Joe Whittaker
Disabled children’s rights under the Conservatives p 5
School Visit Inclusive practice alive and well in Surrey p 9
Parent Voice
Linking poverty, class, race & disability p 13
Teacher voice
A history of the SEND education system p 15
SEND Review
New hope or a further segregation story? p19
"Joe Whittaker was an amazing teacher and campaigner for Inclusive Education" p3
Welcome to Inclusion Now 65, with spring inclusive education news. This edition is dedicated to Joe Whittaker, ALLFIE Trustee and activist. We hope you enjoy Joe’s contributions and presence throughout the magazine including his editorial (page 2), opening article (page 5), and the Legal Question he posed (page 23). Richard Rieser has also included a moving tribute to Joe (page 3), highlighting his crucial work in the Disabled People’s Movement from the 80s onwards.
Grace is the driver for this editorial - her experiences in local mainstream school (page 13), illustrate what inclusive education should never be. The determination of Grace's mum exposes, ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty, deception and cruelty of senior professionals, in Grace’s situation culminating in the absolute pathetic spiteful action of the headteacher, having the symbol for the Disabled parking place painted over so she could use the space herself. This article shows the power of friendships and allies to assist against professional dogma - I had to read twice to comprehend the significance of the exhaustive energy some parents are forced to take to ensure the rights of their child to go to their local school.
By Richard RieserThankfully, as a refreshing contrast (page 9), Richard Rieser reports back on a visit to Pyrcroft Grange Primary School in Surrey, with the mission: “If you can dream it, you will believe it; if you believe it, you work for it, you will achieve it” This inclusive school recognises the value of working in partnership with each child and their family, alongside a team of teachers committed to a fully inclusive approach with ALL students, irrespective of the level attached to the student.
By Joe Whittaker Linda JordanInclusion 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
On page 15 Linda Jordon provides us with a comprehensive account of the past fifty years in the UK and the ideological ‘merry go round’ Disabled children have been subjected to for political interests. Solid evidence from the government’s own research shows that, where students are properly supported, given a welcome in a place in their school and provided the opportunity to grow in relationships - we know inclusion works.
‘The rise and fall of Disabled children’s rights in the past 10 years’ (page 5), is a dispiriting account of the systematic and illegal methods used by professionals and local and national governments to undermine inclusion and human rights.
On page 21, Richard Rieser reviews two important books from an international campaigner and much valued thinker, Micheline Mason, Founder of the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE).
By Joe Whittaker ALLFIE Trustee and editorial board member
By Richard Rieser
When I first met Joe in the late 1980’s, he was a teacher of teachers, particularly in Further Education at Bolton Institute. Joe was a great catalyst of the burgeoning Inclusion Movement in the UK. He had gone to a couple of Inclusion Summer Schools at McGill University in Montreal, and formed vital links with a group of presenters who had developed an important range of tools and methods for de-segregating Disabled people and developing integration, as it was called in those days.
Purposive inclusion had started in the wake of desegregating metal health institutions in some parts of Canada in the 1960/1970s, and tools such as MAPS, PATHS and Circles of Friends had been developed to break down isolation of ex-inmates and were extended to integrating schools. Advocates included Marsha Forest, Jack Pierrepoint (Inclusion and Human Rights campaigners), Judith Snow (Disabled institutional survivor), John O’Brien, Herb Lovett (psychologists) and George Flynn (School Board Principle in Waterloo, Ontario).
Joe, along with psychologist John Hall, had facilitated this Team coming to the UK and delivering 3 day participatory workshops in Cardiff and Manchester in the summer of 1990.
This was about the same time the Alliance for Integration was set up. Joe then went on to be the main organiser of the Bolton Conferences on Inclusion and these were held regularly during summer half-term holidays. The years 1993 and 1995 stand out. These brought parents, Disabled children, Disabled adults and educational professionals together and provided real support for the local struggles going on all over the country, to end segregation and get Disabled children and young people fully included into school and college. The flavour of these events is captured in 2 online videos of the 1995 Bolton Conference 1995(1), and 1995(2)
Joe, along with John Kenworthy (psychologist), set up the Action Research Centre for Inclusion at Bolton Institute with money from Barrow Cadbury Trust. As well as training and developing Data for Inclusion (an example on the impact of segregation can be found here), the Institute supported local campaigns for Inclusion.
One such campaign against Lancashire County Council was to get Nicky Crane and Zak Lewis into mainstream school. This led to Joe and John occupying Council Offices in Preston from 22nd to 23rd July and their arrest. The adverse publicity led to a more favourable outcome.
Joe has written many articles as a proponent for inclusion over the last 35 years and was heavily involved with ALLFIE campaigns and Executive Board. The extract below, arguing against Snoezelen(1994) therapy, shows the power of Joe’s writing.
“We take young children, we label them as having severe physical impairments or we label them as having severe learning disabilities. The labels can be many and varied, once they have been successfully attached, they provide a licence to have children removed form their local schools and communities. Having done this we
prevent them from developing friendships with other youngsters from their neighbourhood. We put them in separate schools where we surround them with a multitude of “experts” who succeed in restricting their curricular activities. We segregate them from learning environments within which their peers participate, we collect them together with other youngsters with similar labels and make “statements” about them having the same “special needs”. Once this has been done we gather together another batch of professionals who will tell us why some children may get frustrated and angry and fail to respond positively to the “special environment” we have created just for them. But the solution is at hand because we can now add to this special environment a new therapy – The Snoezelen! “Jewel-bright lights”, “perfumed air”, “coloured bubbles” and “soft music”, we are told, can “artificially” re-create many of the sensations and experiences we put so much time, money and energy into removing in the first instance. The “Snoezelen Experience” will get people to respond in a way they never have before. Snoezelen is a Dutch word, meaning “sniffing and dozing” and the cost of getting learners to sniff up and doze off in such a specially designed room will cost around £50,000.”
