Born with a Disability - Essay Example

?Inclusion of the children with SEN/disabilities has been central to educational policy since the 1970’s. Analyse and discuss its development in the UK to the present day, with reference to the key legislation and the continuing influence of Mary Warnock. Rising to the Challenges of Disability: A Critical Review of Inclusion Being born with a disability may be an unfortunate circumstance for anyone but it is not a reason to be an object of pity, disgrace, frustration or shame. Like everyone else, people with disabilities are entitled to their rights, as stated by the following: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.... Everyone is entitled to all ... rights and freedoms ... without distinction of any kind.... All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination ... and against any incitement to ... discrimination.... Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for ... health and well-being .. Including ... the right to security in the event of ... disability...." --Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1, 2, 7, and 25 According to the Federal Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984, developmental disabilities are conditions or disorders that significantly affect a child’s progress in his growth and development. Eventually, disabilities limit a person’s self-care, language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, and/or economic sufficiency. Some people who do not have such conditions easily take for granted just how difficult it can be for those who have, and may swiftly judge and discriminate them for things they are unable to do. However, disability may be viewed in another light that does not directly target the person himself. One example is the social model of disability in New Zealand which does not view disability as something that individuals have but how society treats the impairments of the individual. “Disability is the process which happens when one group of people create barriers by designing a world only for their way of living, taking no account of the impairments other people have. (New Zealand Ministry of Social Development, 2002, p.1). Vygotsky (1993) shares the same view. He believes that a child with a disability is not a child less developed but rather, has developed differently. What made his development different are the intellectual and social processes that he compensates with in order to still be part of the social milieu despite their impairments. He concludes in the contention that it is the social consequences and socio-psychological realization that determines the fate of the child with disability and not the defect itself (McPhail & Freeman, 2005). Unfortunately, what seems to prevail in terms of societal views on disability is more negative than positive. McPhail & Freeman (2005) explain that the deficiencies of disabled persons as are considered burdens that hinder their productivity as individuals, which leads one to question why well-intentioned teachers (and some parents) focus on what is lacking rather than what is functioning well in their students/ children. For example, one counselor at a Disability Equality Training (DET) studied by Parkinson (2006) admitted, “I found it very hard to see the person as someone in their own right. I kept looking at their wheelchairs or their glasses. It took me a while to see them just as a person who watched the same TV programmes as me and laughed at the same jokes. I feel sad about that.” (Parkinson, 2006, p. 99). The purpose of the DET is for counsellors to unite and share their views and attitudes about disability and discuss the need to overcome disabling barriers that hinder disabled individuals from functioning to the best of their ability, promote positive self-identities and self-determination in these disabled individuals through counselling (Parkinson, 2006). This is very crucial especially in children who are in the sensitive stages of their development when they are building their sense of self. Two models of how disability is perceived are the Medical and Social models. The medical model recognises the individual with the disability as the source of the problem. It is his impairment that becomes the focus of attention and not the person himself. That person needs to be provided with support and intervention so they will ‘fit’ into schools or society in general or else, he will need to be segregated and provided alternative services until such time when he is ripe for reintegration to regular education (DFES, 2001). On the other hand, the social model of disability which arose in the 1970’s argues that people are disabled by discrimination and prejudice, not by their impairments. According to this perspective there is a social restriction placed on a person with impairments by society (Riddick, 2001). However, the social model has demonstrated some positive features as it is used to identify the barriers in which an individual with disability can function at their best. For example positive social models encourage society to help the individual adjust well to society and allowing him to actively participate in societal activities while negative social models focus on the barriers that the individual may encounter and point to society as the source of such barriers (Oliver, 1983). In terms of the child with disability in the classroom, the teacher can differentiate their teaching and assessment to include the