Special Education Needs Policies and Practices - Essay Example

?Critical Reflections on Special Education Needs Policies and Practices Introduction Increasingly many young people are being involved in some sorts of anti-social behaviour which is rightly pointed out by sections of media. However, such issues are not adequately addressed by the concerned agencies. Anti-social behaviour from many youngsters are closely related to their vicissitudes in the sphere of education. Although, the United Kingdom has come up with a number of special education needs policies and practices, no significant success has marked in terms of educational attainment for the pupils with learning difficulties or disabilities. It is necessary to evaluate the success of special education needs polices in terms of their real outcomes. Values, Inclusion and Just Education Values and ethics are integral to framing a just education policy which could address the greater assimilation of children with special education needs. It is always important to think what actually works for those children than whether values or rights are primary. While we attempt to deal with special education needs, the first thing we need to essentially comprehend is the idea that the society in which live is rapidly changing in order to become a more diverse and heterogeneous. Many have observed that “every aspect of society that affects the treatment of disabilities and learning difficulties has changed radically and continues to evolve- the cultural, ethnic and religious profile, patterns of family organisation, economic and occupational structures, the relative status of men and women, and the perception of human rights and social responsibilities” (Frederickson and Cline, 2002, p. 4). Ethnic background is most crucial in the issue of special education needs from its formation to management. The linguistic barriers of non-ethnic children too is an important matter while dealing with SEN. Family organisation too becomes important as “fewer people than in the past spend the whole of their childhood with their biological parents and siblings in a household comprising a traditional nuclear family. Divorce is more common, and more men and women choose to cohabit without marrying. By the mid-1990s it was estimated that just over 1 in 14 of all families with dependent children in Great Britain were stepfamilies” (Frederickson and Cline, 2002, p. 4). The emergence of lesbian and gay families too has significantly changed the family structures and its relations to the child. The parents of SEN pupils are typically lone parents who struggle to find job ad manage the children simultaneously. Most of such parents themselves are in extremely pressurised situation. Going Local The Salamanca Statement by UNESCO, 1994 and the Rights Agenda in the United Kingdom are pivotal in creating an environment of full inclusion. It is taken for granted that what constitutes a good school is universal as if the basic questions of schooling are same for everyone and everywhere. Schools are not simply places for people to learn, it is place for learning together. School improvement is not merely a question of technical improvement as it involves considerable change in attitude and learning environment. It is also necessary to re-establish the relations between school, society and community which are vital in rejuvenating the school as sphere of inclusive education. There must be education available in the local area itself. Local schools could encourage participation of all stake holders. Therefore, without regenerating the neighbourhoods in the first instance, we cannot rebuild the school as inclusive. Improving the school facilities in general itself marks a progress towards enhanced inclusivity. The schools need to realise their social purpose locally by effectively addressing the special needs of children from particular neighbourhoods. The Meaning of Inclusion There is a general misunderstanding that “for many people, inclusion in education is thought of only as an approach to serving children with disabilities within general education settings. Internationally, however, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity among all learners” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.2). Inclusion is a particular approach to education which involves certain values and ethics. Inclusion is meant to fight against underachievement, marginalisation and discrimination in the schools which leads sections of students to lag behind. On the contrary, inclusion is often defined in quite narrower terms as it attempts address the issues of special education only. It is agued that “the development of inclusive practices, particularly on a wide, national basis, can only be achieved by engaging in dialogue about the deeply held beliefs of teachers and policy makers rather than through sudden transformations imposed from outside. This has implications for the roles of head teachers, for how staff teams work together, and for how schools collect and use evidence about their practice. It also has the implications for the sorts of critical and alternative perspectives to which schools have access and therefore for their relationships with other schools, LEAs and researchers” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.7). In turn, the national policy framework itself is affected by such practices. The important issue is that to translate the improvements in the schools as the general improvements in the inclusive education. Inclusion is essentially contested concept as it has heterogeneous connotations and meanings. Inclusion in practice could be different from educational settings to particular schools. It is important to know what the actual practitioners mean in their rhetoric inclusion as the term has been