Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to main content

Inclusive Solutions: “Don’t defend inclusion, make them defend segregation”

Maresa Mackeith interviews Derek Wilson and Colin Newton from Inclusive Solutions

 

As partners of Inclusion Now magazine for many years, we wanted to know more about their inclusive practice work. So, in April this year, Maresa interviewed Colin and Derek on behalf of the editorial board – here’s what she found out.

  1. Maresa: We wondered if you could tell us about the history of Inclusive Solutions.

Colin: Inclusive Solutions goes back about 20 years, maybe 21 years this year. We were exposed to the Inclusion Movement through Marsha Forrest and Jack Pearpoint and also, in this country, through Richard Rieser. As educational psychologists we didn’t want to give up our day jobs, and Marsha Forrest just died and that was our trigger. We were doing a lot of work on inclusion and the approach of Circle of Friends. We made a lot of progress with that and person-centred planning.

Derek:  We were getting more and more requests to come and do training with other people across the country. We didn’t leave local authority jobs because we were unhappy or frustrated. In many ways we had a lot of freedom to do what we thought was important as part of developing inclusion in Nottingham city. But the picture felt like a bigger one, I guess, looking back and we made the decision to strike out as freelance trainers and support Inclusion Now when we could.  We were doing that at a time, nationally, when there was a reasonable amount of money for training during the late 1990s and early 2000s, so we were well placed in terms of requests to come and do training on inclusion.

Colin:  We were travelling the UK, parts of Eastern Europe and even trips to Canada and North America. We travelled a lot with the inclusion message. We really developed the Circle of Inclusion approach, really strengthening the idea of the Circle of Adults as a problem-solving process. We really embedded that with training and writing.

Derek: It’s probably important to say something about our training methodology in this context because we always trained together. We almost always used a large scale graphic visual representation of what topics we were training on and, in line with the inclusion message, we were keen to try and get the ideas across in as many ways as we could, so we were never people that lectured with a series of bullet points. I guess with hindsight I’d often say that good teaching is good teaching and using a range of methods.

Colin:  So, we were very interactive in our training work. We’ve done individual work around training with families and young people, always with the mission of all children being included in mainstream schools with the right support, the right provision, and the right flexibilities. So, the ideas and strategies that we used, like, for example, restorative justice, were always in the interest of maximising every child’s right to inclusion. We really tried to get our training up to a gold standard so people would remember us and remember those ideas and take that feeling away, that spirit away to want to include all children.

  1. Maresa: What differences have Inclusive Solutions made?

Colin: One thing I would say is the educational psychology world has fully embraced a number of the approaches we promoted, particularly person-centred planning; the use of parts and maps. They are really highly valued by psychology services up and down the UK around working with children and families. To this day they are still hankering to learn more about them, so that’s been really important. I would say the Circle of Friends approach was embedded and put in the pills Toolkits, as was the Circle of Adults process which was the in depth problem-solving. It was quite something really. It was embedded in psychology approaches but then it filtered down into schools as well in terms of practice that gets close to young people. That’s definitely one change we brought.

Derek:  Again, with hindsight, inclusion has become one of those words that nobody says they’re not. It’s almost an insult to be told you’re not very inclusive. That wasn’t the case 20 plus years ago. So that word has found itself into the mainstream of what people expect settings to be and the individuals to be. But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s properly understood. Nowadays I would introduce, especially our Keys to Inclusion session, with words along the lines of: “We want to be able to think together a bit more deeply about what that word means, because we all think it’s a good thing but what are we talking about and not talking about.” So, thinking about what difference we’ve made, we couldn’t take full credit for mainstreaming the word inclusion, that’s come from a whole range of sources, but right now it’s an accepted good thing.

What that means in practice is a different issue. That’s always been the struggle for us. The actual mindset of what underpins inclusive practice is quite tricky and takes a bit of unlearning about what we were all taught as ways of understanding people with differences. I suppose I’m getting at the medical model here; we do things like ask what’s ‘wrong’ with somebody as a first question, and to try and move beyond that and ask more inclusive questions is a big ask.

  1. Maresa: How did the Young people respond to your training programmes?

Colin: Sometimes when we’re doing person-centred planning, with the path and the map approach, the big visual approaches to planning, we encourage people to bring some Young people along from the schools and want a diverse range of Young people to be present. Sometimes we plan with Young people directly as well. They like the interactiveness of it and that they get a chance to speak, however they communicate, and obviously we value that. Having said that, we did once run our Keys to Inclusion training with 5 and 6-year-olds and that was interesting. We always wondered would the work we do with adults be transferable to very young children, because it’s very simple communication, and they loved it.

Derek: Equally, when we do work directly with Young people in terms of Circles of Friends, people are very quick to see that the issues of exclusion and social justice are ultimately relevant to everybody. Not just the person that happens to be the focus of the circle at that time. Young people are always very quick to see what the point of this is, why somebody is on the margins and what they can do to make that less likely. Maybe they haven’t named it in that way as an inclusion or social justice issue, but in their experience it’s crucial. So, tapping into that, what troubles or what pleases Young people, is also important and very relevant.

