ALTER – European Society for Disability Research4th Annual Conference, Paris, 2-3 July 2015

Questioning contemporary societies through the lens of disability

Disability, education and participation: a critical analysis of recent policy developments in England

Felicity Armstrong

Institute of Education, University of London

2

3

Outline of presentation

• Brief overview of wider policy context in relation to Disability

• Education policy in relation to ‘special educational needs’

• The Children and Families Act 2014• Reversal of trend towards greater inclusion

4

Disability: the policy wider context

• Disabled people in England are currently at the receiving end of the most vindictive cuts in public expenditure.

• Cuts in Personal Independence Payments (PiP) are leaving people in poverty and unable to have the support they need to live independently and with dignity

• Government and media attack on ‘dependency’ and obsession with distinguishing ‘faux’ and ‘genuine’ disabled people.

5

• Introduction of Work Capability Assessments (WCA) in 2007

• Partial privatization of services,e.g. Lucrative contract given to ATOS, then MAXIMUS (£600,000,000) to assess ‘capability for work’.• Many complaints of harsh treatment, tests held in

inaccessible buildings, damaging and inappropriate decisions

• WCA described as ‘’the biggest single social policy failure of the last fifteen years”.

(Senior economic advisor to the cabinet)

6

‘Disability’: a malleable category?

• ‘Disability’ revealed as a social construct in the context of the neo-liberal agenda

• The state expands or shrinks the disability category in response to economic and social change. (Roulstone, 2015)

• Many disabled people are losing their ‘disabled’ status as a means by government of reducing costs

• Many wrongly declared ‘fit for work’ and their benefits reduced. Very limited possibilities of finding employment.

7

Why is this wider context relevant to education?

It demonstrates:• The partial privatisation of public services and the

shrinking role of the state• The orchestration of a shift in cultural attitudes towards

disability – sharpening of notion of the ‘deserving’ and the ‘non-deserving’

• The obsessive commitment to the use of assessments and measurements to categorize and sort human beings

• The increasing dominance of the medical model All of these features are to be found in current education policies.

8

VERY brief background to education policy

• 1944 Education Act - introduced 11 ‘categories of handicap’ (focus on ‘deficits’)

It drew in large numbers of disabled children (previously in ‘hospitals’ or other institutions) into the education system for the first time (i.e. 1944 Act widened participation)• 1970 Education (Handicapped Children) Act

completed this process. ALL children became part of the education system and attend school.

9

Introduction of the term “Special Educational Needs” (1981 Ed. Act)

• The Warnock Report (1978), leading to the 1981 Education Act, challenged dominant assumptions about the nature and terminology of, for example, ‘maladjusted children’.. ‘mentally retarded’ etc

• The 1981 Education Act introduced the term ‘special educational needs’ and new terminology which was intended to move away from the medicalised and deficit-driven language of the past, such as ‘handicapped’, ‘mentally retarded’, ‘deaf’ etc , adopting the terms ‘emotional and behavioural disorders’, ‘learning difficulties’, hearing impairment etc.

• Introduced ‘statements’ of special educational need.

10

Problems with ‘SEN’ terminology

Terminology of ‘special educational needs’ (SEN):• has become a homogenising mega-category,

which labels children and young people negatively

• Has not replaced medicalised labels which continue to dominate the field of special education

11

The Children and Families Act 2014:main proposals relating to special educational

needs

The Act • replaces statements and learning difficulty assessments

with a new birth- to-25 Education, Health and Care Plan, which covers provision for young people in further education and training.

• offers some families personal budgets so that they have more control over the support they need

• sets out plan to give children, young people and their parents greater control and choice in decisions and ensuring needs are properly met.

12

The Act:

• requires local authorities to involve children, young people and parents in reviewing and developing provision for those with special educational needs, and

• to publish a ‘local offer’ of support which sets out the provision and support available.

• It aims to improve cooperation between all the services that support children and their families and particularly requiring local authorities and health authorities to work together

• It replaces existing category of ‘social, emotional and behavioural difficulties emotional’ with the new category ‘social, mental and emotional health (SMEH)’.

13

Some criticism of the new Act

• It emphasizes co-operation with and between health and local authority services – rather than focusing on the need to transform education structures, cultures and practices.

• It uses the homogenising term ‘special educational needs’ uncritically

• The Birth- to-25 Education, Health and Care Plan presents the risk of marginalising children and young people by identifying them at birth and holding and grouping them within a ‘special educational needs’ label and identity throughout their growing up. It puts them on an ‘SEN’ pathway from birth.

• Crucially, there is no mention of “inclusion’ or “inclusive education”

14

Trend towards increasing numbers of children attending special schools

• Between 1983 – 2007 proportion of pupils in special schools steadily fell from around 1.7 per cent in 1982 to approximately 1%

• This trend levelled off and then continued to rise from 2007 onwards.

15

Numbers and percentages of children attending special schools

number % of pupils attending• 2008 91,830 1.1%• 2009 92,270 1.1% • 2010 93,230 1.2%• 2011 94, 275 1.2%• 2012 95, 915 1.2% • 2013 101,590 1.2% (DFE, SFR, 2012)

16

• Successive governments have supported continuation of special schools.

• Mainstream schools sometimes reluctant to accept students deemed to be ‘low attaining’ or possibly disruptive.

• Increasing numbers of schools are ‘selective’.• Many parents prefer their child to attend a school

where there are small classes, therapists and a protective environment.

17

Reasons behind the increase in numbers attending segregated schools?

First, it is not possible to understand the ‘special needs’ system in England as separate from the wider context of education policy and its effects.• Increasing emphasis on testing, inspection and performance

in schools• Many schools increasingly less willing to welcome children

who might present difficulties in learning and not reach government attainment targets.

• The introduction of Academies which are publicly funded but operate outside the control of local education authorities. Academies have greater freedom over the curriculum, finance and teachers’ conditions of employment.

18

• The introduction of Free Schools which are also funded by central government but they are set up by charities, groups of parents, trusts and other groups. They can set their own curriculum, class sizes, admission criteria,

• An important and hidden growth in private schools which ‘cater’ for children who local authorities find difficult to place. These schools charge massive fees (sometimes over £100,00 per year). The cost is often met by local authorities. i.e. public money goes into the lucrative private sector.

19

Other barriers to inclusion• Processes involved in identification and categorization

leading to labeling – (although we have to recognize the reality that these processes are often an integral part of setting up support and releasing funding.)

• A lack of resources and the failure to use existing resources effectively for inclusion in support of learners and their particular requirements such as the provision of speech and language therapy and physiotherapy in mainstream schools

• School, cultures which do not support equality and celebrate diversity

20

Parallel processes going on outside and inside the education system, which undermine the rights of

disabled people: • System dominated by assessment, categorization, re-

categorization• A failure to listen to the voices of disabled people• Government and media rhetoric which is undermines

inclusion and the rights of disabled people.• Encroaching privatisation of parts of the welfare state

and the education system• Hidden and bureaucratic mechanisms which allow the

growth of practices which contradict Equality legislation.