ipppe assignment sep 10 det10310360
TRANSCRIPT
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
Inclusion - tension between policy and practice?
The issue of inclusion within the world of education is one that continues to be
at the centre of many debates into how children and young people with a
diverse range of needs can best have their educational needs met. There
have been many milestones over the past half a century in the ongoing quest
to define policy and ensure that it is transferred into practice. It has been
argued that guidance from government in the United Kingdom has been
viewed as somewhat ambiguous and that policy, though full of good
intentions, can be interpreted as rich in rhetoric and blind to day to day
practice and pressures (Macbeath et al, 2006). Policy has been shaped and
revisited to try to support inclusion and the aims set out and agreed on an
International level but progress in the practical implementation of such
policies, it is argued, has been a slow process with sometimes questionable
evidence of major change in school level practice as a result of policy
(Thomas & Vaughan, 2004). Inclusion continues to be an area that provides
challenge and differences in opinions across many arenas. At the time of
writing, political change, in terms of the first coalition government to come into
power in over half a century may well complicate the matter further, due to the
pledge within the programme for government to“remove the bias towards
inclusion” (Cameron & Clegg, 2010:29). In order to explore the issue fully, the
assignment will first seek to unpick the definition of inclusion before focussing
more sharply on a specific aspect of inclusive education based on the author’s
experience within the context of school based work before moving on to
compare this with the more recent experience of a position within a local
1
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
authority Inclusion Service. The importance of reflective practice will be
explored as a means to learn from experience with a view to shaping future
practice and supporting others. Research will be used to underpin the
assignment and to provide opportunities to support and challenge viewpoints
and arguments, leading to a conclusion regarding the issue of tension
between policy and practice. An international dimension around inclusion will
be used to widen the area for discussion and to bring an added perspective to
the study.
The author entered into work within education in 2002, undertaking a fairly
new role that was first introduced in 1999 by the Labour governments
Excellence in Cities (EIC) initiative. EIC was a resource based policy
specifically tailored to meet the challenges faced by inner city schools. Within
the EIC strategy, the role of the learning mentor was to work with pupils to
remove barriers to learning with the aim of supporting schools to raise
attainment and reduce exclusion. This was further developed within the
Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) that was introduced in 2002 with a
focus on working with identified secondary schools and their main feeder
primaries. The nature and requirements of the role brought the author into
contact with a number of children of primary school age, identified as having
varying degrees of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) being
educated in a mainstream school with additional support. After five years in
this role, the author was initially seconded, and then employed, by the local
authority Secondary Strategy service to develop of a team of Transition
Learning Mentors, whose role would be to provide a support programme to
2
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
pupils as they transferred from primary to secondary school. After leading the
work of the transition learning mentors for three years, the author was
promoted to a position within the cross phase Inclusion Service, undertaking
strategic responsibility for a wider range of areas, including providing a
programme of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for those
employed within a mentoring role. Within this context, school based
colleagues were almost unanimous in their concerns that they face enormous
challenges to convert the ideals of inclusion, particularly for pupils with SEBD,
into day to day practice. It has therefore been possible to look at the issue of
policy and practice in the area being explored both from an in school and local
authority strategic position.
So what is meant by the term ‘Inclusion’ within the context of education? It
can be argued that there is no one single definition of inclusion or inclusive
education and that this can add to the ambiguity that appears to exist in this
area of education. The Commons Education and Skills Committee (2006)
called for the government to work harder to define exactly what it means when
it refers to inclusion or the inclusion agenda. In the quest to unpick the
definition of inclusion within education, It is of interest to note that this is often
referred to quite specifically in relation to strategies for SEN whereas it can be
argued that it is a much wider issue relating to diversity, equality and
participation. Farrel and Ainscow (2002) describe inclusion as:
“the extent to which a school or community welcomes pupils as full
members of the group and values them for the contribution that they
make”
3
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
(Farrel and Ainscow, 2002:3)
Lloyd (2008) provides an interesting metaphorical angle from which to view
the challenge of providing a fully inclusive education system by referring to the
difficulties faced by newcomers to a well established game, played at a high
level by those who have been successful for a long time. The newcomers,
with little or no experience of the game and, perhaps, needing additional
coaching to access the game at all, are likely to struggle to master all aspects
of the game, thereby leading to frustration and failure affecting all players,
both established and new. Therefore, the challenge should be for those in
charge to create a new and exciting game that involves all players
participating equally with a new concept of success being the desired
outcome. Ainscow et al (2006) also allude to this ideal by suggesting the need
to reframe the concept of ‘achievement’ to be underpinned by inclusive
values, to address the notion that there must be a tension between the
inclusion and standards agendas.