  1. Maresa: Can you tell us more about Circles of Support?

Derek: One of the most obvious things is that if you’re in a mainstream setting then the key resources you need, for a circle of friends or circle of support, are already all around you – the peer group. In essence what we’re doing here is involving the peer group in building inclusion. Based on the idea that you go to school to be with other young people, not to be with adults, and if we can find a method that helps us recruit Young people in support of building inclusion then we’re being a possible support.

Colin: We’ve probably set up hundreds of circles all around the UK, occasionally internationally, with many young people. Just always really impressed by how the Young people step forward and volunteer. Even around the most challenging of their number who’s been causing them harm or upset for whatever reason, still there was always a team that would volunteer and wrap themselves around that Young person and problem solve with them. Meet with them weekly and make a change to their lives. And that they haven’t heard of the idea that the adults can step back and let Young people come forward and work their magic. It’s powerful, still very powerful. And interestingly we wrote that book a long time ago now but still copies every week get sold. Probably the best seller of all our books which says something as well, doesn’t it?

  1. Maresa: What are you both most proud of?

Derek:  I think the training methodology. We’ve worked over years to make the training a success in a way. I say now without boasting that we make it look easy. That kind of training or facilitating person-centred planning or whatever, but of course it’s not easy. For us, years of thinking and talk and trying things out have gone into it to get what you would see today. That doesn’t happen overnight. Looking back, I think to have become the effective, successful trainers we are, would be one of the things I’m most pleased about.

Colin: I would agree with that. And I kind of think of maximising the idea of drawing, not so much on the psychology but the arts really. There was music and drama. There was pictorial, graphic art and communication. And then bringing it all together. An interesting mulch that seems to work for people. I’m proud of that too. It’s not where we started but certainly where we’ve got to over the years.  Also, I’m really proud that all that person-centred planning, work of path and maps and adult problem-solving processes, that we ourselves created, really has been embedded in the profession methodology. That means a whole bunch of people in the special needs world, especially across the UK, have also been exposed to these processes, have valued them and used them positively and in inclusive ways. That was no mean achievement really.

And the Circle of Friends stuff, I said we could go to our graves happily knowing that some of those circles have made such a difference to those peoples’ lives. Really kept them present in the mainstream world that maybe without them that would never have happened, and they’d be in a worse place. So, we’ve absolutely done our bit to slow up the exclusions and segregations we hope.

  1. Maresa: What do you think the public should know, thinking about it now and previously, about inclusive education?

Colin: I feel they should know it works. They shouldn’t buy into the medical model that children can be fixed once diagnosed and that the treatment is a special school. They should embrace the fact, that going right to the local mainstream school is one of the most wonderful things they can do for their own child whatever their child’s difference or complexity might be, this is where they should start really.  All the public seem to have got hold of is that inclusive education isn’t a good thing and that special education’s treatment, and interventions are the way to go if their child is Disabled for whatever reason and kind of taken a wrong turning big time, nationally, this is in the UK, and well beyond, actually.  That’s what I would want them to learn – that it is worth, not just considering, but worth embracing.

Derek: I like to say to myself these days that nobody ever witnessed or experienced a successful example of inclusion and said, ‘well that’s not right’. People instinctively recognise that this is a good thing that is happening. I mean I’m also chastened by how deep seated some of the beliefs we’re up against are because if it was simply a case of evidence-based practice as they call it, we wouldn’t ever segregate people into settings where it’s a closed community and people share the same difficulties. I mean there’s almost a weekly scandal of horrific things happening in these settings, and so it will keep coming, but that doesn’t stop people thinking that the answer lies in a kind of grouping segregation of people despite the vicious evidence to the contrary. I still struggle with that. If that was a medication, people would have abandoned it a long time ago. It would have been removed from the market as something that is harmful. Yet those kinds of settings aren’t removed, they’re bursting full. Obviously, that troubles me.

Colin: I think they also need to know that a lot of learning is by imitation and copying, and chances to be with other children and other young people is crucial. Derek is right, it’s a real evil of placing adults and children together. It’s not safe. The learning opportunities are much more reduced. The general public need to get behind that and recognise it for what it is. It’s a false promise and it’s not delivering.

  1. Maresa: How do you think you and readers of Inclusion Now can help schools to be different?

Derek: An influence on our practice that we haven’t mentioned yet has been dialogue with Disabled activists. Which is still relatively rare, and most people in professional decision-making positions have little dialogue with Disabled people, and don’t incorporate the kind of views that Inclusion Now would express into their policy making or their general thinking. I think that is still a big gap in what informs local authorities or decision makers and that voice, however, Inclusion Now chooses to amplify it, is still crucial because the disability activists’ voice is uniform in opposing segregation. People often say don’t defend inclusion, make them defend segregation – it’s important to push that.

Colin: Building further on what Derek says is the power of a Disabled adult mentoring a child who is also Disabled, coming through the system from the youngest of age, it’s hardly been tapped into. The possibilities and the innate possibilities that brings with it – it’s such a powerful one. When we’ve seen that created, however briefly, you can see such magic occurring and such wonderful fall out for the future. That would be a very useful thing for, maybe Disabled readers of Inclusion Now to consider, if they can ever get in the door of school or anybody could open that door up. Any reader, including ourselves, any opportunity we have, to influence schools and to make them think twice about it. To hear human stories, and stories like your own Maresa, to be honest. These are stories of change and possibility: the power of the mainstream over what special schools can offer really. Challenge is what we need to do and then support them with any inclination they have, to move into a more inclusive direction.

