“Says this education writer”

Screenshot 2019-03-27 17.53.31

 

Why are there no headlines when behaviour in school improves?

The media give a distorted view of behaviour in schools, says this education writer

It used to be that, each February, media outlets across Scotland would dust down the headlines for one of their few in-depth education stories. Headlines would read something like “Shocking increase in pupil exclusions”, “Pupil violence rising” or “Classroom bad behaviour on the up”.

Such headlines appeared after national exclusion statistics were published and they just about showed a year-on-year increase from their first publication in 2000 (42,340 exclusions) through to 2007 (44,794 exclusions). The publication of these statistics allowed commentators a front-page headline, a solemn editorial and at least three or four weeks of columns and letters to the editor each year. They were good copy.


Autism: ‘Dare to see the reasons behind behaviour’

A mother’s view: ‘Restraint isn’t happening to burly teens’

More on behaviour: Go to our hub for articles on behaviour


Sadly – at least from the point of view of editors, it seems – the figures that were reported each year began to show a decline from the high of 44,794, down to 30,211 in 2011 then 18,361 in 2017. Over a 10-year period, the decline was year on year – so no headlines here and little scope for a sensational take on pupil behaviour.

In 2015, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developmentreported on other positive aspects of Scottish adolescents. In the report, it noted that the proportion of 15-year-olds who reported drinking alcohol on a weekly basis “dropped sharply, from 43 per cent in 2002 to 14 per cent in 2014”. Nearly a quarter of Scottish 15-year-olds were smokers in 2002 but this had dropped to 14 per cent in 2014, while more than two-thirds of Scottish teenagers thought that their school provided them with advice and support regarding smoking, alcohol consumption and drug use.

And there is other evidence about young people being satisfied with school – high levels of young people like what their schools offers them.

But it isn’t just in schools where the picture has been changing. Referrals to children’s hearings for offences across Scotland showed an even greater decrease, from a peak of 17,361 in 2005-06, to a low of 2,761 in 2015-16. In anyone’s view of statistics, it’s a remarkable decline in misbehaviour, perhaps worth highlighting, if not celebrating.

Serious criminal offending is in decline, too: as a result, one of the secure units that used to hold under-16s has had to be closed and converted into a school. Our young offenders institution at Polmont has also seen a decline in 16- to 18-year-olds placed there. As a comparison, there has been no significant decline in adult criminality – yet.

None of this is to deny that we have some violent young people on our streets or in our schools. There is no minimising the impact of crime or abusive behaviour, wherever it arises.

However, even in the educational media, the broad narrative of behaviour among our teenagers in 21st century Scotland has not been about the declining incidents of poor behaviour, never mind seeking out stories and explanations for such decreases.

Why is it that behaviour is improving? Why is it that teachers’ main concerns are about low-level indiscipline? Why are fewer children facing exclusion? Why are they offending less in their community? Finding answers to these questions would be a more profitable use of commentators’ time.

It may well be, in part, that online gaming has taken over children’s lives, causing them to be behaving badly in online communities rather than on our streets. However, I tend to look for policy answers. First, Scotland took indiscipline seriously from 2000 onwards and invested money in dealing with poor behaviour in classrooms and schools.

Other elements that have affected the statistics could be changes in Curriculum for Excellence, particularly in primary schools, which promoted more active and relevant activities in classroom that could hold boys’ interests. In secondary schools, too, personalised approaches drawing on resources outside the school and in communities, gave some young people a greater sense of worth rather than feeling discarded by the end of S2, as has often been the case.

The more recent developments of trauma-informed practice and an awareness of adverse childhood experiences are again useful in understanding behaviour as “stressed” behaviour rather than “bad”. You may have your own supporting analysis.

But whatever the factors behind it, our national story of better-behaved children doesn’t seem to sell newspapers or entice enough clickbait. Surely it is worth commentating on, reporting about, highlighting and celebrating?

https://www.tes.com/news/why-are-there-no-headlines-when-behaviour-school-improves

David Watt is an education blogger and former schools inspector. Until recently, he was Education Scotland’s senior education officer for inclusion and equalities, and he has also represented Scotland on the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. He tweets @dknwatt 

Scotland’s journey to inclusive education – now only paved with “laudable intentions”

IMG_6945And so it began.

Scotland’s Parliament sat again in 1999. The third meeting of the Equal Opportunities Committee (EOC) of the new Scottish Parliament took place on 21st September 1999.  This committee was looking for a way to make its mark and promote equal opportunities at the dawn of the legislature. One of the first major bills for the new Parliament was to be the Education Improvement bill.

