Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Why is the capital D important?

Using a capital D for the word Disabled shows it is important to recognise that society continues to create barriers for people with impairments, and those barriers need to be removed. The capital D also shows that Disabled people have a shared identity and are part of a community that continues to fight for our rights and equality just like other groups in society like Black people or LGBT people.

Impairment and Disability, what’s the difference?

Impairment means a condition or diagnosis a person has such as physical or sensory impairment, learning difficulty, neurodiversity or mental health issues. Even though impairments bring their own challenges, having an impairment is not what makes someone a Disabled person. What disables people are the barriers that society creates for people with impairments.

For example, a wheelchair user is a Disabled person because the environment has not been made accessible for them, not because they are unable to walk. If they cannot enter a school building because there are no lifts, the lack of a lift is a barrier that has been created by society, and that is what disables them.

Another example is a person who has been diagnosed with neurodiversity (eg autism). What makes them a Disabled person is society’s response to their label of autism, not the autism. The response they receive can also be a barrier. For example, they may experience negative attitudes from other people. Another barrier might be if they struggle at school because curriculum content and teaching methods are often inflexible, and little is done to change this.

Even though Disabled people may have different impairments, the barriers that society creates are what they all have in common. That is why we use a capital D when we talk about Disabled people.

Find out about the social model of Disability.

“Life isn’t harder [for my daughter] because she’s suffering, life is harder because the facilities for her to have the same choices in life are not always there.” Rosalind, parent.

In the social model of disability, Disabled people are seen as being disabled not by their impairments (such as blindness or autism) but by society’s failure to take their needs into account. Being Disabled is part of the normal spectrum of human life: society must expect Disabled people to be there and include us.

For example if a wheelchair user can’t get into a building, the social model would state that the problem is that there is no ramp, not that the person is using a wheelchair.

This works much better for Disabled people than the medical model because it means they can access the full range of educational, employment, social and other opportunities as everyone else, and have equal lives.

In education, this means that not only buildings but the curriculum and whole school environment should be accessible to Disabled learners.

This is why ALLFIE argues that mainstream education should be inclusive of Disabled children and young people.

Traditionally, Disabled people were seen as being disabled by their impairments (eg blindness or autism). If you cure their impairments, the issue of how Disabled people fit into society goes away. Society doesn’t have to change to accommodate them.

For example if a wheelchair user can’t get into a building, the problem is seen as being that they are in a wheelchair, not that there is no ramp.

Unfortunately this doesn’t really work because not everyone can be cured so there will always be Disabled people. If they can’t access the same education, work and social opportunities as everyone else this has huge implications for their opportunities and quality of life.

Historically many Disabled people have been sent to special schools which have often been very medicalised. The child or young person’s education has been centred around their impairment, and how to minimise this. This doesn’t help the child or young person to become part of society, and it doesn’t help non-disabled children of the same age learn how to include them.

ALLFIE follows the social model of disability instead.

Reflections on DPOs and Young People Roundtable Event

Our Voice Youth Project Co- Lead, Yewande Akintelu-Omoniyi, reflects on how Disabled People’s Organisations can engage and empower Young Disabled people in leadership and activism work.

My name is Yewande Akintelu-Omoniyi. On the 15th of May 2025, I co facilitated the in-person DPOs and Young people event alongside Stronger Voices Project Lead, Lani Parker. Youth Parliamentary Co- Lead, Maresa MacKeith also attended. The event focused on how Disabled People Led Organisations (DPOs) can better engage Young Disabled people in leadership roles and activism. I also gave a speech on ALLFIE’s Our Voice project, about my role as Co-Lead, and project highlights and challenges so far.

It was my first time being part of a roundtable discussion of DPOs. I really enjoyed the experience. The roundtable format allowed everyone to share their thoughts and opinions freely in a safe space. It was interesting to hear DPOs thoughts and views about the work, the challenges involved in doing activism work with Young people, and the work they would like to do in the future.

To open the roundtable two questions were asked of the attendees:

  1. If you are over 30 what did good support look like did when you were younger? 
  2. If you are under 30 what does good support look like now? 

The answers for both questions were almost identical and included responses such as:

“A welcoming environment, a place where I can be myself, my access needs being considered, a place where I can feel seen and heard.”

These answers stood out to me because they showed that no matter what work we do with Young people, the core principles of supporting Young people don’t change. We need to keep these principles at the forefront of everything we do. Young Disabled people want somewhere they can belong, to feel like they are part of a community, and they want to be empowered.

When we examined the challenges DPOs face when involving Young people in activism and leadership work, a barrier that kept coming up was funding and resources. DPOs are funded mostly to do service delivery, with limited budgets, and are also often made to prioritise adult services. This creates problems with staff having not having enough time, capacity and money to do work with Young people. It angered me to hear the pressure that DPOs are under.

During my speech about the Our Voice project and the work we have done so far, I got the chance to share the project’s highlights so far, which include:

At the roundtable we also discussed the other barriers faced by DPOs when trying to engage Disabled Young people in leadership and activism work, which echoed the challenges our project has faced, including:

ALLFIE held the roundtable to further our support of other DPOs in the process of engaging Young people through the Stronger Voices project. DPOs were able to share good practice and how to support each other through barriers that they have faced. One DPO shared a great example of good practice – their organisation created a youth board of Disabled Young people.