Derek: There’s some traction there but still a lot of voices go unheard and that’s an important role for Inclusion Now, being the source of those voices.

  1. Maresa: What are you running now that current readers could get involved in?

Colin: There’s a Community Circle that we run every 6 weeks. Anyone within striking distance would be very welcome to that. They could email us for information about that. If people want to sit in on something, we can usually find a way in for people to join us on something. So, we’ve got training in various places across the country with person-centred planning being at the heart of that.

Derek:  I think the short answer would be; just ask. Where possible we’ll try and include you or design something that fits what you’re asking for. I’m struck by the approaches we’ve had where in budgetary terms they have very little cash for any of this, but are attracted to the idea that many of the practices that they are thinking about, is about using what they already got, i.e. typical kids in many cases, which in a mainstream school don’t cost anything. So, one of the attractions in Circle of Friends training is that it doesn’t need a lot of extra resources. I think that’s key to a lot of inclusive practice.

More resources:

Ofsted emphasis on ‘improving’ school standards undermines inclusion

Inclusive schools, like Melody Powell’s previous one, are downgraded because they don’t meet traditional tick boxes. Melody and ALLFIE’s Michelle Daley highlight school intake discrimination.

Ofsted states on the GOV.UK website that their aim is “to improve lives by raising standards in education”. However, when it comes to accessibility and inclusion, it seems that these raised standards can be more detrimental to pupils’ lives. For example, highly rated schools often have the bare minimum for Disabled students, as they focus on ticking all the inspection framework boxes rather than considering individual students’ needs as a stand-alone priority.

Melody says:

“In my experience within mainstream secondary education, the local school I started at had an ‘outstanding’ rating from Ofsted; however, my time there was far from outstanding. I only ever had trouble when it came to getting any of my needs met, and it seemed the school couldn’t understand why what they had to offer wasn’t enough for me.”

“So, after fighting a losing battle, I moved to a different school. This one had a bad reputation in relation to Ofsted reviews; they were seen as a school full of badly behaved pupils, as they often took students that other schools had let down. Despite how this school was perceived, we felt they were worth trying because of our positive experience talking with the teachers and assistants. I’m so glad we didn’t judge them purely on their Ofsted rating. They were the most supportive and understanding school; they helped me and many other Young Disabled people to achieve our potential as they were always willing to adapt to our needs.” (Melody Powell)

Melody’s argument is backed up by ALLFIE’s own campaign for inclusive education, for example, work around attainment and government league tables, which show that Disabled people are being punished by the impact of targets around achievements and performance tables:

“The government’s league tables support educational inequality, but also helps to maintain the social-economic gap within society. There is huge pressure on schools to aspire to be at the top of the league table. This encourages schools to not take Disabled children (with or without labels) and other children labelled as disadvantaged. It also encourages schools to compete against each other, but at the harm of all children and society.” (Michelle Daley, ALLFIE Director, virtual lecture to Japan-UK Inclusive Education Seminar at Nayoro City University 2022)

In 2019, the Independent newspaper reported that “Government league tables “punish” schools by ignoring pupils’ backgrounds” (Eleanor Busby, Independent: January 2019).

Five hundred schools’ positions changed on the league table “once pupil ethnicity, deprivation and special needs were taken into account, researchers found… 40 per cent of schools currently judged to be underperforming would no longer fall into this category if these factors were considered.” (Eleanor Busby, Independent: January 2019)

Schools that practice inclusive education in mainstream provisions, where diversity and belonging is nurtured, ensuring the whole school can thrive, are being punished and labelled as ‘under-performing’ because they do not discriminate in their intake based on characteristics and social background. Ofsted league tables contribute to increasing social class difference, ableism and other forms of discrimination in school intake by creating a value system. The discriminatory and unjust league tables publish information that reinforces structural, systemic inequality, and divided communities.

By Melody Powell (She/They) and Michelle Daley

Intersectional approaches to inclusive education under UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

By Maresa Mackeith and Michelle Daley

Introduction

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Article 24 on Education, talks about the importance of having the right support in school:

“In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that: Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion” (UNCRPD Article 24 on Education, Paragraph 2e).

Maresa Mackeith refers to the realisation of Article 24 in practice, through her own school experience and the type of support she had. Maresa’s experience demonstrates the importance of understanding the UNCRPD from an intersectional persective, to influence policy and practice and ensure that we move towards inclusive education and achieve social justice and human rights for all Disabled people, in all areas of our lives.

Supporting Maresa to achieve inclusive education, it was necessary to recognise her rights as a Disabled child (under UNCRPD Article 7 on Children With Disabilities), respecting her gender as a girl (under UNCRPD Article 6 on Women With Disabilities), as well as her rights to independent living to make choices and be in control of her own support (under UNCRPD Article 19 on Living Independently And Being Included In The Community). This illustrates that inclusive education cannot be achieved in isolation or by homogenising Disabled people’s experience and background.