In 2015 Bolton University shut down a thriving Education Department with a good reputation on Inclusive Education and Joe lost his job. He went on pursuing Freedom of Information to show irregularities of University money by the Vice-Chancellor.
Joe struggled as many of us do against oppression, first coming out, leaving his family, living with a partner as a gay man, and then developing Diabetes that increasingly impacted on him. This did not stop him staying true to the principles of inclusion and being a well-informed critic of the absurdities of Government Policy. We will all miss Joe and celebrate the leading role he played in the ongoing human rights struggle for Inclusive Education.
The many struggles for Inclusive Education (IE) have been recorded by Disabled Peoples Organisations, most notably ALLFIE and allies such as the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE), with Alison Wertheimer detailing national and international thinking about IE
The shifts away from the damaging segregation of Disabled children in isolated settings onto a path of IE with the prospect for a greater diversity of friendships and imaginative learning opportunities was a key debate throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. The campaigns to create IE, had benefits for all learners which included:
• Pupil Centred Learning
• Team Teaching
• Teachers with different approaches to Teaching and Learning
• Introduction of senior staff to coordinate support around the school (SENCO)
• Stories of Disabled and non-Disabled students learning about each other for the first time
• Thousands of Teaching Assistants introduced to support Individual Learning Plans
• Different ways of assessing learning from a greater diversity of students
• Subject differentiation introduced to reach more students
• British Sign Language (BSL) as a second language for all to study
• Schools made physically accessible for Disabled people, Children, Teachers and Visitors
• Circles of Support
• Growth of Data and Materials celebrating the benefits to all from IE
• Disability History Month
The above and many more initiatives evolved from the struggles to make learning more accessible and more inclusive. However, the most significant shift was that Disabled children were not seeking permission to be included, it was their fundamental human right to be a part of their local schools and communities.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2007) was the culmination of those struggles - inclusion was now a Human Rights issue. This was a global message, contained in a document of fifty Articles, covering all areas of Human Rights for Disabled people to participate and contribute, on an equal basis as others, in their communities around the world. A key article of the convention and its interconnection with all other articles, for ALLFIE, was Article 24 - The RIGHT TO Inclusive Education.
Disabled People were instrumental in creating the language of this convention and pushing for IE as a Human Rights issue, Tara Flood, ALLFIE Director at that time, said:
“There was something really exciting about being at the UN, during the discussions to create the UNCRPD because for the first time in the history of the UN, non-governmental organisations were at the heart of shaping the convention text. For me, what was important was that the majority of NGO representatives were Disabled people, truly ‘nothing about us without us’. I went to New York representing ALLFIE and so my focus was securing a strong commitment to inclusive education in Article 24. This wasn’t easy because there were the usual arguments for ‘choice of education setting’, which as we know opens the door for segregated provision. However working alongside Richard Rieser (World of Inclusion) and Belinda Shaw (CSIE), we convinced government and NGO reps to support inclusive education as a human rights issue and therefore the aspiration of inclusive education for all Disabled pupils and students – an amazing achievement.”
ALLFIE was taking a key role in writing and making IE history. The UNCRPD made it clear that discriminations against Disabled people in the Institutions and Statutory Services should end. There was a recognition for those inside and outside of the Inclusion Movement we had reached a landmark based upon a solid foundation of Human Rights.
But then in came the Cameron Government in 2010. They quickly introduced a policy of ‘Ending the bias towards Inclusive Education.’ This policy was based upon a false assumption, that every Disabled child had the opportunity to enjoy IE and the Government wanted to strengthen ‘a choice agenda’ which as Flood suggested, was the ‘Trojan Horse’ to continue segregation.
The legislation to end discrimination and uphold Human Rights was not an overnight event, this was the time when the aspirations for IE had to be established as structural changes in the Schooling System, which would be a long journey. Richard Reiser, in 2011 asserted another reason the Government wanted to ‘end the bias towards Inclusive Education’
Inclusive approaches require transparency. Rieser’s assertion was correct, the Conservative Government intended to disguise their main aim, which was to increase the ‘marketplace’ in the schooling system. It is now obvious the Government have taken steps to undermine the rights of Disabled children whilst at the same increasing their attraction to a segregated ‘special’ economy.
How much will local authorities pay to private companies and charities to transport and segregate Disabled children from their homes and communities? It’s not the cost per child that is the concern, but the way Disabled children are packaged as a commodity. The more “complex” we construct and label a Disabled child, the deeper the segregation can be for that child and the higher the price on their head, paid by the local authority to a private company or charity, for private gain. If funding was available to create appropriate supports, where the Disabled child is the focus, accessing services in their local communities, the opportunities available could be transformed out of isolation into inclusion.
Statutory services cannot be an “event” done at an individual. Service has to be provided consistently and reliably from highly valued and well supported people, who are being guided by the Disabled person they are there to serve, it’s a reciprocal relationship. In 2011, the same Cameron Government set about removing Legal Aid, the significance of which will become apparent as we follow the undermining of Disabled children’s rights.
In the last five years Disabled children have increasingly been subjected to unlawful assaults from the Statutory Services, this is reflected in a soar of parental complaints to the Statutory Authorities, and the number of those complaints that have been upheld by independent bodies. Parents with children on Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) were disproportionately assaulted.
This 90% increase in complaints from parents is likely to be the tip of an iceberg. If we were to include those parents who were justified in making a complaint but did not have the time, skills or support to follow a complaints procedure the figure is likely to be even higher. Often complaints procedures can be an ‘internal mechanism’ used to distract and exhaust an already busy parent.
With such an increase in complaints some professionals and official responses were to simply to “blame the parents” adding insult to injury. Special Needs Jungle provide details of this increasingly common practice.
