Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Inclusive education – also called inclusion – is education that includes everyone, with non-disabled and Disabled people (including those with “special educational needs”) learning together in mainstream schools, colleges and universities.

This means the system must adapt to include Disabled people – they should not have to adapt to the system (see models of disability). The education system must recognise that it creates barriers for Disabled learners, for instance if parts of the school are inaccessible. Disabled pupils and students may require adaptations and support to access the curriculum.

Here are some examples:

  • Faisal is a wheelchair user. So that he can go to the debating society after school, the accessible minibus collects him at a later time.
  • Jenny has dyslexia. So that she can study a book along with the class, the teacher asks her to listen to the audio book rather than reading the text.
  • James is Deaf and communicates using sign language. Instead of taking him out of his lessons to have a separate lesson with a sign language teacher, his teachers, teaching assistants and the pupils learn to sign too in order to communicate with him.

What inclusion is not

  • Special schools and colleges just for Disabled children and students. This is called segregation.
  • Separate units in mainstream schools and colleges. This is segregation too.
  • Disabled children and students in mainstream education, but without enough support for them to be truly included. This is called integration. Disabled learners are in mainstream education, but their needs are not met.

What is inclusive practice?

Inclusive practice can be defined as attitudes and methods that ensure all learners can access mainstream education. Everyone works to make sure all learners feel welcome and valued, and that they get the right support to help them develop their talents and achieve their goals. When education is truly inclusive it can actually benefit all learners, not only Disabled learners.

More questions? Read our Inclusion FAQ and if the answer isn’t there, ask us!

You can read more about why we believe in inclusive education here.

A lot of people read this page…

We’re a small organisation and campaigning work is hard to fund. If everyone reading this page gave us £1, we could increase our campaigning activitity significantly. Why not donate and help us make inclusive education a reality?

This August the United Nations completed its inspection of the UK government’s record on disabled people’s human rights. For the first time the UN spotlight fell on our education system and Tara Flood visited Geneva to make sure ALLFIE’s voice was heard. On page14 you can read Tara’s account of what happened and how the UN’s final report will add force to our future campaigning.

The UN’S concerns about high levels of bullying of disabled children and young people are picked up by Martha Evans on page 17. We also have an interview with Christine Lenehan, whose forthcoming report on segregated schools has additional significance following the UN’s criticisms of the UK’s dual education system.

On page 16 Richard Rieser follows the money: showing the impact that cuts to funding are having on inclusion . Also from the grassroots, on page 6 is Adele’s account of her “inclusion journey”, struggling to get the right school for her 11-year-old son, Rhys.

After so much struggling, it’s good to read a couple of articles where things are going well. On page 3, there’s a description of a visit to Cressex Community School: showing what can be achieved when a school’s leadership team have a strong commitment to inclusive principles.

I especially enjoyed Sterre’s description of achieving her Duke of Edinburgh award: “This award is great because you work towards targets that you set yourself, so you only measure yourself against yourself”. To my mind that’s an approach our increasingly competitive and selective education system would do well to think about.

Mike Lambert, ALLFIE trustee

Tell us about you and your family, particularly Rhys and the difference he has made to your life.

Rhys is 11 and has two older siblings, Abi, 19, and Scott, 17. Before Rhys was born we were a fairly ordinary family. For the first year of his life things seemed fairly typical. Then we noticed he wasn’t reaching his milestones. Our journey from then on hasn’t been that typical. Our stress has mainly been born out of engaging with services and organisations that are there to support you. Rhys has always been a delight to all of us and continues to be. He is great company and makes us laugh. I feel that he has really helped my older children feel more secure and loved too. He completes us!

As a parent of a disabled young person, how has your thinking about disability changed?

My training and background was teaching adults with learning disabilities and I was trained during the ‘All Wales Strategy’. After having a child with additional needs I have been frequently shocked at the lack of value placed on children with disabilities! I find the system disables children and doesn’t allow children with disabilities to reach their potential – thus a very unequal and challenging path!

Why do you think it has been important for Rhys to be included in mainstream education?