Maresa’s experience

When I was finally accepted into a mainstream school, I was so excited. I was eleven and had been at my special school since I was five. My special school did not believe in my communication system, so I was not receiving much that was appropriate for my age. I had had two years of one day a week in a primary school which I enjoyed, made friends and learned a lot but because it was only one day a week, I could not keep up. So, to be accepted to go full time to a mainstream school seemed wonderful.

Unfortunately, the SENCO at the new school did not believe in my communication system either. Her attitude was that if she did not know about it, it was not worth knowing about.  She wouldn’t let anybody teach the assistants.

It seemed clear to me that the SENCO did not want me in that school. She did not want to know how I communicated and did not want the assistants at the school to learn about what I could do. I spent a lot of time away from the classrooms, alone with assistants who didn’t know anything about me.

The two years I spent there were awful although some of the young people did try to make friends with me. I felt isolated and hopeless.

I then had a few months at home recovering from an operation. I eventually got a teacher at home who said she would find a school for me.

The attitude of the next school was completely different. They acknowledged what they did not know and asked for our help. We taught them the skills needed to assist me and were involved in the recruitment of my assistants. They were excited about learning new skills and ways of including me.

The two years I spent there opened up worlds for me. Time was given for the young people to learn my communication system and time was given to encourage the young people to get to know me.

This school gave me the confidence to go on to Further Education College and then to university.  I learned so much and I still have a friend from that school over 20 years later.

Conclusion

Maresa’s experience highlights an example of what the UNCRPD is calling for, and the reasons why we need Article 24 implemented in our domestic law, to achieve inclusive education as a right for all within mainstream education in the UK. Inclusive education within mainstream educational provisions shouldn’t be an isolated experience, it should be the norm.

A Creative Exploration aimed at Young Disabled People across the UK

A new initiative, organised by UK Disability History Month, is now open for entries.

UK Disability History Month (UKDHM) are asking Young Disabled people to share their experiences, whatever school or college they attend/attended. UKDHM 2023 will explore how Young Disabled people have been treated in the past and currently to help shape our ideas of how we should be treated and valued in the future. As part of a new exploration, we want the good, the bad and the changes they would like to see.

If you are a Young Disabled person, a parent or work with Young Disabled people, please encourage them to take part in Exploration 2023.

Background

The theme of United Kingdom Disability History Month in 2023 is ‘Disability, Childhood and Youth.’ As 2023 is the Commonwealth Year of Youth, it is a fitting time to examine how Young Disabled people are experiencing life.

With the disability rights of the Equality Act, protection from discrimination, harassment and the right to reasonable adjustments, things should have improved. The signing (2007) and ratification (2009) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by our government, should have led to  a paradigm shift in the UK, from the medical model/deficit thinking to a social/human rights-based model of empowerment and equality.

In reality, the goal of inclusive education and equality appears further away. There is a large increase in segregated provision; bullying and hate crime towards Disabled people continues to increase. Intolerance of physical and mental difference by a minority remains high, as financial and economic difficulties lead to more political scapegoating.

However, there are also thousands of examples where ordinary people’s humanity challenges prejudice and breaks down barriers to promote acceptance and to value difference.

Submitting an entry

UK Disability History Month logo Entries can take any creative form, including poetry, prose, artwork, film (MP4 file) and signing, and will be judged in four age groups (from under 8 years, 8 to 12 years, 12 to 16 year and 16 to 25 years). Whatever your type or degree of impairment, please enter.

Submissions can be by an individual or a group. Details, resources to develop thinking from a social/human rights point of view and an application can be found on the UKDHM website. The thinking in entries needs to be from the young people themselves.

The panel of judges include: Mike Rosen, Colleen Johnson (NEU Executive), Yewande Akintelu-Omoniyi (ALLFIE), Disability campaigners and teachers.

Entries must be submitted with an application form and an electronic high-resolution version of their entry to susie@ukdhm.org by Tuesday 31st October.

Richard Rieser UKDHM Coordinator

My son was recently permanently excluded from school, after five months of fixed-term exclusions. This followed a fight with another pupil, who was not excluded in any way. My son has been formally diagnosed with dyslexia and, recently, ADHD. I’ve been asking for an Education, Health and Care plan for 12 months, which the school have not acted on. I’ve also appealed against the permanent exclusion, which the head teacher has now reversed. I have evidence the school fabricated and falsified information (including my signature agreeing to my son attending an Alternative Provision!), to suit their reasons for my son’s permanent exclusion. During a further three weeks waiting for his reinstatement, the school have ignored my emails. In total my son has been without any education whatsoever for 4 months, and the school have done nothing to re-integrate him. They’ve now offered a vocational college placement for 3 days a week, saying nothing about the remaining 2 days. What is my legal position?

I am sorry to hear that your son has faced such an extensive period of exclusion from school. If you asked the governors of the school to review the decision, then the governing board is required to set out its reasons for reversing the permanent exclusion in sufficient detail, so that all parties can understand why the decision was made. However, a head can reverse their own decision before this stage. If they do so, then they don’t need to give reasons.

