DHA 4120

“All for one, one for all”

A critical review of policy, ideology and theoretical perspectives on

Special Educational Needs, an evaluation of inclusive practice and

recommendations for a new inclusive learning resource tool

Author: Ian M. Anderson

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Contents

Abstract 3

Introduction 4

Part 1 – Policy, ideology and discourse 5

Part 1 - Conclusion 10

Part 2 - A critique of Inclusive Practice 11

Part 2 - Recommendations 12

Part 2 - Conclusion 13

References 15

Appendices

Appendix i College Enrolment Form

Appendix ii Health Information Form

Appendix iii Oliver's alternative questions

Page | 2

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

AbstractThis assignment traces how evolving ideologies, theories and policies have

influenced the development of Inclusive Learning with a particular emphasis

on Special Educational Needs [SEN]. Starting with the Warnock Report of

1978, it critically analyses relevant legislation and policy initiatives alongside

the developing theories and ideologies that have shaped them and which now

impact on current educational practice and thinking. It then goes on to

consider an issue of inclusive practice relating to the initial health assessment

of work based learners and questions its validity given modern inclusive

ideology. Finally, it makes a recommendation for a new inclusive resource that

will better serve the learning needs of all students.

Page | 3

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Introduction

In 1978, Mary Warnock put forward a proposal for ‘a general framework of

special education’ (DES, 1978, p49) which would:

…establish once and for all the idea of special educational provision, wherever it is made, as additional or supplementary rather than, as in the past, separate or alternative provision.

(DES, 1978, p49)

The term ‘Special Educational Need’ [SEN] was adopted by the report (DES,

1978, p37) which also introduced the concept of integration as a means of

placing those identified as having a SEN into mainstream education (United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2005).

The first part of this paper will show how the continued evolution of ideologies

surrounding inclusion and SEN has led to a range of legislation and policy

initiatives which indicate that the intended outcomes of Warnock’s proposed

SEN framework have yet to be realised. Furthermore, it will address the

issues surrounding defining what constitutes inclusion (Centre for Studies on

Inclusive Education [CSIE], 1997; Barton, 1998) and why the term’s entry into

the common language of education has led to questions over its value

(Thomas & Loxley, 2001; Slee, 2004). Finally, in this first part, consideration

is given as to whether or not the Department for Education’s [DOE] recent

consultation paper, proposing a new approach to SEN and disability (DOE ,

2011) differs sufficiently from past initiatives to potentially create a ‘one for all’

education system.

The second part of this paper critically analyses the way disabilities and

learning difficulties are identified in the enrolment procedure at College. In

particular it considers why, despite advances in ideology surrounding models

of inclusion (OU, 2006), the medical model persists in both capturing data and

identifying the requirement for and allocation of resources to, inclusive

learning. It will go on to suggest how capturing additional information that

focuses on the societal barriers that students face in their lives, would provide Page | 4

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

a useful inclusive learning resource for the college that could enhance the

learning experience of all students. Finally, it will conclude that such a

resource would improve staff confidence and understanding in delivering

inclusive learning as well as demonstrate a college wide commitment to a

genuine inclusive education policy.

Part 1 - Policy, ideology and discourse

The Warnock Report called for the abolition of the statutory categories of

disability established by The Education Act 1944 (DES, 1978). It saw

individual categorisation as limiting on schools and the individual, citing that

many had more than one disability and that often the main disability (medically

speaking) did not reflect the educational need (ibid). It criticised the

categorisation of disability for excluding those who did not fit into any of the

categories, adding that categorisation created a distinction between

handicapped and non handicapped children (ibid, 1978). Despite this, some

critics maintain that; rather than abolish categories of handicap, the report

fashioned an altogether new category; SEN and that integration only

concerned those who could be accommodated into ‘mainstream’ education

(Barton & Armstrong, 2008).

Those with special educational needs traditionally had their disabilities defined

in medical terms (House of Commons Education & Skills Committee, 2006).