Another disturbing assault on Disabled children, which has increased in recent years. Ofsted (the Governments own Inspectorate of Standards Service) reported the practice of ‘off rolling’, where unknown numbers of children have been removed from the School Registers without explanation. These numbers disproportionately affected Disabled children. This practice reflects significant numbers of Headteachers and Local Authorities who are breaking the law. Examples include parents called into school by the Headteacher, sometimes with a Local Authority Officer present, and told that the school ‘cannot cope’ with your child because he had a ‘melt down’. The parent was then given ‘options’ - their Disabled child could go to a segregated special school, 35 miles away from home, or the parent could ‘home school’. This tactic to remove the child from school is unlawful
The practice of ‘off rolling’ was raised as a concern by Ofsted in 2017, indicating children had been lost in the system, without explanation. Ofsted refused to name the schools:
“We have identified around 300 schools with ‘exceptional levels’ of pupils coming off-roll between Years 10 and 11. We know that the most vulnerable children are more likely to be excluded or off-rolled."
A few years later Ofsted still have concerns, but their language is somewhat more cautious, even when they acknowledge ‘loopholes’ that could be unlawful.
“There is also a need to reform alternative provision (AP), removing the loopholes that allow so much of it to avoid regulation and oversight. We need to go deeper into the reasons why so many children sent to AP never return to mainstream schools. We need a better understanding of what happens to the children who are removed from school.” Ofsted annual report 2020/21
It is clear in the last 12 years the UK Conservative Government has failed to uphold the rights of Disabled children as illustrated with the assaults described above.
In addition, the Government refused to endorse Article 24 of the UNCRPD. Tara flood said:
“At the time the UK Government agreed to the Article 24 text, but as we know betrayed Disabled people, shortly afterwards, when it signed the Convention, by placing conditions on its implementation of Article 24 and allowing for the growth in segregated provision and the denial of the human right of Disabled pupils and students to a full life it might appear that, in anticipation of such an attack on Disabled children’s rights it might be appropriate to close their access to redress in the courts”
With the increase in assaults on Disabled children such a legal response from parents could have been anticipated and the Government were warned about the drastic effect of removing Legal Aid in 2011, but perhaps that was their intention? By denyig access to law, they deny access to justice and the Government knew they would be carrying out many injustices against Disabled children The lawyers have made clear that the reduction in Legal Aid had serious consequences for society.
For many parents seeking legal support to redress the assaults against their Disabled children there is a legal desert, leaving families abandoned to continued assaults. Parents of Disabled children do not seek conflicts, they do not want to go to tribunals or court. They are propelled into a toxic struggle with the statutory services, who they assumed were there to ‘support them’, but so many professionals have allowed themselves to become adversaries of Disabled children and their parents.
Rob Delaney, the father of a Disabled child, describes the struggle he and his partner had with statutory services in his book ‘A Heart That Works’: “….hours, days, weeks stolen from families who could be playing with their sick child but instead they must beg for help in front of rooms full of people whose governments assassinated budgets have trained them to be adversaries of families… After many exhausting meetings and hearings that radicalised me for several lifetimes. We got Henry home…”
We cannot fall into despair at these callous injustices against Disabled children by the statutory services and Government. At the very least we must record and support every effort to influence Ofsted, CQC, Local Authorities, MPs and police where appropriate. We encourage parents to contact local Disabled Peoples Organisations without delay, (such as Special Needs Jungle) to pass your case on to the appropriate authorities – Today!
Pyrcroft Grange Primary is a one form entry academy school in Chertsey, Surrey with a strong ethos of inclusion for everyone to learn and be the best they can.
Set in extensive grounds on the edge of the small town of Chertsey and surrounding beautiful countryside, the school is physically accessible and has a Centre for Communication and Interaction Needs (COIN), where the focus is on integration into their mainstream age-appropriate class.
The 34% of pupils on free school meals includes a significant number of Traveller children and belies the first impression of a school in the affluent suburbs.
It is resourced by Surrey Council for 20 pupils with Autism, Speech and Language, and Specific Learning Needs who have Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs).
The school has a further seven pupils with EHCPs and 27 on SEND support. The school has developed space for sensory and quiet rooms, key stage 1 and 2 COIN areas, a library, IT suite, gym/hall and separate dining area. On visiting, what impresses is the focus on learning and excellence for all, utilising the skilled and committed staff, rich range of learning
resources (inside and outside) and a variety of outside organisations to provide a rich and varied curriculum. Headteacher for six years, Sue Nardoni, acknowledges the engagement of all learners and respect all pupils have for each other and the whole school community is key.
The school curriculum is based on the National Curriculum but with many inclusive aspects. I especially liked the commitment to remove barriers to learning, ensuring all children make progress from their individual starting points.
Involving parents is a key to success for all. Teachers ensure all families get a phone call twice every half-term, and a daily home/ schoolbook is used for pupils who attend the COIN. Emphasis is placed on daily reading and oracy learning for all children. Parents are encouraged to make sure children also read their reading book nightly and have a quiet space for their weekly home tasks.
The school curriculum is called Intent, delivered by 13 teaching staff (2 for COIN) and 18 teaching
assistants (6 for COIN). Every class teacher is responsible for the learning of all in their class including those who attend the COIN. Most go to COIN for extra help with Literacy and Numeracy in the mornings. Some stay afternoons at COIN (5 currently).
The emphasis is on building relationships and respect with their peers. Pupil who needs a break can go outside when they want. Teaching methods include Teaching, Appreciating, Collaborating and Cooperating and Holistic (TEACCH) approach, zones of regulation, social stories, Emotional Literacy and Support Assistant (ELSA) and sensory regulation.