In conclusion, being part of the roundtable showed me that DPOs want to do more work with Young people, but they cannot do that without proper funding. Funders need more understanding of how important activism and leadership work with Young people is and focus on giving DPOs the time, capacity and skills to work with them. Funding this work for Young people should be a priority for funders and is essential so that the Disabled People’s Movement work can continue and be sustainable for future generations.

ALLFIE is responding to news reports which suggest that the government are considering reforms to the SEND system including scrapping EHCP entirely. In response to this, our primary concern is the ongoing failure of the education system to adequately resource and support Disabled children and young people. This systemic failure continues to deny children and young people of their right to Inclusive Education and forces families into a traumatic, exhausting struggle to secure their child’s human rights. 

ALLFIE has always expressed concern about the needs-based approach which is primarily premised on resources and support that are available. The whole process of assessment is rooted in medical and deficit models that are not grounded in social justice or the right to Inclusive Education. The problem with needs-driven assessments is that they rely on bureaucratic evaluations, eligibility thresholds, and means-testing methods resulting in dehumanising experiences. 

These assessments are unstable, reactive, and reinforce discriminatory policies and practices. As a result, the education of Disabled children and young people is too often viewed as ‘charity’ rather than a human right and an entitlement. Needs-based systems ignore the systemic barriers that lead to discrimination within the education system and are usually disproportionately distributed towards families who have financial means and access to legal representation. 

ALLFIE believes the current SEND reform process and conversations about scrapping or restructuring EHCPs are not about providing Inclusive Education for Disabled children and young people. Instead, they are about balancing the books which is yet another attack on Disabled people’s rights to live as equal citizens and be included in society with dignity and humanity.  

Any changes to SEND support and ending of EHCP’s, we argue, must be intentional and focused on building a universal Inclusive Education system. This system should be based on the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) on article 24 (Inclusive Education), where all schools and colleges are resourced and supported that guarantees every child and young person receives their entitlement to Inclusive Education within an ordinary setting. 

The government must end individualised, needs-based and deficit models. These models are fundamentally flawed they create barriers and bureaucracy, and they undermine the use of public funding by treating the education of Disabled children and young people as a “need” rather than a right, devaluing their place in society. 

We need an education system that promotes systemic change, addresses inequality, and prioritises those who experience the most barriers without excluding others. The government must uphold rights, and the public must be able to demand justice through a framework that recognises Disabled children and young people’s education as a right and not a ‘special favour’. 

The government must end the cruel and harmful needs-based practice and replace it with a rights-based approach to Inclusive Education that guarantees support for every child and young person within mainstream settings. 

On 15 May 2025, ALLFIE’s Stronger Voices project hosted an important roundtable discussion focused on engaging young people in Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs). Lani says:

Whilst titles aren’t everything, when I reflect on the original title for this event, Engaging Young People in the Disabled People’s Movement, it doesn’t seem to go far enough for Young Disabled people.

The reality is Young Disabled people continue to be segregated in society. Whether in separate schools, colleges or other institutions, their lives are often removed from the mainstream. Young Disabled people are also often sidelined in activist spaces, despite their involvement in disability politics, and presence in social justice movements, such as those for racial and gender justice.

This gap is recognised and being addressed by organisations such as ALLFIE, for example with projects such as Our Voice and Future Movement Builders, designed to empower Young Disabled people. We believe the Disabled People’s Movement should be led by Disabled Young people, whose experiences are wide-ranging and diverse. But this presents a challenge in both funding and culture. We can’t ignore that currently, front and centre of the DPM, are an older generation of Disabled People whose experiences are invaluable but need to do more to engage with Disabled Young leaders and influencers. There seems to be a deep desire for such change. I was encouraged to see this roundtable discussion provided valuable space to explore these ideas. Here are my thoughts on what I learned through this event.

Capacity Building: Starting with Simple Questions

One of the roles of capacity building within the Disabled People’s Movement is to provide space for people to learn from and inspire each other. This often starts with personal reflections and questions.

At the event, participants were asked: What does (or did) good support look like to you when you were young?

Participants responded by highlighting  the need for welcoming spaces, bright smiles, and adults who genuinely see and listen to young people. They envisioned places where everyone can be themselves, where access needs are met (as best as they can be), and where connections, skills, and confidence are cultivated.

These themes were also echoed by young people who took part in a focus group that informed the roundtable structure. They expressed a desire to be treated with respect and dignity, requesting support that builds their confidence and shows genuine listening. None of these ideas are revolutionary but embedding them into our practice may require slowing down and creating space for everyone to grow, challenging existing norms, and re-evaluating potential barriers.

The Social Model of Disability: From Generations to Evolution

Another key discussion revolved around the use of the Social Model of Disability. Some attendees observed that the older generation’s application of the model can sometimes inadvertently close doors rather than open them: Young people feel they need to:

Take the social model, reinterpret it, and make it relevant to .

They also stressed the value of integrating other frameworks, such as intersectionality.

Generational Disconnects and Innovations

The roundtable also explored generational disconnects within DPOs, many of which are shaped by limited resources, small staff teams, and a focus on adult service delivery. Despite these challenges, several organisations are undertaking inspiring efforts,

These initiatives are paving the way for other DPOs to adopt similar approaches in their own unique contexts. Activism, as noted by one attendee, is not something young people simply step into but requires confidence, encouragement, and sustained support.

Bridging Generational Gaps

As a result of the day’s conversations, an older participant made a heartfelt promise at the end of the event: not to become set in their ways. The generational gap was further discussed in terms of social media activism, with recognition that not all young people have access to these platforms. These gaps require thoughtful navigation and understanding to ensure inclusivity.

