Are we really inclusive? by Jon Daveney

Contemporary principles of inclusivity in mainstream primary education for children with Special Education Needs, largely derive their ideologies from many decades of government policy for inclusion, (Warnock, 1978) and still remain as influential to educational practice now as they did in the years prior to and post the 1978 Warnock Report, the premise of which was ‘that no child should be sent to a special school who can be satisfactorily educated in an ordinary one’ (Warnock, 1978; 99). This conviction of ideology for the integration of children with Special Educational Needs into mainstream schools was however, by no means singular to English education but rather bridged educational systems internationally, with concepts of “mainstreaming” and “normalisation” emerging in America, Scandinavia and Canada (Warnock, 1978; 99). For Warnock then, concepts and practices of inclusion were becoming at that time an expression of a broader, international social ideal which would enable those with Special Educational Needs shared ‘opportunities for self-fulfilment enjoyed by other people [and] uninhibited participation in the activities of everyday life’ (Warnock Report, 1978; 99). Whilst society has evolved since the Warnock Report, and perceptions of disability and related terminology have matured, fundamental principles of inclusivity remain integral to contemporary educational policy and practice, with the National Curriculum Inclusion statement (DfE, 2013; 8) identifying that in accordance with the SEN Code of Practice mainstream practitioners should differentiate or individualise provisions for children who have English as An Additional Language, low prior attainment or whose socio-economic background, race or disability disadvantage their engagement. Yet whilst the Code of Practice (DfE and DoH 2015; 25) proposes ‘the progressive removal of barriers to learning and participation in mainstream education’ for those children identified as having such protected characteristics, there is nevertheless evidence that in many instances a pattern of deficit in the inclusion of disadvantaged children in mainstream education is emerging. This can be identified through Department for Education data (DfE1, 2019; 3-4) which establishes an increase in both fixed term and permanent exclusion rates across the primary and secondary sectors since 2012/13. Substantially represented by children eligible for free school meals and from areas of high deprivation (DfE1, 2019; 6) these trends then, offer an uncomfortable reflection on contemporary inclusive practices across England. Significant contributing factors for these increases for the primary sector however, are the disproportionate number of fixed-term and permanent exclusions for children from disadvantaged backgrounds excluded for behaviourrelated difficulties (Timpson, 2019) as compared with those for example with Special Educational Needs, the disparity between the two being approximately sixteen thousand in the academic year 2017/18 (DfE2, 2019; Tables 4 and 5), indicating greater inclusion in primary schools for those with SEN than those for whom conformity to normative behaviours are challenged by social circumstance. The reasons underlying these outcomes according to Frederickson and Cline (2006 ed.) emerge from an emphasis in the last three decades on an education system driven by testing and inspection regimes, ‘market forces and consumer choice’ which have influenced increasing tensions between improving standards and the ‘inclusion agenda’ (2006 ed.; 22), compelling a decreasing tolerance of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and problematizing those who cannot or will not ‘conform to the requirements of schools, particularly in terms of learning capabilities and appropriate behaviour’ (Tomlinson, 1982 in Frederickson and Cline, 2006 ed.; 36). This is additionally emphasised in research by Jones et al (2017; 809) who identify that the focus in English schools on performance targets are often at the expense of other important objectives and to the detriment of those children unlikely to attain target levels. The influence of the accountability agenda in schools therefore, has increasingly created a culture of educational exclusivity and a growing reliance on the ‘normalisation’ (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005, 51) of the child into adultassumed normative learning behaviours by which to coerce conformity to expected values and to dissuade disruption to the smooth running of schools and their ‘examination-orientated, credentialling functions’ (Tomlinson, 1982 in Frederickson and Cline, 2006 ed.; 36). Discontinuous with the social ideal of inclusivity originally proposed by Warnock (1978), and clearly contradictory to DfE (2014; 9) equality guidance for schools which establishes a framework for indirect discrimination based on ‘“provision, criterion or practice”’ which have

the effect of disadvantaging children of particular characteristics, the ‘normalisation’ of the child (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005, 51) whose atypical capabilities and behaviours are considered inconsistent with the urgency of testing and inspection regimes, appears therefore at variance with equality legislation and certainly of dubious ethical legitimacy. This is particularly evident in Dewey (2001 ed.; 114) who maintains that externally imposed educative processes and ends removes both the autonomy of the teacher and learner and induces conflict in the child ‘between the aims which are natural to their own experience at the time and those […] which they are taught to acquiesce.’ In essence then, systems of education which demand a process of conditioning accordant with externally devised criteria and aims invariably prove inequitable and therefore ethically unsound. As Dewey (2001 ed.; 113) suggests, ‘there is […] an inclination to propound aims which are so uniform as to neglect the specific powers and requirements of an individual, forgetting that all learning is something which happens to an individual at a given time and place’. Whilst however, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some decisions need to be made by adults as to the aims for education (Thompson, 1980 ed), from an ethical perspective, where the child holds an entitlement under equality legislation (DfE, 2014; 7) to access educational provision free from practices discriminatory towards the influences of their socio-economic conditions, so adult-initiated educative processes which place value on conformity to rigid, external policy to the neglect of the child’s personal experiences and abilities cannot lay claim to a substantive ethical framework for equality. In order to redress this imbalance therefore, and to stem the flow of exclusions from our schools, perceptions of inclusivity might begin the process of looking beyond the provisions and adaptions for children most generally associated with Warnock and subsequent theory, policy and practice, to a broader conception of social inclusivity which promotes a ‘climate for learning’ responsive to the individual child, and which develops a ‘value-based’ educational system focussed on quality relationships that gain the trust of children, families and their community (Hawkes, 2013; 96).

Jon Daveney is senior lecturer in primary education, specialising in SEN, at the University of Greenwich.

References Dahlberg, G and Moss, P (2005) Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education, Routledge Department of Education (2014) The Equality Act 2010 and schools: Departmental advice for school leaders, school staff, governing bodies and local authorities https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_ Advice_Final.pdf Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_ of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (Accessed 12.2.2020) Department for Education1 (2019) Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions 2017 to 2018 – Main Text https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/820773/Permanent_ and_fixed_period_exclusions_2017_to_2018_-_main_text.pdf (Accessed 12.2.2020) Department for Education2 (2019) Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions 2017 to 2018 – Na-tional Tables https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-andfixed-period-exclusions-in-england-2017-to-2018 (Accessed 12.2.2020) Dewey, J (2001 ed.) Democracy and Education; Pennsylvania State University https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/ BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20 education%20by%20dewey.pdf (Accessed 15.2.2020) Frederickson, N and Cline, T (2006 ed.) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity; A Textbook, Open University Press Hawkes, N (2013) From my Heart – Transforming Lives through Values; Independent Thinking Press Jones, K, Tymms, P, Kemethofer, D, O’Hara, J, McNamara, G, Huber, S, Myrberg, E, Skeds-mo, G and Greger, D (2017) The Unintended Consequences of School Inspections: The Preva-lence of Inspection Side-Effects in Austria, the Czech Republic, England, Ireland, the Nether-lands, Sweden and Switzerland in The Oxford Review of Education, Routledg Timpson, E (2019) Timpson Review of School Exclusions; Department for Education https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807862/Timpson_ review.pdf (Accessed 16.2.2020) Tomlinson, S (1982) in Frederickson, N and Cline, T (2006 ed.) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity; A Textbook, Open University Pres Thompson, K (1980) Education and Philosophy; Blackwell Warnock, M (1978) The Warnock Report (1978) Special Educational Needs, in Gillard, D (2007) Education in England: The History of our Schools http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/warnock/ warnock1978.html#07(Accessed 12.2.2020)