The EOC had looked at the Equal Opportunities Commission submission on the bill.  Kate McLean MSP, the convenor of the Parliament’s EOC, noticed the Commission’s submission was incomplete. She thought they missed a few issues and continued “particularly the inclusion of kids with special needs. We may want to look at the way in which we segregate such children in Scotland.”

On 2 November 1999, at the sixth meeting of the Parliament’s EOC, they invited a newly-formed group of parents, the Equity group, to speak about their concerns regarding the education of children with special educational needs.  Equity spoke about their children being placed in special school without their agreement. They stated that they wanted “all children at least to have the entitlement to be educated alongside their non-disabled peers”.

Yes, inclusion of children with special needs in local schools in Scottish education was driven by a group of parents of children with special educational needs – who’d have thought it!

The EOC were interested in this approach for two main reasons from their perspective – it aligned with their desire to place equality at the centre of legislation-making in the new Parliament with a major bill on education in process. Secondly, for the members of the EOC, the inclusion of disabled children in their local school would be an example of mainstreaming which was a feature of equality claims at that time.

Next up on 1 March 2000, the EOC met with the Education Committee about the new education bill and the policy advice.  The EOC had concerns that the policy advice for the bill lacked a human rights perspective. One of the members of the Education Committee, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, agreed.  Shona Robison asked the Scottish Executive to include in the bill

“the right of every child to be educated in a local mainstream school and receive individual support when and where necessary”

Shona Robison reported that the conclusion of the EOC was that, “to maximise the benefit to parents, there should be a right rather than a presumption.  A presumption seemed to have qualifications attached.”

And so it continued.

After the advice from the EOC the discussions and debates now lay with the Education Committee.

May 9th2000, the Education Committee considered amendment 113.  Peter Peacock MSP, the Education Minister, opened the debate with the statement

“Our commitment to developing an inclusive society includes the wish to have all children educated alongside each other. Already, the majority of children with special educational needs are educated in mainstream primary or secondary schools. The amendment will strengthen their right to be educated alongside their peers. It will require local authorities to provide education in mainstream schools for children with special educational needs unless there are good reasons for not doing so.“

All on the Education Committee agreed to amendment 113 which stated that as education authorities were to discharge their duty to provide education in a school, it was to “provide it in a school other than a special school”.  In the end mainstreaming was to proceed in regard to education authorities’ duties rather than the rights of the child.

While the Education Committee all agreed to the amendment in committee, in June 2000 when the bill was being finalised debate about the mainstreaming amendment was re-opened.

On June 7ththe final stages of the bill took place and two amendments were tabled amendment 3 and amendment 26.  Amendment 3 was agreed to and amendment 26 went to a vote. Nicola Sturgeon spoke for the amendment which was to challenge a too narrow view of mainstreaming that could be seen to let educational authorities off the hook.

Amendment 26 was defeated. It was supported by the Tories and SNP with Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney voting against the presumption of mainstreaming as not being broad enough and not fully in the child’s interest.

And so it happened.

Scotland had decided not to implement inclusive education, not to give children and young people the right to a high quality inclusive education but had established the duty on education authorities to provide education but NOT in a special school.  And that duty not to provide education in a special school could have three exceptions – unreasonable cost, the education of others and the views of parents.  Our presumption of mainstreaming was always a limited right, even further limited by the exceptions.

The next debate was in 2017 but now on the back of a growing dissatisfaction from some regarding variable practice regarding education in their local schools.

This time there was a longer motion agreed to, with a couple of amendments from the Tories and Labour to a SNP motion – with the Parliament recognising that “mainstreaming has featured at the heart of its commitment to inclusive education since 2000, welcomes that successive administrations have created and strengthened this commitment”. John Swinney and Nicola sturgeon voted for their motion which had the presumption of mainstreaming at the heart of the commitment to inclusive education. This motion was further amended by the Tories and Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. This time the SNP Government was defeated as amendments were added about cuts in funding and resources which meant the motion ended with “if mainstreaming in education is to be fully effective, the Scottish government must ensure that schools have the funding and the staff to deliver it.”  While Labour Lib Dems, Greens and tories supported this amended motion, the SNP abstained.

