Does the Process of Statementing Students in the UK Encourage Inclusion - Assignment Example

Does the Process of menting in the UK Encourage Inclusion? A of practice’ in education was introduced was introduced by the 1993Education Act. The outlined course of action was to be based on the identification and assessment of learners with Special Educational Needs (SEN) (Department for Education and Employment (2000). The main ambition of the disability division and the special educational needs (SEN) is for every child with SEN to attain their maximum potential in school and transit successfully to adulthood. Statementing in education is basically the development of a statement for specific learners whose school and parents have convinced the local education authority that the learner requires additional help (Allan, 1999). A statement of special needs is therefore a formal statement outlining the learning difficulties of a learner and the help they can be given. This statement developed after the child’s needs have been assessed and the LEA has described how these needs are going to be provided. The process of statementing helps to know if the child will be educated in a special school or remain in mainstream school. However, the parents have a right to choose where they want their child to be educated. Most parents chose to have their children educated in the mainstream education system, in other words, to learn under inclusion. After statementing has been completed, additional funding is channeled to the school to meet the needs of the statemented learner (Booth and Ainscow, 2000). The ideology behind statementing children with SEN in the UK This essay mainly discuses the ideology behind statementing children with SEN in the UK, how it works, the strengths and the limitations of this approach and inclusion in Netherlands and the USA. The main ideology behind statementing children with SEN in the UK is that all children are teachable and are able to achieve. Statementing is therefore a tool for necessary for the identification of those learners who require extra help for them to attain their maximum potentialities (Le Roy and Simpson, 1996). According to Hornby (2001) the purpose of the statementing process is to ensure that all children are treated equally and promote the highest achievement standards among all learners. This promotes equality or enjoyment of all human rights where all children enjoy the right to develop and learn alongside their peers irrespective of the presence of a disability. Highest achievement standards are met by outlining the educational needs of the child and setting objectives and goals towards their attainment. Statementing also results to the provision of the necessary materials or funds that are required for the most appropriate education foe the statemented learners. Benjamin (2002) explains that the process of statementing involves six main parts. The first part gives general information about the child while the second part describes all the special education needs of the child. It also includes all information provided by professionals and relevant therapeutic input. Part three of the special needs statement describes the main developmental and educational objectives for the learner. These include support and special education provision that will meet the objectives and needs outlined. Part four is a statement usually indicating the type of school that will provide the educational needs outlined. Part five of the statement describes all non education needs required by the learner as described by a social or health worker for example transport. Part six describes all non –educational provisions required to met part five of the statement hence they are not the responsibility of the education department. The five part take a total of 26 weeks and a final statement is normally issued after all stakeholders have agreed on all the points. It includes the school in which the educational needs will be provided. This is accompanied by the channeling of necessary funding to the identified school. A statement must be reviewed at least once in a year by the law to assess views about the child and progress made during the last one year (Booth, 1999). Strengths and limitations of the statutory statement system in the UK There is a statutory inclusion statement for the national curriculum in the UK (Mittler, 2000). According to this statement, all schools must respond to learners with diverse learning needs, set suitable learning challenges and overcome barriers to the assessment and learning individual le4rner or groups of learners. The main strength of this statutory statement system is that it ensures that the educational needs of varied learners or groups of learners are met in the classroom. Assessment is done through local professional networks and statementing is done at a local level and in collaboration with local stakeholders. The system has therefore improved accountability to the local community and the national government hence promoting collaboration rather than competition (Campbell and Oliver, 1996). Teachers complain assessment for SEN under the statutory statement system takes too long. This means that resources are also slow in coming and this poses disadvantages to the educational needs of the learner and the adoption of proper intervention strategies. Under this system, a lot of time is spent in the assessing and providing services which can be measured easily rather than those which are more effective in delivering improved outcomes (Hornby, 2001). There is a high level of bureaucracy in the current UK statutory statementing system. This makes it hard for many parents to navigate through the process especially for parents who lack the confidence or competence to deal with the complexity of the steps involved. This also includes the adverse nature of the tribunal and paperwork to be completed (Swain et al 2003). It has been found out that statements in some cases add some significant information concerning the learner’s needs. This means that statements encourage the use of lies in order to obtain finding meant for educational interventions for statemented learners. According