This medical model of disability sees the disabled person as the problem (not

society) and thus dependant with a need to be cared for or cured (Open

University [OU], 2006). Understandably, the model was widely rejected by

disability groups who developed their own model of disability, ‘The Social

Model’ in the 1970s (Shakespeare & Watson, 2002). Here the entire

justification for special education, and the professionals connected with it are

confronted as being indicative of unfair practices (Clough & Corbett, 2000).

The Social Model aims to eliminate all barriers that prevent disabled people

having ‘…the same opportunity as everyone else to determine their own life

styles’ (OU, 2006).

Page | 5

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

The Education Act 1981 provided the initial legislative framework for SEN,

creating a definition for SEN and provision as well as introducing statements

and statutory assessments (Richardson, 2009). The introduction of

statements and statutory assessments is seen by some to be a means of

controlling expenditure (Clough & Corbett, 2000). This has been seen as

looking at disability from a ‘materialist perspective’ (Thomas & Loxley, 2001,

p2). Within such segregated education systems, Sue Tomlinson suggests

that decisions on defining what constitutes a special needs child are more

reliant on the vested interests of medical and psychological professionals than

the fundamental needs of the child (Tomlinson, 1982).

The issue of segregation was partially addressed by a revised Education Act

in 1993 which established the duty to secure education of SEN Children in

mainstream schools, provided that special education provision could be

provided, without detriment to provision given to other children and that

resources were used efficiently (Education Act, 1993). This was in direct

contrast to the incumbent general inspection policy which advocated that

pupils should be grouped for teaching based on attainment levels and a

priority for whole class teaching (Booth, 1999). Furthermore, league tables

and targets were seen to discourage schools from taking learners with

difficulties for fear it might affect their position in the table (ibid, 1999).

Interestingly, there is a counter argument from Scotland that suggests that

targets should aligned to the diversities of pupils in each school and not be a

barrier to inclusive practice (Scottish Parliament, 2001).

The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) seen as ‘…the most significant

international document that has ever appeared in special education.’

(UNESCO, 2005, p9) set out guidance for the principles, policy and practice of

special education. UNESCO defines inclusion as:

…a dynamic approach of responding positively to pupil diversity and of seeing individual differences not as problems, but as opportunities for enriching learning.

(UNESCO, 2005, p 12)

Page | 6

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

It puts forward the argument for regular schools with an ‘inclusive orientation’

as being best placed to combat attitudes of discrimination, building an

‘inclusive society’ and achieving ‘education for all’ (UNESCO, 2005, p9).

It is perhaps because of the importance attached to such an international

viewpoint, that in the UK, the updated Education Act 1996 faced accusations

of discrimination with the UK Government being criticised for enacting ‘…

legislation which increases selection and perpetuates compulsory

segregation.’(CSIE, 1997)

It is not surprising to find conflicting discourse over policy and how the needs

of the learner are best served when one considers that there is similar

discourse surrounding the concept of categorisation, labelling and the

definition of inclusion (Ellis et al, 2008).

“What are you?” “To define is to limit.” (Wilde, 1992, p151)

As the above quotation suggests, there is a problem with trying to formulate

definitions in this context, in that applying a finite meaning to a concept

appears to create polarization and thus (by implication) marginalization.

Along with confusions over definitions there are those that see SEN and wider

disability categorisation, or labelling, as unhelpful (Peshkin, 1991). The belief

is that labelling, segregation and categorisation create stigmatism, feelings of

rejection and being different (ibid, 1991). It has been argued that labelling has

such an influence as to apply negative stereotyping to large numbers of

people based on a categorisation of disability (Corker & French, 1999;

Armstrong, 2003).

The drive to remove segregation from all but the most disabled children and

young people continued with New Labour’s ‘Excellence for all’ strategy

(Department for Education and Employment [DfEE], 1997). It proposed a

fundamental re-appraisal of the way SEN was met and continued with the

intention for educating children with SEN, as far as possible, with their peers

Page | 7

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

and included a strategy for action in respect of those with emotional and

behavioural difficulties (ibid, 1997).

