Given the Government’s recent announcements, there is an emphasis in this issue of ‘Inclusion Now’ on what forthcoming legislation should entail. Whilst there has been a dearth of fresh thinking from central government on the issues facing SEND provision, there is no shortage of valuable ideas for ways forward in the central piece from the Coalition for Inclusive Education (p.3).
Likewise, the pieces from Richard Rieser (p.10) and Nazlin Bimani (p.24) make it clear that an understanding of the history of exclusionary thinking (especially of death and disability and eugenics and disability) is fundamental.
The inclusion movement has never been overly interested in labelling learners, but Marion Stanton’s piece (p.13) on the needs of students who rely on Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) is a timely reminder that this group of Young Disabled people can easily be overlooked.
Similarly, Linda Jordan’s article (p.19) urges us to think more deeply about the provision label: ‘Additionally Resourced Schools and Units’ and how they relate to inclusion.
Inclusionists must remember that no one ever witnessed a thriving example of mainstream inclusion and said: ‘that’s not right’.
Inclusion Now occasionally includes adverts for products, services or events offered by other organisations. This doesn't imply we endorse the products or services. Readers are advised to check details and make their own judgements. Inclusion Now provides an opportunity for information exchange. All views expressed are not necessarily the views of ALLFIE, Inclusive Solutions or World of Inclusion. We reserve the right to edit articles. Inclusion Now is also available in audio or text. Search past issues online
Cover image courtesy of Marion Stanton Editor: Catherine Bebbington
They may quibble that not all headteachers have the vision, that not all Education Authorities are that supportive, but they don’t query the rightness of the inclusion and belonging they see. Inclusion is not up for debate - it’s the right thing to do.
OK, not all schools achieve this, but not everywhere is the same. Telling the stories of those that go beyond is how we progress. This issue of ‘Inclusion Now’ again tells those stories.
By Derek Wilson, Co-Founder, Inclusive Solutions.
Inclusively Bright: How to Achieve an Inclusive Education Act
Article compiled by Stephen Hodgkins, on behalf of The Coalition for Inclusive Education
We, The Coalition for Inclusive Education, supported by ALLFIE, have recently set out a vision and proposal for an Inclusive Education Act. This vision is one of inclusion, justice, and a right for all Disabled learners to access and thrive in mainstream education settings. As we wait for the Department for Education to announce the Schools White Paper, we share a summary of our report ‘Achieving an Inclusive Education Act’ which includes both our vision and some of the details of what we propose.
The Coalition for Inclusive Education
Formed in 2024, the Coalition has brought together Disabled people and allies committed to ending segregation and achieving Inclusive Education. Through workshops and discussions, the Coalition has considered long and hard how we can make Inclusive Education a reality in the UK. We have explored disability history, international perspectives, research and the lived experiences of Disabled learners.
The need for an Inclusive Education Act
ALLFIE has long championed Inclusive Education, highlighting its benefits and the challenges within the current system. Our recent report ‘Achieving an Inclusive Education Act’, emphasises that Inclusive Education is essential for lifelong equality and justice, allowing Disabled pupils and students to participate fully in all learning activities.
'Achieving an Inclusive Education Act' cover
The UN Convention on The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) provides a framework for this, but the UK has yet to fully implement Article 24, which would guarantee the right to Inclusive Education.
What an Inclusive Education Act Would Do
An Inclusive Education Act would confront the underlying systemic barriers that perpetuate the marginalisation and discrimination of Disabled people within the education system and wider society.
It would support students who face barriers to successfully participate and achieve. This would be facilitated by enabling educators to innovate and develop learning environments and systems that are effective, accessible and diverse.
The following list details the nine key points that we believe an Inclusive Education Act should both include and seek to achieve:
1. A Right to Inclusive Education:
Enshrine in law the right for all Disabled students to receive appropriate support in mainstream settings, in line with UNCRPD Article 24.
2. Phase Out Segregated Education:
Close special and segregated education provisions, redirecting funding to Inclusive Education.
3. Enable Accessibility:
Ensure all educational settings are accessible and provide necessary adjustments for Disabled students.
4. A Curriculum for All:
Develop a flexible and accessible curriculum that meets the needs of all learners with support that is universal and personalised.
5. Monitor and Promote Inclusion:
Establish a single system for monitoring and promoting Inclusive Education, ensuring that support is provided as standard.
6. More Disabled People as Teachers:
Increase the number of Disabled educators and provide appropriate workplace support.
7. Skills for Inclusion:
Create a comprehensive Inclusive Education training programme for teachers and other members of the education workforce.
8. Representing Disabled People:
Increase the visibility and representation of Disabled people, and their history and culture in the curriculum and learning contexts.
9. A Proactive Approach:
Address discrimination and exclusion proactively, making sure to consider intersectional experiences.
