Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE)
Response to the Government 'Support and
Aspiration: a New Approach to Special Educational
Needs and Disability’ Green Paper
The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) is a national campaigning and
information-sharing network led by disabled people. ALLFIE campaigns for all
disabled people to have the right to access and be supported in mainstream
education. When ALLFIE talks about disabled people (and learners) we include
disabled children and young people with Special Educational Needs labels.
While some progress has been made towards this goal, disabled learners are
nevertheless the only group of people who can still be lawfully discriminated
against by being placed in separate 'special' schools, even with the Equality Act
(2010) in place. ALLFIE believes that education should support the
development of physical, vocational and academic abilities through mixed-ability
tuition in mainstream schools so that all students have the opportunity to build
relationships with one another. ALLFIE, our members and our networks believe
that a fully inclusive education system will benefit everyone.
Good inclusive education benefits both disabled and non disabled learners
within mainstream settings. In 2006 OFSTED reported that resourced
mainstream schools were best placed for improving the learning environment
for both disabled and non disabled learners alike:
"Mainstream schools with additionally resourced provision are particularly
successful in achieving high outcomes for pupils academically, socially and
personally. In the best example, resourced mainstream provision was used as a
vehicle for improvement throughout the school." OFSTED ‘Inclusion: does it
matter where pupils are taught?’1
ALLFIE is calling for a long-term plan to secure an inclusive education system
which welcomes all disabled learners. If legislation makes inclusive education
available to all, then parents and disabled learners will have REAL choice.
ALLFIE welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Government "Support and
Aspiration: A New Approach to SEN and Disability” SEN Green Paper.
1
OFSTED (2006) “Inclusion Does It Matter Where Pupils Are Taught” http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofstedhome/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Inclusion-does-itmatter-where-pupils-are-taught
1
Over the past 30 years the momentum towards inclusive education has grown
and we are seeing more disabled young people with greater self confidence and
self-esteem to pursue their own ambitions as a result of participating in a wide
range of academic, vocational and extra-curricular activities within mainstream
school settings.
“The green paper’s intention is to remove the bias towards inclusion. There is
no bias toward inclusion, but why destroy 3 decades of progress within schools,
which has been beneficial for all children and young people.” (Parent)
The Government says the Green Paper proposals are about the aspirations and
hopes of disabled children - 'their desire to become, like every child and young
person, independent and successful in their chosen future and, to the greatest
extent possible, the authors of their own life story'. However, the Green paper
fails to provide the means to achieve this and risks reversing the progress to
inclusion achieved so far with a new emphasis on segregation in 'special'
schools.
“However committed and good staff are in a special school, it is still
second best.. Young disabled people tell us over and over they want to
be treated like all their peers. This is not an ideal but a fundamental
human rights issue. Mainstream must change as required by the
Equalities Act to challenge harassment, stop discrimination and make
reasonable adjustments. This is an anticipatory duty and an international
human rights treaty obligation. Reactions to the failure to implement can
never be as good as even imperfect inclusion. Should we give up
because the task of developing inclusion is daunting? There are
thousands of schools in the UK with promising practice. In the end it
comes down to ethos and attitudes not money.” (Teacher and
International Disability Equality Trainer)
Allfie is concerned that the Government SEN Green paper proposals:
 Prioritise a single assessment process which focuses on disabled young
person’s impairment / health conditions (medical model) rather than the
barriers encountered in participating in mainstream life.(social model of
disability).
 Use parental choice as the justification for removal of the bias towards
inclusive education, even though some parents are forced to accept a
special school placement as a result of not all mainstream school’s having
the capacity to deliver inclusive practice.
 Allow mainstream schools to arrange alternative (segregated) education
provision if the child does not fit into their school.
2
 Develop and build the capacity of special schools rather than mainstream
schools to provide inclusive education.
 Fail to give enough consideration to mainstream academic and vocational
further and higher educational opportunities
 Fail to remove the funding barriers, which prevents further education
providers from providing inclusive educational opportunities.
 Provide no expectation that public bodies (Local authorities, Education
providers and Health care providers) should coordinate and commission
inclusive services.
 Provide no expressed legal entitlement to inclusive services in the Local
Offer for parents and young people.
 Fail to promote the voice of young people.
“The Coalition Government is seeking to undermine the progress
towards inclusive education. They intend to focus on the illusion of
parental choice. Parents of disabled children do not have a choice
about the school they want. Schools choose or reject disabled
children and in many situations parents can have what they require
as long as they accept what is on offer as soon as they require
something different they and their children are seen as "the
problem". Segregating children away from ordinary schooling is
damaging to all children. When we segregate children we send a
message that those children are of "less value" than other children.
As a former teacher working in special segregated provision I have
witnessed the long term damage that is done to self confidence
and self worth of those children who have been segregated from
ordinary schools and their communities. I am not suggesting that
ordinary schools are wonderful and without problems but we will
never get them working well until all children are welcome in them
and have the opportunity to work and develop relationships that
will change ordinary schools for the better. (Joe Whittaker, Chair,
Alliance for Inclusive Education)
ALLFIE is disappointed that the Government does not want to build and develop
further inclusive education practice which flowed from their legislation, the 1981
Education and 1995/2005 Disability Discrimination Acts. Disabled young people
and parents both want mainstream education. ALLFIE is very disappointed that
the Government has not explicitly articulated how disabled young peoples'
human and civil rights enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 and UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 24 on Inclusive Education, will
be promoted within this Green Paper consultation document.
3
The Government must not ignore the great inclusive education practice started
by the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act, Special Educational
Needs and Disability Act and the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities. This legislation, backed by various policies,
enabled resources to flow into building the capacity of mainstream education
provision. This progress towards inclusion needs to be further developed to
ensure all disabled peoples' rights are realised rather than re-enforcing
segregated provision as proposed in the Green Paper. Maintaining
contradictory systems of separate 'special' education and supported
mainstream education which undermine each other is self defeating and not
sustainable morally, practically or financially.
ALLFIE has carefully considered all the questions in this Green Paper and we
have answered in accordance with our concerns. This means that some
answers are in response to groups of questions and other questions have been
answered individually.
CONSULTATION SECTION 1 - Early Identification and Assessment
Question 1: How can we strengthen the identification of SEN and impairments
in the early years, and support for children with them?
Question 2: Do you agree with our proposal to replace the statement of SEN
and learning difficulty assessment for children and young people with a single
statutory assessment process and an ‘Education, Health and Care Plan’,
bringing together all services across education, health and social care
Question 3: How could the new single assessment process and ‘Education,
Health and Care Plan’ better support children’s needs, be a better process for
families and represent a more cost-effective approach for services?
ALLFIE Response:
Early Identification
ALLFIE recognises that early identification of a child’s needs and how these
needs will be met is key for mainstream education providers and policy makers
and others to identify barriers to learning and support in order to maintain and
improve his /her quality of life and future life chances. In order to comply with
the Equality Act 2010, there needs to a good quality assessment of a young
person’s needs to identify what actions, practices and policies need to be taken
or changed in order to facilitate his / her participation in mainstream education.
Education providers are in danger of failing in their Equality Act 2010 duties if
they fail to identify the barriers that need to be addressed in order to facilitate
4
the disabled child/ young person’s participation in mainstream education
settings.
ALLFIE welcomes a single assessment process that would simplify accessing
the support needs for disabled children and their families. A single assessment
process could provide a more holistic approach to assessing disabled children
and young people's needs. However, families will not see any chance or
benefit unless there is a radical overhaul in how disabled children and young
people receive the services and support they need to participate in
mainstream education and life. It is ALLFIE's view that if the Government is
serious about making the assessment process less bureaucratic and more
aspirational, it must refocus the assessment away from a Medical Model
approach to a Social Model of Disability approach.
A recent survey carried out by Graungaard & Skov that all parents saw their
children as unique individuals with potential to be valued by mainstream society.
However, parents’ initial optimism could be severely undermined by initial and
on-going information provided about disabled children’s diagnosis and condition
by professional’s assessments.
“They [medical professionals] gave my child a label before I had a
chance to give her a name” Jill Long (Parent of a disabled child)
“The medical terms used by doctors about a disabled child’s condition
was described by symptoms, often by its lack of abilities and this is also
the case in medical literature, which parents often read. “2
Medical Model of Disability
Typically professionals assess disabled children’s needs using a Medical Model
of Disability approach. The Medical Model can reinforce the historical
perspective that disabled people are the problem and need to be fixed or
‘normalised’. The focus is on fixing the child’s impairment / heath condition
within segregated settings before they are ‘allowed’ to be reintegrated into
society. This suggests that Disabled people must fit into the world as it is. If
this is not possible, then we should be admitted to a specialised institution,
sometimes hundreds of miles away from our families and communities.
Thereafter we loose all our rights including, the right to a good quality of
education. The Medical Model approach to assessing disabled children and
Graungaard A & Skov L (2006) “Why do we need a diagnosis? A Qualitative Study of
Parents Experiences, Coping and Needs When the New Born child is severely disabled”
2
Child Care Health Dev. 2007 May; 33(3):296-307.
http://www.aafesp.org.br/biblioteca/AtencaoSaude/Why_do_we_need_a_diagnostic.pdf
5
young people has had (and continues to have) a negative and disempowering
impact on the aspiration for disabled people’s life chances and outcomes. The
Medical Model approach encourages disabled people to feel somehow
responsible for their lack of participation or their lack of inclusion in education or
society more generally. Furthermore, this approach can leave Disabled people
feeling worthless and a burden (see diagram).
It is ALLFIE's view that assessment proposals in the Green paper remain
heavily focussed on the Medical Model of Disability. For example:
“Disabled children and children with SEN experience a wide range of barriers
because of physical and sensory impairments, learning difficulties such as
dyslexia, or a variety of other needs. But properly supported from childhood,
many of these barriers should not hold young people back from leading a
fulfilling adolescence and adulthood." (SEN Green Paper 2011)3
“We believe the most vulnerable children deserve the very highest quality of
care. We will improve diagnostic assessment for schoolchildren, prevent the
unnecessary closure of special schools, and remove the bias towards
inclusion.” (Coalition Agreement of work programme 2010) 4
As long as the Medical Model of Disability remains the dominant model for
assessing the needs of disabled children and young people there will continue
to be a focus on segregated ‘specialised’ provision throughout their lives – in
fact a bias towards segregated provision not inclusion. This is because medical
model thinking assumes that disabled people need to be ‘normalised’ in
separate settings. This long-term segregation can have a profound effect on
3
Department for Education (2011) “Support and Aspiration : A New Approach to Special Educational Needs
and Disability” Consultation http://www.education.gov.uk/
4
Cabinet Office (2010) “The Coalition : Our Programme for Government”
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_1
87876.pdf
6
disabled children and young people as they transition to adult life, through the
loss of connections and the drive to participate in mainstream employment,
educational, social and leisure opportunities.
“They [children with learning difficulties] drift from school (special) into specialist
college or further education where they often repeat the same courses year
after year. As adults they may attend a day centre...” 5
“There is no bias to inclusive education. This is a myth. Choices are
never as straightforward as implied by the Green Paper. Culture of
medical model/treatment and cure dominates thinking of UK society of
which parents are part. Disability/SEN = what is wrong = can we cure it =
can we treat it = is there somewhere ‘special’ to provide this. A typical
family where a child is disabled will be strongly influenced by this
medical model especially in the first 5 years of their child’s life. They will
have direct contact with medical staff and agencies as well as others
influenced by this outlook. Linked to this medical orientation of ‘what is
wrong with your child and can we fix it’ is a wider community perspective
of shame and pity. “What a shame ‘ and ‘what a pity’ – spoken by family
members and friends betray how our culture values and views disability.
All of this impacts strongly on preferences for schooling and makes
special schooling appear seductively magical and treatment oriented.
