Inclusive education is a complex issue, with considerable resistance emerging from political, economic, cultural, and social structures in society. There is substantial support for inclusive education with activists, scholars, policymakers, and public officials showing their commitment to developing, promoting, and implementing inclusive education practices. It is not possible to capture the entirety of the debate; however, the aim here is to provide an overview of some of the central points. Please use this as an introduction, which, when combined with the list of suggested readings, provides you with substantial literature and points of reference to develop your own thinking.

Click here for part one of this series.

Support Provision for Disabled Learners

Support for disabled learners must be contextualised within the existing neoliberal agendas that plague the education system. Currently, education systems prioritise economic viability (Hazelkorn 2015), and competition is rife between learners as they attempt to achieve the highest grades (Verhaeghe 2014). This is deeply problematic for disabled people, as their inclusion within the education system (and the extent to which support is provided) is determined by how valuable the disabled learner is to the existing social structures within society. As Ball (2013, p.48) argues, “the school became in many respects an expression of humanity and a demarcation of the limits of humanity – who was and was not educable, of value, worth investing in”.

Slee (2019) provides a comprehensive analysis of how attempts to develop inclusive education are often undermined by an era that prioritises the exclusion of disabled learners. Support that should be available for learners is denied because educational institutions construct a system that holds the individual responsible for their participation within the classroom environment. To get support, the learner has to accept diagnostic tests and professional intervention (Harwood and Allan 2016). Support is provided on the basis that the student is unable to conform to the expectations of the existing education system, and that the purpose of support is to address the “additional” (otherwise understood as physical and cognitive) needs of the individual. This is significant because support is, thus, framed as a response to the student’s failure to conform to the existing practices of the educational institution. The provision of support becomes rooted in individual competency, rather than acknowledging that support forms part of a wider assessment to reorganise education and take account of the diversity within human existence and participation.

The extensive barriers encountered by disabled learners are well documented (Kendall 2016). It is argued that this will be further impacted by the onslaught of continued cuts to (local) government services, including education services (O’Hara 2014). In the assessment of barriers to accessing education, thought should be given to the mechanisms for examining and determining support levels for disabled learners. Literature highlights how the assessment procedures focus on performing specific tasks and an examination of medical conditions (Fuller, Bradley and Healey 2004). Again, this emphasises how the individual’s access to support is to participate in an education system that is designed by non-disabled people, for non-disabled learners. Nussbaum (2006, p.98) articulated it best, “[disabled people] remain an afterthought, after the basic institutions of society are already designed”.

Importance of International Human Rights

Disabled people’s rights to education are well documented under international law (read the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in particular: Article 24). The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has produced policy documentation for States to implement that would realise inclusive education (United Nations 2016). However, it is not uncommon for States to sign – possibly ratify – the convention but fail to deliver an inclusive education system. This draws attention to the disparity between what is articulated in human rights treaties and declarations, and what is implemented through policy-making. De Beco (2018) argues that it is possible to transition the ideas of inclusive education into practice but to do so requires a critique of political philosophy and the effect this has on key debates emanating from disability studies literature on inclusive education.

Whilst literature on inclusive education, and the sociology of disability more widely, is typically dominated by majority world scholars, literature from the global South draws attention to the persistent ambivalence towards developing inclusive education systems. Ngwena (2017), through his empirical research, illustrates a double discourse surrounding inclusive education. On the one hand, governments will attempt to show domestic commitment towards implementing the inclusive education approach, often through political rhetoric. This, however, leads to no real change because extensive policy practice continues with an exclusionary approach to disabled people accessing education.

Tools have been developed to understand how states are developing policy to realise the obligations outlined in international human rights frameworks. Priestley and Lawson (2015) introduced an online tool to map and analyse existing disability policies across Europe. This provides opportunities to critique and evaluate the progress made to design, develop, and implement inclusive practices throughout different areas of social policy – including education.

For inclusive education to become a reality, there is a need to consider how international human rights frameworks provide a conceptual basis to instigate a change in policy direction. A direction that moves away from exclusionary and isolating practices, and one that positions education as a matter of social justice. Disabled people, most notably children and young people, must be regarded as active voices in the policy-making process and should form part of the networks that influence the delivery and evaluation of education policy. Analysis of human rights legislation to realise inclusive education should not be at the expense of scrutinising social policy.

This completes Part Two of a three-part series on unpacking the current debates within inclusive education. Part Three will explore key arguments surrounding the purpose of education and the ways in which existing, exclusionary education systems can be resisted.

References

Ball, S. J. (2013) Foucault, Power, and Education. New York: Routledge.

de Beco, G. (2018) The right to inclusive education: why is there so much opposition to its implementation?. International Journal of Law in Context. 14(3), 396-415.

Fuller, M., Bradley, A. and Healey, M. (2004) “Incorporating Disabled Students within an Inclusive Higher Education Environment.” Disability and Society. 19(5), 455-468.

Harwood, V. and Allan, J. (2014) Psychopathology at School: Theorizing Mental Disorders in Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hazelkorn, E. (2015) Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-class Excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kendall, L. (2016) “Higher Education and Disability: Exploring Student Experiences.” Cogent Education. 3(1), 1-12.

Ngwena, C. G. (2013) Human Right to Inclusive Education: Exploring a Double Discourse of Inclusive Education Using South Africa as a Case Study. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. 31(4), 473-504.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

O’Hara, M. (2014) Austerity bites: a journey to the sharp end of cuts in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press.