When a child of compulsory school age (5 – 16) is suspended from school for more than five school days, the governors of the school must arrange suitable full-time education from the sixth day of the suspension. If a child receives multiple suspensions in a row, the days of the suspension will accumulate for the purposes of this duty. For permanent exclusions, it becomes the responsibility of the Local Authority rather than the school to arrange suitable full-time education.

The school are now offering a placement which does not amount to full-time education. If your child is of compulsory school age, then the Local Authority, rather than the school has a duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure that he is provided with suitable full-time education. That education could be in an alternative school or otherwise, depending on what is in the best interests of the child. The legal route of challenge in this scenario is judicial review, which is a way to challenge an unlawful decision by a public body. You should seek legal advice on this. Legal aid can be available in the child’s name in cases of this nature. Judicial Review is only appropriate for failures which are ongoing. They will not address past failings.

In relation to the school falsifying information, in our experience unfortunately it is unlikely that the courts would be willing to consider the issue. It may be a good idea to make a complaint to Ofsted regarding the general conduct of the school, including the fact that they have kept incorrect personal data about you and your son. The Information Commissioner may also investigate if you report the issues to them. The Information Commissioner would expect you to exhaust the school’s own complaints process first before reporting the matter to them.

With regard to whether a Local Authority can or should be intervening in a school complaint, this depends on the type of school but also the nature of the complaint. If the school is maintained by the Local Authority, then the complaint will escalate to them if not resolved at school level. This is not the case for an Academy school, and you would generally only expect the Local Authority to be involved if the complaint concerned safeguarding.

In relation to EHCPs, a parent is allowed to directly make a request to the Local Authority to carry out an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. This is for the Local Authority to determine whether the child or young person needs an EHCP. It is very disappointing that the school has not cooperated with this, however, we would recommend that you approach the Local Authority directly to request the assessment as it is not within the school’s power to ‘refuse’ the request. Looking at your situation, we would suggest that your efforts are likely to be better spent trying to secure an EHCP with the Local Authority than with the school at this stage.

This Legal Question was posed by Navin Kikabhai (ALLFIE) and answered by Victoria Higgins, Simpson Millar Solicitors

Inclusion Now 66 | Summer 2023

Welcome to the latest edition of Inclusion Now magazine, inclusive education news including: UNCRPD and Intersectionality, Visit to Monega Primary School, SEND Improvement Plan, Inclusive Solutions, and more.

Welcome to the 66th edition of Inclusion Now magazine. Text and audio versions are in the articles below, or you can read it in magazine format on Issuu.

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

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

Hello! I am currently gathering data about higher education and how they respond to issues of diversity, inclusion and social justice. I want to invite you to complete a questionnaire. Recently I wrote an article and created two videos about the issues. I want to get your viewpoints and experiences about higher education participation. I also want to better understand whether universities are effective in terms of public engagement.

 

I previously delivered a seminar/presentation about ‘How Educational Systems Respond to Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice’, and you may have attended this either online, or in-person. Whether you attended the previous seminar/presentation or whether you are reading this for the first time I have created two videos; so that you can have access to the information, and a questionnaire to gather your viewpoints and experience. I have created a short video (3 mins); a visual summary, and a longer video (50 mins) discussing the issues of the article in more detail. I have provided timings for each of the 7 sections (in the description box) of the article on the video, and hopefully this will help to keep your place if you decide to take a break! Below you will find a link to the academic article, and links to the two videos. You should also find a link to the questionnaire form so that you can respond to the questions in your own time. The questions are related to the issues discussed in the journal article. It begins with some general questions about who you are.

 

The article discusses several issues related to higher education and diversity, inclusion and social justice. It raises questions about who they include and who they exclude. It focuses on disability, how disabled people are excluded and seldom part of making change in education and argues that disability is often erased from diversity discussions. Using different ways of thinking about disability and higher education, it recognizes larger patterns of inequality.

Short video

Here is the short video (3 mins):

 


Long video

Here is the link to the longer video (50 mins):

NB: Please watch on YouTube to activate chapter timings

Questionnaire

Here is a link to the questionnaire: https://forms.office.com/r/90w3JqsXBt

This questionnaire should take you about 10 – 15 mins to complete.

Thank you!

In Memory of George Floyd: Three Years On

In this blog to mark George Floyd’s Anniversary on 25th May, ALLFIE’s Disabled Black Lives Matter (DBLM) group highlights its ongoing dedication to challenging racial and intersectional inequality of Black Disabled people, and promoting social justice for ALL Disabled people within the education system.

ALLFIE’s Disabled Black Lives Matter (DBLM) Group maintains its dedication to challenging racial and intersectional inequality of Black Disabled people, in solidarity with Black Lives Matter movement, to promote the social justice of ALL Disabled people within the education system.

This has been a difficult period, with numerous challenges encountered recently. For instance:

Where are we now?

Following the brutal, barbaric, murder and execution of George Floyd, ALLFIE launched a campaign in June 2020 in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, founded by 11 core members. This campaign focuses on challenging the intersectional inequalities, between race, disability and other oppressions, experienced by Black/Global Majority Disabled individuals.