It is also useful, at this point, to make the distinction between inclusion and
integration. Inclusion, as described above, places the emphasis on schools /
communities to ensure that all members are equally valued and this, by
implication, suggests that the institution is responsible for adapting to a
diverse range of needs. Integration, by its own definition, implies that the
pupil will be expected to ‘fit in’ with existing structures. UK policy has moved
through the practice of integration referred to by Warnock (1978) and into the
arena of inclusion as a wider concept, in line with international developments.
4
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
There have been various key policies that refer to inclusion over the past few
decades in the United Kingdom following the Warnock report (1978) that is
widely recognised as putting the issue on the national agenda. There followed
a succession of Acts and policies, both at national and international levels,
aimed at developing inclusive education as the way forward. The rights of
disabled pupils to be educated as part of the mainstream were highlighted on
a world stage via the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC, 1989) and then referred to once again within the United Nations
Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
(rule 6). However, the most notable international movement towards
promoting inclusive education opportunities is the United Nations Educational
and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Salamanca Statement
1994, an agreement between 92 governments and 25 international
organisations to adopt and embrace an inclusive ethos relating to
philosophical, practical and strategic development of educational opportunities
for all children. The Statement takes the human rights approach, viewing
inclusive education as a basic equal opportunity and a powerful tool to combat
discriminatory attitudes across society as a whole. Key UK policies relating to
inclusion that followed the Salamanca agreement include the Education Act of
1996, the Green Papers of 1997 and 2003, the SEN and Disability Act 2001
and the Children Act 2004.
MacBeath et al (2006) refer to the three worlds of inclusion as that of policy
maker, aspirational classroom practice and today’s classroom. This
perspective, it could be argued, gives credence to the suggestion that there is
5
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
a tension between policy and practice and would be a useful starting point
from which to explore this issue.
Perhaps the most striking argument that appears, in the first instance, to
question inclusive policy and practice, is that provided by the person who is
widely believed to have been a major player in promoting it, some 32 years
ago. Baroness Warnock suggests that
“possibly the most disastrous legacy of the 1978 report, the concept of
inclusion (formerly known as integration).”
Warnock, 2005
Although Warnock’s ‘new look’ has been criticised as lacking substance upon
which to make such statements and has also been described as arrogant and
naïve (Barton, 2005), critics of aspects of inclusion present arguments that
can be viewed as pointing towards a tension, both between policy and
practice and between policies that are thought to be conflicting. Norwich
(2002) suggests that arguments against inclusion usually centre around the
detail and level of inclusive practice and the perceived difficulties that full
inclusion would present – indeed, it is rare to find an argument amongst
educationalists against inclusion per se but the sense of what is ideal against
what can be achieved is often the centre of the debate. Following concerns
raised by members about issues relating to inclusion and SEN, the National
Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)
commissioned a literature review in 2008 that found that although principles of
inclusion were generally endorsed by teachers, more concern is expressed
regarding the inclusion of pupils with SEBD. The author has experienced
6
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
tension at local authority level, with a sense of pressure to ensure that a group
of pupils with SEBD transferred successfully to a mainstream secondary
school. Within the group, a number of pupils had previously been excluded
from primary school and were educated in the special provision for pupils with
SEBD whilst others had a difficult final year at primary school with prolonged
periods of time placed in the Primary Pupil Referral Unit. Whilst clear that the
consensus from colleagues within the local authority supported the aim of
educating the pupils within the mainstream setting, the challenge faced by
school staff to be able to meet their needs was clearly felt, both by the
transition mentors and the school senior leadership teams. Competing
priorities including the pressures of market forces, standards and increased
parental choice are recognised as a challenge to promoting effective
inclusion. This can be particularly true in relation to pupils with SEBD and, for
a variety of reasons, the majority of the pupils mentioned were due to attend
one secondary school with a local reputation as having good inclusive
practice but comparatively poor academic outcomes and league table
‘ratings’. Whilst supporters of full inclusion, such as the Centre for Inclusive
Education (CSIE) adopt a no-compromise approach to alternatives to
mainstream schooling, other groups, such as the Social, Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties Association (SEBDA) maintain that:
“Where occasionally mainstream schools are unable to address the
needs of some young people with SEBD and the latter do not feel
included, then inclusion can be better promoted in special schools,
units and other 'alternative' forms of education and training.'
