N. (2019, June 11). School exclusions are on the up – but training teachers in trauma could help. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/schoolexclusions-are-on-the-up-but-training-teachers-in-trauma-could-help-117616. HM Government (March, 2022). Opportunity for all. Strong schools with great teachers for your child. CP 650. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1063602/Opportunity_for_all_strong_schools_ with_great_teachers_for_your_child__print_version_.pdf. HoC ECR (2019, October 23). House of Commons Education Committee Report Special educational needs and disabilities. First Report. HC 20. https://publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmeduc/20/20.pdf. HoC ECR (2020, July). Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session. 2019. HC668. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cm educ/668/668.pdf. Holmes, C. (2022, June 21). Schools Bill – Special Educational Needs (SEN) & Disabilities Amendments. https://lordchrisholmes.com/schools-bill-sen-amendments/. Hughes, S. (n.d.). Corruption. ‘Non-profit’ academy schools are a gold mine of public money. Morning Star. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/non-profit-academ y-schools-are-gold-mine-public-money. Keer, M. (2019, October 23). SEND Inquiry Report: Education committee blasts DfE, LAs and Ofsted over multiple SEND failures. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.sp ecialneedsjungle.com/send-inquiry-report-education-committee-blasts-dfe-las-and-of sted-over-multiple-send-failures/. Keer, M. (2022, April, 4). SEND Review Chapter 5 (part 1): The missing accountability question. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/sen dreview-chapter-5-missing-accountability-question/.

166 Government policy for SEND in England Kinross, P.A. (2018, June 19). EPI report: Academies are no better than LA schools, and 7 other important findings. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/epi-report-aca demies-are-no-better-than-la-schools-and-7-other-important-findings/. Lehane, T. (2016). ‘SEN’s completely different now’: Critical discourse analysis of three ‘Codes of Practice for Special Educational Needs,’ Educational Review: 69(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/g6z8. LGA (2022, March 30). SEND Green Paper, 29 March 2022. https://www.local.gov. uk/parliament/briefings-and-responses/send-green-paper-29-march-2022#:~:text=The %20Green%20Paper%20proposes%3A,education%2C%20health%2C%20and%20care. National Autistic Society (2017). Exclusion in England. https://www.autism.org.uk/a dvice-and-guidance/topics/education/exclusions/exclusion-england/suspension. National Autistic Society (2021, November 9). School report 2021. https://www. autism.org.uk/what-we-do/news/school-report-2021. National Deaf Children’s Society (2020, November 4). Ten things we’ve learnt from our Deaf Children Today survey. https://www.ndcs.org.uk/blog/ten-things-we-velearnt-from-our-deaf-children-today-survey/. National Tutoring Programme (2021/22). https://nationaltutoring.org.uk/. Nettelton, M. & Friel, J. (2017, August 21) Special Needs and Legal Entitlement: The Essential Guide of Getting out of the Maze. 2nd ed. Jessica Kingsley. Ofsted (2021, June 16). SEND: old issues, new issues, next steps. Gov.uk. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-old-issues-new-issues-next-steps/send -old-issues-new-issues-next-steps. PAC (2020, March 9) Public Accounts Committee. Accounts Committee (PAC) Oral evidence: Support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. HC85. https://committees.parliament.uk/work/35/support-for-children-with-special-educat ional-needs-and-disabilities/publications/oral-evidence/. Shaw, B., Bernardes, E., Trethewey, A. & Menzies, L. (2016). Special educational needs and their links to poverty. JRF Joseph Rowntree Foundation. file:///C:/Users/44785/ Downloads/2016_menzies_et_al_report_3184_final%20(3).pdf. Sobel, D. (2017, March 8). Looked-after students and Attachment Disorder. SecEd. https:// www.sec-ed.co.uk/best-practice/looked-after-students-and-attachment-disorder/. Sodha, S. (2018, July 22). The great academy schools scandal. https://www.theguardian. com/education/2018/jul/22/academy-schools-scandal-failing-trusts. Telegraph (2022, March 25). Multi-academy trusts pay record number of staff more than £100,000 a year. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/25/m ulti-academy-trusts-pay-record-number-staff-100000-year/. TES (2021, October, 13). Revealed: What academy trusts pay chief executives. https:// www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/revealed-what-academy-trusts-pay-chief-execu tives#:~:text=The%20average%20pay%20for%20chief,range%20of%20school%20leader ship%20roles. Timpson Review of School Exclusion (2019, May). CP92. https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_ review.pdf. Tirraoro, T. (2016, June 22). What parents told the government’s review into the SEND reforms. Special Needs Jungle Disabilities, HC 968. http://data.parliament. uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/education-commit tee/special-educational-needs-and-disabilities/oral/92087.html. Tirraoro, T. (2018, February 23). The DfE replies: Accountability in SEND. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/the-dfe-replies-accountability-in-send/.

Government policy for SEND in England 167 Tirraoro, T. (2019, October 14). The DfE wants to stop LAs filling SEND funding gaps. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/dfe-stop-councils-rob bing-peter-pay-paul-fill-empty-send-coffers/. Tirraoro, T. (2022, April 1). SEND Review: Defining Alternative Provision and…how about an apology? Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/sen dreview-defining-alternative-provision-apology/. Tissot, C. & Tskalaki, A. (2019, September 18). Schools are failing pupils with special needs, despite best efforts of dedicated staff. University of Reading. https://research.rea ding.ac.uk/research-blog/schools-are-failing-pupils-with-special-needs-despite-best -efforts-of-dedicated-staff/. UNESCO (2020). Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. UNESCO. UN CRPD (2016, September 2). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General comment No. 4 Article 24: Right to inclusive education. https://tbinternet. ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/GC/ 4&Lang=en. Whittaker F. (2019, February 12). Rural and coastal schools feel isolated from government support research finds. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/rural-and-coa stal-schools-feel-isolated-from-government-support-research-finds/.

9

Research on effectiveness of inclusive education and special education

Introduction The overriding goal of education for children with SEND is to maximise the chances of these young people being able to actively participate in and contribute to society as adults. This chapter examines whether inclusive education or special education programmes are more likely to result in young people with learning or behavioural difficulties being included in their communities post-school? To address this question, there is a need to examine the findings of existing research on the effectiveness of a range of inclusive and special education programmes, especially those from outcome studies of students with learning or behavioural difficulties who have experienced either option, or some combination of the two, and that include the perspectives of young people themselves and their parents.

Evaluating the effectiveness of inclusive and special education programmes It is important to measure the effect of various inclusive and special education programmes and settings on outcomes for children with learning or behavioural difficulties so that an evaluation of the value of each of these can be determined. This involves examining outcomes for a range of educational options, such as those typically used in many countries (Ianes, Demo & Dell’Anna, 2020). As seen in Chapter 3 and from a recent study of seven European countries (Buchner et al., 2020) it is reported that, although there is a trend toward increased inclusion of children with learning or behavioural difficulties in mainstream classrooms, most countries also educate some children in four different types of settings, with a range of special education supports: (1) being educated in a mainstream classroom with support from a teacher-aide; (2) being educated in a mainstream classroom with an additional support teacher; (3) being educated in a special class within a mainstream school; (4) being educated in a special school, including ones attached to mainstream schools. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the education provided in each of these four types of settings requires evidence from all stakeholders involved: teachers, DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-9

The effectiveness of inclusive education

169

parents and children with SEND themselves. Measurements need to focus on parents’ expectations of and satisfaction with children’s education programmes. They also must include teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, and their views of the extent to which they consider that they can effectively provide for children with learning or behavioural difficulties in their classes. In addition, measurements must include the views and achievement of children with SEND, both in the short term and with regard to long-term outcomes, which in the final analysis are the most relevant to the overall educational goal of inclusion in the community post-school. Brief summaries of available research evidence on the three different types of stakeholder views are outlined below.

Research on the views of parents Findings of research on parents’ views of special education and inclusive education programmes suggest that there is not a majority view one way or another and that views are dependent on individual circumstances, diagnoses and experiences of the children and parents themselves (Kauffman et al., 2022). Depending on the quality of provision available and the level and type of special needs, some parents prefer that their children with SEND are educated in separate special education settings, while others prefer more inclusive placements (Kauffman et al., 2022). Thus, an inflexible policy of full inclusion that demands the uniform requirement of placing all children with SEND in mainstream classrooms is certain to over-ride the preferences of some parents and deny them the right to choose what they consider to be the most appropriate educational setting for their children. This was the case with an Australian mother of two autistic children who asked one of the authors for advice when the state of Queensland in Australia was considering adopting a policy of full inclusion. This would have involved the closure of all special schools, so that the only option was for her children to attend mainstream schools, which she considered would not be an effective provision for them. One option she was considering was to move to the state of Victoria where the education policy required both mainstream and special schools to be available to children with disabilities and to collaborate with one another. As we have seen in Chapter 4, many other countries’ education systems are based on this model.

Research on the views of teachers Findings from numerous studies reviewed indicate that many teachers have a critical view of inclusion as envisioned under the full inclusion policy stated in Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: General Comment Number Four (Hornby & Hyatt, 2017; UNCRPD, 2016). Empirical research with teachers summarised by Gilmour (2017) highlights the necessity for special education expertise, in addition to general teacher training, for teaching children with SEND in inclusive

170 The effectiveness of inclusive education classrooms and states that general education teachers are typically inadequately prepared to meet their educational needs. Of critical importance for teachers is the availability of support, most often teacher-aides, and adequate appropriate resources in the classroom (Kauffman et al., 2022). Without a guaranteed support system, the attitudes of the majority of teachers toward inclusion tends to be justifiably cautious, if not negative.

Views of young people with SEND The views of children with SEND must be taken into account when deciding on where they are best educated. Before and after placement, their views should be sought about whether they are satisfied with the education and support they are receiving. The views of young people after they leave school, looking back on their experiences are rarely sought but are of great importance when considering the value of maintaining special classes and special schools, as is illustrated by the study of young people who attended a residential special school for children with emotional or behavioural difficulties that is discussed later (Hornby & Witte, 2008a, 2008b). These young people were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences at the residential special school but consistently negative about their experiences at the mainstream schools they attended both before and after their time in the special school.

Short-term achievement of children with SEND While children with SEND are at school, it is important to assess the development of their academic skills, especially literacy and numeracy, but also social skills, especially relating to others, as well as their daily living skills. Recent studies, outlined in Chapter 3, have shown that interventions designed for use in specialist settings can be significantly effective in meeting the needs of children with SEND in developing academic skills (Hurwitz, 2019; Schwartz, 2019). In contrast, Wilcox (2020) reports on several studies which found that students in inclusive classrooms made less academic progress than those receiving specialised interventions. In another review Gilmour (2017) reported on a study that found a special education intervention was more effective than inclusive education in improving mathematics skills of children with learning difficulties. Cook and Cook (2020), who were concerned with previous interpretations of the research, scrutinised reviews of highly cited studies and reviews of research on the efficacy of inclusive education. Based on a rigorous evaluation of the research evidence, they concluded that previous claims that inclusion in mainstream classrooms is typically more effective than special education interventions were not justified.

Long-term outcomes for children with SEND Long-term outcomes examining the extent to which young people with SEND are included in their communities after leaving school are by far the

The effectiveness of inclusive education

171

most important measure of concern because they evaluate the extent to which the principle educational goal of inclusion into the community has been achieved. Three studies that one of the authors has been involved with provide evidence about the outcomes of special education and inclusive education. Two of the studies involved young people with intellectual disabilities, referred to as having moderate learning difficulties (MLD), and one involved young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD). The first is an anecdotal report of a case study of teenagers with MLD taught in a secondary school special class in New Zealand, who left school from the special class in the late 1970s. The second is a follow-up study of young people with MLD in the north of England in the 1990s. In this study, participants were included in mainstream schools for the last few years of their schooling, after being in special schools for most of their school lives. The third is a follow-up study of graduates of a residential special school for children with EBD in New Zealand in the 1990s who transferred back to mainstream schools after an average of 18 months at the special school.

Case study of a special class in New Zealand For three years from 1974 to 1976 one of the authors taught young people with MLD aged 14 to 16 years in a special class within a mainstream secondary school in New Zealand. A social and vocational training curriculum was used, with those in the second year of the two-year programme spending one day per week in ‘work experience’ jobs, organised and supervised by the class teacher. The focus of work in the classroom was on functional academics, daily living skills, social skills and vocational skills. They did not follow the academically focused New Zealand National Curriculum, but instead followed a curriculum designed to address the needs of the students. Special class activities included: class discussion, problemsolving and role play of challenging situations; functional reading such as completing application forms and finding information from newspapers; using listening posts for learning the New Zealand Road Code in order to help them qualify for their driving licenses; work simulations using an in-class production line; shopping for ingredients and cooking lunch in groups of three; playing table tennis in the classroom for social skill development; trips to the city to observe people at work, watching feature films and gaining independence; and work experience one day per week in the second year to develop vocational skills. Outcomes of the special class experience Over the three years of the special class, 28 out of the 30 young people who left school secured jobs in open employment and only two were unable to do this and went to sheltered workshops. Many were employed in the jobs they worked at for one day per week of their work experience. Some informal follow-up work was done about three years after they had left the school, and it was found that the special class graduates typically had kept their jobs or had

172 The effectiveness of inclusive education obtained new ones. Few were unemployed and several owned their own cars. These anecdotal findings supported the view that for young people with MLD, a vocational curriculum, including work experience, in their last years at school helped them gain employment and achieve a reasonable level of independence. Similar findings have been reported in international studies and reviews of research on this issue (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Malkani, 2021; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997) confirming our conclusion that vocational curricula and work experience are key factors in achieving positive outcomes for young people with MLD.

Follow-up study of young people with MLD in England A study was conducted with an ex-principal of a special school, who had been employed to close a special school for pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD) in the north of England by including all the young people in mainstream schools for the last few years of their school careers. There were 29 pupils who transferred from a special school for young people with MLD to mainstream schools, with teacher-aide support organised by the ex-principal. The first part of the study involved interviews conducted by the ex-principal with the young people and their parents soon after their transfer to mainstream schools (Kidd & Hornby, 1993). These were followed up by more interviews several years later, once all the young people had finished school, and they were at an average age of 22 years (Hornby & Kidd, 2001). At this later time, out of the 29 young people who were transferred to mainstream schools, 24 were located and interviewed. They had spent an average of seven years at the special school and three years in mainstream schools following this to complete their school lives. All the young people had followed a mainly academic curriculum in their mainstream schools, although some were placed in a special class and some of these were able to take part in work experience. Eleven out of the 12 who were in a special class within a mainstream school had viewed their transfer positively, compared with only four out of the 12 who were transferred into mainstream classes, while eight saw it negatively. This difference was also found in their parents’ views, with more parents of children transferred to the special class satisfied with this placement than those whose children had been placed in mainstream classrooms. Outcomes at age of 22 years In the second round of interviews, conducted when the young people were an average age of 22 years, 17 out of the 24 young people were unemployed, and only three were working full-time (Hornby & Kidd, 2001). Eight out of the nine who had held jobs at some stage after leaving school had work experience at secondary school, or at Further Education College, compared with only four out of the 15 who had not had any work experience. Out of the 24 interviewed, 17 were living with their parents, while only four were living independently of

The effectiveness of inclusive education

173

their parents. Sixteen out of the 24 were on severe disability allowance, which meant they were deemed unable to be employed. This shocked the ex-principal of the special school who had organised their transfer to mainstream schools, as he considered that most of them should have been able to obtain jobs given what he knew about them. The outcomes were considered very poor and extremely alarming to the former principal.

