There are several meanings embedded in the concept of inclusion – all of them important and, once named, none of them are really open to much serious debate about their place as core values in a civilised society. Let’s look at a few of the meanings that the concept of inclusion carries:
BELONGING – to be included means to feel a sense of belonging, to be part of something, to know and be known by others. Its opposite is to feel a sense of isolation, to be lonely – to be excluded.
ACCEPTANCE – to be included means to feel a sense of acceptance of who you are just as you are, without this being conditional on you changing in some way. The opposite is to feel a sense of rejection, to be disapproved of – to be excluded.
ACCOMMODATED – to be included means that reasonable and necessary accommodations or adjustments are made such that you are able to participate in whatever is happening for others around you. The opposite is to be denied opportunities to participate, to be required to fit in or nothing – to be excluded
Now let’s apply those 3 meanings above to the cornerstone aim of our Government’s SEN Policy.
This, then, variously becomes:
“to remove the bias towards belonging”
or, even more chillingly –
“to remove the bias towards acceptance”
and, even harder for a Government to sell –
“ to remove the bias towards making the necessary accommodations and adjustments that enable participation”
If the above is what they mean by removing ‘the bias towards inclusion’ then the Coalition should say so.
If not – it’s back to the drawing board with yet another badly thought through policy and time again to listen.
Derek Wilson
Inclusive Solutions
July 2011
A few days ago we had an open meeting of members and supporters to discuss ALLFIE’s response to the current SEN Green paper ‘Support and Aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability’.
A general view that came out of the discussions was how few people understand what inclusion actually means, in a lot of cases what is described as ‘inclusion’ is a version of ‘integration’. This misunderstanding of inclusion is shown in the Government’s Green Paper as the paper talks about removing the bias towards inclusion, but the experience of a lot of our supporters is that they are still fighting to achieve inclusion. One parent, whose child is in mainstream education, gave an example of how her child was made to sit on a separate table during lunch times by staff apparently for the child’s dignity. Surely it is more dignified to choose where you want to sit?
At the start of the discussion, ALLFIE’s new chair Joe Whittaker used an example to show how inclusion is a constantly changing thing that depends on the whole educational community to be successful. Inclusion is not created by one off actions and a setting can easily change from being inclusive to being integrated. Inclusion is not just about having disabled learners in the room. It’s integration that causes many to think mainstream education can’t work for disabled children.
With the green paper focused on moving away from inclusion, we need to show why inclusion is important to disabled learners and non-disabled learners. If you have any examples of how to make inclusion work or how it has made a positive difference, please get in touch.
The report recommends that low attaining learners should concentrate on the core academic skills of English and Maths, and on work experience. Funding and performance measures should focus on these core skills and on employment outcomes rather than on getting qualifications.
The report also challenges the value of many vocational courses available to 16-19 year olds suggesting that they don’t help students prepare for the future.
Another recommendation of the report is that 16-19 education should be funded on a per student basis rather than per course as is done at the moment.
If the report’s recommendations are taken up the impact for many disabled students is likely to be huge, however the impact has the potential to be both positive and negative depending how the education system would choose to implement them.
On the one hand the recommendations could give disabled students a way to put pressure on schools and colleges to get on to courses of their choice rather than being forced to do the same courses multiple times. However the recommendations could be used as a means to further exclude disabled students from the mainstream by removing vocational options from many mainstream schools.
Do you think that vocational courses are important?
Do they act as a barrier or enabler to disabled students?