Educational Provision Part I: Inclusion

Please note: the phrase ‘ASD’ stands for Autistic Spectrum Difference. ‘LEA’ stands for Local Education Authority ‘SEN’ is Special Educational Need and SENCO is ‘Special Educational Needs Coordinating Officer’.

In todays news is a story that Bill Rammell MP has courageously challenged his own dept regarding a recent survey that many suspect will be used to close special schools and ‘push’ inclusion to save money.

The audit was supposed to produce a national picture of the provision available to children with special needs. In his letter, however, Mr Rammell raised fears that its remit is too narrow and ignores a range of children with special needs – including pupils with moderate learning difficulties, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, speech and language problems, complex learning difficulties, severe dyslexia and severe epilepsy.

It may come as news to some that this is nothing new. Over a year ago I wrote a series of essay’s detailing the UK Gvmts strategy for saving money at the expense of special needs pupils – particularly those on the spectrum. Over the next few days I’ll be reproducing (and slightly revamping) these essays here.

How Many ASD Pupil Places Are There In The UK?

Its impossible to give a one hundred percent accurate figure but using “Schools, Units & Classes For Children with autism and Asperger syndrome” (© The National Autistic Society, 2001), a book from the National Autistic Society that lists pupil places for children with an ASD, it seems there are about 5,229 specialist ASD-specific available places for kids with an ASD in England.

Is This Enough?

As of Jan 2003, there were 8.4 million pupils in the English school system. Of that figure, 251,000 (3% of the total pupil population) had a Statement and were therefore classed as having a Special Educational Need. Of this total, 40% were in specials schools or charity/private based schooling. This leaves us with a total of 150,600 pupils in English mainstream schools with a special need.

A recent NAS study of autism in mainstream schools reveals teachers report that 78 per 1000 pupils with a Statement have a diagnosed ASD. Therefore we can estimate that there are around 11,747 pupils in the mainstream education in England with an ASD. If we then compare that to the amount of ASD places (see above) in England we can see the extent of the problem. Roughly 55.49% of kids who have an ASD don’t have access to a maintained education specifically geared to their needs, they are left with no options and no choice.

So what happens to this 55% with no recourse to ASD specific educations? They have a ‘choice’ of being placed in a special school or going down the inclusion route which is the Gvmts preferred option.

Whats The Problem With Inclusion?

Difficulties in learning often arise from an unsuitable environment — inappropriate grouping of pupils, inflexible teaching styles, or inaccessible curriculum materials — as much as from individual children’s physical, sensory or cognitive impairments.

The above quote is taken from Chapter Two of “Removing Barriers to Education”, the Governments Strategy for SEN. Its a quote that really stands out as the Government strategy of inclusion up to this point has been to ignore the fact that a lot of pupils with an ASD are often forced into an ‘unsuitable environment’- as noted above over 50% of pupils with a diagnosed ASD and accompanying Statement of Need are effectively barred from what may well be the most suitable environment for their educational need. This fact seems something of an incompatibility when compared with the quote above.

So surely then, if over half of all pupils with a diagnosed ASD are barred from what might be their most suitable educational placement, swift and sure steps are being taken to cater for these pupils in other ways?

The answer to that question depends on who you talk to. If you listen to Government advisers then a wonderful ethos of ‘Excellence for all children‘ is being extolled across the educational landscape. Here are the key points laid out by the Government to be completed by 2002:

By 2002…[O]ur plans for raising standards, particularly in the early years, will be beginning to reduce the number of children who need long-term special educational provision; There will be stronger and more consistent arrangements in place across the country for the early identification of SEN. Schools and parents will have higher expectations of the standards children with SEN can attain. Target setting, in both mainstream and special schools, will take explicit account of the scope for improving the achievements of children with SEN. New Entry Level awards will be available for pupils for whom existing examinations at 16 are not appropriate. There will be more effective and widespread use of Information and Communications Technology to support the education of children with SEN, in both mainstream and special schools.

Unfortunately, the Government seems to have missed most of these targets badly. The Audit Commission examined the above details in the target year of 2002.

In spite of a plethora of local initiatives, our research suggests that early intervention has yet to become the norm – in terms of age or level of need.

Audit Commission.

