Equality among the Disabled People in Education - Essay Example

?Equality among the Disabled People in Education Introduction According to the Office for Disability Issues , the number of people with disability in the United Kingdom, including those with long-term illnesses comprised about ten million of the total population, where 23% of the said population belongs to “relative income poverty” line. This fact would raise questions on what areas do these disabled people are in need. A general knowledge concerning people with disability is the existence of an ongoing struggle against discrimination especially in education. United Kingdom may seem to have a success in promoting universality in equal education, but the disabled learners do not share with this success. Although there are provisions that would benefit learners with disability, the move for equality in education did not quite reach the expectations of the disabled people and their families especially in the equal distribution of quality education, specifically on adjusted treatment of teachers and peer acceptance and government assistance. Prevalence of Disabled People in Education in the United Kingdom Quality education remains to be one of the existing challenges for learners with special needs. Chapter 3 of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) monitoring paper explores the international perspective of the problem and contends that present educational systems failed to address the needs of the marginalized, especially for the disabled, of quality education (UNESCO, 2010). In the United Kingdom, the Department for Education initiated the SEN or the Special Education Needs to meet a diverse population of disabled people. Between the years 2005 and 2006, the population of learners with disability rose considerably, where a 6% raise was recorded by the Office for Disability Issues. Although the record is already relatively high, this is not enough to conclude that discrimination among these people does not exist. As what Barnes (1991, p. 28) argues, discrimination against the disabled people is a fact in the present educational system. Discrimination against Disabled People in Education A common thought persists that education is supposed to be an area in which people can be equal regardless of their status, gender, or abilities, that individuals have the right to achieve educational success; however, this might just be the contrary to what the real scenario suggests. Discrimination, especially for the disabled individuals is prevalent at any educational levels despite the laws forbidding it. Tracing the history of education in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the disabled population were the least of the concerns of the government. In the book by Barnes (1991, p. 29), it is stated that the Education Act of 1944 upheld “equality of education” for all its citizens but “the idea of equality, however, did not extend to children with impairments.” The idea brings the thought that mainstream education was at the time an absolute standard. The ‘equality for all in education’ scheme called for segregation of disabled and ‘subnormal’ learners from the normal learning class. Fortunately, the Education Act of 1981 provided broader opportunities for children with special needs. Not only that the provision guided the disabled people for better and broader educational opportunities but also emphasized the roles of some professions, directly or indirectly helping special children (Barnes, 1991, p. 34). Through inclusion system, the disabled individual is provided an opportunity to be involved in the mainstream classroom. Educational inclusion is an “action to remove barriers to participation in learning” (Anon., n.d.), which follows that learners with impairments are actually included in the standard classrooms. This would provide them the chance to interact with ‘normal’ learners, and serve as a practice for future involvement in the workforce. This may be a sound goal for the Department for Education but Abrams (2004) did not believe that this move is realistic in any sense at all, given the fact that the disabled children have special needs compared to that of an ordinary school child (cited in Shah, 2008, p. 51). He stated that “inclusion is just an illusion” (cited in Shah, 2008, p. 51). This was further approved by Ofsted (2004) stating that there is a certain “mismatch between the school’s aspiration and reality” (cited in Shah, 2008, p. 51). Furthermore, the integration of disabled children “still remains to be a contested concept” (MacBeath, Galton, Steward, MacBeath, & Page, 2007, p. 3); in other words, the concept is left hanging on the dilemma whether it really does resolve the needs of disabled children or remains to be an abstract goal. On this note, one might doubt if inclusion really is a way of bridging the gap between the mainstream learners and the learners with special needs. The aim of inclusion is to set the impaired child into the actual world, where not everything is design for his convenience; the scheme might be considered as an ideal way to prepare the child for the real world. However, there is always the possibility of having an unequal treatment for disabled children. For instance, a hearing impaired child is included in a normal classroom with 30 students. The teacher is less likely to base the pacing of her lessons according to the ability of one pupil, because it would not be fair to other 29 pupils. In this case, the teacher is left in a perplexed situation as to determine a just priority when it comes to classroom instruction. Another problem for disabled children included in the standard classroom is social acceptance. Quick, et al. (2003) noted that “there is evidence to suggest that disabled students experience negative attitudes from both students and staff” (cited in Seale, 2006, p. 15). For example in peer tutoring of the visually impaired, they are likely to feel that the ‘normal students’ are less willing to help them than students with the same condition (Seale, 2006, p. 15). Although there are teachers