This is a bias towards to special education.” (Parent)
It is ALLFIE'S view that Government proposals to keep overly medicalised
assessments that favour segregated provision, particularly in education is
wholly incompatible with its responsibilties and duties under the United Nation
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 24 on Inclusive
Education and the Equality Act 2010.
Social Model of Disability
The Social Model of Disability would deliver that much needed overhaul of the
needs assessment process because it starts from the place that disabled
people have a right to participate in mainstream life. Its focus is on society
removing the attitudinal, organisational and environmental barriers so that
disabled people and non disabled people have the same rights to participate in
cultural, political, social and economic opportunities.
5
The Guardian Roundtable Discussion (April 13th 2011) “Employment Prospects for Young People with
Learning Disabilities” “http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leadersnetwork/2011/apr/13/employment-learning-disabilities
7
The Social Model of Disability is compatible with the Equality Act 2010
because of the presumption that disabled people have the same rights as non
disabled people. In terms of education, a Social Model approach would focus
on what the mainstream education system needs to do to remove the barriers
to learning and wider participation of disabled children and young people. The
Equality Act 2010 requires mainstream education providers to anticipate and
plan for making reasonable adjustments for disabled students.
“When mainstream schools comply with their Equality Act 2010 duties
then young people better prepared to participate in a wider range of
mainstream opportunities thereafter, including gaining paid
employment.” 6
Below is a good example of how a school has complied with their Equality Act
2010 duties:
“The class teacher and the other nursery staff worked closely together to ensure
Tiffany was able to take part in all nursery activities. Although she couldn’t talk,
she was extremely playful and the other children loved playing hide and seek
and chasing games with her. She used Makaton signing which meant the class
had to learn the signs too and the nursery became covered in pictures and
signs to remind everyone what they were. The children were particularly proud
of using them with Tiffany. She was very popular and transferred a term late to
her local primary school reception class because of her parents’ wishes; and in
her last term she had a really good transitional programme, with her new
primary school. Staff spent time in our nursery and we took Tiffany to the
6
The Guardian Roundtable Discussion (April 13th 2011) “Employment Prospects for Young People with
Learning Disabilities” “http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leadersnetwork/2011/apr/13/employment-learning-disabilities
8
reception class so that when she did transfer it was all very familiar to her and
went quite smoothly.” (Parent of a disabled child)
Parents of disabled children benefit hugely from learning about the Social
Model of Disability as it helps them to develop a positive outlook for their
child's future. Parents for Inclusion (a national organisation run by parents of
disabled children and young people) run their successful “Planning Positive
Futures” course covering disability equality and diversity, tools for inclusion
and community building and relevant and current legislation including DDA,
SEN and Human Rights. The training has a profound affect on how parents
perceive their own children and their life chances. This new way of thinking
also empowers parents of disabled children and young people to get the right
support to enable their inclusion across all areas of their life.
This course made a substantial difference to my life. Before I did the course - I
viewed the future as a scary alien place. I was filled with worry and anxiety, and
I couldn’t really form a picture of how things would be. After doing the course – I
felt full of hope and excitement. I can now view a positive future for my disabled
child, and have some concrete first steps planned. This was a very empowering
and enlightening course. I am so happy and grateful to have been able to do it.”
'I understand the importance of the Medical and the Social Model. I see my
son's life (in the) social model, because we can make changes to make his life
and our life better.' (Parents, July and December 2010 after attending the 4 day
course Planning Positive Futures)
“I had been introduced to the social model of disability…. I had a feeling that I
had signed a contract with my son. I realised that I needed to fight for the rights
of my child…I felt that they were forcing me to cope with difficulties and for me
to give up, and realised that I was being pushed towards sending my child to
special school.” (Parent)
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 All Government disability-related policies must reflect Social Model of
Disability principles, which align with the Equality Act 2010 approach to
disability.
 All education, health and social care professionals carrying out
assessments must have ongoing Disability Equality Training (based on
Social Model thinking) as part of their professional development
objectives.
9
 Parents must have access to information, advice and training, based on
the Social Model Disability at the point of their child’s diagnosis and at
future key decision making stages.
 Any new single assessment process must take a holistic approach identifying what disabled children and their families need to fully
participate in all aspects of mainstream life – education, leisure and social
opportunities.
Entitlement to Needs Being Met
Whilst ALLFIE cautiously welcomes the idea of an Education, Health and Social
Care plan, we are concerned that it simply focuses on the child’s needs. There
is no mention in the plan on how education, and other, providers will comply
with their Equality Act duties to remove the barriers which a young disabled
person may encounter when participating in mainstream education. Hence the
focus is on the young disabled person being the problem.
“The key policy plank of introducing an ‘education, heath and care plan’
for those children who are eligible, ( by-this – read- those with the most
severe labels), is likely to have the effect of putting schools off offering a
child a place on the grounds they cannot meet that child’s complex
health needs. This has been our experience with our child. Schools
are frightened by medical conditions….The Education, Health and Care
Plan’ explicitly places the so called problems firmly with the child and
not with the barriers that are preventing that child from being
successfully included.” (Parent of a disabled child)
If it is the Governments intention that more of the child’s needs will be redefined
as a ‘medical’ then this will simply reinforce the inappropriate use of the medical
model during the assessment process. Many disabled young people with
learning difficulties have speech and language therapy to enable them to
access the curriculum rather than improve their physical ability to speak –
therefore identifying the need as primarily educational. Redefining educational
needs as discrete health needs could mean disabled children and young people
no longer being entitled to such provision within their mainstream education
setting.
Even if the Government makes no changes to the provision of education, health
and social care arrangements, ALLFIE does not believe simply having a single
assessment process and Education, Health and Care plan will reduce
bureaucracy. As far as we understand there will still be separate eligibility
criteria, entitlement, legal procedures and budgets for education, social and
health care. ALLFIE knows from the work we do with parents, disabled
children and young people that getting any of the different agencies to take
10
responsibility for identifying and meeting a variety of needs is deeply frustrating,
time consuming and can lead to high levels of unnecessary stress, none if
which is address in the Green paper proposal.
“I eventually completed 1 module in power point in the summer of last
year, and was ready to move on to the database module. The local
council then re-assessed my social care needs and removed going out
from me, and so I am now unable to get to the campus some 4 bus
rides away from my home as I cannot see to find my own way, also the
latest learning support was no use at all and could not understand my
needs of the subject.” (Young disabled person)
“...Getting social work departments to make an assessment of students’
care needs and contributing towards [university] costs is a major
headache for such students.” 7
As this young disabled person has illustrated his support requirements do not
neatly fall into either education, social or health care needs.
“I had expected to turn up at university, with a support worker available
to do all the jobs required when I was at school and college. I was very
wrong. One stream of money would pay for equipment and academic
support needs, whilst other streams would pay for personal care, social
care etc. I was bemused; I wanted to be in control of my own support
package, but had no idea what or how self-directed support would
work.” (22 year old disabled university student)
My meetings were shambolic; I was made to feel like a burden as
education, health and social care argued over me about who would pay
for what.” (20 year old disabled student)
This demonstrates just how difficult it can be when no agency, department,
team or individual professional wants to take responsibility for funding a young
disabled person’s needs. ALLFIE is also concerned that with a combined
Education, Health and Care plan, who or how priorities will be set for support
and funding. Because this is not addressed in the Green Paper, ALLFIE
assumes that it will continue to be a battle that parents have to fight with
individuals, agencies or Local Authority departments. Essentially the same
battle parents face now.
7
The Snowdon Award Scheme (2006) “The Snowdon Survey 2006”p16
http://www.snowdonawardscheme.org.uk/pdf/2006project-report.pdf
11
ALLFIE is also concerned that there is nothing in the Green Paper proposals
that guarantees the participation (with or without support) of the young disabled
person as they transition into adulthood. There is an assumption that parents
will continue to have a decision making role in the detail of the Education,
Health and Care plan until the young person is 25 years. ALLFIE believes this
totally unacceptable and serves to further infantilise the young person way
beyond the point that their non disabled peers have absolute control over their
own lives.
There is also a presumption in the Green Paper that parents will have the same
control over the young adult’s personalised budget. This assumption is
incompatible with the UN Convention On The Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Article 7 (Children with Disabilities) and Article 12 (Legal Capacity) – in both
examples Governments must seek to support the decision making of disabled
children and young people, taking into account the evolving capacity of children
as well as the right of disabled adults to have choice and control over decision
making. Allowing parents to make decisions for their disabled adult’ children’ is
incompatible with the 2005 Mental Capacity Act 2005 principle of ‘presumed
capacity’.
There is a need for a radical overhaul of how disabled peoples needs are
assessed and funded if personalisation will materialise. The idea disabled
peoples lives can neatly be broken down into education, health and social
needs often results in buck passing by agencies at the expense of young
person’s development.
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 A new set of person centred criteria must used to assess and meet the
needs of disabled children and young people that makes good use of
mainstream educational and other mainstream opportunities from a single
budget.
 A simplified legal process covering complaints and appeals that is fully
accessible to families and young people.
 All young people’s needs, once assessed, must be met without regard to
their or family’s financial circumstances.
 Young disabled people must have a right to control over their education,
health and care plan.
12
CONSULTATION SECTION 2 - Giving Parents Control
Question 10: What should be the key components of a locally published offer of
available support for parents?
Question 11: What information should schools be required to provide to parents
on SEN? schools?
ALLFIE is concerned that there is no information provided on the legal status of
the Local Offer. ALLFIE is also deeply concerned that there is no mention of the
coordination and joint commissioning of inclusive universal services. This is
despite the fact that under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities: Article 24 there is an obligation on Governments to provide
mainstream education opportunities for disabled children and young people.
The UK Government is the ONLY signatory to place a Reservation and an
Interpretative Declaration on Article 24, however the Government has still
demonstrated a commitment to progressing inclusive education as stated in the
Interpretative Declaration:
“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 Equality Act 2010 makes it very clear that the Government must be
proactive in eliminating discrimination by advancing equality of opportunities
and promoting good relations between disabled and non disabled people. When
applied to education this suggests the Government has a duty to provide
mainstream schooling opportunities for disabled students.
ALLFIE wants all mainstream education providers listed in the Local Offer
proposal to include the following in their information for parents:
 Inclusion and admissions policy including any reasonable adjustments.
 Inclusion implementation plans as per their public sector equality
duty/making reasonable adjustments duties.
 How and what support services they are intending to use from the local
authority and elsewhere to provide inclusive educational opportunities.
 Examples of how disabled pupils / students have been successfully
included into the mainstream education setting
 School’s consultation and involvement of disabled people and their
organisations in their strategic plans
13
Personalised budgets
Question 12: what should be included in personal budget?
Question 13: In what ways do you think the option of a personal budget for
services identified in the proposed ‘Education, Health and Care Plan’ will
support parents to get a package of support for their child that meets their
needs?
ALLFIE knows from disabled people and their families that personal budgets, if
properly assessed and properly resources in terms of funding and support, can
be an absolute liberation in terms of having genuine choice and control.
Personal budget can also have a role to play in facilitating some of the
reasonable adjustments that disabled people need in order to participate in
mainstream education.
ALLFIE supports greater personalisation of services in order to increase and
properly support disabled young people’s participation in mainstream
educational and other opportunities. Most families found that their child’s
quality of life improved as a result of having a personalised budget.8
In terms of what should be included in a personal budget, ALLFIE believes that
funding for Additional Learning Support, which would have been given to
colleges and training providers, should be given to disabled students. ALLFIE
would also like to see the Disabled Students Allowance funding given to
disabled students in higher education, incorporated into a Personal Budget on
the understanding that ICT equipment which may be used by the disabled
person whilst at school and at home, and counselling
ALLFIE believes that local Centres for Independent Living should be
commissioned to support disabled young people and their families through the
assessment and planning process as well as ongoing support around managing
a personal budget.
