Achieving inclusive education

Professor David Galloway of the University of Durham reviews last year's National Conference for Special Educational Needs, held at the College of Ripon & York St John

This conference was a welcome opportunity to learn from experience in other parts of the UK, in other European countries and from as far afield as New Zealand. It was also a most welcome opportunity for conference members to share ideas and experience informally, at meals and in the bar. Successful conferences encourage conferring and networking not just listening. The team from John Catt provided the setting and ensured smooth administration. Colin Brock and Rosarii Griffin provided a stimulating and varied programme. As reviewer, my task is threefold: first to identify some of the main themes of the conference; second to identify some of the questions arising from what was not discussed, and third to point to some possible future directions in work in the field of inclusive education. I shall attempt this under four main headings.

What does Inclusion mean?

Inclusion is essentially a philosophical concept, and only on a secondary sense an educational one. Like so many philosophical concepts it is also a slippery one. Christine O'Hanlon showed that philosophical differences rather than national wealth underpin the welfare systems in different countries. Suanne Gibson's discussion group was helpful on separating the rhetoric in some statements of inclusion policy from the practical constraints on the role of many Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs). It contrasted with Isobel Calder's optimistic account of inclusion in Scotland, and Patrick Manning's analysis of the socio-cultural legacy in Northern Ireland, with exclusive practices built onto the system at every level.

A question raised in an early plenary session was whether special schools could be consistent with inclusive education. I cannot do better than quote from an undated paper in the 1970s by the Joint Council for the Education of Handicapped Children. The paper argued that units in ordinary schools:

    'hold the danger of the worst solution of all - isolation in a large community, far worse that the loneliness of the small community.'

This is emphatically not an argument against units in mainstream school. The conclusion should be that both special schools and mainstream schools can be either inclusive or exclusive. Which end of the continuum they veer towards depends less on their formal policies on inclusion than on the quality of classroom teaching and the school's social climate. That is not dependent on
legislation for SEN, but is not always helped by it either.

Is SEN legislation Inclusive?

Brendan Murphy's paper on inclusive education in Ireland, read by Rosarii Griffin, illustrated the importance of the legal framework in developing inclusive policies. I have argued elsewhere that in England three 'discourses' of SEN. are evident in government policy. First, the special needs pupil discourse provided the basis for the Warnock Report's seminal conclusion that up to 20 per cent of pupils are likely to have some form of SEN at some stage in their school career. The logic was straightforward, and was predicted on the notion of help for the individual child. The task was to identify the child's special needs and to provide appropriate resources
for meeting them. This discourse has underpinned all subsequent legislation and government policy for SEN, including the recent revision of the Code of Practice.

In contrast, the school and teacher effectiveness discourse argues that differences between schools in pupils' progress and behaviour cannot be attributed simply to the pupils' social and educational background. Similarly, HMI in Scotland concluded in 1978 that up to 50 per cent of pupils were being failed by the school system. The implication was not to carry out a mass programme of individual assessment, but rather that problems of low achievement and problem behaviour might have as much to do
with the curriculum delivery, teaching methods and school climate as with the pupils themselves. The focus then would be on raising the overall effectiveness of teaching the class as a whole, rather than on assessing and meeting individual needs.

The third discourse, the school failure discourse, is a political variant of the school and school and teacher effectiveness discourse. It rests on the assumption that the teaching profession will only accept reform and innovation if required to do so by law; it has underpinned education legislation since 1979, apart from that for SEN. It has led to increasing centralisation, increasingly coercive inspection and accountability regimes and increasingly prescriptive specification of standards, including those for SENCOs.

There is a serious tension, though, between the individualistic focus of the SEN legislation and the underlying commitment to raise standards across the board in the rest of the legislation. The UK is in a very small minority of countries in extending the concept of SEN to include 20 per cent of pupils. It is not clear that the individualism on the Code of Practice rests comfortably alongside other policies which emphasise teaching the whole class and raising standards of all pupils. Nevertheless, whether or not it was helpful to extend the concept of SEN as proposed by Warnock's committee and endorsed in subsequent legislation, the genie is out of the bottle and will not easily be put back. However, that merely emphasises the importance of evaluation.

Effects on Inclusion

Like motherhood and apple pie, inclusion is easier to support than evaluate. A major challenge is to formulate realistic objectives and to find ways to assess whether we have met them. Chris Dark's discussion group questioned the objectives model but pointing out its benefits in helping failing schools to improve. In contrast, Roger Kidd's group focussed on what actually happens to students with SEN who are returned to mainstream school from special schools. An important conclusion from their extremely varied
experience was that differences in the quality of students' experience within each sector are probably greater than the differences between sectors.

The use of comparative statistics in monitoring progress was illustrated by Dez Allenby's discussion group. It is unfortunate that the abuse of such statistics as a blunderbuss for naming and shaming schools and LEAs has made many education professionals sceptical of their potential value. Other contributions, though, looked at the children behind the statistics. Patrick Manning mentioned the child who transferred to a special school because his parents were concerned about his progress in the mainstream. Yet a legitimate question is whether the reverse could also occur: moving back into mainstream due to lack of progress in a special school. We also need to consider the impact of special school placement on children's life at home and in their community.