The elected School Council (SC) of 2 or 3 pupils per class in years 1-6 is organised to ensure the voice of the Disabled children at the school are heard. The SC came up with the mission statement:
The school believe good play promotes emotional, social and academic development
“Dream, Believe, Work, Achieve “If you can dream it, you will believe it; if you believe it, you work for it, you will achieve it…”
and ensures all children get a minimum of an hour of outdoor play every day.
Working with Opal Play Project the school have organised their outdoor space into areas with a different focus such as loose parts, giant sandpit, bug hotel and nature play, mud kitchen, table tennis, scooters, trikes and bikes with a hard core circuit, climbing frame, trim trail, mechanics area, mini golf, football pitches, Bessie the Reading Bus, trampolines, outdoor chalk boards, wild area and cultivation garden. A pair of wellies left at school is part of the uniform to enable access outside. There is a breakfast club from 7.45am, lunch and after school clubs staffed so all can attend who want to and gap provision until 6pm. The school have an interesting Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PHSE) programme of study which include practical skills and important topics for safeguarding and challenging prejudice and bullying.
The school runs many trips to local museums and galleries, Forest School and Residentials in Year 4 (3 days) and Year 3 (5 days).
all pupils can’t attend, and they make sure all necessary reasonable adjustments are in place. As an Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) rated outstanding school they are very popular and massively oversubscribed.
Nicola Colley, SENCO, head of COIN and deputy told me, they share their excellent practice with other schools in the Trust and locally. High staff retention, happy school where everyone knows all the children and their needs. They have had two wheelchair using children and they were very popular and successful.
A number of children who attend the COIN are non-verbal but by Year 3 they are all speaking and mainly achieving good outcomes when they leave. They have an OT and Speech and Language Therapists (SALT) 1 day per week and all teachers value and include all children in their classes:
“We teach by modelling what we expect the children to do and all the staff including me and the head will turn our hand to any task from helping toileting to hearing children read. We are a strong inclusive family here.”
I visited Pyrcroft Grange as part of my consultancy and development work with the Bourne Education Trust (BET) and Alex Russell CEO. BET have 26 schools mainly in Surrey, covering 12,500 students and over 1,300 staff, committed to ‘Transforming Schools: Changing Lives’ and are fully committed as a Trust to develop Inclusion.
“All our schools aspire to be fully inclusive. This means that all pupils are welcomed regardless of education need. Each school has a SENCO to provide high profile and visible leadership. We believe that all teachers should be a teacher of SEND and train them as such. All pupils learn, contribute to and take part in all aspects of school life. Pupils with SEND spend most or all their time learning with peers, and our schools encourage awareness of the mutual benefits of inclusion.”
(BET Equality, Inclusion and Diversity Annual Report Sept, 2022)
Pyrcroft Grange is a beacon, other schools in the Trust need to turn the aspiration into a reality.
Within 5 months of being born our daughter Grace was fighting for her life as she battled Meningitis. Seven weeks later she came home from hospital and, from that moment. our lives changed forever. Grace had sustained a brain injury and was destined not to walk. I was frightened, but resolved to make sure Grace was always treated equally, as the next couple of years were dominated by doctors, consultants, therapists and other professionals. But the real troubles began when Grace reached school age, and her development took a detour.. .
I never considered anything other than mainstream school for Grace. I had established a relationship with our Education Authority who were supportive of this, and a school was chosen because it was local, newly built and on one level. Grace would need additional support and the Educational Authority didn't have a problem with this, so I assumed there wouldn't be one.
The opposition when it came blindsided me. It came from the headmistress of the school, whose objections, many and varied, were quickly overruled by the Education Authority. Grace started in Reception with a dedicated learning assistant at age 4. The first year passed without problems - or so I thought.
It was at the beginning of year 1 the learning assistant warned me that she had been told to keep a log of any unusual incidents involving Grace, for example, occasions she could not keep up or may wet herself. This 'evidence' was to demonstrate Grace's unsuitability for mainstream schooling. And at age 5 Grace picked up that something was wrong, and that peeing was somehow a problem. So, she stopped peeing at school. I was unaware of this until she became very ill with a urinary infection.
Her learning assistant then told me what had been going on. A meeting was called with the school and the Education Authority. The school presented their evidence the gravity of a criminal trial. It was to be a very short meeting. The Education Authority dismissed the school's objections, e expressing disappointment with a teaching staff colluding to expel their only pupil with physical difficulties in a new school designed to be accessible.
Entry to Middle School - This school, was in the same building and the natural progression from First school. I hadn't imagined a problem, but I found myself in a DeJa’Vu situation with the Head teacher there too. He put up a variety of barriers, pointing out difficulties and generally trying to put me off. Finally, I lost patience with parrying off his objections. Without anger I told him that like it or not we were destined to be shackled together for the next 4 years and that we could do it the easy way or the hard way. I said I was giving him an opportunity to learn; that I was offering up my daughter to be his learning tool and that he could take this opportunity and learn from it or learn nothing and we would all have a miserable 4 years. I predicted he'd thank Grace one day. Did he have a "why not?" moment too? I don't know but he came back to school and embraced this new challenge with enthusiasm. There was nothing he wouldn't do for her. Eventually, at his suggestion and with his support I became SEN Governor of both First and Middle Schools for many years. Furthermore, we became firm friends. Grace is now 32 years old, and we are still firm friends.
After 4 happy years, at graduation from Middle school, Grace was presented with an award for endeavour. The Head teacher recounted our introduction and thanked Grace for enriching himself and the school.
How could anyone dispute that inclusive education could be anything but positive for everyone?
He dedicated a new award in her name to be given to future children who showed endeavour.
What Grace's peers learned in those years was beyond measure. An example of this was sports day practice on the school field. One year there had been waterlogging problems so a ditch was dug around the field. As Grace's wheelchair couldn't cross the ditch the teacher said she could watch from the side. Without hesitation, the children refused and said if she couldn't join them there, they would do the practice on the playground instead. 10-year-old children who had grown with her from age 4 were instinctively looking for a way to include a classmate.