Whilst ALLFIE recognises the value of personal budgets are important to
support disabled young people in mainstream education they must never be
used to replace mainstream education provider’s Equality Act 2010 duties.
“School teaching/inclusion assistants - although I feel strongly that the
young person involved and parents should have an input into the
8
Murray P (2010) “ A Fair Start A Personalised Pathway for disabled children and their families” Policy
Paper 26.10.2010 University of Birmingham http://www.hsmc.bham.ac.uk/news/pdfs/a-fairstart.pdf
14
interviewing and employing this person. It should not come from a
personal budget. The onus would be on a parent to manage this budget
which could prove very difficult for some families. Also the person
working in the school would need to be part of the school as it is the
school's responsibility to meet the child's needs. The TA/IA would need
to work with the class teacher, the curriculum head, head of pastoral
services etc. This would be extremely difficult if that person was not
employed directly from the school. Their work would be separate, and
not integrated into school life.” (Retired deputy head teacher)
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 Local Authorities must have a strategic role in sole or joint commissioning
of mainstream services which are inclusive of disabled people.
 Local Authorities must have a strategic role in sole or joint commissioning
of auxiliary support services which are needed to build the capacity of
mainstream services to be inclusive of disabled people.
 Local Authority with other commissioning agencies must publish joint
equality plans which identify how their services will promote equality of
opportunities between disabled and non disabled people when
participating in mainstream education.
 Local Authorities must have a co-ordination role in the dissemination of
information about all mainstream education providers and what support
they will provide for disabled students.
 Local Authorities must continue to consult with disabled people (of all
ages) and their organisations in the development and implementation of
strategic plans
 The Secretary of State to use his power to issue regulations permitting
additional learning support and disabled students allowance to be
included in the ongoing ‘Right to Control’ pilots.
 Personal budgets must be sufficiently resources to cover all of the young
person’s needs whilst in and out of educational settings.
 Further thought is needed in terms of balance of responsibility for
provision of support - what type of educational support should be made
available via personal budgets or provided directly by the education
provider as part of a reasonable adjustment.
Parental Choice
Question 14: Does statutory guidance on inclusion and school choice allow
appropriately for parental preference?
15
There are 1,470,900 children with special educational needs, many of them with
undiagnosed impairments / health conditions.9 Potentially 18% of the school
pupil population may face the threat of special school placement if mainstream
schools cannot meet their needs.
“I can't believe that this terrible backwards step is seriously being
proposed. It makes me very sad to think disabled children will have to go
through what I went through in the 1950s and 60s. It's a loss to them,
their families and society as a whole when children are sent away.”
(Disabled adult)
The Government’s assertion that there is a bias towards inclusive education is a
myth. Just over half of disabled young people on a statement of SEN are
currently on the role of a mainstream school. 10 Currently disabled children and
young people are the only group of ‘persons with protected characteristics’ who
can be forced out of mainstream education. This is despite the Equality Act
2010, SENDA 2001 and Education Act 1996. The Government’s assertion that
there is a bias towards inclusive education in Inclusive Schooling Guidance is a
complete myth.
“There is certainly no bias towards inclusion. In fact in my experience
the opposite is true. Unfortunately and against all my beliefs we have
had to opt for a special school... Segregation is not the answer. It’s
costly but most of all it doesn’t enable all children to learn together. If
you segregate with disability then you are saying that these children
should not have the same opportunity as so called normal children
which in my view is discrimination” (Parent of a disabled child)
Many parents who send their children to residential (special) school placements
do so because they lack choice of good mainstream school provision. Norah
Fry Research carried out research about parents placing their disabled children
into residential schools. It is clear that parents feel they have no choice other
than place their child in a residential school.
“Education and social services professionals tended to feel that parents
were committed, at an early stage, to the idea of a residential
placement. In contrast, the general message coming from parents was
9
Department for Education (June 2010) “Statistics First Release SEN in England Jan 2010”
Department for Education (June 2010) “Statistics First Release SEN in England Jan 2010”
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000939/index.shtml
10
16
that this was an option they only reluctantly considered. Residential
school was not anyone’s first choice...” 11
“One of the main reasons parents cited for a residential placement was
what they saw as a failure of local schools to meet their child’s
educational needs. Education officers talked of the difficulties that
schools have in meeting the needs of children who have more than one
impairment, whether in a local special or mainstream school.” 12
According to a report published by the Disability Rights Commission in 2005,
only 35% of parents said they had choice of college and school placements for
their disabled children13. This severe lack of choice for disabled students and
their families still remains the case six years after the DRC’s investigation. The
charity Working Families which represents parents of children placed in
mainstream and special schools said that:
“Parents of disabled children may be faced with a very limited choice of
schooling locally. They may encounter difficulties in ensuring their
disabled child is educated alongside their siblings if there is no
appropriate provision.” 14
The Working Families research highlights the difficulties parents face when they
want their disabled and non disabled children to attend the same mainstream
schools. ALLFIE knows from the parents what an uphill struggle it has been to
secure a supported mainstream school placement for their disabled child.
“I was exhausted after a two year battle to get S – who is now eight –
into our local mainstream school. It was a school where our older and
younger sister both attended. It was a school at which I was a governor.
It was our local church school attached to the church we attended
where I take the Sunday school. The school is where all the other
11
Norah Fry Research (2001) “Residential Schools and Disabled Children : Decision Making and Experiences”
Joseph Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/residential-schools-and-disabled-childrendecision-making-and-experiences
12
Norah Fry Research (2001) “Residential Schools and Disabled Children : Decision Making and Experiences”
Joseph Rowntree Foundation http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/residential-schools-and-disabled-childrendecision-making-and-experiences
13
Disability Rights Commission (2005) “DRC Research Report – Experiences of Disabled Students
and their Families http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/630/1/Lewis_drc1_2005.pdf
14
Working Families (2011) “Working Families response to the Green Paper:
Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs And Disabilities –Call for Views”
http://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/articles/new-thinking/policy/working-families-response-tothe-call-for-views-on-children-and-young-people-with-sen-and-disabilities
17
children in our community attend. But S couldn’t attend we were told,
because of his complex need.” (Parent of a disabled child)
Unlike parents of non disabled children, parents of disabled children are
expected to convince staff, during every visit to a new school, why their disabled
children should be in a mainstream school.
“Our first choice was the local academy because it was our most local
school and many of Janet’s friends from primary school would be going
there. A meeting was arranged for me, my husband and the primary
school SENCO to meet the Academy SENCO. We intended at that
meeting to show the Academy SENCO how much Janet had achieved
at primary school and the gifts she had brought to that school. We also
took examples of how work had been differentiated for her and various
tools that had been successful in helping her learn in a meaningful way.
Each of us spoke so positively about Janet and the primary school
SENCO highlighted how much the school had learnt and developed
from having Janet there.
At the end of our input the Academy SENCO asked “Can she line up?”
At that point we realised our efforts had fallen on a closed mind. After
the meeting on our way home my husband and I felt rather sick and
‘dirty’. In retrospect, it was because we felt we had had to try and sell
our daughter’s qualities. No parent should have to do that, surely it
should just be her right to go to her local school without us having to
convince them it would be good for her to be there.” (Parent of a
disabled child)
Even when parents are fortunate enough to secure a mainstream school
placement, there still remains a bias towards segregated education.
“In year 9: At a review meeting it became clear that our son was
increasingly taken out of science class, which he loved. When we asked
the TA why that was: The teacher had to concentrate on the students,
who are promising good results. Our son was in the way and not a
priority. Pursuing the issue further we inquired what exactly he was
doing in science – which he loved; who was differentiating his work then
and how it was done and whether we could see some of the work
sheets. The TA said that she was not creating any new work sheets.
The school needed to save resources and photocopies for our son were
a waste of resources. Thanks to the DDA we were able at that point to
make sure that this TA was not any longer going to work with our son
because of her deeply prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes: GCSE
18
choices and SATS. Our son was given very little choice as a special
needs curriculum was already decided on: Small animal care and land
based studies instead of science; ASDAN award for all the core
subjects; no he could not access drama nor music nor art and maybe
food tech…. Bias toward inclusion? We have found none” (Parent of a
young disabled person)
Many parents have limited choice and face immense difficulty in securing a
mainstream school placement.
“The idea that parents do have a choice, under the present system, is in
any case a myth. Children in segregated schools are often there
because they have been rejected by their local mainstream school (if
indeed they ever got as far as the door). Many parents who "choose" a
special school placement do so because they believe, or have been
told by professionals, that mainstream provision is not possible for their
child. In other words, that mainstream provision is currently structured in
a way that it cannot respond to the diversity of learners. This means
that many parents do not have the "choice" of mainstream at all,
rendering a special school placement an unwelcome inevitability. To
say that they have chosen this is misleading and, potentially, insulting.”
(CSIE)15
“I had many concerns about placing my child full time in a
mainstream school. I thought he might be bullied and feel isolated
and I worried that he would not have his educational needs met. I
could not have been more wrong. Whilst it has not been without
challenges and time-consuming to ensure that things are getting
done, I have been thrilled with how much he is enjoying school and
excited by learning. He has made some brilliant progress. The
children there are very fond of him and he is just another kid in the
community. I would not have it any other way now. My child and
his peers are privileged to be in a school which genuinely values
difference. Hopefully these children will grow up to not be alarmed
or made uncomfortable by otherness when they encounter it.
Schools with vision and inspired leadership, despite the budget
constraints and challenges of joint working are just getting on with
educating our children. It is very worrying that current government
policy is seeking to erode all of this. Allowed to continue, such
15
Children's Rights - Human Rights Joint Committee (2009) “Memorandum Submitted By Centre for
Studies on Inclusive Education” written evidence
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157we08.htm
19
segregation will be detrimental to all of us.” (Parent of a disabled
child)
“The fact that the government refer to inclusive education as a bias
is an outrage, now we are beginning to see quite what David
Cameron has in mind for the Big Society. My own experience of
having a child with a disability in mainstream education is that far
from there being a bias, there is still some way to go until we will
see a truly inclusive education system. Many gains have been
made over the last 30 years and we need to continue to move
forward to ensure that inclusion is a reality for all disabled children
and young people. The Government’s Green Paper is a return to
the dark ages”. (Parent of a disabled child)
There is no evidence suggesting that parents opt for a special school placement
as their preferred option. Parents only opt for a special school placement when
they have not been successful in securing the appropriate provision in
mainstream settings or have been pressured by professionals to withdraw their
child. The latter is more often than not driven by disablism and prejudice fuelled
by Medical Model thinking. However, there are plenty of parents who actively
want their children to attend a mainstream school.
If the Government is genuinely committed to parental choice then this will
require a change in the law so that no one has to attend a tribunal / court
hearing to argue for a mainstream school placement. That is if a parent wants
their child to be supported in an inclusive mainstream school, then that support
will be provided.
Leaving aside the evidence that clearly states that disabled children, if we take
a broad set of educational and learning outcomes, do better in mainstream,
ALLFIE believes that there is a strong financial argument that states that it is no
longer viable to fund a dual education system - a mainstream and segregated
education system is no longer sustainable in terms of the current financial
global climate. At a time when the Government is talking about ‘hard choices’ it
makes no sense to continue to separate out a group of children and young
people because the mainstream education system is still developing its ability to
meet the needs of a diversity of learners.
ALLFIE would like all the resources to be invested into developing one inclusive
education system for children of all abilities. ALLFIE believes it would be
economically prudent for the Government to invest its resources in providing
one excellent education system for children of all abilities. In 2009-10, roughly
20
71 per cent of special educational needs and disability (SEND) funding was
delegated to schools. Of the £5.2 billion planned expenditure:16
 £2.1 billion was delegated to mainstream schools (40 per cent);
 £1.6 billion was delegated to maintained special schools (31 per cent);
 £612 million was spent on placing children with SEND statements in
independent and non-maintained special schools (12 per cent); and
 £888 million was used for local authorities’ central SEND expenditure (17
per cent) (Audit Commission 2010).