Voices of Young Activists

Yewande Akintelu-Omoniyi, ALLFIE’s Our Voice Project Co-Lead, spoke about some positive outcomes and ongoing challenges faced while working with young people on campaigns. Yewande’s reflections underscore the importance of creating spaces for young voices to be heard and ensuring that DPOs address the unique needs of emerging activists.

To conclude my thoughts on this event – the journey towards transforming the DPO movement to centre young people remains complex but deeply necessary. I am encouraged that the event provided a platform for dialogue, hope, and the beginnings of meaningful change.

Inclusion Now 47 Summer 2017

An experience of residential special school, lessons from Canada, the use of creative baking in geography and more…

Welcome to Inclusion Now 47. Audio and text versions are in the articles below.

To receive three issues of Inclusion Now a year on publication date, you can subscribe here. Subscribing supports our work and helps us plan for the future.

Inclusion Now is produced in collaboration with World of Inclusion and Inclusive Solutions

October 2017: ALLFIE has submitted evidence to the Greater London Authority (GLA) review on the current state of play for disabled children and young people in London’s schools. Disabled pupils in London are more likely to face barriers to mainstream, and to end up in segregated education, than those from anywhere else in the UK. ALLFIE is calling on London’s Mayor to government for the full implementation of Article 24.

Submission to the GLA Investigation into SEND Provision in London

Who is ALLFIE?

The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) is a national campaigning and information-sharing network led by Disabled people. We campaign for all Disabled pupils and students to have the right to be included in mainstream education with all necessary support. ALLFIE believes that education should support the development of physical, vocational and academic abilities through mixed-ability tuition in mainstream schools so that all students have the opportunity to build relationships with one another. We believe that a fully inclusive education system will benefit everyone.

ALLFIE has over 25 years’ experience of campaigning at a strategic level for Disabled people’s rights to inclusive education; we have taken a lead on lobbying for legislation such as the Children and Families, Equality and Education Acts to reflect Disabled pupils’ and students’ human rights to inclusive education. ALLFIE played an instrumental role in securing Government’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities including Article 24, the state’s obligation to promote and develop an inclusive education system.

Relevant current statistics on SEND

7% (0.9 million) of children under 16 in the UK are Disabled . 1,492,950 children in English schools have been identified with special education needs . In the capital, 204,000 children and young people have SEN. 41,000 of the capital’s SEN population have high needs and either have an SEN statement or EHCP; 162,800 have low to medium needs and some form of SEN support but will not have a SEN statement or EHCP. Overall, there is a higher percentage of pupils with SEN in the capital than in other regions – 18.3% of pupils in London compared to the national figure of 17.9% . Between 2016 and 2017 the number of pupils with EHCPs grew by 4.2%, around three times the 1.3% growth rate for the general pupil population.

Whilst London has a greater percentage of pupils in mainstream education compared to the mean for all English regions , nevertheless there are worrying statistics suggesting that segregated education for Disabled people in the majority of impairment categories is on the increase.

Numbers of pupils in London special schools by type of need

Type of need 2010 2017 (2010-2017) % change
Autistic Spectrum Disorder 2910 5390 2480 +85%
Severe Learning Difficulties 2540 3154 614 +24%
Profound & Multiple Learning Difficulties 1140 1558 418 +37%
Speech, Language and Communication Needs 680 874 194 +29%
Specific Learning Difficulty 100 214 114 +114%
Multi-Sensory Impairment 40 60 20 +50%
Visual Impairment 220 226 6 +3%
Hearing Impairment 190 182 -8 -4%
Moderate Learning Difficulty 1850 1617 -233 -13%
Physical Disability 680 390 -290 -43%

(from London Councils (Do The Sums September 2017))

Response to the SEND Review Questions

The Children and Families Act makes a distinction between disabled children and children with SEN, However, ALLFIE does not make a distinction between disability and special educational needs (SEN); an overwhelming majority of children with SEN would fall under the Equality Act’s definition of a Disabled person. The language of SEN inhibits equality and inclusion because it focuses on the perceived deficits in the child – “what’s wrong” rather than what support is needed to facilitate the child’s participation in learning.

Therefore ALLFIE chooses use the term Disabled pupils to include those with SEN because we take a Social Model of Disability approach . Currently there is little understanding about what Inclusive Education is and what it looks like in practice. Many people use the word inclusion to describe integration or indeed subtle forms of segregation. As a consequence there is much confusion around what we understand to be inclusive education and what constitutes good practice. Special school professionals sometimes describe their schools as inclusive because they admit Disabled children with different impairments and abilities. Such a view can lead to unhelpful misunderstandings and conflicts around the inclusion of Disabled pupils and students in mainstream education. So ALLFIE believes it is necessary to explain clear distinctions between segregation, integration and inclusion.

Further, the Children and Families Act fails to provides any explanation of what constitutes good inclusive education practice. So for ALLFIE it is vital that there is a clear understanding of what is meant by different terms used to describe and explain various practices that disabled pupils experience in our education system – in this case segregation, integration and inclusive education practice –

Segregation

Disabled people of all ages and/or pupils and students with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being placed in any form of segregated education setting. This tends to force Disabled people to lead separate lives. For example: separate special school or college, separate unit within mainstream school/college or separate segregated courses within mainstream education settings.

Integration

Disabled people of all ages and/or pupils and students with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being placed in mainstream education settings with some adaptations and resources, but on condition that the Disabled person and/or learner with an SEN label can fit in with pre-existing structures, attitudes and an unaltered environment. For example: the child is required to “fit in” to what already exists in the school.

