Bolton Data for Inclusion

The Action Research Centre for Inclusion

(Sponsored by: The Barrow Cadbury Trust)

at

Bolton Institute.

Data No 44:

October 2004

Author(s):  

Joe Whittaker and Navin Kikabhai

Title: 

An Illusion of Inclusion: Exploring the gulf between educational rhetoric and practice.

Abstract:

This paper highlights the gulf between educational rhetoric and practice in relation to Inclusive Education.  In particular, we seek to draw attention by highlighting that what people say is not followed by what people will do.  Drawing upon research, a telephone survey of Local Education Authorities in the North West of England, the work draws attention to the comments and practices of how Authorities respond to individuals and families who are seeking mainstream access to local schools, responses that raise a number of concerns.

An Illusion of Inclusion: Exploring the gulf between educational rhetoric and practice

Joe Whittaker and Navin Kikabhai

Overview

        This paper, interspersed with reflective accounts, highlights the gulf between educational rhetoric and practice in relation to Inclusive Education.  In particular, the concern is not only with the percentage of disabled learners ‘statemented’ and being placed in segregated school or units remaining relatively unchanged, but with how the language of inclusion is being used to disguise the continued discrimination against disabled people.  Within this paper we seek to draw attention by highlighting that what people say is not followed by what people will do.  Drawing upon research, a telephone survey of Local Education Authorities in the North West of England, the work draws upon the comments and practices of how Authorities respond to individuals and families who are seeking mainstream access to local schools, responses that raise a number of concerns.

        Have you ever marvelled and wondered how an illusion is achieved, “How did they do that?” we often hear people say.  Since ancient times tricksters have used techniques to baffle their audiences, magicians were often accused of being witches, arrested, put on trial and then executed by hanging, burning or drowning.  When tricks were performed they would have often been practiced many times with techniques such as prestidigitation ‘sleight of hand’ or with equipment such as ‘egg bags’ (a cloth bag with a hidden pocket).  An interesting technique that developed is known as ‘misdirection’, which is used to take the audiences attention away from what the trickster is really doing.  There is a particular notion of this technique known as ‘space misdirection’ which involves getting your audience to look at a certain place so that the trickster can do something secretly in another place, this is sometimes done by using your eyes – looking at the left hand while doing something with your right hand – or making a noise or using an assistant or other people usually known as stooges or confederates who are ‘in on the act’.  Before stooges were initiated into the act they would have adhered to the magician’s charter which begins, ‘I (your name) promise never to tell anyone how to do any of the tricks even if….’.  Now that you know some of the secrets of the illusionists let us share with you an illusion of inclusion.

Consider for instance the system in which disabled children are placed, a system that is segregated from the mainstream, places known as special schools and units.  To return to our illusionist metaphor, we will construct a space deception, a ‘misdirection’ and we shall convince our audiences with lots of noise, ‘sleight of words’ about how these children couldn’t possibly be in mainstream.  We shall say that these children are better taught in discrete groups away from the rest of mainstream.  We shall even convince our audiences that their presence will adversely affect the learning of their peers and that they would better learn with adult surveillance preferably on a one-to-one.  We will recruit our stooges and confederates and delude them to be ‘in on the act’.  They will serve these segregated places with conviction and develop a repertoire of techniques – tricks of the trade – drawn in by the tricksters acclaim.  We shall write our charters and statements and draw children and their families in and convince them not to tell and act.  Before we know it, hey presto, the trick has been done leaving people wanting for more.  “How did they do that?” we hear some say, quite simply, it was while our attention was diverted!