It is worth noting that over £1.6 billion is being spent on approximately 1.08% of
pupils attending a special school17. ALLFIE believes if all mainstream schools
are well resourced there would be no need to fund two education systems,
which we believe has led to compromises being made on what support disabled
children receive within a mainstream school setting
Evidence shows many children’s education is compromised because funding
must be made available for both mainstream and special schools.
“The current system regularly fails to offer any meaningful education to
disabled children. Sadly, it struggles to provide personalised education,
or to respect the right of a family to guide their child’s education….The
outcomes of the present education system are undeniably poor for the
majority of disabled children as so few leave school to go on to further
education, into the workforce or to lead meaningful lives (cited from
Murray 2010)18
ALLFIE therefore urges the Government to consider better resourcing of a
single mainstream education system, which is inclusive of all students.
Mediation
Question 16: Should mediation always be attempted before parents register an
appeal to the first tier tribunal (SEN and Disability)?
It is ALLFIE'S view that mediation should be optional rather than compulsory.
Many parents making appeals have limited resources and therefore asking
them and their advocates to attend additional meetings and prepare paperwork
may be difficult to achieve. Many parents have fraught relationships with their
16
Audit Commission (2010) http://ct-sen-aen.audit-commission.gov.uk/static.aspx?page=guidance&section=3
Department for Education ( Jan 2010) “Schools, Pupils and Their Characteristics) Statistical First Release
18
Murray P (2010) “Unfair Start A Personalised Pathway for disabled children and their families” University of
Birmingham http://www.hsmc.bham.ac.uk/news/pdfs/a-fair-start.pdf
17
21
local authority so therefore forcing mediation onto the parties may make the
situation worse.
In cases where the disabled child is temporarily out of school awaiting an
appeal, mediation would only further delay their return to education.
Question 17: Do you like the idea of mediation across education, health and
social care? (How might it work best?)
ALLFIE believes that mediation between families and three separate
commissioners/budget holders would not work and in fact would make the
situation much worse for families. Parents are more likely to feel disempowered,
having to argue with three instead of one fund holder. ALLFIE does not
anticipate the effective use of mediation whilst the different fund holders will still
be able to pass responsibility for assessment or service provision from one
agency to another.
Even if the three budgets were amalgamated, families would still require well
resourced, fully independent advocacy to enable them to fully participate in
mediation.
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 Strengthen disabled learner’s rights to participate in mainstream
education.
 Strengthen Education Providers duties to provide mainstream educational
opportunities for disabled learners.
 To fund one comprehensive inclusive education system for all learners
 Develop a plan to phase out special schools and transfer all funding and
expertise into mainstream education.
 Mediation should be optional rather than compulsory.
 Well resourced, full independent advocacy available to parents as and
when required
Children and Young Person’s Voice
Disabled young people have clearly set out their priorities for the new
Government.
‘Disabled children want people to understand and respect disabled
children and young people; Support us to take part in our communities,
doing the things that all other children and young people do; Make sure
22
that the services we use can support us to live ordinary live and Help us
to get the education, jobs and training we want.”19
The Government has obligations under Articles 12 of the UN Convention of the
Rights of the Child and Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, to involve children and young people in decisions being made
about their future.
ALLFIE welcomes the opportunity for disabled children to have a right to appeal
against decisions being made about their education placement and support.
However, we wonder what thought has been given to addressing any conflicts
which may occur between parents and their children if the appeal has been
upheld and there is a disagreement. Further, what resources will be in place to
support disabled children wanting to make an appeal – ie access to legal aid.
ALLFIE was very disappointed by the overall omission of the child’s / young
person’s voice and their ability to make decisions throughout the Green Paper
consultation document.
CONSULTATION SECTION 3 - Learning and Achieving
Question 18: How can we ensure that the expertise of special schools and
mainstream schools with excellent SEN practice expertise is harnessed and
spread through Teaching Schools Partnerships?
Question 19: How can we ensure that we improve SEN expertise, build capacity
and share knowledge between independent specialist colleges, special schools
and colleges?
Question 20: How can we continue to build capacity and SEN specialist skills at
each tier of school management?
Question 21: What is the best way to identify and develop the potential of
teachers and staff to best support disabled children or children with a wide
range of SEN?
ALLFIE feels it is important to stress that the Government has an obligation
under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
Article 24 to build mainstream education provider’s capacity to provide inclusive
educational opportunities for disabled learners. Education providers are
19
Every disabled child matters (2010) “Disabled children our agenda for the new Government.”
http://www.ncb.org.uk/edcm/agenda_for_new_government.pdf
23
required under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled learners whilst participating in mainstream education which should
cover actual teaching and assessment and recording of achievement and
admissions and exclusions,.
The General Teaching Council recognises the importance of all teachers,
including those who want to teach in special schools, being exposed to teaching
disabled children in mainstream school settings. 50 per cent of teachers
receive no more than one day’s training on special educational needs as part of
their initial teaching training.20
"Teaching staff want to see the highest quality, world class education
for all our pupils. Disability Equality Training is essential in ensuring that
ALL children are able to access the education that they deserve. We do
not see this as an add on, or as relevant only to schools with high
numbers of pupils with additional needs – we see it as essential in
creating a mindset of high standards for all". (Nigel Utton, Head
Teacher and Chair of Heading for Inclusion)
ALLFIE does not consider having online a medical encyclopedia of different
medical conditions will be useful in helping educational professionals
understand how to work with disabled children and young people. On the
contrary, ALLFIE fears trainee teachers will become ‘pseudo medics’, focusing
on the child’s medical rather than educational needs. Knowing a pupil’s medical
diagnosis will not automatically mean the educational professional will know
how to meet their educational needs within a mainstream setting.
ALLFIE is deeply concerned educational professionals are likely to receive even
less appropriate inclusive education training, when Training schools take over
the responsibility of teacher training. ALLFIE believes that Training schools
must be outstanding in inclusive education practise. Special schools providing
SEN specific training is wholly unacceptable because they lack mainstream
education experience. Mainstream school teachers need to have experience of
developing inclusive teaching methods, catering for a wide range of children’s
learning needs within mainstream settings.
ALLFIE welcomes the Government’s commitment to deal with prejudice related
bullying through developing good practise. However disabilist bullying will not
stop until disabled children and disabled young people are fully included in
school life including extra-curricular activities such as school trips and school
20
Times Educational Supplement (2005) “ Inclusiveness and Behaviour Research Report”
24
councils. Additionally, all children and young people must learn about disabled
people’s lives and history as part of the national curriculum.
“Young children are taught about race, culture and religion in school
and most grow up respecting others’ beliefs. No one teaches children
about the cultures and difficulties faced by those with special needs or
disabilities. I think it is time that this was included in the school
curriculum.” (Parents Views 2007) 21
The Government cannot tackle disablist bullying and disability hate crime if the
capacity of mainstream schools to build positive relationships disabled and non
disabled people is severely curtailed because of a lack of disability equality
training.
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 All initial teaching training must include inclusive education practice
underpinning the social model of disability principles.
 All education staff and governors must receive inclusive education
practice underpinning the social model of disability principles.
 All training must be delivered by mainstream school teachers with
experience of developing inclusive education practise.
 Mainstream Teacher Training Schools must have an OFSTED
outstanding rating for children with SEN provision.
 Special schools do not have the experience of developing inclusive
education practise so they should be prohibited from providing instruction
to their mainstream colleagues.
Question 24: How helpful is the current category of BESD in identifying the
underlying needs of children with emotional and social difficulties?
Question 25: Is the BESD label overused in terms of describing behaviour
problems rather than leading to an assessment of underlying difficulties?
“The BSED label is overused as a generalised “catch all” descriptor, in
order to ‘medicalise” the challenges a young person is presenting in
order to justify their exclusion from mainstream education.” (Behaviour
Development Manager)
21
Every Disabled Child Matters (2010) “If I could change one thing? Parents’ Views”
http://www.ncb.org.uk/edcm/if_i_could_change_adults.pdf
25
Twenty per cent of children have identified special educational needs.22 Many of
these children with SEN will have a BSED label, which would come under the
Equality Act 2010 disabled person’s definition. 23 These children are eight times
more likely than peers to be excluded from school.24 In 2007/8 pupils on School
Action Plus were most likely to receive a permanent exclusion from school and
were about 20 times more likely to receive a permanent exclusion than those
with no special educational needs.25 These demeaning statistics are a result of
BSED labels being used to pathogenise children’s behaviour, underpinning a
medical model of disability approach.
“The current BSED definition is a limited catch all term. Does nothing to
strengthen understanding or empathy with the young person” (Inclusive
Solutions)
“87% of primary exclusions and 60% of secondary exclusions were
children with SEN. A significant proportion of these had ADAH, autistic
behaviour, and mental health problems... A punitive approach is too
often being used to deal with these forms of SEN rather than specialist
provision.” 26
Exclusions and Alternative Provision
ALLFIE does not agree with the Government’s approach that alternative
provision for children at risk of exclusion should be developed separately by
special schools and voluntary organisations. Any alternative provision should
be based on the tools for inclusion and used with disabled children and young
people within mainstream educational settings.
“A preventative approach to improving behaviour needs to be grounded
in a universal model. There is much evidence...that whole-school
programmes to improve children’s social emotional and behavioural
competences improves behaviour in a school as well as equipping
children with a vital set of life skills (Demos 2010)
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) ‘Breaking the link between special educational
needs and low attainment - Everyone's business
’http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/DCSF-00213-2010
23
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) Special Educational Needs (Information ) Bill Equality
Impact Assessment
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/e/equia%20sen%20information%20bill.pdf
22
24
Department for Children, Schools and Families Statistical First Release (2008) ‘Permanent and
Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England 2007-08’
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000860/sfr18-2009v2.pdf
25
Department for Education Children with special educational needs (2010) “An Analysis”
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STA/t000965/osr25-2010.pdf
26
Demos (2010) “A Generation of Disengaged children is Waiting in the wings”
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Ex-curricula_-_web.pdf?1268925006
26
ALLFIE welcomes a diversity of solutions to enable disabled young people to
remain in mainstream education such as the Excellence in Cities learning
mentoring and learning support units on school site funded projects (Demos
2010)27, nurture groups, 28 and the UK Resilience Programme (UKRP) all aim to
build young people’s confidence resilience and problem solving skills. The UK
Resilience Programme reported a 50% reduction in school exclusions.29 These
are a few examples of how a child’s needs could be catered for whilst having
access to alternative provision within a mainstream setting whilst the child is on
the school role.
“A school should be able to buy in alternative provision for children for
whom it is deemed appropriate as an early intervention strategy for
improving behaviour or as a way of dealing with poor behaviour. But
there should be no permanent ‘exclusion’ in the sense of a child leaving
a school roll. (Demos 2010)
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 Clear identifying of the young person’s needs at the root of any
behavioural, social and emotional difficulty.
 Mainstream schools must have the child on their roll even if they are
commissioning alternative provision which support inclusion.
 Mainstream schools must not place children and young people in any
form of alternative provision outside their schools.
 A flexible Inclusive “behaviour” policy which can be adapted for any
children requiring reasonable adjustments.
Recording of Achievement
ALLFIE welcomes the Achievement for All initiative which encourages a
personalised centred approach to learning and assessment. Recording a
pupil’s achievements is fundamental in tracking his / her progress and
monitoring whether the right learning styles and the curriculum has been
appropriately differentiated. The Government suggests alternative recording of
disabled young person’s academic performance such as P-scales, Engagement
Profile and Scale could be used as a performance measure. ALLFIE does not
27
Demos (2010) “A Generation of Disengaged children is Waiting in the wings”
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Ex-curricula_-_web.pdf?1268925006
28
OFSTED (2009) “The Exclusion from School of Children Aged four to Seven”
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-bytype/Thematic-reports/The-exclusion-from-school-of-children-aged-four-to-seven
29
Department For Children, Schools and Families (2009)
http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DFE-RR006.pdf
27
agree there should be different systems of reporting disabled and non disabled
young people’s achievements. ALLFIE would like to see a comprehensive
assessment system which has the ability to truly reflect all pupils’ abilities using
a variety of assessment methods.