Inclusion

Disabled people of all ages and/or pupils and students with ‘Special Educational Needs’ labels being educated in mainstream education settings alongside their nonDisabled peers, where there is a commitment to removing all barriers to the full participation of everyone as equally valued and unique individuals. For example Inclusion involves and includes staff attitudes, curriculum approaches and teaching strategies that we take to ensure that no pupils and students are excluded or isolated from the education on offer. In other words, we all work to create a culture where all pupils and students feel welcome, accepted, safe, valued and confident that they will get the right support to assist them to develop their talents and achieve their goals at whatever level.

These definitions are supported by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities who use similar definitions in the recently published UNCRPD General Comment No.4 on Inclusive Education.

One of the biggest strengths of the CFA2014 is the presumption of mainstream education for all Disabled pupils and students regardless of ability. Prior to the CFA2014 Disabled Pupils with SEN without an Education Health & Care Plan (EHCP) had to be properly supported in mainstream schools. However the CFA2014 changed the legal framework and now Disabled pupils & students with SEN without an ECHP can be placed in a special school permanently if a special academy contract with the DFE allows it. Disabled pupils and students with SEN and ECHP must be placed in a mainstream school unless it is incompatible with the parents’ wishes or where no reasonable steps taken by the LA can remove the incompatibility with the efficient education of other pupils.

Whilst in principle there is the presumption of mainstream education in the CFA2014, nevertheless government policies and schools’ practices undermine the effectiveness of this legal provision. From our research, we have found that Disabled pupils living in London face greater challenges in accessing mainstream education than pupils living elsewhere.
London has a very competitive education system even though the overwhelming majority of state funded schools are prohibited from any form of academic or aptitude selection. Market forces, school accountability systems and reputation within the community are having a particular impact upon local authorities’ and schools’ ability to promote inclusive education practice. As a result of national government’s education policies, there has been a steady decline in the number of Disabled pupils entering mainstream schools. At the same time there has been a steady increase of Disabled pupils being moved into special schools, including within 52 residential settings as a consequence of the government’s savage cuts to local services.

Within the capital there has been a reported 23% increase of students in special school provision between 2011 and 2016 . These dire figures were picked up in the recently published Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities who concluded that the government have made insufficient progress in the implementation of Disabled pupils’ and students’ human rights to inclusive education under the UN Convention on Rights for Persons with Disabilities Article 24. Amongst the recommendations, the UK government has been told they should review and amend the Children and Families Act 2014 and the 2010 Equality Act to be more compliant with their Article 24 obligations to work towards a fully inclusive education system that welcomes all pupils and students.

ALLFIE has identified a range of policies that have undermined the CFA2014 presumption of mainstream education, for example:

School Admissions

Increasingly schools and multiple academies trusts are choosing to become their own admissions authorities, allowing head teachers control over their school admissions arrangements. 19 out of 24 London boroughs surveyed had evidence of academies resisting or refusing to admit a Disabled pupils with SEN (London Councils 2017). Furthermore, 13 out of 23 boroughs had come across academies offloading Disabled pupils with SEN inappropriately.

Many schools will use some form of academic assessment test to assist them with recruiting pupils with a range of abilities. Whilst in most cases academies are not allowed to select children by academic ability, nevertheless various schools are using fair banding assessment tests to manipulate their school pupil intake to favour high-achieving pupils; the practice is more common across London than in other regions.

The banding testing system has been reported to disadvantage children of parents from poor socio-economic backgrounds; many of these families will include Disabled children with SEN. Moreover, Disabled pupils will experience additional barriers which will place them at a disadvantage compared to their non-Disabled peer group.

“Well, if you are referring to the banded entry tests, it’s a flat test with no provision for needy children’. I said ‘my son is autistic, not needy’ and she said ‘we have a good dyslexia suite’ … I said ‘he’s autistic, not dyslexic’. Bizarre.” (Parent on Mumsnet 2011)

Parents of Disabled children have reported that fair banding test systems can be managed in a manner that manipulates the type of population intake the school wants to recruit. London schools wanting to recruit a favourable “selective” distribution of pupils will skew the proportion of pupils towards those from the average and above average ability range. Such an approach discriminates against Disabled pupils wanting to secure mainstream school placements.

The London Borough of Greenwich fair banding system permitted 20% of pupils from one of five separate ability bands to be allocated a school placement. However, from 2017 the distribution of pupils from various ability bands were changed; 40%, 40% and 20% proportions of pupils who were expected to exceed, attain or work towards achieving at key stage 2 level would be allocated a school placement. (Mumsnet 2017) The changes in the fair banding system have caused concern amongst parents of Disabled children and young people.

“I’m aware of at least three band 3 children, all with identified dyslexia, who’ve missed out on places at Greenwich schools that they could reasonably have expected to get into over the past five or so years. My feeling is that the removal of a standardised test, coupled with an uneven/unrepresentative distribution of places across the bands unreasonably disadvantages children in band 3.” (Mumsnet 2017) Many Disabled pupils would be losing out on a mainstream school across London because their parents have refused to present their Disabled children for testing, for fear of failure or making them more anxious etc.

The BBC recently reported that London schools were more likely than any other region to game on the school performance league tables.

“There is too much emphasis on numbers, particularly improving SATs results, at the expense of a healthy working and learning environment.” (Couxee 2017)

Whilst the government believes having the attainment and Progress 8 targets will encourage schools to focus on the attainment of all their pupils, we have heard the contrary.

