Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

I am a teacher and an AAC practitioner. AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) refers to the use of low-tech, paper-based boards or high tech, computer-based programmes to help a person communicate.

Jane is 11 and starts secondary school next year. She has cerebral palsy and uses a communication book to talk. She attends her local mainstream junior school and everything was fine until national curriculum changes came into force in 2014. Teachers were concerned for all students because they were being asked to jump two years of learning with no lead-in time. Jane is not able to work at a pace to fill the gap and was already behind her peers in literacy, not because she has learning difficulties but because she has access difficulties. If you can’t hold a pen to write and you can’t rehearse phonics aloud you will take longer to acquire literacy, but it doesn’t mean you can’t. Jane has trouble concentrating, understandably, when you think about how much harder she has to work than her peers to achieve the same output. Sometimes she daydreams (don’t all kids!). The problem was how this was perceived. There was an assumption that she had plateaued and therefore had learning difficulties. Happily, I and a few other practitioners were asked to support Jane and her school and she is making progress daily.

Jason is 18 and has just completed a maths A level in which he gained an A*. Those of us who support him, his family and Jason himself are thrilled. He has cerebral palsy and uses an electric wheelchair and an electronic communication aid . Before he did his GCSEs we had to go to the exam boards to get them to agree to his way of working. They took some persuading to agree he could have 400% extra time and do each exam over 2 days.

Rory is 16 and studying for entry level GCSEs. Like the rest of the curriculum, the demands of these exams have increased. The same or similar guidance applies to these as to GCSEs but Rory’s access to writing has been a stumbling block. Rory has some speech and is considered to have severe learning difficulties. The guidance indicated he could not have someone scribe for him while he dictated his thoughts. Rory is great at speaking his answers, but if he has to write them down he freezes. This was explained to the exam boards. The board showed they can be flexible and Rory is allowed a scribe although it is not recommended in the guidelines.

Exam board guidelines are just that. They are not rules and they are not statutory requirements. The exam boards are doing the best they can to adhere to the 2010 Equality Act which requires them:

“to make reasonable adjustments where a candidate, who is disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, would be at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to someone who is not disabled. The awarding body is required to take reasonable steps to overcome that disadvantage.”

Exam boards need more knowledge and understanding of the needs of students with complex communication and learning needs, but are not hard-hearted. They can be negotiated with and every case is individual. We are looking for ways exam boards can enable students to use their specialist communication software for reading as well as writing. The important thing to remember is that all aspects of exam access are a matter of negotiation on the basis of individual needs and how the student normally works in the classroom.

Students should work in a way that is efficient for access and their individual needs from the moment they join secondary school. It is essential that students who have communication and movement difficulties can access learning materials in the same way as their non-disabled peers. They need worksheets and text books committed to their communication devices in the same way speech is supported by a communication device. Non-disabled peers can refer to their notes or their text books. An AAC user cannot do this unless these resources are on their AAC device.

Buying an off the shelf solution is not normally an option. Schools need to learn to develop adaptations to suit each individual student so that the student experiences a broad and balanced curriculum. Ease of access is paramount. This will often mean that the software the student needs to use for communication will also, at least some of the time, need to be used for their curriculum access. It will also require attention to how the student physically uses the software to minimise exertion. The ability to think is compromised when you struggle with a physical task. Some students can point to keyboards and screens but some might need the size of selections changing. Some might benefit from a key guard over a touch screen or keyboard to prevent miss-hits. For students with more complex movement needs, adapted joysticks, eye-gaze or the use of switches may be considered.

Word lists, which are often the main way the curriculum is managed, are useful but only as part of an overall picture where schools ensure students have access to a wide range of learning materials they can manipulate themselves in the same way as their non-disabled peers. A difficulty with word lists is that reliance on whole word reading and selecting detracts from a vital skill that all AAC users need – the ability to spell. If you cannot speak, the only way to say or write anything you want is to spell. Perfect spelling ability is not necessary. As long as you know the first one or two letters in a word then a good word prediction system will often provide the rest and speed up your writing. Exam boards currently accept the use of word prediction if it is a student’s normal way of working.