The Schools performance tables which are meant to make schools more
accountable to their local community and parents, have failed for parents with
disabled children. The schools performance tables, containing pupil
examination results, have acted as a disincentive for schools to take on children
with special education needs who may have a negative impact on their
performance and placement in the league table.
“The Government should give careful consideration to the impact that
key drivers such as league tables are having on admissions—
particularly to the most successful non-selective state schools. There is
strong evidence that the existing presentation of performance data in
league tables does not reflect well on many children with SEN and
consequently acts as a disincentive for some schools to accept them.
This cannot continue..” (House of Commons Select Committee on SEN
2006) 30
ALLFIE anticipates that the situation will worsen as schools become under
increased pressure to ensure as many of their pupils pass the 5 GCSE core
subjects making up the International Baccalaureate.
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 The school performance tables should be abolished;
 Schools should measure the individual progress individual children are
making;
 Schools should be trusted to develop the full potential of all their children;
Free Schools
Question 30: What might the impact be of opening up the system to provide
places for non statemented children with SEN in special Free Schools?
Free Special schools will draw funding away from maintained and independent
state funded mainstream schools which will reduce the resources available to
meet the support needs of disabled children and young people in these schools.
ALLFIE is concerned that maintained and free mainstream schools budgets will
30
House of Commons and Skills Committee Special Educational Needs Third Report of Session 2005-2006 vol
one http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/478/478i.pdf
28
be reduced to accommodate any new special school and therefore potentially
have a negative impact upon the current and future funding for disabled children
attending mainstream schools. We are concerned that mainstream schools and
local authorities will actively encourage parents to place their disabled children
on the special free schools role without any guarantee that their needs will be
met, to avoid the additional drain on limited resources. ALLFIE is deeply
concerned that once placed in a free special school, disabled young people and
their parents will have no legal safeguards afforded by the SEN framework.
More broadly ALLFIE is increasingly concerned that the Free School Model
appears to be encouraging academic selection through the backdoor. The
Observer (14th June 2011) highlighted a number of free schools introducing
partial selection on the basis of academic, musical, sporting or artistic ability.
This will reduce choice for parents preferring a mainstream education if free
schools become even partly selective. ALLFIE understands that free schools
are not required to secure accessible accommodation which comply to
minimum standards of accessibility for disabled students. ALLFIE is deeply
concerned what the impact of the academies / free schools programme will
have for disabled pupils seeking mainstream educational placements. ALLFIE’s
concerns focus on the following points:
 Each school will have its own admissions policy. No longer will schools
be required to give priority to admitting disabled children
 How will schools cater for children with SEN within their budgets
 The quantity and quality of support which children with SEN will receive
whilst in school
 The range of learning opportunities which will be on offer if exempt from
the national curriculum
 The use of exclusions
 Lack of planning to ensure all mainstream schools take on their fair
share of disabled children.
Access plans
Question 32: What information would help parents, governors and others,
including OFSTED, assess how effectively schools support disabled children
and children with SEN?
ALLFIE wants to see good and clear accessible plans developed by schools
under their Equality Act duties. These plans should include:
 How all children and young people are included in the same lessons with
minimum need for withdrawal from the classroom;
29
 How all children and young people are supported during extra-curricular
activities and school trips/residential trips;
 How all children and young people are supported to develop friendships
and play with one another during break-time;
 What approaches are taken to promote positive relationships between
disabled and non disabled children / young people;
 How will young people and their parents be involved in the planning of
their education;
 Information about the whole school approach to inclusive education;
 Information about what support will be in place for disabled parents,
teachers and disabled people who are not pupils;
Schools should assess progress against their accessibility plans covering all
aspects of the child’s life whilst at school.
CONSULTATION SECTION 4 - Preparing for Adulthood
Question 33: What more can education and training providers do to ensure that
disabled young people and young people with SEN are able to participate in
education or training post-16?
ALLFIE again stresses that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Article 24 makes it clear that disabled students have a human right
to participate in mainstream tertiary education and college opportunities.
Similarly, disabled students have the right to participate in mainstream further
and higher educational opportunities under the Equality Act 2010. Despite the
law, ALLFIE is finding that 16 plus mainstream education providers are failing in
their equality act duties as a result of the funding arrangements which actively
encourages segregated educational provision.
ALLFIE is very disappointed by the current lack of choice for disabled young
people. The Green Paper consultation document only refers to providing high
quality vocational training and educational opportunities for young disabled
people.
In 2007-08 500,000 students declared themselves as being disabled out of 4
million students - only 12.5% of student population in further education consider
themselves as being disabled.31 56% disabled young people aged between 16-
31
National Union of Students (2009) “Disabled Students in Further Education”
http://www.actiononaccess.org/resources/files/resources__Full.pdf The figures quoted relate to only
students who either have defined themselves as being disabled or non disabled.
30
25 years of age are not in education, employment or training.32 Disabled young
people are twice as likely not to be in education, employment and training than
their non disabled peers. ALLFIE believes this is because disabled young
people do not have the same wide range of educational, employment or training
opportunities as their non disabled peers.
“Then came post 16 and we were encouraged by the LA and
Connections (don’t get me started on them – the woman who did a home
visit should not be allowed anywhere near parents, she hasn’t the
slightest idea about the social model and could only repeat “what about
Special School? What about residential school?”) to pursue a place at
college. We actually felt quite excited about this (despite the Connections
woman) and really hoped a performing arts place could be secured as this
is a subject Janet enjoys and can really participate in and contribute to.
Despite our excitement we also knew that we would have a battle and that
actually there exists very little choice for a young person with learning
difficulties. I’m sad to say our experience in pursuing a college place for
Janet was extremely painful and disheartening. We were immediately
directed to the SEN department which only offers a Life Skills course, no
chance of performing arts. At first I was confused when we were told “we
don’t have a performing arts course”, but I knew I’d seen wonderful
photo’s of students on the course in the college prospectus. Then of
course it transpired that the SEN department doesn’t offer a performing
arts course. What the SEN department did offer was trips into the local
town centre to learn how to shop, sitting at a desk doing maths and
English and art work. Not surprisingly we were not jumping with joy and
enrolling Janet onto the course. Why couldn’t she access the mainstream
performing arts course? Because she would not be able to do all the
modules. Why would she not be able to do all the modules? From the
college perspective it was because a number of the modules are
academic (no thought given by them about differentiation “our hands are
tied” we were told). Basically if Janet could not access the course in the
same way as non disabled students do then she can’t access it at all. We
were also told (off the record) that he (the college SEN head) did not
blame us at all for not wanting to enrol Janet on the SEN course, he
stated to us that he didn’t think it would be suitable for her, that there were
a lot of male disruptive students and based on her needs and previous
learning experiences the course had nothing to offer her. We left that
meeting fighting back the tears and experiencing that old feeling of
32
National Statistics Office (2009) Labour Force Survey 2009
http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=++National+Statistics+Office++(2009)+Lab
our+Force+Survey++2009&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9b50e30eef0f7a3c&biw
=1093&bih=462
31
isolation, discrimination, anger and oppression.” (Parent of a young
disabled person)
ALLFIE is pleased to see the Government recently reiterating its commitment to
promoting educational choice for disabled young people.
“Too often, learning options and employment opportunities for people
with special needs of one kind or another are stereotyped. We must
challenge such stereotypes in precisely the way that the Hon.
Gentleman has identified.” 33 (31st March 2011)
However there is nothing in the Green Paper that offers solutions to the current
lack of choice and opportunity for young disabled people. ALLFIE suggests that
changes need to be made to the following areas of policy, if the Government
wants to implement their commitment to providing disabled young people with
genuine choice. None of the following suggested changes require legislative
change.
Careers Guidance Policy
“Disabled people must have access to expert impartial Information Advice
and Guidance (IAG) focused on maximising potential and promoting
inclusion.” (Young disabled person)
“Transition review: Person centred transition planning had been
introduced by the government. Neither school nor connexion advisor had
any idea what that meant. Connexions advisor could offer nothing but
discreet courses for people with learning difficulties. No suggestion, no
help. The fact that my son had clearly stated his wishes meant absolutely
nothing to her.” (Parent of a young disabled person)
Young people are channelled into discrete provision by careers advisors who
have limited aspirations for disabled students wanting to participate in further
education.
“Before Christmas 2010 we'd met with a new Connexions officer. She
was a bit taken aback when she offered Sam a full-time placement
post-16 special school and we said "no".... Bit of a waste of everyone's
time. What was good was Sam’s teacher and teaching assistant were
there and the next morning they had loads of ideas to put together a
person-centred programme based on what we know works for Sam.”
(Parent of a young disabled person)
33
Parliament (31st March 2011) Education Bill 2010 House of Commons Committee Stage
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/education/110329/am/110329s01.htm
32
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) ’Staying On‘ report34
highlighted how careers advisors tailor their advice to what people with a
particular impairment should do rather than base it on an individual’s
aspirations:
“Careers advice, the choice of subjects to study at school and for an
apprenticeship, and work experience placements are all subject to
stereotyping that tend to have an impact more significantly on distinct
groups, including girls, the disabled, the working class and some ethnic
minorities. The result is that young people’s options and aspirations are
limited at an early age.”
The ‘Staying On’ report also notes that disabled young people are not receiving
information about opportunities in work-based learning and apprenticeships,
and that the information received on further education options is often negative.
Course Funding Policy
Careers Advisors cannot assist young people to follow their aspirations when
there is an inbuilt-bias towards the funding of segregated education in further
education and apprenticeship provision. Currently education providers receive
100% of their funding for disabled students enrolled onto segregated learning
foundation employment or independent living preparation courses for disabled
learners with learning difficulties. The Learning and Skills Council found that
Disabled young people are four times more likely to be enrolled onto a
segregated learning foundation rather than mainstream course.35
“As a member of the Learning and Skills Council, North East Regional
Council I witnessed the financial disincentives to colleges and training
providers enrolling disabled learners. The inflexibility of a funding
system dictates that learners must study in a certain way, complete the
qualification in a set time and achieve a certain result. This means that
if a disabled learner needs to study part time and consequently takes
longer to complete the course, the college is penalised financially. If the
learner also passes an arbitrarily set age then the provider is again
penalised”.
34
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2009) ‘Staying On’
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_education_60pp.pdf
35
LSC (2008) “Review of provision for Learners with LLDD in West Midlands 2007-08”
http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/WestMidlands/LSC_West_Midlands__Review_of_provision_for_Learners_with_Learning_Difficulties_and_or_Disabilities_(LLDD)_in_the_West_Mid
lands_2007-08.pdf
33
“Focusing funding on successful completion a qualification means that
colleges only want to enrol students on courses that they have a high
likelihood of passing. This approach fails to appreciate the value of the
educational process. It also means that disabled people are
inappropriately placed on lower level or life skills type courses because
expectations of a disabled person are low. The result is a disabled
student who wishes to study engineering is instead forced to enter
discreet, segregated provision within the college studying horticulture.”
(Young disabled person)
Case study example - Alex, a disabled young man enrols at a FE
college aged 16. Alex has dyslexia and epilepsy. As a result of his
epilepsy he is only able to attend college in the afternoon and is likely to
be absent at times due to illness and hospital appointments. Alex
wishes to study AS levels then A levels, and the college makes
adjustments allowing him to complete his qualification over three and a
half years instead of the usual two years. This may seem like a good
solution however the college will be penalised financially due to the
rigidity of the funding system.
