How the language of SEND has devalued education

SEND stands for “special educational needs and disabilities.” It refers to a child or Young person’s ability to learn. This can include:

• Their behaviour when socialising, for example trying to make friends.
• Reading & writing
• Being able to understand information
• Concentration
• Physical ability

The term SEN originates from the 1978 Warnock report. Historically, there has been a lack of aspiration for Disabled pupils, and segregated schools were recommended as “treatment” for Disabled children and Young people, so the number of segregated schools and institutions increased. Mary Warnock led a committee, which in hindsight did not go far enough to introduce inclusive education but was the first to argue that education needed to take an integrative approach to education for Disabled children and Young people. That’s how the term SEN was born.

Prior to this, after World War two the 1944 Education Act was created. However, under this act many Disabled children and Young people were deemed “uneducable” and were under the NHS for educational “treatment”. This is in line with the Medical Model of Disability.

Mary Warnock also explained that education for Disabled children and Young people needed to consider their medical needs and to prepare them for future employment. Many of the recommendations from the Warnock report formed the basis of the 1981 Education Act. The Act was the foundation for the modern SEND system that we have today.

Some of the recommendations were:

• A specialist teacher in every school, who are now known as Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs)
• Teacher training courses to have a module on SEND
• Higher education institutions to publish policies regarding students with SEND.

As previously mentioned, the Warnock report received major criticism that it did not go far enough in developing an inclusive education system. However, as I mentioned earlier it became an integrative education system which still exists today. A 2020 Inclusion Now article stated that:

“Integrated ‘placements’ resulted in deeper isolation and continued segregation in mainstream settings for many Disabled learners.”

This isolation continues in the present day for Disabled children and Young people who attend mainstream school. The “D” for Disability in SEND was only introduced after the 2001 Disability Discrimination Amendment Act which brought Education fully under the Disability Discrimination Act and introduced Duty of Reasonable Adjustment into schools and colleges. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005, introduced the Duty to promote Disability Equality into education. This Act went further than the 2010 Equality Act in terms of promoting Disability Equality in the education system. The Equality Act also left the definition of Disability “undefined” which makes it difficult to have Disability equality as part of the education system. This lack of definition has also been emphasised in ALLFIE’s campaigning work for many years.

The next landmark piece of SEND legislation was the 2014 Children and Families Act, in which Education, Health, Care and Plans (EHCPs) replaced Statements of Need. EHCPs are for Disabled children and Young people under 25, with greater collaboration between Education, Health and Care service providers, so their needs could be met more efficiently.

However, at ALLFIE we know from our decades of campaigning work that successive SEND reforms have failed to deliver the inclusive education that Disabled children and Young people deserve. In fact, we think that the SEND label has devalued education for Disabled children and Young people. For example, PHD researcher Sharon Smith and ALLFIE Director Michelle Daley discuss in their article for Inclusion Now magazine how things have gone “backwards” for many Disabled children and Young people, who are being denied their right to mainstream education. The system is complicated and problematic for parents, children and Young people to navigate, especially in trying to get an EHCP plan. According to Sharon and Michelle’s article, EHCPs are too long and detailed, with language that is inaccessible for Disabled Young people.

As a result of this, many Disabled Young people are unable to take part in decision making about their education, which is a requirement of the EHCP process. This might also leave them with a lack of confidence about making decisions when they are adults. Research done by the Disability Policy Centre revealed that Disabled Young people perform worse off than their non-disabled peers at several levels during school. They leave school with “fewer opportunities”. Their research also showed that 65% of parents had to fight for their child’s EHCP, and in some local authorities 100% of pupils in Pupil Referral Units (PRU’s) had been diagnosed as having SEND. Many parents are also being pushed into seeking segregated education for their children and Young people. This also backs up what ALLFIE found during our research for the submission of the 2022 SEND review Green Paper.  ALLFIE said in the May 2022 edition of Inclusion Now:

“Due to the lack of reasonable adjustments that are being made for Disabled students in mainstream education, parents are having to choose segregated education for their children and Young people.”