How could anyone dispute that inclusive education could be anything but positive for everyone?
During this time, I engaged the Education Authority in two SEN tribunals. I argued that to access the curriculum Grace would need the support of physio, occupational, and speech therapy. The Education Authority didn't agree. I could understand. They were thinking of their budgets, and I was thinking of my daughter. I won the tribunals. I believe it helps not to take these disputes personally. They were doing their job and I was doing mine. It's just business.
All the above was merely a gentle introduction to the High School wars!
The high school we chose was a new state of the arts highly rated school. What could go wrong? Well, a lot as it turned out. The first sign that all was not rosy was when the Head of Middle school wrote three times to the Head of the new
school offering to discuss Grace. He received no response. Rude obviously, warning bells definitely. The Education Authority also wrote requesting Grace's placement. Silence. The first term in the new academic year had begun and Grace still had no placement. Finally, I resorted to use a contact I had on the board of trustees and Grace had her place.
I should have known better. What followed were two years of sheer misery for both Grace and myself. This school took their cue straight out of the Victorian Poor Laws that applied to the Workhouse - a policy devised to deter those seeking shelter in the workhouse by making life so miserable that it was preferable to be homeless. This High School were certainly fans of this policy. They treated Grace like an unwanted houseguest. They were reluctant in all respects - belligerent and mirthless. They treated her with relentlessly cruelty, making her sit alone outside the nurse office at breaktimes, denying her social contact. Grace became so terrorised by her treatment that she was too afraid to tell me. Countless meetings with the school achieved nothing even when the head of the Education Authority personally attending a meeting. Perversely, the Headteacher would park her car in the accessible bay. When I complained that in a school with 1500 potential drivers, she was sending out a socially irresponsible message, her response was to paint out the accessible bay!
The end came abruptly at the start of the 2nd year. A 6th former made a complaint about the treatment of Grace that he had witnessed. His complaint was ignored so he told me directly.
I made the decision to immediately remove Grace from that school but with no idea what to do next. I wrote to the Governors informing them of my decision, detailing the cruelty and humiliation at their hands, adding that their understanding of inclusion was so far removed from anything we had experienced that removing her was a very easy decision to make. Predictably they wrote back placing the blame on her! It was neither surprising nor unexpected. So lacking in self-awareness, that they were shamelessly victim blaming!
The surprising response of the Education Authority was of undisguised relief.
They found another high school very quickly. I had dismissed this school two years earlier thinking it was unsuitable, but I was so wrong. The headmaster was incredibly welcoming and enthusiastic and promised Grace she would always be treated with respect. And she was.
Through their kindness, up until she left aged 16, that school restored Grace's dignity and selfconfidence.
Although Grace was the 'first and only' for most of her school years, I honestly believe that most people want to help but simply don't have the knowledge or resources. I sometimes had to drag people kicking and screaming to a place of acceptance and, apart from the first horrible high school, when they got there it worked. It helped me enormously not to take arguments personally.
Grace is now 32 years old, and I wouldn’t change a thing about her. She is witty and joyous. She's kind and caring. She's an actress. She is my best friend.
As we wait for the Government’s response to the crisis facing Disabled children and young people in the education system, it is difficult not to reflect on the history of this system.
Ever since the 1970s when Disabled children were finally allowed to have an education and comprehensive secondary schools replaced the tripartite, selective system, the debate about socalled special education has raged. Throughout these fifty years, Disabled children and young people have been pawns in an ideological battle. The arguments for an inclusive education system are based on the human rights of all children to grow up in real environments where they learn and live together, understand and celebrate difference and realise that everyone has gifts and talents that should be equally respected. Those who argue for segregation say that Disabled children “need” things that are not available in ordinary schools or that it is unfair for non-disabled children to have their education disrupted by Disabled children.
The current conversations about this topic are so familiar to those of us who have been around throughout. The arguments are the same, the problems are the same and unfortunately the proposed solutions have remained the same. Hopefully one day a government will realise that keep doing the same leads to the same consequences. Will the awaited report give us new solutions?
The 1981 Act was greeted with enormous relief by Disabled people, parents of Disabled children and all those committed to comprehensive education for all. The Act set up a system which would bring Disabled children properly into the education system and it promoted inclusion. For the following two decades the number of children attending segregated schools slowly fell and many local areas across the country were working out how to support schools to include all children. But even during this time, the opponents of inclusion continued to argue against and prevented us having a proper mainstream inclusive education national strategy.
By 1996 it had been decided that the 1981 Act was not working and a Code of Practice was published. By 2000 another Code was necessary because the system was still not working and by 2006 The Parliamentary Education Select Committee wrote an extensive report concluding that the system was not working and that there needed to be an extensive review. Interestingly, the Government’s response was that a review was not necessary but that the law and best practice needed to be implemented nationally. This response included the observations that:
⊲ Pupils with even the most severe and complex needs are able to make outstanding progress in all types of settings
⊲ Mainstream schools with additionally resourced provision are particularly successful in achieving high outcomes for pupils academically, socially and personally
⊲ There is a mistaken view that local authority reorganisations involving special school closures mean an inevitable loss of specialist support and fewer good quality choices when in fact they try to develop a range of provision to meet changing needs. There is a need for improvements in training, access to specialist support, better use of data by schools to promote children’s progress, stronger collaboration between mainstream and special schools and better multiagency working.
Fifty years of Disabled children and young people being used as pawns in an ideological battle.
However, by 2011, the new Government published a consultation Green Paper 'Support and Aspiration' that recognised:
⊲ Successive reports, such as the 2006 report of the Education Select Committee and Brian Lamb’s report in 2009, have described a system where parents feel they have to battle for the support they need, where they are passed from pillar to post, and where bureaucracy and frustration face them at every step
⊲ We are letting these children and young people down. The case for change is clear.