How we make an Inclusive Education Act a reality
While there is significant support for such an Act, the will is not yet fully realised. There are many competing stories and narratives about how to best support Disabled students that muddle the vision.
However, there is common ground in many areas domestically and internationally that can support and influence the steps needed for the goal of an Inclusive Education Act to become a reality in the UK. Having set out a vision for an Inclusive Education Act, we recognise that there is still some work to do.
This includes developing a deeper understanding of the current segregated education and special school landscape, as well as identifying areas of
While there is significant support for such an Act, the will is not yet fully realised. There are many competing stories and narratives about how to best support Disabled students that muddle the vision.
discrimination across other parts of the education system that affect Disabled pupils and students. In particular, we must consider what Young Disabled people think. Their views will help us to understand the resistance to inclusion and to build common ground and consensus around issues specific to the UK context.
We also recognise the need to do more work to create what a ‘curriculum for all’ would actually look like. What it would mean for learners, and the skills they will need as they emerge as future citizens. We must also consider what educators need so that they can both inspire and support all learners to enjoy, and indeed to love, learning and pursue their individual interests in diverse collective settings. Finally, we must explore how Inclusive Education can become a lived reality and present a practical strategy to implement this. We must also broaden and develop the Coalition’s membership to help achieve this. So, if you are passionate about Inclusive Education, please do connect with us.
An Inclusive Education
Act
would be a significant step towards achieving equality and justice for Disabled students in the UK.
We believe that an Inclusive Education Act would be a significant step towards achieving equality and justice for Disabled students in the UK. By addressing systemic barriers and promoting inclusive practices, the Act aims to create an education system that supports all students, equipping them as citizens and crucially custodians of a future world that could be inclusively bright.
Read our report, which is available in accessible formats:
Full report: Achieving An Inclusive Education Act (pdf)
Easy read: Making Inclusive Education Happen (pdf)
Audio: Achieving An Inclusive Education Act (mp3)
Summary: Achieving Inclusive Education (pdf)
For more information about The Coalition for Inclusive Education, or to get in touch, contact the Alliance for Inclusive Education.
ACHIEVING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
UK Disability History Month 2025: Disability, Life and Death
By Richard Rieser, UK Disability Month Coordinator
UK Disability History Month in the Autumn of 2025 has the theme Disability, Life and Death. With over 300 UK Disabled People’s Organisations opposing the current draft legislation on Assisted Death, this year is a good time to look through a historical lens and consider why Disabled people have learned to be suspicious of giving the State the power of life and death.
We have faced sterilisation, isolation, euthanasia, and death as a result of social prejudices backed by the false science of eugenics that emerged in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Prior to this, our lives as Disabled people were also precarious; at any point we could become the target of ignorance, religion, myth and superstition, all of which projected fears and anxieties onto us as scapegoats.
A representative survey in June 2025 found 67% agreed the UK Parliament should prioritise improving access to care over introducing assisted dying. Only 13% disagreed.
The main points raised by the campaign Not Dead Yet UK are:
1. Evidence of ‘legislation creep’ in countries where assisted death is legal suggests a similar risk if the law is changed here.
2. The restrictions society places on Disabled people denies them true choice and control.
3. In the absence of choice and control, the role of physicians in assisting a Disabled person to take their life undermines the principle of informed consent.
4. Assisted suicide legislation conveys the message that living with an impairment or a long-term medical condition is a fate worse than death.
5. The government’s role should be to increase resources for palliative care, improve support for Disabled people, and uphold its commitment to enabling their full participation in society.
The campaign for Assisted Death has been pushed by some key individuals and the media. But a representative survey in June 2025 found 67% agreed the UK Parliament should prioritise improving access to care over introducing assisted dying. Only 13% disagreed. Six in ten agree Disabled people risk being coerced into making a decision. The fact that this survey was carried out just after the Labour Government’s backdown on cuts to Disabled people’s welfare demonstrates that, currently, a majority support
Disability History Month
Disabled people and their human rights. But it was not always like this. That is why we need to insert Article 10 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.”
Eugenics is the ideology that human populations should be “improved” through social policies, such as selective breeding – encouraging people with “desirable” traits to have children while discouraging those with “undesirable” traits. It’s a coercive ideology. It involves people in positions of power making value judgements about which traits are desirable or not, and so who is deserving of reproduction or not, and it inevitably leads to human rights abuses”. Developed by Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, eugenics sought to apply Darwin’s ideas of evolution to living human beings. It focused on eliminating conditions including schizophrenia and epilepsy. The amorphous feeble minded was the focus, along with the so called weaker ‘races’. This ideology was an echo back to classical Greek discourse in Plato’s Republic. Spartans were known for exposing on mountainsides their babies to eradicate the weak (and Disabled people). Many of those who established Eugenics as a study were drawn to it because of their Classical education which was popular across Europe at the time.