The language of Inclusive Education has become an essential part of the educational vocabulary, which is only but a part of an illusion of inclusion.  However, many people who have been engaged in the struggle for inclusive education are increasingly aware of the way in which the language of inclusion is being used to disguise the continued discrimination against disabled people.  Inclusive education is a term that slips off the tongue and straight into a policy statement, and everyone is expected to applaud it.  Since the government has brought the language of inclusion into various educational arenas we find every local education authority and school will have an inclusion policy.  Work, presented here, draws upon research, a telephone survey in which the practice and reactions of Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were noted, responses that highlight the gulf between educational rhetoric and practice.  We want to encourage caution and engage with a critical scrutiny of its meaning and implementation in practice.  Such caution and concern arises from examples such as when a senior teacher in a college of further education commented that they now had a “fully inclusive college”, where all students were treated equally.  When we gave a sceptical look we were told that if we didn’t believe him we could go to the college and meet their “inclusion students”.  Such an example highlights the lack of understanding and difference between inclusion as rhetoric and inclusion as practice.

Over the years different governments have told us that we are moving towards ‘integration’, where disabled children and non-disabled children work together in the same school and where everyone has equal opportunities (DES, 1978).  Simultaneously, however, the same governments have stated that there will always be a need for some children to go to segregated special schools, and legislation was introduced to ensure this would happen (DfEE, 1997).  Given such a shift in legislation and language of inclusion, people could be forgiven for thinking that all disabled learners have a right to go to their local school, they would be wrong.  For many disabled learners continue to be denied a right to education in their local mainstream school.  In practice what has tended to happen is that children and their families who are seeking inclusion into their local mainstream school has only happened after a significant struggle with the statutory services, often at immeasurable personal costs to the individuals and their family.  Until very recently there were three conditions that prevented disabled children from going into mainstream school, that they had to prove that;

1.      Their Special Needs could be met in the mainstream school

2.      Their attendance in the mainstream school would not adversely affect the learning of other children, and

3.      Their placement within the mainstream school would not be an inefficient use of resources.

The 1981 Education Act introduced, described by many as the ‘integrationist charter’, the ‘Statement of Special Educational Needs’ (SEN).  The ‘Statement’ placed a formal obligation on LEAs to provide a written account of the child’s identified needs, the provision they would make to meet those needs and the school placement they would offer.  At the time of its introduction the ‘statement’ appeared to offer children and parents real consultation, greater access to mainstream education and more creative and comprehensive support.  However this ‘offer’, with strings attached, has proved to be a painful and laborious process in which many children continue to be categorised, labelled and segregated.  The ‘Statement’ has not opened doors to new and equal opportunities for disabled children but rather has served notice that the mainstream school doors remain firmly closed to a significant number of disabled children.

Significant numbers of learners with statements of special needs has continued to rise.  For example, in the years from 1999 to 2000 alone, the number of statements rose from 248,040 pupils to 252,860 (DfES, 2003).  Interestingly in 2003 the number had fallen to 250,550 however this illusionary deception can be partly attributed to a fall in the total number of pupils on roll for that particular year.  What is revealing is that this ‘fall’ continues to represent 3 per cent of the total number of learners on roll as it had since 1996 (DfES, 2001).  Much more concerning is that, in 2001, out of the estimated 258,200 learners 36 per cent (93,700) of children with statements continued to be segregated in special schools or units, this rose to 37 per cent (92650 out of 250,550) in 2003.  Even when children with a particular label are successfully supported in mainstream schools, the statementing process can create other categories and attach new labels to a new group of learners to ensure that the actual percentage of disabled children segregated from mainstream schools remains fairly consistent.  For example, from 1996 to 2003 the percentage of learners segregated from mainstream school ranged from 36.9% to 41.5% (DfES, 1997; DfES, 2003).

Labels on learners lead to an educational cul-de-sac.

