Inclusion of SEND Children in Mainstream Schools and Warnock Report
Introduction
Inclusion of SEND children has witnessed a major shift in perspective through the Warnock report (1978), which urged various agencies, whether governmental and non-governmental, educational and even familial to rethink the way in which SEND children were viewed and understood. The Warnock report introduced the term special needs and pointed out how 20% of all children have special needs at one or another time during their education—this led to the naturalisation of learning difficulties and therefore encouraged greater inclusion. The report also removed the emphasis on medical labels and identified disabilities based on social criteria. It called for the abolition of segregation and retained it only in cases of extreme disability. The report also emphasised upon the inclusion of parents and the creation of a statement of need. A clear result of this report was the Education Act of 1981 and its later Acts, as well as the more recent SEND Code of Practice, which among other things ensures common education and access for all children. Thus, a model of inclusion has been in practice. This assignment will focus on the case study of a SEND child, Mark, who is a three-year-old autistic child. A discussion of barriers to his inclusion will be discussed alongside theoretical insights from various research that could help with Mark’s inclusion and increased participation.
Mark, a child with an Autism SEND
The key components to track in Mark’s education will be his access, his needs, supporting his identity along with assessments and assessing his progress. Mark faces, speech impediments. His history is as follows: Mark was 6 pounds plus at birth and was a full-term baby delivered via C-section. His mother reports that he was healthy and that his motor developments were normal for many milestones including sitting, standing and walking. However, at age 3 he was assessed as possessing awkward motor skills and inconsistent imitation skills. His communication was complicated. Although he began using vocalisations quite early, at 3 months, he had not developed as many communication skills as he might have at age 3. Mark’s current profile is as follows: Mark uses nonverbal means to communicate. He communicates by reaching for the receiver of the communication by hand and pointing it toward an object or placing the hand on the object. Mark knows approximately 10 signs but could not communicate with them well. He responds inconsistently to his name. Mark’s assessment has thus far has been as follows: An initial assessment through the M-CHAT was conducted. Further investigation revealed that Mark has profound and multiple learning difficulties. He meets the factors that define the criteria for this, such as, being pre-verbal, may communicate for needs and wants only, physically mostly reliant on others, difficulty following instructions and limited understanding of cause and effect. The administration of the Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire is a step that could identify Mark’s learning difficulties early on and in greater detail.
Mark’s assessment evolves not just from his learning difficulties as a result of medical diagnosis, but also from the importance of assessments as per laws and policies. There is much that an educator needs to keep in mind before offering an assessment. For instance, it is important to remember that Norwich (2014) argues that special educational needs and disability policy and practice are essentially caught up in the most powerful political and economic dynamics. Another example by Burch (2017) is pertinent. He analyses SEND Co (2014) by using the methodology of critical discourse analysis and Foucault’s concept of governmentality to show that education is envisaged as a transition to adulthood with the aim of producing future citizens and as a governmental tool to shape the economy, jobs and so on, instead of focusing on the unique needs, ambitions and aspirations of the SEND children. In other words, an assessment of Mark and the interactions of his educators, whether with other governmental agencies about M-CHAT or the Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire could be rife with non-inclusionary attitudes that the educator should challenge.
Overview of the areas of strength and need for Mark
Listing the needs for Mark’s communication abilities involved observing him over some time, making notes and writing a report. It was observed that Mark’s communication’s strengths lay in signalling while it needed to progress communicating verbally. Statement of Need: Mark needs to learn some keywords to improve his communicative ability. The following few words were focused upon initially as important needs. Lift, Swing and give. The idea was to reinforce these words in the context of a toy, playing on a swing and asking to be lifted. To emphasise these communicative verbs, stories containing such verbs were repeatedly read out, repeatedly spoken by the parents as well as teachers. This intervention is with the understanding that parents are the child’s primary educators and is especially relevant since Siraj-Blatchford (2000) point to research that shows that parental involvement in children’s early education is enhanced with long-term positive effects. However, Mark’s teachers are not excluded from intervening through the repetition of keywords through various contexts such as songs, storybooks, games and interactive activities. Ensuring that they are trained in SENCo norms and also writing the Personal Education Plan (PEP) document is the next step.