differently used by the various faculties of a school or local authority. Inclusion is imagined in many ways; as concerning pupils with special education needs such as disabled students, responding to the disciplinary exclusion, remedy for vulnerabilities of particular social groups, the overall development of school for all, inclusion as universalisation of education and finally as an ethical approach to education (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.15). The SEN Policy Framework in the UK There are many crucial documents which set up various agencies in the United Kingdom that led to the framing up of a major policy discourse on special education needs. Most importantly, “since the Education Act 198, parents have enjoyed a range of participation and appeal rights in respect of a variety of key decisions concerning children with special education needs” (Harris and Smith, 2009, p.1). Therefore, the argument came up that there needs to be an effective mechanism fro redressing parents’ grievances. According to Ainscow, et al, “since 1988, different governments in England have introduced a series of much publicised policy changes in order to foster ‘improvements in state education” (2006, p.4). Such changes have not actually translated into bigger achievements at the realm of checking the marginalisation of students. The policy changes brought in by the both Conservative and Labour governments after 1988 have led to incorporation of enhanced competition and accountability in the education sector which is believed to be the catalyst in raising the standards of state education. And, “yet since the Labour government came to power in 1997, this agenda has been combined with an unprecedented emphasis on inclusion” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.11). It has been observed that “following the publication of national examination results in 2004, it was reported that some 30,000 youngsters had left school without any qualification at all, including disproportionate numbers from economically deprived areas and from certain minority ethnic groups” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.4). It means that if we are defining inclusion as a matter of resisting marginalisation, the national polices are not really conducive of making such an environment. Therefore, we have to correctly evaluate how hostile particular conditions a school to the principles and values of inclusion. The tension between the principles and values of inclusive education and its actual practice cannot be wished away; it is not simply a problem of government too. This is an inherent tension which could be only overcome through sustained interactions and networking between community and the school. According to the Government White Paper (Department for Education and Employment, 1997) is of the view that pupil with SEN have the right o be educated in any mainstream schools wherever it is possible. The same right of SEN pupils to be educated in mainstream schools was also upheld by the Code of Practise (DfEE, 1994) and the Government Programme of Action (DfEE, 1998). Accordingly, the right of the parents to choose the schools for their pupils’ education was highlighted provided that the schools could provide appropriate support. Although, it tactically disapproved the inclusion of all the children with SEN. Historically, it is important to remember that the Warnock Committee caused the paradigm shift in the SEN education by shifting the focus from separate education to normal education at mainstream schools. Besides, the Education Act of 1981 has facilitated the greater use of mainstream schools for the education of pupils with special needs. From there, there is a significant increase in the number of students with Statement of Needs who pursue their education at mainstream schools. Such government policies for greater inclusion of pupils with special needs in mainstream schools do not take seriously the argument that the inclusion for all could be detrimental to the benefits of all. The Pitfalls of Full Inclusion Now, there has been shift from full inclusion to responsible inclusion thanks to a number of criticisms which examine the given primacy over ethical and moral concerns based on ideological orientations other than the issue of meeting children’s special needs. Simply speaking, “inclusion and the standards agenda are in conflict because they imply different views of what makes an improved school, different ways of thinking about achievements and different routes for raising them” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.12). Without ensuring diversity in a school, the talks of inclusive education bounds to fail. Inclusion, Diversity and Special Education Needs According to Ainscow, et al., “inclusion is primarily about educating disabled students, or those categorised as ‘having special education needs’, in mainstream schools. Needless to say, it is one of the most prevailing misconceptions about inclusion. Inclusion is not there simply to deal with issues of special education needs, it is rather an overarching policy to ensure diversity and equity in general in the whole of the education sector and for all the students. However, the government conception of inclusion although changes from time to time basically assume that inclusion is primarily to deal with the disabled children. Therefore, inclusive education is for the state agencies are to enhance participation. So, the government tries to get more students into the mainstream schools believing that it would automatically lead into some sort of inclusion. Here, the problem is that when the entire attention is paid to special education needs of the disabled students, it conveniently overlooks many other ways through which the participation students could potentially