The labels attached to learners can be many and varied like ‘spectrum’, ‘syndrome’, ‘complex’, ‘disorder’ or ‘challenging’, each can serve to justify a segregated special school place.  Even when the label changes the segregated special schools continue to adapt to meet the fashion for new labels.  For example, in the 1980s there were many segregated schools for children with the label such as ‘moderate learning difficulties’ (MLD).  When there was a shift towards placing children with the label of MLD into mainstream schools, this did not result in the closure of the segregated special schools only a change in its function.  The special school would receive children with new labels that emerged from the statementing process, like ‘complex learning difficulties’ or more fashionable labels like ‘Attention Deficit Disorder’ (ADD), or ‘Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’ (ADHD).  Documented in the annual school census it was noted by Ofsted (2001) that there were 1329 special schools identified in total.  ‘Severe Learning Difficulties’ and ‘Moderate Learning Difficulties’ schools were recorded as the most numerous with 340 and 320 schools respectively and ‘Delicate’ schools were least numerous with 12 (Ofsted, 2001).  To avoid suspicion about any change of function the special schools, continue to use names, which reflect a natural beauty of the countryside.  ‘The Elms’, ‘Woodside’, ‘Beech Tree House’, ‘Moorbrook’, ‘The Oaks’, typify the leafy names which attempt to serve as camouflage for their real purpose, which is to segregate large numbers of children from their own natural communities and local schools.  This statementing process is used by professionals to maintain the myth of ‘Special Needs’ and is used to ‘select out’ large numbers of children whose opportunities are denied or restricted.

It is often argued that labels and statements are needed to direct the appropriate resources and support to the particular learner.  This is indeed part of the distortion and legacy of a pernicious system, which is based upon a false premise, that it is the ‘individuals difficulty’ rather than the systems deficiencies, which prevent full and active participation of all individuals.  Interestingly too, it is important to recognise that the statementing process of a child or the attachment of a particular label is no guarantee that the appropriate support and resources will be provided for the child.  A student who had been assessed and statemented to receive a personal support for her needs recently raised this issue.  Each year from 1995 to 2000 during the student’s yearly review meeting she had been told that the mainstream school would provide her with an appropriate support.  After each year had passed she found herself in the same situation until finally she left the secondary school without ever having the support to which she was entitled (Kikabhai, 2003).

Appropriate support to access schooling should not be seen as ‘conditional’ or as an ‘optional extra’ or dependent on ‘good will’ or for ‘expert delivery only’.  Supports should be so effective and available that they are not seen or presented as ‘special’.  A ventilator, a signer, an interpreter, a personal assistant, voice recognition software, physical adaptations, accessible transport and toilet facilities, should be as available and central to places where people learn just as much as we take for granted such things as a pair of spectacles, a pen or a text book.

Segregated Special Schools have to close

        Whilst segregated special schools remain open there will always remain a pressure on local education authorities to justify their existence, ultimately by segregating children.  By using the statementing process children will be directed to places in those schools and many families will be conditioned into thinking that there is no alternative but segregation and a ‘special’ system.  Whilst current legislation continues to give head teachers the power to reject some children and offer the option of a ‘special segregated place’ we continue to isolate those individuals and fail to learn from them, they become scapegoats for an ineffective and damaging schooling system.  The practice and obsession of professionals to take individuals through more and more spurious assessment procedures engineered and constructed that direct children into ‘special support services’ can often be more expensive than the cost of the ineffective support the individual may or may not eventually get.

        Segregated special schooling can be a very profitable business, our local education authorities continue to invest large sums of money into segregated special services, which is as much to do with progressing professional careers rather than meeting the support requirements of the disabled person (Vlachou, 1997).  Sending a child away from their own home and local community to a residential segregated special school can cost an average of £40,000 per year, with costs of over £100,000 not unusual for extra ‘special’ segregated schools.  For a child to go to their local school with the necessary support would be a fraction of the cost.  Whilst we would argue that cost should not be the issue for effective and meaningful support it is bizarre for education authorities and head teachers to continue to deny disabled children the right to attend their local school on the grounds of insufficient funding, despite the change in legislation.  Ironically, we can work out a financial cost of sending a child to a school but we can never work out the loss to the child and his or her local community resulting from their forced removal.  Any system regardless of its ineffectiveness or the damage it may do to individuals will justify its existence, as long as there are significant levels of funding to be had and professional status to be gained (Pugach, 1987; Vlachou, 1997).  As noted elsewhere the segregated special school system also requires the continued construction and reconstruction of the child with ‘Special Educational Needs’ to ensure its continued existence (Solity, 1992).

