World of Inclusion – Richard Rieser

UN 70 years towards developing inclusion for disabled people
June 8, 2018 by Richard Rieser
historyinfographic

Category: News
World of Inclusion Ltd response to United Kingdom response to list of issues and report to UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Committee for forthcoming scrutiny on 23rd and 24th August 2017.
June 5, 2018 by Richard Rieser
1. World of Inclusion Ltd is a not for profit consultancy based in the United Kingdom with the aim of supporting the development of an inclusive system for disabled children and young people in the UK and around the world. We operate from a social model perspective and are run by disabled people. We provide research, training, resources and advice on developing an inclusive education system. Our CEO Richard Rieser represented the UK Disabled People’s Movement at the Ad Hoc Committee that drew up the Convention and played a leading role in framing Article 24. More recently, World of Inclusion Ltd made presentations to the 2 drafts of CRPD General Comment No 4 on Article 24 and made an oral presentation at the General Day of Discussion.

2. We are of the view that the UK and in particular the English education system has gone into reverse on pursuing the goal of Inclusive Education for disabled children and students since 2006 and more specifically since the election of the Coalition Government in 2010 and the Conservative Government in 2015.

3. Article 8 Awareness Raising as it should impact on Schools and colleges.
The Revised National Curriculum 2013 Citizenship was a good chance to raise awareness in English Schools, but the Secretary of State chose not to explicitly mention disabled people of disability rights . The only mention relevant is that ‘pupils should be taught about human rights and international law’. Neither does the citizenship curriculum (1)make any reference to the Equalities Act 2010 and the Public Sector Duty on all publicly funded schools to promote equality for those with protected characteristics. Schools represent more than half the public bodies this duty applies to.
“ In summary, those subject to the equality duty must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to:
• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
These are sometimes referred to as the three aims or arms of the general equality duty. The Act explains that having due regard for advancing equality involves:
• Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics.
• Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people.”
• Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.” (2)

4. There is little evidence that schools are in any regular or systematic way promoting disability equality for disabled students and children or complying with Article 8 2b “b) Fostering at all levels of the education system, including in all children from an early age, an attitude of respect for the rights of persons with disabilities;” In is response to the list of issues the UK Government’s only reference is to state that “resources are available to raise disability awareness” (para. 39).

5. No requirement is explicitly placed on schools by the state party, neither is it mentioned anywhere in the revised National Curriculum and nor does the English Schools Inspection agency OFSTED ask to see or record any evidence in this area. See OFSTED Common Inspection Framework(3) . Unlike earlier Statutory guidance that explicitly mentioned bullying this has now been removed in the interests of streamlining. This is most unfortunate.

6. The School Inspection Handbook’ for the new OFSTED Framework (commencing September 2012) included the following guidance regarding judgements of ‘Behaviour and Safety’. This was replaced in 2015 and Inspections no longer have the focus below:
• “Inspectors should consider:
types, rates and patterns of bullying and the effectiveness of the school’s actions to prevent and tackle all forms of bullying and harassment – this includes cyber-bullying and prejudice-based bullying related to special educational need, sexual orientation, sex, race, religion and belief, gender reassignment or disability;
• the effectiveness of the school’s actions to prevent and tackle discriminatory and derogatory language – this includes homophobic and racist language, and language that is derogatory about disabled people;
• pupils’ respect for, courtesy and good manners towards each other and adults, and pride in themselves and their school;
• the views expressed by pupils, and different groups of pupils, of their experiences of others’ behaviour and attitudes towards them;
• the views of parents and carers, staff, governors and others
• the extent to which pupils are able to understand and respond to risk
• overall and persistent absence and attendance rates for different groups.” (4)

7. The negative impact of this approach is that bullying of disabled children and young people is at a higher level in English schools than for other minority groups. This as research has shown has a life-long negative impact on life chances and mental health ,(5 & 6) .

8. Evidence. Primary school pupils with special educational needs are twice as likely as other children to suffer from persistent bullying. At age 7, 12% of children with special needs and 11% of those with a statement said they were bullied ‘all of the time’ by other pupils, compared to just 6% of their non-disabled peers. (Institute of Education 2014)
• Fifteen-year-olds with statements of special educational needs were significantly more likely to be frequent victims of threats or acts of physical violence and theft, even when other factors that increase the risk of bullying were taken into account. They were also more likely to be excluded by a group of schoolmates or called names – a form of victimisation that is often referred to as “relational bullying”. (Institute of Education 2014)
• 83% (or roughly eight out of ten) of young people with learning difficulties reported experiencing bullying (Luciano and Savage 2007, and Mencap 2007)
• 82% of young people who are disfluent (those with a stammer), 59% of them at least once a week, and 91% by namecalling have experienced bullying (Mooney and Smith 1995)
• 70% of children with autistic spectrum disorders combined with other characteristics (for example, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have experienced bullying (Bejerot and Mortberg 2009)
• Young people with speech difficulties are three times more likely to be bullied than their peers (Savage 2005)
• 30 per cent of children with reading difficulties (Sweeting and West 2001)56% of children with a learning disability said they cried because of bullying, and 33% hid away in their bedroom. Nearly half of children with a learning disability had been bullied for over a year, and many were bullied for even longer. (Mencap 2007 – Bullying wrecks lives: the experiences of children and young people with a learning disability)
• Children and young people receiving special education services in schools were more likely to report receiving an online interpersonal victimization in the past year, even after adjusting for other explanatory factors. (Wells, M. and Mitchell, K.J. 2013)
• Over 90% of parents of children with Asperger Syndrome reported that their child had been bullied in the previous 12 months.(L. Little, ‘Middle-Class Mothers’ Perceptions of Peer and Sibling Victimisation among Children with Asperger’s Syndrome and Non-Verbal Learning Disorders’ – 2002 – 25(1) Issues in Comprehensive Paediatric Nursing pp. 43 – 57.)
• There is a growing evidence base linking bullying to mental health problems which has changed both government and societal attitudes to bullying. Findings showed that 61.5 per cent of participants reported being bullied, with 62.5 per cent of bullied participants reporting that being bullied was an important reason for their attendance at the CAMH service. (Dyer, K. and Teggart, T. 2007 Bullying experiences of child and adolescent mental health service-users: a pilot survey. Child Care in Practice, vol.13, no.4 Oct. pp351-365)
• Children bullied during their early years are up to three times more likely to self harm than their classmates when they reach adolescence. It found that half of 12-year-olds who harm themselves were frequently bullied. The research also showed that victimised children with mental health problems were at greater risk of self-harming in later life. The authors suggest that efforts should focus on improving the ways in which children cope with emotional distress. They also call for more effective programmes to prevent bullying in schools. (Bullying victimisation and risk of self harm in early adolescence: longitudinal cohort study Helen L Fisher and others. BMJ Online, 26 April 2011) (7)

9. The UK Government has been financially supporting the Anti-Bullying Alliance to develop work in schools to challenge disabilist bullying and name calling . However its lack of a robust approach to bullying in schools and colleges is likely to be a breach of its duties under Article 15.

Article 24.
10. The UK Government reservation allowing education outside their local community and to have a choice of mainstream and special schools, is in light of General Comment No 4 no longer a viable option for the UK Governments interpretation of Article 24.(UK Gove response to issues 103) Furthermore it is leading to many human rights abuses.

11. In paragraph 230 of the UK Government report it is stated ‘Disabled people in the UK have the right to education on an equal basis with non-disabled people’. Changes in the Law for England enacted in the 2014 Children and Families Act have encouraged new barriers for schools, especially Academies who are their own admission authorities, to refuse to admit disabled children to mainstream schools. Section 33 states “the local authority must secure that the plan provides for the child or young person to be educated in a maintained nursery school, mainstream school or mainstream post-16 institution, unless that is incompatible with— (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or the young person, or (b) the provision of efficient education for others”. The law is ambiguous and this is leading to increasing numbers of mainstream schools refusing to admit children on the basis ‘that they cannot meet need’.

12. But Section 35 of the Children and Families Act states “Children with SEN in maintained nurseries and mainstream schools
(1) This section applies where a child with special educational needs is being educated in a maintained nursery school or a mainstream school.
(2) Those concerned with making special educational provision for the child must secure that the child engages in the activities of the school together with children who do not have special educational needs, subject to subsection (3).
(3) Subsection (2) applies only so far as is reasonably practicable and is compatible with— (a) the child receiving the special educational provision called for by his or her special educational needs, (b) the provision of efficient education for the children with whom he or she will be educated, and (c) the efficient use of resources”. This is what the Government means by statutory limitations. During the drafting of this Law many DPOs and NGOs pointed out that this legislation needed amending to be in line with Article 24, but the Government refused steadfastly to move on this question (Government Issues response 104)

13. These extra caveats and increasing pressure on mainstream schools to improve normative test results is leading to an unprecedented growth is special school numbers in England as more mainstream schools are refusing to admit disabled children. The population of maintained special schools has gone from 87,010 in 2007 to 105,365 in 2016 (9) . In addition to this increase in the use of segregated education. Add to this the number of children with an SEN statement or a new Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) in independent schools has risen over the same period from 7,760 to 13,500. This is a definite trend away from mainstream in terms of placement.
14. Recently a report into the way children and young people with high learning level learning needs (including those on the autistic spectrum) have shown there is no room for complacency and a significant number of young people are a being placed in Assessment and Treatment Units hundreds of miles from home out of touch with their families with no access to education. This degrading and inhuman treatment is a direct result of the failure of our mainstream school system to accommodate them.(10) A further report on education directly is now overdue.