Successive Governments and initiatives continue to cause confusion about

the changing nature of inclusion (House of Commons Education & Skills

Committee, 2006). Indeed, Baroness Warnock describes the concept of

inclusion as being a ‘disastrous legacy’ of her own 1978 Report which was

leading to the closure of Special Schools (ibid, 2006). Furthermore, SEN

provision is seen as being dependant both on the individual and local

circumstances meaning that a child meeting the legal criteria could have SEN

in one school, but not another (CSIE, 1997). Furthermore, there is growing

ideology expressing the view that inclusion is much more than an educational

issue but an issue of basic human rights (ibid, 1997, UNESCO, 2005).

Despite the best intentions of Government, criticism is still aimed at where the

focus of inclusive strategy lies (Booth, 1999). Principally, that there is too

much emphasis being placed on SEN representing educational difficulties

being a barrier to inclusion with not enough attention being given to changing

organisational, curriculum and teaching practices which could improve quality

and participation (ibid).

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) laid down the

legislation following the above strategy. However, SEN provision seems

restricted by being contingent on meeting parents’ wishes and the provision of

efficient education for other children (Barton & Armstrong, 2008). This

effectively takes the power of decision and choice out of the hands of those it

was designed to help (ibid).

Further developments in SEN policy emerge from the introduction of the SEN

Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) and the gradual emergence of ‘non-medical’

barriers to inclusion being added to the SEN agenda such as social

disadvantage (Booth, 1999) and economic wellbeing (DfES, 2003).

Running almost parallel to these developments to widen the scope of SEN

provision is the desire to enhance standards of education generally and

Page | 8

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

improve school provision for all (‘Higher Standards, Better Schools for All’,

DfES, 2005). Advocating wider choice, personalization, and aiming to give

parents more power to allow children access to good schools, it was criticized

for being in direct conflict with the ideals of inclusion and ‘education for all’:

As long as teachers are pressed to deliver higher standards in the form of more children passing examinations and reaching targets, they will understandably be reluctant to take on the education of all children.

(Tomlinson, 2005)

In addition, Tomlinson believes that the emphasis on achieving five GCSEs at

grade C effectively turns inclusion (for pupils who have no hope of achieving

such grades) into a ‘sham’ (Tomlinson, 2005). Furthermore, she argues that

such individuals would ‘…always be at the bottom of a meritocratic society’

(ibid).

The influence and attitudes of teachers also has a part to play in the discourse

surrounding inclusive practice (Smith, 2006). There have been calls for a

rethink on Government strategy as result of Ofsted maintaining that the quality

of education is more influential on student performance than where they are

taught (ibid). Indeed, some commentators have referred to some attempts at

inclusion for some SEN pupils as being tantamount to abuse by placing

students in situations that were ‘totally inappropriate for them’ (MacBeath et al,

2006). Conversely, research commissioned by the National Association of

Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers [NASUWT] found that teachers

broadly endorsed inclusion, but had concerns about pupil behaviour, their own

training and the general practicalities of implementation against other

competing agendas such as school performance tables and overall pupil

attainment (Ellis et al, 2008).

The most recent review of SEN continues to promote objectives of meeting

the support needs of the child and the importance of early intervention (DoE,

2012). It recognises a need for reduced bureaucracy and the necessity to

increase schools ability to tackle SEN and other barriers to learning with

responsibilities for resources and outcomes clearly defined (ibid, 2012).

Page | 9

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

The original proposals are to include all children experiencing barriers to

learning and placed within a framework of Additional Educational Needs [AEN]

(ibid, 2012). Since consultation, the existing definition of SEN is to remain the

same with funding not being diverted to other AEN groups. As a concept,

AEN is to be promoted not as a separate policy but within the Every School a

Good School policy (DoE, 2008). The other AEN groups (school age mothers,

Travellers, newcomers, looked after children et al) will continue to benefit from

an existing range of policies.

This will send a clear signal that, while the needs of all children must be addressed, the very particular needs of SEN and/or disabled children in school settings will be met within specific frameworks.