Priestley, M. and Lawson, A. (2015) Mapping disability policies in Europe: Introducing the disability online tool of the commission (DOTCOM). ALTER – European Journal of Disability Research. 9(1), 75-78.

Slee, R. (2019) Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of inclusive Education. 23(9), 909-922.

United Nations. (2016) General Comment No 4 – Article 24: Right to inclusive education. Geneva: United Nations.

Verhaeghe, P (2014) What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based Society. Translated by J. Headley-Prôle. London: Scribe.

In 2018 ALLFIE’s then Director Tara Flood received a grant from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust to research inclusive education by visiting schools and government officials in Finland and Canada.

You can read or download the pdf report here.

Some parents of Disabled children have struggled to achieve the rights of their Disabled child particularly when it comes to inclusive education.

It is important that parents of Disabled children / children labelled with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) (the term used by families and parents for the purposes of this toolkit) participate in advancing the right of their children to be included in mainstream education.

This training toolkit is designed to enable Disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) to engage with parents. The toolkit will help DPOs train parents, enabling them to understand the principles of inclusive education, the Social Model of Disability and other important values that are empowering for parents, their children and for young people.

Partnership work with parents will help to pass on this experience to DPOs. This toolkit will achieve that by connecting DPOs with parents and forming close relationships that will enhance supporting the inclusive education rights of children and young people. We believe DPOs should become hubs of campaigning, innovation and action for Disabled children/young people with parents acting as allies to their children and young people. This also helps to ensure the legacy of the work of DPOs through the involvement of Disabled young people.

Parents as Allies toolkit 2019

Inclusive education is a complex issue, with considerable resistance emerging from political, economic, cultural, and social structures in society. There is substantial support for inclusive education with activists, scholars, policymakers, and public officials showing their commitment to developing, promoting, and implementing inclusive education practices. It is not possible to capture the entirety of the debate surrounding inclusive education; however, the aim here is to provide an overview of some of the central points. Please use this as an introduction, which, when combined with the list of suggested readings, provides you with substantial literature and points of reference to develop your own thinking on inclusive education.

Understanding Disability

The Disabled People’s Movement, which is closely aligned with the Inclusive Education Movement, challenges the traditional approach to understanding disability as a problem associated with the individual. The individualistic, and overtly medicalised, narrative proposes that a disabled person is marginalised and excluded on the basis of their body, impairment, health condition, and/or medical label. Activists and Disability Studies scholars have challenged this perspective by introducing the social model of disability. According to Barnes and Oliver (2010, p. 548), the social model places emphasis on “how far, and in what ways, society restricts [disabled people’s] opportunities to participate in mainstream economic and social activities rendering them more or less dependent”.

This perspective is important within the context of education, as it challenges the policy making process that promotes disability in medical terms. If such policy is not challenged then it reinforces service provision that is rooted in exclusion and institutionalisation. For this reason, disability becomes an inherently political issue. Concerns about power and politics lead to substantial questions with regard to how disabled people are positioned within society, how disabled people are supported within the community, and how the barriers encountered by the disabled people are addressed?

Barton (1988, p. 5) highlights the significance of politics within education policy, as it “is particularly applicable to those who would seek to raise the question of politics in relation to special education policy or practice. To do so is to raise doubts about the nature of your commitment and whether you have the proper interests of individuals with learning difficulties in view”.

Current education policy fails to engage with the significance of disability politics and, as a result, fails to capture the significance of inclusive education. Continuing with Barton (1998, p. 60), he provides a clear and concise approach to developing inclusive education by insisting “[it] is about the education of all children which necessitates serious changes, both in terms of society and its economic, social conditions and relations and in the schools of which they are part”.

With current policy far removed from implementing this approach within the current education systems, it comes as little surprise that questions remain as to whether disabled learners should be excluded from schools and placed in “special educational schools”. The failure of policy to engage with the politics of disability has led to debates prioritising the location of children labelled as having “special educational needs”. This comes at the expense of those who would rather design an education system that takes account of disabled people’s exclusion on the basis of how society is organised. 

The Problem with Special

The extensive labelling of disabled learners as having “special educational needs” is problematic. By adopting such labels, educational institutions and professionals associated with supporting disabled learners create the conditions in which disabled people are considered separate from those who conform and reflect normative values and practices. This process of othering is referenced extensively within the literature (Kumashiro 2000). There is little to be gained by referring to disabled people’s access requirements as “special”; furthermore, by positioning disabled people as different it reinforces a narrative to suggest there is a normal, expected way to behave, act, and exist within the education system. This means the barriers preventing disabled people from accessing education will lead to strategies and agendas that reinforce segregated initiatives.

Under the guise of “special” there is the potential to identify those that are considered imperfect, unruly, or disruptive to the functioning and operations of mainstream education systems. As Campbell (2009) suggests, disabled people who resist assimilating into normative practices and conformist expectations are subjected to diagnostic tools – typically as a way to justify their exclusion. This justification has led to calls that there is inclusive education bias within the UK (Runswick-Cole 2011), an argument that appears to be upheld by those across the political spectrum considering that little action has been taken to counter the argument. Within disabled people’s activism and Disability Studies, there has been notable resistance to this perspective. Warnock (2005) and Runswick-Cole (2011) draw attention to the persistent exclusionary approaches within the education system. This serves to undermine the argument that there is a bias towards inclusion but also draws attention to how disabled learners are problematised within the education system. If people are deemed “special” then they can also be deemed a problem.

