Labour Policy of Inclusion - Essay Example

It is an unfortunate truth that the history of disabled persons in the UK is largely one of exclusion and marginalisation. Persons with disabilities have too often been excluded from the labor force, denied access to opportunities for social interaction and advancement, subjected to invidious stereotyping and relegated to institutions. This historical disadvantage has to a great extent been shaped and perpetuated by the notion that disability is an abnormality or flaw. As a result, disabled persons have not generally been afforded the "equal concern, respect and consideration". Instead, they have been subjected to paternalistic attitudes of pity and charity, and their entrance into the social mainstream has been conditional upon their emulation of able-bodied norms. One consequence of these attitudes is the persistent social and economic disadvantage faced by the disabled. Inclusion necessitates removal of Material Ideological Political Economic barriers that legitimate and reproduce inequality and discrimination in the lives of disabled people. Armstrong and Barton (1999) Introduction Inclusion is simply the seeing of abilities, not disabilities of everyone and supporting every individual as to help them achieve their optimal potential. Inclusion is to look at someone's soul and to see him or her as a fellow human with emotions, feelings and desires like all of us. Inclusion is all this and so much more, but most importantly, inclusion is to make those who may feel unincluded or isolated, included. This paper has however, attempted to highlight the principal significance of inclusion and theorizing beyond disabilities, children with disabilities are social agents, seeking to exercise autonomy and choice, to assert values and identity and to influence the institutional and political culture within which their dreams for the future must take root. Armstrong and Barton, (1999) The 'right' of disabled children to attend their local schools provided the 'right's others are not threatened. Contingent Provisional Dependent upon the 'efficient use of resources'. A comprehensive framework basing on rights and rights discourse could be used as a powerful weapon to anchor these processes that solely depend in large measure upon the capacity to abandon hierarchies of difference negotiate new relationships of mutuality, empathy and respect. The question of equality should be the integral meaning of equal moral worth, given the reality that in almost every conceivable concrete way we are not equal but vastly different and vastly unequal in our needs and abilities. The object is not to make these differences disappear when we talk about equal rights, but to ask how we can structure relations of equality among people with many different concrete inequalities. Cheminais, R. (2006) Overview In the UK, disability studies grew out of the increasing political consciousness of disabled people engaged in collective struggles for emancipation from a disabling society. Above all, disability studies promoted new ways of thinking about disability - what is now referred to as social models of disability, that re-define disability as a social relation, rather than as an individual 'impairment'. Clark, C. et al (1995) Approximately one in twenty children are considered disabled and increasing numbers of children with serious medical conditions now survive into adulthood. Social policy research has revealed that families with disabled children experience a range of social and economic difficulties. Disabled pupils in ordinary schools, in essentially segregated settings, supported by limited resources and little meaningful organizational change. Disabled young people within ordinary schools are excluded from full participation. Armstrong and Barton, (1999) disabled pupils who have never participated in an ordinary school, spending all their school careers in segregated forms of provision. The categorization of children as disabled also formed part of the adult world, which bounded children's experiences. Such labeling often involved disability as a dominant status, where other differences or similarities remained muted or unattended to, and everything related to children being explained by their impairment. Normality and difference were daily and institutionally reinforced by the use of social and physical space, and through both mainstream and segregated schooling. The children themselves were more ambivalent about the use of the category of 'disabled' both in relation to themselves and to others, suggesting their perspectives were based on experience and context. Inclusion The struggle to legislate equal opportunities, despite well-worded policies that are protected by legislative power, gave rise to the growth of a broader philosophical view of inclusion. Defined globally as a philosophy of tolerance and acceptance of diversity (O'Brien & O'Brien, 1996) inclusive education has dominated the agenda of special education in recent years. Uditsky (1993) builds upon this concept of acceptance by defining inclusion as the "valued presence and participation of a student with significant disabilities in the regular classroom". Clark et al. (1999) advocate for still a broader view of inclusion that is linked with diversity education in our global community. Bloom et al. (1999) define it as " a philosophy that brings students, families, educators, and community members together to create schools and other social institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community" Salend, (2001,). Brief history of Special Educational Needs (SEN) Under the 1944 Education Act, children with special educational needs were categorized by their disabilities defined in medical terms. Many children were considered to be "uneducable" Children