(DoE, 2012, p5)Conclusion

Issues surrounding inclusion, inclusive practice and SEN continue to be the

subject of wide debate (DoE, 2012). In particular, the ongoing conflict

surrounding the ‘needs of one and the needs of many within debates on

inclusion’ (Ellis, 2008, p16) is further complicated by the view that inclusion

goes way beyond pupils with special needs (Ofsted, 2000). Indeed, such

variation has led Ofsted to conclude that it is difficult to ascertain benefits or

outcomes at individual pupil level (Ofsted, 2004).

Finally, whilst there is continuing confusion over definitions of inclusion it

seems inevitable ‘…that the aims and motivations of various parties may differ

and even conflict’ (Cole, 2006, pp 31). With differing attitudes, approaches to

implementation and delivery of policy, the philosophy of a ‘one size fits all’

(Smith, 2006) approach that informs the ideology of ‘full inclusion’ will remain

far from being a reality.

Page | 10

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Part 2 – A critique of inclusive practice

Tony Booth’s 1999 review of national policies on inclusion in England,

commented that many of the methods used for understanding learning

difficulties had remained unchanged for over twenty five years (Booth, 1999).

This wider observation of policy forms the basis for this critique of current

inclusive practice within a Further Education [FE] College; in particular, the

methods used to identify FE students’ Additional Learning Needs [ALN].

Inclusion is fundamental in meeting the ‘grade limiting’ Equality and Diversity

requirements of the Common Inspection Framework for Further Education and

Skills (Ofsted, 2009). One issue facing the College in meeting these

obligations is that of student disability/ALN disclosure. FE establishments

generally have to rely on students declaring their disabilities and/or ALN

(Disability Alliance, 2011). Recent legislation has established ‘protected

characteristics’ which means that students are not obliged to disclose that

they have a disability (Equality Act, 2010). Furthermore, a student may feel

the disclosure of disability or learning difficulty will result in them being

‘labelled’ and discriminated against (Hebding & Glick, 1991). The collection

and sharing of information and resources are seen as essential to inclusive

practice (Macbeath et al, 2006). It is in these areas that the College inclusive

practice could be improved.

The College obtains student disability and learning difficulty information via

‘tick box’ responses on the College Enrolment Form [CEF] (Appendix i) and

(for Work Based Learning) Health Information Form [WBLHIF] (Appendix ii).

For example, the CEF lists Aspergers Syndrome as a single disability despite

it being a multifaceted Autistic Spectrum Disorder [ASD] (Andron, 2001). This

method of disability identification through simple categorisation is closely

related to the ‘Medical Model’ as outlined in part one.

The medical model is criticised for being oppressive (Barton, 1998) and

seeing the disabled person as being ‘in deficit’ (ibid, 1998). Furthermore, any

support is controlled by, and contingent on, the opinions of specialist

professionals or health experts (Tomlinson, 1982; OU, 2006). These

Page | 11

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

criticisms represent a challenge to the continued use of medical model style

questions and assessments to inform inclusive practice. In particular, there

has been a graduation over recent years towards the ‘Social Model’ of

disability (OU, 2006). Perhaps the medical model persists due to the struggle

for inclusive education being complicated by ‘…deep rooted conceptions

about education which are based on measuring, sorting, selection and

rejection’ (Barton & Armstrong, 2008, p7).

‘Labelling’ is also derived from the medical model and is perhaps an inevitable

consequence of the ‘tick box’ response questionnaire used by the College.

Labelling is seen as stigmatising (Peshkin, 1991) and limiting in its ability to

distinguish individual educational needs (Norwich, 1999, Disability Alliance,

2011), which calls into question its relevance in informing modern inclusive

practice. Indeed, it is over 30 years since Warnock (DES, 1978) and

subsequent legislation provided the generic term (SEN) in an attempt to

reduce negative labelling (Education Act 1981).

Critics of labelling argue that there is not necessarily a link between a

disability label and required educational provision, with even those with the

same disability having different educational needs (Norwich, 1999).

Furthermore, some disabilities do not neatly fall into any single category, often

leading to a complex mix of needs (Macbeath et al, 2006). Each individual’s

situation is unique and so their support needs cannot be derived solely from

the label provided by their assessment (Disability Alliance, 2011).

