Tory Policy on Inclusion in Education

Yeah but that ain't gonna happen is it?
I mean our school was built in 17447, all it has is a load of draghts and corridors so narrow a wheelchair can't fit. Oh and a preservation order tos top anyone adjusting it. And as we are surrounded by greenbelt (Oh OK, golf coursdes ) then nowt is ever going to change tehre.

Adn at a lot of otehr similar palces.

Which is why the purpose build specilaist MS school is a nice dream but until hell freezes over, no one is ever getting my boy back in there again.

Oh and you would have to sdack half the teachers too- friends child will only drink from a fruitshoot bottle (watter fine if it is in that bottle), has a DX of asd, school have been binning it becuase its in a squash bottle, he ahs epilep[sy so may be linked to his increased fits as he is dehydrated.... same battle we ahd with ds3 nigh on (he wouldnt drink water and teacher was binning the clear flavoured drink the Head approved on principle). My faith in MS is hot to pieces.

Sorry, I meant some classrooms that are low stimulus and hight staff-pupil ration, - not all of them - obviously.

But you see Clarissimo The 'purpose-built' MS school will have low-stimulus classrooms with higher staff-child ratio, and opportunities for direction and time out as well as opportunities for supported integration.

Teaching won't ever been large-scale mass-market conveyor-belt style, but according to each and every child's need and pace.

Equality does not mean treating everyone the same!

but i like the look of your model for those who are able to function in a ms environment del - it makes a lot of sense. there just will be children who can't cope within those (minimal) parameters and need a more specialised environment.

but i do like that vision of 'education' as a whole.

but Del how can a MS school meet teh needs of a child such as DS3 who will melt down and shut off if there are more than ten otehr kids in his class?

Seriosuly? Can't see it myself.

And ds3 is relatively minor; I know many children far more severe (I am both a parent and studying ASd at MA level) and simply could not cope. A 1-1 wouldn't cut it, the only thing works for many children is tiny classes, segragated break areas and meal areas and a constant routine without the sort of cahnges that alrge scale teaching brings.

You see when people talk about kids who take responsibility for their own education / make decision about their own education then yes, they should be at elast enouraged to seriously consider mainstream adn probably gently shoved that way.

However, many disabled children will never be able to take that role on board. DS3 can't tell me what he ahd for lunch, let alone decide his own educational philosophy! And tehn tehre are of course the children who do rpesnt a safety risk through no fault of their own.

There have to be safe palces for them and tehre are already nowhere near enough aplces for those who want them. having to fight for ds1 to get a specilaist aplcemnt is basically me fighting for ds1 to receive an education, a battle NT kids won back in the late 19th C.

Yes I know, but I think if you look at the whole picture you can see the possibilities in a positive light.

Inclusion should be positive, not the current imposition of children with difficulties onto teachers and schools that haven't got a clue what to do with them but daren't risk an accusation of disability discrimiation. It makes them defensive. It makes things worse.

Inclusion means 'everyone' doesn't it? And mainstream schools CAN meet all of those needs described by Clarissimo, they just currently don't.

Training and technology and some breaking of moulds should do it!

lol del, quite. i was limiting my response to children with disabilities, but it's a small part of education as an entity.

A colleague of mine at Uni works with people with retts; the variation is far wider than people reallise.

Look at it this way:

if every day at school there were four children in the class with sn. One sits at the back rocking, hummming, occasionally having screaming fits under a table and whilst no actual danger to your child is clearly unhappy and makes no progress.

One interprets every confrontation as a threat and alshes out, hitting your child and making tehm scared to go to school. He has no impulse control and cannot prevent himself hitting, kicking or stealing. He is clearly very intelligent but functions way below that level as a noisy room is simply a source of stress for him.

One has severe SN but is coping well adn Mum is extremly pleased with his progress. He gets enough support, has the equipment he needs and is happy in his palcement. he ahs manay friends and is a compewlte part of the school day.

One has lower level SN but gets by, he could do with much more input but copes. He wasn't exp[ected to do well last eyar but in the last 12 months he ahs come along and his coordination has improved enough for him to write at long last. he is happy, popular and wishes to stay with his mates.

Those are the kids I know (3 are mine in fact) with SN in our school and I think it is evident there is no one system that can cater for all those needs. Luckily the top child (DS3) finally got a placement elsewhrere, ds1 we are still battling over using mainly health and safety as a level now. the toehr two ahve stayed put adn are thriving although Mum of severe child is oftena sked to consdier SNU adn she refuses, peetyy much going to show IMO that there is no assessment other than the childs well ebing that matters or works, and no one way for all. I would figbht to my last penny to prevent ds3 ever going into a MS unit again.

This is a bit of a difficult issue. Mainstream schools are largely unsuitable for children with disabilities. They can sometimes handle a small minority with parents who have fought for them to be well supported but in general this really does not happen and the result is a disrupted education for that child and their peers.

Are special schools the answer? I don't believe so, but possibly better than the current alternative.

They whole system needs an overhaul. We need schools that have no exclusion policy because they don't need to have them. We need the space, the training, the facilities and the timetable to come together to provide a flexible education that meets the needs of all children, included disaffected, those who are not academic but able to learn skills in other ways, teenage mothers and well everyone really.

We need a system where children learn to take responsibility for their own learning, where teachers are facilitators rather than knowledge imparters, where children can take exams when they have acquired the relevant knowledge, not within a set time-limit. We need mixed ability, mixed age workine spaces with peer teaching and learning.