augmented. Rather, it would be more productive if inclusive education policies could strive for helping the students overcoming the systemic barriers to their enhanced participation. In the same way, more learning assistance resources also need be made available for all the students. The focus must be on making the schools more sensitive to diversity and the effective management of diversity in learning environments. It is not to overlook at the segregation between the disabled students and students in the mainstream schools. Rather, “inclusion may be seen to involve the assertion of the rights of disabled young people to a local mainstream education, a view propounded vociferously by sections of the disabled people’s movement” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.16). Still, it is not to deny that some children are at best suited in schools with special arrangements. What is not considered as good is only the fact that compulsory segregation of the disabled students from other students is not rightful. The very categorisation of students in terms of their special needs to be problematised. Importantly, class, race and gender too play a role in the categorisation of students. For instance, “there remains a massive over-representation of working-class boys in those categorised as having special education needs, and a particular over-preponderance of African-Caribbean boys in those categorised as ‘having emotional and behavioural difficulties’ and in those subjected to disciplinary action” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.17). It means that the discourse on special education needs of ten do not reveal much about the over-representation of students from specific backgrounds into certain categories. The Hidden Mechanisms of Exclusion The question arises on inclusive education is primarily about the feasibility of SEN itself. Once could well express doubts over the possibility of involving pupils with special needs with mainstream students. How the interactions between children with behavioural issues such as the ones affected by Autistic Spectrum Disorder and other students influence each other? It is important to take cognisance of the problem that although inclusion levels are high enough, exclusion levels are constantly on the rise. The number of pupils excluded from mainstream schools for unacceptable behaviour is steadily increasing. It means that simple inclusive policies are not enough, what is necessary is to have successful inclusive policies. Measures such as autism specific training for teachers must be undertaken. Without adequate training for all the staff, it would be impossible to create an inclusive environment in the schools. In the special education system, the school settings and mechanism are directly dealing not only with the students with special needs but also with their parents. Therefore, it is important for the parents too feel confident about the education their children (ought to) get. Parents are not only looking into the greater performance by their children but also the mechanism that could really take care of the different needs of their children. It is also widely noticed that “communications between parents and schools and better partnerships between parents and professionals” (DCSF, 2010, p.18). It is to be realised that parents are not simply the receiving end of the SEN policy. Rather, parents are important stakeholders in the progress and welfare of the children with SEN and disabilities. It is important to remember that “parents are not simply passive receivers of information; they should be informed and involved as their child’s needs are assesses and provided for and they should be consulted so the type and frequency of information meets their needs” (DCSF, 2010, p.18). On the other hand, it is necessary to document the core expectations of the parents and a concrete plan to address them. Parents should be involved in all the aspects of student life such as assessment, feedback and participation. Bullying and SEN Bullying is specific form of discrimination against pupils with special education needs and disabilities. The complexity here lies in the fact that “some children with SEN and disabilities may not recognise that they are being bullied or that their own behaviour may be seen by someone else as bullying” (DCSF, 2008, p.1). Bullying involves the violation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as it results in emotional or mental impairment. Disability is a social construct. A person’s particular difference becomes not compatible with the way the general society is organised, it becomes a disability. The children with SEN are observed to be more vulnerable than other children. “Anti-bullying work takes two tracks. Preventive work is ongoing and sustained, providing a consistent ethos and framework, while responsive work come into effect in dealing with bullying behaviour” (DCSF, 2008, p.2). Especially for learners who are studying in multiple environments such as conventional schools and special schools are more vulnerable to bullying as they are exposed in differing environments. There has been a significant increase in the number of students who are categorised as students with special education needs in England. It is nearly 20% of the total number of school going children in England. It has led to a substantial increase in disputes between parents and school authorities. It is because of the fact that “right based claims concerning children’s education are being resolved without the use of formal mechanisms traditionally regarded as important for the ‘vindication of rights” (Harris and Smith, 2009, p.1). On the other hand, the education provisions in the field of SEN education is increasingly being expensive even beyond the limits of parent’s affordability