Including children with difference benefits everyone. The children with additional needs have good role models, whether it be speech, behaviour etc. Placing all children who cannot access mainstream education together in a separate place will emphasise difference and ensure a segregated life with ‘their own kind’. When all children occupy the same space the mainstream children learn about difference. These children will be the decision makers of the future and can change the future for children with disabilities!

What have been the challenges?

The biggest challenge has been the lack of training of professionals with regards to inclusion. Inclusion means many different things to professionals and often parents, without knowledge, accept what the professionals tell them. Also I have found if a child has a learning disability they do not matter to the system. If a child can achieve A-C grade at GCSE and has good school attendance then they matter. At special schools they aren’t given the same constraints – this is great in that they don’t have the pressure but not great when it comes to standards and charting progress.

Initially Rhys had a very late diagnosis of deaf due to diagnostic overshadowing, where the paediatrician felt Rhys’s lack of speech was due to Global Developmental Delay. When we were told Rhys was entitled to the top allocation of speech and language therapy of twelve hours per year we were delighted, as at five he had had less than a handful of sessions and was allocated six hours per year! When we asked for the twelve hours to be written into his statement it was refused due to his overall learning ability which led us to tribunal. Rhys won 24 hours of therapy with more follow up time on top. This took another two years to be properly in place which has been upsetting.

Also we get the sense that although he has severe/profound sensory neural hearing loss, the professionals want him in a learning disability setting with a watered down deaf intervention. Mainstream schools have a lot of targets to achieve which affects their ability to focus on children with additional needs. The children who are not ticking the boxes are sidelined to special schools. No proper training is given to teachers, who are expected to recognise symptoms and refer children. Then there is rationing of educational psychologists so that only the pupils creating the most difficulties to the system get assessed. Also rationing of speech and language therapists who are essential for loads of children with additional needs.

From a parent’s perspective what does education law in Wales say about inclusive education?

At the moment we still have statements in Wales but this is soon to change. Statements only provide some reassurance for a child’s education. Even with a statement a child may not be able to reach potential because assessments are based on budgets and appropriate interventions are rationed. Access to assessments is not timely either. These things impact on a child’s potential greatly! The new individual development plan proposed in the Additional Learning Need Educational Tribunal (Wales) Bill will widen legislative protection but cuts and the fact that schools now manage much of the budgets for special education are already affecting children with SEN. The bodies making decisions talk in terms of there being mainstream pupils and then the children who need special schools, segregated in another part of town. As mainstream schools are finding their funding dwindle, as targets for mainstream schools are getting more inaccessible for children with needs and more schools are turning away children who need extra support citing inability to provide, local authorities are filtering them into special schools which are full. The answer is to build more very expensive special schools. Nobody seems to be looking to improve the resource to mainstream schools or challenging the targets schools have to adhere to which make them inaccessible. Children with additional needs do not matter to the mainstream system – they are separate #notinmybackyard #outofsightoutofmind

The Welsh Government adopted the social model of disability over 15 years ago but you are unlikely to see this in any of their policies, laws or systems!

What advice would you give other parents starting on the inclusion journey?

I would tell them to read up on the UNCRC and UNCRDP. Realise your child’s right to be included as a human being. Expect high standards from professionals and keep reminding them of your child’s rights and the social model of disability. Don’t be surprised when you get a blank look! Often they have never heard of this or need time to process it in the context of how they provide services for your child. It will not fit into the system they are expected to skip to! Inclusion is more than placing children in the same space as more typically developing children – inclusion is about valuing all children enough to provide high quality teaching for all.

What are your hopes and dreams for Rhys’s future?

Rhys’ future is uncertain due to his degenerative deaf/blind condition. We do not know when it will happen. I wish for him to continue to be content and happy. I wish for him to have a life of belonging to his local community so that when the inevitable happens he will have loads of connections with people. He likes to be of use – this is why we strive to get him as upskilled as possible so he can achieve. I want him to feel fulfilled in whatever he does, the same as I wish for his brother and sister. Rhys loves to help and wants a job when he gets older. His dream at the moment is to be a policeman.

Lastly we were wondering if Rhys could say something. If he wants to?

