He cannot keep up at the pace we teach

Inclusion of children with special educational needs is one of the most emotive subjects we debate or argue about as teachers and, unusually for our profession, is even more emotive for parents, for obvious reasons.

It is considered by many to be a basic human right and the ideal is that all children should be taught well in their local mainstream school and have their associated needs met. Anything different is seen to deny them at least some part of their childhood that others take for granted.

This is not something that I believe is possible. It is not possible because there are some children whose needs are so complex, or require such specialist skill and knowledge from staff, or some specialist equipment, or can exhibit extreme behaviours that they cannot be meaningfully included and well educated in a mainstream school. To pretend to include them in the life of a mainstream school is far more damaging and, in my view, robs them of their entitlement.

We rarely, if ever, have this discussion about other forms of segregation. We celebrate the diversity of a system that allows some children to be educated apart from the opposite sex. We are content for religious organisations to play a major part in running some of our schools, and for religion to be a factor in how some schools select their children. We are in love with our selective independent schools and, having heard this myself, breathe a sigh of relief that those sons or daughters don’t have to mix with the other 93% of the population. Despite the evidence, many in this country bemoan the lack of expansion of grammar schools who, presumably, are single-handedly churning out soon-to-be management consultants and hedge fund managers who otherwise would have been chimneysweeps or match girls. We regard segregation by all of these methods as a positive choice for parents. It is not seen as a zero sum game – their presence or absence does not disadvantage other children. Not so for children with special educational needs whose presence in a school in the name of inclusion can be regarded as lowering the average, making it harder for others to learn or dominate the attention of adults to the detriment of other children.

No school is inclusive. My school is highly exclusive in that sense. We cannot admit 97.5% of the school-age population because the possession of an Education, Health and Care Plan is a condition of entry. Every school has limits on who they can educate well. Those limits are flexible, and the degree of flexibility depends on the Headteacher and the institutional confidence of the school. I have seen the ripples that spread through a school that admits a child with Down syndrome when no-one in the school has worked with a child with such a condition before. If the values of the Headteacher and school are strong enough and they are willing to learn they will be successful. If they simply expect the child to fit in with how they operate then the road ahead will be long (or short) and rocky. The special school that used to state brazenly on its website that it didn’t admit children with either learning difficulties or emotional and behavioural difficulties is one such sad example.  This is where the tension arises.

The difference between a school reasonably and correctly saying that, hand on heart, it cannot meet the needs of a particular child, no matter how much support or money is offered, and a school meaning that it does not want to meet the needs of a particular child is a fine one. How our culture of accountability and performativity influence the behaviour of Headteachers will have to wait for another blog.

When I hear inclusion it sometimes comes with a subtext of compromise, dumbing down, doing things that a school shouldn’t have to do, stifling the clever ones or of risking its academic status, or an exact quote which is my personal favourite

He cannot keep up at the pace we teach.

The parents at our school are very strong advocates for their children – wouldn’t you be? They tell us in very clear terms that they want us to relentlessly focus on their child living and working independently. Think about that for a second and reflect on the last time you questioned whether that was possible for your own children. That is not too much to ask, but the bald statistics show dire life outcomes for people with learning difficulties. In my job those numbers are a professional context, but for the parents it is on their mind and in their gut the entire time. If attempts at inclusion do not directly work towards improving those life chances then it is not working. It may well make the adults involved feel better themselves as they see a child superficially experiencing the same curriculum as their peers, but in reality that child is losing touch with them at a rate of knots. It is this kind of veneer of inclusion that leads to Nicky Morgan stating that

“every child should study maths, English, history or geography, a language and the sciences up until the age of 16.”

She’s wrong.

Inclusion is the wrong word. I prefer to talk about a child’s entitlement. An entitlement that drastically improves their chances of being an independent and successful adult. If that’s not what my school is about then I’m in the wrong job.

 

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “He cannot keep up at the pace we teach

  1. Thank you for this. Was having a conversation with Simon Knight about this very issue this morning. I think the way you put it might actually allow for some meaningful discussion about what the entitlement is.

  2. Thanks Jarlath, I enjoyed reading this. I agree that inclusion is the wrong word. I don’t think there should be a word at all.