15. A disproportionate number of disabled children and young people are prevented from what is offered to other students because they are either excluded on a fixed term or permanently. Recent statistics show that the majority of such fixed term exclusions are for minor and repeated behavioural infractions and that the largest number are those with Social, emotional and mental Health impairments (1.84% permanently and 43.23% fixed term). There is little enforcement of the right to reasonable accommodation where their impairment impacts on their behaviour.(11)

16. These statistics are divided into permanent exclusion and fixed term exclusion. There is a high disproportionate number of disabled children and young people excluded in both categories. It needs to be remembered that schools in England spend an extra £600O P.A. for those on school support and those with an EHC Plan or Statement access Higher needs funding above this amount. Yet schools do not in the main appear able to make the reasonable accommodations such as anger management, peer support, buddies and behaviour support to keep these students in school and allow them to thrive. So primary age pupils in mainstream with school support are 18.6 times more likely to be excluded on a fixed term than a pupil without SEN and 33x more if they have an EHCPlan or Statement. With teenage behaviour the level of exclusion goes up for the whole cohort, but secondary mainstream students with SEN support are 4.13x more likely to be excluded than those with no SEN and those with an EHC Plan or statement are 4.13 times as likely to be excluded fixed term in 2015/2016 in English schools.

17. This does not fit the picture the UK Government give in their response to the list of issues (10).Despite there being an equality duty on schools to promote disability equality in all they do (Equality Act 2010),there are many instances of schools failing in these duties. We notice very little emphasis in the SEND Code of Practice or in Government initiatives to develop this increasing capacity. In fact in recent years, a large increase in numbers of parents seeking special schools in would suggest a reduction in capacity to meet the needs of disabled children.

18. The Statutory Inclusion guidance was dropped in September 2014 and has not been replaced. The Government is increasing the provision for special schools and not encouraging good inclusive practice in mainstream schools. This is despite them introducing the
Interpretative Declaration when they adopted the UNCRPD in 2009.
“Education – Convention Article 24 Clause 2 (a) and (b)
The United Kingdom Government is committed to continuing to develop an inclusive system where parents of disabled children have increasing access to mainstream schools and staff, which have the capacity to meet the needs of disabled children. The General Education System in the United Kingdom includes mainstream and special schools, which the UK Government understands is allowed under the Convention.”

19. The Government is also signed up to the Sustainable Development Goals, with No.4 specifically being the development of an inclusive, quality education system for all. Despite recommendations from an independent report to increase the initial teacher training on SEN and Inclusion in 2015 there has so far been no increase in requirements beyond a day or half a day in the various rotes that lead to Qualified Teacher Status. In Response the Carter Inquiry (12) into Initial Teacher Training made recommendations in 2016 which the Government accepted, but as non-statutory guidance . This does not fit the vague response to issue f (para 113). So not enforceable on the multiple providers. This is still likely lead to teachers being unprepared. In other words they were not prepared to introduce statutory standards. The areas recommended were:-
• Developing behaviour management content for initial teacher training
• A framework of core content for initial teacher training
• National standards for school-based initial teacher training mentors.

20. The Scottish Universities in contrast have developed an excellent training framework based on inclusion for all beginner teachers and adopted by the devolved administration.(13)

21. The main problem is that the SEND reforms are not a leading part of the Government’s education changes. Its policies all militate against the inclusion of children and young people and those with special educational needs. These include the push for more selection with grammar schools; setting up more free schools, especially special schools; the reduction in real funding and reorganisation of funding to one national formula; the introduction of a new knowledge based, narrower curriculum; more testing of our children; the abolition of national curriculum levels and the loss of parental control through the replacement of governors with proprietors of academy chains.

22. Equality Act and disability
To have rights under the disability part of the Equality Act, a child or young person needs to have a physical or mental impairment (loss of function) that has a substantial (more than minor or trivial) long term impact on their ability to carry out day to day activities (for 12 months or more, or likely to last 12 months or more).
To be recognised by the school as disabled, the child does not need a medical diagnosis. The school can be told by the parents or surmise this for themselves. Thus, if the school has placed a child/young person on SEN Support, it is very likely that the definition will apply to them. It is also likely to apply to young people with medical needs and mental health issues who are not on SEN support.
As soon as the school is informed, they have a duty to make individual reasonable adjustments including providing auxiliary aids and support for those who count as disabled. However, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is an anticipatory duty.

23. This means that before knowing about an individual, they have to adjust their policies, provision, criteria and practices to not put disabled people at a substantial disadvantage and take steps to meet the likely needs of disabled learners. Governing bodies or the proprietor are under this duty. Policies, criteria, provision and practices need to take account of the need to make reasonable adjustments. For example, for admissions, exclusions, sports activities, school activities and trips, lunch time/after school activities and access to learning, should have been regularly reviewed and adjusted so as not to place disabled people at substantial detriment. The school is also under a duty to not discriminate directly, indirectly or on the basis of issues arising from disability, and to eliminate bullying and harassment. Disabled children and young people experience the highest level of bullying and harassment in our schools. The Anti Bullying Alliance focuses on this, but unless school staff and students take ownership of zero bullying, not much will change. He Government does not provide clear advice, training or guidance on these duties so they are largely acknowledged in their default.

24. The UK Government states in para. 110 of their response to the list of issues that young people without an EHC Plan must be educated in mainstream schools in most circumstances. This presumption of inclusion is being weakened by the setting up of 69 new free special schools and academies that are segregated schools and have the right to admit students without an EHC Plan if their parents agree. This not a right that other parents have for maintained special schools-some 1250 in England. It also means that disabled students admitted under these arrangements will not have the right to annual review and scrutiny.

25. In para. 113 of their response the UK Government state that Disability Awareness is available to teachers. As a leading training provider of Disability Equality and Inclusion Training for school staffs, World of Inclusion find that schools and their leaders no longer prioritise this type of training. This compares to our previous organisation Disability Equality in Education, which between 2000 and 2008, provided highly evaluated training to 150,000 teachers and other educational professionals. Independent evaluations by Oxford Brookes University demonstrated that this training changes attitudes and practices for 60% of participants. The training was based on a Social model approach in line with the UNCRPD, which the Government says is subscribes to, but there is little evidence of this in the Department for Education edicts, SEND Code of Practice or legislation. Until such training is reintroduced it is unlikely that the vast majority of schools will take seriously their responsibilities on disability equality or inclusion.

26. If there are breaches in the current Equality Act or presumption of inclusion it is left to individual parents or the affected young person to apply to the SEN Disability Tribunal for redress. There is no statutory body that oversees schools on implementation such as school inspectors – OFSTED should.

27. OFSTED have a responsibility for ensuring ALL schools England have an up to date Access Plan under the Equality Act ,2010 Section, Schedule 10.(14)

“1)The responsible body of a school in England and Wales must prepare—
(a)an accessibility plan;
(b)further such plans at such times as may be prescribed.
(2)An accessibility plan is a plan for, over a prescribed period—
(a)increasing the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the school’s curriculum,
(b)improving the physical environment of the school for the purpose of increasing the extent to which disabled pupils are able to take advantage of education and benefits, facilities or services provided or offered by the school, and
(c)improving the delivery to disabled pupils of information which is readily accessible to pupils who are not disabled.”

28. The problem with this legislation is that there is no separate funding stream to schools from Government to implement this plan, it is not monitored and there is no end date when all schools have to meet access standards. Only new schools and refurbished schools have to meet access standard. There is also no end date for when schools have to be accessible. Lack of physical access is regularly used as an excuse to keep disabled students out of the school. This appears to be a breach of Article 9 Accessibility and the right to temporary adjustments until the necessary structural changes have been made.

29. The UK Government also maintains Medical Standard to Teach , Fitness to Teach which discriminate against disabled teachers on a regular basis (15). They have previously been to by the Disability Rights Commission to change to a competency standards approach, but refused. The Scottish Government did adopt this approach and have found it to work well. The UK Government should not continue to use a medical model restriction to teaching. Not least to get a range of disabled role models amongst teacher. Because of the lack of support from Government for competency standards, there is a continuing problem with School managements unfairly treating disabled teachers leading to their dismissal on capability procedures which do not allow for reasonable accommodations. (16)

Richard Rieser CEO World of Inclusion rlrieser@gmail.com 23rd July 2017

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-citizenship-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-citizenship-programmes-of-study-for-key-stages-3-and-4
2. Equality and Human Rights Commissionhttps://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-equality-duty
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-inspection-framework-education-skills-and-early-years-from-september-2015
4. http://www.abqm-uk.com/ofsted/4556843113
5. https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachment/bullying-and-disability.pdf
6. https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachment/Mental-health-and-bullying-module-FINAL.pdf
7. https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/tools-information/all-about-bullying/sen-disability/what-does-research-say
8. https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/tools-information/all-about-bullying/sen-disability/disablism-class
9. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england-january-2016
10. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585376/Lenehan_Review_Report.pdf Lenehan review into care of children with learning disabilities
11. Statistical First Release https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england-2015-to-2016 Jul 2017
12. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-review-of-initial-teacher-training
13. https://pure.strath.ac.uk/portal/files/43889675/Barrett_etal_PCE2015_developing_inclusive_practice_in_scotland.pdf
14. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/10
15. https://www.swhwcornwall.co.uk/documents/managers/Fitness%20to%20Teach.pdf
16. http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/DRC-Maintaining-Standards-Summary-Report.pdf

World of Inclusion Ltd response to United Kingdom and report to UNCRPD Committee for forthcoming scrutiny on 23rd and 24th August 2017