7
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
SEBDA © Copyright 2003
The author developed a concern that there was a pressure to achieve
‘inclusion at all costs’ with a danger of not recognising individual needs.
The very issue of identifying pupils and placing them into a ‘group’ is, in itself,
open to contention. The revised SEN Code of Practice (2004) recognises
distinct categories of learning difficulties and disabilities, that pupils with a
statement of SEN are classified by. Pupils are therefore ‘labelled’ according
to their needs and this can be interpreted as a form of deficit model, with
connotations of inequality linked to it. As previously discussed, it is argued
that the aim of inclusive education is to ensure that all learners are valued
equally in an environment that celebrates diversity. The question must be
raised, however, as to how a school can ensure that individual needs are met
if these needs are not identified and recognised. Norwich (2008) refers to the
Dilemma of Difference – should all learners within the diverse group be
treated the same with a focus on what they have in common, at the risk of not
providing adequately for their differing needs, or should these needs be
highlighted to ensure that any potential barriers to learning can be addressed,
at the risk of labelling the pupils as different, or in some way, deficient?
It is also possible to explore the pressures that, it is argued, arise from
agendas and policies that could be viewed as conflicting. Standards, parental
choice and the market forces in operation within education in the UK today
can be viewed as contradictory to the ideal of inclusive education. Tomlinson
(2000, cited in Frederickson and Cline, 2002:22) refers to the issue of pupils
8
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
with SEBD being further disadvantaged at the point of admission to schools
as they could be seen to be “undesirable customers” in the market place
environment that schools appear to operate within. The tension between the
inclusion and standards agendas is well researched and in a climate whereby
schools are judged, to a large extent, by academic performance and league
tables, there is unquestionably the potential for policy clashes (Benjamin,
2002).
As the question develops, it is interesting to note that these tensions and
dilemmas arise even before the issue of day to day classroom practice is
raised. Research and evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement Programme,
undertaken in 2005, stated that as part of the wider impact of BIP, inclusive
policies had been successfully promoted (Hallam et al, 2005). However,
initiatives such as EIC and BIP have been criticised as approaches that
appear to embrace inclusive ideals, but conversely, reinforce the perception of
some learners as deficient and in need of a compensatory approach (Dyson,
2001). In practice, the author and colleagues experienced a high level of
tension and challenge to transfer the theory of inclusive education into
practice due to a number of factors including a lack of high quality training and
development opportunities and practical guidance. Ongoing support and the
opportunity to develop as a reflective practitioner is also a key issue when
working with pupils with a high level of need and, once again, tensions can
arise when trying to build this in to an already demanding and challenging
working day. Reflective practice provides an opportunity for practitioners to
use their experience and knowledge as the basis for actions and to analyse
such actions with a critical mindset to inform future practice. Schon (1983)
9
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
describes the key skills of the practitioner who is able to think ‘on their feet’
when confronted with new or unexpected situations and refers to reflection,
both in and on action as a means to develop and learn from experience. In
practical terms, working closely in a school environment with children and
young people with SEBD, the author would argue that this is an essential skill
to develop. The very nature of SEBD can make the actual behaviours that are
displayed highly unpredictable and, in many cases, dangerous for the pupil,
his / her peers and for staff members and the way in which the practitioner
responds to outbursts or episodes of extreme behaviour will have a major
impact upon the outcomes for the young person involved. Reflection in action
allows the person dealing with a challenging situation to draw on experience
and refer to knowledge gained in order to manage the issue with a view to
achieving the best outcome. Reflection on action is also an extremely useful