Fourteen months then passed, now a new debate took place on 30th January 2019.  This time in a Tory debate a motion amended by the SNP was agreed to . This “back to the future”  coalition of SNP and Tories who opposed mainstreaming as too narrow in 2000 now considered it too broad in 2019. They also defeated  an amendment mentioning cuts in resources that had the support of Labour and Liberal Democrats.

The motion is 2017 had mainstreaming at the heart of Parliament’s commitment to inclusive education since 2000. Now in 2019 it was “the presumption to mainstream has laudable intentions”, the motion returned to talking about “special educational needs” and that the government will work “to review the presumption to mainstream policy to ensure there can be more uptake of the provision of places in special schools.”

And here we are.

A commitment to not be educated in a special school pushed through on the back of representation by parents to the Equal Opportunities Committee was now to be reviewed. Children’s rights are to be limited further.

In reading over the debates it is clear that Scotland’s MSPs are unaware of global moves to inclusive education. No notice is taken of article 24 from UNCRPD established in 2006 and not one MSP references this important development in regard to rights of disabled children.

Scotland’s claim to be educationally inclusive of disabled children in legislation terms always hung  on the “shoogly peg’ of a duty not to have your education in a special school.  Nothing is mentioned about quality of inclusive education, nothing about systemic change. No recourse to taking note of UNCRPD General Comment no. 4 which provides the legislative and policy framework to deliver on inclusive education.

Finally the new policy of reviewing Section 15 of the 2000 Act in order to increase the numbers of children in special schools will mean Scottish education will now match the four concerns of the UN when concluding their observations on the UK’s austerity policies and their impact on disabled people.  Previously all four concerns only applied to English education.

In 2020 the Global Education Monitoring Report will have its major theme on inclusion in education. While Scotland reviews the laudable intentions of mainstreaming, UNESCO will consider developments across six major areas of inclusive practice in education.

The 2020 GEM Report will examine the role of the different elements of education systems that can support inclusion, including

  • Laws and policies,
  • Governance and finance,
  • Schools,
  • Curricula and learning materials,
  • Teachers, school leaders and education support personnel
  • Communities, parents and students

The Report will consider how these elements contribute to system-level and local inclusion of learners who are vulnerable to exclusion.

In my view it’s not a good look, as we head backwards in time, away from recognising and realising the rights of disabled children; the rest of the world moves ahead. Our MSPS now seem to be content to step back from inclusive society, only paving the journey with laudable intentions.  No matter the good intentions there is no inclusive society without well-funded high quality inclusive education for all.

Warnock’s brief history of special schools in Scotland

Just to continue with marking the publication of the Warnock report in May 1978. Its first chapter provided the history of segregated and special schools in the UK from the 18thcentury.  I have extracted the Scottish references for a brief history of segregated education in Scotland from the perspective of Deaf and disabled provision. It’s a cut and paste job with a couple of additions but I‘ve saved you doing it!

18thcentury – The first school for the DEAF in Great Britain was started by Thomas Braidwood in Edinburgh in the early 1760s. Mr Braidwood’s Academy for the Deaf and Dumb, as it was called, took a handful of selected paying pupils to be taught to speak and read.   By 1870 a further six schools had been founded, including the first in Wales at Aberystwyth (1847) and Donaldson’s Hospital (now Donaldson’s School) in Edinburgh. (Donaldson’s sold their building in Edinburgh and moved out to Linlithgow in 2008.) These early institutions for the deaf; no less than those for the blind, were protective places, with little or no contact with the outside world. The education that they provided was limited and subordinated to training. Many of their inmates failed to find employment on leaving and had recourse to begging.

The Asylum for the Industrious Blind at Edinburgh was opened in 1793. Such institutions were solely concerned to provide vocational training for future employment, and relied upon the profits from their workshops.

19thcentury – In Scotland, the first establishment for the education of “imbeciles” was set up at Baldovan in Dundee in 1852 and later became Strathmartine Hospital. An institution for “defectives” was founded later in Edinburgh: it transferred to a site in Larbert in 1863 and is today the Royal Scottish National Hospital. The Lunacy (Scotland) Act of 1862 recognised the needs of the mentally handicapped and authorised the granting of licences to charitable institutions established for the care and training of imbecile children.

The Forster Education Act of 1870 (and the corresponding Education (Scotland) Act of 1872) established school boards to provide elementary education in those areas where there were insufficient places in voluntary schools. The Acts did not specifically include disabled children among those for whom provision was to be made, but in 1874 the London School Board established a class for the DEAF at a public elementary school and later began the training of teachers.