Following this consultation, new legislation was introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND Code of practice 2015. However, in 2019, the Parliamentary Education Select Committee once again reported that:
⊲ In 2014, Parliament legislated with the intention of transforming the educational experiences of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The reforms were ambitious: the Children and Families Bill sought to place young people at the heart of the system. However, as we set out in this report, that ambition remains to be realised. Let down by failures of implementation, the 2014 reforms have resulted in confusion and at times unlawful practice, bureaucratic nightmares, buck-passing and a lack of accountability, strained resources and adversarial experiences, and ultimately dashed the hopes of many.
The Government response to the 2019 Select Committee report was to publish a consultative Green paper in 2022 which acknowledged that:
⊲ Despite examples of good practice in implementing the 2014 reforms, this is not the norm and too often the experiences and outcomes of children and young people are poor. There are growing pressures across the system that is increasingly characterised by delays in accessing support for children and young people, frustration for parents, carers, and providers alike, and increasing financial pressure for local government.
The responses to this consultation have been analysed and an Improvement Plan will be published. The solution will not be more of the same - a focus on bureaucracy, timescales, building more special schools and lots of fine words. Instead, we need to bite the bullet!
In law, every child can go to their local mainstream school if that is theirs (from age 16) or their parents’ choice. And the Equality Act requires schools to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. This surely means that every school should be able to include any child living in their community. For this to become a reality, we need to make sure that everyone working in schools has the confidence to do this.
Leaders in schools must examine their moral codes and decide whether it is ok to not welcome children who live nearby and whose brothers, sisters and neighbourhood friends come to the school. Initial teacher training needs to radically change. Understanding how children and young people learn, the range of challenges they face and the evidence of what works should be the fundamental purpose of teacher training.
Teachers now report a lack of confidence and are under pressure to achieve the right number of grades rather than experiencing the joy of all children loving learning and growing into rounded individuals with gifts and talents to contribute to their communities and society now and in the future. Alongside initial teacher training we need every local area to deliver a programme of continuing professional development for everyone working in schools.
To achieve this, local authorities need the money to be able to have learning and behaviour support services that support schools to include all children. And all schools must be accountable for their behaviour towards Disabled children, young people and their families through local area quality assurance approaches and Ofsted inspections.
There are schools all around the country that are proudly inclusive and welcome all children living in their communities. This has been the case for decades and these schools have demonstrated that it is possible to include children with complex autism and profound and multiple learning difficulties and to also be among the 20% highest performing schools in the country. Inclusive schools have come under pressure during recent years as schools around them refuse to take children and parents clamour for the schools with good reputations.
More and more children are being placed in special schools, often against theirs and their parents’ wishes but with no alternative. Parents regularly say they don’t want their child going to a school that doesn’t want them. Inclusive schools would be happy to be part of a national strategy to support all schools to be inclusive. Special schools also need to be part of the strategy. They need to work in partnership with mainstream schools to share their expertise. This idea has been put forward in many of the reports mentioned in this article. We need to work out why this has not been successful.
Inclusive education is good for everyone. My daughter was married last year. Her seven bridesmaids included three women she met at primary, secondary school and college. She is 40 and people of her generation who went to school in inclusive local authorities, disability is normal. They experienced going to school with peers who had all sorts of support needs.
As a result, my daughter has had a social life, jobs, an acting career, friends, boyfriends, holidays, her own flat and now a husband. She went to high performing schools and was taught largely in mixed ability classes by confident, well trained and happy teachers who were proud to have her as a student. Based on the experiences of parents, Disabled people, teachers and teaching assistants I meet, this would not happen for my daughter now. If she were lucky enough to be accepted by a mainstream school, she would be in a separate room most of the time in school, with other children with labels and they would be supervised by teaching assistants with little oversight by teachers. It is frightening that children and young people will now be denied the opportunities my daughter had. The rationale seems to be that it is not right for children to be in classrooms if they are not doing the same as everyone else.
As a teacher myself, this notion is completely absurd. I really believe that it is every child’s right to learn with their peers, to experience generational norms, to be part of friendship groups and to get an education that enables them to find their passions, to be the best they can be and to go out into the big wide world knowing they can make a valuable contribution. If children spend their time with children like them, they are not learning about the real world.
For those worried that having Disabled children in mainstream classrooms impacts on results, attainment and achievement it would be wise for them to examine the facts. A common stated reason for not including Disabled children is that it is expensive and yet segregation is more expensive. The National Audit Office has recently pointed to the increased number of children being placed in special schools as the main reason for the overspend in special needs funding.
After fifty years of going round in circles, including fifteen years of inclusion becoming a possibility for many more Disabled children from 1986, we have gone backwards to a time when its acceptable for schools to say they don’t want certain children and for many children to spend months and sometimes years, out of school waiting for a suitable school to be found (all of which is unlawful). With an increasing system of “alternative provision” we seem to have accepted that our schools are not fit for purpose for many children and have created an inferior version of secondary modern schools. This is outside of any policy change and has happened without any formal debate through our democratic processes.
In years to come, once we finally have inclusive schools, we will look back at this time and be shocked at how Disabled children, young people and their families were treated in the English education system. I sincerely hope that will be in my lifetime, but I fear it may be later.
It has been an agonisingly long journey since ALLFIE released our consultation submission for the SEND Review Green Paper in 2020. Three years ago, we made it clear that the mainstream education clause in the Children’s and Families Act does not sufficiently protect Disabled students’ right to mainstream education.
This includes with the presumption of that right having been undermined by withdrawing ‘Inclusive Schooling Guidance’ and the concept of “incompatibility of efficient education of other pupils”. This is one of many policy clauses, including COVID-19 ruling which suspended and rendered the Act affectively null and void, which have blocked the practical implementation of inclusive mainstream education in the UK.