Follow-up of young people at a residential special school for EBD in New Zealand Twenty-nine out of the 51 young people (and/or their parents) who attended a residential special school for children with emotional or behavioural difficulties (EBD) in New Zealand between 1989 to 1992 were interviewed ten to 14 years after they left school (Hornby & Witte, 2008a, 2008b). Criteria for entry to the school had included having an at least average IQ, along with a record of emotional or behavioural difficulties that could not be coped with in a mainstream primary school. The length of time they attended the special school ranged from 10 to 30 months, with an average of 18 months. Government policy at that time was to have a maximum of 24 months at the school, then be transferred back to mainstream schools for the remainder of their schooling. On transfer back to mainstream schools they had transition plans and visits from special school staff for the first year, but informal feedback on this was that implementation of the advice to schools was poor. When interviewed they were aged from 21.7 to 27.5 years, with an average of 24 years. Outcomes at an average age of 24 years Outcomes from the interviews conducted indicated that 27 out of the 29 participants left school with no qualifications whatsoever (Hornby & Witte, 2008a). Of the 29, 17 left school before the legal age for leaving school, which at that time was 16 years of age. Nine of the 29 were working fulltime, and six were working part-time. Four out of the 29 were in jail and a further 19 reported that they had criminal records. Eleven of the 29 were in de facto marital relationships but none were married. Clearly, the outcomes of their education for these young people demonstrated limited achievements in educational qualifications, employment and social integration. The majority of them could not be considered as fully included in their communities. The participants were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences at the special school (Hornby & Witte, 2008b). They commented on how happy they had been at the special school and how much they had been helped with their learning difficulties and had been enabled to achieve more academically and to manage their behaviour better while at the special school. Notably, on the other hand, participants were overwhelmingly negative about their experiences at the mainstream schools they had attended both before and after their time at the special school. They particularly noted the bullying they had

174 The effectiveness of inclusive education experienced from other children and the labelling and lack of understanding they experienced from mainstream school teachers (Hornby & Witte, 2008b).

Summary of findings of the three studies The positive outcomes of the young people with MLD taught in a secondary school special class in New Zealand stand in contrast to the poor outcomes from the follow-up research conducted with young people with MLD in the UK who had attended a special school then transferred to mainstream schools for the final years of their schooling. The contrasting findings suggest that the young people who left school directly from the special class in the mainstream school were more successful at being included in their communities post-school than those who had left school from the mainstream schools they had been transferred into from their special school for their last few years of schooling. It is inferred that this finding was related to the difference in curricula that these young people experienced during their final years of schooling. The New Zealand special class programme had a vocational curriculum including work experience, as outlined above. Whereas, because of the transfer to mainstream schools, the English MLD sample followed a mainly academic curriculum for their last few years at school with only a few of them having had the opportunity to do any work experience. The special school, from which these young people had been transferred, had had a mainly vocational curriculum, including work experience in the community in their final two years. However, because the young people in this study were transferred to mainstream schools for the last few years of their schooling, they were not able to benefit from this. The poor educational and employment attainments, but positive views, of most young people with EBD about their time at the residential special school in New Zealand contrasted sharply with the negative views of all of them about their time in mainstream schools. This suggests that the transfer back to mainstream schools to finish their schooling was counter-productive. Apparently, the gains they made during their time at the special school were not continued after they transferred back to mainstream schools to complete their education. This is evidenced from the high numbers of these young people who left their mainstream schools as soon as they could and the low level of qualifications achieved. These findings are supported by international research reporting disappointing outcomes for children with learning or behavioural difficulties who have been in inclusive settings at the secondary school level (Cook & Cook, 2020; Gilmour, 2018; Hornby, 2020; Kauffman & Hornby, 2020). It is realised that the three studies described in this chapter are small-scale studies conducted without the use of control or comparison groups, in changing contexts over many years, which to some extent rely on the interpretations of the author who was involved in them. Therefore, the overall findings must be viewed tentatively and rigorously designed studies should be conducted before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

The effectiveness of inclusive education

175

However, the tentative overall conclusion that could be considered from these three studies is that effective specialised instruction, vocational curricula and work experience, as part of a planned transition from school to postschool life, are of greater importance for optimising outcomes for young people with moderate to severe levels of learning or behavioural difficulties than simply being included in mainstream secondary schools that are attempting to be as inclusive as possible. If this is indeed the case, then it is important to question the current international trend towards closing down special classes and special schools in favour of including young people with moderate to severe levels of learning or behavioural difficulties in mainstream classrooms.

The long-term negative impact of inclusion Secondary school special classes like those taught by one of the authors during the 1970s have now been closed down in line with New Zealand Government policy of creating inclusive schools. Therefore, students with MLD have now no option but to attend mainstream schools where, in most cases, they will not be getting the vocational preparation and work experience that would help them find jobs and become as independent as possible when they leave school. The special school for young people with MLD in the North of England that was closed to facilitate the transfer of its pupils to mainstream schools, subsequently reopened as a special school for young people with emotional and behavioural difficulties, now referred to as an ‘alternative provision.’ As a consequence, young people with MLD in that area of the country have continued to have no access to a special education school. Also, despite the residential special school in New Zealand, whose graduates participated in the above study, continuing to get positive inspectorate evaluations of its effectiveness in helping children with EBD, it was closed a few years after the research was conducted, in a government cost-cutting exercise, justified by the philosophy of inclusion. Once special classes and special schools are closed down, instead of getting the specialised education that they appear to benefit from, many young people with MLD and EBD are left with no alternative but to attend mainstream schools. This has come about mainly because of the ideology of inclusion, without any thorough practice-based evidence of the outcomes of this policy or consideration of alternative options. So, it seems that, despite the possibility that the weight of evidence indicates that these types of special education programmes were more effective in helping the young people achieve long-term inclusion within their communities post-school, they are no longer available. The only option left for young people with moderate to severe learning or behavioural difficulties is now one of inclusion in mainstream schools, which the evidence suggests is the less effective option of the two with respect to achieving inclusion within the community during their adult lives.

176 The effectiveness of inclusive education

The way forward Given the above findings, it is clear that for many young people with MLD and EBD, their special needs are unlikely to be met by educating them in mainstream classrooms without access to special education programmes, particularly in the later stages of secondary education. Therefore, what is needed is an education policy that provides access to either special education or mainstream education as required for each individual at all times throughout their school careers. It is proposed that a more effective approach for optimising post-school independence and inclusion in the community for young people with MLD, EBD and other kinds of SEND is therefore that of Inclusive Special Education (ISE) (Hornby, 2014, 2015). This is an approach that combines the philosophy, values and practices of inclusive education with strategies, interventions and programmes typically used in separate special education facilities. It involves a recognition that all children with SEND can be provided for appropriately within education systems that combine effective high quality mainstream schools with high quality special needs provision in special classes and special schools. It includes a flexible range of placement options rather than the restricted option of placement in mainstream classrooms. ISE provides a comprehensive vision and guidelines for policies, procedures and teaching strategies for the effective education of all children with SEND whether they are in inclusive schools or special classes or special schools, whichever is more appropriate for the individual at each point of their school careers. Key aspects of ISE are: availability of a continuum of placements, from mainstream classes to special schools; educating as many children with learning or behavioural difficulties as appropriate in mainstream schools; ensuring education in the most appropriate placement throughout children’s entire education, with regular assessment data used to trigger flexible transfer between different types of settings when required; collaboration and sharing of expertise between mainstream and special classes and schools; using evidence-based practices from both special education and inclusive education; and effective organisation and use of resources within all schools for meeting the needs of young people with learning or behavioural difficulties. ISE is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.

Concluding comments It is considered that evaluating the effectiveness of different types of education programmes in achieving inclusion in the community after school, is a necessity for young people with learning or behavioural difficulties (Hornby, 2020). This needs to include the views of parents and teachers, as well as assessment of young people’s views and both their short- and long-term outcomes for various education settings, such as mainstream classrooms, special classes or special schools (Kauffman et al., 2022). This is considered to be the best way of evaluating the

The effectiveness of inclusive education

177

quality of the education that young people with learning or behavioural difficulties are receiving, and of gaining feedback to continuously improve outcomes. The issue of cost effectiveness as a major objective, suggested by proponents of inclusive education, is discussed in the final chapter of this book. Evidence for the achievement of maximum inclusion in the community as adults, of young people with SEND, has been evaluated in this chapter by considering the findings of three outcome studies of young people with learning or behavioural difficulties who have experienced either special education or inclusive education, or some combination of the two. Overall findings indicated that students who left school from a special education setting had better long-term outcomes than those who completed their education in mainstream schools. This is considered to be due to the specialised teaching and emphasis on social and vocational skills that they received in their final years of special education, but which was not available to those in mainstream schools. This suggests that if a policy of full inclusion, including the closure of special classes and special schools, is implemented in the future for young people with learning or behavioural difficulties, their education will result in less inclusion in the community in the long-term.

References Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399–414. Buchner, T., Shevlin, M., Donovan, M., Gercke, M., Goll, H., Siska, J., … Corby, D. (2020, November). Same progress for all? Inclusive education, the UNCRPD and students with intellectual disability in European countries. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. doi:10.1111/jppi.12368. Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2020). An examination of highly cited research on inclusion. In Kauffman, J. M. (Ed.), On educational inclusion: Meanings, history, issues and international perspectives (pp. 130–159). Routledge. Gilmour, A. (2018). Has inclusion gone too far? Education Next, 18(4). https://www. educationnext.org/has-inclusion-gone-too-far-weighing-effects-students-with-disabili ties-peers-teachers/. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive Special Education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. Springer. Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 234–256. Hornby, G. (2020, September). The necessity for co-existence of equity and excellence in inclusive and special education. InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1231. Hornby, G. & Kidd, R. (2001). Transfer from special to mainstream - Ten years later. British Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 10–17. Hornby, G. & Witte, C. (2008a). Follow-up study of ex-students of a residential school for children with emotional and behavioral difficulties in New Zealand. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 13(2), 79–93.

178 The effectiveness of inclusive education Hornby, G. & Witte, C. (2008b). Looking back on school -views of their education of adult graduates of a residential special school for children with emotional and behavioral difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 102–107. Hurwitz, S., Perry, B., Cohen, E. D., & Skiba, R. (2019). Special education and individualized academic growth: A longitudinal assessment of outcomes for students with disabilities. American Educational Research Journal. doi:10.3102/0002831219857054. Hyatt, C. & Hornby, G. (2017). Will UN Article 24 lead to the demise of special education or to its re-affirmation? Support for Learning, 32(3), 288–304. doi:10.1111/ 1467-9604.12170. Ianes, D., Demo, H. & Dell’Anna, S. (2020). Inclusive education in Italy. Prospects, 49(3/4), 249–263. Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Crockett, J. B., Felder, M., … Smith, C.R. (2022). Parents’ and educators’ perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities. In C. Boyle & K. A. Allen (Eds.). Research for quality inclusive education: Sustainable development goals series, pp. 205–217. Springer. Kauffman, J. M. & Hornby, G. (2020). Inclusive vision versus special education reality. Education Sciences, 10(9), 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090258. Kidd, R. & Hornby, G. (1993). Transfer from special to mainstream. British Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 17–19. Malkani, R. (2021, April). Investigating the opportunities provided for young adults with special education needs and disabilities (SEND) to prepare for adulthood in a city in England. Support for Learning. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12353. Phelps, L. A. & Hanley-Maxwell, C. H. (1997). School to work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 197–226. Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., & Stiefel, L. (2019). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. http://www. edworkingpapers.com/ai19-86. Wilcox, G. (2020). Is full inclusion the answer for all? In J. Głodkowska (Ed.) Inclusive education – Unity in diversity (pp. 137–149). Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej. http://www.aps.edu.pl/media/2393471/inclusive_education_internet.pdf.

10 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

Introduction In this chapter, we place four widely different countries under the spotlight to demonstrate how over-emphasis on either special education or inclusive education, to the exclusion of the other, jeopardises both equity and excellence within education systems as a whole, and leads to poorer overall outcomes. We have drawn on our experience of education systems in the United States, Barbados, New Zealand and Finland to emphasise the importance of the inter-relationship between mainstream and special education for the overall benefit of education systems. Rather than being viewed as incompatible, special education and inclusive education are shown to be equally essential components. Relevant education history in the United States is considered to explain how the emphasis on special education placement alone for the provision of SEND led to dissatisfaction with educational outcomes for learners with mild intellectual disabilities and to the questioning of the effectiveness of their placement in special classes. This is often regarded as the trigger that led to the US system’s subsequent focusing on integration and mainstreaming and eventually to an emphasis on the inclusion of learners with SEND within mainstream schools. The education system in Barbados is discussed to illustrate how emphasising academic excellence while neglecting to focus on equity within an education system does not facilitate overall excellence. Here, the use of a high-stakes test to implement selective secondary schooling results in academic excellence for a minority of learners at the expense of good levels of achievement for the majority. It is concluded that measures to promote excellence should be combined with a focus on ensuring equity within education systems to optimise educational outcomes for all. The education system in New Zealand is examined as an example of a country that, since the start of the 21st century, has promoted inclusive education while depleting special education provision. Over the same period its world rankings on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results of 15-year-olds on mathematics, reading and science (Schleicher, 2019) have progressively declined, which is considered, at least in part, to be due to DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-10

180 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education the deterioration of specialist provision for children with SEND within inclusive mainstream schools. This is followed by a consideration of the education system in Finland, which prides itself on its commitment to social and economic equity and to its system of comprehensive education that includes both facilities and procedures for special education as an integral part of the whole education system. With this balance of both special education and inclusive education, Finland has for some years been considered one of the most equitable, effective and excellent education systems in the world.

The rise and fall of special education Since there are now no major Western countries that offer only special education in exclusively segregated environments, without some degree of inclusive provision, it is worth looking to the past, before inclusive education was developed, to consider the evolution of special education in the United States and why it started to be considered problematic. Relevant education history shows how dissatisfaction with educational outcomes for learners with mild intellectual disabilities in the USA prompted questioning of the effectiveness of their placement in special classes. The combination of inadequately resourced special needs placements with the notion that provision could be achieved more economically within the mainstream is often regarded as the catalyst that led to subsequent focusing on integration, mainstreaming and then to the inclusion of learners with SEND within mainstream schools. The beginnings of special education can be traced back to the first special schools for the blind and deaf, which opened up in the late 18th century in Europe, soon followed by similar schools in the USA (Lloyd, Singh & Repp, 1991). During the 19th century, other special schools were established to cater to children with physical disabilities, and later those with severe intellectual disabilities (Rotatori, Obiakor & Bakken, 2011). By the turn of the 20th century, most Western countries were beginning to ensure that all children attended school at least at the primary school level. This resulted in teachers coping with a much wider ability range of students, and it was found that many children were struggling to develop basic academic skills. In France in 1905, Binet developed a test to identify children with difficulties in learning so that they could be given remedial assistance. In the USA and Europe, over the next two decades, adaptation of Binet’s test led to the development of what have become known as IQ tests that can identify children with learning difficulties or intellectual disabilities severe enough to make it difficult for them to learn effectively in mainstream classrooms. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, these IQ tests began to be used to select children for placement in special schools and special classes within mainstream schools, which led to steady growth in the number of special schools and classes that continued into the 1970s (Lloyd et al., 1991).

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

181

In 1968 Dunn published a landmark article that highlighted how some children placed within special classes for the intellectually disabled in the USA were receiving a substandard education. Dunn (1968) was referring to children with mild intellectual disabilities, whom he considered were being denied equal opportunities for development by being placed in separate special classes taught exclusively by special education teachers. The solution at the time appeared to be that such children would be better off in mainstream classrooms with special educators acting as resource teachers, rather than children being educated fulltime in segregated special classes. The article was somewhat ambiguous and led to the existence of separate special classes for children with all types of SEND being questioned by many educators (Dunn, 1983). This was one of the issues that led to the development of landmark legislation in 1975 in the USA, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA, 1975), which has become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), and remains extremely influential in the USA and in many other countries around the world. The IDEA specifies the education entitlements of children with SEND and promotes their education within the ‘least restrictive environment’ (LRE). This triggered the movement toward the integration, then mainstreaming and later the inclusion of learners with SEND within mainstream classrooms. The provision of segregated special education as the only option had been called into question. Therefore, it was essentially dissatisfaction with the quality of provision for SEND within special class education for students with mild intellectual disabilities in the USA that first led to the questioning of the appropriateness and equitability of special education for children with SEND as a whole. The apparent solution to the issue of inequity was seen, like other issues of diversity, in terms of inclusion of all disabilities for all children with SEND, regardless of type or degree to be included in mainstream educational settings. This eventually led to a consideration of whether special classes and schools were a necessary component of education systems to ensure equity, facilitate excellence and optimise educational outcomes for all children. Whilst the inclusion of all types of disabilities into mainstream schooling may have been viewed at the time as an inevitable step in the progress towards establishing equity throughout the education system, it has only been through decades of experience since the 1970s that the effectiveness of implementing such an apparently equitable approach could be fully assessed. It seems that movement towards inclusion of children with SEND came primarily from recognition of the fact that, prior to the 1970s, many children with disabilities were denied any free public education at all, but when they were, this resulted in the over-representation of minority groups in special education classes (Dudley-Marling & Burns 2014). Change occurred when parents of intellectually disabled students challenged a state law that had absolved school districts of responsibility for educating them. From then on, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia had to provide a free appropriate education to all students regardless of their level of SEND. This was brought into law at the federal level by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of

182 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education 1975 (EAHCA, 1975), which mandated education within the Least Restrictive Environment and that all children with disabilities were required to be provided with Individualised Education Programs to ensure that their education was appropriate for their needs. Osgood (2005) noted that, while many children with SEND moved into public (mainstream) schools, they continued to be placed into special education classes. Despite the Regular Education Initiative (REI) promoting the development of inclusive practices in mainstream schools to meet the needs of all students, there had been a continuous growth of segregated arrangements (Ballis & Heath, 2021; Powerschool, 2019). Currently many of the increasing number of charter schools in the USA enrol few if any students with SEND (Dudley-Marling & Baker, 2012). This is explained by the rise in focus on attainment and the emphasis on test scores and costs. Dudley-Marling and Baker (2012) conclude that this represents a free market in the name of school choice and is ‘a threat to inclusive practices.’ Nonetheless, with 57% of students with disabilities now spending at least 80% of their school day in regular classrooms and only 5% in special schools, it appears that, over a period of 40 years, there has been significant movement towards greater inclusion of children with SEND in the education system.