It was equally so with the BLIND. Two years after the Scottish Act 50 blind children were being taught in ordinary classes in Scottish schools. (Are we able to say that inclusive practices have a history of at least 140 years for the visually impaired being included in their local schools in Scotland?)

Special educational provision for PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED children was even slower off the mark. Those who attended elementary schools profited as best they could from the ordinary teaching. The more severely handicapped received care and sometimes education in institutions.

In Glasgow in 1874, East Park was founded after the formation of “The Association for Visiting and Aiding the Permanently Infirm and Imbecile Children”. In 1874 children were admitted with paralysis, hip, spine and knee joint diseases with rickets being a widespread problem. The East Park cottage Home for Infirm Children was effectively a care institution managed by a superintendent and whose staff wore nursing uniforms.

Screen Shot 2018-05-26 at 13.18.26.jpg

A Royal Commission on the Blind and Deaf was constituted in 1886 and reported in 1889.  Legislation quickly followed for Scotland in the Education of Blind and Deaf Mute Children (Scotland) Act of 1890, but three years elapsed before England and Wales were similarly covered by the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act of 1893. The Act required school authorities* to make provision, in their own or other schools, for the education of blind and deaf children resident in their area who were not otherwise receiving suitable elementary education.  The new Act meant that all blind or deaf children would in future be sent to school as of right.

20thcentury- In Scotland, the Education of Defective Children (Scotland) Act of 1906 empowered school boards to make provision to special schools or classes for the education of defective children between the ages of five and 16, whilst the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Act of 1913 required school boards to ascertain children in their area who were defective, and those who were considered incapable of benefiting from instruction in special schools became the responsibility of parish councils for placement in an institution. By 1939 the number of mentally defective children on the roll of special schools and classes had reached 4,871.

However, since maladjustment was not officially recognised as a form of handicap calling for special education, practically no provision was made by authorities for these pupils before 1944, although some authorities paid for children to attend voluntary homes.

In Scotland, the Education (Scotland) Act 1945 repeated much of the content of the Education Act 1944, but with certain important differences. The duty of education authorities to ascertain which children required special educational treatment applied to children from the age of five.

The Handicapped Pupils and School Health Service Regulations 1945 defined 11 categories of pupils: blind, partially sighted, deaf, partially deaf, delicate, diabetic, educationally subnormal, epileptic, maladjusted, physically handicapped and those with speech defects. Maladjustment and speech defects were entirely new categories. Partial blindness and partial deafness were extensions of existing categories, whilst delicate and diabetic children had previously been treated as physically handicapped. The categories (though not the detailed definitions) have remained unchanged since 1944 except that in 1953 diabetic children ceased to form a separate category and have since then been included with the delicate. The regulations prescribed that blind, deaf, epileptic, physically handicapped and aphasic children were seriously disabled and must be educated in special schools. Children with other disabilities might attend ordinary schools if adequate provision for them was available.

In Scotland an attempt was made to bring together expert opinion on all forms of handicap. In 1947 the Secretary of State remitted to the Advisory Council in Scotland the task of reviewing the provision made for the primary and secondary education of pupils suffering from disability of mind or body or from maladjustment due to social handicaps. The Council produced between 1950 and 1952 seven reports which were valuable guides to education authorities on the provision for different handicaps, although their predictions of future need have not all stood the test of time. For example, it was thought that special provision should be made for 20,000 physically handicapped pupils, whereas the number of these children in special schools in 1976 was only 1,076: conversely the Council’s estimate that four residential child guidance clinics would suffice to meet the needs of all children maladjusted because of social handicap has proved to be hopelessly inadequate.

The Scottish Education Department Circular No 300  (The Education of Handicapped Pupils: The Reports of the Advisory Council (21 March 1955).

The titles of the Reports were as follows:

Pupils who are Defective in Hearing (Cmd 7866)

Pupils who are Defective in Vision (Cmd 7885)

Visual and Aunt Aids (Cmd 8102)

Pupils with Physical Disabilities (Cmd 8211)

Pupils with Mental or Educational Disabilities (Cmd 8401)

Pupils handicapped by Speech Disorders (Cmd 8426)

Pupils who are Maladjusted because of Social Handicap (Cmd 8428)

in presenting these reports they placed special education within the mainstream of primary and secondary education.