Numerous studies in early education have alerted us to the importance of identity-formation/ acceptance in society or inclusion, which results in the sense of belonging. This sense of belonging contributes significantly in early education and influences cognitive development as well as interest in school. That is, if you exclude a student and expect them to fare well in studies, you would be asking for the impossible. As Gordon et al. (2008) have argued, a sense of belonging is a significant part of a child’s well-being. Stable identity-formation is a steppingstone to stable personality as well-demonstrated by attachment theory and its corollaries proposed by Bowlby and Ainsworth. Thus, theories of early education show that children who feel included tend to learn and participate better. If inclusion is crucial for all child’s learning, then it is more crucial in the case of SEND children like Mark. SEND differences in children are often viewed as exceptions to the norm or receive excessive attention resulting in bullying. These results in exclusion are harmful to the student’s well-being and participation. Early education research also emphasises the value of a positive self-conception in children, which is often the result of inclusion. These insights need to be applied to Mark’s case to increase his sense of belonging.
Discussion of the key barriers to participation and learning for Mark
The key barriers to the participation of and learning in Mark lay in his working parents’ inability to spend more time with him in teaching him a language basis and reinforcing the use of keywords and thus improving his behavioural as well as communicative skills. In response to this, additional tutoring courses were suggested to the parents, and the support staff and educators at the school were notified of these barriers so that they could compensate in as many ways as they could. Mark’s family is a low-income family that compels both parents to work. This places Mark at the intersection of double oppression in the form of poverty as well as learning difficulties. As a response to this, the personal budget offered by the Government requires to be allotted to Mark’s family. The WHO recognises the following as barriers to full participation and learning: a physical environment that is not accessible, lack of relevant assistive technology (assistive, adaptive, and rehabilitative devices), negative attitudes of people towards disability, services, systems and policies that are either non-existent or that hinder the involvement of all people with a health condition in all areas of life. By these norms, the school resources were checked, and a report on the status of each was written up. In addition to this, meetings with parents and teachers were organised to discuss Mark’s need statement and goals and the methods adopted to progress with them. Meetings with parents remove their distrust of authority figures. Also, teachers need to keep an out for bullying from peers—this is less likely in Mark’s case for children as old as three are disinclined to bully their classmates. Periodically checking against the inclusive-practice audit toolkit is also a task for the professional educator (e.g., SENCO Croydon) to meet Mark’s developmental needs.
To be truly inclusive, an understanding of the links between ethics, politics, culture and ideology in the lives of children and their families is necessary. Inclusionary politics is often nominal or a spectacle and fails to acknowledge non-essentials, the volatile and multiple nature of identities. The ideology of inclusion is very pertinent to SEND children, and this means educators need to be able to communicate and relate to the parents and their diverse cultural backgrounds. Brodie (2015) points out that the UK is steadily becoming more ethnically diverse, i.e., multicultural. In other words, inclusion is a project that straddles many worlds of class, which is crucial to Mark’s case. Unless we perceive ourselves as citizens of the world as Clinton (2008) emphasises, improvements to ethical relativism and cultures of ignorance cannot be made.
Nangah and Mills (2015) provide useful representations of legislation leading to policies and theories leading to practice. These links inform educators and also change social attitudes to SEND children over time. Also, the notion of children’s rights, still in its nascent stages in The Children Act 1989, as pointed out by Roche (2002) is an important cultural and political link that educators need to be aware of at all times. The very idea of children’s rights opens up questions about how we view children as a culture and society. More significantly, how they are viewed by their parents becomes a matter for discussion. So, a question to pursue would be, how is Mark viewed by his parents. Parents form a crucial link in the well-being of children, and while they are the key in interacting with other supportive agencies to SEND children, their unconscious and conscious attitudes and prejudices cannot be ignored. Campbell (2002) points other dimensions where children’s rights come into play, for instance, in how cases of children with Down Syndrome being refused operations and denied medical facilities have come to the fore in as late as 2000. Further, Campbell also points out how disabled children are often over-represented yet lacks information about their condition. According to her, “the most significant rights issues for disabled children is their invisibility and lack of contact with the mainstream world” (ibid, 205) All this only points to the extent of attitudinal as well as policy and structural changes the educator needs to bring out in Mark’s case through different approaches and at different stages.