Category: Projects – UK
Developing an Inclusive Education Policy in the Labour Party
May 23, 2018 by Richard Rieser
Developing an Inclusive Education Policy in the Labour Party Richard Rieser www.worldofinclusion.com
The 2017 Manifesto committed to developing a National Education Service based on inclusivity. The Labour Party Consultation Document ‘Early Years, Education and Training’, currently (April-June 2018) out for members and wider views, is silent on the Inclusive Education issue. The 2017 Manifesto further stated “ we will deliver a strategy for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) based on inclusivity, and embed SEND more substantially into training for teachers and non-teaching staff, so that staff, children and their parents are properly supported”. This is again not mentioned in the Consultation Document. The Manifesto also committed to signing into UK Law the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This means developing an Inclusive Education System and removing the current reservations, interpretations and obstacles to implementation of Article 24 –Education. The Labour Party is also committed to a Social Model approach to disability and in education this means developing inclusion.
There is considerable evidence from research in the UK and around the world that including disabled children and young people with the full range of impairments is successful, particularly where well planned, funded and staff are well trained . I have been observing and filming inclusion working across the UK and beyond for the last 30 years and I have witnessed children with multiple impairments being successfully included . It boils down to attitudes and where there is a ‘can do’ attitude it can happen in all sorts of environments. But even where this does not occur, disabled students do better academically than those segregated into special schools. This is the case for those with cognitive and social emotional and mental health impairments, as well as those with physical and sensory impairments. From 1997 to around 2004-2006 the Labour Government had a policy of Inclusive Education but they did not defend it and allowed it to be undercut. The pressures of the Tories, Standards Agenda, reduction in central support teams, high stakes testing and the wish from special schools to expand, all undercut the policy and the Labour Party did not know how to develop and defend it. This must not happen again. See graph below.

The Coalition and Tory Governments had a commitment to end the ‘bias to inclusive education’ and a moratorium on special school closures. Although the Children and Families Act 2014 (Part 3) reaffirmed the presumption of mainstreaming for those children and young people with a Statement or Education Health and Care Plan (ECHP), in 2015, for the first time in 25 years, there were more students in these categories attending provision outside of mainstream than in. The trend has continued with a further increase in students directed/seeking provision outside mainstream. There remains a huge variation by a factor of 9 in the placement of students with a Statement or EHCP in special school environments across different Local Authorities, as is shown in Table 1. This derives from geography-large rural distances to special schools and conscious efforts by local politicians to be more inclusive. Traditional Labour areas generally have high segregation as setting up special schools was seen as something to be municipally proud of. Now this is seen as a denial of human rights.
Table 1 Percent of School Students from Local Authority in Special Schools DFE SFR 22 2017 Mean 1.1039%*
Most Segregating LAs Least Segregating LAs *includes students in
special schools (maintained, academies, independent & non-maintained) Table 5
Torbay 2.06% Havering 0.64%
Stoke-on-Trent 1.87% Kensington and Chelsea 0.56%
Leicestershire 1.86% York 0.54%
Knowsley 1.82% Cornwall 0.48%
Middlesbrough 1.67% City of London 0.38%
Wirral 1.66% Bradford 0.30%
South Tyneside 1.66% Isles of Scilly 0.29%
Stockton-on-Tees1.64% Newham 0.22%

When the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, was first adopted by the United Nations and ratified by the UK Government in 2009, the meaning of Article 24 and its interpretation lacked clarity. In 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted General Comment No 4 . This now has the status of international law and makes it clear what is expected by state parties with regard to implementing inclusive education.
The General Comment states what inclusive education is:-
1. A process of addressing and responding to the diverse needs of all children.
2. Recognises all children can learn.
3. Identification and removal of barriers.
4. Presence, full participation, accessibility, attendance and achievement of all students, especially those excluded or marginalized.
5. Builds positive relationships, friendships and acceptance.

Recognition of inclusion as the key to achieving the right to education has strengthened over the past 30 years, and is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (herein after: the Convention), the first legally binding instrument to contain a reference to the concept of quality inclusive education. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 also affirms inclusive quality and equitable education. Inclusive education is central to achieving high quality education for all learners, including those with disabilities, and for the development of inclusive, peaceful and fair societies. Furthermore, there is a powerful educational, social and economic case to be made. Only inclusive education can provide both quality education and social development for persons with disabilities, and a guarantee of universality and non-discrimination in the right to education.

A recent UNESCO publication defined Inclusive Education as a process that helps to overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of learners and strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners. However, this generalised approach is in danger of missing the development of a pedagogy which also can meet the specific needs of disabled children and young people with different types of impairments.

A useful way of thinking about developing and training for inclusive education is to think about a twin track approach. The first track cover the general inclusion of all excluded and under achieving groups takes a broad brush approach based on General Inclusion Track. In teacher education this involves developing teaching and learning strategies that support: Valuing difference and diversity; Differentiation of materials and methods; Collaborative learning where pupils and teachers work together; Peer support where pupils help each other academically and socially and challenge negative language and behaviour; Flexible curricula as well as the provision of classroom and assessment materials; An anti-bias curriculum that challenges traditional gender, tribal , class and disability perspectives; Sufficient time for meaningful learning and rewarding of effort compared to Individuals previous achievements; The creation of a stimulating and interesting multi-sensory learning environment; A child-centred approach with teacher reflection.

The second Impairment Specific track is based on fulfilling the Article 24 duty to provide appropriate individual support and reasonable accommodations or reasonable adjustments under the UK Equalities Act (2010). This recognizes that the above approaches on their own will not work equally for all children with disabilities, as they require reasonable accommodations and support arising from their impairments. These adjustments are specific to the type of impairment a child/young person has. Within this track, the teacher would learn to identify the loss of physical or mental function with a basic screening tool, and have a working knowledge of the range of adjustments that can be implemented in the classroom. Below is a list, although not comprehensive, of the tools available for teachers to use with their students with disabilities:
a) Visually Impaired or Blind – Glasses, magnification glasses, Braille, tactile maps and diagrams, audio tapes/CDs and text to talk, mobility training, large print documents and paperwork, audio description, modified orientation and creation of fixed points in class, creation of auditory environments, talking instruments, colour contrasts, and identification of hazards such as steps; b) Deaf and Hearing Impaired- Finger spelling and basic sign language, interpretation, Oral-lip reading, basic Hearing Aid maintenance, strong emphasis on visual environment, additional time and support with abstract concepts and maths; c) Deafblind – Some of the tools listed above in a) and b), Deafblind Language, provision of interpreters, creation of tactile environments; d) Physical Impairments -Adapting doorways and furniture, creation of an accessible infrastructure as well as accessible toilet and washing facilities, maintaining safe storage of equipment, provision of personal assistance, diet and medication resources, and rest time space; e) Specific learning difficulties- Creation of colour overlays and backgrounds, providing easy read texts, story tapes and text to talk, allowing the use of spell-checkers, concrete objects, and breaking activities down into small doable steps; f) Speech and Communication Difficulty/Impairment – Facilitated Communication, Augmented Communication low and high tech, pointing, switching, talkers, information grids; g) General Cognitive Impairment- Pictograms, small steps curriculum, easy read, scaffolding, Makaton, symbols, information grids, concrete objects, individual programme; h) Mental Health Impairment- Counselling and personal support, differentiated behaviour policy, empathy, quiet space, circle of friends; i) Behaviour impairment- Circle of friends, structured environment and day, differentiated behaviour policy, chill out space and mentoring. Such pedagogy needs backing up by specialist inclusion teachers working out of local resource centres as peripatetic experts.

The right to inclusive education encompasses a transformation in culture, policy and practice in all formal and informal educational environments, to accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students, together with a commitment to remove the barriers that impede that possibility. It involves strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners. It focuses on the full and effective participation, accessibility, attendance and achievement of all students, especially those who, for different reasons, are excluded or at risk of being marginalized. Inclusion involves access to and progress in high-quality formal and informal education without discrimination. It seeks to enable communities, systems and structures to combat discrimination, including harmful stereotypes, recognize diversity, promote participation and overcome barriers to learning and participation for all by focusing on well-being and success of students with disabilities. It requires an in-depth transformation of education systems in legislation, policy, and the mechanisms for financing, administration, design, delivery and monitoring of education. The UNCRPD does not mention ‘special education needs’, as this is rooted in an oppressive history based on eugenics and separation that has scarred generations of disabled people.

The UN CRPD Committee highlights the importance of recognising the differences between exclusion, segregation, integration and inclusion. Exclusion occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form. Segregation occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities. Integration is a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions. Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, organisation, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion, Figure 1. (para 10 GC No.4)

The core features of inclusive education according to General Comment No 4 are :
1. Whole systems approach: education ministries must ensure that all resources advance inclusive education.
2. Whole educational environment: committed leadership introduces and embeds the culture, policies and practices to achieve inclusive education at all levels.
3. Whole person approach: flexible curricula, teaching and learning methods adapted to different strengths, requirements and learning styles.
4. Supported teachers
5. Respect for and value of diversity: everyone welcomed equally. Effective measures prevent abuse and bullying.
1. Learning-friendly environment: accessible environment where everyone feels safe, supported, stimulated and able to express themselves, with a strong emphasis on involving students themselves in building a positive school community.
2. Effective transitions: learners receive support, reasonable accommodation and equality regarding assessment, examination procedures and certification of their attainments on an equal basis with others.
3. Recognition of partnerships and monitoring (para. 12 GC No.4).