Since 2020, DBLM has been unwavering in their efforts to drive an intersectional framework into ALLFIE’s work, which recognises intersectional injustices. A notable project involved interviewing renowned artist and film director Sir Steve McQueen, centred around his Small Axe BBC Drama TV series. This collection consists of five short dramas that authentically portray the lives and oppression experienced by Black British individuals from the 1960s – 1980s, with a specific emphasis on an episode that explores the theme of education. DBLM were also in conversation with Professor Patrick Vernon on his lived experience of his journey of becoming an activist as someone labelled as ‘educationally subnormal’ because of his speech impairment. DBLM has also had the privilege of expanding its international networks over the past two years. They were extended an invitation by VNDI.Brasil, a campaign group based in Brazil that advocates for the rights of Black Disabled individuals, during their visit to the UK. Additionally, ALLFIE has also been conducting a research project, funded by the Runnymede Trust, to help us to better understand the intersectional experiences of Disabled Black/Global Majority  children in mainstream schools.

ALLFIE’s DBLM acknowledges the necessity of this continued fight to end ALL forms of injustices and inequalities. The murder of George Floyd has continued to bring forward the systemic injustices that are deeply embedded in all fabrics of society. It is imperative that we, as a collective, continue to confront and question these injustices in every aspect of our approach and practices.

In solidarity,

DBLM Collective

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

 

Welcome to Inclusion Now 65, with spring inclusive education news. This edition is dedicated to Joe Whittaker, ALLFIE Trustee and activist. We hope you enjoy Joe’s contributions and presence throughout the magazine including his editorial (page 2), opening article (page 5), and the Legal Question he posed (page 23). Richard Rieser has also included a moving tribute to Joe (page 3), highlighting his crucial work in the Disabled People’s Movement from the 80s onwards.

Editorial

Grace is the driver for this editorial – her experiences in local mainstream school (page 13), illustrate what inclusive education should never be. The determination of Grace’s mum exposes, ignorance, arrogance, dishonesty, deception and cruelty of senior professionals, in Grace’s situation culminating in the absolute pathetic spiteful action of the headteacher, having the symbol for the Disabled parking place painted over so she could use the space herself. This article shows the power of friendships and allies to assist against professional dogma – I had to read twice to comprehend the significance of the exhaustive energy some parents are forced to take to ensure the rights of their child to go to their local school.

Thankfully, as a refreshing contrast (page 9), Richard Rieser reports back on a visit to Pyrcroft Grange Primary School in Surrey, with the mission:

“If you can dream it, you will believe it; if you believe it, you work for it, you will achieve it”

This inclusive school recognises the value of working in partnership with each child and their family, alongside a team of teachers committed to a fully inclusive approach with ALL students, irrespective of the level attached to the student.

On page 15 Linda Jordon provides us with a comprehensive account of the past fifty years in the UK and the ideological ‘merry go round’ Disabled children have been subjected to for political interests. Solid evidence from the government’s own research shows that, where students are properly supported, given a welcome in a place in their school and provided the opportunity to grow in relationships – we know inclusion works.

‘The rise and fall of Disabled children’s rights in the past 10 years’ (page 5), is a dispiriting account of the systematic and illegal methods used by professionals and local and national governments to undermine inclusion and human rights.

On page 21, Richard Rieser reviews two important books from an international campaigner and much valued thinker, Micheline Mason, Founder of the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE).

Joe Whittaker was an amazing teacher and campaigner for Inclusive Education

By Richard Rieser

When I first met Joe in the late 1980’s, he was a teacher of teachers, particularly in Further Education at Bolton Institute. Joe was a great catalyst of the burgeoning Inclusion Movement in the UK. He had gone to a couple of Inclusion Summer Schools at McGill University in Montreal, and formed vital links with a group of presenters who had developed an important range of tools and methods for de-segregating Disabled people and developing integration, as it was called in those days.

Purposive inclusion had started in the wake of desegregating metal health institutions in some parts of Canada in the 1960/1970s, and tools such as MAPS, PATHS and Circles of Friends had been developed to break down isolation of ex-inmates and were extended to integrating schools. Advocates included Marsha Forest, Jack Pierrepoint (Inclusion and Human Rights campaigners), Judith Snow (Disabled institutional survivor), John O’Brien, Herb Lovett (psychologists) and George Flynn (School Board Principle in Waterloo, Ontario).

Joe, along with psychologist John Hall, had facilitated this Team coming to the UK and delivering 3 day participatory workshops in Cardiff and Manchester in the summer of 1990.

This was about the same time the Alliance for Integration was set up. Joe then went on to be the main organiser of the Bolton Conferences on Inclusion and these were held regularly during summer half-term holidays. The years 1993 and 1995 stand out. These brought parents, Disabled children, Disabled adults and educational professionals together and provided real support for the local struggles going on all over the country, to end segregation and get Disabled children and young people fully included into school and college. The flavour of these events is captured in 2 online videos of the 1995 Bolton Conference 1995(1), and 1995(2).

Joe, along with John Kenworthy (psychologist), set up the Action Research Centre for Inclusion at Bolton Institute with money from Barrow Cadbury Trust. As well as training and developing Data for Inclusion (an example on the impact of segregation can be found here), the Institute supported local campaigns for Inclusion.