It may not be practical to abandon of the use of labels altogether. The capture

and storing of standardised information is seen as essential for planning and

policy development, as well as a means of allocating resources and

anticipating funding needs (Department of Education Northern Ireland [DENI],

2005). Indeed, the coding attached to each category listed on the CIF would

indicate a need to capture statistical records of student demographics as well

as identify disabilities.

Page | 12

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Recommendations

A more personalised approach could be taken by gathering additional

information about the learner. This could be done using alternatively styled

questions (appendix iii) similar to those suggested by Mike Oliver (1990) when

criticising the standard questions used in The Office for Population, Census &

Surveys [OPCS] 1988 survey (Oliver, 1990). Asking questions about the

disabled learner’s life experiences that focus on the social barriers they face

would create a better understanding of their personal needs.

Adopting ‘social model’ style questioning may not in itself provide a

satisfactory solution to inclusive practice. Indeed, acquiring information from a

sociological perspective is criticised for not offering any practical solutions to

delivery (Clough & Corbett, 2000). Good practice could be achieved by

establishing a regime of collaboration and mutual support where centralised

information and resources are shared, regularly updated and the utilisation of

internal and external expertise fully maximised (Macbeath et al, 2006).

There are wider developmental reasons why the College should adopt a more

learner focused approach to inclusive practice. A recent Government Green

Paper proposes the development of a single learning plan that would run

throughout a student’s educational life (Department for Education [DfE],

2012). It is suggested that this would need to be reviewed and maintained

through Further Education, Apprenticeships or other such training (Disability

Alliance, 2011). Recent reviews indicate a reduction in the emphasis on

assessment of SEN for identifying resource needs in favour of identifying

learning needs (Ellis et al, 2008). Personalised learning, whilst open to

interpretation, is seen as an emerging strategy for meeting the priorities of

inclusive practice (ibid, 2008); one that could be enhanced by utilising learner

specific biographies.

Conclusion

Like most FE institutions, the College tries to respond in a person-centred way

to enrolment disability/ALN data. However, the information gathered is based

Page | 13

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

on medical model style questions that compartmentalise disabilities and do

not take account of the learner’s personal learning needs.

The use of a supplementary questionnaire using questions based on the

social model would provide a more biographical picture of the learner, their

disabilities and the problems they face in life and educational settings.

Information which is centrally stored, maintained and accessible by all those

connected with the learner would provide a greater opportunity for the

collaboration: mutual support and sharing of resources needed to move the

College toward delivering a personalised learning experience that

demonstrates genuine inclusive practice.

Word Count: 3295 (109.83%)

Page | 14

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

References

Andron, L. (Ed.) (2001) Our Journey Through High Functioning Autism & Aspergers Syndrome – A Roadmap, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd

Armstrong, F. (2003) Spaced Out: Policy, Difference and the Challenge of Inclusive Education, In: Armstrong, F. & Barton, L. (2007) Inclusive Education: Cross Cultural Perspectives, 1, Volume 4, Policy, Experience and Change: Cross-Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education, pp 5-18, Springer [Online] Available at: https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/k79187m4q557p18u/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=3i1iueifokmzgkozliizx1qg&sh=www.springerlink.com [Accessed: 5th October 2012]

Barton, L. & Armstrong, F. (Eds.) (2008) Policy, experience and change: cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag [Online] Available at: http://www.dawsonera.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9781402051197 [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Barton, L. (ed.) (1998) The Politics of Special Educational Needs, Lewes: Falmer Press. In: Clough, P. & Corbett, J. (2000) Theories of Inclusive Education – A Student’s Guide, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd [Online] Available at: http://www.dawsonera.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9781857022292 [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Booth, T. (1999) ‘National Policies on Inclusion in England: How well are we doing?’ [Online] Available at: http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/tbooth.php [Accessed: 25th September 2012]

Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education [CSIE] (1997) Inclusive education: a framework for change. National and international perspectives.  Bristol: CSIE. [Online] Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/CSIE/inclusive%20ed.pdf [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Clough, P. & Corbett, J. (2000) Theories of Inclusive Education – A Student’s Guide, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd [Online] Available at: http://www.dawsonera.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9781857022292 [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Cole, B. (2006) ‘The perceived failure of inclusion and the challenge to educational professionals’. Debate No. 118. 30-35 The British Psychological Society. In: Ellis, S., Tod, J. & Graham-Matheson, L. (2008) SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION: Reflection and Renewal.