The Government have been using academisation and free schools to set up more segregated provision. Local Authorities in England are prevented from making rational planned decisions for SEN provision, both in special schools and in setting up mainstream resource bases and are now being forced to bid to set up free special schools. As of March 2018, there were 264 special school academies, a further 75 applications in the pipeline, 27 free special schools, a further 55 in the pipeline and Alternative Provision free schools 79 open and a further 31 in the pipeline.
A much larger group of students(1.14 million) are disabled with needs to be met in mainstream schools through SEN School Support. However, exclusion rates are 7 times higher for permanent and 6 times higher for fixed term exclusions than those with no SEN. Many excluded students are now in Alternative Provision permanently, rather than short term, as envisaged. Increasing numbers are being unlawfully off rolled and there is also a rise in those being home educated. The fixed term exclusion figure for sponsored secondary academies is three times higher than for non academies. Inflexible behaviour policies-three strikes and you are out, with a failure to differentiate behaviour policies are leading to many exclusions in breach of the equality duties for disabled students.

The funding crisis in our schools is particularly hitting provision for those on school support as teaching assistants and the facility for 1:1 and small group work disappears from our schools. EHC Plans are being cut as desperate Councils seek unlawfully to cut resources to spread them more thinly.
Failure by schools to take seriously their duties under the Equalities Act towards disabled students are leading to increasing discrimination and unfair treatment. Failure to implement the general Equality Duty and to make reasonable adjustments or protect disabled students from harassment and bullying are also helping to make schools less habitable for disabled students. The narrowing of curriculum, getting rid of course work and raising the bar on high stakes testing is leading to an increasing number of disabled children on SEN support being excluded or refused admission on the spurious grounds that the school cannot meet need.
Despite the gloomy outlook many schools are still struggling to provide good inclusive education in a comprehensive approach. See for example Eastlea, Newham (https://youtu.be/cAAoWGi3AKk ) or Emersons Green Primary South Gloucestershire (https://youtu.be/w4B4CGopmZw ) or Wroxham Primary, Hertfordshire (https://youtu.be/NL-Y9L3U6gY)
How would an incoming Labour Government committed to developing an inclusive National Education Service begin to tackle this increasingly discriminatory, unfair and increasingly privatised education system? The work starts now by discussing and educating the Party and the public on the alternatives and their beneficial effects. At a recent seminar for the Labour Front bench on Inclusive Education arranged by Jeremy Corbyn, presented by myself and Micheline Mason, we put forward statistical indicators of the current increasingly segregated position in many areas. Micheline started by explaining the impact of exclusion and segregation on her life & development and why she was committed to her daughter, who has the same impairment, going to mainstream school. This was about the right to be human . The International Human Rights position was explained and after identifying current barriers to inclusion in England’s school system (figures 2 and 3), discussed some of the solutions needed if Labour were returned to power.
What is to be done?

The current cuts in school budgets are hitting the inclusive practice towards disabled young people particularly hard with cuts in teaching assistants, reduction in bought in specialists and growing class sizes which are leading to increased exclusions both official ( fixed term and permanent) and big increases in off-rolling( unlawful) are leading to a crisis in our schools.
This state of affairs could be the touchstone to connect with a wide mass of parents to argue that another way is possible. Developing values based on human rights and inclusion is the firm foundation to this transformation, but developing confidence in inclusion among schools staff, parents and young people is the key. In electing a Labour Government and implementing a National Education Service based on a principle of inclusion we will need to convince staff and parents that another way is possible and practicable. Running a special school and mainstream system is expensive. It is also wasteful of young people’s potential. As we transition from the current situation to an inclusive system, capacity building will be crucial. Many more resources and expertise can be released to make inclusion work; provided the high stakes testing is dismantled and children’s happiness is at the heart of learning, with a curriculum for all, we will be able to achieve an inclusive, friendly quality education system for all.

In order to prepare now:-
1. Immediately set up a policy advisory group to work on fleshing out important changes.
2. More vigorously challenge current Government.
3. Develop a national and local debate on future education with inclusion at its heart.
4. Challenge current anti-inclusion thinking inside the Labour Party and beyond.
Possible policy changes when in Government:-
1. Remove caveats to Article 24 UNCRPD.
2. Strengthen Parent Carer Forums and Young Disabled People’s Forums.
3. Develop and implement a National Inclusion Strategy following involving all departments in Ministry of Education and Local Authorities.
4. This strategy will need to be at least for 10 years and identify transitional mechanisms for a dual system whilst special and mainstream schools increasingly collaborate and
continually developing the capacity of all mainstream to include wider diversity of pupils and students.
5. Restore SEND funding as part of increasing school funding including a ring fence on school SEN Support.
6. Introduce broad and balanced curriculum, including Equality and the necessity for peer support and collaboration.
7. Replace league table culture with moderated teacher assessment.
8. Introduce Access grant for school infrastructure and curriculum.
9. All schools and colleges fully accessible within 5 years.
10. Set up teacher led national curriculum and assessment review based on principles of Inclusive Education.
11. Challenge disabilist bullying/exclusions. Introduce disability equality into curriculum for all.
12. Develop behaviour policies based on emotional intelligence with differentiation ( No 3 strikes and out)
13. Restore Independent Appeal Panel for School Exclusions
14. Widen remit of the Ombudsman to cover admission of academies and to be the last resort of all complaints in schools and widen brief of Equality and Human Rights Commission to support
cases of discrimination in schools and colleges.
15. Introduce mandatory competencies on inclusive education on all Initial Teacher Training.
16. Require all serving teachers to undertake twin track training on the inclusion of disabled children/students.
17. Reverse Academies legislation. Take all schools/colleges back into local democratic control.
18. Incentivising equalities and inclusion by linking funding to value added for all students.
19. Develop financial incentives for mainstream schools to have resourced provision.
20. Reintroduce maintenance grants for all 16-19 year olds. Work towards all achieving a vocational or academic qualification.
21. Introduce Education and Equality Inspectorate with the power of fining schools in breach of the intentions of the Equality Act.
22. Develop longer term financial and organisational structure for inclusive education involving all providers.
23. Develop and fund more inclusive approaches to 19-25 education and training and link them to concrete measures for preparing for adulthood.
24. Restore and develop the Disabled Students Grant in Higher Education.

The above list is not exhaustive but has been put forward to initiate discussion in the SEA and the wider Labour Party.May 2018
The 2017 Manifesto committed to developing a National Education Service based on inclusivity lp with motion

Category: News
Developing an Inclusive Education Policy in the Labour Party Richard Rieser
April 29, 2018 by Richard Rieser
Developing an Inclusive Education Policy in the Labour Party Richard Rieser www.worldofinclusion.com
The 2017 Manifesto committed to developing a National Education Service based on inclusivity. The Labour Party Consultation Document ‘Early Years, Education and Training’, currently (April-June 2018) out for members and wider views, is silent on the Inclusive Education issue. The 2017 Manifesto further stated “ we will deliver a strategy for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) based on inclusivity, and embed SEND more substantially into training for teachers and non-teaching staff, so that staff, children and their parents are properly supported”. This is again not mentioned in the Consultation Document. The Manifesto also committed to signing into UK Law the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This means developing an Inclusive Education System and removing the current reservations, interpretations and obstacles to implementation of Article 24 –Education. The Labour Party is also committed to a Social Model approach to disability and in education this means developing inclusion.
There is considerable evidence from research in the UK and around the world that including disabled children and young people with the full range of impairments is successful, particularly where well planned, funded and staff are well trained (i) . I have been observing and filming inclusion working across the UK and beyond for the last 30 years and I have witnessed children with multiple impairments being successfully included (ii) . It boils down to attitudes and where there is a ‘can do’ attitude it can happen in all sorts of environments. But even where this does not occur, disabled students do better academically than those segregated into special schools. This is the case for those with cognitive and social emotional and mental health impairments, as well as those with physical and sensory impairments. From 1997 to around 2004-2006 the Labour Government had a policy of Inclusive Education but they did not defend it and allowed it to be undercut. The pressures of the Tories, Standards Agenda, reduction in central support teams, high stakes testing and the wish from special schools to expand, all undercut the policy and the Labour Party did not know how to develop and defend it. This must not happen again. See graph below.

The Coalition and Tory Governments had a commitment to end the ‘bias to inclusive education’ and a moratorium on special school closures. Although the Children and Families Act 2014 (Part 3) reaffirmed the presumption of mainstreaming for those children and young people with a Statement or Education Health and Care Plan (ECHP), in 2015, for the first time in 25 years, there were more students in these categories attending provision outside of mainstream than in (iii). The trend has continued with a further increase in students directed/seeking provision outside mainstream. There remains a huge variation by a factor of 9 in the placement of students with a Statement or EHCP in special school environments across different Local Authorities, as is shown in Table 1. This derives from geography-large rural distances to special schools and conscious efforts by local politicians to be more inclusive. Traditional Labour areas generally have high segregation as setting up special schools was seen as something to be municipally proud of. Now this is seen as a denial of human rights.
Table 1 Percent of School Students from Local Authority in Special Schools DFE SFR 22 2017 Mean 1.1039%*
Most Segregating LAs Least Segregating LAs *includes students in special schools (maintained, academies, independent & non-maintained) Table 5
Torbay 2.06% Havering 0.64%
Stoke-on-Trent 1.87% Kensington and Chelsea 0.56%
Leicestershire 1.86% York 0.54%
Knowsley 1.82% Cornwall 0.48%
Middlesbrough 1.67% City of London 0.38%
Wirral 1.66% Bradford 0.30%
South Tyneside 1.66% Isles of Scilly 0.29%
Stockton-on-Tees1.64% Newham 0.22%
When the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, was first adopted by the United Nations and ratified by the UK Government in 2009, the meaning of Article 24 and its interpretation lacked clarity. In 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adopted General Comment No 4 (iv). This now has the status of international law and makes it clear what is expected by state parties with regard to implementing inclusive education.
The General Comment states what inclusive education is:-
• A process of addressing and responding to the diverse needs of all children.
• Recognises all children can learn.
• Identification and removal of barriers.
• Presence, full participation, accessibility, attendance and achievement of all students, especially those excluded or marginalized.
• Builds positive relationships, friendships and acceptance.
Recognition of inclusion as the key to achieving the right to education has strengthened over the past 30 years, and is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (herein after: the Convention), the first legally binding instrument to contain a reference to the concept of quality inclusive education. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 also affirms inclusive quality and equitable education. Inclusive education is central to achieving high quality education for all learners, including those with disabilities, and for the development of inclusive, peaceful and fair societies. Furthermore, there is a powerful educational, social and economic case to be made. Only inclusive education can provide both quality education and social development for persons with disabilities, and a guarantee of universality and non-discrimination in the right to education.