“Special educational treatment should not be thought of mainly in terms of the provision on a large scale of separate schools for handicapped children…. It is recognised that there must continue to be situations where it is essential in the children’s interest that those who are handicapped must be separated from those who are not. Nevertheless as medical knowledge increases and as general school conditions improve it should be possible for an increasing proportion of pupils who require special educational treatment to be educated along with their contemporaries in ordinary schools. Special educational treatment should, indeed, be regarded simply as a well-defined arrangement within the ordinary educational system to provide for the handicapped child the individual attention that he particularly needs.”

In the year prior to the issue of Circular No 300 Scottish regulations were made laying down definitions of the nine statutory categories of handicap. Delicate and diabetic children were not included as they were in England and Wales. These Regulations, together with the 1956 Schools Code, which prescribed maximum class sizes for the various categories of handicap, ensured for handicapped children in Scotland the benefit of favourable pupil-teacher ratios.

In Scotland education authorities became responsible in 1947 for the education of children who were described as “ineducable but trainable”. Those children were placed in junior occupational centres and trained by instructors, but following the Report of the Melville Committeeand subsequent provisions in the Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) (Scotland) Act 1974 the centres were re-named schools, and teachers were appointed in addition to the instructors. The 1974 Act also gave education authorities responsibility for the education of children who had previously been described as “ineducable and untrainable”.

Screen Shot 2018-05-26 at 13.17.54.jpg

In Scotland all the functions of the former approved schools, including the provision of education, were transferred in 1971 to local authority social work departments under the terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, and these institutions are now known as List D schools.

In Scotland the 1960s had seen some confusion over the procedures for the assessment of handicapped children. Working parties examined the assessment of four groups of handicapped children: mentally handicapped, visually handicapped, maladjusted and hearing impaired. As a result major procedural changes were included in the Education (Scotland) Act 1969. The Act redefined special education in terms which excluded the concept of a fixed disability of mind or of body.  It recognised the importance of early discovery by abolishing the minimum age at which a child could be ascertained by an education authority and established that the decision to ascertain a child was not exclusively a medical one. It required that in every case reports of psychological as well as medical examinations should be considered, with, wherever possible, the views of the child’s parents and those of his teacher. It also recognised the widely held view that assessment is a continuing process.

In Scotland, the same theme lay behind the report of the McCann Committee on the secondary education of physically handicapped children.  (The  Secondary Education of Physically Handicapped Children in Scotland. Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland (HMSO, 1975). ) The Committee’s report, whilst recognising that some physically handicapped children would require education in special schools, envisaged an ever increasing number of them being educated in ordinary schools.

The extent of special educational need is very difficult to assess. Some indication is given by the figures for the children ascertained as requiring special education IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE OF SEPARATE SPECIAL PROVISION.  In Scotland 15,119 children or 1.4% of the school population were receiving separate special educational provision in the session 1976-77. However, this scale on which children are ascertained as being in need of special education varies widely from one authority to another.

In Scotland in the 1975-76 session the prevalence of children receiving special education ranged from 50 per 10,000 of the school population in a rural region to over 200 in a region with a large conurbation. Four out of nine regions were within a range 10% above or below the national average of 120.Some of the variations between authorities may reflect variations in local policy and the strength of assessment services, but they also suggest a relationship between the rate of ascertainment and the availability of special provision. It is to be noted that this level is approximately the same in 2018 as in 1976!

The definition of special education in the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, although it has the merit of using terms which clearly apply to children with emotional or behavioural disorders as well as those with physical or intellectual disabilities, is similarly negative in tone: “education by special methods appropriate to the requirements of pupils whose physical, intellectual, emotional or social development cannot, in the opinion of the education authority, be adequately promoted by ordinary methods of education”. Such a definition conveys nothing of the qualities or features which make special education “special”.

That’s you nearly up to date. After Warnock, in Scotland there were a range of reports on good practice culminating in the Inspectorate review of  special schools in 2002.

40 years on: new improved labels

Forty years ago this month the Warnock Report was published. Though now eponymous with Mary Warnock it was entitled “Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People” and was published four (FOUR) years after being set up by Margaret Thatcher. “Warnock” made its mark, not the least in its noting

“the particular expression of a widely held and still growing conviction that, so for as is humanly possible, handicapped people should share the opportunities for self- fulfilment enjoyed by other people”

As the good doctor in Star Trek might say “it’s inclusion Jim but not as we know it.”