Teaching assistants need to reduce their support and increase the student’s independence. It is not sufficient for them to take notes into an ordinary exercise book on behalf of the student nor to read aloud to the student from a text book or worksheet. This creates dependence. There is an urgent need for more teachers to become familiar with AAC so that they can oversee the development of independent working. There is not one size that fits all so teachers need to get to know what is available that will meet their students’ needs.

Marion Stanton www.candleaac.com

Ashton on Mersey were trail blazers. Now they are setting the clock back.As a disabled student Ashton on Mersey delivered a great education for me. Now they are set to put up barriers for the next generation of disabled students.

I was born in the late ‘80s, an era when disability was kept out of the norm, and a disabled child attending a mainstream school was taboo. I started my early years at a “special needs” nursery called Rodney House, followed by a “special needs” primary school, Lancasterian. I was born with cerebral palsy and because I was disabled only special needs schools would accept me.

Don’t get me wrong, special school had perks – I had physiotherapy every day, and occasional hydrotherapy. But that was it. I was not pushed academically, and I was bored. We did get workbooks that I completed keenly, and I thought I was a mini Einstein as I was so quick to finish them.

I was brought up by my auntie and uncle. I remember in 1992, the new Education Act came out, which moved my uncle to push for me to attend mainstream school. He succeeded, but we were not able to get the school of our choice because there were only a few mainstream schools that accepted disabled pupils. These were called “barrier-free” schools. I completed my last year of primary school in Levenshulme, which was 12.2 miles away from where I lived, and completed two years of secondary school in Wythenshawe, 8 miles away. I really enjoyed these schools, though when I finally got there, I realised I was not as academically bright as I had thought, and had to work hard to catch up with the other children. Additionally, it was very hard to socialise with my peers outside of school because they lived so far away. They didn’t really know my area and I couldn’t hang out with them after school because I had a taxi scheduled at the end of the day to bring me straight home. I felt like an outsider.

Ironically, there was a perfectly well-functioning mainstream secondary school across the road from me: Ashton-on-Mersey High School. I think Ashton is where I truly excelled. I loved the school, and socialising with peers from my local area. Because I enjoyed my environment, I flourished academically, and for the first time I felt accepted for being me. My disability was not perceived as being “other”, and socialisation made me feel part of the norm. Of course, at times I did feel different, but most teenagers feel different in some way or another.

Without attending Ashton, I would have never been able to attend my local grammar school and receive three As at A-level, study psychology at a top university, become a national representative of disabled students in the UK, sit on the board of a leading disability charity, and be working towards becoming a Doctor of Health Psychology.

I stand by my belief that a good education is the key to success, whether through academia or preparing a child to function in the real world. I actually visited Ashton a few years ago and was amazed by their determination to include disabled pupils. When I was at school, there were only a handful of disabled pupils, but when I visited, they were very proud to tell me they now had over 100 disabled children and that each individual was supported so they could socialise with their peers, disabled or not. I was so proud of the school and proud to be a part of its history. I went back to the charity that I was a board director of and encouraged them to apply the same practice. I don’t agree with segregation in any sense of the word, whether because of disability, gender or religious beliefs; Ashton was a prime example of how everybody could work together in order to socialise children of diverse backgrounds and abilities for the real world.

Last year, my nephew completed his eleven-plus exams. He got accepted into a well-renowned local grammar school. However, because of the excellence I had seen in Ashton, I actively pushed for him to attend this school instead. For my nephew, I wanted a future where disability is in the norm and to see him socialised in an environment where he knows no difference.