A recent UNESCO publication defined Inclusive Education as a process that helps to overcome barriers limiting the presence, participation and achievement of learners and strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners (v). However, this generalised approach is in danger of missing the development of a pedagogy which also can meet the specific needs of disabled children and young people with different types of impairments.

A useful way of thinking about developing and training for inclusive education is to think about a twin track approach. The first track cover the general inclusion of all excluded and under achieving groups takes a broad brush approach based on General Inclusion Track. In teacher education this involves developing teaching and learning strategies that support: Valuing difference and diversity; Differentiation of materials and methods; Collaborative learning where pupils and teachers work together; Peer support where pupils help each other academically and socially and challenge negative language and behaviour; Flexible curricula as well as the provision of classroom and assessment materials; An anti-bias curriculum that challenges traditional gender, tribal , class and disability perspectives; Sufficient time for meaningful learning and rewarding of effort compared to Individuals previous achievements; The creation of a stimulating and interesting multi-sensory learning environment; A child-centred approach with teacher reflection.

The second Impairment Specific track is based on fulfilling the Article 24 duty to provide appropriate individual support and reasonable accommodations or reasonable adjustments under the UK Equalities Act (2010). This recognizes that the above approaches on their own will not work equally for all children with disabilities, as they require reasonable accommodations and support arising from their impairments. These adjustments are specific to the type of impairment a child/young person has. Within this track, the teacher would learn to identify the loss of physical or mental function with a basic screening tool, and have a working knowledge of the range of adjustments that can be implemented in the classroom. Below is a list, although not comprehensive, of the tools available for teachers to use with their students with disabilities:

a) Visually Impaired or Blind – Glasses, magnification glasses, Braille, tactile maps and diagrams, audio tapes/CDs and text to talk, mobility training, large print documents and paperwork, audio description, modified orientation and creation of fixed points in class, creation of auditory environments, talking instruments, colour contrasts, and identification of hazards such as steps; b) Deaf and Hearing Impaired- Finger spelling and basic sign language, interpretation, Oral-lip reading, basic Hearing Aid maintenance, strong emphasis on visual environment, additional time and support with abstract concepts and maths; c) Deafblind – Some of the tools listed above in a) and b), Deafblind Language, provision of interpreters, creation of tactile environments; d) Physical Impairments -Adapting doorways and furniture, creation of an accessible infrastructure as well as accessible toilet and washing facilities, maintaining safe storage of equipment, provision of personal assistance, diet and medication resources, and rest time space; e) Specific learning difficulties- Creation of colour overlays and backgrounds, providing easy read texts, story tapes and text to talk, allowing the use of spell-checkers, concrete objects, and breaking activities down into small doable steps; f) Speech and Communication Difficulty/Impairment – Facilitated Communication, Augmented Communication low and high tech, pointing, switching, talkers, information grids; g) General Cognitive Impairment- Pictograms, small steps curriculum, easy read, scaffolding, Makaton, symbols, information grids, concrete objects, individual programme; h) Mental Health Impairment- Counselling and personal support, differentiated behaviour policy, empathy, quiet space, circle of friends; i) Behaviour impairment- Circle of friends, structured environment and day, differentiated behaviour policy, chill out space and mentoring (vi). Such pedagogy needs backing up by specialist inclusion teachers working out of local resource centres as peripatetic experts.

The right to inclusive education encompasses a transformation in culture, policy and practice in all formal and informal educational environments, to accommodate the differing requirements and identities of individual students, together with a commitment to remove the barriers that impede that possibility. It involves strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners. It focuses on the full and effective participation, accessibility, attendance and achievement of all students, especially those who, for different reasons, are excluded or at risk of being marginalized. Inclusion involves access to and progress in high-quality formal and informal education without discrimination. It seeks to enable communities, systems and structures to combat discrimination, including harmful stereotypes, recognize diversity, promote participation and overcome barriers to learning and participation for all by focusing on well-being and success of students with disabilities. It requires an in-depth transformation of education systems in legislation, policy, and the mechanisms for financing, administration, design, delivery and monitoring of education. The UNCRPD does not mention ‘special education needs’, as this is rooted in an oppressive history based on eugenics and separation that has scarred generations of disabled people.

The UNCRPD Committee highlights the importance of recognising the differences between exclusion, segregation, integration and inclusion. Exclusion occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form. Segregation occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities. Integration is a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions. Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, organisation, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion. Furthermore, integration does not automatically guarantee the transition from segregation to inclusion, Figure 1. (para 10 GC No.4)
The core features of inclusive education according to General Comment No 4 are :
• Whole systems approach: education ministries must ensure that all resources advance inclusive education.
• Whole educational environment: committed leadership introduces and embeds the culture, policies and practices to achieve inclusive education at all levels.
• Whole person approach: flexible curricula, teaching and learning methods adapted to different strengths, requirements and learning styles.
• Supported teachers
• Respect for and value of diversity: everyone welcomed equally. Effective measures prevent abuse and bullying.
• Learning-friendly environment: accessible environment where everyone feels safe, supported, stimulated and able to express themselves, with a strong emphasis on involving students themselves in building a positive school community.
• Effective transitions: learners receive support, reasonable accommodation and equality regarding assessment, examination procedures and certification of their attainments on an equal basis with others.
• Recognition of partnerships and monitoring (para. 12 GC No.4).

The Government have been using academisation and free schools to set up more segregated provision. Local Authorities in England are prevented from making rational planned decisions for SEN provision, both in special schools and in setting up mainstream resource bases and are now being forced to bid to set up free special schools. As of March 2018, there were 264 special school academies, a further 75 applications in the pipeline, 27 free special schools, a further 55 in the pipeline and Alternative Provision free schools 79 open and a further 31 in the pipeline (vii).
A much larger group of students(1.14 million) are disabled with needs to be met in mainstream schools through SEN School Support. However, exclusion rates are 7 times higher for permanent and 6 times higher for fixed term exclusions than those with no SEN. Many excluded students are now in Alternative Provision permanently, rather than short term, as envisaged. Increasing numbers are being unlawfully off rolled and there is also a rise in those being home educated. The fixed term exclusion figure for sponsored secondary academies is three times higher than for non academies (viii). Inflexible behaviour policies-three strikes and you are out, with a failure to differentiate behaviour policies are leading to many exclusions in breach of the equality duties for disabled students.

The funding crisis in our schools is particularly hitting provision for those on school support as teaching assistants and the facility for 1:1 and small group work disappears from our schools. EHCPlans are being cut as desperate Councils seek unlawfully to cut resources to spread them more thinly.
Failure by schools to take seriously their duties under the Equalities Act towards disabled students are leading to increasing discrimination and unfair treatment. Failure to implement the general Equality Duty and to make reasonable adjustments or protect disabled students from harassment and bullying are also helping to make schools less habitable for disabled students. The narrowing of curriculum, getting rid of course work and raising the bar on high stakes testing is leading to an increasing number of disabled children on SEN support being excluded or refused admission on the spurious grounds that the school cannot meet need.

Despite the gloomy outlook many schools are still struggling to provide good inclusive education in a comprehensive approach. See for example Eastlea, Newham (https://youtu.be/cAAoWGi3AKk ) or Emersons Green Primary South Gloucestershire (https://youtu.be/w4B4CGopmZw ) or Wroxham Primary, Hertfordshire (https://youtu.be/NL-Y9L3U6gY) .

How would an incoming Labour Government committed to developing an inclusive National Education Service begin to tackle this increasingly discriminatory, unfair and increasingly privatised education system? The work starts now by discussing and educating the Party and the public on the alternatives and their beneficial effects. At a recent seminar for the Labour Front bench on Inclusive Education arranged by Jeremy Corbyn, presented by myself and Micheline Mason, we put forward statistical indicators of the current increasingly segregated position in many areas. Micheline started by explaining the impact of exclusion and segregation on her life & development and why she was committed to her daughter, who has the same impairment, going to mainstream school. This was about the right to be human (ix). The International Human Rights position was explained and after identifying current barriers to inclusion in England’s school system (figures 2 and 3), discussed some of the solutions needed if Labour were returned to power.

What is to be done?
The current cuts in school budgets are hitting the inclusive practice towards disabled young people particularly hard with cuts in teaching assistants, reduction in bought in specialists and growing class sizes which are leading to increased exclusions both official ( fixed term and permanent) and big increases in off-rolling( unlawful) are leading to a crisis in our schools (x).

This state of affairs could be the touchstone to connect with a wide mass of parents to argue that another way is possible. Developing values based on human rights and inclusion is the firm foundation to this transformation, but developing confidence in inclusion among schools staff, parents and young people is the key. In electing a Labour Government and implementing a National Education Service based on a principle of inclusion we will need to convince staff and parents that another way is possible and practicable. Running a special school and mainstream system is expensive. It is also wasteful of young people’s potential. As we transition from the current situation to an inclusive system, capacity building will be crucial. Many more resources and expertise can be released to make inclusion work; provided the high stakes testing is dismantled and children’s happiness is at the heart of learning, with a curriculum for all, we will be able to achieve an inclusive, friendly quality education system for all.