Warnock noted the long-standing policy that

“no child should be sent to a special school who can be satisfactorily educated in an ordinary one”

Warnock decided against engaging in debates about the 2% in special schools to consider the 20% of the population that at any time should be considered as having “special educational needs” and be described as children with learning difficulties.

Warnock considered three types of integration  – locational, social and functional.  Functional integration built upon the other two is about joint participation in educational programmes. It was described as a form of association  “where children with special needs join, part-time or full-time, the regular classes of the school, and make a full contribution to the activity of the school.”

From above the Warnock Report was at the foothills of  inclusive education and was more about what was being left behind rather than clarity about rights of disabled children, universal design of provision or personalising learning and support to take account of difference.

Its strength today was its comprehensive history of previous developments where we came from rather than a vision for the future  of the journey towards successful inclusive education for all.   My next blog looks to pull together “A brief history of special education in Scotland” will be drawn from Warnock.

However just to mark the watershed approach of Warnock in terms of categrisation and us eof labels. The report made that disctivtion about 20% having special educational needs nad described as having leanirng difficutlies in place of the following system of categories in Scotlnad

In Scotland the categories of pupils requiring special educational treatment are defined in the Special Educational Treatment (Scotland) Regulations, 1954 as follows:

“(1) deaf pupils, that is to say pupils who, because of defective hearing, are without naturally acquired speech or language;

(2) partially deaf pupils, that is to say pupils whose sense of hearing is defective but who possess naturally acquired speech or language;

(3) blind pupils, that is to say pupils who have no sense of sight or whose sense of sight is, or is likely to become, so defective as to be of no practical value for reading or writing;

(4) partially sighted pupils, that is to say pupils whose sense of sight is, or is likely to become, defective but is, and is likely to remain, of practical value for reading or writing;

(5) mentally handicapped pupils, that is to say pupils who have little natural ability;

(6) epileptic pupils, that is to say pupils who suffer from severe or frequent epileptic seizures or who, by reason of epilepsy, behave in such a way as to make it inexpedient that they should be associated with other children;

(7) pupils suffering from speech defect, that is to say pupils who suffer from defect or lack of speech not due to deafness or mental handicap;

(8) maladjusted pupils, that is to say pupils who suffer from emotional instability or psychological disturbance;

(9) physically handicapped pupils, that is to say pupils who suffer from a physical disability which is, or is likely to be, permanent or protracted and which does not bring them within any of the foregoing categories.”

So much for the medical model!  Some authorities still use such categorisation for their provision. We still talk up children’s difficulties rather than seek the system change necessary to meet their needs. Warnock understood that implicitly it was about individual children. The report did not talk about the quality of provision other than realising that  high quality planning was necessary.  Ending one set of levels has only generated the use of the  use of the label of ASN in Scotland (another blog to follow)

5 things to consider for inclusive education in 2018

Another year over, and a new one just begun –- so what should we be doing this year? In 2018, there is the need to close the gap between international visions of inclusive societies and the inclusive practice in Scottish education. The status quo is not an option. In 2016 and 2017, the world moved on, while Scotland did not progress. We can consider five things to consider to secure inclusive education in Scotland.

Number 1 Take account of the UN’s General Comment no. 4

Screen Shot 2018-01-04 at 11.51.58

In 2016 the United Nations Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities published their General Comment no. 4. It opened with acknowledgement of progress in education for those with disabilities. They said that “recognition of inclusion as the key to achieving the right to education has strengthened over the past 30 years”. They then went on to say

“Many millions of persons with disabilities continue to be denied a right to education, and for many more, education is available only in settings where they are isolated from their peers and receive an inferior quality of provision.”

These challenges described as profound as less so in Scotland in terms of scale. Yet in Scotland the following would be true : –

“A few thousand children and young people with disabilities are denied a right to a high quality full-time education and for thousands more in Scotland, education is only available in settings where they are isolated from their peers and receive an inferior quality of provision.”

According to ENABLE, in Scottish schools  the highest levels of dissatisfaction expressed by young people with additional support needs occurs in special schools, roughly about 60% feel they are not well-supported.

In Scotland inclusive education is something about children with support needs being mainstreamed into schools, where as, across the globe, systems are adopting a broad approach. The UN sets out a view that

“Inclusive education is central to achieving high quality education for all learners, including those with disabilities, and for the development of inclusive, peaceful and fair societies. Furthermore, there is a powerful educational, social, and economic case to be made.”

We need to have that kind of vision using the General Comment’s framework to implement it.