Page | 15

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Birmingham: National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers [NASUWT] [Online] Available at: http://www.g3ict.org/download/p/fileId_916/productId_229 [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Corker, M. & French, S. (eds.) (1999) Disability Discourse, Buckingham: Open University Press In: Armstrong, F. & Barton, L. (2007) Inclusive Education: Cross Cultural Perspectives, 1, Volume 4, Policy, Experience and Change: Cross-Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education, pp 5-18, Springer [Online] Available at: https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/k79187m4q557p18u/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=3i1iueifokmzgkozliizx1qg&sh=www.springerlink.com [Accessed: 5th October 2012]

Department for Education [DoE] (2008) Every School a Good School - A POLICY FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT [Online] Available at: http://www.deni.gov.uk/every_school_a_good_school_-_esags_-__pdf_.pdf [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

DoE (2011) Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability - A consultation, London: HMSO [Online] Available at: https://unilearn.hud.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-709635-dt-content-rid-1290750_1/courses/DHA4120-1213/DHA4120-1112_ImportedContent_20111003121019/Support%20and%20Aspiration%20DoE%202011.pdf [Accessed: 20th September 2012]

DoE (2012) REVIEW OF SEN AND INCLUSION - MINISTER’S PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION [Online] Available at: http://www.deni.gov.uk/minister_s_presentation_to_education_committee_-_website_version.pdf [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Department for Education [DfE] (2012) Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability - progress and next steps [Online] Available at: http://www.flse.org.uk/DfE-SEN-Review.htm [Accessed: 9th November 2012]

Department for Education and Employment [DfEE] (1997) Excellence for all children Meeting Special Educational Need, Suffolk: DfEE Publications [Online] Available at: https://unilearn.hud.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-709621-dt-content-rid-1290610_1/courses/DHA4120-1213/DHA4120-1112_ImportedContent_20111003121019/Excellence%20for%20All%20DfES%201997.pdf [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Department for Education and Schools [DfES] (2001) Special Educational Needs: ‘Code of Practice’, Ref: DfES/581/2001 London: Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. [Online] Available at:https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0581-2001-SEN-CodeofPractice.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Page | 16

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

DfES (2003) Every Child Matters. Cm 5860, Norwich: The Stationery Office [TSO] [Online] Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/CM5860.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

DfES (2005) Higher standards, better schools for all. London: DfES [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/633/633.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Department of Education Northern Ireland [DENI] (2005) Recording children with Special Educational Need. Northern Ireland: DENI In; Ellis, S., Tod, J. & Graham-Matheson, L. (2008) SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION: Reflection and Renewal. Birmingham: National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers [NASUWT] [Online] Available at: http://www.g3ict.org/download/p/fileId_916/productId_229 [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Department of Education and Science (DES) (1978) Report of the Commission onSpecial Education, Cmnd. 7212, London: HMSO, (Mrs H.M. Warnock Report) [Online] Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/warnock/warnock03.html [Accessed: 20th September 2012]

Disability Alliance (2011) Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability, London: Disability Alliance [Online] Available at: http://www.disabilityalliance.org/r73.doc [Accessed: 8th November 2011]

Education Act 1944, Chapter 31, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office [HMSO] [Online] Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/1944-education-act.pdf [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Education Act 1981, Chapter 60, London: HMSO [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/60/pdfs/ukpga_19810060_en.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Education Act 1993, Chapter 35, London: HMSO [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/35/pdfs/ukpga_19930035_en.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Education Act 1996, Chapter 56, London: HMSO In: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education [CSIE] (1997) Inclusive education: a framework for change. National and international perspectives.  Bristol: CSIE. [Online] Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/CSIE/inclusive%20ed.pdf [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Page | 17