No Equal Rights means No Inclusive Education.

        The most recent Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is a significant move towards anti-discriminatory legislation and campaigners have been successful in removing two of the three conditions, which have been used to prevent disabled children from going to mainstream schools.  However, disabled children still have to prove that their attendance at the mainstream school will not adversely affect the learning of other non-disabled children before they can gain admittance.  This caveat is still discrimination against a disabled child and cannot be tolerated; it has to be removed from the current legislation.

Special schools have become the 21^st Century gulags, where the collective fears about children who are seen as different is perpetuated and their segregation from other children is reconstructed as ‘special education’ in a ‘safe’ environment.  These children are in a very real sense ‘the disappeared’ whose segregation from childhood experiences and the potential for adult life is compelled by law.  If inclusive education has any meaning whatsoever it has to be supported by comprehensive human rights legislation that ends the discrimination of disabled children and adults.

Inclusive education cannot exist in a system that offers disabled people partial access, partial support, and partial rights.  The presence of ALL learners is only the first step in the eradication of irrational fears about difference – where in learning to value the contributions of others we can learn to know our own value.  Inclusion is not merely an educational issue.  It is a right to belong, to be involved, and to be a part of, to feel that your presence is valued and welcomed and that your contribution adds to the learning of others.  For disabled people to be denied access to these opportunities means that their human rights are being denied and from such a practice we diminish and impoverish our educational services and fail to recognise and aspire to a service befit for all.

As it has been inferred before, it is schools, colleges and universities that have learning difficulties because they are unwilling to learn from those they have locked out (Whittaker and Kenworthy, 1997).  Where they have not, they have quickly come to value the diversity of contributions, which demonstrates how this changes the narrow and limiting interpretation of education.  Teaching and learning involves a web of relationships involving different modes of interchange, a process of sharing and receiving nurtured by a sense of belonging, premised within a context of learning where the boundary between tutor and learner becomes interchangeable.  We have to learn different ways of being together and different ways of learning from each other.  Good relationships are central to good learning; when we connect with each other we are more likely to learn something new.  Relationships hold the key to more meaningful communication and different ways of understanding the world we all live in.

In an inclusive educational system much of what we have come to accept as ‘normal’ will have to change.  Bullying would not be tolerated as a necessary part of growing up, obsessive testing of children would be rendered pointless, grading systems and league tables would be recognised as oppressive, damaging and ineffective.  Segregation, isolation and rejection of learners would be replaced by learning in collaboration with peers and teachers, in learning environments where it is safe for people to make ‘mistakes’ and where diversity difference and justice are central to understanding and learning.

What follows is an account of the struggle of one particular family with a twelve-year-old son, living within one local educational authority in the North West of England.  Sadly a typical experience for many families with whom we have had contact.  Peter (not his real name) had been statemented as having ‘severe learning difficulties’ and was described as having challenging behaviour, it had been said that he was difficult to understand.  Peter attended a mainstream primary school for part of his school day and for another part of the day he was in a segregated special school designated for children with ‘severe learning difficulties’ and design-“hated” by Peter.  Although Peter experienced difficulties in being understood, his behaviour and comments made it clear he did not wish to be separated from his friends at the local primary school.  Often when the taxi arrived to ‘take’ him from his home Peter would park himself on the floor in the front room and refuse to move.  The struggle to ‘encourage’ him into the taxi with an impatient driver and escort proved to be a trauma for Peter and the whole family.

The struggle to get Peter into his local mainstream school eventually led to the Independent Special Educational Needs Tribunal.  Given that Peter had already demonstrated that he could participate with appropriate support in a mainstream school, given that both his parents were absolutely determined that he should have the educational opportunities and relationships in his local mainstream school alongside his non-disabled peers.  Given that the case presented by the local education authority was, in the view of the family members and friends, contradictory and bizarre, the decision of the Independent Tribunal went in favour of the local authority, which has become an expectation rather than a surprise for many who want a mainstream place when their child has been labelled as having ‘severe learning difficulties’.  Should we be surprised that the Tribunal have dropped the term ‘Independent’ since they are anything but ‘Independent’ (Crabtree and Whittaker, 1995), and are also referred to as the ‘Special Educational Needs Tribunal’ (SENT).  The parents were ‘SENT’ away again in a desperate situation, but still determined that Peter should go to mainstream school, with appropriate support.