I was therefore extremely disappointed to read a recent article whereby I discovered that Ashton had decided to transfer its new cohort of disabled pupils to another of its schools, 6 miles away. Ashton-on-Mersey is part of the Dean Trust, which runs several schools across the Northwest. The papers have described this cohort as moving from a “well-performing school to a worse school because of limited resources.” This may be the case, but for me there is a bigger issue. As I said before, education is not just about academic success, but the socialisation of children to accept people from diverse backgrounds. I am not just disappointed for the new cohort of disabled students, but for the current students of the school, disabled or not. If the school goes ahead with this decision, it is sending an outward message to children like my nephew that disabled people are not part of the norm, and should be dealt with separately. I want my nephew to grow up in a world which accepts differences; to come back from school knowing that disability is part of the norm, rather than boasting about how much money Rashford is earning at Manchester United while still receiving a sound education at Ashton due to its capacity as a sports college with funding from the club. If Ashton-on-Mersey can provide such an education to these young players, and has been doing since 1998, then I am sure there is a way to resource education for disabled pupils.

Ashton-on-Mersey should be proud of its accomplishment of educating those from different backgrounds, whether they are Manchester United’s next top player or a child with cerebral palsy. We are not back in the 80s, we are in 2016, and I urge Ashton to reconsider its decision to move its new cohort of disabled children to another school when they could be setting a prime example for all academies to follow.

Rupy Kaur

It is with deep sadness that we have to announce the death of Linda Whitehead (1954 – 2016). She is known to many in ALLFIE and Parents for Inclusion as a very gifted trainer and indomitable fighter for all her children, including Sonny. She was taken by cancer at a much-too-young age.

Our most vivid memories of Linda are about her passion for inclusive education and her fearless warrior-like attitude to changing the hearts and minds of people who, at the point they met Linda, ‘didn’t get it’ but were on the path to inclusion enlightenment soon afterwards.

We also recall in appreciation her amazing support for ALLFIE and our work – Linda was a natural ally and really understood and did everything she could to encourage the voice and representation of Disabled people. She was and will continue to be an important influence in ALLFIE’s history and our work because of her unswerving belief in the power of people working together for change.

Linda Love

Micheline Mason

Another precious life completed

Another friend now silent but for the memories

Her generous wisdom handed out

In Linda Love infusions for the soul

 

I will always hear the giggles

The music and the poems

Treasure the side by side work

Unlocking the pain of parents

Afraid to dream for their children

Healing with hope

 

My comrade at work

My counsellor at home,

My ally in the dark times,

My conspirator in the light

 

Our last phone call

Used to acknowledge and absorb

How loved she was by so many

Always true, but never before felt

By her.

A living gift of dying

 

I ache for those left –

Dear Tim consoling himself

In the deep wrap of saxophone mourning

For the four Linda buds now independently blossoming

Singing, dancing, acting and loving,

What a wonderful legacy.

Q: I am a disabled parent and wheelchair user. My LA has refused my first choice of primary school for my four year old son on the basis of infant class size. He is currently in nursery at the same school and as the building is wheelchair accessible I can take him to school and participate in activities such as reading time. The school we have been offered isn’t wheelchair accessible which means I could no longer do this. I have appealed and been turned down because I didn’t state any SEND in the admissions application. The admissions process only asked about a child’s SEND and not about the access requirements of parents. I have looked at the admissions guidance and cannot see any reference to disabled parents. What can I do?

What is infant class size prejudice?

Infant class size prejudice relates to a legal duty that requires all infant classes (reception – year 2 inclusive) to have no more than 30 pupils per qualified teacher, except in very limited circumstances. Due to this law, the grounds on which appeals can be successful are more limited and normally have lower chances of success, than a non-infant class size appeal.

What are the limited grounds?

Independent Appeal Panels can only admit a child who has been refused due to infant class size prejudice if:

How does this apply in the current case?