Education Providers are penalised if disabled students fail to get qualifications
after completing a mainstream accredited course (level 2 upwards).36 In other
words 6th form schools and colleges are financially penalised if they dare to
provide inclusive educational opportunities for disabled students.
The high proportion of funding in segregated education suggests there is a bias
towards segregated education which limits young peoples' aspirations.
We applied for local college in 2007 for a BTEC in Performing Arts
because that it is what S is best at, and it motivates her. One would
expect, if the process were inclusive, that she could join the course with
young people of her own year and cohort. The college directed us to it’s
Head of Inclusion….He recommended instead that S take the Towards
Independence course, a discrete course which is only for students with
learning difficulties and which offers the usual repetitive ‘basic skills fare
that bores so many young people stiff. (Parent of a young disabled
person)
ALLFIE considers the current funding arrangements which we understand will
not be changed in the foreseeable future undermine further education and sixth
36
Young People’s Learning Agency Funding Guidance for 2009-2010
http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/FundingGuidanceUpdate_0910_v4.3.pdf
34
form education providers ability to provide equal opportunities and where
necessary make reasonable adjustments so that disabled students can enrol
onto their mainstream courses. Further we anticipate that the Skills Funding
Agency and Young Person’s Learning Agency funding policy has been
developed with limited consideration of disability equality.
Differentiation of the curriculum
There is no attempt by further education providers to differentiate the curriculum
which would enable young disabled students to participate on accredited
mainstream courses.
“The secondary school started its own sixth form and offered Level 1
courses in Media and Arts and NVQ1 in Sports Leisure and related
industries. Although the Media Arts course was not as accessible and
interesting and varied as we hoped and also suffered from being taught
by a very poorly qualified tutor exclusively to the young people with
learning difficulties who had enrolled. This would be a step in the right
direction: More Level 1 courses in a number of subjects. Allow Level 1
students to work alongside level 2 students in the practical lessons
(drama, etc.) Scrap the extremely uninspiring life skills courses, which
lump people with learning difficulties together in preparation for the day
centre on the road to absolutely nowhere.” (Parent of a young disabled
person)
This is despite Equality Act equality duties imposed upon further education
providers to make reasonable adjustments, which must include differentiating
the curriculum. This is a reasonable adjustment within schools so why not in
further education or even higher education provision?
Education Support Policy
Disabled young people have no entitlement to personalised support and
equipment to meet their individual needs. Further Education Colleges and
Training Providers are provided with additional learning support funding for
learners with learning disabilities and difficulties from the Young Person’s
Learning Agency. It is up to the education provider how the support is arranged
for their students. Particularly for learners with learning difficulties additional
learning support funding is often attached to the discrete courses for learners
with learning difficulties.
‘I was also discriminated against because I was not able to access free
transport like the students in the special needs section of the further
education college, because I was deemed to not need this support
because I was following a mainstream course. This meant I had to rely
35
on parental support to get me back and forth to college or when this
was unavailable it cost me 500 per cent more than my peers on the
same course to enable me to attend.’ (NUS focus group participant,
2008)37
ALLFIE believes the reason for this is because there is no requirement for
additional learning funding to support individual students on their chosen
courses. Students wanting to attend a mainstream college course are turning to
charity, such as the Snowdon Awards Foundation, in order to pay for the
required support and equipment.
“Oscar’s award funded the purchase of a laptop which is essential to his
studies in interactive media at Skegness Academy for Skills.” (Snowdon
Award 2009)
Higher Education
ALLFIE is very disappointed that there is no more than a scant mention of
young people’s higher education aspirations in this consultation document. In
2007 20,452 students declared themselves as being disabled on their UCAS
form. Only 5% of the student population are disabled and therefore are severely
underrepresented in Higher Education (HE)38. Despite the very low numbers of
disabled people represented in Higher Education, there is no mention on how to
improve access to higher education for disabled people in the Browne Higher
Education review. As with the Browne proposals, the Green Paper also fails to
mention how universities must address access for disabled students when
accessing higher education as part of the official Office for Fair Access’s
guidance on what their access plans should contain.
“Having been involved in higher education for 17 years, and in
particularly concerned about barriers disabled students experience. It
seems to me there has been no serious consideration given to the
aspirations of disabled people seeking to pursue HE. For example,
where will the responsibility lie in terms of meeting the personal support
needs of disabled students? Without tackling this issue head on, it
seems to me that disabled students will continue to be beset with
barriers, their opportunities and choice of university will continue to be
restricted, which is glaringly not compatible to their non disabled peers.”
(Nyam Council member)
37
NUS (2008) “Disabled Students experience in FE”
2009 (DIUS) “Disabled Students and Higher Education”
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/d/dius_rr_09_06.pdf
38
36
FE students are not alone. Despite the Disabled Students Allowance, the
amounts awarded do not cover the whole of the student’s support package
whilst at university and as such rely on charitable donations from the Snowdon
Awards foundation and similar other charitable trusts. The Snowdon Foundation
Survey 2006 found that many disabled students were not receiving sufficient
funds to cover day-to-day support, equipment, travel and accommodation whilst
in higher education. The gap remains the case today.
“Anisa is studying for a BSC in Psychology at Sussex University...The
grant helped her meet the cost of height adapted accommodation.
...Without it I wouldn’t have been able to afford my rent and would
probably have had to quit university.”
Post graduate students receive less than their undergraduate students. ALLFIE
does do not see any reason why post graduate students should receive less
disabled student allowance than their under-graduate peers.
ALLFIE finds it totally unacceptable that disabled students are relying on
individual charitable handouts in order to have a suitable package which meets
their needs whilst participating in mainstream education.
Apprenticeships
In 2007 only 7,000 disabled young people aged between 19-24 were
participating in an apprenticeship.39 Disabled young people are underrepresented in apprenticeships.40 According to the Learning and Skills Council
only 10% of apprentices declared they are disabled.41 The low take up may be
because of the apprenticeships specification framework which requires all
apprentices to have undertaken a paid work placement whilst completing an
either level 2 / 3 vocational and functional numeracy and literacy qualifications.
The numbers of disabled people participating in accredited apprenticeships has
fallen from 11.5% in 2005/6 to 9.5% in 2009-2010. This drops to 8.4% amongst
19-24 year olds.42 Many young disabled people may be able to complete the
appropriate level vocational qualification and work placement but not the
relevant numeracy and literacy qualifications. If the apprentices demonstrate the
appropriate level of literacy and numeracy skills required to perform their job
successfully, then there is no need for young people to have to gain additional
numeracy and literacy qualifications in order to pass their apprenticeship.
39
National Skills Forum (2009) “Doing Things Differently Step Changes In Skills and Inclusion”
Wales Assembly Department for Children’s Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (2008) “Skills That Work
for Wales A Skills and Employment Strategy and Action Plan”
http://www.learningobservatory.com/uploads/publications/1723.pdf
41
SKILL (2008) “The Skills Commission Apprenticeships Inquiry” www.skill.org.uk
42
Skill, Remploy and Joint Apprenticeships Unit Press Release (2011) http://www.lldpartnership.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/Access-to-Apprenticeships-for-disabled-people-09-02-2011.pdf
40
37
Some disabled young people may not reach level 2 / 3 apprenticeship standard.
These young people should be able to undertake their work experience and
college placement with curriculum differentiation alongside their non disabled
apprentices in mainstream educational and working environments.
Apprenticeship support should come from one rather than two sources of
funding (Access to work and Additional Learning Support) with different funding
arrangements.
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 Independent Careers Guidance must be under a duty to always provide
mainstream educational options which closely match the disabled
person’s aspirations.
 Disabled students must have an absolute right to attend a mainstream
college or university course.
 A stronger duty must be imposed upon mainstream further and higher
education providers to provide inclusive educational opportunities for
disabled learners.
 Government must remove the financial disincentives which further
education and apprenticeships may incur if disabled young people fail to
successfully pass their qualifications.
 Government must remove the incentives that further education and
training provider have in placing as many disabled young people as
possible on their segregated courses.
 One budget to cover all of disabled learner’s needs.
 Education funding streams should be included in the Right To Control
pilots and rolled out.
 Transferring resources from segregated colleges and courses to
mainstream providers.
 The Office for Fair Access must be proactive about ensuring that
universities are complying with their Equality Act 2010 duties.
 The Office for Fair Access must include guidance on how higher
education institutions can improve access to disabled learners.
CONSULTATION SECTION 5 - Services Working Together for Families
Question 40: We have identified three core features of the role of local
authorities in supporting children and young people with SEN or who are
disabled and their families: strategic planning for services, securing a range of
high quality provision, and enabling families to make informed choices and
38
exercise greater control over services. Do you agree that these are the three
core features of the role of local authorities in supporting children and young
people with SEN or who are disabled and their families, or are there others?
Question 41: How can central government enable and support local authorities
to carry out their role effectively?
ALLFIE feels the important point is that Government are under an Equality Act
2010 duty to provide services which promote equality of opportunities and
reduce inequalities between disabled and non disabled people. This can only be
achieved if mainstream educational opportunities and services are inclusive of
disabled students.
ALLFIE RECOMMENDATIONS
 ALLFIE wants the local authority to maintain its role in the planning and
commissioning of mainstream inclusive services, which welcomes all
disabled students regardless of ability or health condition.
 The Equality and Education Acts needs to be strengthened to give
disabled young people an absolute right to mainstream education.
 The Equality Act to impose a much stronger duty upon education
providers to make a wide range of reasonable adjustments for disabled
students enrolling onto mainstream courses.
 Issue regulations to allow disabled learners opportunities to have a
direct payment in lieu of services when participating in mainstream
educational opportunities.
 Remove all financial disincentives for education providers so they are
able to admit disabled learners onto mainstream courses without fear of
financial penalties.
 Commit to fully funding one inclusive mainstream education system for
all disabled and non disabled learners.
Conclusion
ALLFIE is disappointed that the ‘Aspiration and Support: a New Approach to
Special Educational Needs and Disability’ Green Paper lacks aspiration for
disabled children and young people or any new rights to support. Many of the
proposals in the Green Paper do not have enough detail to genuinely assess
their usefulness to disabled children and young people and their families.
The Government is entirely out of step with disabled people, their families and
education professionals, in its intention to reverse the perceived ‘bias’ in favour
39
of inclusion. ALLFIE’s response to the proposals in the Green Paper
demonstrates with statistical evidence and personal accounts from disabled
people, their families and education professionals, that building the capacity of
mainstream education is the only route to creating aspiration in the lives of
disabled children and their families.
ALLFIE would welcome the opportunity to discuss our recommendations with
the Government, and to assist this Government to meet its Equality Act duties
and its UNCRPD obligations in terms of disabled children and young people
and implement the obligations set out in Article 24 on Inclusive Education.
Alliance for Inclusive Education contact details:
Tara Flood / Simone Aspis
Alliance for Inclusive Education
336 Brixton Road, London, SW9 7AA, Tel: 020 7737 6030
Email: tara.flood@allfie.org.uk / simone.aspis@allfie.org.uk
Appendix 1 – additional evidence
Additional experiences from parents of disabled children and
young people
1. When my daughter (I’ll call her Janet) was nearing her end at
primary school I worked hard with the school SENCO (who was
very supportive and very pro inclusion) to write Janet’s statement
using social model language. The LA would not accept what we
wrote as an ‘appropriate’ statement and so after battling with them
for months Janet’s original and medical model statement was sent
to the secondary schools we hoped she might go to. Our first
choice was the local academy because it was our most local
school and many of Janet’s friends from primary school would be
going there. A meeting was arranged for me, my husband and the
primary school SENCO to meet the Academy SENCO. We
intended at that meeting to show the Academy SENCO how much
Janet had achieved at primary school and the gifts she had
brought to that school. We also took examples of how work had
been differentiated for her and various tools that had been
successful in helping her learn in a meaningful way. Each of us
spoke so positively about Janet and the primary school SENCO
highlighted how much the school had learnt and developed from
having Janet there.