labelled 'ineducable' were excluded from this legislation and remained outside the education system until 1970 Armstrong & Barton, (1999) and pupils were labeled into categories such as "maladjusted" or "educationally sub-normal" and given "special educational treatment" in separate schools. The incidence of exclusion in the UK amongst students with SEN or emotional/ behavioral difficulties around 6 times higher." Pearce and Hillman, Armstrong and Barton, (1999) The Warnock Report in 1978, followed by the 1981 Education Act, radically changed the conceptualization of special educational needs. It introduced the idea of special educational needs (SEN), "statements" of SEN, and an "integrative"-which later became known as "inclusive"-approach, based on common educational goals for all children regardless of their abilities or disabilities: namely independence, enjoyment, and understanding. The various Acts and legislation that have followed demonstrate the progress in attitude that has taken place since the Warnock report towards the aim of trying to include all children in a common education framework and away from categorising children with SEN or disabilities as a race apart. Clough, P. and Corbett, J. (2000) this has been representative of a broader international trend. Labor Policy of Inclusion. In 1997 poverty, disability and inequality stood at levels unprecedented in post-war history. More than one in four UK children lived in relative poverty, compared with one in eight in 1979. Consequently around 18% of all pupils in school in England were categorized as having some sort of special educational need (SEN) (1.5 million children). Around 3% of all children (250,000) had a statement of SEN and around 1% of all children were in special schools (90,000) With such a large number of children involved, it was therefore important in recognizing that many children were receiving the education they needed in an appropriate setting. Cole, M. (2000) It is equally important, however, to highlight the difficulties faced by a large number of parents for whom the system is failing to meet the needs of their children. The Government under the leadership of the Labor party has since taken poverty, disability and social exclusion very seriously. In almost all the areas there is recognition of the range of problems faced in the mid-1990s, not just in the most relevant departments, but also at the centre. As a result it had triggered recognition of issues as multi-faceted and inter-linked. Debating of policies has shifted the focus not only on cash incomes and services today, but also on long-term factors driving disadvantage and life chances for disabled children. Corbett, J. (1996) An impressive range of analysis on which the government has based its findings indicates that policies were really 'evidence-based', much evidence has been assembled and made publicly available. By inheriting the existing SEN (Special Education Needs) framework, clearly signifies the government commitment to improving it through the SEN and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001, and the 2004 SEN Strategy. The implicit is the monumental achievement of the Government's vision for the education of children with SEN and disability. One of the most strategic policy move hailed by the lobour faction is by substantially increasing investment in SEN. Expenditure on SEN increased from 2.8 billion to 4.1 billion in the last four years. However, this was an old framework that is struggling to keep up with the diverse range of needs across the 1.5 million children categorized as having some sort of special educational needs. Evidence based Methodology. Household Survey (ONS, 2004) reports that about one in 14 children are disabled, whilst the Family Resources Survey (FRS, 2002-2003) has indicated that approximately one in 20 children aged under 16 are disabled (cited by Prime Minister Strategy Unit (PMSU, 2005). The number of children identified, as having complex needs appears to have increased in recent years. On the other hand Education Act 1996 says, "a child has special educational needs if he or she has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her." The incumbent government has affected policies as provided under the SEN Framework, to identify and meet any additional educational needs of children, including in some cases a statement of special educational need (SEN). Garner, P. (2006) It is important that disabled children should not be considered to be a homogenous group given that there is great variation in childhood experiences, including impairment type and family socio-demographic characteristics. Some disabled children may encounter a small number of barriers which they and their families can challenge and overcome, whilst many other disabled children in Britain can be identified to be at high risk of social exclusion. Family poverty may be more likely, and this is particularly the case where more than one family member is a disabled person, if there are significant care (or childcare) costs, and/or parents are unable to work in paid employment. These must never be underestimated. The struggles for inclusion come out of that." Armstrong & Barton, (1999) In order to maintain a broader and deeper perspective on childhood and family experience the government has put in place a mechanism that is vital to identify the most relevant non-clinical research agendas in this area. Both disability studies and broader rights-based approaches to studying childhood and critical of the medicalising approaches to research and therefore present alternatives. Daniel's, H. (2000) from disability studies perspective, structural and inter-personal barriers to participation are identified as being of central importance; from childhood studies a consideration