child. According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), “A mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life in conditions which ensure dignity, promotes self reliance and facilitates the child’s active participation in the community” (UNCRC, 1989, Chapt.3, para. 1). This mandates everyone to care for children with disabilities and establish a system that makes them more “enabled” and “empowered” as they are fully accepted and accorded due attention and support. This has also made more people acknowledge the needs of individuals with disabilities, hence, more legislations have been decreed in several countries. In the UK, passage of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), affords protection to disabled people against discrimination in certain prescribed areas, principally employment, education and the provision of goods and services. The DDA rules that every educational organisation and LEA needs to provide equivalent access to the educational programme for children with disabilities. The disability discrimination issues are also covered in the “Equality Act” (2010) which replaced the DDA. It continues to convey the previous discrimination- and equality- oriented legislations under the former act (Royal College of Nursing, 2001). Levine’s (2002) clinical work with students with learning disabilities has also indicated that a recognition of and capitalization on their specific strengths of mind fosters their development, whereas a focus on their specific weaknesses compromises their development. This would be a good guiding principle when dealing with children with all kinds of disabilities. In doing so, their self-esteem is built up and they are empowered to push themselves towards their optimal potentials. Studies such as Levine’s among others have encouraged the provision of education of children with disabilities in order to optimize their potentials. The Salamanca Statement has been influential in that all children have the right to receive an education regardless of their culture and social background (UNESCO, 2005). Concern for children with disabilities has already spread in the UK from the 1970’s thanks to some advocates such as Mary Warnock who raised the issues on helping children with SEN. The Warnock Report in the year 1978 was developed to appraise the provision for children with psychological as well as physical disabilities. The report had sponsored ranges of special needs for children. The report laid the foundations for the issuance of statements of special education need in the UK. Warnock’s committee found that 20% of children in schools have SEN but 2% of this group may need more elaborate services that are not offered by the mainstream school system. Hence, they need to be diagnosed, issued a statement that they are entitled to special needs provision (Douglas Silas Solicitors, 2010). The Warnock Report paved the way for the “Education Act” which was imposed in the year 1983. This act presented different methods to the description of children with SEN. It advocated that these children should be able to obtain the educational support from tutors in the classroom such as the provision of extra time and assistance compared to other students (Sturt, 2002). This act has since evolved. Education Act of 1996, Section 312 mandates LEAs to offer resources in order to recognise and support specific learning problems in children. LEAs were imposed with additional tasks to make an evaluation of children in their disability area (Pumfrey & Reason, 1991). Special education needs (SEN) were determined. In 1996 the law on SEN stated that: “A child has special educational needs (SEN) if he or she has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her” (Education Act, 1996, Section 312). Children with learning difficulties are described as follows: Firstly, has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age; secondly, has a disability which either prevents or hinders the child from making use of educational facilities of a kind provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local education authority; finally, is under five and falls within the definition at firstly or secondly above or would do if special educational provision was not made for the child (Education Act, 1996, Section 312). In addition to this, in September 2001, another law was created with regards to children with SEN. This was entitled the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) and further regulated inclusion in schools by stating that: Firstly, an educational institution should not treat a disabled person 'less favourably' for a reason relating to their disability. Secondly, an institution is required to make 'reasonable adjustments' if a disabled person would otherwise be placed at a 'substantial disadvantage'. Thirdly, adjustments should be 'anticipatory '. Simply put, SENDA introduces the rights of disabled students and says that they must not be discriminated against. This includes education, teaching and other facilities provided exclusively or primarily for students offered by organisations including additional and higher educational establishments and universities. These statements are directed to those schools that are mandated to accept people with disabilities in compliance with the law. Such laws were created to protect the interests of children with special needs so they are not prejudiced in the provision of the education they deserve. The SEN Code of Practice (2001) is the government guidance on meeting the