is the primary ground on which disputes arise. It is widely agreed that tribunal are the best institutional mechanisms to deal with disputed between parents and school authorities. But, there needs to be different mechanisms to deal with different sorts of disputes,, other than a single tribunal for dealing with a huge number of different issues. Adequate structures of mediation need to be introduced by the local authorities to to mitigate the effects increasing disputes between parents and the school. According to 2002 Audit Commission Report, “One in five children-a total of 1.9 million- in England and Wales are considered by their school to have special education needs (SEN)” (2002, p.2). It has led to, for schools, to find it difficult to gain a common ground between raise performance levels and extended inclusion. Therefore, “this has been reflected in a reluctance to admit and a readiness to exclude some children, particularly those with behavioural difficulties. The existence of separate structures and processes for children with SEN may have allowed their needs to be seen as somehow different- even peripheral- to the core concerns of our system of education” (Audit Commission, 2002, p.2). However, such polices cannot be permitted to go on as it raps systemic discrimination against children who are differently enabled. Education must be by definition for everyone. It must help children to achieve greater success in being independent and fulfilling their dreams. Without mainstreaming special education needs, we cannot fully integrate students with SEN and disabilities with the larger society. Identification of the needs of SEN pupils is one for the greater challenges in providing inclusive education for all. Institutional Context of SEN Policies Inclusion is a matter of equity and ensuring equality of opportunity in the sector of education. Although the educational polices are made in universal framework, the implementation varies from context to context. The learning environment changes from one educational institution to another. In particular schools and classrooms, the practice of special educations found to be greatly varying. It is because of the fact that “the meaning of actions depends on how they are interpreted within a particular community and its cultures. Further, there can be conflicts over the implication of values for upholding the rights of different individuals; for example, when the participation of one interferes with the participation of another” (Ainscow, et al., 2006, p.3). It has been widely observed that the index of inclusion might be differently perceived by different members of the staff. It all means that an inclusive educational policy should strive to look at the particular conditions at particular settings. Otherwise, it is impossible to develop schools in a progressive manner. Special educational needs have been a concern at the forefront of British education policy since the early 1970s, ensuring that all children have the right to be educated, in special or mainstream schools. Thus, whilst special educational needs has been a key feature of educational policy since the 1970s, the return of the Labour Government in 1997 has seen inclusive education rise up the political agenda. This has been exemplified through a surfeit of recent legislation aiming to increase the number of children with special educational needs educated in mainstream education, by improving practice in mainstream schools, addressing assessment, and removing barriers to inclusion. It is extremely difficult to get the real picture of the continuing exclusion and marginalisation of the students with special education needs and disability. “Critics will always be able to dispute whether you have presented the ‘real picture’, but arguably this position is based on a false premise that there is one objective account, only one ‘reality’, possible. Practitioner research which seeks to reduce inequalities can be partial, it can be disturbing and messy, it can raise more questi0ns than it answers, it is always contingent, provisional and ideological, and it is based on commitment to changing power relations in order to advance an agenda for inclusion” (Armstrong and Moore, 2004, p. 10). The educational reforms meant to ameliorate the conditions of students with special needs cannot be guaranteed to provide certain outcomes. Armstrong and Moore contends that “all research is political in the sense that it is always concerned with, or undertaken to further, someone’s interests; it is never value-free” (2004, p. 10). Therefore, it is impossible to correctly identify what benefits are enjoyed by the students with learning difficulties when they are assimilated into the mainstream schools. Armstrong and Moore have also asserted that “lack of clarity was a key factor in the development of ‘ad hoc initiatives’ and further highlights the importance of establishing a shared understanding of inclusion” (2004, p. 43). In many schools, there was no consensus among the staff and other practitioners about the meaning of inclusion and the right path to pursue inclusion in the mainstream schools. According to Warnock (2005), the specific development of the Warnock report is that forms the basis of later SEN policy. One has to recognise the specific role played by theorists from disabled sections in the struggles for inclusion and campaign for diversity in education. It is not without point to say that “there are no ‘experts’ in special education. Put simply, teachers working in segregated settings have had different working experiences from those working in mainstream schools. It is in the mutual sharing of collective wealth of diverse experiences that the key to providing an equitable education system which incorporates both the commonality and uniqueness of