ALLFIE’s Chairperson Navin Kikabhai summarised ALLFIE’s SEND Review submission with his aptly titled article: Wrong Support, wrong Place, wrong time and wrong direction
While we reiterated that the SEND Review claims to be centred around education reform for those labelled with ‘Special Educational Needs and Disabilities’, we need to further examine how mainstream education legislation and policies are undermining the core principle of the inclusive mainstream education, and its sequential pathway to segregation, especially in this current environment of increasing exclusion. The release of the SEND Review itself has been subject to a catastrophic number of delays, due in part to political turmoil, funding crisis, and a call for further consultation. However, various reports published at the end of 2022 give us an insight into the minds of policymakers and the emergence of a concerning narrative.
For example the Children’s Commissioner Report, based on case studies of only 55 children within state care and 650 EHCPs from
only two local authorities, was deemed enough to build a national picture. Rather than pursuing inclusive education strategy in line with Article 24 of the United Nations Convention (UNCRPD), which ratifies inclusive education for all Disabled people as a human right. This report deeply conflated care and education, by using terms interchangeably, to erase individual rights to education, healthcare and independent living, alongside recommending that ability-led “interventions” begin as young as 2 years old. The impact of this could potentially assign a child to segregated provision years before ever entering an educational environment. It also largely assumes that all disabilities would be present in early childhood and not that disability can emerge at any age.
A report on Home Education from the Centre for Social Justice further found children with SEN and/or EHCP likely to have “no final destination” and again, rather than look to Article 24 for a sustainable inclusive solution, recommends replacing the home education system on broadly the same principles.
This continued strategic thinking towards segregation follows previous statements by government, with the announcement of the opening of 60 new special schools. The justification being to address a lack of provision but as our previous article demonstrated, funding for support and provision is not being implemented inclusively.
Local MPs are telling us this solution is based on the ‘few not the many’. Which is the wrong way round for inclusion. More concerning still is the rebranding of Special Schools as “Specialist”, with BBC documentaries displaying ‘idyllic’ settings far removed from the repeated reports of abuse and overcrowding that has led to children being taught in cupboards
A bombardment of content has repeatedly drawn on the crisis parents face to seek
educational access for their children, in chronically underfunded mainstream schools, having to resort to legal battles for special provision, that is driven by a lack of inclusive settings, and not by choice. This drive towards “Specialist” rebranded segregation is not isolated from previous comments by ministers describing Disabled children as disruptive and of detriment to the educational achievement of non-disabled children.
Should we then be shocked at the outpouring of parents fighting for the only option that seems achievable and timely? Especially when inclusive education within mainstream schools is only a footnote in the media landscape, and even then is associated with failure... perhaps not.
A cynic may conclude that a SEND Review completely void of any human rights values, or references to the UNCRPD, may have been crafted to feed into this existing narrative - one created to pursue a specific ideological agenda. One that, as IPSEA states may not even be compatible with the existing legal framework if implemented.
⊲ SEND Review Consultation Submission: Right support, right place, right time ALLFIE’s response to the Government’s SEND Review Green Paper
⊲ Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP Improvement Plan: Headlines
⊲ Government’s SEND plan is ‘wholly insufficient’ and ‘an all-round failure’ Disability News Service article
I thoroughly recommend both of these books from Micheline to give insight into the human condition. In particular, 'An Ordinary Baby' demonstrates how systematic segregation and disablism can shape the intellect of a rebel and a leader if, as in Micheline’s case, one has the inner strength and joy of life to listen and persist. 'The Phenomenon of the Human Distress Pattern' is about a method Micheline helped develop that has given thousands of people a way of re-evaluating their received life experiences and emotional hurt and turning it into a positive way of living.
For those who don’t know, Micheline Mason founded the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) in 1990. Following her own experience of segregated education, Micheline determined to get her daughter, Lucy, included in a mainstream school in a way she never was. During her pregnancy in 1982, Micheline was under considerable pressure from ‘the white coats’ to have a termination as, giving birth for a 3’ 2’’ woman with Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) was deemed dangerous for both her and the baby. There was a eugenicist intention of preventing the birth of another child with OI, but as Micheline said, why would she want to terminate someone like herself?
Having played a key role in developing the Disabled Peoples Movement in the 1970s/80s with the ‘In from the Cold Collective’ and the London Boroughs’ Disability Equality Training Initiative, Micheline joined up with a group of parents who wanted to have their Disabled children included in mainstream. This group, which became ‘Parents for Inclusion’, were open to Micheline’s thoughts on the oppression disabled people face and how they need allies in the struggle against segregation and medical model thinking.
If you have ever wondered how Micheline developed her clarity of thought, 'An Ordinary Baby' gives great insight into how if a child is loved by her family, even if isolated and segregated by the system, she will develop creativity, reflection and the capacity to question the adult world. Having been home educated by Local Authority tutors, eventually an Inspector suggested Micheline should go to the newly opening Florence Treloar’s Boarding school for Disabled Girls, as she had earlier passed her 11+ exam.
⊲ An Ordinary Baby: Tales of Childhood Resistance”
Micheline Mason 2022*
⊲ The Phenomenon of the Human Distress Pattern : Our Only Real Enemy, Micheline Mason 2022*
*Available from Amazon Books UK for orders under 10. Bulk orders directly from Micheline Mason via sparrowhawk@mail.com where you can order books at a discounted rate. The books will be available at the launch.
“In this age of ephemeral social media, outrageous inequalities and damaging recycled oppressions, real wisdom is in short supply.”
Despite many misgivings from her family, at age 14 Micheline started 3 years of study to get her O and A levels so she could attend Art College.
Throughout many lonely years at home Micheline had perfected her painting and illustration talent, as well as being a prodigious reader. While the academic progress was necessary to achieve her goals; far more important was friendship, solidarity and high jinks with her newly found ‘sisters’ with a whole range of impairments from across the UK.