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Ellis, S., Tod, J. & Graham-Matheson, L. (2008) SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION: Reflection and Renewal. Birmingham: National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers [NASUWT] [Online] Available at: http://www.g3ict.org/download/p/fileId_916/productId_229 [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Equality Act 2010, Chapter 15, London: HMSO [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Hebding, D.E. & Glick, L. (1991) Introduction to Sociology: A Text With Readings, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

House of Commons Education & Skills Committee (2006) Special Educational Needs Third Report of Session 2005–06, Volume 1, London: The Stationery Office Limited [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/478/478i.pdf [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, A. & Page, C. (2006) The Cost of Inclusion, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education

In: BBC News (2006) School inclusion 'can be abuse' [Online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/4774407.stm [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Norwich, B. (1999) ‘The connotation of special education labels for professionals in the field’ British Journal of Special Education 26 (4) pp 179-183 In: Ellis, S., Tod, J. & Graham-Matheson, L. (2008) SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND INCLUSION: Reflection and Renewal. Birmingham: National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers [NASUWT] [Online] Available at: http://www.g3ict.org/download/p/fileId_916/productId_229 [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

OFSTED (2000) Evaluating Educational Inclusion London: OFSTED [Online] Available at: http://www.inclusivechoice.com/files/evaluating_educational_inclusion_-_guidance_for_in.pdf [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

OFSTED (2004) SEN and Disability: Toward Inclusive Schools. London: OFSTED. [Online] Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/special-educational-needs-and-disability-towards-inclusive-schools [Accessed on: 28th October 2012]

OFSTED (2009) Common inspection framework for further education and skills 200. London: OFSTED [Online] Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/common-inspection-framework-for-further-education-and-skills-2009 [Accessed: 11th November 2012]

Page | 18

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Oliver, M. (1990) The politics of disablement. London: MacMillan In: DEMOS (2003) Oliver’s alternative questions to disability statistics compared with those used by the OPCS in 1988. [Online] Available at: http://jarmin.com/demos/course/awareness/oliver.html [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Peshkin, A. (1991) The Color of Strangers, The Color of Friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Richardson, R. (2009) Holding Together: equalities, difference and cohesion, a resource for school improvement planning, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books Limited In: Instead Consultancy (No Date) ‘Equalities in the UK: a timeline since 1918’, Equalities in education – paper 8 [Online] Available at: http://www.insted.co.uk/timeline.pdf [Accessed 30th September 2012]

Scottish Parliament (2001) ‘Official Report of Special Needs Enquiry’ In: Allan, J. (2003) Productive Pedagogies and the Challenge of Inclusion, British Journal of Special Education, 3 (4), p175-179

Shakespeare, T. & Watson, N. (2002) ‘The social model of disability: an outdated ideology?’ Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, pp. 9-28 [Online] Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/Shakespeare/social%20model%20of%20disability.pdf [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Slee, R. (2004) Inclusive education: a framework for school reform. In: Ainscow, M. (2007) ‘Taking an inclusive turn’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, (1) pp.3-7. [Online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00075.x/pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Smith, A. (2006) ‘Teachers urge rethink on inclusion policy’, The Guardian, July 13, [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jul/13/schools.uk [Accessed on 30th September 2012]

Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, Chapter 10, London: HMSO [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/10/pdfs/ukpga_20010010_en.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

The Open University (2006) Models of Disability [Online] Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/inclusiveteaching/pages/understanding-and-awareness/models-of-disability.php [Accessed: 20th September 2012]

Thomas, G & Loxley, A. (2001) Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion, Buckingham: Open University Press In: Ainscow, M. (2007) ‘Taking an inclusive turn’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, (1) pp.3-7. [Online] Available at:

Page | 19

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00075.x/pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Tomlinson, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul In: Clough, P. & Corbett, J. (2000) Theories of Inclusive Education – A Student’s Guide, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd [Online] Available at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Theories-Inclusive-Education-Students-Guide/dp/0761969411#reader_0761969411 [Accessed: 30th September 2012]