In order to prepare now:-
• Immediately set up a policy advisory group to work on fleshing out important changes.
• More vigorously challenge current Government.
• Develop a national and local debate on future education with inclusion at its heart.
• Challenge current anti-inclusion thinking inside the Labour Party and beyond.
Possible policy changes when in Government:-
• Remove caveats to Article 24 UNCRPD.
• Strengthen Parent Carer Forums and Young Disabled People’s Forums.
• Develop and implement a National Inclusion Strategy following involving all departments in Ministry of Education and Local Authorities.
• This strategy will need to be at least for 10 years and identify transitional mechanisms for a dual system whilst special and mainstream schools increasingly collaborate and
continually developing the capacity of all mainstream to include wider diversity of pupils and students.
• Restore SEND funding as part of increasing school funding including a ring fence on school SEN Support.
• Introduce broad and balanced curriculum, including Equality and the necessity for peer support and collaboration.
• Replace league table culture with moderated teacher assessment.
• Introduce Access grant for school infrastructure and curriculum.
• All schools and colleges fully accessible within 5 years.
• Set up teacher led national curriculum and assessment review based on principles of Inclusive Education.
• Challenge disabilist bullying/exclusions. Introduce disability equality into curriculum for all.
• Develop behaviour policies based on emotional intelligence with differentiation ( No 3 strikes and out)
• Restore Independent Appeal Panel for School Exclusions
• Widen remit of the Ombudsman to cover admission of academies and to be the last resort of all complaints in schools and widen brief of Equality and Human Rights Commission to support
cases of discrimination in schools and colleges.
• Introduce mandatory competencies on inclusive education on all Initial Teacher Training.
• Require all serving teachers to undertake twin track training on the inclusion of disabled children/students.
• Reverse Academies legislation. Take all schools/colleges back into local democratic control.
• Incentivising equalities and inclusion by linking funding to value added for all students.
• Develop financial incentives for mainstream schools to have resourced provision.
• Reintroduce maintenance grants for all 16-19 year olds. Work towards all achieving a vocational or academic qualification.
• Introduce Education and Equality Inspectorate with the power of fining schools in breach of the intentions of the Equality Act.
• Develop longer term financial and organisational structure for inclusive education involving all providers.
• Develop and fund more inclusive approaches to 19-25 education and training and link them to concrete measures for preparing for adulthood.
• Restore and develop the Disabled Students Grant in Higher Education.

The above list is not exhaustive but has been put forward to initiate discussion in the Labour Party and beyond.
i Alana Institute, (2016) ‘Summary of the Evidence of Inclusive Education’. http://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf
Jackson, R (2008) ‘Inclusion or Segregation for Children with an Intellectual Impairment: What does the Research Say?’ http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disability/StudyEducation/NGOs/AustraliaNationalCouncilIntellectualDisability2.pdf Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education (2010) Inclusion Works. http://www.mcie.org/usermedia/application/11/inclusion-works-(2010).pdf A meta analysis covering 47 studies involving 4.8 million students showed a positive relationship of inclusion of disabled students to achievement of non-disabled students 2017 Review Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis Grzegorz Szumski Joanna Smogorzewska, Maciej Karwowski https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314288511_Academic_achievement_of_students_without_special_educational_needs_in_inclusive_classrooms_A_meta-analysis#pf12 Dyson, A et al England ‘Inclusion and Pupil Achievement’ DFES RR 578 (2004) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402121316/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR578.pdf
ii www.worldofinclusion.com see Reasonable Adjustment Project England, (2004) http://worldofinclusion.com/v3/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/RAP-document-with-youtube-links.pdf and Implementing Inclusive Education A Commonwealth Handbook (2012) http://worldofinclusion.com/v3/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Implementing-Inclusive-Education-promo-copy1.pdf
iii https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england-january-2017
iv OHCHR CRPD Committee Sept 2016 General Comment No 4. http://www.refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html
v A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education UNESCO 2017 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf
vi UNICEF 2013 ‘Educating Teachers for Children with Disabilities http://worldofinclusion.com/v3/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/UNICEF-Educating-Teachers-for-Children-with-Disabilities_Lo-res.pdf
vii https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-academies-and-academy-projects-in-development
viii https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/645075/SFR35_2017_text.pdf
ix Micheline Mason ‘Incurably Human’ http://www.michelinemason.com/books-and-articles/incurably-human
x https://neu.org.uk/latest/school-cuts-website-shows-88-schools-still-facing-cuts https://www.hackneyspecialeducationcrisis.co.uk

See full article with illustrations here

The 2017 Manifesto committed to developing a National Education Service based on inclusivity

Category: Blog
The sinister segregation policies excluding children who don’t ‘fit in’
April 18, 2018 by Richard Rieser
The sinister segregation policies excluding children who don’t ‘fit in’

John Harris
I thought ignorant prejudice against disabled people and those with special needs was on the way out. But this government is turning back the clock to a nastier age
@johnharris1969
Mon 16 Apr 2018 The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/pupils-special-educational-needs-children-mainstream-schools
Human progress is slow to happen and sometimes hard to see: in an era as troubled as ours, the world can easily look as though it is regressing at speed. But look back, and you may see how far we have come. I grew up in a world where grim words such as “handicapped” and “retarded” were part of everyday speech, and disabled people were too often shut away. People put money in charity tins to salve their consciences, and then went back to their ignorance. A sure sign of the way society kept some people at arm’s length was the inhuman use of the definite article: people knew about “the deaf”, “the blind” and “the disabled”, but didn’t give them much thought.

Families crowdfund legal action against special needs budget cuts www.hackneyspecialeducationcrisis.co.uk

Many of these attitudes linger. But millions of people now know that even the word “disability” often does little justice to who people actually are, and how much the concept blurs into the supposedly “able” population. In the field of autism, the new paradigm of “neurodiversity” underlines a similar point. On a good day, it can feel like a set of old prejudices may at last be being laid to rest. Human beings are complex: as the American writer Steve Silberman puts it in his book NeuroTribes, “Just because a computer is not running Windows doesn’t mean it’s broken. Not all the features of atypical human operating systems are bugs.”
And then you look at the English education system – or, more specifically, the arrangements and policies for kids with so-called special educational needs – and wonder what happened. Cuts are deepening, and there is a rising sense of children who do not fit in being pushed out lest they threaten the gods of discipline, rote learning and competitive exam performance.
At the last count, 4,152 children deemed to have special needs had not been found a school place (up from 776 in 2010), and most of them were forced to stay at home without any formal provision. Even if they are in school, thousands more are increasingly being denied the support they need.
The ideal of inclusion is based on the simple principle that schools should reflect the world at large, so that education in the dry stuff of spelling and sums is accompanied by schooling kids in the meaning of diversity. Hearing people’s stories, you rather get the sense that this ideal is slowly being superseded by a mixture of chaos and the gradual return of segregation.
As things stand, the government funds the majority of pre-16 state education through the dedicated schools grant, one of whose elements is the so-called high needs block, meant to cover the education of children who either need intensive support in mainstream education, or go to special schools. From 2011 up to now, the high needs block has effectively been frozen – and to make things worse, new government rules now limit councils’ ability to top up special–needs funding from the much bigger budgets intended for mainstream schools as a whole.
Amid an across-the-board spending squeeze, dozens of local authorities are running high needs deficits. Across England as a whole, there is reckoned to be a £400m gap between what councils say they require for their high needs provision and what the government is providing. So schools are cutting back on teaching assistants, special needs training and outside help. If you have a child with special needs, or know anyone who does, you will know what all this entails. One-to-one provision at school often makes the difference between a child progressing or withdrawing. Without such support, it can feel like the sky is falling in.

At the same time, sweeping reforms to the special needs system – which, among other things, extend the state’s responsibilities to thousands of people up to the age of 25 – have been botched and underfunded. There are real concerns about academies either excluding kids with special needs or pushing parents to choose other schools. In an absurd twist, people are now exiting the public-sector system and successfully pushing councils to fund places at independent special schools.
In the London borough of Hackney, where a brilliant group of parents is fighting cuts to special needs provision and organising a legal challenge under the banner of Hackney Special Education Crisis, this latter cost now accounts for around half of a nearly £6m high needs overspend. It also threatens to create a vicious circle: more children leaving mainstream schools as their special needs provision gets cut, rising bills for special school places, even more cuts as a result.