40
At the end of our input the Academy SENCO asked “Can she line
up?” At that point we realized our efforts had fallen on a closed mind.
After the meeting on our way home my husband and I felt rather sick
and ‘dirty’. In retrospect, it was because we felt we had had to try and
sell our daughters qualities. No parent should have to do that, surely
it should just be her right to go to her local school without us having to
convince them it would be good for her to be there.
We then had to do some serious thinking about what would be best
for Janet. Special school was not an option, she had attended one for
6 months at age 5 years and it was a most horrendous experience for
all of us – but that’s another story! By chance I met a parent who was
Home Educating and she told me about the Education Otherwise
website. We decided to investigate the option of home schooling.
Whilst we were doing this the LA was ‘working hard behind the
scenes, we were told by our Statement monitoring Officer, to secure
Janet a place at the local Academy. After a lot of research, we
decided home schooling would be an exciting and an inclusive option
for Janet. We informed the LA of our decision. However, the LA took
it upon themselves to continue to pursue a place at the Academy,
even though we had reached the conclusion that they would not
welcome Janet and would not work to meet her needs and include
her.
One afternoon at work I had a call from a mediator saying she was
disappointed we had decided not to attend the meeting but an
agreement had been made! I was puzzled and asked “ what
meeting?” Apparently it was with the LA Statement monitoring officer,
the Academy and a mediator and apparently we had been invited! I
calmly explained that it was not the case that we had been invited
and also that we had decided to home school. The mediator however
still wanted to inform me of the brilliant work she had done. “The
Academy”, at this point the mediator lowered her voice to a deep and
serious tone, “with grave, grave reservations, has agreed to offer
Janet a place.” PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT. “They are willing
to offer her one and a half hours per week for a trial period” I’m afraid
I burst out laughing. I asked the mediator did she really think I would
want to send my child to a place that had ‘grave reservations’ about
her going there and were only prepared to offer less than 2 hours a
week for a trial period. What on earth did any of them think she or
they could learn in that time?
Needless to say we did not take the offer and went forward with
home education. That again is another story, largely a very positive
story and home education was definately a good choice and the right
decision.
41
Then came post 16 and we were encouraged by the LA and
Connections (don’t get me started on them – the woman who did a
home visit should not be allowed anywhere near parents, she hasn’t
the slightest idea about the social model and could only repeat “what
about Special School? What about residential school?”) to pursue a
place at college. We actually felt quite excited about this (despite the
Connections woman) and really hoped a performing arts place could
be secured as this is a subject Janet enjoys and can really participate
in and contribute to. Despite our excitement we also knew that we
would have a battle and that actually there exists very little choice for
a young person with learning difficulties. I’m sad to say our
experience in pursuing a college place for Janet was extremely
painful and disheartening. We were immediately directed to the SEN
department which only offers a Life Skills course, no chance of
performing arts. At first I was confused when we were told “we don’t
have a performing arts course”, but I knew I’d seen wonderful photo’s
of students on the course in the college prospectus. Then of course it
transpired that the SEN department doesn’t offer a performing arts
course. What the SEN department did offer was trips into the local
town centre to learn how to shop, sitting at a desk doing maths and
English and art work. Not surprisingly we were not jumping with joy
and enrolling Janet onto the course. Why couldn’t she access the
mainstream performing arts course? Because she would not be able
to do all the modules. Why would she not be able to do all the
modules? From the college perspective it was because a number of
the modules are academic (no thought given by them about
differentiation “our hands are tied” we were told). Basically if Janet
could not access the course in the same way as non disabled
students do then she can’t access it at all. We were also told (off the
record) that he (the college SEN head) did not blame us at all for not
wanting to enrol Janet on the SEN course, he stated to us that he
didn’t think it would be suitable for her, that there were a lot of male
disruptive students and based on her needs and previous learning
experiences the course had nothing to offer her.
We left that meeting fighting back the tears and experiencing that old
feeling of isolation, discrimination, anger and oppression.
What did we do from there. What we have always done. We
continued to create as many inclusive opportunities and experiences
for Janet as we could. Thank goodness for Direct Payments, which
Janet had accessed from age 14years. That at least provided her with
choices, not enough though with only 4 hrs per week! And there of
course is another story – our fight to get more hours. Janet is now
nearly 17 years (almost time to move into Adult services). We have
42
fought and achieved 14 hours DP for her – still not enough but better
than 4hrs.
2. I will limit my stories to the time since SENDA 2001 was
introduced.
SENDA 2001 was just fresh off the press when we were looking for a
secondary school for my son, who is said to have severe learning
difficulties and who had just had 7 rich and stimulating years in
primary education. He was ready to face the bigger world and was
equipped with a great sense of himself as a learner who had a right to
be an equal part of it all.
This experience of looking for a secondary school always brings the
Paul Simon song '50 ways to leave your lover' to mind:
'50 ways to let your child know that he is not welcome at this school'
You won't slip through this net, Ed
We make no new plan, Stan
Your needs are to severe, Dear
You're for special school
We'll get you on the bus, Gus
We don't need to discuss much
They have a hydro pool, cool
You are not for mainstream school, fool!
There are THREE secondary schools within walking distance from
our home.
1. The SENCO of the first one did not think that children with such
severe learning difficulties could be catered for at her school...
2. The second school streams children from day 1. My son would
have been in the bottom set, where all the young people with
behavioural issues meet and the aspirations and strategies are
geared towards discipline and tough boundaries, which would
have been extremely bewildering to say the least. Inclusion only
world in diverse systems. I had no intention to send my child to
a special unit.
3. At the open evening at the third school I had a very interesting
conversation with the SENCO and specialist literacy teacher
until I mentioned the word Down Syndrome. Body language
froze. Conversation seized. When I called to make an
appointment to talk about my son possibly attending the school
– as a statemented young person he had priority of choice – I
43
did not hear for three weeks from the school. Finally apologies
and finally I got into the waiting loop. It took another 3 weeks to
get an appointment. How can I trust a school which hasn't got a
functioning communication strategy for starters?
4. The 4th recommended school offered a place in the learning
support unit. The question about social inclusion was met with a
blank. No circle of friends here.
5. We also looked at the special school secondary stage within the
authority and neither we nor our son were excited by the
curriculum.
Finally our son got a place 10 miles out of borough in a rural
community college, which had several young people with Down
Syndrome and other impairments and where the conversation with
the school started with a 'welcome' and we had a meeting with the
head within a week.
The distance was the real down side; although being a rural school
many children had journeys to and from school.
This was now a school which prided itself in its inclusive practice.
And yet was there a bias towards inclusion within the school?
The default position if any problem occurred was to separate our son
and take him out and tuck him away and create 'special' and turn him
into the problem:
1. Son wants to go to the canteen. No – he is better of in the safe
learning support department – he might be bullied. How about
dealing with the bullies? Your son is too small and vulnerable
and might get hurt...How about going with a buddy? Cannot be
organised. Too big expectations on other children.
(We did finally get a circle of friends organised and addressed the
issue)
2. A new TA specially employed for the young people with learning
difficulties came from early years education. Ta and SENCO felt
very hurt, when we said that collages from shells from the
beach and autumn leaves was the sort of stuff of primary
schools and not secondary education....This is the real fear
about taking equality out of the education bill: low expectations,
low aspirations, low skilled people doing the job
3. Things were improving gradually until year 9: GCSE choices
and SATS.
Our son was given very little choice as a special needs curriculum
was already decided on: Small animal care and land based studies
44
instead of science; ASDAN award for all the core subjects; no he
could not access drama nor music nor art and maybe food tech.
ASDAN turned out ok as a portfolio based award our son was doing
well with it. The subject matter could be improved though in order to
meet different students preference of subjects. Our son continued to
say: I want to do history. I want to do geography. I want to do science.
4. Also in year 9: At a review meeting it became clear that our son
was increasingly taken out of science class, which he loved.
When we asked the TA why that was: The teacher had to
concentrate on the students, who are promising good results.
Our son was in the way and not a priority.
5. Pursuing the issue further we inquired what exactly he was
doing in science – which he loved; who was differentiating his
work then and how it was done and whether we could see some
of the work sheets. The TA said that she was not creating any
new work sheets. The school needed to save resources and
photocopies for our son were a waste of resources.
6. Thanks to the DDA we were able at that point to make sure that
this TA was not any longer going to work with our son because
of her deeply prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes.
7. Transition review: Person centred transition planning had been
introduced by the government. Neither school nor connexion
advisor had any idea what that meant. Connexions advisor
could offer nothing but discreet courses for people with learning
difficulties. No suggestion, no help. The fact that my son had
clearly stated his wishes meant absolutely nothing to her.
8. Our son had done work experience in the kitchen of the local
FE college. He was well liked and the college offered him a
place on the Level 1 course. That made our son very proud
although he did not want to enter into catering full time at that
point.
9. On my own initiative I approached the sixth form college near to
our home and managed to negotiate a one year course in
Football coaching on Level 1. The college offered that our son
could take a year to complete this course, which other students
complete in a few weeks – a reasonable adjustment which
worked very well.
10. The secondary school started its own sixth form and offered
Level 1 courses in Media and Arts and NVQ1 in Sports Leisure
and related industries. Although the Media Arts course was not
as accessible and interesting and varied as we hoped and also
suffered from being taught by a very poorly qualified tutor
exclusively to the young people with learning difficulties who
45
had enrolled.
11. This would be a step in the right direction: More Level 1
courses in a number of subjects. Allow Level 1 students to work
alongside level 2 students in the practical lessons (drama, etc.)
Scrap the extremely uninspiring life skills courses, which lump
people with learning difficulties together in preparation for the
day centre on the road to absolutely nowhere.
Bias toward inclusion we have found none: Nearly all good practice
had to be negotiated, fought for, encouraged and initiated.
3. My daughter Chloe McCollum was born in 1982; a year after the
1981 Education Act was passed. She has Down’s Syndrome
which has affected her learning and communication skills. By the
time she was old enough for nursery the act came into being. . She
started just prior to her statement being completed. The statement
helped focus on both her strengths and areas for development and
helped the school devise an educational plan for her which was
updated every 6 to 12 months depending on her needs. I knew
from the moment she was born that she should be part of her
community and the best way for her to grow up in an inclusive
world was through her educational experiences. I met like minded
parents who gave me and my family a great deal of support. I also
met with many disabled people in those early days who spoke of
their very difficult and sad school experiences in segregated
special schools. This absolutely confirmed my knowledge that
children of all abilities have a human right to be taught together.
Chloe had a very forward thinking Headteacher and she spent 8
wonderful years in her local primary school, making many friends
and learning and progressing extremely well. There were some
difficulties over the years, but the school always worked with us to
find solutions and most concerns were effectively dealt with.
When it came to secondary school in 1994, an absolute nightmare
ensued. The LEA had never had a young person with down’s
syndrome in a secondary school and they weren’t about to start. This
was before the implementation of the 96 Education Act. We did not
have any recourse to a tribunal, when the LEA refused to agree to
support my daughter in her local school. There was no bias towards
inclusion; only a bias to segregation. The caveat which said that
Chloe’s needs could not be met at a mainstream was used. This was
decided on evidence from an educational psychologist and speech
therapist who had never met my daughter. Her primary school totally
supported the appropriateness for Chloe to carry on in a mainstream
46
school. However due to the LEA’s decision Chloe was separated
from her friends who even made a petition forward to ask the LEA to
let her go to school with them. We battled for over 3 years to try and
change the LEA’s mind. In the end a new statement was issued
naming a special school for 4 days of the week and a mainstream
school for one day. She learnt more in that one day than in the rest of
the week at the special school. This was not a very satisfactory
outcome, but one we were forced to take. Not much choice in that
experience.
