INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR ALL #25
20 July 2022 by Chris Barnes, Inclusive Education Officer, Down Syndrome International
I have spent the last 10 months interviewing all stakeholders involved directly or indirectly in the education of learners with an intellectual disability. This blog continues to be a record of these anecdotal findings – this week I begin the final section: ‘Leaders.’
The term ‘leaders’ has been used to indicate those persons with significant levels of responsibility in education settings and include: nursery mangers, EYFS (early years foundation stage) phase leaders, key stage phase leaders, inclusion managers, SENCOs (special education needs and disabilities co-ordinators), assistant head teachers, vice principals, heads of school, deputy head teachers, designated safeguarding lead, governors, principals, head teachers, executive head teachers, academy and education trust executives.
‘Lower-ranking’ leaders, such as phase leaders, or assistant head teachers, lead on the application of policies dictated by more senior staff and therefore often have relatively little input into the direction the school takes regarding inclusion.
These leaders are ‘on the ground’ putting the policies into practise and ensuring that all children are making the expected levels of progress and attainment, alongside pastoral roles of support with social, emotional, and mental wellbeing. Interviews with these leaders, and discussions of inclusive education, tended to lead to dialogues about ‘pressure for results, progress, and measurable academic attainment’ taking priority over planning for the inclusion of leaners with intellectual disabilities, who may not arrive any time soon.
‘Middle-ranking’ leaders, such as SENCOs, heads of school, deputy heads, and vice principals, are in more of a position to assist in contributing to the improvement and development of the school, as well as its policies for inclusion, and what that can look like.
These leaders, while senior and in position of some authority, are ultimately still under the direct management of the head teacher(s). Discussions with these leaders begin to take on more whole-school, long-term, perspectives and are more informed by outside inspections (from, e.g., Ofsted, or the academy trust) and government-set standards and expectations – dependent on school type. Leaders are more aware of legal obligations, and the ‘vague’, ‘non-committal’ description of inclusion in the UK (which is different from the internationally agreed version from the CRPD, article 24 ‘right to inclusive education’, of which the UK placed several reservations.)
‘Middle-ranking’ leaders’ definitions of inclusive education varied. All maintained that their school was inclusive and fully adhered to government guidelines, descriptions, and standards as well as the Ofsted inspection framework. All agreed they would accept any child who they deemed they could ‘meet the needs of’ while placing reservations on accepting any child they felt they could not, or who would not be funded in a way that made financial sense, i.e., enough funding was attached to support the child adequately. Some of these leaders agreed to the internationally agreed definition of inclusive education, in principle; others did not.
‘Most-senior’ or ‘top-ranking’ leaders are defined, in this blog, as head teachers, principals, executive head teachers, and academy or trust executives.
These leaders clearly have the most influence on staff and are ultimately responsible for the culture of the school(s) and how ‘inclusive’ it is or will become. A headteacher, with support from the governing body, can decide to make the inclusion of diverse learners a priority, or not. As well as huge benefits, there are many complicated barriers and hurdles involved in doing this, but several head teachers interviewed were still committed to inclusive practice. Headteachers are acutely aware of the legislation, standards, and expectations around good quality education; inclusion only forms a relatively small part of these. For many head teachers interviewed, discussions around inclusion and inclusive practice rarely made their agenda. For others, it formed part of their termly school improvement planning.
In many, many schools across the UK, the term ‘inclusion’ often negatively denotes behaviour management – with inclusion managers and support staff working with children who, for various reasons, have difficulties in accessing lessons. Several head teachers appeared to define ‘inclusive education’ as the management of ‘misbehaviour,’ i.e., purposeful* rudeness, lack of respect, and disengagement with education. *This can be a difficult area to discuss in today’s education climate where it is generally being put forward that misbehaviour is the result of un-met needs.
When questioned, headteachers from across the country (and abroad) produced a variety of descriptions for the term inclusive education, as with all stakeholders. It appears there is no commonly recognised shorthand definition of inclusive education among school staff and leaders, or at least most of those interviewed were unaware of the internationally agreed description.
I’d like to personally thank each and every senior leader who has spared me some time this year – you are doing incredible work under difficult conditions.
In this video, Dr Paul Gosling, headteacher and NAHT (National Association of Head Teachers) President talks about how he creates an inclusive ethos at his school.
Next week: ‘Inclusive education: What are the challenges that leaders face?’
Sign up to hear more from our Inclusive Education campaign.