“Then they became an academy, and they got a new Head in, who came from a secondary school, and one of the things he said, and that horrified me, well, he looked at the data and he said ‘It looks like our special needs kids will have to shape up or ship out’. And it became a Church of England school. And I felt like writing to the church about that, because I said ‘That is absolutely horrific, for a Head Teacher to come in and take a school that was so inclusive and come out with nonsense, nastiness like that.” (Oliver, NUT, London Borough of Lewisham, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Despite the ‘presumption of mainstream education in law, schools are not complying with their legal duties under the CFA2014 because the school admissions and schools accountability system reforms which provide them with opportunities to deny school placements to Disabled pupils.

Since 2010 the then coalition government and now the Conservative government have taken an ideological decision to prioritise the funding of segregated education over mainstream education for Disabled pupils. The government has committed to funding 15 new special schools across the capital. The GLA estimated that 5,250 additional school placements are needed for SEN pupils; according to GLA statistics approximately a third of pupils with SEN on statements / EHCPs across the capital will be educated in special schools (GLA statistics provided during GLA’s Assembly Education Panel meeting 2017).

When new special schools are being funded, the expectation is that LAs will place Disabled children in segregated education which goes against the principle of the presumption of mainstream education for Disabled pupils. The more funding that is ploughed into special schools, the fewer resources are available for Disabled pupils attending mainstream schools across the capital.

Whilst the school funding reforms are having a negative impact upon schools and the educational outcomes of their pupils, research found that the capital’s schools will be particularly affected by budgetary cuts.

ALLFIE does not provide an official advice helpline, however in the last 18 months we have received an increasing number of telephone calls and emails from both parents and Disabled students about cuts to their local SEND support services and/or the decline in the quality of SEND provision and support available in mainstream schools.

London Councils and the City of London estimate that 70% of the 1,500 schools within the capital will experience a reduction in their school budgets; London schools will face the brunt of the cuts as National Funding Formula (NFF) funding does not adequately reflect the additional costs associated with working, living and running a school within the capital.
“Resources that Local Authorities have under ‘Achieving for Children’ are very tight.” (Inclusion London evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

The London Councils’ Talking Heads report found that the impact of the school budget cuts will affect Disabled pupils more than any other group of pupils. For instance:

“70% of primary schools have already reduced their numbers of Teaching Assistants, impacting especially on children with Special Educational Needs…”

This is unsurprising as Disabled pupils and students with SEN are more likely to rely upon the additional support and pastoral care provided by non-teaching staff. There has been substantial cuts to teaching assistants, speech and language therapy, literacy specialists, counselling services, family support and SENCOs across London. Robert Primary School sums up the dire situation for mainstream schools with an inclusive ethos in which school budget cuts have affected educational outcomes for Disabled pupils.

“A special needs worker, who spent more than 15 years at the school before quitting last year, said: ‘I had a lengthy service at the school, and I’m not opposed to change, but I’m upset that the work that’s been done [in the past] is not being respected… There’s hardly any special needs provision anymore, teachers are coming and going, teaching assistants are leaving – it’s ripped the heart out of the school.” (Islington Tribune 28th April 2017)

The cuts are also having an adverse effect upon the inclusivity and quality of support that Disabled pupils and students can expect to receive whilst in mainstream education.

“A huge impact … While the teacher works with everybody, the TA will generally work, more concentratedly, with individuals one to one who need that extra support. And in many schools in Lewisham, they’re just getting rid of them, making them redundant, because of cuts. And really, it’s quite horrifying. They’re saying, in some schools, yes, you’ll have interventions still going on, but the children will be withdrawn from the class, and that’s not a good thing. It won’t be done with their usual class TA under the direction of the teacher, it will be them doing some intervention that maybe they don’t need to do. It could be that in some schools they’re only getting an intervention once a week, and it’s not going to be tailored to an individual child’s needs, or even to half the group. They may only get like one hour, perhaps, a week.” (Owen, NUT, London Borough of Lewisham, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

The impact of TA cuts affects the quality of interventions and support that Disabled pupils and students need to access mainstream education. In some instances, pupils and students are being taken out of mainstream lessons in order to participate in group based interventions such as social skills or phonics without sufficient attention given towards the individual pupil’s needs and their educational outcomes.

The impact of cuts to London’s schools will adversely affect educational outcomes for Disabled pupils and students and their general wellbeing and future life chances.

“More worryingly, children will be included in mainstream but with little or none of the support they need. I think it is even more damaging to put the child into a setting without having thought through what they need. Simply securing an EHCP doesn’t mean it will happen – you have, as a parent, to sit on top of the situation and monitor this day by day.” (Inclusion London evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Disabled pupils are at a disadvantage compared to their peers outside London in terms of accessing not only SEN support, but also local health and social care services and other support services that would facilitate their inclusion into mainstream schools. Accessing nursery education can be challenging. Margaret sent her daughter Kim to a mainstream nursery attached to a church. The problems arose when the nursery refused to accommodate her needs as an autistic child:

“Staff refused to allow my daughter to settle into the nursery over a longer period of time with my support. This led to my daughter crying hysterically until we picked her up from nursery. The nursery complained that my daughter was taking up too much of the teacher assistant’s time and she’d just have to get used to it. I decided that she needed help from a SENCO. To my utter amazement and disgust, it was the woman in charge who had refused to be in any way flexible or understanding. I refused to send my daughter back to this nursery. She then attended a special nursery, not out of choice.” (parent, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Cuts to school budgets have placed extra pressure on local authorities’ high needs funding. Various SEN provision that would have been provided for SEN pupils within the school’s overall dedicated budget is no longer possible without additional funding to make up the shortfall through the pupil’s SEN statement or EHCP.