It was at this point we asked ourselves which authority in the North West of England would support Peter to attend a local mainstream school, if his family were to move into another education authority.  Using a telephone survey we contacted twenty-two local education authorities in the North West (see Appendix 1).  With each local education authority we asked to speak with the ‘Statementing Officer’.  The intention was to speak with a person who would be familiar with current legislation and inclusive education in particular.  This was the text we used when we were put into contact with the Statementing Officer:

        The first telephone survey was conducted in August 2003 followed by a period of 6 months were the scenario was repeated.  Two supplementary questions were asked; how many children have moved from special schools in your authority to mainstream school? and do you have an Inclusion Policy?

Findings and Conclusion

        Given our introduction concerning the language of inclusion becoming part of the educational rhetoric; it is concerning that this language of inclusion is seldom followed by action that results in the taken for granted everyday experiences of attending a local mainstream school.  The research here highlights a diverse range of responses varying from a continual denial of the young person’s and families right to mainstream school to a proactive approach to supporting disabled children in mainstream schools.  Overall the LEAs have presented a confused understanding of inclusion as a philosophy and inclusion as a practice (see Appendix 2).  Whilst it was noted that authorities can and quite clearly do embrace the language of ‘inclusion’ little has been done to challenge the existing barriers to inclusion in practice.  It was expected practice that all LEAs have a Policy on Inclusive Education, yet it was revealing how two authorities stated that they did not.  Surprisingly one of these authorities also stated that in the first instance in August 2003 they had “a very proactive policy” (LEA 8) on inclusion and 6 months later responded by saying that they did not.  When authorities were asked about the number of children moving from special schools to mainstream a broad range of responses emerged.  The vast majority of LEAs commented that they did not have any transfer figures in addition to comments such as:

These responses reveal the gulf between educational rhetoric and practice, responses that reflect the disturbing myths and assumptions that are central to challenging embedded values in the education system, values that are based upon principles of separateness and exclusion.  Unfortunately, the response to our presentation of a 12 year old child labelled with ‘severe learning difficulties’ seeking mainstream access would result in the vast majority of authorities in this study unable to conceive of the possibility of Peter’s needs being met in a mainstream school, an experience that an increasing number of families could have expressed without confirmation from this study.  What families may not have known was the consistency of the negative attitudes within the LEAs in the North West.  Demonstrated through comments such as:

These responses raise questions as to the way in which LEAs are interpreting their policies and implementing their practices, are children labelled as having ‘SLD’ to become the ‘Ah but, surely you don’t mean them’?  Individuals whose separation is based upon difference, a difference that is negatively valued, justified by the actions and practices of segregated social systems.  These segregated practices are at the root of an irrational fear of difference, social systems of this type feed fears and insecurities maintaining damaging myths and assumptions.

Some of these responses, in this study, are far removed from the government’s current legislation on inclusion and are more reminiscent of the embedded deficit thinking that continues to locate the child’s impairment as the ‘problems’ rather than ineffective support strategies, responses such as:

        Whilst it may be argued that some authorities recognise that much work needs to be done in the area of inclusion, reflected in the following responses:

        However, as already stated, there are LEAs that continue to deny disabled learners a right to education in mainstream provision.  Yet one authority in the borough of London clearly advocated a policy of inclusion when presented with the same scenario:

        Whilst this is no panacea for inclusion there is a clear difference, miles apart, in educational rhetoric and practice between this response and those presented by the LEAs in the North West of England, which raises a number of serious concerns.  These noted responses from these LEAs illustrate the conflicting and contradictory approaches and practice that blatantly discriminate against young disabled learners.  Some LEAs respond directly to the statement and documentation often without any mention of the child and their stated preferences.  It was a typical response from authorities to accept documentation first rather than the young person and or families understanding.  Much of the documentation that attempts to describe a young persons support needs is often based upon a false notion that these needs remain static and are not subject to change over time.  On many occasions, whilst supporting families seeking mainstream provision we have witnessed the deluge of paper work that tells us nothing about the child’s needs in terms of how they could be supported in mainstream but rather how segregated provision and their needs, presented as being deficits, will be suited in ‘special’ provision.