Over-emphasis on excellence As a small Caribbean island, Barbados is considered to be an example of an education system whose primary focus appears to be on fostering academic excellence for a small minority of pupils who are considered to be the most able, whilst having no specific policy on inclusion or the education of children with SEND (UNESCO, 2021). With a small population of 280,000, like other English speaking Caribbean islands, Barbados has an education system that has been heavily influenced by colonial policies and provisions. Its main focus for many years has been to provide an excellent education for a minority of students expected to go on to become leaders in their fields. Evidence of its success in achieving this goal is provided by Barbadians like Garry Sobers, the world’s all-time best cricket all-rounder; Rhianna, the pop music mega-star; Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress; and Alan Emptage, inventor of the world’s first internet search engine. These Barbadians are respected worldwide for their achievements and are a source of great pride for the locals. However, in contrast, the downside is that the majority of young people experience a poor-quality education that does not equip them for life in the 21st century. This situation continues today within an education system that operates highly selective secondary schooling nationwide, involving an examination at age 11 years determining which, out of a hierarchical ranking of the 23 government secondary schools, each child will attend. Children who gain a place in one of the top six schools are regarded as successes, whilst those assigned to the other 17 schools are perceived as failures, even before they start their secondary education. This divisive system arguably produces academic excellence for a minority at the

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

183

expense of the majority of young Barbadians. The impact of this is illustrated by the annual award of prestigious scholarships for university study, which are almost exclusively won by students from the two highest ranking secondary schools (Downes, 2018), whilst the vast majority of prison inmates are found to come from the eight lowest ranking secondary schools (Criminal Justice Research and Planning Unit, 2017). This type of hierarchical education system is therefore perceived as highly inequitable and unable to serve the interests of the society as a whole (Shaeffer, 2013; UNESCO, 2017). The divisive education system in part reflects the disparity between wealth and poverty in an economy built mainly on tourism and offshore banking (Index of Economic Freedom, 2022). It is therefore not surprising that resentment among the young poorly educated and under-employed is a source of disaffection and social instability that leads to social problems and hampers the country’s long-term growth (Hornby, 2019). Allocation to the 23 secondary schools is via the results of the Common Entrance Exam (CEE) sat by 11-year-olds in May of each year. Students with the top marks on the CEE are eligible to go to the top school; those with the second-best marks go to the second rank school, and so on, with those with the lowest marks going to the schools at the bottom of the hierarchy. This organisational process has led to the CEE becoming a dominant feature of the Barbadian education scene, resulting in a selective secondary school system that is considered to be elitist and exclusionary. This system, like those in several other countries in the Caribbean, is viewed as perpetuating inequity and further disadvantaging vulnerable groups in society, especially students with SEND (De Lisle, 2012). Similar effects have been illustrated through the findings of some studies of high stakes placement tests for entry into secondary schools that have been conducted in other parts of the Caribbean. For example, research in Trinidad and Tobago, which also have a similar system of selective secondary education, found that students living in high-income areas were far more likely to gain entry into the secondary schools of their choice than students from low-income areas (De Lisle, 2012). In Barbados, Jennings (2017) reported that 64% of children who attended private primary schools were likely to perform above the national average in the English component of the CEE, compared with only 11% of those who attended government primary schools. It is clear therefore that the results of high stakes selection tests are both a reflection of socio-economic factors and a mechanism for perpetuating inequity of access to quality education in Barbados and other Caribbean islands. High stakes tests utilised within a selective education system are rationalised by falsely assuming that they serve key policy goals, such as, raising student achievement and ensuring equal opportunity (De Lisle, 2012; Galloway & Upton, 1990). With regard to such tests being used to channel students into different schools and classes of supposedly differing ability levels, the usual argument for their use is that allocating students to homogeneous schools and classrooms allows teachers to focus their teaching of the curriculum more carefully on the needs and aptitudes of students and to teach at a pace that will

184 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education enable all students to maximise their learning. However, research evidence does not support this argument (Slavin, 1987, 1990, 1993), and reports that the use of such tests for placement decisions is not effective in increasing academic outcomes overall, as well as having far reaching negative consequences for young people and for the societies in which they live (De Lisle, 2012; Gorard & Huat See, 2013). Many of these result from the overwhelming performance pressure exerted by these tests on teachers, schools and parents, in addition to their impact on students, especially those with SEND (Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016). Another concerning consequence of the high stakes testing in Barbados is the narrowing of the curriculum for all at primary school level where the exclusive focus of teachers and schools becomes centred on preparing students for success in the CEE at age 11. Such a focus leads to the neglect of other important curriculum areas not prioritised by the examination (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012). At the same time the increased attention paid to those students most likely to succeed in the examination is to the detriment of students with SEND who are most in need of support. One can only assume that the inevitable consequence of the cascading downwards of school placement by ability results in a sinking to the bottom for most children with SEND in Barbados. Just eight mainstream public schools are described as providing special education services in classrooms or units for those identified with SEND. There is one government special school for children with global developmental delays and disabilities and another for the hearing or visually impaired (UNESCO, 2021). Despite the rhetoric that the Ministry of Education sets out to ‘provide special education facilities for the disadvantaged to enable them to lead full, active and interesting lives’ (UNESCO, 2021, Governance 4), the personal experience of one of the authors suggests that educational opportunities for SEND students are very limited in reality. Efforts to maximise the achievement of highly able children at the expense of others is institutionalised in many primary schools by streaming children by ability into different classes from the age of 7, so that more attention can be paid to those children likely to do well on the CEE. In this way successful primary schools enhance their reputation (Galloway & Upton, 1990). It is evident therefore that this system of high-stakes testing exacerbates patterns of disadvantage and exclusion rather than facilitating an equitable quality education for all (De Lisle, 2012; Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016). It is clear then, that in Barbados, children with SEND are only included in so far as the more severely affected are able to attend a special school or special class placement, while students with mild or moderate learning difficulties receive minimal or zero special education support within one of the lowest achieving government secondary schools. Parents, and those working regularly with students with SEND, know how much talent and potential can be overlooked if the exclusive focus is on their educational difficulties. Many have co-occurring abilities that need to be given the chance to develop in an environment that is conducive to doing so. Good quality targeted teaching can enable them to realise ambitions to succeed in their own specific areas of strength and interest. It is just as important to the

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

185

economy of a country that such success be harnessed for the benefit of the life of the individual, and their ability to contribute usefully to society, as it is for the highest achieving academic students. In the words of Schleicher (2018), ‘the most impressive outcome of world-class school systems is that they deliver high quality education across the entire school system so that every student benefits from excellent teaching’ (p. 138). There is no doubt that the combination of an equitable high achieving society is the most likely to produce a strong national economy and that ‘If every student can demonstrate that he or she has basic skills, direct and major long-term benefits to the economy accrue’ (p. 139). When discussing the surprisingly poor economies of countries rich in natural resources, he concludes that their findings show that ‘the wealth that lies untapped in the undeveloped skills of their people is far greater than the wealth they extract from their natural resources’ (p. 140).

Over-emphasis on inclusion New Zealand is a country whose education system since the turn of the 21st century has promoted inclusive education while at the same time depleting its special education facilities and specialist skills (Hornby, 2012, 2014b). It is considered that, as a consequence of this, over the same period, its world rankings on PISA assessments of 15-year-olds on mathematics, reading and science have noticeably declined overall, while exhibiting one of the largest gaps between high and low achievers of all OECD countries. It is thought that this decline may well be at least partly due to the deterioration of provision for children with SEND (OECD, 2006, 2016). New Zealand’s ambition to be as inclusive as possible has therefore proved counterproductive in terms of both excellence and equity, so it’s important to consider what has brought this about. Similar to Italy and Portugal, policy for inclusive education in New Zealand has been more radical than that in most countries, with an espoused goal of educating all children with SEND in mainstream schools. However, when its policy and practice regarding inclusive education for students with SEND is compared with that from other countries, clear differences emerge (Hornby, 2012, 2014b). Most importantly, there is an obvious lack of well-established procedures for supporting children with SEND in practice, as explained below. There is no specific legislation or clear policy regarding how children with SEND are to be educated. In 1996 the New Zealand Ministry of Education introduced a policy called Special Education 2000 (NZMoE, 1996), which was intended to bring about the inclusion of all children with SEND in mainstream schools. However, in reality, the policy was concerned only with funding for children with SEND rather than providing guidelines for professional practice (Coleman, 2011). There is also a lack of statutory guidelines regarding SEND that schools must follow. This is in contrast to the requirements specified by the IDEA in the USA and the detailed statutory guidance for schools within

186 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education the Code of Practice for SEND in England (DfE, 1994; Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015). The establishment of Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) in all New Zealand schools, with specified time allocation for this role, was recommended by the Wylie Report on special education (Wylie, 2000) but was never implemented. As a result, schools may have staff assigned to the role, but limited time allocation is generally made for them to do the job effectively. For schools that do have teachers assigned to act as SENCOs, there is no requirement for them to have qualifications in SEND or to undergo training once they are assigned this role. Therefore, many of the staff named as SENCOs in schools do not have the training or experience with SEND to effectively carry out the role. While comprehensive guidance on Individual Education Plans (IEPs) is provided to schools (NZMoE, 2011), individual schools decide which children are provided with IEPs, the format and content of IEPs, and the extent to which parents are involved. Therefore, whether students with SEND have IEPs or not varies widely between schools, and IEP procedures are often inadequate (Hornby & Witte, 2010, 2014). In New Zealand, there is also no statutory involvement of educational psychologists in the education of children with SEND. They may be involved in IEPs if invited by schools or parents but have no mandated involvement in assessment or programme planning for children identified as having SEND. Equally concerning is that there are no government services in New Zealand equivalent to the parent partnership services that play a key role in providing support and guidance to parents of children with SEND in other developed countries, such as the USA and UK. Finally, there is no coherent policy about inclusive education. Government policy in New Zealand has focused on ensuring that all schools are ‘fully inclusive’ (NZMoE, 2010), but it is not clear exactly what that actually means. It is suggested that special schools will continue to exist, but there has been little clarification of what their role will be and some have been closed with the justification of becoming yet more inclusive. Although 99% of children are educated in mainstream schools, New Zealand still has some residential special schools and day special schools. Many of the special schools have satellite classes in mainstream schools and some have these classes in several mainstream schools. A few mainstream schools still have special classes, but most of the special classes for children with moderate learning difficulties that existed between the 1960s and 1980s were shut down in the last few years of the 20th century. Those remaining are under threat due to the Ministry of Education policy on inclusive education. The lack of a coherent policy on inclusive education for children with SEND leaves schools in New Zealand to develop practices based on their interpretation of the non-statutory guidance provided by the Ministry of Education. Thus, there is wide variation in the type and quality of the procedures and practices for students with SEND, which means that in many schools, provision is inadequate, inequitable and unlikely to facilitate overall excellence.

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

187

This situation may at least partly explain why in each of the PISA surveys since 2000, New Zealand has been found to have one of the biggest gaps of all the countries surveyed between the highest achieving and lowest achieving students, as well as why it has been dropping down PISA world rankings on reading, mathematics and science over this period (OECD, 2006, 2016). The situation in New Zealand highlights the dangers of focusing primarily on making mainstream schools more inclusive, with insufficient consideration of special education procedures and teaching strategies in mainstream schools, as well as the provision of special classes and schools for those children with SEND who need them, and lack of emphasis on the actual instructional needs of students with SEND (Kauffman & Badar, 2014).

Emphasis on both special education and inclusive education As we have noted in Chapter 4, one country that has emphasised both the importance of special education and inclusive education within its education system is Finland (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007; Takala, Pirttimaa & Törmänen, 2009), which is considered to be one of the most equitable and excellent education systems in the world (Schleicher, 2018). There the focus has been on equity through developing the quality of provision for children with SEND rather than on inclusion itself. High quality special education programmes and special schools have been an integral part of the system while also proving to be an example of a comprehensive, rather than selective, education system in which students are not separated into different tracks until around the age of 16 years, at which point about 40% choose to pursue a more technical and vocational education (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, n.d.). As a country, Finland prides itself on its commitment to social and economic equity. In 2017, it was ranked the most stable, safe and socially progressive country in the world (Henley, 2018). This is a reflection of the general outlook of its population that has developed over the last century since becoming independent. It is from this background that the country’s comprehensive education system has developed. It includes both facilities and procedures for special education as an integral part of the education system (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007; Takala et al., 2009). While the emphasis is on mainstream schools, special classes within mainstream schools, as well as special schools, are available for students with the more complex SEND (OECD, 2011). Not only do special schools in Finland provide education to students with special needs but they also are regarded as national development and service centres, providing expertise and support services for other schools (EASNIE, n.d.). While 8% of students in Finland are deemed to have significant special educational needs or disabilities, only half of these children are educated in special schools; the rest are educated in mainstream schools (OECD, 2011). However, 20% of all comprehensive school pupils receive intensified or special support (OSF, 2021). Therefore, ‘support for children with special needs is seen as an integral part of the school system’ (Schleicher, 2018, p. 136).

188 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education Finland demonstrates that providing a range of special education services within a comprehensive system of mainstream education facilitates both equity and excellence. ‘The Finish system is based on the assumption that disadvantaged students can also succeed in school, and that all schools, no matter where they are located, can be of high quality’ (Schleicher, 2018, p. 134). The implementation of policy based on a philosophy that encompasses both special education and inclusive education has no doubt been a major factor in the education system being rated by successive PISA assessments as one of the best in the world (OECD, 2006, 2016; Schleicher, 2014, 2018).

Emphasis on inclusive special education Given the discussion so far in this chapter, it is clear that what we propose is for education systems to aim to be both equitable and excellent for all learners, particularly those with SEND. This is a policy that combines the philosophy and values of inclusive education with strategies and programmes from special education. It can be referred to as ‘inclusive special education,’ which was a term first used to describe education for children with SEND in Finland (Takala et al., 2009). Inclusive special education (ISE), as defined by Hornby (2014a, 2015), involves a recognition that all children with SEND can be provided for appropriately within education systems that combine effective mainstream schools with high quality special needs provision. When ISE is implemented, mainstream schools are organised to provide effectively for a wide range of children with SEND by using programmes and strategies that are evidence-based and have been found to be the best practices for supporting the education of learners with SEND. It considers that, whilst the majority of children can be educated in mainstream classrooms, some benefit more by being taught in resource rooms or special classes within mainstream schools or being educated at special schools on the campuses of mainstream schools, or on their own campuses. Significantly, mainstream schools work closely with special schools to enhance their provision of support for milder degrees of SEND, while also providing places for children with more severe levels of SEND (Hornby, 2014a, 2015). Thus, ISE requires a commitment to providing excellent education for all children with SEND, in the most appropriate setting, throughout all stages of a child’s education. Its focus is on the effective inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools as far as it is evidently appropriate, along with the availability of a continuum of placement options from mainstream classes to special schools. It involves the ongoing close collaboration between teachers in mainstream and special schools and classes, in order to ensure equitable quality of appropriate provision and optimum outcomes for all learners.