Image: Liz Carr of Not Dead Yet UK at an Assisted Dying Bill protest
Previously in the workhouse and in asylums, conditions for Disabled inmates were very harsh. This led to high death rates.
In the United States of America (USA), sterilisation of Disabled people who were thought to have hereditary conditions began in 1907 and continued in 37 states up until 1950s. In the UK, the Movement for Eugenics was just as strong but, despite Winston Churchill as Home secretary supporting legislation to introduce it, it was defeated. Instead, the Mental Deficiency Act was introduced in 1913 leading to many people with learning difficulty being incarcerated for life in colonies and long stay hospitals until they closed towards the end of the century. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was often used to segregate people even though we know this to be culturally, racially and disability biased. The Open University provides an education pack with lots of class-based activities on this history.
Disability History Month
In Germany, Hitler copied these ideas and took them further to eliminate all those who were deemed to be unworthy of life — Disabled people, Jews, Gypsies, Roma, homosexuals, people from the global majority, and communists. Numbers vary but the German Government has acknowledged 275,000 were murdered by the regime. Interestingly, Edwin Black in War Against the Weak estimates that more than one million Disabled people across the whole occupied German Empire were murdered. Hundreds of doctors carried out the killing of adults and children but only nine were executed at Nuremberg.
Looking back before the Holocaust, it is hard to understand how popular and widespread the idea was of eliminating the ‘Useless Eaters’ — today's Burden or Benefit Street.
DH Lawrence stated:
Up to 200,000 incarcerated in long stay hospitals all over the UK
If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I’d go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the ‘Hallelujah Chorus’.”
Winston Churchill, writing to Asquith Prime Minister in 1910, declared:
"The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled
Disability History Month
as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which is impossible to exaggerate… I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.”
HG Wells could not contain his enthusiasm, ‘hailing eugenics as the first step toward the removal “of detrimental types and characteristics” and the “fostering of desirable types” in their place’.
George Bernard Shaw wrote:
"The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”. Later he mused that “the overthrow of the aristocrat has created the necessity for the Superman”.
Looking back, but also forward to inaccurate and populist ideas we can see today, these views all present danger.
The answer is a form of full Inclusive Education, where children go to school together regardless of their need or impairment, and the school, its staff and curriculum are adapted to remove all barriers with children growing up respecting diversity and difference. The alternative is the rekindling of prejudice and hatred drawing on the oldest superstition; our fear of strangers, and physical and mental difference, because they frighten us!
Disability History Month runs from the 20th November to the 20th of December 2025.
Image: Assisted Dying Bill protest
The Future of Provision for Students who rely on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)
Marion Stanton, Head of Education at Communication and Learning Enterprises
Limited (CandLE), presents case studies of students who use AAC, showing how personalised adaptations can enhance access to education. CandLE supports students who rely on AAC by offering adaptations within their communication software as an AT (Assistive Technology) solution to support learning.
The case studies
Student 1
It took CandLE a year to convince her secondary school that she had age-appropriate understanding. She went on to pass 4 GCSEs, followed by A-levels in psychology and philosophy, and is now studying philosophy at university.
Student 2
When she was 9, her dad persuaded the local authority to engage CandLE within the special school to teach her on a 1:1 basis and she quickly exceeded the limits of the learning that the school had to offer.
Student 3
This student is in Year 10 in a mainstream secondary school but did not attain a place in a mainstream school until he was 11. Prior to this he had been educated in a school mainly catering for students who are labelled Severe Learning Difficulties or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties. He was not offered access to literacy and maths learning.
Student 4
This student has been labelled as having Severe Learning Difficulties. Despite many early difficulties in her mainstream school, she can now use her communication device to not only select individual words but also to type full sentences. She can talk about her feelings, make requests, and offer comments. She has exceeded every expectation.
Student
5
This student’s journey is evidence of the learning potential of students with the label of Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities. Initially, he struggled to communicate, and school staff had difficulty assessing his literacy skills. By Year 11, he could combine two to three words to form sentences and could memorize the characters and plots of stories.
The SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) Reforms
Whilst the current push in government to invest in early intervention is welcomed it must be recognised that the needs of students who rely on AAC are often identified at a much later stage in their education.
Learning potential can be missed with students being inappropriately labelled as having severe or profound learning difficulties, and then being consigned to learning environments where no conventional learning takes place.
The Reading Framework states:
A very few pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) might not be able to access direct literacy instruction. It may not be appropriate to begin teaching them to read.”
Department for Education (2023) p.115
There is no guidance on how such students should be identified. The continuance of an education system that provides restricted access to mainstream learning runs the risk of discriminating against students who have the potential to access it.
Lack of expertise in AAC within the teaching profession, psychological and speech and language therapy services mitigates against the government relying on these professionals being equipped to provide appropriate assessment or teaching to this group.
According to the written evidence gathered by the Education Committee SEND inquiry (2022): Special schools, except for a few where AAC is given a focus, lack expertise in the learning needs of students who rely on AAC and often undervalue their communicative competence.”