There are concerns about academies either excluding kids with special needs or pushing parents to choose other schools
Meanwhile, many lives are getting more difficult. I spoke this week to the mother of a 10-year-old boy who was diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) when he was five. After three unsuccessful attempts, he now has a formal education, health and care plan that in theory makes his provision dependable and accountable. But the support at his inner London school has been diluted, and she now worries about him being bullied. Looking ahead to secondary school, she says, “We worry won’t be able to get him the support he needs. We’re going to have to battle.” Another mother told me about her 10-year-old son, recently excluded from school for two days, and promised provision that has yet to materialise. “I have a document, and I go to meetings, but I don’t see any results,” she said.
Advertisement
It would be easy to think that this is all about austerity, but it is worse than that. In the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto, there was a pledge to “end the bias towards the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools”, and push back against “the ideologically driven closure of special schools”. In the context of education policy, these pledges have since taken on a more sinister aspect.
We all know what modern English education policy is all about: results, league tables, a fixation with “discipline”. The stupid Tory obsession with grammar schools is of a piece with that. Where, you wonder, does special needs education fit in. The beginnings of an answer, perhaps, lie in a government announcement in 2017 that under the auspices of the free schools programme, there are to be 19 new “special free schools”, providing “high quality provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities”, to add to around 30 free schools that have already opened. Some councils’ policies are seemingly starting to reflect similar logic. If this causes anyone disquiet, they should get in touch with a pressure group called Allfie – the Alliance for Inclusive Education. “What we’re fighting against is segregated education,” one of their staff members told me this week. “We’re talking about an ideological drive.”
I have a child with special educational needs. He’s 11 – and, with a lot of support, he has been taught alongside his peers in mainstream state schools since he was four. He has benefited immeasurably: quite apart from how much he likes such subjects as music, science and IT, he has started to acquire some of the everyday social skills he finds difficult. But that is only half the point. His presence at his endlessly encouraging, proudly diverse school means that his peers understand what human difference means in practice. This is the ideal we are now going to have to fight for – before it gets snuffed out, with tragic consequences.
• John Harris is a Guardian columnist

Category: Blog
Great theme World Down Syndrome Day 21st March All Means All
March 18, 2018 by Richard Rieser
All Means All participates in International World Down Syndrome Day 2018 Video Campaign

“Lea Goes to School”

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education is proud of its participation in this year’s international World Down Syndrome Day (21 March) #WDSD18 video campaign led by CoorDown, Italy’s national Down syndrome association.

With the creative and communications talent of Luca Pannese and Luca Lorenzini of Publicis New York, together with the support of Down Syndrome International, Down Syndrome Australia, Down’s Syndrome Association (UK), Movimento Down (Brazil) and All Means All, and with the the patronage of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CoorDown has delivered yet another powerful video advocacy campaign to advance the rights of people with Down syndrome.

This year’s video takes the form of an animated children’s book story entitled Lea goes to school – read by Grace, a 10 year old child with Down syndrome.

The video can be viewed here.

The core message of the campaign is that inclusive education is a human right and that it is time to remove the systemic and cultural barriers to students with Down syndrome and other disabilities realising this critical human right.

The goal of the campaign, reflected in the hashtag #IncludeUsFromTheStart and supported by the information website www.includeusfromthestart.com, is to highlight the importance for students with disability of accessing an inclusive education from the beginning of their educational experience in determining academic and social life-long outcomes, influencing acceptance and respect for diversity and maximising their future participation in the community and life generally.

This goal is in alignment with the work of All Means All in progressing the implementation of an inclusive education system and the removal of the barriers that limit the rights of some students, including many students with disability, to access a quality inclusive education in Australian schools.

A children’s story with a powerful message

The story of Lea Goes to School is short but in its simplicity it presents a number of important themes and messages:

In being narrated by a young girl with Down syndrome it recognises that the right to inclusive education is a fundamental human right of the child – as recognised by Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (to which Australia is a party) and UN General Comment No. 4 on the Right to Inclusive Education. The story book is the creative “device” that allows this serious message to be delivered through the voice of a child.
The opening statement that the child protagonist is at a “cross roads” introduces the fact that for many children around the world the direct path to an inclusive education in a regular classroom amongst their same-age peers is crossed by a diversionary lower trajectory “special” education path that, as research demonstrates, more often leads to social isolation and segregated work and living settings.
The talking sign-post that stands at the fork in the path and recommends the separate segregated education path through life represents the systemic and cultural barriers to students accessing a genuinely inclusive education.
The statement by the child protagonist to the sign-post, “I’m not special. I’m Lea!” challenges the euphemistic foundation and logic of the “special” path and emphasises the importance of educational settings and teachers seeing and responding to each child for the individual that they are.
The young protagonist’s intuitive rejection of the “easier” low-expectations “special” path underscores the artificiality of the “special” path and the importance of students with disability being academically challenged and held to high expectations.
The simplicity of the story is also reflective of the simplicity of inclusion as a cultural concept and goal – ultimately inclusion is about being a valued part of one’s community. The achievement of that goal is incompatible with segregation of people with disability, in education, employment or other settings.
Over 40 years of research-based evidence shows that inclusive education – a system in which every student is welcomed and supported and where all students learn together in regular classrooms – maximises academic and social outcomes for all students, not just students with disability.

Inclusive education does not happen by itself – students must be properly supported to access the classroom curriculum and teachers and school staff must also be supported, trained and resourced. It requires the progressive systemic and cultural transformation of our “dual pathway” general and special education systems into a single genuinely inclusive, fully accessible and properly resourced system. That transformation – the removal of the systemic and cultural barriers – begins with acknowledging the right of every child to receive an inclusive education.

Dr Robert Jackson, co-Founder and a Director of All Means All: “We know that children with Down syndrome are among the most excluded and segregated in Australia’s education system and society and World Down Syndrome Day is an opportunity for us to champion their educational rights and to raise consciousness about inclusive education as a fundamental human right of every child. The message of the video reflects what we know from decades of research, that educational experiences are critical in determining the life-long trajectory for children with disability and that an inclusive education is the most direct path to a better future for them.”

Ms Catalina Devandas, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: “Access to quality education is essential for children with disabilities to be able to effectively participate in the community. It is a fundamental human right, and one of the keys for ending poverty and making our societies more just. We must all be committed to ensure that schools are inclusive of children with disabilities.”

All Means All – The Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education is a nationwide multi- stakeholder alliance working together for the implementation of an inclusive education system in Australia. You can read more about us here: www.allmeansall.org.au

World Down Syndrome Day is an international event – officially ratified by a UN resolution – created to raise greater awareness and understanding about Down syndrome, usher in a new culture that embraces human diversity and promotes respect and inclusion in society for all people with Down syndrome.

Category: Blog
Global Partnership for Education report is a good starting point for dialogue on developing inclusive educartion
March 16, 2018 by Richard Rieser
This stocktake report is a good starting point but with only 1.15% of GPE grant since 2011 given to specifically supporting the inclusion of disabled children it is clear much more needs to be done to get anywhere near SDG 4 by 2030. It is a practical overview of the grant receiving countries, but very few are taking the inclusion of disabled children seriously, with too many Governments relying on NGOs or still ignoring the issue.

Richard Rieser
More efforts needed to give children with disabilities equal rights to education

More efforts needed to give children with disabilities equal rights to education
Blog -March 15, 2018byEleni Papakosta|

In this classroom, some students with disabilities receive more personalized attention. Kisiwandui primary school. Tanzania.
CREDIT: GPE/Chantal Rigaud
UNESCO estimates that between 93 million and 150 million children live with disabilities worldwide. They are one of the most marginalized and excluded groups of children. They are often overlooked in humanitarian action, due to the limited resources available.
According to UNICEF an estimated 90% of children with disabilities in the developing world are out of school. Even when children with disabilities are enrolled in school, they are often excluded from learning as the curriculum is not adapted to their needs and the teachers do not have the training or time to provide individualized support and learning assistance.
The new GPE stocktake report aims to document the progress made by GPE developing country partners in addressing the needs of children with disabilities in their education sector plans and GPE-funded grants.
We reviewed the education sector plans of 51 countries for this study, as well as the education sector program implementation grants (ESPIG), program documents (PDs), implementation progress reports (IPRs) and education sector analysis (ESAs) where applicable.
How education sector plans address inclusive education
In this study, 30 developing country partners identify improving the quality of learning for all children as a strategic priority in their education sector plans, with specific activities to achieve this objective, including pre-service and in-service teacher training, equipping teachers with better teaching material such as inclusive education toolkits and guidance material, instruction aids like abacuses and audio-visual dictionaries in sign language.
Subscribe to our blog alerts

>
Other activities include measuring learning achievement of children with disabilities enrolled in schools, as well as curriculum development and adaptation to respond to the diverse learning needs of students, and giving teachers the opportunity to adapt lesson plans so all students can participate, learn and succeed. Countries are also exploring the provision of information and communication technology (ICT) in education to reach all children.
Helping teachers and improving access to schools
Supporting teachers and students is vital in promoting inclusion in schools. Specific activities range from training teachers and community workers to screen children for disabilities, to providing children with disabilities with rehabilitation aids and devices, hiring support staff to assist teachers in supporting students with disabilities and creating resource centers for teachers.
Improving access is another strategic priority for 40 developing country partners in this study, with nearly all of them identifying inaccessible school buildings and facilities such as toilets as the main reason why children with disabilities are not enrolled in primary schools.
To address this issue, developing country partners plan to build new schools and special schools or renovate existing schools to make them accessible to children with disabilities.
Additionally, to address the attitudinal barrier children with disabilities face, developing country partners plan to develop communication strategies focusing on awareness raising and sensitization of parents, education stakeholders and communities, of the value of educating children with disabilities.

Developing country partners also plan to strengthen their education systems by addressing the educational needs of children with disabilities. Specific activities include improving disability data collection, scaling up inclusive education pilot projects, collecting data on children with disabilities and ensuring effective coordination strategies between the various ministries responsible for supporting children with disabilities.
GPE grants support inclusive education
The study goes back to 2012 and shows that since that year, GPE has provided a total of US$439 million to support the implementation of education sector plans. From that amount US$5.07 million has funded specific activities supporting children with disabilities.
Twelve countries (Cambodia, Comoros, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Liberia, Nepal, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe) have received grants from GPE to support the education of children with disabilities.
The main activity to address disability and inclusion is providing equipment and learning materials to children with disabilities. Other activities include teacher support and training in special education, raising community awareness, construct new schools and expand current schools for children with disabilities, providing teacher material, early screening to identify children with disabilities as early as possible, establishing resource centers, providing financial aid to students with disabilities, implementing an equity strategy, mainstreaming children with disabilities, conducting pre-enrollment assessments, and providing support to inclusive education centers.