SEN of children with disabilities. Its principles include that children with special needs should have their needs met and that children will normally have their needs met in a mainstream school. Children with SEN should have full access to a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum, including the National Curriculum or, for younger children, the foundation stage curriculum. The children’s views should be taken into account and their parents should be treated as partners of the school (ACE, 2011). Much of what has been described are components of inclusive education. The concept of inclusion has evolved throughout the years and is often discussed in relation to involving children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in the classroom. Children with SEN are described as pupils who need additional help at school because they have learning difficulties or disabilities which significantly affect their access to the curriculum (Farrell, 2006). Inclusive education has evolved towards the idea that all children despite their cultural and social learning backgrounds should be provided with effective learning opportunities to take part in schools (UNESCO, 2005). The Salmanca Statement (UNESCO,2008 – cited in Donnelly, 2010, p.8) argues that schools should provide an inclusive education for all stating that inclusive education is “an on-going process that is aimed to offer quality education by respecting diversity and the different needs and abilities”. The Salamanca Statement recognised that an inclusive society is one in which differences are respected and valued (Pais, 2007). Cheminais (2001) argues that "inclusion is the keystone of current government education policy". Loreman and Deppeler (2001, in Loreman et al, 2005, p. 12) assert that full inclusion includes the inclusion of children with various abilities in all aspects of their schooling. These children should be able to enter and enjoy such schooling with other children. Therefore mainstream schools must accommodate all children and make changes to meet the needs of a wide range of children’s needs. Ideal inclusion has schools customizing curriculum to the special needs of children with disabilities and providing them with the necessary resources to comply with the expectation of equal opportunities. This means provision of ramps and space adjustments for children in wheelchairs or creation of Individual Educational Plans (IEPs) for children with learning disabilities. Teachers and Specialists collaborate on designing the curriculum for such children. A SEN Coordinator (SENCO) (1997) is the teacher in the school whose responsibility it is to meet the special education needs of the students. He, or she, works with other teachers and parents to coordinate plans and interventions for children with special needs (NHS, 2012).   Concern for children with disabilities, whether in physical or in learning have pushed governments to pursue their best interest. The Education Act of 2010 focuses on promoting inclusion and incorporation of children with SEN rather than separation and segregation in the school. The law also states that schools in the UK need to publish their SEN policies and employ a SEN Coordinator (SENCO) (Sturt,2002). Under the new provision, children with SEN might be entitled to extra support inside the classroom, or special facilities for examinations. Whether children with special needs actually get additional support may depend on the unique SEN policies of different schools and on the intensity of the child’s learning difficulties. In the case of a child having a statement of special needs, any school will be entitled to get extra support (BBC News, 2005). How do children with special needs respond to being in inclusive classrooms with typically-developing peers, and how are these peers affected by the presence of children with SEN? Becker, Dumas and Roberts (2001) contend that numerous social, academic and behavioural benefits are derived by children with SEN in inclusive settings. They are even observed to do better academically and socially in these settings than in special education classes (Karsten et al, 2001). Their typically-developing peers are not negatively affected by their presence, in fact, they learn more responsibility in being tasked to help out their classmates with their special needs. Kapusnick and Hauslein (2001) identified various differentiation approaches that would benefit children with special education needs who are included in regular classes. These are as follows: Acceleration: Students who learn faster than others should not be held back. They are given free rein to progress to the next levels of the curriculum. Curriculum Compacting: Advanced students are allowed to finish one unit of a curriculum and delve in depth on some topics not readily available within the classroom. It is one form of specialising in a particular topic in application to real world situations. Independent Study: This is an individual project initiated by a self-motivated student collaborated with a teacher who mentors him or her throughout the process. Flexible Grouping: Students have the opportunity to interact with others in groups. Several groupings may be formed based on “task, outcome, interest level, background knowledge or social readiness” (Kaputnick & Hauslein, 2001, p. 158). Teachers are on hand to remind group members of intra-group dynamics, outcome products and time frames. Independent Learning Centres: Inspired by Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory (1983), various learning centres are set up offering different activities on a particular unit lesson. Students may choose the learning centre they want to work in and accomplish the necessary tasks provided there. Complex Questions: In differentiated classrooms, open-ended discussions of topics triggered by complex questions are common. The teacher asks questions that stimulate higher order thinking and brainstorming sessions that call upon students’ communication skills. Tiered Activities: Teachers present options of activity levels that students can choose from and work on their individual goals. One student may choose the goal of completing 4 tasks whereas another may choose the goal of completing just 3. These goals have corresponding rewards that the students work towards. Contracts: Teachers and Students agree on the pursuit of individual student goals in certain tasks and teachers make sure their students meet their end of the deal. Teachers guide them accordingly based on their differentiated levels and competencies in the selection of their goals. Recently, inclusion is seen as a social concept of equality. The Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE, 2011) state that inclusion in education involves the restructuring of school cultures, policies and practices to respond to the needs of a diverse population of students. It also claims that inclusive education reduces barriers to learning and participation for all students including those with SEN. Furthermore, inclusion can also be regarded as a universal human right because it includes all students regardless of race, gender or disability access to education with their peers without discrimination or segregation. With regards to students who are identified to have special education needs, any obstacles that might prevent or affect them from receiving the education they deserve must be eliminated (Devon Council, 2009). However, in practice, inclusive programmes have been found to be inadequate to meet the needs of children with learning disabilities (Elliot, 2007). In its initial steps, identification of children with SEN can already be challenging. In Britain it is estimated that one in five children of school age have special educational needs (Clarke,2009 and DCSF,2006 cited in Westwood, 2011). Identification of these special educational needs can be problematic, these children tend to have a combination of personal, emotional, social, environmental and family problems, unrelated to disability that cause them to be at risk of failure within the school system (Turnbull et al.,2010, Abrams, 2010 and Cadima et al., 2010 cited in Westwood,2011). The Special Education Needs Code of Practice (2001) covers the steps of gaining provision for children with SEN. First, the symptoms of the suspected disability are observed, followed by the identification and declaration of having special needs (Payne & Turner, 1999). These children are given a statement to prove that they are entitled to government provisions for their special needs under the legislations related to people with disabilities. However, in reality, only a small portion of diagnosed children get the declaration for SEN due to lack of funding or priority in certain LEAs for special education. In other cases, parents do not appeal for reconsideration if they are not granted a statement for their children (Burns, 2012). On a more basic level, teachers, who are expected to detect early signs of learning disabilities, are not adequately trained to do so, hence, missing the opportunity to refer the child for assessment (ibid.). Presently, there are several legal necessities that force schools to deliver adequate support for children with learning problems. The Education Act of 2010 focuses on supporting inclusion and incorporation of dyslexic children rather than separation and segregation in the school. However, Norwich et al. (2005) report that the current English Special Education Needs (SEN) framework is becoming criticized for statutory assessment and SEN statement issuing system being costly and bureaucratic and stressful to parents. Parents are not assured of receiving provisions due to inequitable resource allocation and that they are not supported in inclusive practices. National policy positions have also recognized that more inclusion meant fewer children with statements of SEN. Parents need to be assured that teachers of their children have “extended professionalism”, or being sensitive to their perspectives as parents, taken seriously and respectfully and know that they have their children’s best interest at heart. The “Learning Act” of 2004 provides parents with the right to appeal if the school does not provide equivalent learning prospects for their children compared to their peers. This act covers every child with special needs, and has extensive coverage for disability issues. Still, in the past, several reports on SEN in the UK identified there was insufficient monitoring regarding SEN performance at LEA and school level. The “Audit Commission” (2002), had specified that a lack of organised monitoring denotes poor practice of SEN. The review of the “Audit Commission” in 2002 found that only limited numbers of LEAs were thoroughly checked regarding the performances of schools on SEN. The report also suggested that the most significant causes of low checking were lack of national benchmarks for children with dyslexia. The report of Ofsted in 2004 also suggested