Jones (2008) has pointed out research that shows that there is a dichotomous ideology in handling SEND children that is counterproductive. She recommends that this is replaced by an emphasis on the SEN-Co itself, which should subsume political, psychological, social and other theories under its primary concern for the well-being of the child. Thus, excessive usage of theories could become a hindrance in caring for a SEND child. In other words, the educator should put Mark, the child and his interests first, while interpreting theories as offering additional insights to help him, while SEN-Co guides the educator as per Jones’ (2008) recommendation.
Attitudinal barriers to the full participation of SEND children have been theorised variously. The popular “looking-glass self” theory by Cooley (1902), which supposed that our self-understanding arose through interaction with others and suggested that SEND children suffered stigma and low self-esteem, is now being questioned. Instead, disability pride, as discussed by Darling (2013) and others is now key to understanding SEND children. In other words, disability pride needs to be inculcated in Mark from an early age.
Consideration of the impact of the different models of disability upon inclusion of Mark
To mention the medical model of disability is a taboo in any circle that aims to disabled-friendly. It is more than evident that this model labelled SEND children as medical subjects who were abnormal rather than viewing them as receptors of learning which required some assistance and had special needs. Historical factors influencing barriers to full participation have ranged from the identification of illnesses as the effect of evil or the devil’s work since medieval times. This has continued in naïve pseudo-scientific speculations on the origin of disabilities. The shift from origins to helping SEND children cope become one with the mainstream is an approach that needs social understanding and approval. But the affirmative model of disability encourages people to quit waiting around for such societal approval. Instead, by viewing disability from a non-tragic perspective, it restores the dignity and positivity of the disabled person. Its slogan, ‘Nothing about us without us’ is a quick reminder that SEND students are the agents of their destiny. Emphasising on commonalities with non-special children and collective identity, which Swain and French (2000) outline in their work, an approach developed by disabled people who are proud, angry and strong can resist the narrative of the personal tragedy model.
As Mark grows older, offering him information about his condition will be key. Also, he has to develop a strong positive perspective of his condition and interact with a network of others, which include non-special children and special children so that his identity-formation does not suffer but instead grows into healthy self-esteem. Some of this can be achieved through stories and examples from an early age. That improving Mark’s communication is significant for his well-being needs to be recognised by his parents and educators at every stage of his education, for which periodic assessments are necessary.
Other models of disability that could influence the way teachers interact with Mark is something that the professional needs to be aware and informed about. Theories of learning such as the constructivist theory of learning, for instance, focus exclusively on the act of learning. This kind of emphasis overlooks identity formation issues, the sense of belongingness in the SEND child and its overall abilities. Conversely, a behaviourist theory of learning focuses on correcting the observable behaviour of the students, without concerning itself with the inner world of the child, i.e., its feelings and experiences. This has drawbacks as well. An eco-systemic theory is said to be aware of the pitfalls of both these theories and seeks to be attentive to internal and external factors that influence learning in children.
Discussion of the role of the professional when supporting inclusion for Mark
The role of the professional is not merely as a receptor of laws and policies; the professional interprets laws to suit the SEND child’s needs. She acknowledges that policymakers often have limited access to the actual lived experience of SEND children. Hence, she assesses the severity or urgency of a situation and implements parts of the intervention plan as and when she believes justifiably appropriate, i.e., she offers a graduated response. For instance, to speed up Mark’s progress, the professional could recommend multiple sessions with a certain teacher or SEND support or other supportive professional. There are always gaps in the subjects covered by the laws, which then depend on the decisions of the professional to handle. An integrated ECHP (Education, Health and Care Plan) cuts through the myopic nature of concentrating on any one of these aspects, while it is clear in the case of autism with mild motor issues such as in the case of Mark, care is required to cover multiple dimensions. The ECHP requires an annual review. The professional writes reports and reworks the PEP periodically through interaction with other experts on the team that could include nurses, psychologists and others.