As a final point on this, it is worthwhile considering the work of Beckett (2014) and Beckett and Buckner (2012). In their pursuit of exploring non-disabled children’s ideas about disability, they illustrate how disabled people are viewed as broken, faulty, problematic and undesirable. It also led to claims that disabled people are incompetent. Whilst the research makes no explicit reference to the impact of labelling disabled learners as having “special educational needs”, it is not surprising non-disabled children hold such views. Having an education system that challenges the idea of inclusion, and the provision of a separate system for those unable to conform to the expectations of the mainstream system, will undoubtedly lead to questions over the competency and value of disabled people.

Beckett and Buckner (2012) go on to suggest it is essential that an anti-disablist education is necessary if a fair, accessible, inclusive society is to be realised. Envisaging an anti-disablist education requires scrutiny of how all children are supported to learn and acquire knowledge; this, therefore, means challenging the label that some people are special.

This completes Part One of a three-part series on packing the current debates within inclusive education. Part Two explores support provision for disabled learners and considers the importance of international human rights in addressing barriers to inclusive education.

Barton, L. (1998) Sociology, disability studies and education. In The disability reader: Social science perspectives, ed. T. Shakespeare, 53-65. London: Cassell

Barton, L., ed. (1988) The politics of special educational needs. Lewes: Falmer

Beckett, A. (2014) Non-disabled children’s ideas about disability and disabled people, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35:6, 856-875

Beckett, A. and Buckner, L. (2012) Promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people: definition of, rationale and prospects for anti-disablist education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33:6, 873-891

Campbell, F. K. (2009) Contours of Ableism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Kumashiro, K.K. (2000) Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education, Review of Educational Research, 70:1, 25-53

Oliver, M. and Barnes, C. (2010) Disability studies, disabled people and the struggle for inclusion, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31:5, 547-560.

Runswick-Cole, K. (2011) Time to end the bias towards inclusive education?, British Journal of Special Education, 38:3, 112-119

Warnock, M. (2005) Special Education: a new look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain

The 2018 RIPSTARS project conducted research into how Education, Health and Care Plans are created and implemented. The project found that young Disabled people are often not involved in creating their Education, Health and Care Plans. They produced guidance for how professionals can change this.

You can read more about the project and the research findings here or download their guidelines for EHCPs here.

There is a strong presumption that a child or young person should be educated in a mainstream setting. This presumption is almost unqualified in relation to children and young people with SEN but without an EHC Plan, see section 34 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’)

For children and young people with EHC Plans, the starting point is section 39 of the 2014 Act. This requires the Local Authority (LA) to comply with most requests for a particular school or college to be named in Section I of the Plan [1], unless to do so would be unsuitable or incompatible with the efficient education of others or with the efficient use of resources. If these exceptions apply, the LA must then identify a school or college or type of school or college that is appropriate for the child or young person. The issue then has to be considered further under section 33. [2]

Section 33 [3] says that local authorities must name a mainstream school or mainstream post-16 institution in the Plan, unless that would be incompatible with either:

• The wishes of the child’s parents or young person, or;
• The provision of efficient education for others.

It is important to note that section 33 does not permit a local authority to refuse to name a mainstream school or college on cost grounds. This is discussed further below.

The ‘incompatibility with the provision of efficient education of others’ exception is a narrow exception, and it will be difficult for the LA to show that it applies:

• “Efficient education” doesn’t mean the gold standard of education. [4] The LA will have to show that the other children in the class would not receive a “a suitable, appropriate education in terms of their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have” (SEND Code of Practice, ‘COP’, para 9.79).
• “Incompatibility” is a high threshold. It is not enough for the LA to show that there would be some adverse effect on the efficient education of other children. Rather, the question is whether any adverse impact would be so great as to be incompatible with the provision of efficient education to other children in the class. [5]
• In addition, the LA cannot rely on the efficient education exception unless it can show that that there are no reasonable steps which could be taken to prevent the incompatibility. The COP lists a number of factors which can help to determine whether a particular step is reasonable, including the extent to which a step would be effective and practical, and how much it would cost (COP, para 9.91). [6]

It is important to note that the section 33 exceptions are the only exceptions which a local authority can rely on to refuse to educate a child or young person in a mainstream setting. If neither of those exceptions are engaged, the LA cannot refuse simply because:

• The LA believes that a mainstream school cannot meet a child’s SEN or that a particular school is not suitable. This is because if there are no suitable schools with available places already, whether inside or outside its area, the LA is under an absolute obligation to make a school suitable. [7]
• The LA thinks it would cost too much money. Unlike the provisions of the 2014 Act which deal with which school should be named in ECH plans, there is no exception to the section 33 presumption on the basis that mainstream education would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources.

It is also important to note section 35 of the 2014 Act, which requires that mainstream schools secure that children with SEN engage in ‘the activities of the school together with children who do not have special educational needs’, subject to certain exceptions.[8] Section 35 generally prevents children with SEN being segregated within mainstream schools.

How can human rights help?

Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, LAs must act compatibly with most of the rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’). [9]

These rights include the right to education (Article 2 of the First Protocol to the ECHR). It is important to note that A2P1 is framed negatively rather than positively – ‘no person shall be denied the right to education’. This means that, under A2P1, the LA cannot be required to provide a child with a particular type of education. However, the Supreme Court has suggested that failure to make adequate provision for a child with SEN, such that the child is unable to attend school for a considerable period of time, can amount to a breach of A2P1. [10]

In addition, Article 14 ECHR requires that children must be able to enjoy their Convention rights without being discriminated against, including on the grounds of disability. This means that LAs cannot adopt policies or make decisions which, without good reason, treat children with disabilities differently from children who are not disabled. For example, a blanket policy excluding disabled children from mainstream school would obviously amount to unlawful discrimination under Article 14, read with A2P1. In the case of Çam v. Turkey (Application no. 51500/08), the refusal to enrol a blind person in the Music Academy even though she had passed the examination violated Article 14 ECHR read with A2P1. The Turkish authorities had not attempted to identify the applicant’s needs or to explain how her blindness could have impeded her access to a musical education.

In other circumstances, Article 14 may require LAs to treat children with disabilities differently from other children, in order to properly accommodate their different needs. [11] This duty recognises, for example, that in order to effectively learn in a mainstream setting, children with SEN might require different, additional support to other children.

In deciding whether a particular decision or policy is discriminatory contrary to Article 14 or directly breaches the right to education in A2P1, the courts will also consider the rights contained in other international conventions. These include the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 24 of which requires the government to ensure that children with disabilities can access inclusive, quality and free education on an equal basis with others. The UK has qualified its ratification of Article 24 CRPD, to allow for the continued existence of special schools and to allow children to be placed outside their home communities. [12] ALLFIE is campaigning hard to press the government to remove these qualifications and implement Article 24 fully as written in the convention. However the qualifications do not undermine the basic right in Article 24 to an inclusive education for disabled children on an equal basis to other children.

What other duties does the LA owe towards my child?

LAs owe lots of other duties which are potentially relevant for children with SEN, including:

• The duty to promote the welfare of children, including children with SEN, when carrying out their educational functions (section 175 Education Act 2002)
• The non-discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010, including the duties in relation to reasonable adjustments (sections 20-21). The reasonable adjustments duty operates in parallel to the duty to take reasonable steps to remove any “incompatibility” under section 33, as discussed above.
• The duty to pay “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity for disabled children (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010).

Challenging a refusal to place a child in mainstream school

If the LA seeks to rely on section 33 in order to refuse your child a place at a mainstream school, the first thing you should do is push back. The efficient education exception is not meant to be invoked lightly, [13] and for the reasons set out above, LAs will have a high threshold to cross in order to show that it applies.

In particular:

• Remind the LA that section 33 is based on the assumption that, with the right support, children with SEN can and should be included in mainstream education – the LA’s focus should be on the progressive removal of barriers to learning and participation in mainstream education (COP, para 1.26).
• Remember that the lack of a suitable school, or the cost of providing a mainstream place, are not valid reasons for the LA to refuse to provide mainstream education under section 33.
• Don’t simply accept that mainstream education of your child would be incompatible with the efficient education of others. Instead, ask for a reasoned explanation as why the impact of doing so would be so adverse as to cross the incompatibility threshold. Ask the LA to show what ‘reasonable steps’ to remove the incompatibility have been considered.

If the LA still refuses to place your child in a mainstream school, there are a number of ways you can challenge that decision, including:

• If the child or young person has been issued with an EHC Plan or has had an annual review of their Plan, by bringing an appeal to SENDIST (the SEN and Disability Tribunal). In an appeal against the school or institution named in Section I, the Tribunal can order the LA to name a specific mainstream school and will decide for itself whether any of the exceptions in section 33 apply. Appeals to the Tribunal where parents are seeking a mainstream place will often succeed, because this is what the law favours.
• By bringing a claim for judicial review in the High Court, where the court can consider (for example) whether the LA’s refusal to educate the child or young person in a mainstream setting amounts to a breach of their human rights. This is particularly relevant where there is no right of appeal to the Tribunal. Specialist legal advice will be needed before bringing any claim for judicial review, not least because of the risk of having to pay the LA’s costs if the claim fails. Legal aid may be available to meet all costs and specialist solicitors can advise on this.
• By bringing a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010, which depending on the body which is said to have discriminated against the child or young person would be brought in either SENDIST or the county court. Issues of disability discrimination can also be raised in applications for judicial review.

If your child is in a mainstream school, you can rely on section 35 to challenge any segregation they may be experiencing within the school, although you will need to consider the various exceptions under section 35 which the school may rely on (see above).

For more information on these issues, see the following books: [14]

• Hannett, McColgan and Prochaska, Special educational needs and disability discrimination in schools (2017)
• Broach, Clements and Read, Disabled Children: A Legal Handbook (Second edition, 2016) [15]. A third edition of the Legal Handbook will be published in 2019.

Steve Broach is a barrister at Monckton Chambers, specialising in the law affecting disabled children and young people. He is co-author of Disabled Children: A Legal Handbook’

[1] Including all requests for maintained mainstream schools and academies.

[2] See ME v LB Southwark [2017] UKUT 73 (AAC) at para 9. See also para 12; ‘The terms of sections 33 and 39 show that section 39 should be considered first and section 33 only applies if the local authority does not accede to the parents’ request under section 39…’.

[3] This provision was previously found in section 316(3) of the Education Act 1996, and many of the cases decided under the EA 1996 are equally relevant to section 33 of the 2014 Act. Section 33 also applies if the parents or young person have not asked for a specific school or college.