practice to undertake as it provides the practitioner with the opportunity to
combine knowledge gained through research, study and development with a
practical review of how a situation was handled and the outcomes that
resulted. It is also clear that working closely with, in some cases, young
people with extreme emotional difficulties, the practitioner needs to explore
his / her own feelings in relation to supporting the pupil to promote well being
and build a sense of what constitutes success. An effective reflective
practitioner is one who understands the heart of their practice and this is not
something that can be achieved without taking the time and space to explore
experiences (Pollard et al, 2008). The author would argue that in an area of
education as complex and multi-layered as inclusion, this is a vital area of
practice to develop. However, the issue of policy and practice raises its head
10
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
again here as it is questionable as to how the time for this level of personal
and professional reflection can be built in to a challenging day within the
school context (Copeland et al, 1993 cited in Bolton, 2010). Further, in a
world of education that appears to look at all forms of strategies for evidence
of impact, there is a risk that reflective practice could be described as soft and
unquantifiable (Regan, 2008) and therefore, somehow unworthy of the time
and energy required to undertake it in a meaningful way.
Having referred to the international movement towards inclusive education
and how this has underpinned development in the UK, it is useful to look at
how another country has taken up the challenge of moving in this direction.
One of the criticisms previously highlighted was that progress in this area is
slow and that there is questionable evidence of major change in practice
(Thomas, Vaughan, 2004). The issue of forthcoming challenges in light of a
change of government was also raised. So how is a country that has had
major constitutional change rising to the challenge of promoting inclusive
education? Lithuania was, until 1990, under Communist rule following
occupation by the Soviet Union during World War II. Post-1990, a shift from
the well established policy of segregation for pupils with disabilities and SEN
led to a ten year plan declaring a commitment to focus on turning the ideals of
inclusive education into practice, referring to requirements for schools to
adapt their systems and programmes to meet the needs of all pupils and to
provide additional support for those with SEN. What is most interesting about
movement towards inclusive education in Lithuania, however, is the speed in
which a high percentage of pupils have transferred into mainstream education
in a relatively short time. Data compiled by the European Agency for
11
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
Development in Special Needs Education in 2008 indicates that Lithuania,
along with Estonia, has the highest percentage of pupils in the compulsory
school sector recognised as having SEN (>10%) compared with between 2-
4% in England, along with other countries including Ireland and Spain.
Interestingly, when looking at the data relating to the percentage of pupils with
SEN being educated in segregated settings, England and Lithuania fall into
the same group, between 1.01% - 2.0%, whilst Ireland and Spain are in the
group below, with up to 1% of SEN pupils in alternatives to mainstream. This
is, of course, a very broad overview of international movement towards
inclusion and not a direct comparison. Clearly, the number of pupils that
these figures refer to vary immensely from one country to another and no
reference is being made to whether tensions between policy and practice
exist elsewhere. It is, however, interesting to note that despite the move from
totally segregated provision towards inclusion being a comparatively new
concept in Lithuania, there has been a very clear and steady rise in the
number of pupils with SEN being educated in the mainstream, with varying
levels of support (Meijer, 2009).
In conclusion, the author would concur with the arguments presented in the
text that there is a tension between policy and practice in the area of inclusive
education. The research used to explore the question highlights tensions in
all areas – from the fundamental issue of what inclusion actually means, to
the identification and ‘labelling’ of pupils with SEN, the arguments for and
against alternative provision and the issue of competing priorities as a result
of the issues of market forces, the standards agenda and parental choice.