Conclusion
Socially, economically and politically, the Warnock report achieved a lot. Socially, it created a space for SEND children in mainstream schools and assisted in the removal of social stigma. By involving parents, it strengthened the social structure within which SEND children could participate. Economically, the burden of caring for SEND children fell entirely on parents earlier, and in general, the economic responsibilities of segregation were high. Instead, now, the economic responsibilities of schools and the government increased as they were forced to make space for SEND children. Politically, the Warnock Report pushed policymakers towards inclusion rather than accepting segregation. The emphasis on inclusion sowed seeds for a diversity and choice model, which is somewhat captured in The Children’s Act 1989 and improved in the Act’s subsequent amendments until the Children’s and Family Act (2014) and according to Jones (2008) policies have generally seen a shift from being passive to active.
Inclusion has seen greater discussion since theories of early education have identified multiple factors that influence student participation in the learning process. Some of the influencing factors are familial, but others include important and undiscussed influences of identity, such as nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, social class, historical, cultural and religious beliefs, norms followed and so on. Significantly, Feliciano (2009) conversely argues that education too is an effective influencer in ethnic identity formation among students. She demonstrates this in her study on Latin American and Caribbean immigrants in an American multicultural setting. Thus, multiple intervening factors altogether influence identity formation, which then contributes to participation and then inclusion as when educators interact with Mark, with an appreciation of all these historical developments, inclusion as a goal will be better achieved. Inclusion and increased participation of SEND students like Mark are possible when he is offered opportunities to make choices.
References
Brodie, K. (2015) “Challenging the assumptions of multiculturalism and inclusion.” Savage, K, and Brodie, K. (2015) Inclusion and Early Years Practice. Oxon: Routledge.
Campbell, Lesley. “Rights and disabled children.” Franklin, B. (ed.) (2002) The new handbook of children’s rights: comparative policy and practice. London: Routledge. pp. 196-208.
Clinton, Barbara. “Raising children to be citizens of the world.” Enhancing a sense of belonging in the early years.” Early Childhood Matters. Nov 2008, no. 111, pp. 32-37
Darling, R. (2013) Disability and Identity: Negotiating Self in a Changing Society. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Department for Education (DfE) (2014) Children and Families Act. London: HMSO
Feliciano, Cynthia. “Education and Ethnic Identity Formation among Children of Latin American and Caribbean Immigrants.” Sociological Perspectives, vol. 52, no. 2 (Summer 2009), pp. 135-158
Gordon, Jean. Linda O’Toole and Cheryl Vince Whitman.“A sense of belonging as part of children’s well-being. Enhancing a sense of belonging in the early years.” Early Childhood Matters. Nov 2008, no. 111. pp 7-13.
Gwernan-Jones, R. (2008) Identity and Disability: Current Perspectives and Future Trends. School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter.
Leah Faith Burch (2017): Governmentality of adulthood: a critical discourse analysis of the 2014 Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice, Disability & Society.
Nangah and Mills. (2015) “Rethinking Children’s well-being and Inclusion in practice.” Savage, K, and Brodie, K. (2015) Inclusion and Early Years Practice. Oxon: Routledge.
Norwich, B. (2014) Changing policy and legislation and its effects on inclusive and special education: a perspective from England. British Journal of SpecialEducation. vol. 41, no. 4. December 2014, pp. 403-425.
Roche, Jeremy. “The Children Act 1989 and children’s rights: a critical reassessment.” Franklin, B. (ed.) (2002) The new handbook of children’s rights: comparative policy and practice. London: Routledge. Pp. 60-81
Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Clarke, P. (2000) Supporting identity, diversity and language in the early years. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Swain, John and French, Sally (2000) ‘Towards an Affirmation Model of Disability’, Disability & Society, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 569 – 582
Warnock, M., (2010) Special Educational Needs: A New Look. V L. Terzi (Ur.). Special educational needs: a new look. London: Continuum.