Many teachers feel under considerable pressure, on the one hand to meet the needs of individual pupils, and on the other to deliver a demanding national curriculum and achieve ever-better test results; research suggests that many feel ill-equipped for this task. We interviewed over 40 SENCOs, many of whom felt their colleagues lacked confidence in working with children with SEN. SENCOs’ concerns were echoed by many of the parents we met, who were often disappointed at the level of SEN-related expertise in school….several commented more generally on some teachers’ lack of understanding, particularly in relation to children with behavioral difficulties. Their perceptions are consistent with academic research which indicates that staff skills and confidence in relation to SEN vary widely.

Audit Commission.

I share the Audit Commissions grave concerns (the conclusion to the above quoted document is sub-titled ‘time for a rethink?’). It seems we have a situation where children with an ASD are not only actively excluded from what might be the best education for them but there is also a severe lack of appropriate education in the mainstream environment.

Are ASD Pupils ‘Special’

I think in an educational sense that they are. Teachers these days are being asked to carry an increasingly heavy and more diverse workload and the nature of pupils with ASD could easily mean that they ‘slip between the cracks’. This would happen due to a combination of the nature of ASD and the increasing workload of the teaching staff.

Children with an ASD tend to fall into two very broad behavioral groupings (and I’m not keen on these labels but in an educational sense they fit)- ‘high functioning’ pupils who can cause behavioral problems if mishandled or’low functioning’ pupils who are very quiet and withdrawn. As we have already seen, teaching staff are already perceived by both their peers, specialists in SEN’s and parents to lack awareness of the issues at hand or the knowledge in how to deal with these issues properly. This very commonly results in either the exclusion of the pupil or the pupil ‘disappearing’. Neither outcome is desirable.

Statementing- a Partial Solution?

When we decided that our daughter should go to a mainstream school (not that we had much option) we only did it as part of a rigorous Statementing process. The law states that a Statement must be followed to the letter by the school that the pupil concerned attends. Without this Statement, parents perception is that there is nothing to stop LEA’s from doing the absolute bare minimum for their child. There are whole websites on the Internet dedicated to walking parents through the statementing process with a depressing amount of confirmation of the contention that without Statements LEA do indeed do the bare minimum for a child with ASD, either through ignorance or a desire to cut costs.

The only trouble with Statements is that this Government wants to reduce them. In a 2003 research document a study was performed on how to reduce statements and what the effects of reducing statements were. The gist of the research document was that LEA’s had reduced Statements by 8% in the last 5 years and that they had done this by issuing fewer statements rather than discontinuing existing ones. Over two thirds of the canvassed LEA’s said that they now maintain more statements for pupils with an ASD. One quote from the document reads:

Pupils with ASD were the group most often highlighted in interviews with LEA and school staff in four authorities visited during fieldwork. Some suggested that the increase in statements for this group was linked to higher levels of anxiety among their parents, associated with a perceived lack of awareness about ASD in schools…

When all else fails, blame the parents. Here we all are, neurotically insisting that our simply badly behaved children are issued Statements at the drop of a hat whilst the poor hard-pressed LEA’s are simply feel ever so sorry for us all and try and help by giving us a placebo Statement. Unfortunately for the LEA’s interviewed rather the reverse seems to be true; there is no ‘perceived lack of awareness about ASD in schools’, rather there is an _actual_ lack of awareness about not just ASD but SEN in general, as documented and stated by the Audit Commission (see above quotes).

I would suggest that those people who believe that Statementing is an ‘easy ride’ should go through the process before judging. Getting a statement is such a long drawn out exhausting affair that there are whole websites dedicated to helping parents through the process, take it from someone who went through it- its not easy. For example, as part of the process, an unaccountable, nameless, faceless set of people firstly sit in judgment on whether or not your child is eligible to be assessed for a Statement and then again to judge if your child should receive a Statement. You, as a parent or advocate, have no say in either of these decisions- the first one is made on the basis of a single half-hour visit from an Educational Psychologist to the child concerned.

So we have a situation where over half of a pupil group with a disorder that is famous for affecting their ability to communicate with NT’s and whom SENCO’s, parents, teachers, and the Audit Commission believe are not being supported properly in mainstream education are actively excluded from an educational environment that would directly benefit them and allow them to prosper in an educational environment that is right for them. What could possibly be the reason for this situation?

It seems to me that there can only be 2 possible conclusions for this. Firstly, the exclusion of ASD pupils from an education based on need and the intention to reduce Statements could be a moral imperative that the Government feel- that inclusion is the best way to integrate various strands of society. Or it could be that its cheaper to place as many kids as possible, regardless of need, in one environment. I leave it to you to make your own mind up on that.

In the second part of this series, I’ll look at why Special Schools are also not a ‘one size fits all’ solution.