that only a limited number of schools assess their facilities for children with SEN methodically because there was lack of suitable information to the LEAs. The resources were also inadequate to cover the requirements of growing demand of SEN and there was also insufficient support for children with disabilities. The reason is that the majority of school resources are absorbed on the “small minority of children with statements” (Keslair & et al., 2009). On the other hand, Mary Warnock has recently expressed disappointment at how the issue of “statements” have been handled over the years and calls for its revocation, even if it was her report that first recommended it. She claims that only children who are correctly diagnosed to need highly specialized services should be issued statements, and they are the ones who gain access to special schools which provide the services for these children’s special needs. Others who also have special needs but not as profound should still have their special needs met in inclusive schools which should be staffed with well trained teachers (Douglas Silas Solicitors, 2010). In certain cases the policy of inclusion does not match the legislation. Since 1997 to 2006 almost 97 special schools for disabled students have closed down with requests for additional special school facilities development (The Independent, 2006). In spite of thinking about more comprehensive education, the government’s ambition to educate more disabled children in mainstream school is weakening. Ofsted (Curtis, 2004) had depicted that regardless of having better legislation for inclusive education, the majority of schools were unable to improve their provisions. Constant effort is required to guarantee more schools have the capability to acknowledge and support children with special needs (Curtis, 2004). One of the most significant challenges for the success of SEN provision is the approaches of teachers. Teachers’ inputs can be a vital aspect for successful teaching of children with SEN (Poulou & Norwich, 2000). Unless teachers demonstrate a positive approach towards children with disabilities, their special requirements cannot be fulfilled completely. SENDA of 2001 specifies the right of disabled students that they must not be discriminated in their education, teaching and other extra services which require extra effort from teachers. On the other hand, DDA of 1995 depicts equal access to education for children with disabilities which necessitates positive attitudes towards these children. According to research on primary teachers in Greece in the year 2000, teachers were quite concerned regarding behavioural problems of children. Thus, there was a need for enhancement of teachers with additional knowledge and skills for handling the learning difficulties of children (Poulou & Norwich, 2000). The nature of the needs can influence a teacher’s attitude towards the inclusion of SEN student. Hasting and Oakford’s study (2003) found that student teachers, who were training to become teachers, had a more negative attitude towards the inclusion of students with behavioural problems than towards the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities for example. They found it more challenging to deal with students with behaviour problems because of its complications on the children’s attitude, which the teachers find difficult to change and manage. The students with intellectual needs may be challenging to teach, but were easier to manage in terms of their behaviour. In another study, Pearson et al., (2003) argue that teachers are more challenged with the inclusion of students with learning disabilities and behavioural problems than they are with including students with physical difficulties. Similarly Avramidis (2001) also argues that teachers are more willing to include certain types of children with needs: they prefer to include students with physical disabilities than to include students with behavioural difficulties. However, Brandon (2006) suggested that the type of disability does not affect teacher’s attitudes after studying the attitudes of Botswana’s Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) towards the inclusion of students with physical disabilities. She discovered that their attitudes were neither positive nor negative. Hasting and Oakford (2003) argue that various studies have shown that students who defined as having mild SEN require less effort from the teacher to include them and this is why students with mild SEN are regarded more positively when it comes to inclusion than students with severe SEN. Mulvihill et al (2002) contend that the positive attitude of teachers towards students with different types of disabilities is actually useful for inclusion to be successful. This is because positive attitudes lead to teachers gaining more confidence in including students with SEN especially if the SEN is mild. Teachers gain enough experience and efficiency and become more motivated towards inclusion. Additionally, Leatherman (2007) discovered that the more positive teachers’ attitudes were towards students with SEN, the more likely they were to include them successfully in the classroom. Leatherman (2007) found that the teachers who teach students with SEN look at the accessibility of support services to help in the inclusion of students with SEN. This involves having bigger classrooms, getting teaching materials to assist with the varying needs of the students with SEN and having teaching assistants to further