Parents increasingly face barriers in securing EHCP assessments and plans in a timely manner. Carmel McDermott, SEN helpline advisor at Contact a Family (London), reported that parents are routinely told that

“They will have to wait for professionals such as educational psychologists or speech and language therapists to carry out assessments and observations at school until funding is available.” (Contact For Families with Disabled Children 2016)

Schools are reporting similar problems in getting the professional health and social care support they need in a timely manner, particularly for pupils with social and emotional difficulties associated with their impairment or mental health condition. Without early and timely professional intervention to facilitate children with behavioural difficulties, schools feel they can do no more, other than to exclude them permanently.

All these cuts to services will not only have a negative impact upon the Disabled child’s outcomes but also the efficient education of other pupils. Without the ready availability of support services, Disabled pupils’ behaviour and learning deteriorates, which will have a negative impact upon the efficient education of other pupils. As LAs are not under a legal duty to provide the full range of support services that all Disabled pupils require to flourish in mainstream education, they can rely upon the C&F Act’s inefficient education of other pupils to place children with SEN into segregated education if engaged in the ECH process.
Families are left in situations where they can no longer facilitate their child’s inclusion in their local schools and wider community. Parents do not actively choose residential special schools and colleges. On the contrary research indicates many parents (up to 84%) want their child to be educated with appropriate support in a local school whilst living at home.
NASS research in 2012 highlighted that in fact:

“Placements are generally made when the placing Local Authority has been unable to meet the needs of the child or young person through their own (local) provision.”

London has a higher proportion of children with SEND educated in independent provision than the rest of England, which accounts for 9.2% of all SEND places in London compared to 6.6% nationally (Do the Maths London Councils 2017 p 31). The cost of placements in independent provision is placing significant pressure on high needs budgets in London. Although the DfE is spending more on children with SEND in London, the report also indicated that the allocation of Basic Needs funding for mainstream schools is insufficient to include specialist and flexible provision which promotes inclusion in mainstream schools (Do the Maths 2015). Such financial pressures are having an impact upon families wanting to secure mainstream education provision. This experience is supported by Scope:

“Families were often forced to make difficult choices, in some instances be apart so that they could receive all the support they needed. I decided on RSS for Mark because unfortunately there was no other choice for him. No local school would accept him or be able to meet his needs.” (Julie, parent, London Borough of Lambeth)

“We were told that, for children like our son, with severe learning disabilities and non-verbal, inclusion was not ‘meaningful’, that there were no options and that he would have to go to a special school, even if we didn’t want it. How could a little boy go from living at home with his loving family and attending his local primary school to being sent away to a residential school?” (Jane (not real name), London Borough of Wandsworth, evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

Disabled children who have attended residential special schools are more likely to experience severe mental health problems, requiring in-patient psychiatric treatment under section according to the Mental Health Act 1983. Whilst Lenehan (2017) reported an increased trend of institutionalised care provided for Disabled pupils across the UK, Brodie London Councils 2014) noted that London boroughs are more likely than other regions to be placing Disabled pupils with complex needs in independent residential institutional provision provided by large service providers.

The Children and Families Act is weak on promoting Disabled pupils’ civil and human rights to inclusive education. Currently the law does not give Disabled pupils an absolute right to mainstream education; it is conditional, that the child’s education does not impede the efficient education of other pupils and where no reasonable steps can be taken to remove the incompatibility. With shrinking budgets, resources and lack of services, what is considered reasonable becomes determined by the size and availability of the budgets and funding of resources and service infrastructure. As a consequence, many of these children are left unsupported which has an impact upon their wellbeing in mainstream education. Too often, the mainstream school placement breaks down and families struggling to get the support their child needs often leads to LAs only offering a special school placement. The CFA2014 allows LAs the right to place children with SEN into special schools against the wishes of the child and parents which is incompatible with UNCRPD Article 24 obligations.
Overall since London as a region and the individual London Boroughs lost overall control over the planning of school placements, provision and admissions we have noticed an absence of strategic oversight on inclusive education, particularly as a consequence of government removing the statutory Inclusive Education Guidance. Individual schools are now more autonomous, competing against each other for pupils and with reduced funding, and this has had a dire impact upon the progress we would have liked to see in improving the capacity of mainstream schools as a whole to deliver on inclusive education practice. Such a state of affairs has weakened the LA’s and parents’ ability to secure great inclusive education provision within a local area and across all schools.

Too often Disabled pupils’ inclusion is determined by the good will of the individual authority, education institution or service provider. Current education legislation and policy does not foster a consistent and coherent approach to supporting Disabled pupils into mainstream education. For instance Frank (not his real name), a parent of a Disabled child with learning difficulties and physical impairments, talked about the very good support that he received from the Hackney Learning Trust before a 48% reduction in the early years support services.