When considering the lawfulness of the admission arrangements the Independent Appeal Panel must take into consideration if the arrangements comply with the Equality Act 2010 and in particular consider any arguments that the arrangements are discriminatory. I would recommend seeking further legal advice for this point to be considered in more detail in your case.
With regards to whether the decision refusing admission to the school is one a reasonable admission authority would have made, it is usually based on the information that was available to the Admission Authority when the admission application was submitted. If the Admission Authority were not aware of your disability at the time you applied, then the Panel would not be able to consider it under that ground for admission at appeal. However, if the school is their own Admission Authority, rather than the Local Authority, you could have grounds to argue they would have had knowledge at the time the application was made, as he is currently attending the school’s nursery. If that is the case, your disability should have been taken into consideration under this ground. However this does not necessarily mean that your son should have been given a place at appeal, because it would still be for the Independent Appeal Panel to decide if, knowing of your disability and the impact it has on taking your son to school and participating in his learning, the decision was unreasonable.

Can the decision be overturned?

There are ways, although limited, to try and overturn the decision of the Independent Appeal Panel and these vary depending on whether you are concerned the decision is unlawful such that there was a procedural error.

If the decision is considered unlawful you may be advised to pursue the matter to the High Court, through a type of court proceedings known as Judicial Review. Ordinarily there is a strict deadline to take this matter to the High Court, within 3 months of the date of the decision informing you that the appeal was unsuccessful. There will also be some initial work that must be completed before trying to take it to Court.

If it is considered that there have been some procedural errors, then you may have grounds to make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman or if the school is an Academy School, to the Education Funding Agency. The deadline is not as tight to pursue these as it is with Court action, and you must ordinarily do it within 12 months of the date of knowing of the procedural error.

You should be aware that you cannot pursue both Court action and a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman/ Education Funding Agency, and in many cases, there may not be grounds to pursue either. Thus I recommend you seek legal advice to determine which of these if any would be recommended in your case.

Should you not be able to overturn the decision I would recommend you liaise with your son’s school as to reasonable adjustments that they can make so you can take him to school and participate in his learning. I recommend you seek legal advice should the school refuse to make such adjustments.

Samantha Hale

Samantha Hale is an Associate Solicitor with Simpson Millar and specialises in Education, Community Care and Public Law.

You can listen online below, or if you want to download the audio files, right click each article and choose “Save Link As”.

You can listen online below, or if you want to download the audio files, right click each article and choose “Save Link As”.

Logo of the DRILL research project

ALLFIE, the Alliance for Inclusive Education, has been awarded £39,990 as part of a £5 million National Lottery funded research programme into independent living for Disabled people.

The Equality Act 2010 obliges schools and other education providers to create accessibility plans, showing how they are working with Disabled learners and their families to make both the school environment and the curriculum inclusive and accessible.

The ALLFIE project ‘Reasonable adjustments and their effectiveness in education and training post-Equality Act 2010’ will explore how effective the plans are in removing barriers to participation in mainstream education. It will engage with Disabled learners, families and professionals.

The project has been awarded funding from the DRILL (Disability Research on Independent Living and Learning) programme, a five year scheme launched in 2015 led by Disabled people and funded by the Big Lottery Fund, the UK’s largest funder of community activity.

Managed by ALLFIE the project will be led by Disabled people, working alongside academics and policy makers.

Navin Kikabhai, Chairperson of ALLFIE, said: “It is great news that ALLFIE has been awarded DRILL funding to carry out this exciting project. As a Disabled-led organisation, we are keen to explore the gulf between theory and practice, and to shift the agenda forward and highlight the often forgotten link between independent living and inclusive education. It is unacceptable that education providers have had since 2001 to make reasonable adjustments, and that there is little difference in educational segregation pre- and post-Equality Act 2010. There is important equality work to be done with respect to fulfilling the civil rights of Disabled people, and it will begin with Disabled people’s organisations like ALLFIE pushing for that change.”

Evan Odell, DRILL programme officer at Disability Rights UK said: “We’re delighted to be funding this project, run by and for disabled people. The results will help support disabled people to live more independently, and be part of the communities they live in.”