Implementing best practices from inclusive education Inclusive special education involves implementing well established special and inclusive education practices, including: fostering acceptance of diversity; using

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

189

well-coordinated and implementable IEPs to focus on students’ strengths and challenges; and using evidence-based interventions such as response to intervention, universal design for learning, and positive behavioural interventions and supports (Hornby, 2014a). It also involves using both formative and summative assessment, as well as instructional strategies such as peer tutoring, cooperative learning and meta-cognitive strategies, and closely collaborating with parents of children with SEND and professionals in culturally responsive ways (Hornby & Greaves, 2022; Salend & Whittaker, 2012). These practices, if properly resourced, provide teachers with a sound base for working with children with SEND to ensure equity of provision and excellence of outcomes.

Continuum of placement options from mainstream classes through special schools Inclusive special education is an equitable approach in that it is aimed at providing the best possible education for all children with SEND. It recognises that there are some pupils with varying degrees of SEND who benefit more from being educated in resource rooms, special classes or special schools. Therefore, it is necessary for a continuum of placement options, from mainstream classes through special schools, to be available, as is currently the case in most developed countries (National Council for Special Education, 2010; Takala et al., 2009; UNESCO, 2020).

Effectively including the majority of children in mainstream schools In inclusive special education, there is a major focus on effectively including children with SEND wherever possible in mainstream schools, while supporting them to the fullest extent possible with quality provision of special education. This approach offers a bridge between the aspiration for a minority group to be successful and ensuring the quality of educational opportunity and attainment for society as a whole. It is indisputable that making this possible is both complex and expensive but arguably is a worthwhile investment in a nation’s long-term future. To achieve this, it is essential for mainstream school-teachers to be appropriately supported in being able to recognise that it is genuinely achievable and beneficial for all. To that end, they will need to receive extensive training, not just in the instructional pedagogy necessary for meeting special educational needs appropriately, but in how to simultaneously balance the teaching strategies and skills needed for students with a range of SEND with the skills needed for teaching students with regular learning needs (see Hornby & Greaves, 2022). Teachers will need the comprehensive support and understanding of the school leadership, adequate advance funding and provision of appropriate material resources, specialist trained support staff with equal status and authority to work within the classroom, and allocated time to prepare thoroughly for the effective support of each SEND child for each lesson.

190 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education In this way teachers will be supported in developing effective teaching of students with SEND in mainstream classrooms (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2009; Hornby, 2014a; Hornby & Greaves, 2022) as well as in developing values and attitudes supportive of the processes that are desirable for the inclusion of different types and degrees of students with SEND. Equally important is training for mainstream school-teachers to develop the skills necessary to work effectively with parents or caregivers of children with SEND and to be given the opportunity to work as part of a team with other professionals such as specialist teachers, SENCOs and educational psychologists (Hornby, 2014a). Provision for students with SEND should be specifically evaluated for each individual child with SEND and coordinated by fully trained special needs coordinators in all schools. In addition, schools need to have in place practical policies and strategies and be led by a mutually supportive and coordinated leadership, providing whole school support. It is also important that such strategies be appropriately supported by ring-fenced government funding and underpinned by evidence-based practicable and implementable legislative polices.

Collaboration between mainstream and special schools In inclusive special education there are two major aspects to the role of teachers in the special schools and classes. Firstly, they provide special education for children with high levels of SEND that cannot be effectively met in mainstream schools. Secondly, they provide guidance and support to assist teachers in mainstream schools to effectively educate children with more moderate levels of SEND (Ekins, 2012). Special schools are well placed to fulfil this second aspect of their role because they have specialist staff who have expertise in dealing with the higher levels of SEND that teachers in mainstream schools typically do not have. The collaboration between special and mainstream schools is a key factor in ensuring the effectiveness of education for children with SEND in mainstream schools (Ekins, 2012). This collaboration is an important element of the philosophy and practice of inclusive special education as it ensures equity of provision and facilitates optimal educational outcomes.

Flexibility of education in the most appropriate setting throughout children’s education An important consequence of having a continuum of placement options from mainstream classes through to special schools is that there can be transfers between the various options to ensure that an optimal education in the most appropriate setting can be provided throughout all stages of a child’s education. For example, it is possible that a child may begin his or her education in an early intervention program alongside other children with high levels of SEND and when school-age is reached be transferred to a mainstream primary school class, perhaps with transitioning support from a specialist support teacher or teacher-aide. Later, the child may transfer to a resource room or special class

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

191

within a middle school and later still transfer to a special school to complete his or her education. The most important issue is to have the flexibility to transfer within a school system that has a continuum of options available to ensure that children are at all times being educated in the setting that best facilitates their learning.

Organisation for providing optimal education for all children with SEND To provide an excellent education for all children with SEND it is necessary to have education policies and procedures in place in all aspects of the education system (EADSNE, 2009). This includes having national legislation that clearly specifies the rights of children with SEND and their families to equal access to a special school or special education programme, as it does to a mainstream environment. It involves decisions about educational settings depending entirely on what is assessed by an independent body to be recognised as the most appropriate provision rather than being determined on the basis of local education authority budgetary constraints. It requires budgetary requirements for local authorities to fulfil their duty to meet the needs of children with SEND in their locality to be planned for in advance of a school year. This needs to be based on prior assessments of need made by an independent body of specialists, and not retrospectively, so that the necessary placements and programmes of support are in place before a child starts or returns to school and receives unimpeded immediate support without delay. Procedures should be in place for identifying and assessing children with SEND at the preschool stage and for providing appropriate interventions from the earliest possible years of education. National legislation in each country should provide statutory practical guidelines, along with mechanisms to ensure that these are supported in such a way as to be implementable in practice at the regional and school levels. There should be statutory procedures for assessing children with SEND and for providing evidence-based interventions for as long as it is deemed necessary and only terminated in response to an assessment made by an independent SEND specialist body. Schools and parents should have ongoing access to such an independent body of specialists to provide statutory assessments and determine provision requirements on a flexible basis for all children at any stage of their schooling. Requirements should be made explicit, to include the number of hours of support, the programmes and strategies to be used, as well as the precise qualifications and experience level of the staff required to provide that support. Ideally the impact of the support should be monitored over a two-year period by an independent body and not by school staff or the local authority. In addition, it is essential that schools have effective whole school organisational procedures for meeting children’s special needs, coordinated by staff who are trained in inclusive or special education, such as specialist teachers and SENDCos.

192 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education Furthermore, schools must ensure that school-wide practices are based on research evidence of effectiveness in facilitating the academic and social development of all children, including those with SEND. For example, they must have in place effective procedures for optimising active parental involvement in their children’s education (Hornby, 2011). Schools must at the same time ensure that strategies found not to contribute to optimal overall achievement, such as between-class ability grouping, are avoided where possible (Hornby & Greaves, 2022). Finally, all teachers must be provided with suitable training to recognise the full range of SEND presentations in children and to ensure that appropriate teaching strategies and techniques based on evidence-based practices, for example, cooperative learning and peer tutoring, are used to support them (Hornby, 2014; Hornby & Greaves, 2022). Ensuring that the six components of inclusive special education outlined here are implemented will facilitate the aspiration of both equity and excellence in education systems and result in optimal national education outcomes for all learners.

Concluding comments The route to the ideal of an equitable high achieving education system is not quite as obvious as is suggested (Schleicher, 2018). Although, one might observe that countries such as Finland have been shown to be a relatively equitable society, with a high achieving education system and sound economy, it is important to recognise that this did not come about by superimposing an inclusive education system on a fundamentally inequitable society. Efforts to improve the standard of general education emerged slowly from a common public ambition to develop a more socially cohesive society. Emphasis was placed on recognising educational need and targeting support appropriately with necessary funds, smaller classes and giving a greater degree of autonomy to teachers, who are highly trained and are highly valued by society. It is clear that equity and excellence are facilitated when education systems include a combination of the most effective strategies from both special education and inclusive education and when the focus is on what is appropriate and genuinely supportive for the individual SEND learner. Thus, special education and inclusive education are both considered essential components of effective education systems to facilitate optimal outcomes for all learners. On the one hand, the historic example of the early development of special education in the USA demonstrated how the use of special education provision alone, without the possibility of mainstream class inclusion, resulted in an inequitable treatment of some children with SEND. Similarly, when taken to the other extreme, the New Zealand education system, by focusing mainly on inclusive education while depleting special education provision, has arguably jeopardised both equity and excellence, which has led to less-than-optimal educational outcomes overall.

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

193

Furthermore, the excessive prioritising of academic excellence for a relatively small minority in the education system of Barbados, rather than focusing on a more equitable high-quality provision within the education system as a whole, has been shown not to facilitate overall excellence. In fact, such a system of highly selective schooling results in academic excellence for a minority of learners at significant expense to the majority. This demonstrates the importance of how measures to promote excellence should be combined with a focus on equity within education systems in order to optimise educational outcomes for all learners. Finland provides us with an example of how a range of special education strategies can be provided within a comprehensive system of mainstream education that focuses on both equity and excellence leading it to being rated as one of the best education systems in the world. By maintaining a focus on both special education and inclusive education strategies, Finland has come to be regarded as one of the most equitable and excellent education systems internationally. Nonetheless, as we have seen in Chapter 4, this system is not without its social challenges, especially now that the country’s population is affected by an increasing range of diversity and rising levels of unemployment (OECD, 2020). As it comes under increasing pressure from the UN to develop an education system with full inclusion of pupils with SEND, this may present unsurmountable challenges to a system that has been internationally recognised for its educational excellence. Clearly, synthesis of key components of special education and inclusive education is essential, such as demonstrated by the model of inclusive special education. It is in a country’s long-term economic interests to provide its society with the most equitable and excellent education possible for all learners. However, an awareness of the background economic and social conditions needs to play a continuous role in adjustments to legislation in order to respond in a relevant way to the changing conditions of the society within the global community. The practical vision for policies, procedures and teaching strategies that has been presented has the potential to develop effective education for all children with SEND, whether they are in inclusive schools or special classes or schools. With regard to the special education and inclusive education debate, the future focus needs to be on replacing a demand for implementation of an unrealistic ideology of full inclusion with policies for SEND based on what works within the context of national priorities and resources. It also requires recognising that equity of opportunity is facilitated by students feeling included as part of an overall effective educational system, rather than being placed in a general school classroom aspiring to be fully inclusive. We suggest that this is the best way forward for the future provision for children with SEND.

References Ballis, B. & Heath, K. (May 26, 2021). Special education: Beneficial to many harmful to others. The impact of reducing access to special education on public school students. Brown Center Chalkboard. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-cen ter-chalkboard/2021/05/26/special-education-beneficial-to-some-harmful-to-others/.

194 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education Coleman, P. (2011). Special education 2000 policy: Our leaky home? Kairaranga, 12(1), 10–22. Criminal Justice Research and Planning Unit (2017). A profile of the prison population. Bridgetown, Barbados: Criminal Justice Research and Planning Unit, Office of the Attorney General. De Lisle, J. (2012). Secondary school entrance examinations in the Caribbean: Legacy, policy, and evidence within an era of seamless education. Caribbean Curriculum, 19, 109–143. Department for Education (1994). Special educational needs code of practice. DfE. Department for Education and Department of Health (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. DfE. Downes, A. (2018, August 10). Queens, Harrison, take lion’s share of scholarships. Barbados: Nation News, p. 8. Dudley-Marline, C. & Baker, D. (2012). The effects of market-based school reforms on students with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2). https://dsq-sds.org/article/ %20view/3187/3072. Dudley-Marling, C. & Burns, M. B. (2014). Two perspectives on inclusion in the United States. Global Education Review, 1(1), 14–31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id= EJ1055208. Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22. Dunn, L. M. (1983). Citation classics. Social & Behavioral Sciences: Current Contents, 8, 8. EAHCA (1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law (PL) 94 EAHCA 142, 20 USC 1401. Ekins, A. (2012). The changing face of special educational needs: Impact and implications for SENCOs and their schools. Routledge. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009). Key principles for promoting quality in inclusive education. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (n.d.). Finland—Special needs education within the education system. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Galloway, D., & Upton, G. (1990). Joint final report on consultancies in special education needs (secondary) and special education needs (primary) to the Barbados Ministry of Education and Culture. Bridgetown, Barbados. Gorard, S., & Huat See, B. (2013). Overcoming disadvantage in education. Routledge. Henley, J. (2018,February 12). Safe, happy and free: does Finland have all the answers? The Guardian News Website. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/12/sa fe-happy-and-free-does-finland-have-all-the-answers. Hornby, G. (2011). Parental involvement in childhood education: Building effective school-family partnerships. Springer. Hornby, G. (2012). Inclusive education for children with special educational needs: A critique of policy and practice in New Zealand. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 52–60. Hornby, G. (2014a). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. Springer. Hornby, G. (2014b). Special education today in New Zealand. In A. F. Rotatori, J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & S. Burkhardt (Eds.), Special education international perspectives: Practices across the globe—Advances in special education (Vol. 28, pp. 643–660). Emerald.

Equity, excellence and inclusive special education

195

Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 234–256. Hornby, G. (2019). Ending school violence. Barbados Today, November 22nd. Hornby, G., & Greaves, D. (2022). Essential evidence-based teaching strategies. Springer. Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2010). Parental involvement in secondary schools in New Zealand: Implications for school psychologists. School Psychology International, 31(5), 495–508. Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2014). Ability grouping in New Zealand high schools: Are practices evidence-based? Preventing School Failure, 58(2), 90–95. IDEA (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. Index of Economic Freedom (2022). Barbados. https://www.heritage.org/index/coun try/barbados. Jennings, Z. (2017). Interventions in schools’ curricula to achieve quality in learning: Experiences from the Commonwealth Caribbean. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(6), 818–834. Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2014). Instruction, not inclusion, should be the central issue of special education: An alternative view from the USA. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17, 13–20. Kivirauma, J., & Ruoho, K. (2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school reform. International Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: The Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65–79. Lloyd, J. W., Singh, N. N., & Repp, A. C. (1991). The regular education initiative. Sycamore Press. National Council for Special Education (2010). Literature review of the principles and practices relating to inclusive education for children with special educational needs. National Council for Special Education. New Zealand Ministry of Education (1996). Special education 2000 policy. Ministry of Education. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2010). Success for all: Every school, every child. Ministry of Education. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2011). Collaboration for success: Individual education plans. Learning Media. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Programme for International Student Assessment: 2006 Results. OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Volume II. Policies and practices for successful schools. OECD. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Education Policy Outlook. Finland. www.oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/country-profi le-Finland-2020.pdf. OSF (Official Statistics of Finland) (2021, June 8). Intensified or special support for every fifth comprehensive school pupil. https://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2020/erop_2020_ 2021-06-08_tie_001_en.html#:~:text=In%20the%20school%20year%202019,school%2 0pupils%20in%20autumn%202019. Osgood, R. L. (2005). The history of inclusion in the United States. Gallaudet University Press.

196 Equity, excellence and inclusive special education PowerSchool, (2019,August 5). The Numbers Behind Increasing Special Education Enrolment. https://www.powerschool.com/resources/blog/the-numbers-behind-in creasing-special-education-enrollment/. Rotatori, A. F., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). History of special education. Advances in Special Education, 21. Emerald. Salend, S., & Whittaker, C. (2012). Inclusive education: Best practices in the United States. In C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 66–80). Open University Press. Schleicher, A. (2014). Equity, excellence and inclusiveness in education: Policy lessons from around the world: International Summit on the Teaching Profession. OECD. Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system, strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD. Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD. Shaeffer, S. (2013). Identifying and promoting good practice in equity and child-friendly education. UNICEF. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 347–350. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471–499. Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93, 535–552. Takala, M., Pirttimaa, R., & Törmänen, M. (2009). Inclusive special education: The role of special education teachers in Finland. British Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 162–172. UNESCO (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. UNESCO (2020). Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Global Education Monitoring Report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718. UNESCO (2021) Barbados Inclusion. https://education-profiles.org/latin-america-andthe-caribbean/barbados/~inclusion. Walker, Z., & Musti-Rao, S. (2016). Inclusion in high achieving Singapore: Challenges of building an inclusive society in policy and practice. Global Education Review, 3(3), 28–42. Wylie, C. (2000). Picking up the pieces: Review of special education 2000. NZCER.