all learners can be found” (Armstrong and Moore, 2004, p. 44). The lived in experiences of students with learning difficulties matter most while judging the successes and failures of educational reform policies meant for ensuring equality and diversity in the realm of education. The inclusive process for children with special needs are not simply a matter of any discourse on ethics, rather, it is a question of action. It goes beyond the discourse on rights, ideological orientation and values. Such an understanding of inclusive educational policies must be shared between government, schools, citizen stake holders and local school authorities. According to the SEN strategy developed by LEAs, “one of the aims was ‘to develop an increasingly inclusive education system’ and that ‘by 2003 all children with SEN may have their needs met within educational provision in their local community” (Armstrong and Moore, 2004, p. 51). It has not achieved in reality. The community participation in the education of pupils with learning difficulties and disorders still remain an elusive goal. It has been observed that the attempts to develop an inclusive culture give predominant attention the aspect SEN while simply discarding many other aspects of identity which are crucial in establishing an inclusive education policy. An inclusive culture must produce an environment more conducive to immigrants, religious and national minorities and blacks. When pupils are identified with requiring School Action, they will be provided with additional training and more favourable learning environment. In the School Action Plus group, however, students will be given support from external experts. It is the people with high levels of support requirement are given a Statement of special education needs (Ofsted, 2010). The disproportionate number of students seeking special education needs is from weaker section of the society or historically disadvantaged. They are more likely to be absent fro prolonged periods or less likely to attain given educational achievements. The problem with the inclusive policies is that they have not resulted in substantial changes as “over the last five years, these outcomes have changed very little. Past the age of 16, young people with learning difficulties or disabilities comprise of the groups most likely not to be in education, employment or training” (Ofsted, 2010, p.1). Also, inclusive policies must be aimed at both the levels of staff selection and pupil selection. Different children have different learning styles. It is important to be sensitive to the different needs of children with different learning styles. It has been argued that “the problem-solving approach needs adults to find imaginative ways of creating a curriculum for a success rather than one that trends to highlight failure” (Armstrong and Moore, 2004, p. 58). No singly policy can bring about definite success in the realm special education. Rather, a combination of policies and strategies could in the long run positively alter the educational attainments and outcomes of children with special education needs. Although SEN programmes which involve one-to-one tuition and teaching assistance are specifically designated to address the specific problems of each and every child, it has not resulted in the improvement of performance by the targeted children. On the other hand, such policies have observed to have some devastating effects on the overall performance of the students in a particular class. Moreover, it degrades the benefactor students as less capable and attributes social stigmas on them. As, the SEN programmes are largely defined by the local head teachers, there are enough room fro prejudices and discrimination against weaker sections of the population as children from working class backgrounds. Although as a decentralised policy it has some benefits of bring temporal, the universal spirit of equity and fairness could be lacking in the concrete implementation. Theorists have enumerated the multiple factors which need to address in order to bring in definite changes. In brief, “there were many factors influencing the degree of collaborative working between teachers and LSAs, including: tradition, individual personalities, self-consciousness, lack of experience of managing the work of other colleagues, a feeling on the part of some teachers that their lessons should run smoothly without the need for other adult support, a belief that the LSA is there to support a particular child than support the teacher or the whole class in general, a feeling that support is not timetabled at the most appropriate time” (Armstrong and Moore, 2004, p. 58). Therefore, we must understand in the concrete practice that inclusive education refers to an education system which constantly works on increasing participation and removing exclusion from all the aspects of schooling in a way which makes a student feel no different from any other student and which ensures achievement It is necessary to see that the very idea of inclusion children with ASD is a question of different ideological approaches. The attitudes and opinions of the staff directly involved in the practise inclusive education have an important role in the success or failure of an inclusive policy. Besides, even the carers of children with Autistic Spectrum. Conclusion Although there are high demands from all the stakeholders such as parents an carers for more enhancing measures for their children with special education needs, the issue has not been adequately addressed within the existing legal, institutional and policy framework. The whole policy of special education needs to be reoriented towards crating better results and better outcomes. In that process, the policy needs to be maximum flexible and heterogeneous in order to address