Communication Matters (2022)
Image: A student using an AAC device in the classroom
Inclusive Practice
Post 16 provision
Students who rely on AAC will need more time to study and achieve qualifications. The 2014 Code of Practice allows for this by enabling students to have Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCPs) until they are 25 years old. Education placements lack the government funding to support this. Mainstream schools are directed that students who are over 19 years old move on to further education, and post-16 provision is only available for 2 years, forcing students to move from one provider to another without any continuity. This means that courses started in one placement cannot be completed in another.
The requirement for students to have Level 2 Maths and English (GCSE grade 4 or above) before being admitted to mainstream post-16 provision effectively excludes students who use AAC. These students often require additional
time and support, which an EHCP is supposed to provide in order to achieve these qualifications.
The SEND review should ensure that:
Learning potential can be missed with students being inappropriately labelled as having severe or profound learning difficulties, and then being consigned to learning environments where no conventional learning takes place.
1. All students have access to the full National Curriculum.
2. Specialist and mainstream settings should be redesigned so that there is the possibility of seamless transition between settings.
3. Provision should be made for students who have experienced a learning gap so that they can receive intensive intervention to catch up on missed learning at any stage of their educational experience.
Image: An Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device
4. Funding for schools and further education colleges needs to take account of the needs of students who rely on AAC to be able to take longer than their non-disabled peers to complete courses and gain mainstream qualifications.
5. Students who rely on AAC should have access to appropriate courses and qualifications that they can access without needing to rely on hand-overhand support or scribing.
6. Reasonable adjustments should be made in all courses and qualifications that students who rely on AAC access
so that they are not given an unfair disadvantage.
7. Genuine placements in educational settings need to be available to students who rely on AAC up to the age of 25 in all Local Authorities.
8. SEND training for teachers, teaching assistants, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and other therapists should include the use of AAC as an AT solution.
9. The rights of students to receive the support they need must be enshrined in law with a clear appeals process.
Additionally Resourced Schools as Part of the Government’s Strategy to Create More Inclusion
By Linda Jordan , Senior Development Adviser at National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTi).
Reproduced with permission from Special Needs
Jungle. The original article was posted on their website on 4 March 2025.
As we move into a new phase of policy concerning the education of children with “special educational needs,” the Government is clearly recognising that the commitment to inclusive education that has existed since at least the 1970s has faltered.
Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson has spoken about her commitment to inclusive mainstream education and to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream education settings. She said at the recent Confederation of School Trusts Conference that her focus will be on mainstream schools delivering specialist provision and showing what is possible – including using SEN Units and Resourced Provision, and that the Government would encourage more schools to set up this form of provision.
Ever since the 1870 Education Act, there have been debates about how and where to educate certain children perceived as different or difficult. Who these children are has changed over time, as have the labels. We have gone from idiots
and imbeciles, to educationally sub-normal and maladjusted to SEND.
The 1981 Act created an environment for seeking a new approach to the integration of children into the mainstream system. By then, it was nationally recognised that the system for educating “mentally handicapped” and other Disabled children had
The Government is clearly recognising that the commitment to inclusive education that has existed since at least the 1970s has faltered.
been inappropriately influenced by the Eugenics movement. This movement had falsely claimed as scientific facts that the purity of the human race was being spoiled by certain groups of people breeding and that they should be kept separate from the rest of society.
During the 1980s and 1990s, there were developments across the country that led to far fewer children being educated in special schools, and the parental right to express a preference for a mainstream school became more of a reality. The general approach taken in most local authorities was to:
1. Develop central services to support schools to include children with SEND alongside comprehensive training programmes, and
2. Develop additionally resourced schools to include and support children who would have traditionally attended special schools and needed regular access to specialist teaching and pedagogy, therapy, equipment and adaptations.
Resourced schools built on the model of “Units” that had already existed for some time. These were for children with speech and language difficulties and overall were inclusive. Many of these provisions continued into the new system.
In 2006, Ofsted published a report, Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught? Provision and outcomes in different settings for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities.
The report concluded that:
The most important factor in determining the best outcomes for pupils with SEND is not the type but the quality of the provision. Effective provision was distributed equally in the mainstream and special schools visited, but there was more good and outstanding provision in resourced mainstream schools than elsewhere.
Mainstream schools with additionally resourced provision were particularly successful in achieving high outcomes for pupils academically, socially and personally.
Those pupils with severe learning difficulties and profound and multiple difficulties included in such provision were as likely to do as well as those taught in special schools when they had access to teaching from experienced and qualified specialists. In a well-run and resourced mainstream school, they were able to make outstanding progress.”