11 Inclusion and special education or inclusive special education? The way forward

Introduction: Our assessment of the inclusion debate The inclusion movement has come to a final crossroads where important decisions for the way forward need to be made. In our assessment, the influential status of the full inclusion agenda, which has been due to its seductive message and misleading simplicity, is diminishing in the face of the realities of its implementation failures. The current vigorous debate about the future of special education in Ireland epitomises the worldwide tensions as nations struggle to find a solution to both meet the needs of children with SEND effectively and conform to their commitments to the idealistic notion of full inclusion perpetuated by the UNCRPD (2016). The critical decision now to be made is about whether to continue promoting an unrealistic vision of inclusion or to accept that a new more realistic and responsible way forward should be found and acted upon. We propose the best way forward as being through integration of the best aspects of inclusive education and special education. To this end we provide specific recommendations for the development of policy in education systems so that they more effectively meet the needs of children with SEND. This also provides information and ideas for teachers and other professionals to reflect upon so that they can develop their practices in order to more effectively educate young people with SEND.

Overview of issues addressed in the book The main underlying themes of our book have been concerned with the competing expectations that countries face in trying to implement greater levels of inclusion while also focusing on raising overall standards of achievement (Norwich, 2014), which we addressed in the first chapter. The relentless pressure on governments to implement full inclusion has been a direct result of it being linked to the concept of human rights by the UNCRPD (2016). However, inability to resource the implementation of full inclusion appropriately has proved this aspiration to be anything but consistent with the protection of human rights in practice. Inclusion in mainstream classrooms, DOI: 10.4324/9781003262701-11

198 Inclusion and special education regardless of a child’s type or level of disability, could be seen as unfair and discriminatory, and therefore inconsistent with children’s human rights, as a result of its failure to provide appropriate treatment (Kauffman et al., 2022). As a colleague recently pointed out to us, ‘Expecting teachers to be superhuman and to meet everyone’s expectations can result in not being able to meet anyone’s expectations.’ This raises the question of whether the greater responsibility of a nation’s education system should be towards inclusion of children with SEND in mainstream schools, or to focus primarily on developing high quality of education for all. The focus of effort would in the latter case be on improving expertise and provision for SEND irrespective of whether it could be provided in a mainstream school or specialist placement. In Chapter 2 of this book we discussed the history of inclusion and how it became a universal goal for education in the late 20th century, especially since the international agreement at Salamanca in 1994. We highlighted that the original aspirations for inclusion arose from a recognition that significant numbers of children with disabilities around the world had no access to education, which it was universally agreed should be recognised as a basic human right. Bringing children with disabilities into mainstream education appeared to be an expedient and seemingly cost-effective way of addressing this problem. Therefore, we considered how the extent to which nations have been able to be inclusive was evaluated by the UNESCO (2020) Global Education Monitoring Report, and found that, although this varied widely between countries, the majority of countries were still maintaining separate special education schools and classes. We discussed the impetus of the UNCRPD inclusion project to impose the notion of full inclusion as a global mandate in Chapter 3 and questioned the assumption that full inclusion had been the original long-term intention of the Salamanca agreement. This inevitably raised crucial questions about what was really meant by the term ‘inclusion’ and how it might be interpreted, depending on national contexts. We examined practical evidence for the feasibility of full inclusion and research evidence for its effectiveness in improving outcomes for children with SEND. We then discussed various confusions about inclusion and myths about special education. We presented examples of how the implementation of inclusion is affecting education systems across a wide range of different countries in Chapter 4. We reflected on its effects on provision for SEND and the practical impact of inclusion within the historical, cultural, social and economic contexts of their education systems. We also considered other politically driven explanations for the flood of initial signatories to adopt inclusion policies, and the subsequent hesitant progress towards national ratification of respective commitments to the UNCRPD (2006) agreement. Recent research has recognised that the process appears to have had more to do with promoting countries’ international standing in relation to human rights, than it has with a genuine assessment of how well it was likely to work for individual nations and local communities (Magnussen, 2022).

Inclusion and special education

199

The global experiences of stakeholders at all levels from teaching assistants and teachers to school leadership, parents and the children themselves regarding resourcing and appropriate provision for SEND, which is a central theme of our book, were discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. These include several everyday anecdotal experiences related to young people with SEND that we consider to be essential ingredients missing from the current academic literature on the topic. Whilst the failure of inclusion to be implemented effectively has often until now been attributed to poor teacher attitudes and lack of training, combined research and anecdotal evidence suggests that it has more to do with the absence of practically implementable policies, lack of appropriate resources and limited well-coordinated school leadership and management (Fitzgerald & Radford, 2020; Lambrecht et al., 2019). We considered how progress of the inclusion agenda is being thwarted by the difficulties experienced in resourcing mainstream provision effectively for the wide range and complexity of children with SEND. We demonstrated how parental perspectives are central to the implementation of successful reforms (Lamb, 2009) and therefore, how important it is not to deny the preferences of parents regarding the choice of an appropriate education setting for their children (Kauffman et al., 2022). It was noted that the previous UK Government’s views about possible over-identification of pupils with EHCPs (DfE, 2014) and initiatives proposed by the ‘Achievement for All’ project (Humphrey & Squires, 2009) have led to parental disillusionment with a system that has failed to appropriately recognise and meet the needs of their children with SEND. In Chapter 8 we discussed how UK Government legislation has affected implementation of policy for SEND and the recent rapid increase in the numbers of schools becoming Academies or parts of Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs). Unintended consequences and conflicts of interest were brought into focus, especially relating to admissions and exclusions of children with unrecognised SEND and the production of Education, Health and Care plans. With an eye on the impending Government reforms for SEND in 2022–2023, attention was drawn to the risk of repeating similar mistakes related to a disconnect between the aims and realities of the 2014 set of reforms. We were particularly concerned to show the importance of ensuring the separation of responsibility for the functions of funding and provision for pupils with SEND and the independent oversight of accountability for its implementation. Specific reference was made to this with regard to the current lack of independent oversight of MATs and the consequences of unregulated governance on adequate SEND provision. The conclusions made by authors of the Special Needs Jungle (Keer, 2022) bring to light these concerns, which were also raised by the Education Select Committee’s 2019 SEND Report. This analysis of the effects of legislation was followed by consideration of the long-term impact of different types of education on the adult lives of children with SEND, which was discussed in Chapter 9. The importance of students with SEND acquiring life skills as well as academic skills and how failure to acquire them can hamper their inclusion in their communities post-school was

200 Inclusion and special education discussed (Hornby, 2014; Kauffman et al., 2022). The main long-term goal and purpose of their educational provision was considered in terms of the most essential and useful skills they need to acquire to participate meaningfully in society and become as independent as possible as adults. Notably, a sense of social inclusion, for those children later interviewed as adults as part of a case study, was more apparent for those who had benefitted from segregated special education where the focus was on social and vocational skills. In the penultimate chapter we focused on how the interdependence of mainstream and special education is an essential aspect of a fully functioning effective school system. The emphasis was on the importance of ensuring high quality teaching and provision, specifically for those with SEND, and that the necessary pedagogical information and skills should be shared freely between the two within an integrated comprehensive system. We demonstrated that the development of excellence in provision is not the exclusive prerogative of the elite, as exemplified by grammar school systems in certain parts of the UK and in Barbados. Neither is it the prerogative of mainstream schools to include all levels of SEND, at the expense of special schools, regardless of their lack of capacity to do so, as revealed by the education system in New Zealand and also in many parts of the UK. In the final analysis, a balanced focus on equity, excellence, as well as both special and inclusive education was considered to be the most effective.

Contradictions underlying the philosophy of full inclusion We argue that national and international experience has consistently shown that the implementation of full inclusion is contradictory to other essential and laudable aspirations of the UNCRPD. We have seen that equity and high-quality provision for children with SEND does not come about through implementing full inclusion. Rather, in practice, full inclusion compromises the quality of provision by subordinating it to serving the purpose of the inclusive agenda. Indeed, our view is that the inadequacy of mainstream provision to implement inclusion responsibly has in part contributed to the rapid rise in numbers of children identified with SEND. We consider therefore, that it is investment in and quality of special education that will make the greatest difference to the progress of children with SEND. Currently, specialist knowledge, training and quality resources are being lost from the profession as a result of special education facilities being closed down. In our view, the quality of provision in mainstream schools for children with milder forms of SEND would be improved if teachers were not unrealistically expected to meet the needs of pupils with all types of SEND, including the most severely disabled, as well as the needs of all other children in the class. The role of special schools should be to both relieve mainstream schools of that task, and provide the specialist knowledge and skills so vital to enabling children with high levels of SEND to make progress in bespoke programmes more suitable for facilitating their growth and development.

Inclusion and special education

201

It seems that the mandate for full inclusion is a high-minded moralistic one that the UN has decreed should be implemented universally through the misleading notion that it is always in the interests of children’s human rights, a doctrine reinforced by the simplistic slogan, ‘All means all.’ With these simple words, the difficulty of making decisions or offending someone, is removed and the potential for human error eliminated while imbuing the catchphrase with a sense of moral entitlement. This unhelpful slogan has promoted simplistic solutions for the inclusive education of children with SEND that in too many cases have proved disastrous. We consider that, at the heart of the inclusion debate is a powerfully seductive ideal which upholds a self-insulating concept of righteous conviction that dispels all argument or doubt. In these days of political correctness, it is perceived as unthinkable to question what can appear to be in the best interests of humanity - until the complexity, messiness and true cost of inclusion plays out, and we are left with the need to make difficult but important decisions. Apparently watertight moral arguments fall away as the reality of experience exposes inclusion as undefinable and unworkable in any practical sense. It reveals itself as a philosophy too shallow to encompass the pedagogy required to bring about a quality of educational provision deserved by the full range of pupils with and without special educational needs and disabilities. For governments around the world, the concept of inclusion became an increasingly attractive ideal once it was accepted as a cost-effective means of educating large numbers of pupils with SEND, which could be presented publicly as being consistent with their human rights entitlement. However, the reality has proved anything but cost-effective. The closing down of special schools, containing essential resources and specialist expertise, did not take into account the real cost of providing equivalent levels of support for their pupils across mainstream schools. Mainstream schools have only been well placed to appropriately meet the needs of their pupils with SEND where they were able to provide a similar level of specialist support and resources as would have been available at special schools. In practice, the poor resourcing of mainstream schools for SEND has meant that this has rarely happened. The schools most able to do so in England have been those belonging to better resourced Academies within MATs, whose level of autonomy has given them the flexibility to focus their spending on specific areas of SEND, although this has often not included all levels of special needs. Those promoting the cause of full inclusion appear to have overlooked the reasons that special schools were costly in the first place or to have considered how mainstream schools could ever be a cheaper more effective alternative. Our review of the literature found that many countries have reported increases in the numbers of children and young people identified as having SEND in recent years. However, the estimated 18 to 20 percentage of young people needing some form of additional educational support at school, as reported by Warnock (DES, 1978), appears to reflect a consistent overall global reality. All that seems to have changed is our willingness to recognise and

202 Inclusion and special education address the level of need, which varies according to government legislation in different countries over time. It is possible that, with the increased numbers and levels of severity of children with SEND in mainstream schools, parents and educators have become more aware of the limitations of schools to meet those needs. The issue of determining who should and who should not be classified as having SEND, and at what stage support should be provided, has revealed disparities between local authorities in England and between countries worldwide. Ambivalence in the UK arose through legislation triggered by the Education Act of 1981, which described special needs in relative terms of a learning difficulty or disability compared to other children of their age. It is the relativity of the definitions that make it so difficult for national policies to make implementation legally enforceable and ‘not surprisingly has proved to be the bane of bureaucratic and legal decision making ever since’ (Lindsay et al., 2019, p. 4). Legal documents (such as EHCPs), which were originally intended to offer parents some security of provision for their children, cannot in practice be guaranteed to do so, as they are created by local authority officials without making any reference to the ability of schools to resource them as mandated (Daniels et al., 2019; Lamb, 2019). Needless to say, this has been seen by parents and schools as ‘taking away with one hand what has been offered with the other’ (Lindsay et al., p. 5). The recent Government review in the UK, as presented in the Green Paper (DfE, 2022, March 29) comes at a critical time internationally, as many countries take stock of their provision for SEND following the Covid-19 pandemic. It was hoped that in the UK, post-lockdown lessons would be learned from the HoC ECR (2019) review of the last set of hastily introduced policies on the education of children with SEND (DfE, 2014, 2015). As discussed in Chapter 8, those policies have been widely criticised by researchers, educators and parents alike (Daniels, Thompson & Tawell, 2019; Keer, 2019; Lehane, 2017; Moore, 2019; Nettleton & Friel, 2017). It is hoped that the current Government review (DfE, 2022) will not fail to seize the opportunity for meaningful reform, although there is clearly considerable scepticism from stakeholders (Keer, 2022). In this book we have examined how inclusion has been interpreted and implemented around the world and to what extent it can both meet the needs of learners with SEND appropriately and, according to the UNCRPD (2016), preserve their human rights through placement within mainstream schools. We have drawn attention to the critical issue of whether it is realistic for the United Nations to mandate nations to legislate for such an idealistic form of inclusion without sufficient grounds to believe that the necessary resources can be provided. We have also considered whether, in the final analysis, such an aspiration for education is desirable or whether the focus of attention should instead be on improving the quality of educational provision for SEND. Our experience has increasingly shown that the success of mainstream school settings or special school settings to make appropriate provision with more equitable outcomes for pupils with SEND has much less to do with the placement itself and much more to do with the way in which that placement

Inclusion and special education

203

is resourced for pupils at all levels of SEND. We have focused attention on the impact on young peoples’ lives when education systems are not able to prioritise the early identification of special needs appropriately or when they do not recognise the need to offer provision in specialised settings where necessary. Central to this has been the perspectives of both parents and pupils with SEND themselves.

The covert imperialism of the full inclusion dogma We have explained how the trajectory towards full inclusion has been steered imperialistically by agencies such as the United Nations, and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), which serves as an effective partner of the UN Global Compact (OECD, 2010). They monitor unqualified adherence to an idealistic philosophy of inclusion as the only way to uphold the human rights of the child. As we have seen, however, these rights are invariably broken down at the crucial point of implementation, often leading to less equitable outcomes in the long term. We have shown how, as a result of the UNCRPD (2016), General Comment Number 4, in an incremental, highly covert and arguably anti-democratic way, countries are being morally pressured into accepting guidance to introduce national legislation that would rob them of their own autonomy to make decisions about specialist provision for SEND. Nations are being coerced into agreements to eradicate special schools from their education systems without taking into account research evidence, practical experience or parental views on the matter. There has been an astonishingly hypocritical deference to the views of parents on the issue. Whilst their role has been heralded as important and featured prominently within documents such as the UNESCO Review (2020), General Comment No. 4 of Article 24 states that ‘education is the right of the individual learner, and not in the case of children, the right of a parent or caregiver. Parental responsibilities in this regard are subordinate to the rights of the child’ (CRPD, 2016, p. 3:10). While national legislation extols the importance of parental choice and involvement, in many countries parents are not offered a realistic choice of provision for their children with SEND. In the concluding observations of the CRPD Committee General Comment Number 4, placement of children with SEND in general education prevailed in importance over considerations about effectively meeting their special needs. This was despite concerns that many children with SEND are currently unable to receive a high-quality education with specially designed, pedagogically sound instruction and access to special educational settings (Anastasiou et al., 2020). Despite being set up by UNESCO (2020) as examples to follow, closer analysis of the supposedly fully inclusive systems of Italy and Portugal reveal the predictable difficulties that other countries are likely to experience if they attempt full inclusion. Recently, relatively poor European countries such as Latvia and Northern Macedonia have been effectively coerced into rapidly

204 Inclusion and special education dismantling their special education systems in order to provide examples of full inclusion for the rest of the world to follow. They are based on the flawed model of full inclusion implemented in the Canadian State of New Brunswick over 30 years ago, discussed in Chapter 3. Such reconstructions of education systems are being made in the absence of any definitive research evidence to suggest that the process will be in the children’s or their nation’s long-term interests. Some of the poorest countries are unlikely to put up any resistance to being ‘helped’ to progress towards full inclusion on the advice and with the financial support of the OECD. National education systems are being persuaded into believing that inclusion is the only possible way of protecting the human rights of children with SEND. In this way, other countries are expected to follow suit and follow a mandate prescribed for them, without any objective assessment of its value to their respective education systems within their own economic, cultural and social contexts. Other relevant considerations such as population density of a country are often not taken into account. For example, in the rural schools of Russian regions, where there is a particularly low population density, there are insufficiently qualified special education teachers to ensure the quality of education for children with SEND in their mainstream schools (Anastasiou et al., 2020). Whilst pressure is currently being put on Finland to modify its existing education system to conform more closely to the aspirations of the full inclusion agenda, some countries, such as England and Germany, for now, continue to resist the pressure. So far, they have avoided the introduction of policies to dismantle their special education systems. Nonetheless, England continues to operate under the guise of inclusion policies, for the purpose of maintaining a semblance of compliance with an international agenda on human rights. In this way it deflects attention from the scrutiny required of a national educational enterprise that purports to be equitable and truly effective for all (Daniels et al., 2019; Keer, 2019). On the other hand, Ireland is notable for currently being torn between the two positions of paying attention to parental opinion in support of maintaining special schools and classes and a fervour to uphold the UN position on full inclusion. It has become caught up in a contentious debate about whether or not to take the radical step of adopting legislation that would commit wholeheartedly to the ideal of full inclusion, based on the New Brunswick model and all that it entails (Banks, 2021a, 2021b; Banks, 2022). We are concerned that, before the public have grasped the seriousness of what is happening, the relentless pressure on countries to fall in line with the pursuit of the UN goal of ‘All means all’ (UNESCO, 2020) for full inclusion will mean that education systems around the world could be divested of their most valuable educational resources for children with disabilities and special educational needs. Without understanding the full consequences of such international agreements, the views of the general public are being conveniently bypassed as having no importance other than to be, at best, nominally consulted, in a contrivance with a high moral principle far removed from the reality of teaching and learning in the classroom.