help a student with SEN. These can be useful tools to creating a more successful inclusive environment. Support and resources within the school and classrooms are deemed important for inclusion. Burstein et al. (2004) and Hasting and Oakford (2003) found that the majority of the teachers they studied felt that there was a lack of support and it was a barrier to successfully including students with SEN in their classrooms. They argue that more support needs to be provided for these teachers so that education can truly become inclusive. Pearson et al. (2003) reported that those teachers that had more funding and support had more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Financial provisions, encouragement and support from specialist resource teachers and head teachers improve the experience and attitudes of teachers teaching SEN students and, therefore, make teachers more positive towards inclusion. Schools are encouraged to work with parents to experiment with different strategies to discover the best methods to make inclusion work for the SEN student and all the students in the class. Weiner (2003) supports this by arguing that the most useful and important “changes in the culture of a school would result from a common focus and shared responsibility for student learning outcomes” (Weiner, 2003, p. 18). That means all of teachers, parents, professionals and students must be work together to classify the needs of the individual SEN and the best methods which would maximise the education for them. Feiler (2003) demonstrated the importance of support from parents and carers, as well as the role of teacher assistants (TAs) to make the inclusion successful. Feiler (2003) conducted a study planned to support two children struggling with literacy, through the weekly condition of home visits during the first year for children at school. The researcher described the work of the TAs. And the evidence is that the added support was successful for the achievement of children with SEN. Another study by Moran and Abbott (2002) was focused on the importance of TAs in developing inclusive practices in Northern Ireland. They said that there is still a need to develop teacher training and in?service training in the management of adults in the classroom, and of enabling teachers to simplify the roles and responsibilities of the TAs. Unless children with special needs are provided with appropriate necessities, they will be unable to fulfil their potential. Thus, quality and constant professional development measures must be available to the teachers, and the schools also must be provided with appropriate resources. Although the rights of children with disabilities are acknowledged and respected, and government has made efforts to provide for them, gaps between legislation and provision still exist. These gaps may be closed with better monitoring of government and non-government agencies advocating for such children. Minimum standards for SEN should be maintained in schools because it facilitates the assessment of the facilities and performance of school regarding SEN (House of Commons, 2006). Everyone concerned with the growth and development of children with disabilities should strive harder to ensure that such children have full access to the provisions allotted for them. Having people such as Mary Warnock who vigilantly saw to it that these children’s needs are fulfilled gives much hope that despite their disability, they can develop the necessary skills to survive and contribute to society. It is unfortunate that having a disability impacts on how children learn but it becomes much worse if they are not provided with the support they need in order to develop their potential. It is the responsibility of their parents, teachers and society in general to assist them in functioning well despite their disability by providing them the interventions necessary for them to thrive. After all, they shall be part of a generation of future inheritors of this world and while they are young, they should already be primed to be contributory citizens of their future society. References Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) (2011) Getting the Statement Right: A practical guide to parents’ legal rights. Retrieved on June 20, 2012 from http://www.ace- ed.org.uk/Resources/ACE/advice%20booklets/GettingTheStatementRi ght%20Mar2011.pdf Avramidis, E. (2001) Mainstream teacher’s attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Exeter. BBC News (2005) Q & A: Dyslexia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4208002.stm Accessed 16 July 2012 Becker, Heather, Shelley Dumas, and Greg Roberts. (2001). The inclusion inventory: a tool to assess perceptions of the implementations of inclusive educational practices. Special Services in Schools. 16, 1&2, 57-72. Burns, J. (2012) Dyslexia training for teachers needed, charity says, Retrieved on July 1, 2012 fom http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18602782 Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., and Spagna, M., (2004) Moving Toward Inclusive Practices. Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, 104-116. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) (2011) What is Inclusion? Retrieved on July 4, 2012 from http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/what.shtml Cheminais, R. (2001), Developing Inclusive School Practice: A Practical Guide, London: David Fulton Publishers. Curtis, P (2004) School inclusion policies not working, says report. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/oct/12/disability.childrensservic es Accessed 15 July 2012 Devon county council (2009). By the web site http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/cyps/children-with-special- eeds/discplus/early_years_inclusion/what_is_inclusion.htm DFES (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of Practice https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0581- 2001-SEN-CodeofPractice.pdf- accessed 18.03.2012 Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/95050--a.htm#1 (Accessed: 20 July 2007) Douglas Silas Solicitors (2010) Warnock & SEN, Retrieved on August 3, 2012 from http://www.specialeducationalneeds.co.uk/UsefulInformation/SEN- EducationInfo/warnock.html Education Act, 1996, Section 312 Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Retrieved on July 20, 2012 from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk Federal Development Disabilities Act of 1984. Feiler, A. (2003). A home visiting project for reception children predicted to experience literacy difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 30(3), 156–162. Gardner, H. ( 1983) Frames of mind: The theory of Multiple intelligences. New York. Hastings, R., and Oakford, S. (2003) Student Teachers' Attitude Towards The Inclusion of Children with Special Education. Educational Psychology, Vol. 23, No.1, p 87-94. House of Commons (2006) Special Educational Needs. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski /478/478i.pdf Accessed 21 July 2012 Kapusnick, R.A. & Hauslein, C.M. (2001) The “silver cup” of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delti Pi Record, Summer 2001 Keslair, F. & et. al (2009) ‘Every Child Matters’: Is this reflected by the effectiveness of ‘special action programmes’? http://cep.lse.ac.uk/seminarpapers/03-02-09-FK.pdf Accessed 28 July 2012 Leatherman, J., M. (2007) I just see all children as children: Teachers' perceptions about inclusion. The qualitative report, Vol. 12, No. 4, 594- 611. Levine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster. Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. and Harvey, D. (2005) Inclusive Education; A Practical Guide to Supporting Diversity in the Classroom, London and New York: Routledge. McPhail, J.C. & Freeman, J.G. (2005) “Beyond prejudice: Thinking toward genuine inclusion”, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 254–267 Moran, A., & Abbott, L. (2002). Developing inclusive schools: The pivotal role of teaching assistants in promoting inclusion in special and mainstream schools in Northern Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 161–173. New Zealand Ministry of Social Development. (2002). The New Zealand disability strategy. Wellington, New Zealand Norwich, B., Griffiths, C. & Burden, B. (2005) Dyslexia-friendly schools and Parent partnership: inclusion and home–school relationships, European Journal of Special Needs Education Vol. 20, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 147–165 NHS (2012) Diagnosing Dyslexia. Retrieved on June 30, 2012 from http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Dyslexia/Pages/Diagnosis.aspx Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva, Switzerland. Oliver, M. (1983) Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Parkinson, G. (2006), “Counsellors’ attitudes towards Disability Equality Training (DET)”, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2006 Payne, T. & Turner, E (1999). Dyslexia: a parents' and teachers' guide. Multilingual Matters. Pearson, V., LO, E., Chui, E., & Wong, D. (2003) A Heart to learn and care? Teachers’ responses toward special needs children in mainstream schools in Hong Kong. Disability & Society, Vol. 18, No. 4, 489-508 Poulou, M. & Norwich, B (2000) Teachers’ perceptions of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties: severity and prevalence. European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 171- 187. Pumfrey, P. D. & Reason, R (1991) Specific learning difficulties (Dyslexia): Challenges and responses. Routledge. Royal College of Nursing (2001) Disability legislation. http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/372994/003851.pdf Accessed 25 July, 2012 Special Education Needs code of Practice (2001) LEAs, Head Teachers and Governors of Schools, early education practitioners and other interested parties. DFES Publications. UK Special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) (1997), Retrieved on January 17, 2011 from: special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) - Special Educational Needs, Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs (Revised Sturt, G (2002) The Educational Reforms of 1944. http://www.garysturt.free- online.co.uk/Special%20Educational%20Needs.htm Accessed July 22, 2012 The Independent (2006) Special-Needs Education: Does mainstream inclusion work? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/specialneeds- education-does-mainstream-inclusion-work-470960.html Accessed 25 July 2012 The Warnock Report (1978) Special Educational Needs. HMSO report by the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. London Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_udhr.htm (Accessed: 20 July 2012) Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). Fundamentals of defectology. New York: Plenum Press. Weiner, H.M. (2003) Effective inclusion: Professional development in the context of the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 35, # 6 Read More