Rhys loves his life! He loves school and having lots of friends. He loves drama class and recently got his silver award for being with the drama group for two years! He swims and has his 400m certificate for that, and other skill badges. He loves riding his bike, especially going fast!! He loves his family and misses his brother, sister and dad whenever they go away. He is also a member of Mumbles cub troop. He especially loves ice cream – in fact there is very liitle about life that Rhys doesn’t enjoy, he loves every ounce of it, absorbs it like a sponge and gets so much from each minute – we all have a lot to learn from him!

It is difficult to find a school which breaks the mould and offers an alternative agenda to the competitive market culture that is currently sweeping through the education system. Such schools usually fill their websites and glossy school brochures with images of diversity and statements of inclusion yet in reality exclude and reject individuals based on the assumption that it is ‘their’ fault. It is easier to lay blame with such individuals rather than challenge their own underlying attitudes, practices and procedures.

Cressex Community School, a mainstream secondary school in High Wycombe, challenges this exclusionary ideology, as we experienced during a recent school visit. Its motto is “high achievement for all is our shared responsibility”, and it espouses a cooperative ethos, being part of a larger Cooperative Learning Trust.

On arrival we were immediately struck by the accessible space and the welcoming attitudes of the students, staff and a school governor. David Hood, the Headteacher, greeted us and had planned a busy day. Historically, Cressex Community School has a chequered past of struggle and has over time developed a positive community presence built on mutual engagement. What was refreshing was that each of the senior staff we met shared a commitment to the school’s values of ‘openness, honesty, social responsibility and caring for others’. The school had an impressive committed learning support team (the SENCO later told us that they are ‘committed people who do more than just “tick the boxes’’’), with Learning Mentors, Student Support Officers, and Teaching Assistants. Approximately a fifth of the school population had Education, Health and Care Plans, over two thirds were identified as having English as an Additional Language, two fifths were on Pupil Premium, and most of its students are of a Pakistani background.

Cressex Community School has its fair share of challenges, some of which are to develop its sixth form provision, ensuring students get comprehensive feedback, managing behaviour, and working at effectively managing their mental health support. The school is embedded in an extremely selective local authority, operating an 11+ examination system within which children are typically subject to either being ‘winners or losers’, although there are parents who opt for their children not to take part in such a divisive examination.

During our visit, we were welcomed into a Year 6 induction session for approximately forty students starting in September. This session involved students identified as having SEN from primary feeder schools. The morning induction group we observed were exploring science; students were working in small groups with the support of current Cressex students who themselves had identified support plans. We discovered preliminary work had been carried out with the school’s SENCO who had visited the feeder primary schools. Like many Learning Support teams, some students had English as an Additional Language (EAL), catering for over 30 languages. Behind the scenes, the SENCO had met parents, building trust and confidence. Where EAL crossed with issues of support, particularly relating to mental health difficulties, the school often struggled to get both sets of needs met in a joined up way. There was an impressive community commitment to student voice and the development of reciprocal friendship groups. We welcomed the SENCO’s honest and open appraisal of her own commitment and a genuine frustration about finding a solution to supporting students who it is often claimed require ‘one-to-one supervision in a nurturing, quiet environment’.

Interestingly, and quite by accident, we spoke to a group of parents who were visiting the school with their children. These parents shared their previous struggles and frustrations with trying to secure support for their children. One parent told us about her daughter’s issue with a primary school which lacked understanding about making reasonable adjustments (requiring large print). This experience unfortunately is still typical and one that usually escalates into the parties being at loggerheads.

Later we had an opportunity to meet the Deputy Headteacher, who is responsible for attendance and behaviour. What was again impressive was his commitment to working with the local community. There was a concerted whole-school approach to managing behaviour, and a recognition of the need for effective support. In response to financial constraints and cuts, the school had chosen to keep the leadership team small rather than cut learning and support staff, even though there are continuing pressures to increase student numbers. Of note is the personal contact the Deputy Headteacher has with families within the local community. There was a real concern about ensuring the cooperative values included democracy, solidarity, and equality and equity. There was a recognition of continuing work around promoting disability equality and removing barriers to participation, particularly within a community where disability, ethnicity, and religion can be not only all equally and collectively relevant but are equally welcomed and celebrated. Indeed, there was a recognition of moving towards a greater diversity of disabled people.