We need an education system where children who's families it suits can attend part-time with part-time Home education, where parents are involved, and fluid in and out of school contributing to the resources available to the school with their knowledge ot the world i.e. opportunities for parents to share their knowledge and be linked up with students with and interest in the relevant fields.

THIS is inclusive!

your friend is advocating that all funding should be put into mainstream to support inclusion?

definitely not. sorry. (dd2 has cerebral palsy and is happily thriving in mainstream, but having run an organisation that offers out of school activities for children unable to take part in mainstream settings, her premise is completely flawed.)

inclusion at all costs horrifies me. and i am pro-inclusion where it is in the best needs of the child.

presumably that's why Dave is so torn. to provide funding to meet the needs of every single disabled child in this country (not just education, but wrt health and social opprtunity) is a big ask. he'll want to do, no doubt, but to work out how on earth to big up the existing budget to cope with the additional costs isn't going to be a matter of hitting 'reply' on his e-mail. i'm not surprised she hasn't had a response tbh.

i don't know any girls with retts in ms, tbh. i know a couple in sn who are thriving and their parents are very happy. it sounds as though ms is the best place for her dd, but it wouldn't be for the children i know.

that said, a friend of mine is a 1-1 in ms for a little boy who is blind. she had to learn braille for the job, and it seems to be working out fine.

flexibility is the key, but it's darned expensive.

Sorry autistic children

ahve small toddler raiding fruit cupboard as I type LOL

Inclusion is a babrbed gift.

Many, probably most kids with SN thrive in MS with the right support (that's a prime caveat: many children never see anything like that). however there are some who will never cope with an inclusion environment and it is right that they shlould not be forced into MS.

Autistic often but certainly not always fall into that and Retts isn;t autism but oioften is associated with it (usually IIRC).

There are also degrees of inclusion: ds3, and hopefully ds1 at comp level, attends a unit which is within a MS school but is separate and the children receive 1-1 to access MS when appropriate. DS3's is an all- SN unit; I hope ds1 will get a place in one for AS.

The keys are the actual child and the resources in place. If a child with a sensory or asd type disorder collapses to the ground covering tehir ears every time a child laughs becuase they can't handle thenoise, or switches off becuase of the sheer bustle of a normal classroom (DS3 was the latter ) tehn an MS calss will only be damaging in the long term. Likewise a child such as my ds1 who responds to noise etc as a perceived threat and lashes out. Why should he ahve to suffer the consequences of that, or the others in his environment be aplced at risk?

OTOH mys chool was one of the earliest ones to rpactice inclusion adn I feel I benefitted hugely from a very happy young man being included in my class. he had CP at a similar level to Riven's DD and a 1-1. Obviosuly I cannot entirely trust my perception of the situation as I was but ten, however it seemed to work: most kids, regardless of ability, thrive on the company of their peers.

The other aspect is provision; well resourced inclusion is one thing,, many LEA's have polciies such as no more than 16 hours a week in MS with a 1-1: it ws such a policy that IMO harmed my ds3 (here as in many palces you have to fail in MS to get into a SNU provision).

So what it coems down to is there HAS to be a mix of provisions. It's all very well saying we need all children with SN to attend MS for erquality but that wpuld mean sacrificing some children to the lions- bullying, non differentiated expert teaching, sensory overlaod, access issues etc...

My speciality is Autism so I naturally focus on that but I believe specialist autistic units are wonderful provisions, as are general SN placements. And as is inclusion. WHEN used properly and with regard to child before budget.

Now, I would love to see far more good quality provision of the type ds3 attends, where MS children and SNU chidlren receive apporpriate schooling but get chances to mingle. Even then soem very severely affected children are not able for that and that has to be respected. Equality is a great thing but should not be put above the needs of the actual child- eqiality of life quality is as important as eqiuality of anything else.

Where possible, children should be in mainstream, but there are sadly cases where mainstream does not work for them, or the rest of the students.

It is not segregating because of disability, but because of the needs of the child. I could not teach a blind child for example, as I do not read braille, or have the resources to convert each lesson into braille.

You also have to think of the needs not just of the physically disabled, but those who are mentally disabled as well - they cannot keep up in a main stream setting, so will end up in the SN unit, and be segregated to a certain extent anyway. Some schools have dedicated units where these students will go for lessons and care, but they will be part of a mainstream tutor group. I have seen this work very well in Cornwall for example.

Those with EBDs sometimes are in special schools like Prospect in Hampshire or Chelfham in Devon. At those schools, teachers are specifically trained to deal with the needs of the boys, and have great success with them; but this would not be achievable in mainstream.

100% inclusion does NOT work. Some children are so damaged by adults that they need to be taught by people trained to deal with the kind of abuse they have suffered and who can moderate the child's behaviour and reintegrate them into the classroom. That may happen in a school if that is what is meant by mainstream, but certain children because of their horrific experiences at the hands of their adults need to be out of the mainstream classroom so they can get the help they need so badly. That is imo and ime by the way.

sorry the thread title just caught my eye, I am not up on politics.
but inclusion at all costs is wrong.
it should all be down to what suits the child, not as some kind of grand plan.
it is a difficult subject to discuss asyou could have 2 people who dc's both have the same disability but feel totally different about it.
to me inclusion = exclusion.
it isn't segregation, just meeting the needs of the child.