Some ideas for the future

Whether inclusive education has been achieved is best judged by the quality of children's experience at school level. I noted five areas of work which might perhaps be explored in more detail in future conferences.

Assessment. This attracted surprisingly little attention, though Ron Weinstein's discussion group helpfully drew attention to the importance of recognising Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). One important question concerns the integration of the school's overall policy on assessment with the requirements of the Code of Practice. When this is not achieved, the requirements of the Code can become an albatross round the SENCO's neck. Another question concerns children's and parents' understanding of assessment as a basis for planning future work.

Listening to Children. Education lags a long way behind social work in this respect. chapter three in the recently issued Draft Revision of the Code of Practice is a welcome attempt to strengthen pupils' participation in their own assessment and education. The Inclusion Index gives this inadequate attention. In their discussion group, Lorrie Burgar and Ann Hoad told us about a child who asked why everyone except Mummy had got a clipboard.

Social Inclusion. The emphasis on assessment in the Draft Revised Code, as in the original Code, may have the unintended effect of diverting attention from the importance of social inclusion. In his non-classic book in the early 1980s David Hargreaves criticised the 'cult of the individual' in education, arguing that greater importance should be placed on the social function of schooling. Mark Richmond referred to the alienation felt by displaced children in Kosovo and Rwanda. We should not forget the alienation, much closer to home, felt by secondary school students who are known to their more successful peers as 'divs', 'rems' or 'spas'. We need to know more about how inclusion policies address this kind of labelling.

Role of SENCO. Chris Shelley's discussion group on the role of educational psychologists in supporting inclusion helpfully drew attention to this. There are substantial obstacles to active cooperation between class teachers and support teachers, as Gary Thomas' work has demonstrated. Without such cooperation, there is a real risk of the SENCO and support teachers experiencing constraints requiring them to adopt practices which may do little to include children in the social and educational life of their peers.

School Climate. For better or worse, we cannot stop children with SEN from learning at school from the hidden curriculum. They may learn, as indicated above, that they are 'divs'. But they can also learn that they are valued members of the community, not because they attract additional resources but because they contribute to the work and social life of the class. Individual needs are less likely to be met through individual education programmes (IEPs) than from being contributing members of a social group. Development of inclusive policies needs to draw on inclusive practice as well as encouraging it. But above all, we need to recognise that IEPs are at best an irrelevance in the absence of an inclusive social climate in the classroom, and beyond the classroom in the school.

Conclusion

Jenny Corbett, in her concluding address on teaching approaches which support inclusive education, pointed out the 'Dump and Hope' has been evident both in special schools and in the mainstream. But her own work in London and that of other contributors, including Dorothy Howie in New Zealand, showed that real progress is possible, both at school level and at system level. As Jenny pointed out, it is difficult to be inclusive; but if it were easy there would be no need to employ teachers to do it.

References
 i Howie, D. Conference Paper. Achieving Inclusive Education in New Zealand
ii O'Hanlon, C. Conference Paper. Patterns of Inclusion in the European Union
iii Gibson, S. Conference Discussion Group. Inclusion: Providing a Workable Definition
iv Calder, I. Conference Paper. Achieving Inclusive Education in Scotland
v Manning, P. Conference Paper. Achieving Inclusive Education in Northern Ireland
vi Joint Council for the Education of Handicapped Children (undated, but about 1978). Integration or Segregation? A False Alternative. London: JCEHC
vii Murphy, B. Conference Paper. Achieving Inclusive Education in Ireland
viii Galloway, D., Armstrong, D. and Tomlinson, S. (1994). The Assessment of Special Educational Needs: Whose Problem? London: Longman
ix Department of Education and Science (1978). Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO
x Department for Education and Employment (2000). Draft SEN Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE
xi Scottish Education Department (1978). The Education of Pupils with Learning Difficulties in Primary and Secondary Schools: A Progress Report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Edinburgh: HMSO
xii Dark, C. Conference Discussion Group. Achieving Inclusive Education in the Secondary School
xiii Kidd, R. Conference Discussion Group. Researching into Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs
xiv Allenby, D. Conference Discussion Group. The LEA and SEN
xv Manning, P. Conference Paper. Achieving Inclusive Education in Northern Ireland
xvi Weinstein, R. Conference Discussion Group. Inclusion of the Disruptive Child: Understanding Social Skills Deficiencies
xvii Department for Education and Employment (2000). Draft SEN Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE
xviii Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkings, C., Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L. (2000). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education
xix Burgar, l. and Hoad, A. Conference Discussion Group. Teacher/parent Partnerships and SEN
xx Hargreaves, D.H. (1982). The Challenge of the Comprehensive School: Culture, Curriculum, Community. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
xxi Richmond, M. Conference Paper. Special Educational Needs in Situations of Crisis: Kosovo and Rwanda
xxii Shelley, C. Conference Discussion Group. The Role of the Educational Psychologist in Supporting Inclusion
xxiii Thomas, G. (1992). Effective Classroom Teamwork: Support or Intrusion? London: Routledge
xxiv Corbett, C. Conference Paper. A Corrective Pedagogy: Teaching Approaches which Support Inclusive Education
xxv Howie, D. Conference Paper. Achieving Inclusive Education in New Zealand

Click here to search for special needs schools.
Click here to promote your school or company.
Click here to purchase the guide.