The SEND system also causes issues for Disabled children and Young people in terms of their sense of identity. The SEN part of the legislation is rooted in a deficit model, focused on what Young people cannot do. It is a system that is based on the medical model and tends to focus on diagnosis only. As ALLFIE’s SEND review submission found in 2022, the SEND system doesn’t take an intersectional approach to education. Even though the “D” part of the SEND law is based on Disability Rights, this is not reflected in the SEND system.

Disabled children and Young people have multiple identities other than Disability, such as their race and gender. The SEND system doesn’t examine how the intersectional discrimination that pupils and students face, can affect their ability to access a mainstream education. As our SEND review submission said, EHCP’s and its assessment process “fail to view Disabled children and Young people in a holistic manner.”

When I was at mainstream school as a Disabled child and Young person, I felt like there was focus on what I couldn’t do academically, I could sense that I had to fit into what already existed with the curriculum. Especially in subjects such as Maths, Science and PE. There was no effort make the curriculum or school life inclusive. I also struggled to make friends with my non-Disabled peers because we as Disabled pupils at school felt isolated and distanced from them. These experiences really had a negative impact on my confidence as a Disabled Young person.

Similar experiences to this were also echoed in ALLFIE’s 2024 research about the educational experiences of Black/Global Majority Disabled pupils in mainstream education, and their parents within London.

So, what is the alternative to a system that very clearly keeps failing Disabled children and Young people? ALLFIE has campaigned for years for an inclusive education system underpinned by Article 24 of the UNCRPD with a human rights approach to education. This has been emphasised in our 2024 Manifesto.  The system further disables children and Young people. If education was more inclusive, and focused on liberation and empowerment, many Young Disabled people wouldn’t feel as if they are a problem that should be fixed.

Disabled activist and academic Miro Griffiths describes this perfectly when talking about discovering language that made him feel liberated as a Young Disabled person. When he first came into the Disabled People’s Movement, he used medical model language that referred to himself as “the problem”. Then, he spoke to more experienced activists who introduced him to the  Social Model of Disability, and language rooted in justice which set him on his journey to activism and leadership.

As the Disability Policy centre mentioned in their research, the 2014 SEND reforms had good intentions. However, at ALLFIE we see a SEND system that is broken and not fit for purpose. The language of SEND has not been helpful to Disabled children and Young people that are entitled to an inclusive education and an inclusive learning experience which should be on par with their non–disabled peers.

Disabled children and Young people’s needs should not be considered “special” which implies their educational needs are “favour”, and not a human right. The education system needs to do away with SEND language and replace it with inclusive language that liberates Disabled people. As Sharon Smith and Michelle Daley emphasise:

“The system should be delivering a service that intersects with the other departments which enables children and Young people to have a good education, having a happy childhood and fulfilled adult lives.” (How might Education, Health and Care plans (EHCPs) be improved?: Inclusion Now Magazine 68, 2024)

Language is a powerful tool that shapes human behaviours, as evidenced by its influence on policy and decision-making in SEND.  Policymakers need to realise the profound impact that the language and systems within SEND have on the lives of Disabled children and Young people. University College London (UCL) captured this sentiment well in their 2023 inclusive language toolkit. They assert:

“Language is powerful. It can help people feel valued and included or dismissed and excluded. It can destigmatise, enable respectful relationships, and build trust.” (Using inclusive language in education: UCL 2023)

At ALLFIE, our campaign demands that those working in SEND provisions and services address the critical issue of systemic inequalities. We need a radical shift to end the oppressive systems and offensive language that disproportionately harms Disabled people and people from marginalised communities. Education for Disabled children and Young people must not be recognised as “special” but as their rightful entitlement, ensuring every pupil and student receives the respect and support needed for an inclusive education.