who would tend to violate anti-discrimination laws of disabled students, it is the peers who have a larger opportunity of discriminating their disabled counterparts, and cases regarding bullying and violence against these students are growing despite of the efforts made by the schools to prevent it. According to Lansdown (2001, p. 34), “getting picked on” is a “universal experience of disabled children.” A data in 2001 documented “physical, emotional, and verbal bullying...from peer groups” (Watson, Shakespeare, Cunningham-Burley, & Barnes, 2000 cited in Lansdown, 2001, p. 34). Consequently, special schools in which it is believed that disabled children are spared from bullying, do not assure the disabled child of a verbal abuse-free environment, since name-calling is known to occur in either type of schools (Lansdown, 2001, p. 37). Efficiency of Special Schools and Implications on Mainstreaming Special schools are designed to meet the unique needs of disabled individuals. In a way, they are seen as stimulating and engaging for disabled children and a venue for them to excel. However, it is unfortunate that most special schools are poorly funded by the government resulting to an inefficient set of facilities. Florian and MacLaughlin (2008, p. 56) revealed that special schools are behind from public support because most educational systems encourage “the ablest students” because they are believed to be an asset of the country and the hope of the nation’s economy, leaving the disabled students behind. On the other look, teachers would ‘exaggerate’ learning needs of the students by “[giving] up on the first set back and runs to the special needs coordinator asking for help” (Warnock, n.d. cited in Paton, 2010). If such claim is true, then about 1.7 million children are underrepresented as disabled and would consequently mean a meaningless expenditure as assistance of special education. Such statement is also correct, which tears the argument into halves and further develops the main dilemma. In this case, the equality for education given to children with special needs would be at risk, since there is still no agreed and firm rule as to where and how should the children with special needs would be educated; although in teacher training, special education is already introduced. The problem in proper funding still remains to be a puzzle for most special schools. The Audit Commission of 1992 suggested the “reduce of flow” of children into special schools. According to Jenkinson (1997), “special schools budget will be based on the predicted number of places needed, rather than on the actual number of places.” The main concern therefore, is the budget allocated to special schools without risking the quality of other types of schools in the U.K. Aside from saving budget allocation, it was said that special schools are declining in their quality, and failed to impose proper classroom management especially in secondary schools which would call for the “increase of untrained classrooms assistants whose main task was to contain poor behavior” (MacBeath, Galton, Steward, Macbeath, & Page, 2007, p. 5). In this part, behavioral issues in special schools may be in favor with the inclusion law. To this point, one could ask about what comprises the special schools and how are they managed that they extract a large proportion of the nation’s treasury and contain several classroom management issues within the school walls. Typically, special schools are designed especially for the complex needs of the special children. In a report by the Department for Children, Schools, and Families (2008, p. 47) learning space is given much emphasis in building an ideal special classroom, where “separate areas” are intended to perform varied activities for the learners such as cooking and small group work and “a range of easily accessible outdoor spaces.” In inclusive schools, disabled children are separated from the rest of the students, but a specific area in the classroom is intended for them. Specifically in primary schools, children would need more equipment for instruction depending on the type of disability they have. This is a must in all inclusive schools for easier access of materials for these kinds of learners and for teachers to reach the expected performance of the children. Burns (2007, p. 273) noted that there are two main obligations for a special education teacher. First, he should be able to “address the unique needs of the child” and “to ensure the access of the child to the general curriculum.” Noticeably, what Burns (2007) conceptualised is actually no different from that of the duties of an ordinary classroom teacher, which could justify the reason for inclusion. If there should be any difference, it is on the strategies used by the teacher to meet the needs of both his ‘normal’ pupils and the special ones. Truth About Equality in Education for Children with Disabilities In the points raised from the two sides of the story, one could somehow assess whether the children with special needs are receiving equal educational opportunities with that of their normal peers. At an initial look of the current situation of the special schools in the United Kingdom, a general view would be a good chance for the special children to achieve equality in education, that there are institutions that are willing to help them to become productive citizens despite of their disabilities. However, the famous Warnock’s report would make any one think twice. The Baroness Warnock’s proposition on classroom inclusion questions the quality and cost efficiency of special schools in the country. With the special children as the ones directly affected, any one concerned would think about equal educational opportunities for them if included in the mainstream schools. The problem is, there are certain flaws found in both inclusive and special schools. Based on the aforementioned information, there are two main problems of special schools: 1) the government has no proper funding and 2) poor classroom management. On the other hand, there are far more complex points that need closer