Inclusion and special education

205

The United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development states that by 2030, it aims to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education’ (United Nations, 2015, SDG 4) but as we have seen in Chapter 10, inclusion in the classroom does not in itself ensure the protection of a child or young person’s human rights or provide the ingredients of a more equitable society. Educational provision needs to be specifically adapted to the needs of individuals to offer everyone an equal opportunity to maximise their potential. We have seen from the example of Finland that the development of an excellent education system that is able to achieve both high academic standards and equality of educational opportunity, comes about gradually over time due to public support from within. A nation’s ability to optimise its educational equitability grows from a conviction and spirit of concern for all, based on historical experiences and a realistic understanding of the economic and cultural needs of its citizens.

Solutions to the issue of raising standards while promoting inclusion To resolve the problem of raising standards while being seen to promote inclusion, charter schools in the USA and Academies or MATs in England have taken advantage of their increased autonomy to maintain an illusion of inclusion while constructing mechanisms by which they do not have to conform to the notion in the way that other schools do. These unregulated mechanisms are leading to greater inequalities between schools in local communities and less rather than greater equality in education, as illustrated by a recent study (Lane et al., 2022). In this way the promotion of Academies in England and charter schools in the USA sends mixed messages about inclusion in education. Like MATs, charter schools set themselves apart by their increased autonomy to a) discriminate between those pupils with SEND it will and will not admit, and b) by how they use their funds to support any students they do admit with SEND. This inevitably sets up an inequality with those schools in the same geographical area without that autonomy. In addition, the greater flexibility of MATs in England to take advantage of their exclusions policy is felt most acutely by children with behaviour difficulties, often resulting from unrecognised SEND. Therefore, an unintended consequence of mandated inclusion can lead to the development of greater inequalities via the backdoor, with no accountability. By default, poor quality inclusion becomes a concept limited to those who can least resist it. Legislation ties the hands of those schools with less autonomy to accept everyone with all types of SEND irrespective of whether or not they have the resources to do so. Alternative provision has become a central feature of the new Government Review for Reform in England (Tiarraoro, 2022) in a way that makes an oblique reference to the need for greater accountability and more regulated management of the consequences of exclusion. It is interesting to note the contradictions of a Government keen, on the one hand, to tighten laws that ensure greater levels of inclusion (Keer, 2022) while developing more provision for those who are excluded (Tirraoro, 2022).

206 Inclusion and special education

Reimagining the way forward The inclusion movement has taken on a relentless momentum of its own in which multiple interests of people in positions of influence and power direct the fate of those with none. For many, particularly in areas of high disadvantage, the effect of poorly resourced implementation of inclusion policies is exacerbating rather than ameliorating the social divisions between those able to achieve success and those who are not. In the apparent name of equality, greater tolerance of diversity and community cohesion, global policy makers and educators alike are becoming inadvertently complicit in creating a compelling veneer of inclusive education that is blinding society to its real inequitable educational consequences. These have far reaching consequences on the lives and prospects of many young people with SEND who are unable to speak out for themselves. In light of what we have been considering in this book, we return to the meaning of inclusion and in what way it is important. Should this be the main focus of education, or have we lost something more important by chasing this dream? Have we become overconcerned with the concepts of ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ within or from a large generic group to the point of overlooking the human need for a connection with those with whom we can share our more personal experiences? Have we muddled the reason for education as necessarily to do with being part of a boundless undefined entity rather than being properly connected to those within a defined group with whom we can genuinely share learning experiences? The inclusion message has been loudly broadcast, seductively spun and contrived to ensure we do not notice the slipping away of some of our education system’s most valuable resources. The sense of urgency with which the all-inclusive movement is taking place masks a cavalier disregard for any need on the part of independent nations to reflect on its long-term impact on their education systems. There now needs to be a sense of urgency to counter such a movement with a pragmatic understanding of how we can all contribute to serving the educational needs of our children with SEND in the best way possible for their future. We conclude that the greatest sense of inclusion will be felt by default and not by design by students who experience their needs being effectively and appropriately catered for. Feeling included comes from an inner sense of belonging not an outward proclamation of one. Therefore, this is where the focus of any future reforms needs to be. What is more important than inclusion is equality of opportunity, which may often require different separated educational spaces. It appears to us that humans generally form better connections with others within the constraints of a smaller defined space than larger more nebulous groups. Those who belong to small schools have a greater sense of belonging because of the sense of identity that it brings. A small school necessarily defines its intake and is therefore by default exclusive. Is this something to be feared or appreciated as long as we can maintain the flexibility necessary for pupils to move between them? We propose that any future reform should remain consistent with the values, experience and aspirations of each national education system. Reforms should start

Inclusion and special education

207

by focusing on preventative measures to decrease the chances of children’s SEND difficulties being overlooked or inadequately supported from the earliest possible stage of development. If new legislation is to be introduced it should consider precisely the mechanics of how it can be implemented, along with appropriate provision of resources, to make such legislation both practicable and enforceable. Thorough early assessment procedures, with regular reviews and early preventative and supportive interventions should always be prioritised over gathering retrospective evidence of failure to justify exclusions. Interventions should include the provision of evidence-based pedagogical strategies and programmes, delivered by the most highly trained teaching specialists, for the full range of pupils with SEND, and not just those with the most complex needs. Reform should involve working out the mechanics of how education communities can deliver the best possible instruction to those who need it, in the optimal way and in the optimal place. Above all, it should be realistic about the financial and practical resources necessary for effectiveness. After many years of unsuccessful attempts to establish an idealistic vision of inclusion in education systems in different parts of the world, we consider that the full inclusion movement has come to a final crossroads at which a decision for future direction of the movement needs to be made. This has mainly come about through the realisation of the enormity of the special needs elephant in the classroom, that is, the impossibility of dealing with the quantity, diversity and complexity of the children with SEND who would all be in mainstream classrooms in a true full inclusion system. It is clear from the evidence presented in this book that to continue to promote this failed agenda will inevitably diminish effective educational provision for young people with SEND. It is therefore essential that supporters of full inclusion recognise the real risks of continuing to promote such an unrealistic agenda and recognise the need to follow a more pragmatic path in the future. It is therefore important for organisations such as the UN to re-evaluate their positions on full inclusion and adopt more realistic policies. Such policies must integrate what has been learned about inclusive education and special education to promote approaches that are more likely to lead to implementation of effective systems for optimising outcomes for all young people with SEND. We suggest that policies to promote effective education systems that will optimise outcomes for all young people with SEND should be guided by principles such as those listed below. These are mostly based on guidelines originally developed for the education of young people with SEND by longstanding national initiatives such as the EAHCA (1975) and IDEA (2004) in the USA and the early Codes of Practice for SEN in the UK (DfE, 1994; DfES 2001). While these initiatives are not without their flaws, they have played major roles in enabling the success of special education practices in the USA and the UK. So it is important to build on them while at the same time advocating for improvements. The guidelines have also drawn from seminal publications such as those by Warnock (DES, 1978; Warnock, 2005) and the more recent theory of Inclusive Special Education (Hornby, 2014), that has built on many of the principles from the IDEA (2004) and Codes of Practice (e.g. DfE, 1994) and includes more

208 Inclusion and special education details of guidelines for SEND provision. They are not definitive but provide the type of framework, with relevant components, that education systems, teachers and other professionals need to consider when developing policies and practices for young people with SEND.

Specific recommendations for policy and practice of effective special and inclusive education systems internationally Education systems to have specific policies for effectively educating children with SEND Coherent policy about inclusive education Each country, state or province needs to have its own coherent policies on inclusive education and special education that reflect national and regional priorities and key features of these education systems. Specific education legislation for the education of children with SEND There needs to be specific education legislation regarding children with SEND, which applies whether they attend mainstream schools, special schools, or special classes or other types of provision. Statutory guidelines for schools on provision for children with SEND There needs to be guidelines for schools regarding children with SEND that schools are mandated to follow, similar to the detailed statutory guidance for schools provided within the Codes of Practice for SEND (DfE, 1994; DfES, 2001) in England. These set out detailed guidelines for the procedures that must be followed and the resources that must be provided for children with SEND. Continuum of special education provision, including special schools and special classes within mainstream schools, to be available There needs to be a continuum of special education provision that includes flexibility for students to move from one type of setting to another as judged necessary by parents, teaching staff and specialists. Special schools, classes and other special education facilities to be well resourced and widely available Special schools and special classes in mainstream schools and other special education facilities to be widely available and taught by specialist trained teachers, using adapted curricula and transition planning for older students.

Inclusion and special education

209

Collaboration between mainstream and special education There needs to be ongoing interaction between mainstream and special school teachers providing support and advice regarding pupils with SEND and programmes. Parent partnership services Education systems need parent partnership services or parent involvement coordinators to provide information, independent advice and support to parents who have children with SEND. Teacher training All teachers to have initial training and ongoing professional development on teaching children with SEND that includes practical experience of working with them. This is in addition to the training of qualified teachers as specialist teachers and SENDCos.

Mainstream schools to be prepared for educating children with SEND wherever possible and appropriate. School ethos Mainstream school leaders need to develop a positive ethos with regard to children with SEND and take responsibility for providing and resourcing education effectively for them in transparent cooperation with all sources of funding. Identification and assessment Independent bodies to work with mainstream schools to establish procedures for early independent identification and assessment of children with SEND and for the provision of appropriate programmes. Individual educational plans The implementation and review of legally protected documents such as EHCPs (UK) or IEPs (USA) that can be used to bring together those working with children with all levels of SEND to share information, identify priorities, plan actions and make decisions about placement, curriculum and resources needed. Leadership structure All mainstream schools to have fully qualified SENDCos or learning support coordinators, that are members of schools’ senior management teams, working directly with class teachers, parents, specialists, headteachers and governing bodies.

210 Inclusion and special education Limits on SEND admissions A reasonable distribution and maximum limit on the number and type of high needs SEND admissions into mainstream schools and classes to be decided by the school senior leadership team and closely monitored. Specialist inspectors Specialist inspectors with training and experience in the area of SEND to inspect provision in specialist schools, special classes and mainstream school provision for SEND. Ability grouping Mixed-ability groups with appropriate staffing support and material resources should be used in primary schools and for most subject areas in secondary schools, with discretionary setting used for some subjects such as mathematics. Ability grouping should only be used when it will increase the efficacy of instruction or provide more time for instruction on specific skills, such as in learning to read or spell. Parental involvement It is essential that schools have in place effective policies and procedures for optimising parental involvement in their children’s education, using strategies to increase their engagement both at school and at home.

Assessment and guidance for SEND There needs to be specialist assessment and guidance agencies in each education system, that function independently of schools and education authorities and are staffed by specialists who can address all areas of SEND. Developmental screening assessments of all children on school entry should be conducted by specialist assessment and guidance agencies. Specialist assessment and guidance agencies to provide guidance to school leadership about SEND provision necessary for each new school year intake based on individual assessments. Specialist assessment and guidance agency to work on referrals from concerned parents and schools without the need for lengthy procedures or extensive evidence. Specialist assessment and guidance agency to work directly with SENDCos and teachers to assist with assessment of pupils with SEND and provide guidance to teachers and schools on an ongoing basis. Specialist assessment and guidance agency to advise schools on establishing formative assessment strategies as an integral part of teaching at all schools from early childhood through secondary education.

Inclusion and special education

211

Specialist assessment and provision of additional health and social care services should be coordinated to complement educational provision made by the school provision.

Learning strategies Learning strategies should involve multi-tiered systems for intervention in schools to address all levels of SEND and legally mandated educational provision. Where additional services (such as health, social or welfare) need to be involved, separate assessments should be made by those services and coordinated with the school via the Specialist Assessment Agency. Specific strategies for teaching children with SEND Universal Design for Learning is a framework that can be applied at all levels of schooling to ensure that learning opportunities, access to the curriculum and instructional practices are accessible to all students. Response to Intervention to be used to implement a tiered approach to instruction, with targeted interventions for pupils with different levels of SEND. Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports to be used to enable schools to design and implement a whole-of-school approach for teaching appropriate behaviour. Evidence-based teaching strategies with extensive research supporting their effectiveness to be prioritised for teaching pupils with SEND.

Appropriate curricula Academic or functional curriculum Getting the right balance between an academic and a functional curriculum becomes an important issue when children with higher levels of SEND get older. Then the curriculum they follow needs to become less focused on developing academic skills and more focused on functional skills such as social, life and vocational skills necessary for post-school life. Promotion of social and emotional aspects of development All schools have an important role to play in facilitating the social and emotional well-being and fostering positive mental health of children with SEND. They can do this through implementing strategies such as Circle Time and Incredible Years Programs with classes at primary school and Developmental Group Work with secondary school classes.

212 Inclusion and special education

Funding for children with SEND The two roles of assessment of pupils with SEND, and the funding of provision of services for pupils with IEPs or EHCPs, to be separated and independent of one another. Funding for additional social and health care services commissioned to support IEPs or EHCPs to provided directly to those services. Single block of SEND funding must be ring-fenced and received directly by each school leadership team with responsibility for spending it specifically on SEND pupils. Funding to be on the basis of prior knowledge of the number and degree of pupils with SEND arriving in each school at the beginning of each school year. All funding for children with SEND received by schools to be specifically allocated for SEND with accountability to the inspectorate and school governing bodies. Independent inspection of all schools to ensure full accountability for school spending of all funds received for SEND. Inspectorate and independent governing bodies of schools to have a mandate to ensure that provision for SEND by schools is in accordance with level of need and funding made available to them.

References Anastasiou, Felder-Gallagher, M., Miranda-Correia, L. A., & Shemanov, A. (2020). The Impact of Article 24 of the CRPD on Special and Inclusive Education in Germany, Portugal, the Russian Federation and Netherlands. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.) On Educational Inclusion. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/g8g7. Banks, J. (2021a, March 4). Interview with Professor Brahm Norwich [Season 1, Audio podcast episode 14]. In Inclusion Dialogue. https://audioboom.com/posts/ 7814450-interview-with-professor-brahm-norwich. Banks, J. (2021b, February 27). Interview with Professor Mel Ainscow [Season 1, Audio podcast episode 11]. In Inclusion Dialogue. https://www.ed.ac.uk/education/rke/cen tres-groups/creid/news-events/news-archive/news-archive-2020/inclusion-podcasts-ba nks-trinity. Banks, J. (2022,July 1). Special classes not best option for students with disabilities. Irish Times. Daniels, H., Thompson, I. & Tawell, A. (April, 2019). After Warnock: The effects of perverse incentives in policies in England for students with special educational needs. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/g9nx. DES (1978). Warnock Report: Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. HMSO. http://www. educationengland.org.uk/documents/warnock/warnock1978.html. DfE (1994). Special educational needs code of practice. Department for Education. DfE (2014,October). Summary of the SEND Code of Practice: 0–25 years. NASEN. https:// www.nasbtt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/summaryofsendcodeofpractice-1.pdf. DfE (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0–25 years. Department for Education and Department of Health. https://www.legislation.gov. uk/uksi/2015/62/pdfs/uksicop_20150062_en.pdf.