[4] NA v Barnet LBC [2010] UKUT 180 (AAC), paras 33-34.

[5] R (Hampshire CC) v SENDIST [2009] EWHC 626 (Admin), paras 48 and 56-59. See also ME v Southwark at para 21; ‘It is not sufficient to show that attendance would have some impact. It is necessary to identify what that impact would be and then consider whether that would be incompatible.’

[6] The COP also gives useful examples of reasonable and unreasonable steps (paras 9.92-9.93).

[7] Harrow Council v AM [2013] UKUT 157 (AAC), para 27. In ME v Southwark, Judge Jacobs suggested that this obligation was still qualified by reference to incompatibility with the efficient education of others.

[8] Being issues of reasonable practicability, delivery of special educational provision, provision of efficient education for others and efficient use of resources.

[9] Although the European Court of Human Rights has noted that ‘The specific case of persons with disabilities has only rarely been raised before the Court’ in the context of the right to education. See Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, August 2018.

[10] A v Essex CC [2010] UKSC 33, esp. Lord Phillips at [91]-[92].

[11] Thlimmenos v Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 15.

[12] See here the analysis by ALLFIE at https://www.allfie.org.uk/campaigns/article-24/

[13] SEND COP, para 9.94.

[14] Upon which this briefing draws. Both books are published by Legal Action Group.

We’ve put together some lists of other organisations you may find useful if you are a

• Parent of a Disabled child,
• Education professional or education student,
• Disabled person or involved in a Disabled people’s organisation.

If you have any suggestions for organisations we should add to the list, please contact us.

The language of special educational needs can obscure the fact that most children with SEN fall under the protection from discrimination provided by the Equality Act 2010. ALLFIE recently produced this guide for Sec Ed magazine on what schools should be aware of. We will be adding to this information on our website in future so do stay tuned.

If you are interested in the law in this area, we carry a legal question in each edition of Inclusion Now magazine.

Thanks are due to Richard Rieser for contributing to the article. You can also read Richard’s blog post on discrimination and equality for SEN Jungle here.

“One of the big things here is that they [Disabled children] get a lot of interaction with people from around the school and that benefits those people as well because they’re becoming more tolerant, they’re understanding the needs of others much more. I just think it’s a much better way to run a school.”

Find out more about Eastlea in Inclusion Now 45 – read about our visit here.

You can also read an interview with the parents of Finn, a child at Eastlea, about their battle for a mainstream place for him.

Thank you to World of Inclusion for permission to use the video.

I am a teacher and an AAC practitioner. AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) refers to the use of low-tech, paper-based boards or high tech, computer-based programmes to help a person communicate.

Jane is 11 and starts secondary school next year. She has cerebral palsy and uses a communication book to talk. She attends her local mainstream junior school and everything was fine until national curriculum changes came into force in 2014. Teachers were concerned for all students because they were being asked to jump two years of learning with no lead-in time. Jane is not able to work at a pace to fill the gap and was already behind her peers in literacy, not because she has learning difficulties but because she has access difficulties. If you can’t hold a pen to write and you can’t rehearse phonics aloud you will take longer to acquire literacy, but it doesn’t mean you can’t. Jane has trouble concentrating, understandably, when you think about how much harder she has to work than her peers to achieve the same output. Sometimes she daydreams (don’t all kids!). The problem was how this was perceived. There was an assumption that she had plateaued and therefore had learning difficulties. Happily, I and a few other practitioners were asked to support Jane and her school and she is making progress daily.

Jason is 18 and has just completed a maths A level in which he gained an A*. Those of us who support him, his family and Jason himself are thrilled. He has cerebral palsy and uses an electric wheelchair and an electronic communication aid . Before he did his GCSEs we had to go to the exam boards to get them to agree to his way of working. They took some persuading to agree he could have 400% extra time and do each exam over 2 days.

Rory is 16 and studying for entry level GCSEs. Like the rest of the curriculum, the demands of these exams have increased. The same or similar guidance applies to these as to GCSEs but Rory’s access to writing has been a stumbling block. Rory has some speech and is considered to have severe learning difficulties. The guidance indicated he could not have someone scribe for him while he dictated his thoughts. Rory is great at speaking his answers, but if he has to write them down he freezes. This was explained to the exam boards. The board showed they can be flexible and Rory is allowed a scribe although it is not recommended in the guidelines.

Exam board guidelines are just that. They are not rules and they are not statutory requirements. The exam boards are doing the best they can to adhere to the 2010 Equality Act which requires them:

“to make reasonable adjustments where a candidate, who is disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, would be at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to someone who is not disabled. The awarding body is required to take reasonable steps to overcome that disadvantage.”

Exam boards need more knowledge and understanding of the needs of students with complex communication and learning needs, but are not hard-hearted. They can be negotiated with and every case is individual. We are looking for ways exam boards can enable students to use their specialist communication software for reading as well as writing. The important thing to remember is that all aspects of exam access are a matter of negotiation on the basis of individual needs and how the student normally works in the classroom.

Students should work in a way that is efficient for access and their individual needs from the moment they join secondary school. It is essential that students who have communication and movement difficulties can access learning materials in the same way as their non-disabled peers. They need worksheets and text books committed to their communication devices in the same way speech is supported by a communication device. Non-disabled peers can refer to their notes or their text books. An AAC user cannot do this unless these resources are on their AAC device.