One such campaign against Lancashire County Council was to get Nicky Crane and Zak Lewis into mainstream school. This led to Joe and John occupying Council Offices in Preston from 22nd to 23rd July and their arrest. The adverse publicity led to a more favourable outcome.

Joe has written many articles as a proponent for inclusion over the last 35 years and was heavily involved with ALLFIE campaigns and Executive Board. The extract below, arguing against Snoezelen(1994) therapy, shows the power of Joe’s writing.

“We take young children, we label them as having severe physical impairments or we label them as having severe learning disabilities. The labels can be many and varied, once they have been successfully attached, they provide a licence to have children removed form their local schools and communities. Having done this we prevent them from developing friendships with other youngsters from their neighbourhood. We put them in separate schools where we surround them with a multitude of “experts” who succeed in restricting their curricular activities. We segregate them from learning environments within which their peers participate, we collect them together with other youngsters with similar labels and make “statements” about them having the same “special needs”. Once this has been done we gather together another batch of professionals who will tell us why some children may get frustrated and angry and fail to respond positively to the “special environment” we have created just for them. But the solution is at hand because we can now add to this special environment a new therapy – The Snoezelen!
“Jewel-bright lights”, “perfumed air”, “coloured bubbles” and “soft music”, we are told, can “artificially” re-create many of the sensations and experiences we put so much time, money and energy into removing in the first instance. The “Snoezelen Experience” will get people to respond in a way they never have before. Snoezelen is a Dutch word, meaning “sniffing and dozing” and the cost of getting learners to sniff up and doze off in such a specially designed room will cost around £50,000.”

In 2015 Bolton University shut down a thriving Education Department with a good reputation on Inclusive Education and Joe lost his job. He went on pursuing Freedom of Information to show irregularities of University money by the Vice-Chancellor.

Joe struggled as many of us do against oppression, first coming out, leaving his family, living with a partner as a gay man, and then developing Diabetes that increasingly impacted on him. This did not stop him staying true to the principles of inclusion and being a well-informed critic of the absurdities of Government Policy. We will all miss Joe and celebrate the leading role he played in the ongoing human rights struggle for Inclusive Education.

The rise, then fall, of Disabled children’s rights during the past ten years of Conservative Governments

By Joe Whittaker, ALLFIE Trustee

The many struggles for Inclusive Education (IE) have been recorded by Disabled Peoples Organisations, most notably ALLFIE and allies such as the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE), with Alison Wertheimer detailing national and international thinking about IE.

The shifts away from the damaging segregation of Disabled children in isolated settings onto a path of IE with the prospect for a greater diversity of friendships and imaginative learning opportunities was a key debate throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. The campaigns to create IE, had benefits for all learners which included:

The above and many more initiatives evolved from the struggles to make learning more accessible and more inclusive. However, the most significant shift was that Disabled children were not seeking permission to be included, it was their fundamental human right to be a part of their local schools and communities.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2007) was the culmination of those struggles – inclusion was now a Human Rights issue. This was a global message, contained in a document of fifty Articles, covering all areas of Human Rights for Disabled people to participate and contribute, on an equal basis as others, in their communities around the world. A key article of the convention and its interconnection with all other articles, for ALLFIE, was Article 24 – The RIGHT TO Inclusive Education.

Disabled People were instrumental in creating the language of this convention and pushing for IE as a Human Rights issue, Tara Flood, ALLFIE Director at that time, said:

“There was something really exciting about being at the UN, during the discussions to create the UNCRPD because for the first time in the history of the UN, non-governmental organisations were at the heart of shaping the convention text. For me, what was important was that the majority of NGO representatives were Disabled people, truly ‘nothing about us without us’. I went to New York representing ALLFIE and so my focus was securing a strong commitment to inclusive education in Article 24. This wasn’t easy because there were the usual arguments for ‘choice of education setting’, which as we know opens the door for segregated provision. However working alongside Richard Rieser (World of Inclusion) and Belinda Shaw (CSIE), we convinced government and NGO reps to support inclusive education as a human rights issue and therefore the aspiration of inclusive education for all Disabled pupils and students – an amazing achievement.”

ALLFIE was taking a key role in writing and making IE history. The UNCRPD made it clear that discriminations against Disabled people in the Institutions and Statutory Services should end. There was a recognition for those inside and outside of the Inclusion Movement we had reached a landmark based upon a solid foundation of Human Rights.

But then in came the Cameron Government in 2010. They quickly introduced a policy of ‘Ending the bias towards Inclusive Education.’ This policy was based upon a false assumption, that every Disabled child had the opportunity to enjoy IE and the Government wanted to strengthen ‘a choice agenda’ which as Flood suggested, was the ‘Trojan Horse’ to continue segregation.

The legislation to end discrimination and uphold Human Rights was not an overnight event, this was the time when the aspirations for IE had to be established as structural changes in the Schooling System, which would be a long journey. Richard Reiser, in 2011 asserted another reason the Government wanted to ‘end the bias towards Inclusive Education

Inclusive approaches require transparency. Rieser’s assertion was correct, the Conservative Government intended to disguise their main aim, which was to increase the ‘marketplace’ in the schooling system. It is now obvious the Government have taken steps to undermine the rights of Disabled children whilst at the same increasing their attraction to a segregated ‘special’ economy.