Inclusion and special education

213

DfE (2022, April 5). Summary of the SEND review: right support, right place, right time. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-and-ap-green-paper-responding-to-theconsultation/summary-of-the-send-review-right-support-right-place-right-time. DfES (2001). Special educational needs (SEN) code of practice. Department for Education and Science. EAHCA (1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Public Law (PL) 94–142, 20 USC 1401. Fitzgerald, J. & Radford, J. (2020). Leadership for inclusive special education: a qualitative exploration of SENCOs’ and principals’ Experiences in secondary schools in Ireland. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/g877. HoC ECR (2019, October 23). House of Commons Education Committee Report. Special educational needs and disabilities. First Report. HC 20. https://publications.pa rliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmeduc/20/20.pdf. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. Springer. Humphrey, N. & Squires, G. (2009). Achievement for all national evaluation: Final report. Department for Education. IDEA (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P. L. No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Crockett, J. B., Felder, M., … Smith, C.R. (2022). Parents’ and educators’ perspectives on inclusion of students with disabilities. In C. Boyle & K. A. Allen (Eds.). Research for quality inclusive education: Sustainable development goals series, pp. 205–217. Springer. Keer, M. (2019, Oct 23). SEND Inquiry Report: Education committee blast DfE, LAs and Ofsted over multiple SEND failures. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjun gle.com/send-inquiry-report-education-committee-blasts-dfe-las-and-ofsted-over-mult iple-send-failures/. Keer, M. (2022, March 29). Publication day: Your first look at what’s in the SEND Review Green Paper. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/publication-day-firstlook-send-review-green-paper/. Keer, M. (2022, April 4). SEND Review Chapter 5 (part1): The missing accountability question. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/sendreview-chapter-5-missing-accounta bility-question/. Lamb, B. (2009, April 29). Special educational needs and parental confidence. Report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review of SEN and Disability Information. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/9042/1/Lamb%20Inquiry%20Review%20of%20SEN% 20and%20Disability%20Information.pdf. Lamb, B. (2019). Statutory assessment for special educational needs and the Warnock Report; the first 40 Years. Frontiers in Education, 4, 51. https://doi.org/gmf6rz. Lambrecht, J., Lenkeit, J., Hartmann, Ehlert, A., Knigge, M. & Sporer, N. (2020). The effect of school leadership on implementing inclusive education: how transformational and instructional leadership practices affect individualised education planning. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/gprvz4. Lane, D., Semon, S., Catania, N. & Jones, P. (2022). Inclusion in a multi-academy trust: possibilities and perils. British Journal of Special Education, 49(1), 64–83. https://doi. org/hn6g. Lehane, T. (2016,November). “SEN’s completely different now”: critical discourse analysis of three “Codes of Practice for Special Educational Needs” (1994, 2001, 2015). Journal of Education Policy. https://doi.org/g6z8.

214 Inclusion and special education Lindsay, G., Wedell, K. & Dockrell, J. (2019). Warnock 40 years on: the development of special educational needs since the Warnock report and implications for the future. Frontiers in Education.4:164. https://doi.org/gmf6r5. Magnussen, G. (2022). From Salamanca to Sweden. Inclusive Education as a Policy in Transit. International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-818630-5.12022-6. Moore, C. (2019,October 24). SEND Inquiry report Part 2: No more reviews, it’s time to ACT. Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/send-inquiryreport-part-2-no-more-reviews-time-to-act/. Nettleton, M. & Friel, J. (2017). Special Needs and Legal Entitlement: The Essential Guide to Getting out of the Maze (2nd Ed.). Jessica Kingsley. Norwich, B. (2014). Changing policy and legislation and its effects on inclusive and special education: a perspective from England. British Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 403–425. https://doi.org/hksg. OECD (2010,June). OECD is a partner of the UN Global Compact. https://www. oecd.org/corporate/mne/oecdisapartneroftheunglobalcompact.htm. Telegraph Reporters (2022, March 25). Multi-academy trusts pay record number of staff more than £100,000 a year. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ 2022/03/25/multi-academy-trusts-pay-record-number-staff-100000-year/. Tirraoro, T. (2022, April). SEND Review: Defining Alternative Provision and …how about an apology? Special Needs Jungle. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/sendreviewdefining-alternative-provision-apology/. UNCRPD (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/ desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. UNCRPD (2016). Article 24: Right to inclusive education: General comment No. 4. United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https:// www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabili ties.aspx#24. UNESCO (2015). SDG 4: Education. Global Education Monitoring Report. https:// en.unesco.org/gem-report/sdg-goal-4#:~:text=SDG%204%20is%20to%20ensure,and %20three%20means%20of%20implementation. UNESCO (2020). Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Global Education Monitoring Report. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unes doc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718. Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. In L. Terzi (Ed.) (2010). Special educational needs: A new look (2nd Ed.). Continuum.

Index

ABA (Anti-Bullying Alliance) 104 ABI (acquired brain injury) 133–4 Accessibility Plans 130 accountability: government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142, 143, 152–3, 155, 158, 159–61, 163; implementation challenges worldwide 48, 66; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 199, 205, 212; parental views on inclusion 110; progress of inclusion 1, 7; school leadership and management of SEND 80–1, 85 achievement gaps 37–8 acquired brain injury (ABI) 133–4 ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) 124–5 ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) 20, 83, 107, 124–5, 135 aetiology 35 Ahrbeck, B. 53 Ainscow, M. 22, 30 Albania 60 ‘all means all’ 17, 29, 201, 204 ALLFIE (The Alliance for Inclusive Education) (2022) 12–13, 143, 145 alternative provisions (APs) 107, 111–12, 152, 154–6, 175, 205 Alves, I. 47 Anastasiou, D. 30, 32, 49–50, 52–3, 63, 203 Anderson, J. 65 Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA) 104 APs (alternative provisions) 107, 111–12, 152, 154–6, 175, 205 areas of disadvantage 158–9 Article 24: covert imperialism of the full inclusion dogma 203; implementation challenges worldwide 52, 71; international views of inclusion 29, 40; research evidence 169; Salamanca

Statement 11–13, 15 see also General Comment No 4 of Article 24 (2016) ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) see Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) assessment-funding conflict for local authorities (LAs) 152 assessment process for high SEND needs 149–51 Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) 124–5 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 20, 83, 107, 124–5, 135 attitudes towards teacher practitioners 21–2 Australia 63–5, 71, 105, 169 Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD): government policy and legislation for SEND provision 144, 157; implementation challenges worldwide 54; inclusion and different types of SEND 121, 123–4, 125, 131, 135; parental views on inclusion 102, 104, 110–11; research evidence 169; school leadership 83 Baker, D. 182 Banks, J. 56–7, 62, 97, 114, 121 Barbados 179, 182–5, 193, 200 bias 3, 31–2, 38, 63, 86, 150 see also selection bias blindness 54, 129–30, 180 Boyle, C. 65 bullying 55, 88, 103–5, 107, 114, 173 CAFA (Children and Families Act) see Children and Families Act (CAFA) Cali commitment to equity and inclusion in education. (UNESCO, 2019) 13–14, 17, 33 Campaign for Change 98, 109

216 Index Canada 24, 30, 56, 62–3, 105, 204 see also New Brunswick; Ontario; Quebec Carroll, J. 120–1 Castro, S. 100 CEE (Common Entrance Exam) 183–4 cerebral palsy 131, 132 charter schools 182, 205 Children and Families Act (CAFA): different types of SEND 119, 132; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142, 144, 146, 150, 153; parental views on inclusion 97, 106–7; progress of inclusion 6; school leadership 78 children with SEND, views of 170 Chimicz, D. 55–6 Cigman, R. 23–4, 99, 103, 112, 124 class sizes 20 closures of special schools see special school closures collaboration between education, health and social care services 151–2 collaboration between mainstream and special schools 190 Cologon, K. 64 Common Entrance Exam (CEE) 183–4 comprehensive education systems: equity, excellence and inclusive special education 180, 187–8, 189, 193; implementation challenges worldwide 50, 56, 68; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 200; international views of inclusion 31; progress of inclusion 8; research evidence 176 conduct disorder 126–7 conflation of disability with other forms of diversity 11, 33 conflation of human rights with fully inclusive education 12, 99–100 confusions about full inclusion 33–7 continuing professional development (CPD) 82–3, 86, 94, 120 continuum of placement options 188, 189, 190 coordination of education, health and social care services 151–2 cost savings 16, 109, 159–61 Covid-19 pandemic: government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142, 149; implementation challenges worldwide 60–1, 70; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 202; parental views on inclusion 99, 103, 108 see also pandemic lockdowns

CPD (continuing professional development) 82–3, 86, 94, 120 curricula, appropriate: different types of SEND 122–3, 129, 131, 134, 136; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 183–4; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 154; implementation challenges worldwide 63, 68; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 208, 209, 211; international views of inclusion 30, 35–6, 39; parental views on inclusion 97, 100, 102, 111, 112, 114; progress of inclusion 2, 5; research evidence 171–2, 174–5; Salamanca Statement 14, 15; school leadership 77, 81, 83–4, 92–3, 94 curriculum adjustment 83, 92–3 Danechi, S. 134 DCD (Developmental Co-ordination Disorder) 121 deafness 54, 127–9, 144 deficit thinking 38 definition of terms 1–2, 17–18 Denmark 66–7, 69 Developmental Co-ordination Disorder (DCD) 121 disadvantaged children 153, 158 disruptive behaviour 13, 20, 36, 88, 126–7, 157 diversity: different types of SEND 119, 133, 136; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 181, 188, 193; implementation challenges worldwide 65–6, 70; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 206–7; international views of inclusion 33, 39; parental views on inclusion 103–4; progress of inclusion 1, 4, 7; Salamanca Statement 11, 18, 19; school leadership 79, 92 Down syndrome 100, 109 Dudley-Marling, C. 182 Dunn, L. M. 181 dyscalculia 49, 121 dyslexia: different types of SEND 120–2, 135; implementation challenges worldwide 49, 54, 64, 68; parental views on inclusion 113; school leadership 87, 92 dyspraxia 87, 121 Eagan-Johnson, B. 133–4 EAHCA (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) 5, 181–2, 207

Index 217 EBD (emotional or behavioural difficulties) 36, 170, 171, 173–4, 175, 176 Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) 80, 159–60, 163 Education for All. (EFA). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs.World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5–9 March 1990. UNESCO. 10, 13, 15, 28 Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA) 5, 181–2, 207 Education Health and Care Plan Assessment of Need (EHCAN) 150, 151 Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) see EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plans) educational justification of UNESCO report 15 educational psychologists 102, 150, 186, 190 Educational Psychologist’s report 102, 150, 186, 190 EFA (Education for All) World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs.World Conference on Education for All:Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5–9 March 1990. UNESCO. 10, 13, 15, 28 effectiveness of full inclusion 31–3 effectiveness of inclusive and special education programmes 168–9 EHCAN (Education Health and Care Plan Assessment of Need) 150, 151 EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plans): collaboration 148–9, 151–2; different types of SEND 119, 120, 122–3, 124, 125, 130–1; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 146–7, 147–8, 150–1, 153, 154, 162; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 199, 202, 209; parental choice 158–9; parental views on inclusion 99, 100–2, 105–6, 108, 109–10; reducing exclusions of children with SEND 156–7; school leadership 87, 89–90, 91–2 Ekins, A. 190 emotional or behavioural difficulties (EBD) 36, 170, 171, 173–4, 175, 176 England: different types of SEND 119, 121, 124, 128, 132, 134; government policy and legislation for SEND

provision 142–63; implementation challenges worldwide 46, 55, 58, 68–9; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 197–212; international views of inclusion 41; parental views on inclusion 97–8, 100–1, 105, 107, 108, 109–10, 114; progress of inclusion 2, 7; research evidence 172–3, 174–5, 176–7; Salamanca Statement 10; school leadership and management of SEND 77, 79–80, 82, 84, 87, 93 Equality Act (2010) 121, 124, 126, 130, 142, 153 ESFA (Education and Skills Funding Agency) 80, 159–60, 163 Estonia 58 ethnicity 14, 60–1 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 3, 16, 187 evidence-based policies 25, 46, 71, 190, 191 evidence-based practices 86, 136, 176, 192 excellence, over-emphasis on 182–5 exclusion of SEND children, reducing the numbers 156–7 exclusion within inclusion 102–3, 123 Exclusions Code 157 Exclusions Policy (2017) 147, 205 feasibility of full inclusion 29–31 Felder, M. 53 finance 16, 36 Finland 67–70, 155, 179–80, 187–8, 192–3, 204–5 Fitzgerald, J. 57 flexibility of education 190–1 full inclusion: confusions about 33–7; covert imperialism of 203–5; denial of international reality 40–1; effectiveness of 31–3; feasibility 29–31; myths about special education 37–40; philosophical contradictions 200–3 funding-assessment conflict for LAs (local authorities) 152 Ganguly, R. 64 General Comment No 4 of Article 24 (2016) 11–13, 29, 52, 71, 203 see also Article 24 Germany 52–3, 60, 68, 71, 204 gifted learning disabled 135–6 gifted or talented underachievers 134–5 Gilmour, A. 169, 170

218 Index Global Education Monitoring Report on Inclusive Education (UNESCO, 2020) 40, 41, 197, 198 goals for children with SEND: Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 183; international views of inclusion 35; progress of inclusion 2, 6, 8; Salamanca Statement 11, 13–14, 23; school leadership 94 good teaching versus special education 37–8, 79 Gorard, S. 160–1 Gottfried, M. A. 126 Government Green Paper SEND Review (DfE, 2022) 152, 153, 154, 159 Grandinette, S. 133–4 Hanushek, E. A. 32 Hattie, J. 32 hearing impairments 54, 127–9, 144 high needs funding: government policy and legislation for SEND provision 148, 152, 155, 158, 159–60, 163; parental views on inclusion 108, 110 high needs pupils 108, 149–51, 152, 155, 162–3 HoC ECR (House of Commons Education Committee Report on SEND) 2019: government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142, 143–4, 149, 152, 153, 161; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 202; parental views on inclusion 98, 101; school leadership 77 home-schooling 71, 113–14, 131 Hornby, G. 25, 32, 81, 176, 188 House of Commons Education Committee Report on SEND (2019) see HoC ECR (House of Commons Education Committee Report on SEND) 2019 human rights inclusion link: Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 197, 201; international views of inclusion 33–4; parental views on inclusion 99–100; progress of inclusion 3, 5–6, 7–8; Salamanca Statement 11–13, 13–14, 18–19, 23–4 human rights of the child 23–4 Hurwitz, S. 32, 170 IDEA, 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) 5–6, 181, 185, 207 identification of children’s special needs and disabilities: different types of SEND 119, 120–1, 124–5, 129, 135–6;

equity, excellence and inclusive special education 180, 184, 186, 191; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142, 144–5, 149–50, 153–4, 156, 158, 161; implementation challenges worldwide 46, 49, 55, 61, 64, 67–8; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 200, 201, 203, 209, 212; international views of inclusion 34, 38; parental views on inclusion 98–100, 109; progress of inclusion 4–5; school leadership 77–80, 83, 85, 87, 88–9, 89–90, 90–1 ideologies: equity, excellence and inclusive special education 193; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 161; implementation challenges worldwide 58, 65, 66, 70; key themes 7; parental views on inclusion 98; research evidence 175; Salamanca Statement 16, 19–20, 21, 25; school leadership 94; specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) 122 IEPs (Individual Education Plans) 186 IEPs (Individual Education Programmes) 136, 163, 186, 189, 209 IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) 5–6, 209 implementation of inclusion: challenges 46–7, 70–1; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 198, 206; international views of inclusion 18–19, 22, 25; progress of inclusion 4, 7; school leadership 77–9, 94 see also Australia; Canada; Denmark; England; Estonia; Finland; Germany; India; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; North Macedonia; Norway; Poland; Portugal; reality of inclusion implementation; Spain; Sweden; United States improving outcomes 148–9 inclusion: in the community 169, 176–7; definitions 17–18, 33; evidence 25; implementation 18–19, 19–20, 21–2; inclusion debate assessment 197, 201; international views 28–41; models 24; over-emphasis on 185–7; and raising standards 23, 205; seeds of 4–7; worldwide implementation issues 22–3, 46–71 see also implementation of inclusion; reality of inclusion implementation Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Global Education Monitoring Report. (UNESCO, 2020) 40, 41, 197, 198