    If we think about the bricks and mortar alone, a special school could be a mainstream school and vice versa. The school’s category makes it legally impossible for a child without SEND to attend (because they don’t have an EHCP or statement), so if we didn’t have special schools, in theory, any child could attend any school in the bricks and mortar sense.

    I know what you mean when you say “This is not something that I believe is possible. It is not possible because there are some children whose needs are so complex, or require such specialist skill and knowledge from staff, or some specialist equipment, or can exhibit extreme behaviours that they cannot be meaningfully included and well educated in a mainstream school. To pretend to include them in the life of a mainstream school is far more damaging and, in my view, robs them of their entitlement.” and I believe people who say this do so in a very person centred way with concern for the child’s wellbeing.

    What I don’t agree with though, is the belief that because the experienced/expert/specialist staff & equipment/resources are physically within the bricks and mortar called a ‘special school’, that this is how it is/has been/will always be, therefore the children have to travel to the provision. Why can’t the expertise and specialism be dispersed into the bricks and mortar known as ‘mainstream school’. This way schools will just be schools, with a proactive expectation that disabled and kids with SEN will attend the school, and the school will be ready to meet those needs. We wouldn’t need to have more specialist staff/equipment, just share it out. (Of course we do need more specialists in general, but I just meant for the purposes of my crazy idea! 😀)

    Would be interested in what you think.
    Thanks again
    Diane

    • Hi Diane,
      Thank you very much for your comment. Schools, special or otherwise, can and do become more skilled at meeting a wider range of needs over time, and some move in the opposite direction. All schools could meet a wider range of needs.
      What I don’t think is possible, though, is full inclusion everywhere, for want if a better word. I say that because there are some needs that need an institutional confidence and experience to manage. If a school goes years without teaching kids with any significant needs the confidence and expertise of the school never builds.
      Thanks again.

      • Thanks Jarlath. I agree. I suppose what I’m after is for the wheels to stop turning while the system is re-set! How can we do this though? Will we ever see change if the moss keeps building up. Not aiming this directly at you by the way, so don’t feel you have to give me the answer 🙂

  3. Pingback: ANALOGIES AND REALITIES – Teachwell

  4. Wouldn’t it be nice though, if there were more mini-specials, amongst clusters of schools, so that children can remain local and make local friends? It’s madness that kids travel an hour or more to school. Aren’t they entitled to not only a quality education, but a local one too?

    • I think that is unlikely due to the high degree of variation in special schools, both within LAs and between LAs. MLD, ASD, SLD/PMLD, SEMH, SLCN, HI, VI, generic, residential, day, primary, secondary, post-16, all-through, all within an estate of only 1000 schools nationally. If we tried to genericise (not a real word, but you know what I mean) special schools we’d arrive back at the inclusion problem.

      I agree, though, that the distances travelled is a major problem. Note that my LA’s annual transport bill for SEN is £25M. Note also that my children’s primary has a catchment of one square mile, their local secondary a catchment of six square miles. My school, with 116 children, has a catchment of 1,200 square miles.

      • But we could be looking at where schools are & create a web that reduces travel. Here, if you’re in the city, you have four local choices. I don’t think there’s four more in the whole county! That is not acceptable.

    • I’m thinking this mini-specials sounds like a good plan…. maybe at least look at what the need is locally and plan for it? So that we wouldn’t be left with situations, like in my county, where there is no suitable school at all for a huge group of children and they are therefore being sent out of county to very expensive placements? Lack of planning is a very real issue.
      Assuming all children with additional needs can just slot into a mainstream secondary setting which has had some extra training is wrong though, in my opinion. It depends totally on what that child’s need is. Maybe eventually ‘mainstream integration’ might be the ideal, if the mainstream secondaries could be made smaller rather than keep on increasing in size… although it’s a bit like turning an oil tanker. Some of the issues are around how big the school is and how many students are in the school.

  5. I have worked in mainstream schools, some with SEND bases, and have seen some amazing success with children with SEND but others have not thrived and needed more than we had the skills and resources to provide. SEND place planning is already difficult and I do not seeing it getting better IF all schools become academies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s