of children first (rather than defining people as of little concern beyond their impairment) places children rights firmly at the centre of this research agenda. The government has concentrated on policies that clear focuses on social barriers that can result in exclusion from full social participation, i.e. the social, environmental and Inter-personal barriers that disable individuals (and their families) in preference to a narrow focus on the impact of impairment. Farrell, M. (2006) It has been imperative to campaigns, which have contributed to the development of anti-discrimination legislation, particularly the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Whilst the social model continues to be a source of theoretical debate within disability studies (for example, in relation to how to capture the experience of impairment), it clearly exerts a significant influence on disability and social policy academic research, and official policy agendas. Social model approaches have been developed and applied to understand the experience of disabled people in relation to personal autonomy, including access to public space and public roles. There is clear value in examining barriers faced in both the private and public realms, including developing a specific focus on the experiences of disabled people (including children) within the context of specific private (e.g. family) roles and relationships. Armstrong & Barton, (1999) the transition from segregated special schools to inclusive ordinary schools will involve not just careful planning, sensitivity and consultation, but a massive leap of the imagination on the part of the whole community. Dowling and Dolan (2001) provide a family-level application, demonstrating the relevance of the social model to understanding child and family experience. They have drawn from the qualitative data developed in their research, using a social model approach to identify the inequalities experienced by disabled children and their families. They develop an argument that whilst the social model is usually drawn upon to enable understanding the experience of (groups of) individual people with impairments, in the case of disabled children it is especially necessary to include the family experience of disabling barriers, as individuals opportunities and experiences are so bound up with one another in their familial relationships. The government is beginning to develop a life course based strategy to ensuring opportunities and choice for disabled people (PMSU, 2005). Disability, children and human rights, if we start out by assuming that disabled children and their families should have access to experiences which others routinely expect, the issue then becomes one of finding the route to achieve it and the services that will enable it to happen. Clements (2001). Over the last twenty years, the Disabled Peoples Movement in Britain has ensured the development of focused attempts to understand and challenge the oppression and discrimination faced by disabled adults and children. During the same period there has been an extensive widening of national and international recognition of human rights which have been entrenched to become part of claims for justice through social care and welfare provision. Mittler, P. (2000) Governments Position on Inclusive Policy Labor polices are geared towards inclusion that calls for engagement within a dynamic of access to respect, access to a sense of oneself as a whole person and access to identity as a valued contributor, a bearer of rights, knowledge and power. Rose, R. (2002) the notion of "belonging" has been identified as synonymous with inclusion elicits an imperative of feeling "safe, secure, strong...so that you can be yourself." These same intangibles appear as well to underlie Trevor's emphasis upon "caring and respect" and the insights about truly "seeing" individuals with disabilities through the lens of our common humanity. The presumption which underlies here is that the experience of social exclusion heightens awareness and appreciation for social inclusion, and that this heightened awareness and appreciation affords lively and abundant insights well worth the attention of legal and policy theorists. Drawing from accounts provided directly by young people with disabilities and their peers. The UK government, therefore, contends that through the lens of disability, it is clearly a perceived limitations of an exclusive focus upon rights and legal entitlement, and recognition of the essential contribution of social inclusion to the challenge of promoting, respecting and protecting lives of dignity and equality for all citizens. Skrtic, T. (1995) Promoting equality and valuing diversity. It has however been noted by the UK government that placing special education and social care agencies together, either in a commissioning or providing capacity, has not been a marriage of equal partners. Empirical evidence shows that there are many more opportunities for multi-disciplinary working than is the case in the rest of the UK. F. & Barton, L. (1999) A constructive reaction towards the anomaly is by explicitly addressing and promoting equality and diversity and also knowledge relating to equality/diversity/overcoming barriers have been applied within trainees own teaching practice in the context of their specialism. These circumstances, however, are not without problems, particularly because the medical profession and its ideological perspective on social and health care problems tend to dominate those organizations. The hegemony of health for instance has two fundamental implications in practice: In the arena of resource allocation, frequently priority is given to health care needs, particularly acute health care needs, over social care needs. Thomas, G. (1997) Such