INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR ALL #26
27 July 2022 by Chris Barnes, Inclusive Education Officer, Down Syndrome International
During this basic research it has been rare for school leaders to be brutally honest about the ‘failings’ of their school with regards to the internationally agreed definition of inclusive education. School leaders, on the whole, are proud of fulfilling obligations of inclusion as set out in government guidelines; whether or not they fulfil internationally agreed obligations is beyond their remit or paygrade. It is here where objections are raised by parents about accountability, responsibility, and duty of schools regarding the effective inclusion of their child. This appears to be a significant barrier to the furthering of inclusive education in the UK, e.g., ambiguity of government guidelines over who is responsible for the inclusion of children with an intellectual disability, where does the buck stop? There are various loopholes and procedures that schools can use to effectively refuse a child or have them recommended for education elsewhere. The most recent government SEND review proposes changes to the system to give more clarity, transparency, and accountability.
All education leaders with whom I spoke listed funding as a major and significant barrier to inclusive education. Head teachers, particularly in secondary settings, explained that the current SEN funding model, and shortfall, is categorically unsustainable. Head teachers talk about the challenges involved in not receiving enough funding for the staff required to support individuals who require it. They acknowledge that not all children require 1:1 support, and that not all children require any costly reasonable accommodation or adjustments. They also say that additional physical resources are not always/often required, and where these are needed, funding is available. Head teachers explain that all schools have a SEND budget, access to additional top-up funding, and that children with an EHCP receive some ring-fenced funding. All head teachers / school leaders spoken to agreed that there is a serious financial shortfall, i.e., there is currently a point where it would not be financially viable to include ‘X’ number of learners with disabilities where the hiring of additional adults is necessary. Indeed, more than one head teacher recounted having to let some support staff go, due to financial pressures overall. It is widely agreed that funding attached to children who require it, is rarely enough to pay for the support required.
Many school leaders fervently disagree with the concept of ‘fully’ inclusive education, and ask, in disbelief, how it can be funded in the current setup. Almost all of the head teachers interviewed are not prepared to ‘over-burden’ their staff in an already vastly under-resourced provision. They say:
‘While noble and agreeable in principle, over-stretching our resources would not benefit all, and would not lead to more effective inclusion.’
Merely physically welcoming ‘too many’ learners with intellectual disabilities, does not mean they necessarily could effectively be cared for or educated, given current resource constraints.
One inspirational head teacher interviewed claimed he would not turn any child away, no matter their perceived needs. He has already had a successful career, is holding a position of national authority, and disagrees with government priorities. His primary school has a very high percentage of children with higher needs funding (EHCP) compared to other local schools and is clearly becoming a magnet school for the area (where other schools direct children with additional needs). This headteacher has a bold and cavalier attitude to inclusion compared to younger head teachers, newer to the role, who are trying to forge a ‘successful’ career. One inferred (and expressed) barrier to inclusive education, from the standpoint of head teachers, is that successful leadership is numerically measured. The successful inclusion of learners with intellectual disabilities, while being noted by Ofsted, does not come highly on a head teacher’s appraisal with the governing body for the school(s). Head teacher success is mostly measured by analysed group data, e.g., attendance, school improvement, attainment, point progress, and Key Stage formative assessment results.
SENCOs (special educational needs & disabilities co-ordinators) give mixed responses to the barriers to inclusive education. Many SENCOs were confident and proud of the inclusive ethos of their school, maintaining that they include all children. SENCOs are often extremely stretched in their task of including and meeting the needs of the children in their setting, actively supporting children with ‘lower-levels’ of need via SEN support*.
*SEN support is for children who do not have an EHCP/IEP in place, but who require additional intervention and support from teachers, school staff and external agencies.
All SENCOs interviewed also have children on their SEN register with EHCPs/IEPs for various identified disabilities, e.g., ASC (autism spectrum condition). All SENCOs reported their school being extremely stretched for human resources – this being a major barrier to increasing their inclusive offer. Most SENCOs spoken to also mentioned the need for additional training, information, and examples of inclusive education in action.
In this video, Sean Pavitt, Director of Inclusive Education programmes and Senior Inspector talks about why all schools should adopt the policy of inclusion of all learners, including those with intellectual disabilities.
Next week: ‘What do leaders need, for ‘inclusive education’ to be taken seriously?’
Sign up to hear more from our Inclusive Education campaign.