Buying an off the shelf solution is not normally an option. Schools need to learn to develop adaptations to suit each individual student so that the student experiences a broad and balanced curriculum. Ease of access is paramount. This will often mean that the software the student needs to use for communication will also, at least some of the time, need to be used for their curriculum access. It will also require attention to how the student physically uses the software to minimise exertion. The ability to think is compromised when you struggle with a physical task. Some students can point to keyboards and screens but some might need the size of selections changing. Some might benefit from a key guard over a touch screen or keyboard to prevent miss-hits. For students with more complex movement needs, adapted joysticks, eye-gaze or the use of switches may be considered.

Word lists, which are often the main way the curriculum is managed, are useful but only as part of an overall picture where schools ensure students have access to a wide range of learning materials they can manipulate themselves in the same way as their non-disabled peers. A difficulty with word lists is that reliance on whole word reading and selecting detracts from a vital skill that all AAC users need – the ability to spell. If you cannot speak, the only way to say or write anything you want is to spell. Perfect spelling ability is not necessary. As long as you know the first one or two letters in a word then a good word prediction system will often provide the rest and speed up your writing. Exam boards currently accept the use of word prediction if it is a student’s normal way of working.

Teaching assistants need to reduce their support and increase the student’s independence. It is not sufficient for them to take notes into an ordinary exercise book on behalf of the student nor to read aloud to the student from a text book or worksheet. This creates dependence. There is an urgent need for more teachers to become familiar with AAC so that they can oversee the development of independent working. There is not one size that fits all so teachers need to get to know what is available that will meet their students’ needs.

Marion Stanton www.candleaac.com

Continue to the How Was School microsite.

“The assumption was you weren’t going to do GCSEs or O levels as they were then, or the old CSEs either, you shouldn’t aspire… I think it was an environment where you learned to become disabled.”

The British Library has archived this website in their UK Web Archive to preserve it for future generations.

Reading on our website

As well as the below reading, you can find a three part series on current debates on inclusion on our website, written by academic and ALLFIE trustee Dr Miro Griffiths.

Leading journals which include research conducted from a ‘Disability Studies in Education’ perspective

• International Journal of Inclusive Education. A wonderful resource. Important articles from around the world.

• British Journal of the Sociology of Education. In this journal, enter the search term ‘disability’ to find a large number of excellent articles, again from around the world. Follow this journal on Twitter @BJSocEd

• Disability & Society. In this journal, enter the search term ‘education’ to find a large number of excellent articles from around the world. You will also find here articles which consider disabled people’s experiences of education (their narratives). Follow this journal on Twitter @JDisSoc

Other journals you might search within

• British Journal of Special Education;
• British Journal of Learning Disabilities. Key search terms include ‘teachers’, ‘pupils’, ‘students’, ‘education’, ‘disability’, ‘disabilities’, ‘inclusive’, ‘inclusion’.

There will soon be an important new journal in this field. The Journal of Disability Studies in Education (JDSE), Editor-in-Chief Professor Roger Slee, will be an interdisciplinary journal focusing upon the experiences and outcomes of people with disabilities in education. DSE will focuses upon the overt and covert barriers to access to, and presence, participation and success in education for disabled people. JDSE will therefore examine the architecture and cultures of education across all sectors: early childhood education; elementary education; secondary education; higher education; vocational training and informal and alternative education provision. Watch out for calls for articles and special editions and do consider submitting your work to this exciting new venture.

A note about paywalls: sadly, so much academic work is not open access. Readers have to have a subscription to a journal or pay to read individual articles. We encourage students and researchers based at universities to ask their libraries to subscribe to the key journals in this field. All other readers, we recommend that you contact the authors of articles that interest you. You can find their email address via the website of the journal (under author details for each article). You do not need to pay for access to find this information. Many journals allow authors to share pre-print versions of their work with interested parties, free. This means that you can ask them whether they would be willing to send their final draft to you – many will be willing to do this as paywalls are a source of frustration within the academic community as well!

The Disability Archive at the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds contains many open access writings by researcher-activists and activist-researchers. At present this archive can be searched by author or key terms. Using the key term ‘education’ will result in a wealth of useful reading. Plans are afoot to renovate the Disability Archive at Leeds, improving its search facility and expanding its content. Please watch out for developments!

Key books

There are so many important books on Inclusive Education, it is impossible to list them all. Here are a selection, however, focusing on key authors, ‘classic’ texts, and important edited collections:

• Anat Greenstein’s ‘Radical Inclusive Education. Disability, Inclusion and Struggles for Liberation’, published in 2015 by Routledge. ISBN-10: 0415709253
• Felicity Armstrong, Derrick Armstrong and Len Barton’s Edited Collection ‘Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives’, published 2016 by Routledge. ISBN-10: 1138148482
• Fiona Hallett and Graham Hallett’s Edited Collection ‘Transforming The Role Of The Senco: Achieving The National Award For Sen Coordination’, published 2010 by Open University Press. ISBN-10: 0335242413
• Gary Thomas and Andrew Loxley’s ‘Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion’, 2^nd edition, published in 2007 by Open University Press. ISBN-10: 0335223710
• Gary Thomas and Mark Vaughan’s ‘Inclusive Education: readings and reflections’, published 2004 by Open University Press. ISBN-10: 0335207243
• Julia Allan and Roger Slee’s ‘Doing Inclusive Education Research (Studies in Inclusive Education)’, published in 2008 by Sense Publishers. ISBN-10: 9087904177 *This is an important book with chapters by many leading authors in Disability Studies in Education, in which they reflect on some of the challenges associated with researching in the area of inclusive education.
• Lani Florian and Margaret J. McLaughlin’s Edited Collection ‘Disability Classification in Education: Issues and Perspectives’, published in 2008 by Corwin. ISBN-10: 1412938775
• Lani Florian, Kristine Black-Hawkins and Martyn Rouse’s ‘Achievement and Inclusion in Schools’, published 2016 by Routledge. ISBN-10: 1138809012
• Len Barton and Felicity Armstrong’s Edited Collection ‘Policy, Experience and Change: Cross-Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education’, published 2009 by Springer. ISBN-10: 1402087314
• Len Barton’s Professorial Lecture
• Peter Clough and Len Barton’s Edited Collection ‘Articulating with Difficulty: Research Voices in Inclusive Education’, published 1998 by Sage. ISBN-10: 1853964107
• Roger Slee’s ‘The Irregular School. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education’, published 2010 by Routledge. ISBN-10: 0415479908