“The support I got from Hackney Learning Trust was amazing. I had support that was kind and tender which help me accept my son’s disability and helped me through the Education, Health and Care assessment and planning process. The HLT went into the mainstream nursery to show the staff how to communicate and integrate my son into play activities with his non-Disabled peers. The staff taught my son play-skills. HLT also helped the family so that we knew how to communicate using Makaton signs, and play with him. In addition, my son received on-going speech and language and occupational therapy support. Now my son is settling into a mainstream primary school.” (evidence to ALLFIE 2017)

From ALLFIE’s experience good practice is often determined by aspirational individuals with a commitment to inclusive education despite the legislation. ALLFIE highlights a wide range of good practice within mainstream schools and supported by LAs across the country in our Inclusion Now magazine. Each edition of the magazine includes an example of good practice in London schools such as Eastlea Secondary School (London Borough of Newham Inclusion Now Issue 45) and Wroxham Primary School (London Borough of Barnet Inclusion Now Issue 44)

Whilst ALLFIE is pleased to read that promoting inclusive education is part of the Mayor of London’s ‘Vision for a Diverse and Inclusive City’ nevertheless the focus is very narrow. The Mayor’s focus on Disabled children and young people’s educational outcomes appears to look solely at academic achievement and the gaps in GCSE attainment.

Whilst ALLFIE recognises that academic attainment is an important measure, we believe the central goal of education is to promote inclusivity of achievement – and the promotion of multiple ways for pupils and students to demonstrate their learning and progress. It is only when pupils play, learn, work and relate together that London will become a world class city that welcomes all regardless of ability and background.

In order to achieve an inclusive education system it is necessary that the Mayor of London, London Assembly and Greater London Authority consider measures and targets which are more far-reaching than whether individual Disabled pupils will or will not achieve academic benchmarks. For many Disabled pupils, such as those with profound learning difficulties, they will not attain academic standards set for non-Disabled pupils. However, regardless of ability, all Disabled pupils have an unqualified human right to be taught alongside their non-Disabled peer group in mainstream schools as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 24.

We see a role for the Mayor of London in promoting inclusive education practice. We believe that the Mayor could develop an inclusive education strategic plan to support the development and sharing of great inclusive education practice across the capital. The Mayor of London has already signed up to the London Disabled People’s Manifesto Key Asks for education, which are:

The Mayor of London and GLA to oversee a London Inclusive Education challenge, a school improvement programme with the aim of championing inclusive education practice by:

ALLFIE recognises that the Mayor of London has limited power to develop a well-resourced fully inclusive education system across the capital. However, we believe the role of the Mayor should be to champion inclusive education and challenge government legislation and policy which undermine Disabled pupils’ rights to participate in mainstream education in line with the UNCRPD Article 24. We would like the Mayor to lobby for:

We would also like the Mayor to take on a London-wide strategic statutory role to fund and work with councils to develop inclusive education, with the aim of developing all schools’ capacity to promote inclusive education.

For further information please contact:

Tara Flood, Director of ALLFIE

or Simone Aspis, Campaigns & Policy Coordinator at ALLFIE

 

 

The UK government’s claim to be a ‘world leader in disability issues’ has today been crushed by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The committee has released damning concluding observations on the UK, following its first review of the government’s compliance with the convention. The education highlights of the press conference held by the UN Committee on the Rights of Disabled People at this afternoon are:

The Observations conclude last week’s public examination of the UK government’s record on delivering disabled people’s rights. The examination was declared by the UK rapporteur Mr Stig Langvad, to be “the most challenging exercise in the history of the Committee”. Mr Langvad raised deep concerns on the UK government’s failure to implement the rights of disabled people.

Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) were hailed as the genuine “world leaders” for their efforts in bringing to light the injustices and human rights violations inflicted on disabled people in the UK.

Tara Flood, Director of the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) said, “We are delighted that the Committee has highlighted the government’s shocking disregard for the human rights of Disabled children and young people to be included in mainstream education and we welcome the committee’s call for a strategy to end the segregation and institutionalisation of children and young people from their families and communities. As the Chair of the committee, Theresia Degener, stated last week ‘inclusive education is not a choice, it is a human right’. Our work to turn that right into a reality begins today with renewed energy and the force of the world alongside us!”

Notes to editors

The Alliance for Inclusive Education raises the alarm on the UK government’s appalling disability rights record to the United Nations

The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) and other Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) from across the United Kingdom, will today attend the United Nations in Geneva to highlight the government’s ongoing human rights violations.

The UN Disability Committee is reviewing the UK’s progress in implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for the first time. The UK government ratified the Convention in 2009. DDPOs will tell the Committee that the government has ignored many of the questions put to it earlier this year as part of the review process. It will consider the government’s response to its questions and the DDPOs’ observations before quizzing representatives from the UK and devolved governments in Geneva later this week (23 and 24 August).

Referring to the government’s submission for the investigation, Tara Flood, ALLFIE’s Director said:

“To date the government has produced no evidence to show how it is meeting its obligations to build a fully inclusive education system. In truth the Government has done everything that it can to reverse any progress towards inclusive education. The Government’s own statistics show that the numbers of Disabled pupils and students with Special Educational Needs in mainstream education has declined year on year since ratification of the Convention in 2009.

The Government is guilty of a blatant disregard for disabled people’s human rights in the UK and this week in Geneva we have a further opportunity to share with the UN Disability Committee updated information showing that the segregation of Disabled children and young people continues to rise and how the right of Disabled children and young people to be fully included in mainstream education with all necessary supports, is being systemically denied.”

The DDPOs will also point to the government’s failure to act on the recommendations of a separate inquiry report the committee published last December. The UN special inquiry, which was triggered by the DDPOs, concluded that:

“…there is reliable evidence that the threshold of grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities has been met in the State party.”