diverse challenges. The continuous reforms in the area inclusive education have caused the creation of too much unwanted complexity which prevents the effective policy implementation. It has been widely noted that the system needs to be replaced with one that is easier to comprehend for all and easily implemented. The increasing numbers of disputes between parents local education authorities is a product oft his heavy complexity. Therefore, we need not anything new to the existing policy framework. Rather, we must improve consistency and performance through making the existing policy more viable and flexible. Even, the very vocabulary through which special education needs are expressed too has become rather challenging. There is no uniformity in the vocabulary, for one agency the target group is disabled children and for another, it is children in needs. I could potentially create an identity crisis fro the students and youngsters as they are differently categorised by different agencies. There are also cases in which students are wrongly identified as disabled or facing learning difficulties. According to Ofstead report, “some people are being wrongly identified as having special education needs and that relatively expensive additional provision is being used to make up for poor day-to-day teaching and pastoral support. In the case of children and young people who need complex and specialist support from health and other services to enable them to thrive and develop, the term education needs does not always accurately reflect their situation” (2010, p. 5). It all underlines the point that we have to progress a lot from exiting system of educational remedies and reinvent new categories which adequately address the challenging issues of students. There is need for active reciprocity between the educators and the educated in the realm special education. Labelling learners as disabled or challenged does not actually help to solve their problems regarding learning difficulties. First most priority must be given to fully assimilation the students into the specific culture of educational institutions they are in and thereby enhancing their different skills and abilities. In brief, the feeling of belonging among the students must be reflectively cultivated. It means that, according to Veck, “inclusive education must amount to more than securing access to educational spaces for learners who would otherwise be excluded from them” (2007, p.1). When we are labelling a student in terms some of his/her deficiencies, we are actually not listening to the particular needs of that student. On the other hand, the very act f labelling them into particular categories become a hindrance fro them both in the present and the future. What is necessary to overcome the pitfalls of inclusive education is to build bridges between the learners and facilitators of knowledge through mutual interaction and attending to each other as dignified individuals. The refusal to listen in this way on the other hand leads to mutual exclusion which no good for anyone. It means everyone should have voice within the education system. In other words, without the wider democratisation of education system proper, it cannot be made properly inclusive. Therefore, Veck suggests that “our inclusion within an education institution involves, not simply what others do to and for us, but also a decision that we have to make ourselves: we must decide if we wish to belong and contribute to the institution. If our choice is to be informed by a rich and deep understanding of our institution, then we need to listen to the discourses which characterise it” (2007, p.13). To put it simply, inclusive education is not simply a question of greater access to mainstream education for all, but, on the other hand, a mater of building sustainable inclusive educational institutions. References Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh F., Howes, A., and Smith, R. (2006) Improving School, Developing Inclusion, London and New York: Routledge.  Alcott, M. (2004) An Introduction to Children with Special Educational Needs. Hodder & Stoughton.  Armstrong, F. and Moore, M. (2004) Action Research For Inclusive Education. Changing Places, Changing Practices, Changing Minds. London: Routledge Falmer Audit Commission, (2002) Sepcial Education Needs: A mainstream issue, Portsmouth: Holbrooks Printers Ltd. Accessed on 18th March 2011, Available at Bailey, J. (1998) Australia: Inclusion Through Categorisation?, in T. Booth and M. Ainscow (Eds) From Them To Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education (London, Routledge), 171-185. Barton, L.(2000) ‘Insider perspectives, citizenship and the question of critical engagement’, in M. Moore (ed.) Insider Perspectives on Inclusion: Raising Voices, Raising Issues, Sheffield: Philip Armstrong.  DCSF Document (2008) Bullying involving children with special educational needs and disabilities: Safe to learn: Embedding anti-bullying works in schools. Nottingham: Accessed on 18th March 2011, Available at DCSF Document (2010) Improving parental confidence in the special education needs system: An implementation plan, Nottingham, Accessed on 18th March 2011, Available at Frederickson, N and Cline, T (2002) Special education needs inclusion and diversity: A text book, Buckingham: Open University Press. Harris, N and Smith, E. (2009) Resolving disputed about special education needs and provision in England, Education law Journal, pp. 1-20. Ofsted Report. (2010) The Special Education needs and disability review, Manchester: Accessed on 18th March 2011, Available at Veck, W. (2007) Listening to Include, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1-15. Warnock, M. (2005) Special Education Needs: A new look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Read More