to Hornby (2001), transferability of statements across local authorities is a major issue for learners. This results from inconsistent exchange of learner information between schools and a poor tracking system for statemented students. The system is not flexible hence it does not take into account gaps in learners resulting from interrupted or missed schooling. For example, students with degenerative conditions, long-term medical conditions and those with neurological conditions. Defining or measuring the success of inclusion A true inclusive education is whereby a school responds to the educational needs of all students (Hodgson et al, 1984). This includes restructuring and reconsidering their curricular organizations, curricular provisions and allocation of educational resources to learners so as to enhance equality of opportunity among all learners especially these with SEN. The success of inclusion can therefore be measured by examining the extend to which the educational needs of learner with SEN have been met in the mainstream education system. This means the degree to which the school culture and organization has changed in order to respond to diversity among learners and celebrate differences among them. Issues related to inclusion for learners with SEN in the UK. One of the general teaching requirements established by the national curriculum inclusion statement in England is inclusive teaching. Documents that have subsequently been produced have consistently presented the view that all teachers are expected to be teachers of all learners with SEN. However, there are a number of the issues related to the inclusion of learners with SEN in the UK. First the national strategies have given guidance for inclusion. This strategy emphasizes the strengthening of learning and teaching rather than specialist approaches in order to improve the educational outcome for all learners. Teachers are therefore expected to respond to the strengths and weaknesses of every learner. This means increasing responsibility and burden for the mainstream education teachers (Frederickson and Cline, 2009). According to Gibson (2005) and Carpenter et al (1996), inclusion requires that all teachers should gain special education knowledge. There is still a debate as to when the teachers should develop it in order to offer ‘teaching for all’. The third issue is that it is not valid to assume that a barrier to learning encountered by one learner applies to all other learners. However, teachers have to apply varied response methods in order to accommodate those learners with SEN. For example constant repetition in order to accommodate slow learners the visually or hearing impaired learners. This becomes a disadvantage to learners without SEN because it also leads to boredom and slows down the speed of syllabus coverage. Inclusion may also present disadvantage to the learners with SEN for example, slow learners require a teacher who is warm and patient and learning environment offers confidence and freedom from worry. This may not apply in a mainstream education system (Ainscow, 1999). There is a radial difference in the needs of disabled learners from the non-disabled and the characteristics that distinguish them. This requires that these needs and characteristics be given proper status which may not be possible in a incisive classroom setting. According to Lloyd (2000) inclusion does not result to reduction of costs as expected or the improvement of outcomes. It merely pulls out special education professionals out of their classrooms into general classrooms. In terms of teaching, teachers in inclusive classrooms do not differentiate between learners with SEN and those without. This is because they have adopted a problem solving approach to inclusion. This means that they do not focus on individual learner differences but on learning. If proper learning does not occur, they respond by application of the problem solving strategy to ensure that it occurs. This means there is need for teachers to focus more on the climate for learning or general conditions conducive for learning and inclusion of all students (Department of Health (DH), 2001), Barton, (1997) explains that a greater level of differentiation is very necessary for learners whose attainments fall far below the expected levels but this is not possible in inclusion. According to Mittler, (2000) and Abberley (1987), learners with SEN experience oppression and inequality both in and outside class. This means that a proper inclusion should adopt a social model definition in order to overcome organizational, attitudinal and environmental barriers to learning. However, this as not been fully achieved within the inclusive education settings in the UK. Other methods and policies of inclusion Statementing alone is not sufficient for the attainment of maximum inclusion. This is because it merely involves identification of the special educational needs of a learner and designing ways of achieving them. However, this may not be adequate in discouraging segregation among students with SEN. Therefore, there is need to provide not only appropriate but adequate education for all learners. An example is the Adequate Education for All Students, the new policy put in place in Netherlands. The policy rose out of the desire and need to enhance the care for students with SEN. The aim of this policy is to enhance the realization of education for all students with special needs. The policy also works towards the avoidance of segregation of students with SEN. Under the ‘Adequate Education for all students’, all school boards are expected to provide adequate education for all learners irrespective of their educational needs or the type of educational support they require. Schools are supposed to arrange educational provisions in a manner that will take into account special educational needs. Schools therefore have the freedom to decide how these special arrangements are appropriately offered. The strongest point about this system is that schools get to e prepared even before they can receive learners with SEN. This means that they do not need to suffer from lack of resources as they await for a final statement