Ends

For further media enquiries:

ALLFIE: Jess Cahill jess.cahill@allfie.org.uk 020 7737 6030

DRILL: Ben Furner ben@furnercommunications.co.uk 07946 355795

 

Notes to editors:

ALLFIE: The Alliance for Inclusive Education campaigns for the right of all Disabled learners (including those labelled as having Special Educational Needs) to be in mainstream educational settings. ALLFIE believes lifelong inclusion and equality of opportunity for Disabled people is not possible without this. We are the only organisation led by Disabled people focused on campaigning and information-sharing on education, training and apprenticeship issues. https://pedantic-shannon.91-238-163-161.plesk.page/audiences/press-policy/

DRILL: Launched in 2015, the DRILL programme is fully funded by the Big Lottery Fund and delivered by Disability Rights UK, Disability Action Northern Ireland, Inclusion Scotland and Disability Wales. DRILL is funding more than 30 research and pilot projects over a 5 year period, all led by disabled people.

Each country has a National Advisory Group, including disabled people, academics and policy makers, who provide advice, scrutinise research proposals, make recommendations and help promote and disseminate the findings.  A Central Research Committee, made up of disabled people, academics and policy influencers from across the UK makes the final decision on which research proposals receive funding.

Big Lottery Fund uses money raised by National Lottery players to help communities achieve their ambitions. From small, local projects to UK-wide initiatives, its funding brings people together to make a difference to their health, wellbeing and environment. Since June 2004 it has awarded £8.5 billion to projects that improve the lives of millions of people. http://www.drilluk.org.uk/

Inclusion Now 48 Autumn 2017

Anti-bullying month, inclusion in Wales, how Sterre got her Duke of Edinburgh award, the UN condemns the UK record on disability rights and more…

Welcome to Inclusion Now 48. 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

How Was School?

Our oral history project on Disabled people’s experience of education over the last century, including video, audio, schools resource packs and more.

Continue to the How Was School microsite.

“The assumption was you weren’t going to do GCSEs or O levels as they were then, or the old CSEs either, you shouldn’t aspire… I think it was an environment where you learned to become disabled.”

The British Library has archived this website in their UK Web Archive to preserve it for future generations.

Reading on our website

As well as the below reading, you can find a three part series on current debates on inclusion on our website, written by academic and ALLFIE trustee Dr Miro Griffiths.

Leading journals which include research conducted from a ‘Disability Studies in Education’ perspective

Other journals you might search within

There will soon be an important new journal in this field. The Journal of Disability Studies in Education (JDSE), Editor-in-Chief Professor Roger Slee, will be an interdisciplinary journal focusing upon the experiences and outcomes of people with disabilities in education. DSE will focuses upon the overt and covert barriers to access to, and presence, participation and success in education for disabled people. JDSE will therefore examine the architecture and cultures of education across all sectors: early childhood education; elementary education; secondary education; higher education; vocational training and informal and alternative education provision. Watch out for calls for articles and special editions and do consider submitting your work to this exciting new venture.

A note about paywalls: sadly, so much academic work is not open access. Readers have to have a subscription to a journal or pay to read individual articles. We encourage students and researchers based at universities to ask their libraries to subscribe to the key journals in this field. All other readers, we recommend that you contact the authors of articles that interest you. You can find their email address via the website of the journal (under author details for each article). You do not need to pay for access to find this information. Many journals allow authors to share pre-print versions of their work with interested parties, free. This means that you can ask them whether they would be willing to send their final draft to you – many will be willing to do this as paywalls are a source of frustration within the academic community as well!

The Disability Archive at the Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds contains many open access writings by researcher-activists and activist-researchers. At present this archive can be searched by author or key terms. Using the key term ‘education’ will result in a wealth of useful reading. Plans are afoot to renovate the Disability Archive at Leeds, improving its search facility and expanding its content. Please watch out for developments!