(Ofsted 2006)
The report recommended that there needed to be more of a focus on the quality of teaching and learning for children with the highest needs and that all children with SEND should learn with and socialise with non-disabled peers. Teacher training and in-service training needed to be improved
and there needed to be specialist teachers working in mainstream schools to both share good practice for individual children and to support the development of high-quality pedagogy across the school. The report also recommended close working relationships between mainstream and special schools.
I had the privilege of working in the SEND system as a teacher, advisory teacher and senior manager during the years following the introduction of the 1981 Education Act until the early 2000s. As a teacher I learned how to differentiate my lessons to meet the needs of all my pupils and I developed a passion for teaching children with severe and profound learning difficulties. Their presence in mainstream classes provided them
As a teacher I learned how to differentiate my lessons to meet the needs of all my pupils and I developed a passion for teaching children with severe and profound learning difficulties. Their presence in mainstream classes provided them with stimulating environments in which they would thrive.
with stimulating environments in which they would thrive. The impact of their presence on the other children was also incredible. Not only was there an incredibly positive impact on children’s behaviour, but friendships also developed, often continuing beyond school. Additionally resourced schools were a fantastic part of the new system and in my experience, they could be a perfect solution to the current crisis in the SEND system.
However, the school sector is quite different to how it was in the period I have described. So many resourced schools have created rooms in which children with high needs spend all their time together across the age range and are often supported by teaching assistants with little oversight from specialist teachers. The way that the curriculum is delivered now is much less conducive to including children who have a range of needs and differences. This has led to a crisis which has several elements:
1. Poor school attendance by large numbers of children
2. A significant increase in mental ill health in children and young people
3. Many children without a school place
4. Special schools full
5. An increase in children attending expensive independent schools, far from their local communities.
My concern is that developing additionally resourced schools will not be planned and will be seen as a quick way of solving the current crisis.
It is positive that the Government now has a focus on the quality of teaching and learning for children with SEND and that it is recognised that mainstream schools need to be supported to able to properly include children. A strategy to develop
additionally resourced schools is not a quick win. There needs to be robust planning and proper funding. In my experience the following are the critical factors for success:
1. A local co-produced strategy based on a partnership between the local authority, community health services, early years settings, schools, colleges, families, young people and the community sector.
2. An already developed inclusive education strategy based on enabling all schools to be able to fulfil the legal requirement of parental and young people’s choice.
3. Learning and behaviour support services to support all schools to gain confidence both in their strategic planning for inclusion and with individual children.
4. A quality assurance function – usually located within a school improvement team.
5. Planning to provide resourced schools strategically around the local authority area to enable children to attend schools as close to home as possible. For low incidence needs, resourced schools would be ideally located centrally.
6. Schools to develop additionally resourced provision will already have an inclusive ethos, understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act and the Children and Families Act and be committed to continuous professional development around curriculum and pedagogical excellence.
7. Once planning with an individual school begins, there needs to be a small group working together. They will have already agreed to specific specialism they will develop, whether it will be for deaf children, children with complex autism or children with profound learning and physical needs, for example.
8. An agreement on an approximate number of children whose needs will be supported by the additional resourcing will be a crucial decision. This will be partly based on the size of the school and the accommodation (taking account of any capital resources available for adaptations).
9. Importantly, there will be an agreement about the specialist staff that will need to be on site and the support that will be provided by other agencies.
10. The next stage is to plan the training needed for the whole school staff. This will be planned to meet the needs of the whole staff body and will be ongoing.
11. Once the plan is agreed, recruitment, training and adaptations will need to begin.
12. The local authority will make information available to families and young people accurately describing the new provision. All staff working in the system will need to be clear about the purpose of the additionally resourced provision so that consistent information is provided.
13. The purpose of resourced provision needs to be clearly described. In my experience, to make the model of resourced provision a success, the purpose need to include:
To enable children to learn and play together to their mutual benefit.
To break down societal barriers faced by disabled people by enabling non-disabled children to learn about difference and to tackle discrimination.
To give all children access to a high quality broad and balanced curriculum, personalised to their individual needs.
To enable children with high needs to access what the school has to offer in a way that works for them.
To support children with high needs to be part of friendship groups which extend beyond school.
To provide parents (and young people) the opportunity to be able to fulfil their legal right to express a preference for a mainstream school.
To enable teachers and other professionals to challenge their professional expertise by being constantly curious and aspirational for all their students.
I hope that we do not develop units. The point of additionally resourced schools is to enable children to be included with their peers as much as works for them at the same time as receiving the specialist support they need.
How Eugenics Shaped the Logic of Disability in Education
Nazlin Bhimani, Research Support & Special Collections Librarian at University College
London (UCL), examines how early 20th century eugenic principles influenced educational policy and teacher training, embedding exclusionary practices that continue to marginalise Disabled children in mainstream education today.
The growing exclusion of Disabled children, and their continued segregation from mainstream schooling, are not simply contemporary policy failures. They reflect a deeper logic that became embedded in education in the early twentieth century, when disability was reframed as a biological defect and positioned as a threat to national fitness. This shift was a direct result of the rise of eugenic thinking, which gained academic legitimacy and began to shape educational policy, including teacher training.