Extended reading list

• Allen, J. 1999: Actively Seeking Inclusion. Lewes: Taylor Francis Group.
• Allen, J. 2007:  Rethinking Inclusive Education: The Philosophers of Difference in Practice, Dordrecht: Springer  
• Alderson, P. and Goodey, C. 1998: Enabling Education: experiences in special and ordinary schools. London: The Tuffnel Press.
• Armstrong, F and Moore, M. 2004: Action Research for Inclusive Education: Changing Places, Changing Practices, Changing Minds, London: Routledge/Farmer.
• Barnes, C. 2007: Disability, Higher Education and the Inclusive Society, The British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28, (1): 135-145.
• Barton, L. (ed.) 1988: The Politics of Special Educational Needs. Lewes: Falmer.
• Barton, L. 2001: Disability, Education and Inclusion: Cross Cultural Issues and Dilemmas. In G. L. Albrecht et al. (eds) Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
• Barton, L. and Armstrong, F. 2007: (eds) Policy Experience and Change: Cross Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Beckett, A.E. 2009: Challenging disabling attitudes, building an inclusive society: considering the role of education in encouraging non-disabled children to develop positive attitudes towards disabled people, British Journal of Sociology of Education. 30 (3): 317-329.
• Beckett, A.E. and Buckner, L. 2012: Promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people: definition of, rationale and prospects for anti-disablist education, British Journal of Sociology of Education. 33 (6): 873-891.
• Beckett, A.E. 2013: Non-disabled children’s ideas about disability and disabled people, British Journal of Sociology of Education. 35 (6): 856-875.
• Beckett, A.E. 2013: Anti-oppressive Pedagogy and Disability: Possibilities and Challenges, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. 17 (1): 76-94.
• Bradley, J. et al. 1994: Students with Disabilities and/or Learning Difficulties in Further Education: A Review of the Research. Slough: National Federation for Educational Research.
• Christensen, C. and Rizvi, F. (eds) 1996: Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Cook, T. et al. 2001: Voices from Segregated Schooling; towards an inclusive education system, Disability and Society, 16 (2): 293-310.
• Corbett, J. 1996: Bad Mouthing: The Language of Special Needs. Lewes: Falmer.
• Corbett, J. 1998: Special Educational Needs in the Twentieth Century: A Cultural Analysis. London: Cassell.
• Corbett, J. 2001a: Supporting Inclusive Education – a connected pedagogy. London: Routledge.
• Corbett, J. 2001b: Teaching approaches which support inclusive education: a connective pedagogy. British journal of special education. 28 (2): 55-59.
• Dept. of Education & Dept. of Health. 2015: Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice 0-25 years. [Accessed 17.1.17]
• Dyson, A. 2001: Special needs in the twenty-first century: where we’ve been and where we’re going. British journal of special education. 28 (1): 27-28.
• Florian, L. (ed.) 2007: The Sage Handbook of Special Education, London: Sage.
• Florian, L. & Linklater, H. 2010: Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education: Using Inclusive Pedagogy to Enhance Teaching and Learning for All. Cambridge Journal of Education. 40 (4): 369-386.
• Frederickson, N, and Cline, T. 2002: Special Educational Needs, inclusion and Diversity: A Textbook, Buckingham: The Open University.
• French, S. (ed) 2006:  An Oral History of the Education of Visually Impaired People, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press.
• Fulcher, G. 1989: Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Education Policy and Disability. Lewes: Falmer.
• Fuller, M. et al. (eds) 2009: Improving Disabled Students’ Learning: Experiences and Outcomes, London: Routledge.
• Greenstein, A. 2013: Is this inclusion? Lessons from a very ‘special’ unit. International Journal of Inclusive Education.  18 (4): 379-391.
• Goodley, D. 2007: Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 11 (3): 317-334.
• Haines, S. and Ruebain, D. (eds) 2011: Education, Disability and Social Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.
• Hart, S. 1996: Beyond Special Needs: Enhancing Children’s Learning Through Innovative Thinking. London: Paul Chapman.
• Hodkinson, A. & Vickerman, P. 2009: Key issues in special educational needs and inclusion. London: Sage.
• Hornby, G. 2015: Inclusive education: development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education. 42 (3): 234-256.
• Jassi, A. 2013: Can I tell you about OCD?: a guide for friends, family, and professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley. (Part of a series about specific impairments, presented from the child’s perspective – other titles deal with dyslexia, stammering, ADHD, Asperger syndrome etc).
• Jenkinson, J. 1997: Mainstream or Special? Educating students with disabilities. London: Routledge.
• Jones, P. 2005: Inclusion: lessons from the children. British journal of special education. 32 (2): 60-65.
• Jones, P. 2014: Bringing insider perspectives into inclusive teacher learning: potentials and challenges for educational professionals. London: Routledge.
• Jordan, L. and Goodey, C. 1996: Human Rights and Social Change. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
• Lindsay, G. 2003: Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education. 30 (1): 3-12.
• Louchlan, F. & Grieg, S. 2015: Education inclusion in England: origins, perspectives and current directions. Support for Learning. 30 (1): 2-84.
• Madriaga, M., Goodley, D., Hodge, N. and Martin, N. 2008: Enabling transition into higher education for students with Asperger Syndrome. Project Report. Higher Education Academy. Available online (02/12.17)
• Mitchell, D. 2004: Special Educational Needs and inclusive Education: major themes in education. London: Routledge
• Mitchell, D. 2014: What really works in special and inclusive education: using evidence-based teaching strategies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
• Moore, M. and Slee, R. 2012: Disability studies, inclusive education and exclusion, in: Watson, N., Roulstone, A. and Thomas, C. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies. London: Routledge.
• Nind, M. et al, 2008: Inclusive Education: Diverse perspectives, London: David Fulton in association with the Open University.
• Norwich, B. 1994: Segregation and Inclusion: English LEA Statistics 1988-92. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
• Nutbrown, C. & Clough, P. 2006: Inclusion in the early years: critical analyses and enabling narratives. London: Sage.
• Oliver, M. 2000: Decoupling Education from the Economy in a Capitalist Society. (Available at: http://www.disability-archive.leeds.ac.uk/)
• OFSTED. 2004: Special educational needs and disability: towards inclusive schools. London: Ofsted.
• Parker, V. and Myers, L. 1996: The Disabled Student in Higher Education: funding matters, Critical Social Policy/ 44/45, Autumn, 193-201.
• Pantić, N. & Florian, L. 2015: Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education Inquiry. 6(3): 333-351.
• Power, E. 2010: Guerrilla Mum: surviving the special educational needs jungle. London: Jessica Kingsley.
• Rae, A. 1997: Bolton Data for Inclusion; survivors from the special school system. (Available at: http://www.disability-archive.leeds.ac.uk/)
• Review of Disability Studies 2005: Forum ‘Disability Studies Meets Special Education, Review of Disability Studies, 1 (3): 3-53. (Available at: http://www.rds.hawaii.edu/downloads/)
• Riddell, S. 1996: Theorising Special Educational Needs in a Changing Political Climate. In L. Barton (ed.) Disability and Society: emerging issues and insights. London: Longman.
• Riddell, S. and Brown, S. (eds) 1994: Special Educational Needs Policy in the 1990s: Warnock in the Market Place. London: Routledge.
• Riddell, S. et al. 2005: Disabled Students in Higher Education: Perspectives on widening access and changing policy. London: Routledge.
• Rieser, R. 2008: Implementing Inclusive Education: A Commonwealth Guide to Implementing Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
• Runswick-Cole, K. and Hodge, N. 2009: Needs or rights? A challenge to the discourse of special education. British Journal of Special Education. 36 (4): 198–203.
• Rustemier, S. and Vaughan, M. 2005: Segregation Trends – LEAs in England 2002-2004. Placement of pupils with statements in special schools and other segregated settings. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.
• Sandow, S. 1995: Whose Special Need: Some Perspectives of Special Educational Needs. London: Paul Chapman.
• Skrtic, T. (ed) 1995: Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education for Post Modernity. London: Teachers College Press.
• Thacker, J., Strudwick, D. and Babbedge, E. 2002: Educating children with emotional and behavioural difficulties: inclusive practice in mainstream schools. London: Routledge.
• Tomlinson, S. 1982: A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Tomlinson, S. (ed.) 1994: Education Reform and its Consequences. London: IPPR.
• Tomlinson, S 1995: Machine and Professional Bureaucracies: barriers to inclusive education. (Available at: http://www.disability-archive.leeds.ac.uk/)
• Tomlinson, S. 1996: Conflicts and Dilemmas for Professionals in Special Education. In C. Christensen and F. Rizvi (eds) Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Tomlinson, S. 2001: Education in a Post Welfare Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Thrupp, M. and Tomlinson, S. (eds) 2005: Education Policy and Social Justice, London: Routledge.
• Visser, J. and Upton, G. (eds) 1993: Special Education in Britain after Warnock. London: David Fulton.
• Vlachou, A. D. 1997: Struggles for Inclusive Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Wade, B. and Moore, M. 1993: Experiencing Special Education: What Young People with Special Education Needs Can Tell Us. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Warnock, M. 2005: Special Educational Needs: a new look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
• Whittaker, J. 2001: Segregated Special Schools Must Close. (Available at: http://www.disability-archive.leeds.ac.uk/)
• World Health Organisation/World Bank 2011: Education, chapter 7 in: World Report on Disability, Geneva: World Health Organisation. Chapter 7.
• UNESCO 1994: The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Education, Spain: The United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
• UNESCO 2005: Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All, Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO 2007: Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO/Oxford University Press.