Key books

There are so many important books on Inclusive Education, it is impossible to list them all. Here are a selection, however, focusing on key authors, ‘classic’ texts, and important edited collections:

Extended reading list

The government has announced a one year long review of the Mental Health Act overseen by the chair Professor Sir Simon Wessely. The focus on provision for Black and Minority communities is much needed and welcome but this review should also focus on overuse and abuse of sectioning of Disabled people (including young people) with learning difficulties and autism. Whilst the government’s flagship Transforming Care for People with Learning Disabilities and Autism programme has had some success in moving Disabled people with learning difficulties and autism from hospital into the community nevertheless there is a hidden trend: rising numbers of children and young people entering the psychiatric system.

In 2011 young people made up 7.6% of all Disabled people detained under the Mental Health Act but by 2017 this had risen to 13%. Many of these are people with learning difficulties or autism who are admitted for short stays that then become long-stay placements. Young people end up in the psychiatric system because of local authorities’ and clinical commissioning groups’ systematic failure to fund well-co-ordinated education, health and care services.

Nine year old Paul, who is autistic, attended mainstream school where he did not feel accepted by the school staff and pupils. Instead of being himself, Paul’s coping methods were to mask his difficulties and “blend in” at school, causing extreme anxiety requiring compulsory psychiatric hospital treatment. As a result of his traumatic school experience he will not return to mainstream education and will need state-funded support costing in excess of £100k per year.

Fifteen year old Michael, who is also autistic, was detained under the Mental Health Act. It was the only way of securing state-funded assistance because of the “systemic” failure of education, health and care services. His mother goes on to say that:

“There’s no joined-up thinking, no transparency. You go to one person, one part and it’s just ‘no, not my station’…. If he’d have had the support in his local community, none of this would have happened. It was totally avoidable.”

These young disabled people’s and their families’ experiences of how harmful the lack of inclusive education can be are not isolated incidents. During 2016 the Justice Together Project held a family event to explore why their loved ones end up in assessment and treatment units (ATUs). The authors found that the Special Education Needs Framework of the Children and Families Act came in for a high level of criticism; the whole system failed Disabled children time and time again. In particular children’s educational needs were not being assessed properly, leading to schools failing to understand triggers of distress and being unable to support the child’s behaviour within their own environments and during secondary school transitions.

Austerity is no longer an excuse for not funding inclusive education provision. The government seems very content to allow local authorities and NHS England to fund individual residential special school placements and inpatient beds to the tune of £300,000 per year – no expense spared here for the institutionalisation of Disabled children and young adults.

The UNCRPD Disability Committee in its guidance on how government can achieve successful implementation of Disabled people’s rights to independent living as set out in Article 19 made it very clear there is a direct link between segregated education and institutionalisation, and that inclusive education has a central role in the deinstitutionalisation of Disabled people. So if we are going to reduce the numbers of Disabled children and young people entering the psychiatric system the Mental Health Act Review must recommend the following:

By Simone Aspis (Changing Perspectives)

I am a disabled person who is acting as an advocate for detained inpatients with learning difficulties and autism wanting to live in the community, not in an ATU. I have over 20 years’ experience campaigning for disabled people’s human and civil rights, working for People First, United Kingdom Disabled People’s Council, the Alliance for Inclusive Education and Not Dead Yet.

Children’s and parents’ names have been changed.

Dear friends,

Many of you may know that the UNCRPD (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Committee has been investigating the UK government’s record on Disabled people’s human rights. Just last year the committee upheld a complaint made by lots of Disabled people’s organisations about the government’s systematic and grave violations of the human rights of disability benefit claimants and social care users. A year on, the committee has completed its investigation of the government’s compliance with the UNCRPD human rights framework.

As the committee concluded that the UK Government’s current approach to Disabled people is causing a “human catastrophe”, so we decided to devote the whole of our briefing to the UN Convention.

In solidarity,

Simone Aspis (ALLFIE’s Policy and Campaigns Coordinator)

Summary

This briefing is focusing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – sometimes this is called the UNCRPD or CRPD. Information about the UNCRPD in easy read.