‘Eugenics’, a term coined by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton in 1883, was defined as the science of improving the human population through selective breeding (positive eugenics) and discouraging procreation among those considered ‘unfit’ through segregation and sterilisation (negative eugenics). Galton’s premise was that impairments and negative characteristics such as criminality, drunkenness and limited intelligence capacity were innate and fixed. Over two decades later, in 1904, he redefined eugenics
as ‘the study of all agencies that may improve or impair racial qualities’, which positioned eugenics as offering scientific solutions to social problems.
This redefinition broadened its appeal among social reformers of all political persuasions concerned with the survival and ‘fitness’ of the
The growing exclusion of Disabled children, and their continued segregation from mainstream schooling, are not simply contemporary policy failures.
nation and Empire. Its influence on education policy was particularly evident in the training of teachers, where eugenic ideas of national improvement and racial quality were embedded in both curriculum and professional standards. These ideas were explicitly tied to the notion of ‘civic worth’, understood as a combination of moral character, physical fitness and biological health.
Civic worth became increasingly entangled with emerging discourse on disability and national efficiency, as studies were conducted to demonstrate a growing number of mental and moral ‘degenerates’ among the lower classes, and a rise in the number of ‘feebleminded’ children born to them. This was, in effect, a hierarchy of human worth positioned as a threat to social progress, which began to shape educational thinking and teacher training.
The introduction of medical inspections in schools in 1907 marked a turning point, for they were described by one medic writing in The Lancet as ‘one part of a larger eugenic survey of the nation’. By 1909, the committed eugenicist Cyril Burt had devised his intelligence scales or ‘mental footrule’, adapting the tests developed by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon for use in the Parisian education system, and combining them with new statistical measures. Shortly afterwards, the first eugenic piece of legislation, the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, was passed. The Act aimed to ‘stem the great evil of feeble mindedness’, an elastic and ill-defined term that enabled authorities to target individuals from the lower classes who were considered to be ‘morally degenerate’ or ‘socially inefficient’ and to forcibly segregate
Many of those institutionalised were young people convicted of petty crimes, unmarried mothers and pregnant teenagers. In parallel, some 12,000 ‘defective’ children were put in special schools.
them. Those labelled ‘idiots’ or ‘imbeciles’, both crude and reductive labels for those with learning difficulties, were removed from their homes and incarcerated in ‘colonies’, where they learnt only manual skills, as the authorities maintained that ‘people who do not live in society, do not need the tools of society’. Many of those institutionalised were young people convicted of petty crimes, unmarried mothers and pregnant teenagers. In parallel, some 12,000 ‘defective’ children were put in special schools.
In 1913, Burt became the first educational psychologist to work for a Local Education Authority, the London County Council (LCC). Here, he had access to the files, including medical records and family histories, of all school children. He used his tests, administered with the help of classroom teachers and school inspectors, to rank and sort children into categories determined by
age and ability, or intelligence, classifying them into gifted, normal and subnormal children.
These tests, however, were culturally biased towards the middle-classes, and they ignored the socio-economic backgrounds of children, which would have affected their overall development, as well as their creativity. They were also viewed by teacher trainers and policymakers as a way to establish a science of education through research in intelligence testing, which would both raise the profile of education in universities and elevate the status of teachers. Despite these fundamental flaws, intelligence testing gained acceptance. As the Chief Education Officer for the LCC claimed, they would:
Lift the practice of teaching, … lay it on a broad scientific foundation … [and] show the world that the teaching profession was a learned one.”
In 1924, Burt was appointed lecturer in educational psychology and Head of the Higher Degrees Department at the prestigious teacher training institution, the London Day Training College (LDTC), which was linked to the University of London, whose Senate had formally accepted eugenics as a science in 1904. By this time, Burt had published his report on Mental and Scholastic Tests (1921), which he argued would help to identify the ‘subnormal’ child. Trainee teachers, who had previously been taught to observe the child to determine their educational needs, were
now instructed on how to use the tests as they provided a supposedly scientific and objective means of determining intelligence and identifying subnormality.
In The Young Delinquent (1925), Burt conflated disability with diseases, morality and criminality, resulting in many children with health conditions being misdiagnosed and permanently labelled as ‘dull’, ‘backward’, ‘maladjusted’ and ‘ineducable’. The labels functioned not as diagnostic categories but as instruments for social exclusion, reducing children’s life chances in significant ways. His writings framed the dull mind as mechanistic and the intelligent mind as logical, ignoring the multifaceted nature of cognitive abilities. Further, he consistently downplayed environmental conditions, despite his own figures showing a high correlation between poverty, environment and test scores. This selective interpretation of data exemplified confirmation bias inherent to eugenic research methodology. This flawed methodology became embedded in educational assessment practices.