attention in inclusive schools: 1) teachers would have difficulty in determining what, when, and how to teach her students, given that she has to attend two types of students each with very unique needs; 2) quality in common schools would be at risk; and 3) classroom adjustment, in terms of physical arrangements and equipments, is required if special children should be included in the mainstream. Since both schools are flawed to instruct children with special needs, then both sides should meet halfway so that no educational opportunity bestowed on any kind of learner would be jeopardize. In the case of severe mental disability, their situation should be reasonable enough for the children not to be included in the mainstream schools. Such as what The London Evening Standard reported, teachers and school administrators “[are] finding it increasingly difficult to support children with special educational needs in mainstream [primary] schools” (Anon., 2007). Implications for Future Legislation This is actually a problem that can be resolved through common sense. Legislation could order the inclusion of special children on a case to case basis. Severe cases of disabilities should not be included in the mainstream schools since classroom management and instruction may not be appropriate for them. Consequently, special schools should not be completely abolished and could make as an initial stage of schooling for special children. If there are necessary improvements that would imply the child’s ability to be in the mainstream school, then he could move to an inclusive school. Paton (2010) reports that up to 457,000 children are wrongly diagnosed to have special education needs. To resolve this problem and to avoid further complications in the issue, it is imperative that before children would be in any of the schools, it is proper for them to have accurate assessment of their learning capabilities. This can comprise of the report of parents’ observation, adequate clinical assessment, and appropriate exams which include proficiency in all macro skills. This is especially important for children whose disabilities are non-apparent or not directly observed, as well as for children who possess qualities of disabilities but in reality, are just part of normal and unique childhood growth (e.g. being hyperactive, being extremely shy). Accurate learning assessment must be given emphasis because it would become the basis on what school is appropriate for the child. Furthermore, the action should not end at writing the legislation. A careful and strict implementation of the law is also a necessary part of giving the disabled children equality in education. Conclusion Whether the government will admit it or not, equality in education is difficult to achieve, especially in the growing population of disabled children and other marginalized communities and the factors that constrict them from being in the ‘standard world’. In the case of disability, it is not impossible for a disabled learner to achieve the same kind of education, but with a great deal of effort and an unending social and financial support. It is unfortunate that some disabled people are not able to gain acceptance from their environment. Knowing this, the government should be at all times, ready to aid their needs. Inclusion may have its set of benefits for the disabled learners, but it is not the ultimate solution for the posed problem. Meeting halfway could end this educational dilemma, where special schools with appropriate students are properly supported and funded by the government and other organizations. References Anonymous, 2007. Schools struggle to deal with special needs pupils--condemning them to poor education. London Evening Standard, 14 Dec. Available at: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/ article-23427518-schools-struggle-to-deal-with-special-needs-pupils---condemning-them-to-poor-education.do [Accessed 01 March 2011]. Anonymous, n.d. Inclusion and equality. [Online] Available at: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/supportinglearners/ positivelearningenvironments/inclusionandequality/index.asp [Accessed 28 February 2011]. Barnes, C., 1991. Disabled people in Britain and discrimination. London: C. Hurst & Co. Burns, E., 2007. The essential special education guide for the regular education teacher. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Department for Children, Schools, & Families, 2008. Designing for disabled children and children with special educational needs: designing guidance for mainstream and special schools. London: The Stationery Office. Florian, L. & MacLaughlin, M.J., 2008. Disability classification in education: issues and perspectives. CA: Corwin Press. Jenkinson, J.C., 1997. Mainstream or special?: educating students with disabilities. London: Routledge. Lansdown, G., 2001. It's our world too! (Report on the Lives of Disabled Children) New York: Disability Awareness Action. Macbeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., Macbeath, A. & Page, C., 2007. The cost of inclusion. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Office for Disability Issues, 2010. Disability facts and figures. [Online] 04 Nov. Available at: http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/ disability-facts-and-figures.php#gd [Accessed 28 February 2011]. Paton, G., 2010. Ofsted: schools exaggerating special needs to hide poor teaching. The Telegraph, [internet] 14 Sept. Available at: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/ article-23427518-schools-struggle-to-deal-with-special-needs-pupils---condemning-them-to-poor-education.do [Accessed 28 February 2011]. Seale, J., 2006. E-learning and disability in higher education: accessibility research and practice. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Shah, S., 2008. Young disabled people: aspirations, choices, and constraints. England: Ashgate Publishing. United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization, 2010. Reaching the marginalized, Global Monitoring Report 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More