of special needs as in the case of UK. In the US, family-professional partnerships are given a critical role in the development of educational decisions. The US inclusion policy also requires schools to educate learners with SEN in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Bush, 1989). Under this law, schools are supposed to educate learners with SEN alongside those without SEN to the extend that is most appropriate for the learner with SEN. The inclusion policy also allows for the removal of learners with SEN in instances where heir educational needs cannot be met in the mainstream classroom even with the provision of additional aids and services (Christenson et al, 1992). In comparison, the UK is successful compared to the US and the Netherlands in inclusion because statementing allows for schools to obtain funding for the inclusion process. This eliminates financial barriers to inclusion. However, it causes inconveniences if the release of a final statement takes long or a student transfers from one local county to another. The policies used in the US and Netherlands encourage schools to develop their own potentialities and be prepared at all times to deal with learners with SEN. Conclusion In the UK, all learners who require additional help in education are require to obtain a statement of special needs. This statement outlines he specific special learner learning needs and ways of ensuring they are met. This enables the learner to continue with their education in mainstream schools. Statementing in the UK can therefore be said to encourage inclusion because it outlines the necessary support that can be offered in the mainstream education system in order to enable learners with SEN gain maximally from the existing curriculum like any other learner. This support includes the requirement for additional lessons, appropriate sitting position or the application or the use of extra support material. However, other models of inclusion should be adopted for example the social model. Models that allow for schools to develop their own potentialities to support inclusion should also be encouraged for example those used in the US and the Netherlands. References Abberley, P, (1987), ‘The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability’, Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, 1, 5-19 Allan, J. (1999). Actively seeking inclusion London: Falmer Press. Ainscow, M (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer Press. Armstrong, D (2005). “Reinventing inclusion: New Labour and the cultural politics of special Education”. Oxford Review of Education. (1) pp 35-52. Ballard, M. (1997). “Researching disability and inclusive education: Participation, Construction and Interpretation”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. (3) pp 243-256. Barker, J. (1984) “Junior school teachers: their methods and practice”. Educational Research. 26(3) pp 178 -188. Barton, L, (1997), “Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or realistic?” Inclusive Education. (3) pp 231-242. Benjamin, S (2002) The Micropolitics of Inclusive Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Booth, T (1999). “Viewing inclusion from a distance: gaining perspective from comparative study”. Support for Learning. 14(4) pp 164-168 Booth, T. and Ainscow. M. (2000). Index on Inclusion. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education Bush, T. (1989). Managing change in schools. London. Routledge. Christenson, L., Rounds, T. and Gorney, D. (1992). “Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success”. School Psychology Quarterly. (7) pp 178- 206. Croft, S., and Beresford, P., (1993), ‘The politics of participation’, Critical Social Policy, 2, 20- 44 Campbell, J., and Oliver, M., (1996), Disability Politics: Understanding our past, changing our future, London: Routledge Carpenter, B, Ashdown, R and Bovair, K (1996). Enabling Access: Effective Teaching and Learning forPupils with Learning Difficulties. London. David Fulton. Cohen. L, Manion. L, and Morrison. K, (1996). A guide to Teaching Practice. London. Routledge. Department of Education and Science (1978) Special Educational Needs. London. HMSO Department for Education and Employment (2000). The Code of Practice. London. HMSO. Department of Health (DH), (2001), Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century, White Paper Cmnd 5086, London. HMSO Department of Health (DH), (2001b), Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century, White Paper Cmnd 5086, London: HMSO Frederickson, N. and Cline, T. (2009). Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity: A Textbook (2nd Ed.). Buckingham. Open University Press. Gibson, M. (2005). Opportunities and Challenges: Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004. Online: http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/tf- mentors/ActivitiesforMentoring/DiversityInclusion/documents/Statement.pdf. Viewed 14th May, 2011. Le Roy, B. and Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive education. Support for Learning. (1) pp 32-36. Lloyd, C (2000). “Excellence for all children – False Promises! The failure of current policy for inclusive education and implications for schooling in the 21st century”. International Journal of Inclusive Education. (2) pp 133-151. Mittler, P. (2000) Working Toward Inclusive Education: Social Contexts. London: David Fulton. Moon, B. and Mayes, A.S. (1995). Teaching and learning in the secondary school London. Routledge. Hodgson, A. Clunes-Ross, L. and Hegarty, S. (1984). Learning together. Oxford. NFER Nelson Pub Comp Ltd. Hornby, G. (2001) Promoting responsible inclusion: quality education for all. In Enabling Inclusion: Blue skies…Dark clouds? ed. by O’Brien, T. London: The Stationery Office. Swain, J. French, S. and Cameron, C. (2003). Controversial Issues in a Disabling Society. Buckingham. Open University Press. Silver Jubilee Access Committee, (1979). Can Disabled People Go Where You Go? London. SJAC Thompson, N. (1997), Anti-Discriminatory Practice, Basingstoke: Macmillan Thompson, N. (1998). Promoting Equality, Challenging discrimination and oppression in the human services. Basingstoke. Palgrave. Read More