From the mid-1920s, the tests were used to justify a reorganisation of schools and the sorting of children by age and ability, becoming increasingly tied to the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’ or merit. In reality, they entrenched exclusion and ableism, repackaged as fairness and legitimised through the language of scientific neutrality. Burt was also involved at policy level through the Wood Report (1929), which framed disability as a social threat.
While eugenics became a silent presence in the 1930s, due to its appropriation by Nazi Germany, the dire economic situation during the Depression resulted in disability being framed as a financial liability and a social threat with renewed vigour. This was due not least to Burt’s growing influence in the media and his position as Head of the Psychology Department at the University of London from 1932.
By the end of the interwar period, some 33% of teachers were being trained in universities, embedding Burt’s theories and tests into their professional practice, despite growing attention to the sociology and philosophy of education. When the Education Act was passed in 1944, the 11-plus examination was made compulsory and extended the eugenic logic of exclusion, particularly for Disabled children and those from Black/Global Majority backgrounds, within an attainment-focused education system.
Recognising this history and challenging narratives of normalcy and merit are imperative if we want disability to be represented not as a deficit or deviation to be corrected, but as a dimension of human diversity that enriches society. This recognition must be reflected in policy and practice.
Recognising this history and challenging narratives of normalcy and merit are imperative if we want disability to be represented not as a deficit or deviation to be corrected, but as a dimension of human diversity that enriches society.
Developing Inclusive Education in the Caribbean
October 2025 witnessed a focus on Disability Rights and developing Inclusive Education in the Caribbean. Richard Rieser reports back.
Firstly, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) which has a policy focus on Disability Rights and Inclusion, held its Annual Conference in Barbados . The CPA had delegates from 187 Parliaments across the Commonwealth (these comprise national and provincial or state Parliaments as well as British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies). The CPA has a Commonwealth Parliamentarians Network of Disabled people and is also supporting
the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum effort to get a Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) adopted next November in Antiqua at the Commonwealth Heads of Government. The CPA held a Town Hall meeting with their members and around 60 Disabled activists from Barbados with Kerryann Ifill, CDPF Vice Chair. Richard Rieser, as General Secretary, also addressed a meeting looking forward to CHOGM 2026 and the DIAP.
Image: Course participants at the Young Disabled Leaders Training in Barbados.
Secondly, the CDPF held a regional training in Barbados to develop Young Disabled Leaders in the Caribbean. Held in Barbados from 14th to 16th October 2025, it brought together Young Disabled leaders from across the region (20 from 11 islands: Bahamas, Dominica, Granada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize remotely). This comprised 11 women and 10 men aged between 18 and 35, with a wide range of impairments. Hosted by the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum (CDPF) with Disability Equality trainers from Guyana, Barbados, Bahamas and the UK, it was designed to strengthen the leadership skills, confidence, and advocacy capacity of Disabled youth through the lens of the Social Model of Disability and Disability Inclusion.
Using participatory and experiential learning approaches, trainees explored issues of language, models of disability, Inclusive Education, barriers
to equality, human rights under the United [Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and developed a personal and country action plan.
Participants highly rated the training, and here are some of their comments:
There was so much information and knowledge that I gained from this training that I did not know. It has made me more educated and empowered”
I believe that this training and forum greatly prepared me to go to my country and fight and stand-up for disability rights.”
[The training] was designed to strengthen the
leadership skills, confidence, and advocacy capacity of Disabled youth through the lens of the Social Model of Disability and Disability Inclusion.
I am taking away a new level of selfconfidence and a better understanding of disabilities, including my own.”
Words cannot explain the amount of knowledge I am taking. But it is definitely helping me to be a better and more effective advocate.”
Outcome Activity 3, Barriers and Solutions for Inclusive Mainstream Schools: This activity focused on identifying barriers to inclusion in mainstream education and developing practical solutions. Discussions were organised under four categories of barriers: environment, organisation and curriculum, attitudes and culture, medical and equipment needs.
1. Environmental Barriers: Poor infrastructure, stairs without ramps, inaccessible classrooms, inadequate space, and lack of transportation options.
Solutions: Retrofit schools with ramps and accessible bathrooms, adopt universal design, and consult with Disabled people in all infrastructure planning.
2. Organisational and Curriculum Barriers: Untrained teachers, inflexible curriculum, lack of Inclusive Education policies.
Solutions: Mandatory inclusive teacher education, early introduction of inclusion principles, and adaptive teaching strategies.
3. Attitudes and Cultural Barriers: Bullying, stigma, religious prejudice, overprotection, and low expectations.
Solutions: Sensitisation training for teachers and students, positive media representation, and open dialogue to normalise inclusion.
4. Medical and Equipment Barriers: Limited access to assistive devices, interpreters, or trained support staff.
Solutions: Greater investment in assistive technology, reduced import taxes on mobility aids, and inclusive healthcare and school support systems.