Talking to four students about the support they received, each shared specific details of the different ways the learning support team had made reasonable adjustments. There was a real sense from the students of enthusiasm for learning which was being transformed into pursuing their aspirations. One of the students described the support she received when

“she did her work, going outside, and school clubs – especially the sport club.” (Alison)

Another student stated that that the school is

“a good environment, a good community, everyone socialises, there’s great respect in the school, people treat you in the way they’d expect to be treated, and the teachers are fantastic.” (Safdar)

In contrast, their earlier schooling experiences were markedly different. One of the students said that one teacher in his primary school:

“didn’t get where I was coming from, and thought I was doing things wrong on purpose, and trying to skive, not do the work which had been a bit of a struggle.” (Steven)

As the visit was nearing its end, we had an opportunity to speak with Katy Simmons, who is the Chair of Governors. Katy shared her earlier experiences, describing the ‘old’ school as being:

“draughty, inaccessible and the kind of school to which nobody wanted to send their children.” (Katy)

Things have certainly changed: there was a clear ethos, with students acting as ‘associate governors’ contributing to this transformative change of realising the values and struggle for inclusion. What we experienced in visiting Cressex Community School was the difficulties facing schools seeking to serve their communities. Whilst government’s educational policy continues to advance its selective and competitive agenda, this school offers an important reminder of what shared community values can mean. It is not any one individual who carries this agenda, but a shared philosophy and commitment to the values of social responsibility, equality and social justice.

We would like to sincerely thank the students, parents, SENCO, Deputy Headteacher and Headteacher for inviting us to the school, and sharing their experience with us.

Navin Kikabhai

Sterre: I went to Buckingham Palace to see the Prince. I got my certificate and everyone clapped for me. I was happy.

Sterre has been working over the past two years for her Gold Duke of Edinburgh award. This award is great because you work towards targets that you set yourself, so you only measure yourself against yourself. Sterre put a lot of work in and was able to achieve her Gold Duke of Edinburgh before she turned 26.

Sterre: I went swimming with Ellen. We swam in the Olympic park. It was difficult. I swam really fast. I swam six lengths. I swam until my lips went blue!

For her physical section of the award Sterre had to do a sport regularly for six months, set targets and show improvement. She managed to swim whole lengths in the Olympic pool without stopping and achieved her 200m award without stopping to rest. She was timed each week and could see that she managed to swim faster.

Sterre: I worked at a Garden Centre. I watered the plants. I liked feeding the chickens and meeting people.

For her volunteer section Sterre had to volunteer every week for twelve months. Sterre worked at a garden centre. At first Sterre wasn’t used to getting her hands dirty, or to move around whilst holding the hose or watering can. Over the year Sterre improved these skills and was able to do it really independently.

Sterre: I went on a horseriding holiday. I did my level 1! My horse was called Fudge. I groomed the horse. I met lots of people.

For her Residential section Sterre had to go away from home for a week with people she didn’t know and learn a new skill. Sterre chose to go on a horseriding course in the Lake District. There she achieved her Horseriding RDA Level 1 and Horse Care Level 1. She was assessed on her riding and also naming all parts of the horse. She rode with a good seat through the Lake District and was able to go up and down steep parts of the hills without losing her balance.

Sterre: I did drama with Act Up! I did the lines from the script using signs. I taught all the people signs and all the people used signs in the show. I made poems for the show using signs.

For her Skills section Sterre had to set targets to develop her skills in some way over eighteen months. Sterre worked to improve her drama skills with her theatre company Act Up! Newham. Sterre got more involved in writing for shows – making poems using signs which involved all the actors in the choruses. She became so independent in signing long monologues on stage.

Sterre: I went walking in the forest. It was difficult. We slept in tents and we cooked. I met lots of people and made lots of friends. It made me happy.

For her Expedition section Sterre had to go on a practice expedition for two days and one night and an assessed expedition for four days and three nights. This was probably the most challenging section for Sterre as she had never done anything like this. She slept in a tent for a whole week, not allowed to go inside or she would fail! She cooked her own food on a gas fire and travelled 10 km with her group each day. She used a wheelchair only when really exhausted, walking much more than we had ever seen her walk. She always walked independently with the other group members rather than her PA. She had to mapread and answer questions for assessment throughout and did an assessed presentation at the end of the week.