The UNCRPD is made up of 33 sections (Articles) that cover the different aspects of our lives. Article 24 of the UNCRPD states that Disabled people have the right to the support they need to be included in mainstream education. Disabled and non-Disabled people have the right to learn together in ordinary schools, colleges and universities and take part in apprenticeships.

ALLFIE with other Disabled people’s organisations has been busy telling the UNCRPD committee that the UK government does not support Disabled people’s rights to inclusive education.

ALLFIE assisted the Committee to ask questions about what the government has been doing to support the human right to inclusive education.

The Committee were not happy with the answers they got from government.

The Committee made it very clear that UK education law does not support Disabled people’s human rights to mainstream education and that the law needs to change.

The Committee made it very clear that Inclusive education is not a choice, it is a human right.

ALLFIE is very pleased with the committee’s findings.

ALLFIE will use Article 24 to run a stronger campaign for Disabled people’s human right to inclusive education.

Explanation of the UNCRPD

The UNCRPD is an international human rights treaty consisting of internationally agreed standards on how governments around the world should respect and promote Disabled people’s human rights. The UNCRPD has 33 sections covering a wide range of areas including the right to life, right to justice, education, employment and independent living.

Article 24 of the UNCRPD requires all state governments to work towards the development of a fully inclusive education system with the ultimate goal of ending segregated education. However when the UK government ratified the UNCRPD in 2009 it decided to place restrictions on its Article 24 obligations by stating that for the UK, special schools would be included in the ‘general education system’ definition. Also where Disabled pupils’ needs cannot be met locally, the government reserves the right to provide appropriate education away from home. Full text of Article 24 here.

The UNCRPD, as with all human rights treaties, is not legally binding, but ratification of the UNCRPD affirms the government’s intention to comply with its international obligations to promote Disabled people’s human rights.

Each treaty has a Committee that is set up to monitor implementation, on a regular basis, for those countries that ratify the treaty. This year is the first time that the UK government has had their human rights record scrutinised by the Committee since ratification in 2009.
In preparation for the scrutiny process there is a request for a Government report setting out progress towards implementation. Each country has a domestic independent monitoring mechanism – in this country that role is carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There is also an important role for civil society to play in the scrutiny process – we can submit a ‘shadow’ report giving our account of progress towards implementation. We can also meet with the Committee to help them identify the priority areas for scrutiny process.

ALLFIE’s work

ALLFIE took the lead on gathering the evidence for the Shadow report sections on Article 7 and 24. The shadow report was written collaboratively with the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance (ROFA). ALLFIE provided evidence on how current education law, policy and practice is resulting in increasing numbers of Disabled pupils & students being forced out of mainstream into segregated education.

ALLFIE’s Director, Tara Flood, gave oral evidence at the List of Issues meeting with the UNCRPD Committee earlier this year in Geneva and again at a closed meeting with the Committee just before the formal scrutiny sessions with UK Government representatives in August.

At both meetings Tara spoke about the government’s disregard for Disabled people’s rights to access all forms of mainstream education covering schools, further and higher education. After the meeting in August the Committee requested a meeting with ALLFIE to help them understand the government position on ‘choice’ and its resistance to making progress towards inclusive education. This session led to Committee members using questions, drafted by ALLFIE during the scrutiny session.

During the scrutiny session the government claimed to be a “world leader in disability rights” which was challenged by various Committee members.

UNCRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations

The Committee made it very clear during the scrutiny session with the UK government that UK education and equality legislation fails to comply with Article 24 and that parental choice has no place in promoting Disabled people’s human rights to inclusive education.
That strength of concern for the lack of progress is reflected in the Committee’s Concluding Observations document which was published at the end of August. The document is full of strong and practical recommendations for change. These include:

(a) Develop a comprehensive and coordinated legislative and policy framework for inclusive education and a timeframe to ensure that mainstream schools foster real inclusion of children with disabilities in the school environment and that teachers and all other professionals and persons in contact with children understand the concept of inclusion and are able to enhance inclusive education;