Number 2 Address UN concerns about Scottish inclusive education

Screen Shot 2018-01-04 at 11.52.11

In September 2017, the UK was criticised for its lack of understanding of “adapting to and applying the human rights model of disability and its evolving concept of disability”. It is not clear that this holds true for Scottish Government. However, concerns and recommendations were made for devolved governments to take forward article 24 – the right of disabled children to inclusive education together with Sustainable Development Goal 4.

The UN recommended that Scotland develops a comprehensive and coordinated legislative and policy framework for inclusive education, and a timeframe to ensure that mainstream schools foster real inclusion of children with disabilities and they should adopt and implement a coherent strategy, financed with concrete timelines and measurable goals, on increasing and improving inclusive education.

The UN went on to say that the strategy must ensure the implementation of laws and regulations improving the extent and quality of inclusive education in classrooms, setup initiatives raising awareness about and support to inclusive education among parents of children with disabilities; and provide sufficient, relevant data on the number of students both in inclusive and segregated education disaggregated by impairment, age, sex and ethnic background, and further provide data on the outcome of the education reflecting the capabilities of the students.

Number 3 Link improvements in inclusive education to SDG 4.5

Screen Shot 2018-01-04 at 11.52.31

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are not designed for “third world” or “developing countries” yet are universal and global goals to be realised by all.  SDG 4 which was mentioned in the Concluding Observations is the education SDG, It aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030.  Surely an achievable target for Scottish education which has many positives in inclusive practices. Target 4.5 is the Equity target and again is within reach of the Scottish education system.

Number 4 Pick up on the trends in Europe

Screen Shot 2018-01-04 at 11.52.17

The recent publication in 2017 from the European Parliament “Inclusive education for learners with disabilities” highlights the work of the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education and identifies several trends in inclusive education across Europe. These include trends inclusive education being rooted in the development of personalised learning and flexible teaching, capacity building mechanisms, a preventative approach and effective governance and accountability. The report concludes with comments from the European Agency, the major agency in inclusive education across Europe, and always worth a consideration for its comprehensive guidance and practical advice

“The ultimate vision for inclusive education systems is to ensure that all learners of any age are provided with meaningful, high-quality educational opportunities in their local community, alongside their friends and peers”

Number 5 Evaluate progress using UNESCO up-to-date advice and guidance

Screen Shot 2018-01-04 at 11.52.39

In 2017,  Florence Mignon at UNESCO working with Mel Ainscow published a guide and helpful resource for countries to help ensuring in inclusion and equity. UNESCO wanted the guide to support government education policy-makers, practitioners and key stakeholders in their efforts to develop and implement inclusive policies, programmes and practices that meet the needs of all learners.

UNESCO were confident this Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education will serve as a resource for countries and will contribute to accelerating efforts worldwide towards inclusive education. At present it is unclear how this resource will be utilised in Scotland.   Two points for consideration would be the advice that integrating approaches to inclusion and equity means

  • Valuing the presence, participation and achievement of all learners, regardless of their contexts and personal characteristics.
  • Recognizing the benefits of student diversity, and how to live with, and learn from, difference.

We cannot learn from difference with segregated special schooling.

The guide provides key features to measure progress in inclusion and equity many of which Scotland is working well towards others where we are a bit further behind. These key features are well worth paying attention to in considering inclusion and equity. An area where we have made little progress is the key feature that states “There is a clear role for special provision, such as special schools and units, in promoting inclusion and equity in education.”   The guide explains this new role is for special schools and units to “play a vital role by acting as resource centres for supporting regular schools as they seek to become more inclusive”. Special schools not as placement but as resource. Could it happen in Scotland in 2018 and deliver on the rights of disabled children to an inclusive education with their peers in their local school? It will happen, if we want it!

Pedagogy of the Diverse

Change the system

Children come to our schooling systems with their differences. We know this. We still don’t fully know how to handle their differences. We still expect children and young people to fit the system. Our education systems are still too heavily focussed on schooling rather than learning. Everyone can learn, not everyone gets schooled. Inclusive learning would mean a locally based learning environment, lets call it a school, being open to all, designed to meet the needs of whoever walks or wheels up to the door.

The above graphic isn’t even where we are in Scotland in terms of a debate on inclusive education. The squares at the school door are still deciding that different blobs need to change in order to pass through the door to schooling.

Schooling is still too often about excluding, separating and segregating and within schools about sorting out and streaming. JK Rowling had it best with her sorting hat

“For I’m the Hogwarts sorting Hat

And I can cap them all.