Ensuring children with disabilities can fully participate in society
Inclusive education systems have the power to amplify the voices of children with disabilities so that they can be heard in decisions that affect their lives. Inclusive education systems build on their capabilities, develop their capacities to participate meaningfully in decision making and in social, cultural, and economic life, and ensures they enjoy their full spectrum of rights.
Our report highlights the need to step up support for disability and inclusive education to developing country partners.
We need to improve consideration of issues around disability and inclusion in education sector analysis and sector planning processes to better promote the achievement of GPE 2020 strategic goal 2, and to fulfill the transformative vision of Agenda 2030.
This means ensuring that girls and boys with disabilities are not only able to access their right to a quality education in a nurturing environment, but also, through education, become empowered to participate fully in society, and enjoy full realization of their rights and capabilities.
View all blogs
Areas:Children with Disabilities
Author(s)

Eleni Papakosta
Equity, gender equality and inclusion consultant, Global Partnership for Education
Eleni Papakosta joined the Global Partnership for Education in August 2017 as an equity, gender equality and inclusion consultant, supporting the delivery of goal 2 in the GPE Strategic Plan and providing…

2018-03-gpe-disability-working-paper

Category: Blog
2011 Developing the Capacity of Disabled People’s Organisations in South Pacific Commonwealth Island Countries with regard UNCRPD
February 2, 2018 by Richard Rieser
Trainers: Richard Rieser, Lucy Mason , Angeline Chand assisted by Moeva Rinaldo
Grandville Motel, Port Moresby PNG
24th to 29th January 2011
South Pacific Island Countries of the Commonwealth Disabled Peoples Agenda -1 South Pacific Island Countries of the Commonwealth Disabled Peoples Agenda

Copy of Developing the Capacity of Disabled People 16 pt

Category: Projects – International, Resources
Senegal schools show how including children with disabilities transforms communities
October 13, 2017 by Richard Rieser
A pilot project enabling blind and visually impaired children in Senegal to attend mainstream school has led to a breakthrough government commitment to introduce inclusive education throughout the country.
Blog – October 13, 2017 by Maria Fsadni|

Senegal has more than 700,000 blind and visually impaired people, including thousands of school-aged children. Before the pilot, education for children with visual impairment and other disabilities was entirely segregated, and with only one state special-needs school in operation, most children in need were missing out.

Inclusion benefits all sides

In 2011, Sightsavers Senegal and the Senegalese Ministry of Education began enrolling blind and visually impaired children into mainstream primary schools in Dakar. By 2016, 187 had been enrolled in three schools.
The program’s first cohort of blind and visually impaired children took their end of primary exams in July 2016, with the majority passing the requirements to continue to secondary education. In addition, fully sighted children in integrated classes are consistently achieving better exam results than non-inclusive classes in the schools involved. Those working on the program say this may be due to the social-impact of the buddy scheme as well as the fact that more time is being spent on lessons.

Salimata Bocoum, Country Director of Sightsavers Senegal, said: “What the program has done is allow the government to have a clear view of an inclusive education model that works. Before, a lot of initiatives were going on but they did not have a clear understanding in government of how to include children with disabilities in inclusive education. Sightsavers Senegal has brought that guidance and created an understanding of the possibility.”

Success leads to program expansion

The project’s results have been deemed so compelling, the government has officially committed to bringing inclusive education in across Senegal.

Subscribe to blog alerts

Enter email address
>
A government budget to support inclusive education has been created and the Ministry of Education is currently working with Sightsavers Senegal and other civil society partners to develop a national policy for inclusive education at primary and secondary level, which it plans to release by the end of the year.

The program has also been extended to two further regions in Senegal, funded by Sightsavers and Irish Aid.

It is hoped the pilot will act as a blueprint for other countries looking to address the lack of education for children with disabilities. UN figures suggest around a third of the 60 million children worldwide who do not go to primary school are disabled.

Through its Put Us in the Picture campaign, Sightsavers is calling for children and adults with disabilities to be included in all aspects of development work, including education.

For more information visit sightsavers.org/what-is-put-us-in-the-picture

Learn more on what GPE is doing to support children with disabilities
View all blogs
Areas:Children with Disabilities
Regions and Countries:Sub-Saharan Africa: Senegal
Author(s)

Maria Fsadni
Senior Media Officer for Policy and Campaigns, Sightsavers
Maria Fsadni is Senior Media Officer for Policy and Campaigns at Sightsavers, based in the UK. She has been with the organization since March 2016 and secures coverage of its social inclusion portfolio of work in the UK and…

Category: Blog
Progress to Inclusive Education in South East Asia: What are the issues?
October 7, 2017 by Richard Rieser
Progress to Inclusive Education in South East Asia: What are the issues?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail
By Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion

I recently returned from Sarawak, Malaysia, attending and speaking at ICSE 2017 (2nd International Conference on Special Education), held under the aegis of the South East Asian Ministers of Education Regional Centre for Special Education. This represents 11 countries in the region. The Conference was held under the theme Access and Engagement and was to implement the SEAMO SEN mission:

“Providing access and engagement for children with Special Educational Needs must be given priority and emphasis by addressing opportunities and barriers such as diverse learners’ needs, designing and implementing accommodative curriculum suited to the needs of children and responsive curriculum strategies in teaching and learning.

“The SEAMEO 7 Priority Areas:

Early Childhood Care and Education
Addressing Barriers to Inclusion
Resiliency in the Face of Emergencies
Promoting Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET)
Revitalising Teacher Education
Promoting Harmonisation and Higher Education and Research and
Adopting the 21st Century Curriculum form the basis for this conference.
These areas necessitate the urgent needs to provide and engage children with special educational needs in educational settings that are meaningful and inclusive. Quality education and support services would ensure children with special educational needs engage in educational settings that stimulate their holistic growth and give them the necessary skills to live independently and contribute to the betterment their lives.”

The first thing that shocked me about the conference was how deeply ingrained was the concept of Special Educational Needs (SEN). It seemed the thinking and practice of SEN was the bedrock of the region’s thinking and that inclusion of disabled people and their rights were a veneer placed on top.
Though some progress was reported towards more disabled children being in mainstream in Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Lao, Myanmar and Cambodia in every case there was still a very strong distinction between special needs teachers and mainstream teachers. There was still a reliance on special schools for sensory impaired students and those with severe physical impairments. When most speakers talked of inclusion they were talking of students with mild to moderate impairments on the autistic spectrum, ADHD and learning difficulty. But with the exception of the small and prosperous Brunei Darussalam, which has no special schools as a conscious choice following the Salamanca Conference in 1994, and Timor Leste that does not have special schools as until recently it was a far flung outpost of Indonesia; there is an underlying reliance on special schools and special educators.

Apart from the obvious contradiction with signing and ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Treaty and the Sustainable Development Goals which have quality inclusive education for all people with disabilities written into them, what are the problems with this approach?

Dr Yasmin Hussein, the organiser of the Conference and Director of SEAMO SEN, ‘stressed that it was pivotal for special children to be given the rights to live, to learn, to grow and to have equal opportunities to lead their lives.’

Continually referring to children and young people with a whole range of impairments as ‘special’ invokes the old paradigm of the individual or medical model and leads to solutions based on charity and individual responses rather than a rights based approach that views inclusion as a social and political issue. The organisers of the conference would argue they are doing this and indeed there was much evidence of initiatives of conducting community-based events to increase awareness and acceptance of individuals with disability in society, setting up centres throughout the region (already 21 to which this year four more will be added) specifically meant to undertake training and research programmes in Special Education. SEAMEO SEN has been promoting awareness and the importance of including disability issues and concerns in all specialist centres. Prasert Tepanart, Deputy Director of SEAMO SEN, said “With the current global education direction, the education of the most marginalised and vulnerable group especially children with disabilities has been the focus of all programmes and activities in all SEAMEO centres…. Education is the momentum that directs changes and transformation of mindset and attitude and eventually the history of a nation. With education, the future of marginalised groups especially children with disabilities can be changed and improved.”

The problem is that the transformation of education systems to inclusive has to be across the whole education system. Mainstream teachers must have mandatory training and all colleagues in schools need regular training on inclusion.

When we drafted Article 24 of the UNCRPD in 2005/2006 in New York, we specifically left the words special educational needs out because it ideologically stands for disabled people’s isolation, segregation and mistreatment and not our empowerment and inclusion. Having engaged with 650 colleagues from the region and beyond on the issue of developing inclusive education in South East Asia it seems the continual use of ‘Special’ and ‘Special Educational Needs’ is a real barrier to progress towards inclusion in the region. This is more than semantics.

Whatever the decrees, laws and treaties say, sticking with the SEN model undermines the paradigm shift to rights strongly endorsed in General Comment No.4 of the UNCRPD Committee. It signals business as usual to educators. That there is someone else with expertise and they are the people responsible for educating disabled children. It also reinforces age old prejudice and myths in the community towards disabled children. In the end sticking with the ‘special’ label is disempowering. There were several speakers putting forward a strong disability and rights perspective at the conference. However it feels to me that the normative waters of SEN have swallowed these contributions and the change that is desperately needed will not occur. There are not anywhere near enough special schools and it means that with the exception of some of the smaller and richer countries in the region such as Singapore, Brunei and possibly Malaysia the vast majority of disabled children are still not in school, probably half of 3.48 million. Inclusion and rights needs to be at the centre of a root and branch overhaul of the education system. The old SEN model left behind by colonial masters needs jettisoning. There will be many vested interests who will oppose this approach, but is the only one that will deliver full inclusive education in South East Asia.

Category: Blog

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries
Next Entries » — Next Page »