resource allocation bias not only reflects upon the differential between the professions on the empirical verifiability of interventions (i.e.: the evidence base of what works), but also upon the continuing influence of less eligibility criteria when choices have to be made between the deserving and undeserving. The antidote in this case call's for the demonstration of the notion that knowledge is held to recognize, understand and identify discriminatory acts or behavior descriptors of discriminatory acts or behavior relating to racial, sex, disability, sexual orientation, religious, age and other challenge. Any observed discrimination and report using organizational procedures positively challenges discriminatory behavior and attitudes where they occur Current government policy is to promote the social inclusion agenda, particularly through the use of community development initiatives to involve and empower people to participate in the planning and delivery of services. This policy approach urges professionals to work in multi-disciplinary alliances, engaging with communities in analyzing local need, evaluating strengths and weaknesses and building the capacities they require to meet those needs within a community setting. Armstrong & Barton, (1999) Critical Aspect of Social Inclusion Focussing upon disability has provided a unique and important opportunity for the amendment of labor policies to highlight and reflect upon the responses to the 'hard questions' of difference at both individual and policy levels. It has vividly recognized that the equality status of people with disabilities is jeopardized by deeply entrenched patterns of social exclusion, and that unequal treatment in the context of disability most often takes the form of denial of opportunities for inclusive participation. Valued recognition Conferring recognition and respect on individuals and groups. This includes recognizing the differences in children's development and, therefore, not equating disability with pathology; supporting community schools that are sensitive to cultural and gender differences; and extending the notion to recognizing common worth through universal programs such as health care. Human development - Nurturing the talents, skills, capacities and choices of children and adults to live a life they value and to make a contribution both they and others find worthwhile. The UK government has articulated machinery that enhances learning and developmental opportunities for all children and adults; community childcare and recreation programs for children that are growth-promoting and challenging rather than merely custodial. Involvement and engagement Having the right and the necessary support to make/be involved in decisions affecting oneself, family and community, and to be engaged in community life. Labor policies in response have been tailored to advocate for youth engagement and control of services for youth; parental input into school curriculum or placement decisions affecting their child; citizen engagement in municipal policy decisions; and political participation. Proximity Human mingling and interaction has been made a priority, this has been facilitated through sharing of physical and social spaces to provide opportunities for interactions, if desired, and to reduce social distances between people. This includes shared public spaces such as parks and libraries; mixed income neighborhoods and housing; and integrated schools and classrooms. Material well being - Having the material resources to allow children and their parents to participate fully in community life. This includes being safely and securely housed and having an adequate income. UK Move towards Inclusion The Council fully recognises and accepts that ensuring that policies and services are accessible to and inclusive of disabled people and trying to respond in the most effective way to the needs. Disabled people identify is a fundamental part of achieving their aims and values. The Council also believes that working to achieve Disability Equality will not only help Disabled people but the wider population, for example, a more accessible and inclusive environment is of benefit to everyone. Cole, M. (2000) The Council welcomes the Disability Equality Scheme as a way of building on the things that the Council has already done to take forward equality for Disabled people. The following are just some of the things that show exactly that UK and inclusion are two inseparable identities. The Corporate Equalities Working Group, made up of around 20 senior officers from across each directorate, is tasked to provide strategic direction to the equality agenda in Bristol City Council. Each department has equalities working group to implement the equality schemes' actions within each department's service delivery plan. The Performance Management Team monitors the council's best value indicators and local performance indicators, which will include the actions in the Corporate. Equality Plan. Progress against targets is monitored fortnightly through the Chief Executive's Performance Management Team and reported quarterly to the Scrutiny Commissions. The council supports an Equality and Community Cohesion Team including a Principal Equality Officer who specialises in disability equality, a Deaf Equality Officer, a Strategic Access officer, an in-house BSL interpreter and a part-time Disability Equality Forum Development Worker. The Children and Young People's Services employ an Inclusion Officer to work with schools and a Disability Equality senior youth worker. Neighbourhood and Housing Services employ an equality officer with responsibility for disability equality and a Disability Project Officer to oversee the development and implementation of their Disability Equality Plan. Culture and Leisure