12
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
The importance of reflection within the context of the quest to transfer policy
into practice was explored. The international perspective of the issue has
been explored through the policies and agreements that have underpinned
policy and practice in the UK, and then developed further by way of an
overview of the implementation of inclusive education in Lithuania. The new
coalition government’s pledge to “remove the bias towards inclusion” throws a
completely different light on the issue and is highly likely to add further fuel to
the fire in an already heated debate around inclusive education.
13
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
References
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Inclusion and the Standards
Agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England International Journal of
Inclusive Education 10:4, 295-308
Barton, L. (2005) Special Educational Needs: an alternative look. London
Institute of Education
Benjamin, S. (2002) The Micro-politics of Inclusive Education: an ethnography
Buckingham Open University Press
Bolton, G. (2010) Reflective Practice: writing and professional development
London Sage
Cameron, D. and Clegg, N. (2010) The Coalition: Our programme for
government London © Crown Copyright 2010
CSIE (2002) Inclusion Charter (revised) Internet WWW page at URL:
http://www.csie.org.uk/publications/charter.shtml accessed 14/06/10
DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs
(Green Paper) London DfEE Publications
14
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
DfES (2001) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of
Special Educational Needs London DfES Publications
Dyson, A. (2001) Special Needs in the twenty- first century: where we’ve
been and where we’re going British Journal of Special Education
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education Internet
WWW page at URL:
http://www.european-agency.org/country-information/lithuania accessed
14/08/10
Farrell, B. and Ainscow, M. (2002) (ed) Making Special Education Inclusive
London David Fulton
Frederickson, N. and Cline, T (2002) Special educational needs, inclusion
and diversity: a textbook Buckingham Open University Press
Hallam, S., Castle, F., Rogers, L. with Creech, A., Rhamie, J. and Kokotsaki,
D. (2005) Research and Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement
Programme Institute of Education London
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee (2006) Special
Educational Needs, Volume , Third Report of Session 2005-06 London:
HMSO
15
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
Lloyd, Christine. (2008) ‘Removing barriers to achievement: a strategy for
inclusion or exclusion?’ International Journal of Inclusive Education 12:2,
221 – 236, First published on 28 September 2006 (iFirst)
MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., Macbeath, A. and Page, C. (2006)
The Costs of Inclusion, : A study of inclusion in English primary, secondary
and special schools Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of
Education Commissioned by the NUT
Meijer, C. (2009) Inclusive Education: An International Perspective on
Policies and Practices Internet WWW page at URL:
www.dgidc.min-edu.pt/especial/Documents/Cor%20 Meijer 1.pdf accessed
14/08/10
NASUWT (2008) Special Educational needs and Inclusion: Reflection and
Renewal Birmingham NASUWT
Norwich, Brahm (2002) Education, Inclusion and Individual Differences:
Recognising and Resolving Dilemmas British Journal of Educational Studies,
50:4, 482-502
OFSTED (2004) SEN and Disability: Towards inclusive schools London
OFSTED Publications
16
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
Pollard, A., Collins, J., Maddock, M., Simco, N., Swaffield, S., Warin, J. and
Warwick, P. (3rd Ed.) (2008) Reflective Teaching: Evidence-informed
Professional Practice London Continuum
Regan, P. (2008) Reflective Practice: how far, how deep? Reflective Practice
9:2, 219-229
Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner San Francisco
Jossey-Bass
SEBDA (2003) Inclusion Policy Internet WWW page at URL:
www. sebda .org/resources/ InclusionPolicy .pdf accessed 11/07/10
Thomas, G. and Vaughan, M. (2004) Inclusive Education: Readings and
reflections Open University Press Berkshire
UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education Paris UNESCO
UN (1993) United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities Internet WWW page at URL:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=26
Warnock, M. (1978) Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education
of Handicapped Children and Young People London:HMSO
17
Student ID: DET 10310360EDU020L013S
Warnock, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: a new look London.
Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
18