Sterre: I liked the Duke of Edinburgh because I worked hard and got a certificate. I met lots of people and made friends and was happy. I was proud because everyone clapped for me. I had a big party and lots of people came to my house. All the people talked about me and said I was very good. All the people watched a film about it.

To see the Youtube video of Sterre’s Duke of Edinburgh Award go to http://bit.ly/2hlq8UO

Sterre Ploeger and Hannah Facey

And then, only last month, we discover that the world has been listening and better than that – has seen through the nonsense spouted by this government in the name of austerity and greater autonomy for education providers.

In August a group of disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), including ALLFIE, went to Geneva to listen to the UK government being interrogated by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – six hours of questioning split over two days.

This is the first time that the UK government has been scrutinised by the UNCPRD Committee since ratifying the convention in 2009 so it is an important benchmark for the future. Any government that ratifies a UN human rights treaty is then regularly scrutinised by the related committee to review implementation of that treaty.

During the scrutiny session the UK government claimed to be a ‘world leader in disability issues’ which was challenged by a number of the committee members. Most government departments were represented in Geneva, including the Department for Education (DfE), which was important because the committee asked lots of questions related to Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education.

To date the government has produced no evidence to show how it is meeting its Article 24 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 have declined year on year since ratification. Bizarrely, when questioned about the decline in the numbers of disabled pupils in mainstream, DfE reps claimed that 98.6% of disabled pupils and students are included in mainstream education (we have since submitted a Freedom of Information request for a breakdown of this figure).

The UNCRPD Committee published its Concluding Observations document a week after the scrutiny and it is damning of the government’s track record on human rights – not just on education and Disabled children but across all issues. The key issues relating to Article 24 include:

In many of the DfE’s responses to Article 24 questions, parental choice was used as a defence to the government’s non-compliance with the convention, that special schools exist because ‘that’s what parents want’ – not a single mention of the cuts to local SEND support services or disincentives in the education system that discourage mainstream schools from admitting disabled pupils or the extra government money being ploughed into segregated provision. Thankfully this was picked up by the Chair of the Committee, Theresia Degener, who stated that ‘inclusive education is not a choice, it is a human right’.

The Committee also highlighted real concerns about the lack of progress on Article 7: Disabled children, and in particular the government’s failure to address the high levels of bullying of disabled children and young people.

ALLFIE has taken a lead on both these articles both in preparing for the scrutiny sessions and also the drafting of the ROFA (Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance) Shadow Report earlier this year. We also prepared a briefing for those committee members who have an interest in education issues. This was a good move because the committee members from Hungary, Lithuania and Russia used questions suggested by ALLFIE during the scrutiny sessions.

The Concluding Observations document is full of incredibly helpful recommendations. We are really pleased to see that the UN Committee have taken particular issue with the increasing segregation of disabled children and young people and so many of the recommendations are linked to this issue. For example Recommendation 53(a) states that the government must:

“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 teachers and all other professionals and persons in contact with children understand the concept of inclusion and are able to enhance inclusive education.”

The Concluding Observations don’t pull any punches when it comes to highlighting the numerous and systematic breaches of the convention. 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 about the UK government’s failure to implement the rights of disabled people in all areas. This was also highlighted by Ms Degener’s concluding remarks on the second day of the scrutiny, when she described the government’s current approach to disabled people as causing “a human catastrophe”.

During the scrutiny session committee members repeatedly highlighted the huge amount of evidence they had received from Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) – over 2000 pages showing the scale of the government’s disregard for the convention and disabled people’s human rights in general. DPOs 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.

And so what now? We have an incredibly useful campaigning document in the Concluding Observations both in the strength and clarity of the recommendations and also the clear requirement for government to find more effective ways to work with organisations like ALLFIE to realise the human rights set out in the convention.

Our work now is to focus on challenging the government to take its convention obligations seriously, particularly Article 24. For ALLFIE our campaign work continues but with renewed energy and now with the force of the world alongside us!

The Concluding Observations are here.

Tara Flood

The campaign waged in the run-up to the election has led to a partial climb-down by the government, but they are still intent on redistributing money from the schools most in need. The need to redouble efforts and keep campaigning is obvious.