The following week CDPF collaborated with the Caribbean Disability Network on a four-day conference on developing Inclusive Education in the Caribbean. The verdict was that starts have been made in most islands but provision is mixed, still relying on special schools. However, increasing numbers of schools and teachers are prepared to include Disabled students. Much more must be done.
Starts have been made in most islands but provision is mixed, still relying on special schools. However, increasing numbers of schools and teachers are prepared to include Disabled students. Much more must be done.
Image: Young leaders working together at the training.
Legal Question
Disabled Activists have raised growing concerns about government signals suggesting a stronger emphasis on 'Resource' bases and 'Units', rather than Inclusive Education. Under the current Children and Families Act 2014, is such a policy direction legal? If not, what measures would the government need to take to make it lawful and what would that mean for the right to Inclusive Education in the UK?"
Response
At the time of writing, the government has committed to reforming SEN but there are no concrete proposals about what will be done, so it is difficult to say for sure what changes will be needed.
The current position
The Children and Families Act 2014 contains two key provisions relating to inclusive education:
Section 33, which provides that a child must be educated in a mainstream school (unless this is incompatible with the wishes of the parents or the provision of efficient education for others); and
Section 35, which states that when a child with SEN is being educated in a mainstream school, those making special educational provision must ensure that, so far as is reasonably practical, the child engages in the activities of the school together with children who do not have special educational needs (unless this would not be compatible with making the provision the child requires, the efficient education of others, or the efficient use of resources).
Additionally resourced provision (“ARP”)
ARPs (sometimes known as “resource bases” or “units”) are part of a mainstream school.* Local Authorities will often “name” the ARP in section I of a child’s EHC Plan, but in law, children in the ARP are attending the mainstream school and that is what should be specified in Section I. This means that placing a child in a unit is not incompatible with section 33, since the child is being educated in a mainstream school.
It might be unlawful under s35, since the child would not be “engaging in the activities of the school” with the other children. However, s 35 isn’t an absolute duty and there are several caveats. Whether it would be unlawful would depend on the precise facts of the case: for example, how long does the child spend in the ARP and what are they doing whilst they are there? Could the provision be made in a mainstream class?
Disability discrimination
It is possible that putting a Disabled child into an ARP could be considered to be discrimination arising from a disability (treating a child “unfavourably” because of something that arises from a disability). For example, if being in the ARP meant that the child could not take the same GCSE subjects as offered in the rest of the school, it could be argued that this was discrimination. Again, this is very dependent on the individual facts of the case.
Legal Question
Is the policy lawful?
As can be seen, the government would not necessarily have to amend the Children and Families Act 2014 to allow more children to be placed in ARPs. However, what this means for inclusion is unclear. One of the key questions is what the extra ARP places are intended to replace. If the ARPs are going to take more of the children who would otherwise be in mainstream school, this would be a blow for inclusion. However, if the plan is for such places to be filled by children who would have had to go to special schools, then it can be argued that this will be a more inclusive system, as it would allow children who would be completely outside the mainstream to be included in mainstream classes at least some of the time.
* There are some rare exceptions where such “units” are satellite provision from a special school – in this case, any child in the unit would be treated as attending that special school.
This legal question was posed by Edmore Masendeke, Richard Rieser and Michelle Daley, and was answered by Rachel Scales from Simpson Millar Solicitors.
The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE)
A national campaigning organisation led by disabled people. ALLFIE works to change laws, practices and procedures which discriminate against Disabled Young people and prevent inclusion. ALLFIE works together with allies to build a social climate in which everyone has a valued place.
336 Brixton Road, London SW9 7AA
Tel: 020 7737 6030
Email: info@allfie.org.uk
Website: www.allfie.org.uk
In collaboration with:
Inclusive Solutions
A team of psychologists and associates who specialise in cutting edge practical strategies and ideas for developing effective inclusion in local mainstream schools and communities. We work with anyone who wants to bring about the real systems changes that are necessary to move towards a truly inclusive society.
World of Inclusion
Tel: 0115 9556045 or 01473 437590
Email: inclusive.solutions@me.com
Website: inclusive-solutions.com
A consultancy that provides advice, resources and training in the UK and around the world to develop equality for disabled people especially in education. Richard Rieser is an expert disabled international equality trainer, consultant, film maker and writer and teacher.
Basement, 78 Mildmay Grove South, London N1 4PJ
Tel: 020 7359 2855 or 07715 420727
Email: rlrieser@gmail.com
Website: worldofinclusion.com
DISABLED PEOPLE, PARENTS AND ALLIES, WORKING TOGETHER to educate, facilitate and empower everyone who wants to be part of the growing inclusion movement. Together we want to bring down the barriers so all young people can learn, make friends and have a voice in ordinary school and throughout life. For each and every young person, this is an essential human right.
