A full-page advert in defence of Inclusion appears in TES. TES On-line . The claim is that Baroness Warnock’s view is distorted and that discrimination is gradually diminishing.
The problem is not in the child and their impairment, but in the social and attitudinal barriers in the education system. The ‘social model’ rather than the outdated ‘medical model’.
...snip...
Defend human rights and defend the right for disabled children and young people to inclusive education.
I couldn’t agree more but the truth is that up to now ‘inclusion’ has been seen and used, despicably, as a cheap option. Children and their parents have suffered.
Many special schools closed down. The children were placed in mainstream schools but the funding, and the expertise did not follow them. Children already in mainstream school and identified, as having an additional need, have not been adequately provided for. The schools have been unable to cope. Parents like myself have forced the LEA to provide for their children, outside the mainstream, but this is not to say that we are against inclusive education if it was adequately funded and if the discriminatory attitudes and training issues were sorted out. Some Local Education Authorities have refused to issue ‘statements’ for children with special needs, which means that these children have not been protected.
Inclusion by all means but not at my child’s expense. Not at any child’s expense.
All children should be adequately supported and their needs met.
4 comments:
It is clearly a human right for people with disabilities to be included in all aspects of living within out 21st century society, but we need to recognise that inclusion is sometimes achieved through specialist provision. I have yet to hear criticism of the para-olympics or a suggestion they should cease, yet they represent simultaneously specialist provision and inclusion and enable participation.
Similarly, the aim of education should, in my opinion, be to prepare children and young people for life in society. If that is to be achieved, some children will require different arrangements from others, including specialist educational provision. The ideology that presses for inclusion in schools frequently results in children with disabilities being excluded from school and doubly disadvantaged. Many parents, seeking to avoid their children's failure, choose to home educate at considerable cost to themselves, socially and emotionally as well as financially. Some parents do battle with the education system and eventually obtain appropriate educational provision for their children.
As far as I can tell, those most in favour of so-called inclusion are adults with physical disabilities who feel their own specialist schooling disadvantaged them. These people seem oblivious to the fact that their ideology is endangering the potential of many neurologically atypical and developmentally delayed young people to achieve their potential.
Yes, we need to move from the bad old days when people with disabilities were neither seen nor heard, but we also need to ensure every child receives an education appropriate to their holistic development and move away from the farce that suggests one size fits all when it blatantly doesn't.
Thanks very much for that. You made some really good points.
I think people have different ideas about inclusion. I believe that to 'include' you have to differentiate - If that makes sense. Some children clearly need more than can be provided in mainstream and others simply cannot cope in it. It is said that 'inclusion' means changing the schools so that all children can flourish but this is neither practical or possible. My child, according to the psychiatrist, should never be in a class of more than 6. It would be nice if mainstream schools could reduce class sizes to this level but we simply hadn't got the time to hang about waiting for it to happen.
From my experience, inclusion only works if the head, SENCO and teachers can make it work, and if the child can be helped to cope with peer group pressures. The other children in school, and particularly in the child's class, need to have the child's problems explained, and be told that the child needs their support and help. The class teacher needs to have proper control over their class: a noisy class helps nobody, least of all the special needs child. The Teaching Assistant assigned to the child also needs to have appropriate training and the appropriate attitude. The SENCO needs to be strong and supportive, and to be there. The head needs to be understanding and supportive both of her staff, the parents' concerns and the child's needs, and to make the right level of provision for the child. And the child's curriculum needs to be differentiated.
These aspects so often do not happen. My son's experience of mainstream was one of misunderstanding by and of him (by other children, inapppropriate application of strategies, weak teachers, and the unwillingness of the head to fight the LEA for funding to allow him to be in school full time, at least in the early days of his statement. He did, however, have a differentated curriculum, in the latter stages differentiated to excess.
The head and SENCO were also unwilling to recognise that another child at the school was dyspraxic, and needed additional support. The mother gave up trying to talk to the head, and deals directly with her child's teacher, who is very good, and the TA in the classroom.
That said, once my daughter's present class were allocated a good teacher, not only did my daughter improve in her skills and confidence, but so did the whole class.
On the other hand, I have heard parents of children at other schools sing the praises of their child's school, and in particular the SENCO. There is so much variation in schools' abilities to meet the needs of special needs children.
Where children are unable to cope at all with mainstream schooling, the only alternative is for them to go to a special school or unit. My son is now in a unit attached to a mainstream school, and is very happy. In the early stages of him being there, he was very unwilling to entertain the idea of some inclusion at the main school. However, when he had been there for a while, the concept had been introduced several times, until they arranged some 'taster' sessions for him, very low key, in preparation for some inclusion in Year 6. He has taken to this very well.
But the people at the unit are highly trained and highly skilled at helping these children to reach their potential. Most staff in most mainstream primaries simply do not have those skills, or the extent and depth of training. There is also not the opportunity for staff from a unit to go to the school repeatedly to help the school with the child, or for staff from the school to go to a unit more than about once. Having a unit on site is the only way of achieving this. Yet there are too few set up like this, and so many children must be falling by the wayside.
This must be especially true where parents are not able to express themselves and obtain the necessary provision for their child, or they may not realise or care that their child is experiencing such difficulties. With such a lack of special schools and units able to help children, headteachers are far less able to tell parents that their child would be better off at a particular school, and be certain that the school could take them.
In the greater part of Kent, there are no special schools, and no special units. Most seem to be in north Kent. This causes problems of travel for youngsters, even where transport can be provided by the LEA. Who wants their six-year-old to travel and hour and a half each way, every school day? Yet this may be what some children have to do.
Being in a class of 30 children must be daunting for many special needs children, and the low staff to pupil ratio is not helpful. Smaller class sizes would be an advantage, but most schools do not have the accommodation to achieve this, and obtaining funding for more staff would be a big fight for the head.
Something has to happen to improve the situation. The government has to be made aware that inclusion is not for everyone, and that far more children are unable to manage at mainstream school than there are places at special schools and units. Yes the child needs to learn to cope in the outside neurotypical world, but many of them need the right level of support from a suitably trained and skilled teacher or assistant to achieve this. There is not enough money going into schools for this to happen for everyone. There are not enough special schools and units for this to happen for everyone.
Thanks for your input K
I think that where it can work inclusion is good, but as you say it is not for everyone. Some children and some schools cannot cope. I know that some of the teachers work extremely hard to help children with special needs but in many schools these children are separated out and left in small groups with TAs. In any case school teachers usually have large classes and they have many other things to think about. Many of the SENCO teachers and the TAs seem overworked and simply cannot do everything. It is good that your child is in a unit attached to a school and I am pleased that it is working, but as you say there are not enough of these units.
I had heard that Kent is one of the worst areas as far as provision goes. Is it true that they were or still are refusing to issues 'Statements' for special needs children?
The only people who can make a difference is the parents. If we don't push the LEAs and the government they will fail our children but save a bit of cash.
Post a Comment