Tomlinson, S. (2005) ‘Inclusion’. The Guardian. April 19, [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/19/education.schools [Accessed: 5th October 2012]

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris, UNESCO/Ministry of Education, Spain. [Online] Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All, Paris: UNESCO [Online] Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001402/140224e.pdf [Accessed: 28th September 2012]

Wilde, O. (1992) The Picture of Dorian Gray, London: Wordsworth Editions Limited

Page | 20

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Appendix i

Page | 21

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Page | 22

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Appendix ii

HEALTH INFORMATION

Name: _______________________ Proposed Skill Area: ____________________

(Anything you put in here will be dealt with in the strictest confidence & will not be passed to an employer.) Note: As part of your job role, you might be CRB checked.

Listed below are aspects of health which can make some work activities difficult. In a few cases it is impossible to do some jobs because of a health problem. Usually though, most jobs are still OK but it does depend on how serious the problem is. If you think that any of them are, or could be a difficulty for you please circle the letter next to it.

A Hearing G Colour Vision M Diabetes

B Speech H Eyesight requiring glasses N Migraine

C Standing I Limited Vision O Epilepsy

D Walking J Breathing (e.g. Asthma) P Blackouts or fainting

EUse of hands/arms

Lifting/bendingK Skin Allergies Q Back Problems

F Working at heights L Dyslexia R Pregnancy

Any serious accidents from which you are still suffering? Yes No

If yes, please state:

Any long term medication: Any other difficulties:

Please declare any current/previous convictions. ‘Spent’ convictions need not be declared in accordance with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

I agree that the above information is a true record

Signed (Trainee) ___________________________ Signed (CT) _______________________________

Date _____________________________________

This section to be completed by Calderdale Training

Any limitations/restrictions or prohibitions imposed on health grounds?

Signed Learner (if applicable) Signed Calderdale Training (if applicable

Page | 23

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

_____________________________ _________________________________

Appendix iii

Oliver's alternative questions to assess disability statistics compared with those used by the OPCS in 1988

The Office for Population, Census & Surveys [OPCS] survey of 1988 used a standard set of questions to obtain information about individual's impairment. Oliver (1990) has criticised the approach taken by the OPCS because the main focus of the questions was based on a medical model of disability. Oliver suggested it would be more appropriate to ask questions that focus on the societal barriers that disabled people face in their lives:

This table compares OPCS questions to Oliver's alternative questions

OPCS Oliver

Can you tell me what is wrong with you? Can you tell me what is wrong with society?

What complaint causes your difficulty in holding, gripping or turning things?

What defect in the design of everyday equipment like jars, bottles and tins causes you difficulty in holding, gripping or turning them?

Are your difficulties in understanding people mainly due to a hearing problem?

Are your difficulties in understanding people mainly due to their inability to communicate?

Do you have a scar, blemish or deformity which limits your daily activities?

Do other people's reactions to any scar, blemish or deformity you may have limit your daily activities?

Have you attended a special school because of a long-term health problem or disability?

Have you attended a special school because of your educational authority's policy of sending people with your health problem/disability to such places?

Does your health problem/disability prevent you from going out as often or as far as you would like?

What is it about the local environment that makes it difficult for you to get about in your neighbourhood?

Does your health problem/disability make it difficult for you to travel by bus?

Are there any transport or financial problems which prevent you from going out as often or as far as you would like?

Does your health problem/disability affect your work in any way at present?

Do you have problems at work because of the physical environment or the attitudes of others?

Does your health problem/disability mean Are community services so poor that you need to

Page | 24

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

that you need to live with relatives or someone else who can help or look after you?

rely on relatives or someone else to provide you with the right level of personal assistance?

Does your present accommodation have any adaptations because of your poor health/disability?

Did the poor design of your home mean that you had to have it adapted to suit your needs?

Copied from:-

DEMOS (2003) Oliver's alternative questions to assess disability statistics compared with those used by the OPCS in 1988, [Online] Available at: http://jarmin.com/demos/course/awareness/oliver.html [Accessed: 28th October 2012]

Page | 25

DHA 4120 – Inclusive Learning 2012

Page | 26