Index 219 Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 179–93, 197–212; appropriate curricula 211; assessment and guidance for SEND 210–11; best practice 188–9; concluding comments 192–3; continuum of placement options 189; funding for children with SEND 212; key aspects 176; mainstream schools preparation 209–10; most SEND children in mainstream schools 189–90; optimal education for all children with SEND 191–2; recommendations for policy and practice 208–9; the way forward 206–8 India 62 Individual Education Plans (IEPs) 186 Individual Education Programmes (IEPs) 136, 163, 186, 189, 209 Individual Programme for Education and Therapy (IPET) 54 Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) 5–6, 209 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) 5–6, 181, 185, 207 initiatives, landmark 4–7 international reality of inclusion, denial of 40–1 intervention models 35 IPET (Individual Programme for Education and Therapy) 54 IQ tests 180 Ireland 31, 41, 56–7, 71, 97, 197, 204 Italy 24, 28, 29–30, 41, 49–50, 185, 203 Jennings, Z. 183 Kauffman, J. M.: different types of SEND 136; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 198–200; myths about special education 37–40; parental views on inclusion 97; research evidence 169–70, 176; Salamanca Statement 11, 13, 14, 17; school leadership 78–9 Keer, M. 92, 99, 107 Koepfer, A. 68–9 landmark initiatives 4–7 LAs (local authorities) see local authorities (LAs) Latvia 58–9, 70, 203 learning styles 35, 39, 136 least restrictive environments (LREs) 5–6, 181–2

legal documents 24, 92, 99, 202 legislation to reduce SEND numbers identified 77–80 Lehane, T. 98, 143–4 Leijen, A. 58 Lewicka-Zelent, A. 55–6 Lindsay, G. 25 local authorities (LAs): collaboration 148–9, 151–2; different types of SEND 121, 125, 127, 131; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 191; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 147, 150–1, 155, 158–9, 159–60, 162–3; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 202; parental views on inclusion 97–8, 101, 103, 106–8, 108–9, 109–10, 114; progress of inclusion 8; reducing tribunal appeals 153–4; school leadership 79, 80, 82–3, 85, 88, 89–90, 92 local communities 13, 147, 159–61, 198, 205 Loft, P. 134 long-term outcomes of children with SEND 170–1 see also short-term achievements of children with SEND Lopes, J. L. 47–8, 112 low expectations 38 LREs (least restrictive environments) 5–6, 181–2 Magnússon, G. 65–6 Manitoba 63 McLinden, M. 129 means and ends 36–7 medical needs 132–3, 154 minimum legal requirements 83–4, 101 mitigating inequalities 21 MLD (moderate learning difficulties) see moderate learning difficulties (MLD) moderate learning difficulties (MLD): Barbados 184; children with 122–3; England 172–3; long-term negative impact of inclusion 175; merging of special schools 111; New Zealand 171–2, 186; study summaries 174; way forward 176 Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs): government policy and legislation for SEND provision 143, 149–50, 153, 154–5, 158–9, 160–1, 163; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 199, 201, 205; progress of inclusion 7; school leadership and SEND funds 80–1, 88 multiple sclerosis 132

220 Index Narayan, J. 62 National Autistic Society 144 National Council for Special Education (NCSE) 56 National Deaf Children’s Society 127, 129, 144 National Tutoring Programme (NTP) 112 NCSE (National Council for Special Education) 56 New Brunswick 24, 28, 30–1, 56, 62–3, 204 New Zealand 171–2, 173–4, 175, 179, 185–7, 200 Nimante, D. 59 normalisation principle 5 North Macedonia 60–1, 70, 203 Norway 31, 41, 67 Norwich, B. 14, 17–18, 114, 151, 161 NTP (National Tutoring Programme) 112 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) see Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) OFA (Ohrid Framework Agreement) 2001 60 Ofsted inspections: different types of SEND 134; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 149, 153, 160; parental views on inclusion 99, 104, 110; school leadership 81, 83, 86, 89, 92–3, 93–4 Ofsted School Inspection Handbook (2022) 110 Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) 2001 60 Oliveira, C. R. 47–8, 112 Ontario 63 optimal education: for all children with SEND 190, 191–2; different types of SEND 136; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 161; international views of inclusion 38; parental views on inclusion 99; progress of inclusion 3; Salamanca Statement 20 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): equity, excellence and inclusive special education 185; implementation challenges worldwide 48, 50, 56–7, 70; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 203, 204;

international views of inclusion 36; progress of inclusion 3 Osgood, R. I. 182 over-identification of SEND 145, 199 overlooking inequalities 21 overview of issues 197–200 PAC (Public Accounts Committee) Review, 2020 144 Palikara, O. 100 pandemic lockdowns 79, 89, 99, 103, 112, 142, 144–5 see also Covid-19 pandemic parental choice 51, 66, 146–7, 158–9, 203 parental views on inclusion 97–115; assertion of children’s rights 105–8; bullying 103–5; changing views 99–102; conclusions 114–15; exclusion within inclusion 102–3; home-schooling 113–14; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 199; introduction 97–8; mixed messages 98–9; research evidence 169; Salamanca Statement 23–4; special schools 108–9, 109–10, 111–12; tutoring 112–13 pedagogy: different types of SEND 110, 112; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 189; implementation challenges worldwide 55, 66; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 200, 201, 203, 207; progress of inclusion 4; Salamanca Statement 11, 18; school leadership 86 peers and belonging: different types of SEND 122–3, 125, 128, 132; implementation challenges worldwide 51, 63; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 206; international views of inclusion 34, 36, 38; parental views on inclusion 100, 102, 103–4, 111, 112; peer tutoring 189, 192; Salamanca Statement 19; school leadership 86, 91 physical disabilities 5, 54, 130–1, 132, 180 PMLD (profound and multiple learning difficulties) 123 Poland 53–6, 71, 149 Portugal 47–8, 49, 185, 203 practice-based evidence 175 private schools 113 profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) 123 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 22, 32, 179, 185, 187, 188 progress of inclusion 1–9

Index 221 proportion and degree of SEND in a class 20 provision improvement 146–7 Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Review, 2020 144 Quebec 63 raising standards and inclusion 23, 205 Rao, S. 50–1 reading outcomes 32 reality of inclusion implementation: different types of SEND 122, 130, 133; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 184, 185; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 145, 146–7, 151–2, 153, 158–9, 160; implementation challenges worldwide 48, 58–9; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 201, 204; international views of inclusion 28, 30, 36, 38, 40–1; parental views on inclusion 98, 103; Salamanca Statement 14, 16, 23; school leadership 81, 83, 85, 86–7, 90 see also implementation of inclusion recommendations for SEND policy 162–3 reducing the number of exclusions of SEND children 156–7 Reeve, M. 82, 85, 89, 107 reforming special education 3–4 Regular Education Initiative (REI) 6, 182 REI (Regular Education Initiative) 6, 182 Reis, S. M. 135 Renzulli, J. S. 134 research evidence: effectiveness of inclusive and special education 168–77; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 184, 192; implementation challenges worldwide 53; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 198, 203–4; international views of inclusion 28, 31, 33, 35, 37; parental views on inclusion 114; progress of inclusion 8; Salamanca Statement 12, 25 restructuring schools 40, 56 rights-based inclusion agenda 7, 11, 18, 23–4, 25, 79, 103 Rose, R. 62 Russia 63, 71, 204 Salamanca Statement 10–25; difficulties recognised by the UNESCO review 16–17; impact on special needs

education 28–9; implementation 19–20, 21–2, 22–3; inclusion 17–18, 18–19, 23, 24–5; parental views 23–4; UN Cali commitment to Inclusion and Equity in Education 13–14; UNCRPD and General Comment No 4 of Article 24 (2016) 11–13; UNESCO (2020) review of 1994 agreement and comments 14–16; UNESCO agreement 1994 10–11 Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain. (UNESCO, 1994) see Salamanca Statement Saline, S. 125 Santiago, P. 58 Schleicher, A. 179, 185, 187–8, 192 school leadership and management of SEND 77–94; EHC assessment delays 91–2; graduated approach to SEND assessment 90–1; inclusion 93–4; legislation to reduce SEND numbers identified 77–80; Multi-Academy Trust leadership 80–1; and Ofsted inspections 81, 92–3; SEND CoP (2015) 88–9; SEND data 89–90; SEND funding transparency 82–4; SEND pupils and teachers 86; SENDCos 84–5; Teaching Assistants (TAs) 86–8 Schools Admissions Code (DfE, 2021c) 146, 148, 157 Schwartz, A. E. 32, 170 Scotland 1–2, 88 SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) 13, 205 seeds of inclusion 4–7 segregation: equity, excellence and inclusive special education 180–2; implementation challenges worldwide 51–2, 54, 60, 62–3, 66; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 200; international views of inclusion 29, 30, 33, 40; parental views on inclusion 99–100, 105, 112–13; Salamanca Statement 12–13, 16, 19–20; school leadership 91 selection bias 31–2 selective education systems 50, 61, 70, 179, 182–4, 193 self-actualization 2 self-efficacy 2 SEMH (social, emotional and mental health) needs 83, 111, 121, 125, 135

222 Index SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinators) see SENDCos (special educational needs and disabilities coordinators) SEND Codes of Practice (2014, 2015): different types of SEND 130; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142, 145, 146–7, 148, 150–1, 158; Ofsted inspections 81, 92–3; parental views on inclusion 98, 110; school leadership 78, 82–3, 85, 86, 88–9, 90–1 SEND CoP (2014, 2015) see SEND Codes of Practice (2014, 2015) SEND (special educational needs and disabilities): funding transparency 82–4; progress of inclusion 1–9; SEND reforms of 2014 143–4; SEND register 79, 81, 83, 89–90 SENDCos (special educational needs and disabilities coordinators): assessment delays 90–1, 91–2; conflict of interest with headteacher 85; different types of SEND 134; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 186, 190, 191; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 148–9, 150, 162–3; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 209; parental views on inclusion 107, 110; role 84–5; school leadership 77, 80–1, 82–3; SEND register 89–90; stress levels 86; and TAs 87 SENDIST (Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals) 98 separate special education 39, 53, 169, 176, 198 see also special school closures short-term achievements of children with SEND 170 see also long-term outcomes of children with SEND Smith, K. 113 social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs 83, 111, 121, 125, 135 social inclusion 14, 18, 33, 56, 63, 200 social justification of UNESCO report 15 social skills 123, 133, 170, 171 Spain 2, 10, 28, 50–1, 71 special education: educators and parents 40; history 180–2; and inclusive education 187–8, 200–3; myths 37–40; and reading outcomes 32; reform 3–4 special education teachers: different types of SEND 136; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 181; implementation challenges worldwide 48,

52, 58, 59, 67; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 204; international views of inclusion 39 Special Educational Needs: A new look. (Warnock, 2005): different types of SEND 121, 123; implementation challenges worldwide 49; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 207; international views of inclusion 33–5; parental views on inclusion 98, 102, 105, 107–8; progress of inclusion 6; research evidence 152, 163; Salamanca Statement 15–16, 20 special educational needs and disabilities coordinators (SENDCos) see SENDCos (special educational needs and disabilities coordinators) special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) see SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) 98 Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) see SENDCos (special educational needs and disabilities coordinators) Special educational needs: The Warnock Report (DES, 1978) see Warnock Report (DES, 1978) special needs education, impact of Salamanca Framework for Action 28–9 Special Needs Jungle (Keer, 2022) 199 special school closures: different types of SEND 127; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 186; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 155; implementation challenges worldwide 52–4, 56, 60, 64; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 200–1; international views of inclusion 29; parental views on inclusion 97, 114; progress of inclusion 4, 5–6; research evidence 169, 172, 175, 177; Salamanca Statement 24 specialised instruction 175 specialised training needs: different types of SEND 136; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 181; implementation challenges worldwide 48, 52, 58, 59, 67; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 204; international views of inclusion 39 specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) 120–2, 125

Index 223 speech and language difficulties: different types of SEND 122, 126, 129, 131, 136; implementation challenges worldwide 54, 59; implications for inclusion 119–20; parental views on inclusion 101–2 speech and language therapy see speech and language difficulties SpLDs (specific learning difficulties) 120–2, 125 staff retention 49, 94, 105, 127 Starczewska, A. 54 Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (1994) 10–11, 28–9 Stephenson, J. 64 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 13, 205 Sweden 51, 65–6, 79–80 TBI (traumatic brain injury) 133–4 teacher aides 64, 136, 170 teacher practitioners 21–2 teacher stress 126, 157 teachers’ views, research evidence 169–70 Teaching Assistants (TAs): different types of SEND 123, 125, 131, 132; implementation challenges worldwide 49, 60, 64, 67; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 199; parental views on inclusion 100; school leadership 77, 82, 86–8, 92 term definitions 1–2 Terzi, L. 6, 33–4, 105, 123 Tirraoro, T. 104, 108, 144, 151, 154–5, 205 Towards inclusion in education: Status, trends and challenges. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement 25 years on. (UNESCO, 2020). see UNESCO 2020 review traumatic brain injury (TBI) 133–4 tribunals 16, 106, 108, 152, 153–4 tutoring 112–13, 189, 192 twice exceptional students 135–6 UK: different types of SEND 120, 122, 124, 126, 130; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 186; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 142–3, 144, 158; implementation challenges worldwide 50–1, 58, 60, 63, 68; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 199–200, 202, 207, 209; parental views on inclusion 98, 104, 108, 112–13, 114; progress of

inclusion 6; research evidence 174; Salamanca Statement 12–13, 14, 16; school leadership 78, 81 see also England; Ireland; Scotland UN and the human right to inclusive education,The. Article 24. ALLFIE (2022). (The Alliance for Inclusive Education) 12–13, 143, 145 UNCRPD (2007, 24 January) Article 24 – Education. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Disability. see Article 24 UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities): different types of SEND 136; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 155; impact on development of inclusion worldwide 46–7, 47–70, 70–1; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 197–8, 200, 202, 203; international views of inclusion 29, 40; research evidence 169; Salamanca Statement 11–13, 15 UNESCO 2020 review 14, 15–16, 16–17 UNICEF 60–1 United Kingdom see UK United Nations 3–4, 10, 60, 71, 202, 203 see also UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities); UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund (formerly United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) see UNICEF United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2007) see UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) United States see USA USA: equity, excellence and inclusive special education 180–2, 185–6, 192; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 149; implementation challenges worldwide 68; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 205, 207, 209; parental views on inclusion 97; progress of inclusion 5–6, 8; research evidence 179 values-based special education 25, 39, 47–8, 176, 188, 190, 206 visual impairment 54, 129–30, 180

224 Index vocational curricula: different types of SEND 123; equity, excellence and inclusive special education 187; implementation challenges worldwide 68–9; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 200, 211; progress of inclusion 2; research evidence 171–2, 174–5, 177 Warnes, E. 94, 126–7 Warnock, M.: different types of SEND 121, 123; government policy and legislation for SEND provision 152, 163; implementation challenges worldwide 49–50; Inclusive Special Education (ISE) 201, 207; international views of inclusion 33–5; parental views on inclusion 102, 105, 107–8; progress of inclusion 6–7; Salamanca Statement 15–16, 20 see also Special Educational

Needs: A new look. (Warnock, 2005); Warnock Report (DES, 1978) Warnock Report (DES, 1978) 6–7, 15–16, 50, 84, 201, 207 West, E. 127–9 Wienen, A. W. 126–7 Wilcox, G. 170 Wolfensberger, W. 5 work experience 171–2, 174–5 work-related stress, 126 World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5–9 March 1990. UNESCO 28–9 World Health Organization Survey (WHO, 2011) 47 Young Gifted and Talented Programme 134