(b) Strengthen measures to monitor school practices concerning enrolment of children with disabilities and offer appropriate remedies in cases of disability-related discrimination and/or harassment, including deciding upon schemes for compensation;

(c) Adopt and implement a coherent and adequately financed strategy, with concrete timelines and measurable goals, on increasing and improving inclusive education. The strategy must:

(i) Ensure the implementation of laws, decrees and regulations on improving the extent and quality of inclusive education in classrooms, support provisions and teacher training, including pedagogical capabilities, across all levels providing for high-quality inclusive environments, including within breaks between lessons and through socialization outside “education time”;

(ii) Set up awareness-raising and support initiatives about inclusive education among parents of children with disabilities;

(iii) Provide sufficient, relevant data on the number of students both in inclusive and segregated education, disaggregated by impairment, age, sex and ethnic background, and on the outcome of the education, reflecting the capabilities of the students.

ALLFIE is really pleased with the UNCRPD Committee’s recommendations which reflect many of ALLFIE’s own demands for a fully inclusive education system.

The Committee took the unusual step of requiring the government to provide a written report on their progress, one year on, in terms of implementing the recommendations.

The Government’s response….

Well we are still waiting for an official government response to the UNCRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations.

Scottish SNP MP Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) tabled a debate on the 12th October focused on the UNCRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations. Whilst Penny Mordaunt (the then Minister for Disabled People) spoke during the debate, she said nothing on the government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations.

It was disappointing that the debate was attended by so few MPs across the political spectrum after such a damning report of the government’s record on Disabled people’s human rights. Clearly, if MPs are not engaged with the human rights model, then it is no surprise that so much legislation and policy adopts a welfare, needs or deficit model approach to Disabled people’s entitlements to the support and means they need to participate in society on the same terms as their non-Disabled peers.

UNCRPD latest…

The UNCRPD Committee have recently published a General Comment on Article 19: the right to independent living. General Comment No.5 sets out very useful guidance on how states should promote Disabled people’s independent living under Article 19. It’s particularly helpful for ALLFIE because the guidance makes a very clear link between inclusive education and independent living. Section 89 of the General Comment states that:

“Living independently and being included in the community is inherently linked to inclusive education (art. 24), requires recognition of the right of persons with disabilities to live independently and enjoy inclusion and participation in the community. Inclusion of persons with disabilities in the mainstream education system generates further inclusion of persons with disabilities in community. De-institutionalization also entails the introduction of inclusive education.”

The Christine Lenehan report “These Are Our Children”, published in January this year including evidence of a direct link between Disabled pupils being in segregated education and ending up in adult and life-long institutionalised care – so this is a very important link that the Disabled people’s organisations working on independent living need to focus on.

ALLFIE’s next steps

Since Geneva and the publication of the Concluding Observations document, ALLFIE has met with the Department for Education (DfE), recently to discuss the UNCRPD Committee’s recommendations but we were disappointed because the DFE don’t think there is anything they need to do to change current law, policy or practice to be more compliant with Article 24 of the Convention. ALLFIE believes this is a disgraceful position for the DFE to take.

ALLFIE is now considering what we do next in terms of our engagement with DFE officials.
More broadly we will be re-focusing and strengthening our campaigning strategy. Rather than focusing on whatever comes out the DFE, we will use the UNCRPD Committee’s Concluding Observations recommendations on Article 24 to change and influence current debates about the inclusion of Disabled pupils & students in mainstream education.
Disabled People’s Organisations from the four devolved nations who attended the Geneva sessions are planning to set up a UK UNCRPD monitoring coalition. The group’s aim is to collect evidence from Disabled people and their organisations on the government’s continued failure to uphold Disabled people’s human rights across all areas of their lives including access to mainstream education.

ALLFIE is also looking at the possibility of drafting a private member’s Bill on Inclusive Education clearly setting out a legal framework informed by the UNCRPD Committee’s recommendations.

We will say more about our campaigning plans and how you can get involved, in the next briefing so watch this space!

News coverage of interest

 

-ends-

 

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.