Increasingly as Micheline progressed to Croydon Art College and was studying illustration, she began to realise she would have to draw other people’s largely commercial ideas, rather than her own thinking and she gave up to pursue a life as an activist.
This is where the 'Phenomenon of the Human Distress Pattern' comes in. In her early 20s searching for meaning and to explain the irrationality she had often experienced from Professionals in dealing with her and her impairment Micheline came across a working-class activist and thinker ‘Mr Frank’ (an alias), and his lectures on how to ‘reclaim our minds for ourselves and each other’.
Recognising this approach coincided with what she had been thinking just below the surface for many years, Micheline wanted to learn all she could about releasing people from the ‘compressing forces’ she had earlier envisaged. She joined Mr Frank’s organisation and found out many ways of dealing with the human distress pattern, formed in response to the multiple hurts we experience and became an international trainer working with thousands of people around the world. This little book recounts the essential methods used and is of great value, whatever perspective one is coming from.
There is no doubt in my mind that what Micheline learned from Mr Frank and his colleagues was a fundamental part of the method and experience of building the Alliance for Inclusive Education.
As the Founder and Chair for the first 12 years, Micheline created the Alliance as a unique force amongst Disabled People’s Organisations. Whilst a majority of its Committee were Disabled people, the Alliance valued allies amongst non-disabled professionals, parents and children in providing time and space to understand how the oppression of disablism blighted all our lives and how to meaningfully respond.’’
Event
Thursday 30th March 2023 6.00-8.00 pm at NEU’s Mander Hall, Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, London WC1 1H 9BD Contact rlrieser@gmail.com to book a place streamed or face to face.
Essential Insights from a leading thinker of the Inclusion Movement: 'An Ordinary Baby: Tales of Childhood Resistance' by Micheline Mason, 2022 & 'The Phenomenon of the Human Distress Pattern: Our Only Real Enemy ' by Micheline Mason, 2022. Both available online and at the launch. As an introduction to UKDHM 2023 on the theme of ‘Disability Childhood and Youth’, we will be holding a face-to-face launch of these books with Micheline and several other Disabled speakers to recount their experiences and the need for change. Event will also be streamed
Launch of Exploration 2023 Disabled and Young in UK: A collaboration to get the creative views of Young Disabled people: UKDHM looking for each contributor to express the good, the bad and the changes they would like as young Disabled people. The most insightful, interesting and powerful contributions in each category will be celebrated. There will be 4 age groups. Entries can be written essays, poems, posters, artwork, films, signing, acting, audio or any combination. They will be short listed then go to a judging panel. www.ukdhm.org/exploration2023
The Alliance resource ‘How was School' is very valuable, recounting Disabled children’s experiences over the last century.
"My 13-year-old son, Noah, has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). However, his health and social care managers do not agree on who should be funding the essential (overnight) support at home and at school that he requires. The manager responsible for the education aspect of the plan appears to ‘stand back’ and allows the disagreement to continue. This means Noah is not getting the essential support he requires at mainstream school. It has reached the point where we need to pursue a legal case. We cannot afford to fund this, but my husband and I have been means tested based on our assets and are unable to receive legal aid. Who has the lead authority for delivering the EHCP, and is a Disabled child entitled to make a claim for legal aid in their own right?
T hank you, an exhausted and overwhelmed parent"
First of all, I am so sorry to hear you are exhausted and overwhelmed. We know first-hand how demanding and tricky the process can be, particularly for a parent with a child labelled with special educational needs.
Different government bodies are responsible for delivering different sections of the EHC plan. It will depend on where the provision is named in the plan as to who the responsible body is. Each provision must be specific and quantified in order to be enforceable. If not, you may need to appeal the plan to the SEND Tribunal following an Annual Review in order to ‘firm up’ the wording which would then stand you with a better chance of holding the relevant body to account.
If the provision is named in Section F (the Special Educational Provision), the Local Authority is responsible for securing the provision named in the plan. If they fail to do so they may be subject to challenge by way of Judicial Review proceedings. These are proceedings made in the High Court. There is Legal Aid available for issuing Judicial Review proceedings subject to the means and merits assessment (explained below). For this type of action, funding would be applied for in your son’s name although there are usually requirements to take action to try and resolve the issue prior to securing legal aid. A solicitor would be able to advise you on the facts of your specific case and the availability of funding. It is possible that you would need to fund some limited work before securing funding.
If the provision is named in Section G (Health Provision), responsibility for providing this provision would be the commissioning health body. This is likely to be the local health body, known as Integrated Care Boards (“ICB”) (previously CCG).
They can also be challenged by Judicial Review in the same way as the above.
If the provision is named in Section H1 or H2 (Social Care Provision), the situation is slightly more complicated, and provision cannot be enforced simply because it appears in the plan. Failure to provide for necessary social care needs can still be challenged by way of Judicial Review proceedings but you would need to show that the LA had assessed the provision as necessary. Although inclusion in the EHCP is indicative of this, it is not determinative. A solicitor would be able to advise you on this. Ultimately, the relevant bodies need to work together to ensure they are meeting your son’s needs. It is unacceptable that Noah is not receiving essential provision simply because of a disagreement over who is to fund such provision. Although the question of who is responsible could be a tricky one, it is not for you to know the answer. The Local Authority and other agencies need to work this out between themselves.
If it is not clear that the EHCP entitles your son to the provision, then you may need to consider appealing the EHCP to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Availability of legal aid for these types of actions is based on the parents’ means rather than the child’s. There are many charitable organisations that may be able to assist in such circumstances though the situation is less than ideal.
This Legal Question was posed by Joe Whittaker and answered by Emily Chalk, Simpson Millar Solicitors
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:
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.
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
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.