It has been the case that parents seeking inclusion into mainstream provision have relocated to local authorities where schools have proactive approaches to supporting disabled children into mainstream settings.  Numerous families and disabled children have struggled through the maze of hostility, sometimes amounting to immeasurable personal cost in order for children to participate in non-segregated schools.  Recently at a panel meeting, involving the governors of the school, where one such family struggled for mainstream access, the head teacher justified the individual’s exclusion by claiming the interests of the community and the adverse effects on the learning of others.  What appears to be disturbing with this position is the head teacher claiming to represent the community, whilst living nowhere near the community for whom the school serves, nor had they a vision of supporting young disabled people, nor had they an understanding of the local authorities position in working towards promoting inclusion.  Interestingly the governors overturned the head teacher’s decision to exclude.

In this culture of rhetoric around the language of inclusion we all need to learn from the lessons of inclusion, young disabled people have a right to mainstream education, schools need to develop a sense of humility in their approaches to their vision, leadership, teaching and learning.  Authorities need to support their schools in their attempts to welcome all families from the community in which the schools serve, governments need to support their authorities in order to recognise the contributions of all its citizens, we have to be creative and think ‘outside’ the segregated box.  Segregated schools must close, in order to begin the challenge of eradicating the irrational fear of difference, for disabled children to learn with their non-disabled peers, to dispel the notion of ‘special’, to create a just and equitable system of education from which young people exit and enter on the cusp of adulthood with opportunities to exercise their rights and liberties, to challenge the institutional discrimination that many disabled people continue to experience, to enter and contribute to meaningful relationships and in order to adversely effect the learning of us all!

References

Crabtree,C and Whittaker, J. (1995) How Independent are the Independent Special Needs Tribunals?, [Online] Available: http://www.inclusion-boltondata.org.uk [2004 March 11].

Department for Education and Employment. (1997) Excellence for all children Meeting Special Educational Needs, London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Science. (1978) Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People (The Warnock Report), London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills. (2001) Statistics of Education: Special Educational Needs in England: January 2001, London: The Stationery Office.

HMSO. Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, London: The Stationery Office.

Kikabhai,N. (2003) Working Towards an Emancipatory Research Approach, Unpublished MRes Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London. [Online] Available: http://www.inclusion-boltondata.org.uk [2004 October 9].

Ofsted (2001) Performance Assessment And National Contextual Data (PANDA) for Special Schools, London: OfSTED.

Pugach, M. (1987) Teacher Education’s Empty Set: The Paradox of Preparing Teachers of Learning Disabilities. in FRANKLIN,M. (ed) (1987) Learning Disability: Dissenting Essays, Sussex: The Falmer Press.

Searle,C. (2001) An Exclusive Education: Race, Class and Exclusion in British Schools, London: Lawrence & Wishhart.

Solity,J. (1992) Special Education, London: Cassell.

Vlachou,A. (1997) Struggles for Inclusive Education, Buckingham: OUP.

Whittaker,J and Kenworthy, J. (1997) Does your College of Further Education have Learning Difficulties? [Online] Available: http://www.inclusion-boltondata.org.uk [2004 March 11].

Appendix 1

Local Education Authorities contacted:

Blackburn and Darwin

Blackpool

Bolton

Bury

Calderdale

Cheshire

Cumbria

Knowsley

Lancashire

Liverpool

Manchester

Oldham

Rochdale

Salford

Sefton

St. Helens

Stockport

Tameside

Trafford

Wigan

Warrington

Wirral

One London Authority

Appendix 2