There’s nothing hidden in your head

The Sorting Hat can’t see

So try me on and I will tell you

Where you ought to be.”

Too many schools and starting from before 5 years of age, sort out the children into high and low ability top and bottom sets and academic and non-academic learners. In Scotland the debate is moving away from a national education system marked out by being universal, comprehensive and accessible by all – an inclusive system – towards one reinforcing segregated, autonomous and selection processes.

Yet across the world now agencies and movements of the oppressed are making great steps with progressive inclusion. From the United Nations and its international agencies, the European Commission backed by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education towards movements of the marginalised are acclaiming change.

In 2015 in Europe groups of disabled young people came together to take action. They viewed inclusive education as a human rights issue and placed key concepts, such as normality, tolerance, respect and citizenship, at the centre of their discussions. Their simple five point manifesto:

  1. Everything about us, with us
  2. Barrier-free schools
  3. Breaking down stereotypes
  4. Diversity is the mix, inclusion is what makes the mix work
  5. Becoming full citizens

To match these points we need to consider a new pedagogy, a pedagogy of the diverse. Such an approach to a range of teaching and learning methods would break down the need for stratification and segregation based on illogical and outmoded notions of “age, aptitude and ability” but take account of what learners bring to school their experiences and background – social class, gender, religion and belief, ethnic minority, disability, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy.   Such an approach has more of the 21st century about it and openly takes account of background rather than have “hidden values” that lead to support for schooling processes that have no evidence of positive outcomes such as setting. It would build in flexibility through principles already in place such as relevance and personalising learning and support rather than sorting.

It would mean schools would be responsive and charged with meeting the needs each individual and operate through designing personalised pathways through the schooling process on one site in one school – an inclusive learning environment, comprehensive and meeting the needs of all. There would be sectoral changes such as an end to selective schooling, fee-paying schooling and segregated schooling and investment in inclusion that offers pastoral support, learning support and personal support for inclusive leanring. Simples really!

Background

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone JK Rowling 1997

‘Inclusive Education–Take Action!’ November 2015

https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Luxembourg_Recommendations_Flyer_EN.pdf

 

 

Faster than the speed of words

Equality equity

Visuals travel faster than the speed of words and even without a thousand words, images show their worth in communicating ideas.

The above image of the young people peering over fences at a baseball game has been given great a currency over the past few years.

You can read about how it came about in December 2012 by Craig Froehle. He originally created the  graphic to make the point between equality of opportunity and equality in outcomes in a debate with a conservative during USA 2012 election.   He modestly describes his creative process as:

“So, I grabbed a public photo of Cincinnati’s Great American Ball Park, a stock photo of a crate, clip art of a fence, and then spent a half-hour or so in Powerpoint concocting an image”

His graphic must have been used in thousands of presentations as a simple and effective way to push the debate in politics or social services or education towards fairness rather than opportunity.

In the first panel of the graphic all the young people have the opportunity to look at the ball game but not everyone has a successful outcome. The second panel then displays a fairer outcome. Someone once said something about   “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” and the image has something of that.

Of course I have to admit I was one of those young people outside the fence in my youth. On occasion my brothers trying to see the game at a junior football ground in the West of Scotland. We never achieved the equitable outcome because usually we found a way to sneak in by climbing over the fence.

There is another website (Cultural Organizing) that offers a critique of the graphic in its various forms describing it as perfect example of deficit thinking. (By the way they describe the removing of the fence to get in for free as a “creative and subversive” response – we called it duking in).

A final website lets you design your own third and even fourth panel.   It again looks at some different versions and lets you design a fourth box (the 4th box) for the cartoon.

Then there is the short youtube version for younger children called Fairness set away from sports fields. Again three children this time picking apples from a tree and sharing boxes to stand on. There may well be a feature film coming some time soon.

In education terms many schools and teachers are keen to assert that they treat everyone the same. People on the first box never readily give up that privilege they feel they deserve with that resource. Whether you view that first box as private schooling, the over emphasis and weighting towards gaining entry to University and streamed or set classes. All of those “crates” are supports that reinforce inequity and not readily yielded.

More debate and discussion about equitable outcomes needs to consider the second panel and celebrate ways that give the support to those that need it, children and young people from working class backgrounds, care experienced young people and those with disabilities. It also requires decisions from the first panel about which “crates” need reallocated.

Version 3 To each according to their needs   4 panel 7