It is estimated that the NUT Campaign Against Education Cuts added 800,000 votes to Labour in the run-up to the general election and was one of the main reasons Tory MPs lost safe seats like Canterbury. The NUT website, schoolcuts.org.uk, showing the combined effects of the 8% cut in real terms funding due to rises in pension and National Insurance contributions and the apprenticeship levy, combined with the effects of a new funding formula, showed nearly every school was a loser. 18,329 schools in England would lose out. The primary average cut was £86,951 or £338 per pupil and secondary average cut was £370,298 or £436 per pupil. This campaign was supported by the ATL (merging with NUT from September), the NAHT heads’ union, Unison, Unite, GMB and most importantly many parents’ groups. After the election, Justine Greening promised £1.3bn funding for schools in England to head off a Conservative revolt, raiding the budget for free schools and new buildings to pay for the rise.

She said schools would get the bailout over the next two years, after complaints from Conservative MPs that failure to deal with concerns about struggling schools cost the government its majority at the election (Guardian 17th July 17). In a partial compromise, Greening also announced a delay in full implementation of the controversial new national funding formula, which means some schools getting more money and some losing cash per pupil in real terms. Under the plans, the new formula would only be indicative for its first two years in 2018 and 2019, with local authorities getting discretion in how to distribute the money during that time. The bulk of the cash will come from an unidentified £600m of new cuts to the central Department for Education budget. A further £200m will come from the free schools’ budget by building 30 out of a planned 140 as local authority schools instead. Greening will also take £420m from the capital budget for building and repairs, mostly from the “healthy pupils” funding for sports facilities and wellbeing. This is not new money, which is needed to resolve the issue. Poorly funded schools need to be levelled up to the funding of the best, not cut.

In Hackney, due for a cut of 23%, four public meetings were addressed by parents, headteachers, teachers and councillors. The parent-led Hackney Fair Funding for All Schools held a hustings with six big parents’ assemblies, and banners outlining the cuts hung outside many schools. There was strike action against compulsory redundancies at Parkwood Primary, the Central Inclusion and Special Support Team, Our Lady’s Convent, Stoke Newington and B-Six Sixth Form Centre. In all cases compulsory redundancies were avoided. But non-replacement of vacant posts means increasing workload and less support time for individual children. Although Hackney schools have improved dramatically due to good staffing, Hackney still excludes more pupils than any other London Borough and needs to keep its staff.

The likelihood, without a change of government, is that it will become harder and harder to get disabled children properly included. The answer is organising staff and parents to be proactive locally and to fight politically for funding of inclusion for all children. This means an increase in the percentage of GDP spent on education.

Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion

Research in 2014 by the Institute of Education found that disabled primary school pupils and those with SEN were twice as likely to be bullied as their non-disabled peers. Those with ‘hidden’ impairments seem to be most at risk with eight out of ten children with learning disabilities experiencing bullying and Bancroft (2012) found that unfortunately 63% of young people with autism have been bullied at school.

ABA works on the government funded All Together programme with the primary aim of reducing disablist bullying. When we first started developing the programme, we came across a common phrase from school staff: ‘They wouldn’t bully him/her if only they didn’t…’. It ranged from things like ‘if only they made friends better’ or ‘if only they didn’t chew their sleeve’ or ‘if only they didn’t make that noise’. It was clear the emphasis in responses to bullying of disabled pupils was more about changing the victims’ behaviour than challenging the behaviour of those doing the bullying.

This realisation has changed the way we work. We started to introduce a ‘social model’ approach to anti-bullying strategies. This strategy says that responses to bullying should never focus primarily on changing the behaviour of the child experiencing the bullying and that schools should ask themselves ‘what are we currently doing as a whole school that puts children at a greater risk of being bullied?’ – this approach combined with a whole-school, senior leadership-led approach to anti-bullying has started to see really positive results.

The reason a person is bullied is never down to their characteristic. Someone isn’t bullied ‘because they are a disabled person’ they are bullied because of the attitude of the perpetrator and a lack of a whole-school approach to dealing with it.

We are delighted to see the focus of the UN on bullying in their recent report about the UK. We hope to work closely with the government to ensure they learn directly from young disabled people and that they look at the success of our All Together programme. We cannot relinquish the pressure on government to focus on the disproportionate number of disabled young people experiencing bullying in schools.