How much will local authorities pay to private companies and charities to transport and segregate Disabled children from their homes and communities? It’s not the cost per child that is the concern, but the way Disabled children are packaged as a commodity. The more “complex” we construct and label a Disabled child, the deeper the segregation can be for that child and the higher the price on their head, paid by the local authority to a private company or charity, for private gain. If funding was available to create appropriate supports, where the Disabled child is the focus, accessing services in their local communities, the opportunities available could be transformed out of isolation into inclusion.

Statutory services cannot be an “event” done at an individual. Service has to be provided consistently and reliably from highly valued and well supported people, who are being guided by the Disabled person they are there to serve, it’s a reciprocal relationship. In 2011, the same Cameron Government set about removing Legal Aid, the significance of which will become apparent as we follow the undermining of Disabled children’s rights.

Increase in complaints

In the last five years Disabled children have increasingly been subjected to unlawful assaults from the Statutory Services, this is reflected in a soar of parental complaints to the Statutory Authorities, and the number of those complaints that have been upheld by independent bodies. Parents with children on Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) were disproportionately assaulted.

This 90% increase in complaints from parents is likely to be the tip of an iceberg. If we were to include those parents who were justified in making a complaint but did not have the time, skills or support to follow a complaints procedure the figure is likely to be even higher. Often complaints procedures can be an ‘internal mechanism’ used to distract and exhaust an already busy parent.

Parent blaming

With such an increase in complaints some professionals and official responses were to simply to “blame the parents” adding insult to injury. Special Needs Jungle provide details of this increasingly common practice.

‘Off Rolling’ Disabled Learners

Another disturbing assault on Disabled children, which has increased in recent years. Ofsted (the Governments own Inspectorate of Standards Service) reported the practice of ‘off rolling’, where unknown numbers of children have been removed from the School Registers without explanation. These numbers disproportionately affected Disabled children. This practice reflects significant numbers of Headteachers and Local Authorities who are breaking the law.
Examples include parents called into school by the Headteacher, sometimes with a Local Authority Officer present, and told that the school ‘cannot cope’ with your child because he had a ‘melt down’. The parent was then given ‘options’ – their Disabled child could go to a segregated special school, 35 miles away from home, or the parent could ‘home school’. This tactic to remove the child from school is unlawful.

The practice of ‘off rolling’ was raised as a concern by Ofsted in 2017, indicating children had been lost in the system, without explanation. Ofsted refused to name the schools:

“We have identified around 300 schools with ‘exceptional levels’ of pupils coming off-roll between Years 10 and 11. We know that the most vulnerable children are more likely to be excluded or off-rolled.”

Ofsted annual reports

A few years later Ofsted still have concerns, but their language is somewhat more cautious, even when they acknowledge ‘loopholes’ that could be unlawful.

“There is also a need to reform alternative provision (AP), removing the loopholes that allow so much of it to avoid regulation and oversight. We need to go deeper into the reasons why so many children sent to AP never return to mainstream schools. We need a better understanding of what happens to the children who are removed from school.”
Ofsted annual report 2020/21

It is clear in the last 12 years the UK Conservative Government has failed to uphold the rights of Disabled children as illustrated with the assaults described above.

In addition, the Government refused to endorse Article 24 of the UNCRPD. Tara flood said:

“At the time the UK Government agreed to the Article 24 text, but as we know betrayed Disabled people, shortly afterwards, when it signed the Convention, by placing conditions on its implementation of Article 24 and allowing for the growth in segregated provision and the denial of the human right of Disabled pupils and students to a full life it might appear that, in anticipation of such an attack on Disabled children’s rights it might be appropriate to close their access to redress in the courts”

With the increase in assaults on Disabled children such a legal response from parents could have been anticipated and the Government were warned about the drastic effect of removing Legal Aid in 2011, but perhaps that was their intention? By denyig access to law, they deny access to justice and the Government knew they would be carrying out many injustices against Disabled children.
The lawyers have made clear that the reduction in Legal Aid had serious consequences for society.

For many parents seeking legal support to redress the assaults against their Disabled children there is a legal desert, leaving families abandoned to continued assaults. Parents of Disabled children do not seek conflicts, they do not want to go to tribunals or court. They are propelled into a toxic struggle with the statutory services, who they assumed were there to ‘support them’, but so many professionals have allowed themselves to become adversaries of Disabled children and their parents.

Rob Delaney, the father of a Disabled child, describes the struggle he and his partner had with statutory services in his book ‘A Heart That Works’:
“….hours, days, weeks stolen from families who could be playing with their sick child but instead they must beg for help in front of rooms full of people whose governments assassinated budgets have trained them to be adversaries of families… After many exhausting meetings and hearings that radicalised me for several lifetimes. We got Henry home…”

Conclusion

We cannot fall into despair at these callous injustices against Disabled children by the statutory services and Government. At the very least we must record and support every effort to influence Ofsted, CQC, Local Authorities, MPs and police where appropriate. We encourage parents to contact local Disabled Peoples Organisations without delay, (such as Special Needs Jungle) to pass your case on to the appropriate authorities – Today!

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.