Services, Planning Transport and Sustainable Development departments and Human Resources employ generic equality officers and Adult Community Care supports Partnership Co-ordinators to work with the diverse Disabled people's communities. Rock M.L. (2000). In 2004-06 the Council increased the numbers of Disabled people it employed from 1.83% in September 2004, 3.79% in September 2005 to 4.1% in March 2006. Part of this was due to writing to all staff, explaining the DDA definition of a Disabled person and asking people to define their access needs. The council supports an active Disabled Employees Group (DEG) which has 140 members. The council has worked in partnership with the DEG to develop an impairment related leave policy and a protocol to ensure council ICT software and hardware is compatible with Disabled Employee's specialist ICT equipment. The council recognised British Sign Language in 2001 and signed up to the British Sign Language Charter in 2003. The council has employed a Deaf Equality Officer and won a Sign Community Award in 2005 for our progress against the BSL charter. The council has 26 sign language video clips on our website and has piloted the use of videophones and remote interpreting. In 2004 200 staff attended Deaf awareness training and an in-house BSL interpreter was appointed, undertaking 177 assignments in 2005/6. The council has funded 5 BSL in-house BSL courses including Deaf awareness issues in 2005/6, 89 people have attended this one year course. Conclusion. In order that we achieve a society that is harmonious, the policy of inclusion should be mooted high in all the corners of the world. Whether the genesis of previous exclusion was as a result of poverty, racism, fear of differences or lack of political clout, the consequences are the same: a lack of recognition and acceptance; powerlessness and 'voicelessness'; economic vulnerability; and, diminished life experiences and limited life prospects. For society as a whole, the social exclusion of individuals and groups can become a major threat to social cohesion and economic prosperity. By blending of social inclusion approaches with the rights-based approach prompts a combination, can help alleviate this anomaly and hence deliver a valued recognition. Unlikely to work alone is the rights based approach, which has been deemed inadequate to address the personal and systemic exclusions experienced by children and adults. The combination of Diversity and difference, whether on the basis of race, disability, religion, culture or gender, must be recognized and valued. The 'one size fits all approach' is no longer acceptable and has never been effective in advancing the well-being of children and families. Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Public policy must be more closely linked to the lived experiences of children and families, both in terms of the actual programs and in terms of the process for arriving at those policies and programs. This is one of the reasons for the growing focus on cities and communities, as places where inclusion and exclusion happen. Campbell, C. (2002) The incorporation of universal programs and policies that serve all children and families need to be embraced since they generally provide a stronger foundation for improving wellbeing than residual, targeted or segregated approaches. References: Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion London: Taylor & Francis Armstrong, F., Belmont, B. & Verillon, A. (2000). Vive la Difference Exploring context, policy and change in special education in France: developing cross-cultural collaboration. Barton, L. & Oliver, M. (1992). Special needs: Personal trouble or public issue. Wallingford, UK: Triangle Books. Bloom, L., Perlmutter, J. & Burrell, L. (1999). The general educator: Applying constructivism to inclusive classrooms. Campbell, C. (2002) Developing Inclusive Schooling, London: Bedford Way Papers Institute of Education Cheminais, R. (2006) Every Child Matters: New Role for SENCOs London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Clark et al. (1998) Theorising Special Education London: Routledge Clark, C. et al (1995) Towards Inclusive Schools London: David Fulton Clough, P. and Corbett, J. (2000) Theories of Inclusive Education London: Paul Chapman Cole, M. (2000) Education, Equality and Human Rights, London: Routledge Falmer Corbett, J. (1996) Bad - Mouthing: The Language of Special Needs London: Falmer Press Daniel's, H. (2000) Special Education Re-formed: Beyond Rhetoric London: Falmer Press Edmunds, A. (2000). Substantive changes in teachers' roles and developing inclusive practices in Nova Scotia schools A Newfoundland comparison. Farrell, M. (2006) celebrating the Special School London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Garner, P. (2006) Special Educational Needs: The Key Concepts London: Routledge Mittler, P. (2000) Working towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts London: David Fulton. O'Brien, J. & O'Brien, C.L. (1996). Inclusion as a force for school renewal. Rose, R. (2002) Strategies to Improve Inclusive Practice London: Routledge Falmer Rowe, F.W. (1952) the History of Education in Newfoundland. Toronto, the Ryerson Press Rowe, F.W. (1976). Education and Culture in Newfoundland. Rock M.L. (2000). Parents as equal partners: Balancing the scales in IEP development. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 30-37 Rothstein, L.F (2000). Special Education Law. California: Addison Wesley-Longman. Salend, S. J. (1999). So what's with our inclusion program Teaching Exceptional Children. Skrtic, T. (1995) Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education for Postmodernity New York: Teachers College Press Thomas, G. (1997) the Making of the Inclusive School London: Routledge Falmer Read More