We know young people who experience bullying are more likely to be excluded, leave school without qualifications, experience mental health issues in adulthood, be homeless, be obese, experience and perpetrate domestic violence and not be in a stable relationship. No longer can we accept that bullying is a rite of passage. We must challenge schools, society and government to do more to stop bullying especially for those who experience it most, disabled young people.

This is why we are using Anti-Bullying Week this year to celebrate what makes us all different and all equal. Where young people feel empowered to stand up and say no to bullying and feel they have a right to a safe environment when they go to school and not experience harassment and/or violence. For too long we have been hearing from disabled young people that they feel they should put up with it because they are disabled. We need to send a collective message that this is not the case and no one should have to experience bullying at school.

Anti-Bullying Week 2017 is from Monday 13th November – Friday 17th November 2017 with the theme ‘All Different, All Equal’. Find out how to get involved at www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk. To sign up to become an All Together School, for free, visit www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/alltogether

Martha Evans, National Coordinator, Anti-Bullying Alliance

From earliest times having an impairment has been part of the human condition. The urge to portray, draw, paint, carve, sculpt our existence is also an essential part of being human, illustrating the fundamental human desire to communicate and make art as a way of understanding ourselves and our place in the world. How these realities interact is the theme of this year’s Disability History Month.

Several of the carvings in the British Museum Ice Age exhibition showed representations of disabled people 40,000 years ago. Many ancient Egyptian representations show gods such as the diminutive Bes, God of dreams and dancing or the high ranking Seneb, also a short person. From Mesopotamia to Egypt votive offerings were made, showing or describing impairments which people wanted to be rid of. Ancient Greek pottery represents the tales of blind Homer eg Odysseus escaping blinded Polyphemus’ cave clinging to a ram, or the club footed God, Hephaestus. Much of the representation of disabled people for the next 1700 years was to do with the visual interpretation of Biblical stories first in illuminated manuscripts and church windows, then in oils, then the more widely distributed prints. Miracle cures of blindness and lameness feature strongly.

In the Enlightenment (C18th) we begin to see pictures of disabled people based on their notoriety or ‘freakishness’. These would include Duncan Campbell the Deaf fortune teller (1670-1730); Thomas Inglefield ( b 1749), the artist with short arms and legs or Swedish Magdalena Rudolfs Thuinbuj (b 1612) with no arms. The etching shows her capable of performing all domestic tasks.

Many more famous artists were themselves disabled for some or part of their careers. Given the negative stereotypes, they mainly concealed their impairments but they often impacted on their work. Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci are now both thought to have been on the autistic spectrum which may explain their prodigious output. Rembrandt had an astigmatism, clear in his more than 30 self- portraits. This gave him a visual advantage in his large tableau paintings. Goya had deafness and depression which partly explains the shift from court painter to his ‘Black paintings’. Frida Khalo had polio as child and at 19 a serious motor accident leading to back and leg problems. Along with her socialism and love of native Mexican culture her impairment became the main palette she worked on. Toulouse-Lautrec had a congenital condition which led to his short stature and malformed head, a major factor in him becoming a great artist and then drinking himself to death. Edvard Munch and Van Gogh were just a few of the many artists with mental health issues that inspired and eclipsed their work. Monet and several other impressionists had visual impairments which played a major part in their work. Georgia O’Keefe became blind, instructing helpers to complete her paintings. UKDHM is producing a timeline of all the above and more with many educational activities.

In the late 1970’s and 1980’s the disability arts movement grew up, based explicitly on social model thinking and empowering disabled people to self representation. Working with Shape Arts, UKDHM have helped produce four animations and activities which are part of the National Disability Archive and Collection (NDACA): http://ukdhm.org/disability-arts-movement-in-uk.

UKDHM are holding a day workshop on the above. Saturday 21st October 2017 for teachers, lecturers and others. To book a place (£20) contact rlrieser@gmail.com. Broadsheet and online materials available in October for November/December.

Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion

Q: I have been in touch with my local authority seeking an Education, Health and Care Plan assessment for my child, but they say their eligibility criteria for EHCP assessments do not include my child’s impairment and even if it did we would have to wait until April 2018 for the start of the new financial year because of limited resources and budget cuts. Can the LA exclude particular impairments/health conditions in its assessment criteria and can they delay an assessment using lack of resources as an excuse?

A: The local authority must conduct an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA) if they consider that a child has or may have special educational needs and it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made via an EHC plan. The Children and Families Act 2014 sets out when a child has or may have special educational needs and they would likely fall within the definition if

  1. they have a significantly greater difficulty in learning in comparison to the majority of other children who are of their age and or
  2. they have a disability and that causes difficulties for them in using the facilities that are normally provided for their age within mainstream schools.

The local authority cannot exclude particular impairments or conditions and must consider each case on its individual merits. To have a policy which places limits and restrictions on those who can be assessed for an EHC plan is likely to be unlawful. When considering a request for an EHCNA the LA must follow what the law says as must the Tribunal on an appeal.

The local authority should usually respond to an EHCNA request, to say whether or not they are going to proceed with an assessment, within a maximum of six weeks from receiving the request. If the local authority determines that an EHCNA is needed then they must complete the assessment in a timely manner. If following the EHCNA the local authority decides not to issue an EHC plan they must inform the parent within a maximum of sixteen weeks from the date on which the EHCNA request is received. If an EHC plan is going to be issued the final version must be issued within a maximum of twenty weeks from receiving the EHCNA request. There are certain factors that could delay the EHCNA process. These are set out in law and include; appointments being missed, the child being away from the area for four weeks or more, exceptional personal circumstances affecting the child and or parents, and educational setting being closed for four weeks or more. The issue of a lack of resources is not one of them and so the local authority cannot rely on this as an excuse.

If you make a request for an EHCNA and the local authority refuses to conduct one then you can engage in mediation with the local authority and or make an appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Thomas Mitchell

Thomas Mitchell is a solicitor with Simpson Millar and specialises in Education and Community Care law. www.simpsonmillar.co.uk

Who would have thought when we were starting to put together the Summer 2017 edition of Inclusion Now that we would be calling it a General Election Special? A snap election has been called for the 8th June so we have scanned party manifestos for any promises about inclusion – you will not be surprised that references to inclusion and/or Disabled pupils and students are scant, but there are some – see pages 11, 12 and 13.

It feels like there is a growing divide between the inclusion back pedalling here by the UK government and progress in other countries. I am struck by Richard Rieser’s articles about inclusive education in Bangladesh (pp6/7) where the barriers are huge, and plans for a global funding initiative on inclusive education (pp16/17). On pages 8/9 there is an inspirational piece on how New Brunswick in Canada decided on achieving 100% inclusive education, and took very practical steps which delivered real and sustainable change.

As a survivor of a residential special school myself I am appalled but not surprised by Paul Doyle’s account of his time in a similar setting (pp4/5). He is absolutely right that all young people incarcerated in such settings need a voice, but what they need most is to no longer be separated from their communities – written off by a society that chooses to continually fail young people because we don’t easily fit in.

Whatever the election result, I will wake up on the morning of the 9th June prepared to continue the struggle for real and lasting inclusive education – I hope you will join me!

In solidarity

Tara Flood

In March we gave evidence to the UN in Geneva with the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance, presenting our Shadow Report which documents how UK government policies since 2010 have moved backwards against nearly every article of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education.

The CRPD Committee asked a number of questions about education and disabled children and young people in response to ALLFIE’s presentation. Our presentation set out the many breaches of Article 24 since ratification in 2009, including announcements of new funding for special and segregated provision, the disproportionate numbers of disabled children and young people with SEN being excluded from school, funding cuts to local SEN support services and the impact of these on disabled children, young people and their families, and of course the government plan to significantly increase levels of selection in schools.

The CRPD Committee have used this evidence to help it produce a “list of issues” on which it needs further information from the UK government. That list has now been published and will provide the scrutiny framework when the UK government attends the CRPD Committee in August.

The issues the UK government has been asked to comment on include:

ALLFIE has reviewed the list of issues and we’re pleased that our concerns about the backward movement on Article 24 rights have been included in the document.

The full List of Issues is online here.

Tara Flood

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.