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 Green Paper talks a lot about ‘parental choice’, but the new proposals to increase parental choice, already virtually nonexistent for those with disabled young people, will be undermined by proposals in the already published Education Bill which will weaken appeals procedures whilst giving schools greater control over admissions, exclusions, curriculum and teaching methods.
Parents may have choice to say where they would like their child to go but, under these suggestions, schools now have even more ways to say no to a disabled child and under the proposals parents will have fewer ways to challenge that decision.
On the plus side the Green Paper does put forward the idea of disabled children and those with SEN being given the opportunity to challenge decisions made by adults in relation to school, support, learning options but will this idea be reflected in reality?
What are your views on the paper?