This was many years ago. And since that time schools have been
able to make reasonable adjustments and welcome all learners into
their schools. I sincerely hope we do not go back to such reactionary
times.
4. I would like to share my story. I had to fight to keep my son in
local mainstream school ,as the education system wanted me to
send my son to a special school for sensitive children. This was
when he started reception class at school.
If you listen to my son ,you heard that he wanted to be so much
part of his local community.
The benefit of inclusive education on my three label children is that
they are able to have friendship with their local community and
work with their peers.
If they had attended a special school they wouldn't have this
network of friends, also special school have very low expectation
of our children. Yes I had the case for education negligence, this
was because the school system was making my son as he was
the problem ,when they weren't being inclusive in their practices.
Also my other children all went to mainstream even though they
had conditions. They have all done well although sometimes they
were bullied, they all did really well. They are all working in
mainstream society. This I feel is because they had inclusive
education in their life.
Inclusive schools and colleges are very important in changing
attitudes. My two sons at college were let down by the system as it
didn't accommodate their additional needs. This I feel is still
happening, for lots of young people.
5. Our daughter, Nadia, has complex disabilities. She has cerebral
palsy and uses a motorised wheelchair. She is deaf with a
cochlear implant. Her primary receptive language is BSL and her
primary expressive language is through an AAC device.
47
Nadia has come through mainstream schooling, is now nineteen and
attends her local College. She works harder than anyone I have ever
met (of any age) and is absolutely dedicated to achieving something
in her life. She wants to go to University to study disability and
different needs within education.
Nadia does not have learning disabilities, however she does not
easily achieve good exam results. This is because she is confronted
with a system which demands her to condense her astonishing range
of ability, energy and dedication into uni-dimensional units of English
academia, within narrow parameters.
Nadia has been brought up to have high expectations of herself, and
to achieve positive outcomes whilst contributing to society. She has a
maturity and sense of responsibility that far outweighs many students
who get the necessary grades to get into university. She is a young
woman with strong values and knows what she wants to make a
difference to people’s lives in the future.
Nadia has the most incredible CV which includes numerous awards
that she has won; over 100 hours of voluntary work and many hours
of paid work experience that she has done via running workshops
and talking at conferences on her life.
Despite this English is not Nadia’s language, however this is the
medium through which she is judged on just about everything she
does. As a deaf person her first language is sign and yet there are
even restrictions regarding the interpretation of exam questions into
sign language.
As an Augmentative Communication Aid user, Nadia’s second
language is the communication system she has learned through
using her Dynavox (communication device). Few young people are
deaf and use a communication aid in the world as well as Nadia uses
one. The system is complex and takes years of hard work and
motivation to use and become successful at . Yet once again
examination boards and entry requirements make very little
allowance for these different communication systems.
The result is a continual struggle to manage the levels of academic
English required – essentially the one and only standard that
overrides everything else. Where are the measures for maturity,
dedication, resilience to adversity and hard work – as well as the
skills of alternative communication, being multi lingual, signing and
more general people skills?
I’m not suggesting that it’s straightforward, but I am saying that a
great deal more thought and imagination needs to go into the process
of disability in higher education and beyond. Just consider that
absolutely no imagination went into the creation of a random age for
48
the category of “mature student” and yet even this makes a difference
to the lives of people who are dedicated and hard-working, but who
will never achieve ‘A’ grades in exams.
We as a family together with Nadia have worked incredibly hard to
ensure that she has a meaningful adult life with the same
opportunities as her peers and siblings. We are now all wondering
whether this was worth it and that she is heading to a bleak future
with poor outcomes.
Unless we change the system, society will continue to dump
extraordinary people like Nadia – who have battled the challenges
whilst going through mainstream childhood – back into a segregated
and disenfranchised adult life.
Experiences from disabled people
1. At age five, in 1990, I started at a special school where we were
assessed on our performance and our performance was
supposed to prove our understanding. I physically could not
perform so was assumed to have no understanding. At the
special school I remember the torture of not being able to
respond, then my disappointment, when the school refused to
believe in the communication system which was working for me
at home.
When I was nine I was promised that I could move to a
mainstream primary school. I would start one day a week at the
beginning of year five, with a plan to quickly increase to full time
within the first term. Unfortunately the one day a week was never
increased for two years. At age eleven, the Local Education
Authority agreed that I could go to a mainstream secondary
school. There was no choice of schools, as in my area there were
no wheelchair accessible secondary schools, so I went to a school
miles away which took one and a half hours travelling on the bus
each way.
After the frustration of one day a week in year five and six, the idea
of full time mainstream was exciting but when I got there the
disappointment was terrible. I was put in a unit with staff who were
prevented from learning my communication system. It was like a
nightmare and I was completely isolated. It was clear that the
Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator did not want me in that
school. It seemed to me that she made every effort to make life
impossible in the hope I would just leave. This school was
allocated, by the Local Education Authority, to take young people
with additional physical needs. Other schools, I am told by my
49
family, would have accepted me, but because of this arrangement,
I would not have had any funding, for any assistance, in any other
school.
The profundity of the despair at the way I felt betrayed by the
education system has had lasting consequences. This sort of
betrayal does not only affect me and other excluded young people
it affects everyone, both young and older.
I think visibility is a key. Social justice demands that we are seen
to be part of a society; however we cannot be a part of anything if
people do not know we are there, or if people think they have
nothing to do with our lives. When we are hidden away, in a
special place away from public view with special staff and special
facilities, most people feel our lives are nothing to do with them.
All children need love and relationships but some disabled young
people, who spend most of their childhood away from the
mainstream of life in residential establishments, are unlikely to get
either love or consistent relationships. Even in day special
schools, when young people are bussed from sometimes long
distances, the likelihood of friendship in their neighbourhoods is
not great. Brothers and sisters often are very hurt by the
separation and non acceptance of their siblings. Neighbours and
friends, who have had little contact with disabled young people,
feel skill-less and helpless around anybody with any sort of
additional need or difference. So the spiral winds up; many of the
general public, including those working in schools, become fearful
of disabled young people. As a way to avoid the question of why
they are so fearful, there is an assumption that special places and
people are necessary. This results in some disabled young people
and their families also opting for segregation. The reality is that,
when the reasons for the fear are tackled, non-disabled young
people are free to learn very quickly how to assist those who need
extra help. They become skilful and not afraid to make friends,
when the environment and attitude are conducive to doing this.
2. Hello, my name is Miro Griffiths and I used the mainstream
education system throughout my life. I went a mainstream
primary and secondary school, Sixth Form College, a redbrick
university to read Psychology at undergraduate level, and I am
now at a different university reading Disability Studies at
Masters Level. This is all before I embark on a PhD!
As somebody with a physical impairment, I encountered many
barriers within the education system, but with careful planning and
50
micromanagement of my support needs, I was able to navigate
through them and achieve my expected qualifications. Firstly, we
need to acknowledge that all the barriers faced by disabled people
are a direct result of a society created by non-disabled people for a
non-disabled society. I never accepted an opinion which
considered the barriers to be my problem or a direct result of my
impairment – local services, national systems and society as a
whole had to take responsibility.
Before leaving college, my support needs during school hours had
been met by my academic support worker. Not only was my
academic support needs (i.e. note-taking etc), but also my
personal care during the school or college hours. Outside of
learning, my personal care was supplied through a commissioned
package devised by health and social services, with very little input
from me. As I entered the final year of my college days, I only then
thought what my support would look like once I’d left college,
turned eighteen and entered the adult world. I had sat in my
transition meetings with a passive attitude, quietly watching as I
believed these meetings were simply part of my Statement
Review. It was May, in September I would start university, but no
support in place. My parents had been given no information, more
importantly I hadn’t been given any information of how I would
access support services.
I had expected to turn up at university, support worker available to
do all the jobs required when I was at school and college. I was
very wrong. One stream of money would pay for equipment and
academic support needs, whilst other streams would pay for
personal care, social care etc. I was bemused; I wanted to be in
control of my own support package, but had no idea what or how
self-directed support would work. My meetings were shambolic; I
was made to feel like a burden as education, health and social
care argued over me about who would pay for what.
When I started university, I had no Direct Payments in place, any
guidance or advice for establishing my self-directed support. I
used student loans to pay for my needs, and have never been able
to reclaim the full amount.
As disabled people grow up, they need to be active members of
their community, and have valuable roles to aid the functioning of
our society. We need a face within the mainstream, and an
education system which supports our development. Society
perceives disability equates to incompetency, and the only way to
eradicate this view is having an education system that includes
rather than excludes the diversity of the disabled community. Our
51
education system teaches our children to compete with each other,
strive for wealth and power. What happened to individual success
and personal aspirations?
Remove the bias towards segregated learning; provide more
guidance for parents to learn social-model thinking; capacitybuilding within schools for disabled and non-disabled students,
with the outcome of empowerment for disabled children and young
people; and most importantly, co-production with the experts – the
empowered disability community. Remember: we know inclusion
works!
3. I was lucky to attend a mainstream school through out my
educational career and know through my own experience that
an inclusive education is not only beneficial to the disabled
pupils but to the entire school population, and thus to society at
large.
Why is it that only disabled people should be segregated in
education? If this happened to any other minority group it would
be instantly jumped on by the press as discrimination. By going
down this road the government will be putting back the rights of
disabled people to the Victorian era, and it will benefit no one.
The claims that this segregated system is fairer to disabled
pupils is untrue and any cost benefits will outweighed by the
fact that another generation of disabled people will grow up in a
society that feels disabled people cannot be integrated or
proactive due to lack of experience of growing up together. This
lack of personal interaction at a young age is why disabled
people are seen as different and to allow it to continue for
another generation is just wrong.
Experiences from Education Professionals
1. 40 years of campaigning by families, disabled people and a
number of thoughtful experienced professionals and
academics to gain inclusion in mainstream society is
threatened by this Green Paper. Whilst current mainstream
inclusion is far from perfect as the figures of exclusion and
bullying revealed in this paper underline a shift towards
increased separation, othering and segregation do nothing to
improve things. Using the phrase ‘ removing the bias to
inclusive education’ is insulting and shameful and rubbishes
all that has gone before including the battles that have been
52
fought to create basic human rights for disabled children and
adults and runs in the face of a range of national and
international legislation on equalities. This position totally
disrespects the international drive towards increased rights,
belonging emancipation and participation of disabled people.
2. We have spent the last 10 years developing an ethos of
giving the students an inclusive educational experience at
Varndean College Brighton. All students benefit from the
additional support given, whether it is our 1;1 sessions , in
class or general support. We also have a social space at
break and lunchtimes where students can connect and make
friends with each other whether they are disabled or not.
They value their learning experience of differentiated
teaching in the class.
We are proud of our developments so far and althought there is
more work to do we want to keep hold of this good practise for
all our students here at |Varndean and more widely for work
towards an inclusive society which is threatened by this Green
Paper.
3.
As a head teacher of three special schools I learned that
segregating children simply teaches us all the wrong lessons. If we want those
who have additional needs to have t I had many concerns about placing my
child full time in a mainstream school. I thought he might be bullied and feel
isolated and I worried that he would not have his educational needs met. I could
not have been more wrong. Whilst it has not been without challenges and timeconsuming to ensure that things are getting done, I have been thrilled with how
much he is enjoying school and excited by learning. He has made some brilliant
progress. The children there are very fond of him and he is just another kid in
the community. I would not have it any other way now. My child and his peers
are privileged to be in a school which genuinely values difference. Hopefully
these children will grow up to not be alarmed or made uncomfortable by
otherness when they encounter it. Schools with vision and inspired leadership,
despite the budget constraints and challenges of joint working are just getting
on with educating our children. It is very worrying that current government policy
is seeking to erode all of this. Allowed to continue, such segregation will be
detrimental to all of us.
53