The DDPOs’ submission was co-produced by Reclaiming our Futures Alliance (including ALLFIE), Inclusion Scotland, People First Scotland, DRUK, Disability Wales, Disability Action Northern Ireland, British Deaf Association and Black Triangle.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

  1.  The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities investigation is assessing what steps the UK has taken to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. The committee is a body of experts, nominated and elected by governments. The majority of committee members are disabled people.
  2. The committee postponed its scheduled assessment of the UK (originally due in 2015) to hold a special inquiry into complaints by DDPOs that the government’s welfare reform policies had violated disabled people’s rights. The current assessment looks at a much wider set of issues, including our laws on mental health and mental capacity, employment policies and education.
  3. Before examining UK and devolved government representatives on Wednesday and Thursday the committee will meet with representatives of DDPOs to discuss their views on the formal written response already tabled by the UK government. The DDPOs have prepared their own submission as highlighted above.
  4. A copy of the government’s response to the ‘List of Issues’ produced by the UN committee is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disabled-peoples-rights-information-for-the-uks-first-periodic-review/list-of-issues-in-relation-to-the-initial-report-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-government-response
  5. ROFA is an alliance of Disabled People and their organisations in England including Inclusion London, Equal Lives, Alliance for Inclusive Education, Sisters of Frida, National People First and Disabled People Against Cuts. For more information see: www.rofa.org.uk

Press/TV/Radio: Interviews with Tara Flood, Director, ALLFIE: 07932750667

For more information about ALLFIE

10% decline of Disabled pupils with SEN attending mainstream schools is a shocking indictment of the Government’s lack of commitment to human rights. General Election press release.

Leading disability education charity, the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE) is calling for political parties to support the human right of Disabled pupils to an inclusive education and put a stop to the flood of Disabled pupils with SEN disappearing from mainstream education. The Department for Education has just released their SEN statistics showing a stark decline of Disabled pupils with SEN on the roll of mainstream schools. Over the seven years of Conservative Party rule, there has been around a 10% decline of Disabled pupils with SEN attending mainstream school – the majority of pupils with high needs are now on the roll of special schools.

ALLFIE wants the political parties to consider the high price that will be paid by Disabled pupils of increased selective and segregated education coupled with a drop in SEN support funding in mainstream. Earlier this year the LGA warned the political parties that school funding levels will not be sufficient to meet all aspects of Local Authority statutory duties.

When the state is paying up to £250,000 for residential special school placements, clearly decisions are not based on cost effectiveness. The Department for Education and Local Authorities are clearly willing to withhold resources from local services whilst spending vast sums on residential special education placements. It is also clear that the Government’s 2010 ideology of a ‘bias towards inclusion’ continues to be at the heart of their funding and policy decisions. ALLFIE is therefore calling on each of the political parties to support our two General Election asks:

ALLFIE’s Director, Tara Flood said

“the UK Government is clearly happy to repeatedly breach its global obligation to protect Disabled people’s human rights at a time when human rights, equality and inclusion should be at the heart of everything this country stands for – it is an absolute scandal that Disabled pupils are being denied their right to thrive in mainstream”.

For more information please contact: Tara Flood – 07932750667 or Simone Aspis – 07467797 453

ENDS

Editors Notes

For information about ALLFIE and our General Election’s campaign work

Department for Education Statements of SEN and EHC plans : England 2017

Department for Education Statements of SEN and EHC plans : England 2016

The Department for Education has consulted on refining the High Needs funding formula that will be used to distribute funding for children with special education needs. Whilst the consultation focused on the High Needs formula we felt this was a good opportunity to highlight the negative impact of the government’s shocking cuts upon disabled pupils’ access to mainstream education, and the false economy of the state spending huge sums of money per pupil for a special school placement whilst starving the mainstream school system of the necessary support that disabled pupils need to thrive.

Question 7

Do you have any suggestions about the level of flexibility we should allow between schools and high needs budgets in 2019-20 and beyond?
Yes, we believe that LAs and schools should have flexibility about how the high needs budget can be used to maximise inclusive education practice across all individual schools. We understand the government have agreed to allow LAs and school committees to retain full flexibility in allocating the delegated school and high needs budgets.

Question 8

Are there further considerations we should be taking into account about the proposed high needs national funding formula?

In our response to this consultation we would like to state that we welcome the extra cash injection into SEND and we had hoped the government would use it in a manner that was compliant with their obligations under Article 24 of the UNCRPD and the presumption of mainstream education. However we have concerns about some of the suggested guidance.

Whilst the high needs consultation mainly focused on refining the high needs funding formula to improve allocation of funding for Disabled pupils with SEN, we are concerned that the government’s overall education funding policy will adversely affect the development of an inclusive education system. We believe that an improved funding formula will have a notional benefit for both schools and individual pupils unless changes to the funding of education and Disabled pupils with SEN since the Academies Act 2010 are reviewed as a matter of course.

The withdrawal of the Inclusive Schooling Guidance and the subsequent loss of the Local Authority coordination role, backed by resources to promote and champion inclusive education practice across all their mainstream schools, has resulted in schools being unable to support many disabled pupils with SEN. ALLFIE believes that the funding of Disabled pupils with SEN needs an overhaul as a matter of urgency, to ensure that all schools have the resources and are incentivised to take their fair share of Disabled pupils with SEN in their local communities.

Download Allfie’s full response

Supported by

ALLFIE’s campaign for Inclusive Education as a human right is backed by funders and donors who reject the systemic segregation of Disabled people from society.