Inclusion Now 70 | Autumn 2024

Inclusion Now occasionally includes adverts for products, services or events offered by other organisations. This doesn't imply we endorse the products or services. Readers are advised to check details and make their own judgements. Inclusion Now provides an opportunity for information exchange. All views expressed are not necessarily the views of ALLFIE, Inclusive Solutions or World of Inclusion. We reserve the right to edit articles. Inclusion Now is also available in audio or text Search past issues online

Cover image: Micheline Mason portrait Editor: Catherine Bebbington

Welcome to Inclusion Now 70, with Autumn 2024 inclusive education news.

This edition begins with Richard Rieser’s moving tribute to Micheline Mason, the founder of the Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE), highlighting her contribution to the inclusive education movement. This tribute, on page 3, reminds us of the work that was done before us, and the foundations of the work ALLFIE is continuing in the campaign for inclusive education.

In the second article, Mel Ainscow, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Manchester, highlights how inclusion “involves a never-ending process, rather than a simple change of state” and provides recommendations for reforms in England (page 7). Also looking at SEND reform, Sharon Smith, parent and PhD researcher, discusses systemic issues that limit the opportunities for Young Disabled people and cause barriers transitioning to higher education and employment (page 12). ALLFIE’s Youth Project Co-Lead, Yewande Akintelu-Omoniyi, also discusses how the language of SEND has devalued education (page 19).

In policy news, we focus on the SEND crisis. On page 15, I comment on changes the Labour Government has implemented, or announced, in its first 100 days in office. ALLFIE’s Campaigns Lead, Iyiola Olafimihan, explains how the scope of the crises in the SEND system calls for an urgent overhaul (page 24), and on page 27, Richard Reiser discusses the ISOS Partnership Report.

On page 22, Melody Powell and Sharon Smith's infographic explains Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). There's information about Disability History Month 2024 on page 30, and we close this magazine with the Legal Question (page 31), on schools refusing Disabled children.

By Dr Edmore Masendeke, ALLFIE’s Policy & Research Lead

Micheline Mason and the Struggle for Inclusive Education and Disability Rights

Micheline Mason died of a stroke on Saturday 7th September 2024. Micheline, 73, was a major leader in the Disability Movement and a brilliant thinker, taking our Movement forward, especially the struggle for Inclusive Education, in a series of quantum moves.

This will leave a great hole in the lives of those who loved and worked with her, and a strong feeling of loss across the thousands of people whose life Micheline changed directly and a diminishment of possibility in the lives of millions.

Micheline had been developing her thinking since being born with Osteogenesis Imperfecta (Brittle Bones). Although she felt like everyone else coming from a loving and supportive home, firstly Medical, then Educational and Social authority required her to be hospitalized, isolated and educated at home, later sent to a segregated boarding school. In 'An Ordinary Baby: Tales of Childhood Resistance.’ Micheline has powerfully written about her childhood. She excelled academically and went to Art College where she began to liberate herself. She rejected having a commercial art career in favour of activism. Micheline’s thinking developed further through the Re-Evaluation Counselling, the Women’s Movement and the burgeoning Disability Movement.

‘The Liberation Network of Disabled People (LNDP)’ Following their initial meeting at Lower Shore farm, Swindon 1980, they focused on breaking down isolation by finding ways to communicate with each other whether deaf, blind or physically impaired. Many of the ideas were developed by Micheline Mason and others:

‘’We challenged... ‘internalised oppression,’... the conditioned hatred of ourselves and each other as Disabled people… the desire to assimilate; we challenged the denial of ‘hidden’ disabilities; the fierce competition between us... the inability to champion, appreciate and support each other's achievements or thinking… the lack of information & understanding about the issues of other oppressed peoples.’’ The LNDP were at the founding meeting of BCODP, leaving, not happy with the male dominance and rigid approach. Many of these activists formed organisations that joined BCODP as it grew. Different in approach to Union of Physically Impaired against Segregation (UPIAS), who became the majority of the leadership. The thinking of LNDP helped form the Alliance for Inclusive Education. The work on self-representation, social model and disability as an oppression was brought together to transform education.’’

To earn a living Micheline had become a Disability Equality Trainer, working with the London Boroughs’ DET Team.

For Micheline “Friendship is key. I would argue for inclusive education as Young people need to be facilitated to make friendships across the barriers that adults have created. That can’t happen unless they’re all together. All the rest of it is secondary. It was certainly the thing missing from my childhood. You never get over it, not really”.

Tribute

I was introduced to Micheline, when put together with her by the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) to write advice on Disability Equality to the 13 successor Boroughs, after abolition in March 1990. As a Disabled teacher who won my grievance against compulsory redeployment, I had been seconded to work on disability in the curriculum. Margaret Thatcher had abolished ILEA for purely ideological reasons, even though it was highly effective and popular with parents. The parents of Disabled children, through an advisory group in 1989, had demanded that such advice be produced, as unlike Race, Gender and Class none had come from the ILEA.

The core became Parents for Inclusion, who worked with Micheline previously when she’d sought advice on how to ensure her daughter, Lucy, who had the same impairment, could be included in mainstream primary school. They mainly had children with Learning Difficulty and had been struggling to get their children included [at that time called integration].

I had come from a teacher trade union and socialist background and seen my impairments as a personal issue to be overcome. All this changed on the carpet of Micheline’s flat in Tooting, as we argued and sought to reconcile our different views. We met in September 1989. An 80-page document grew and grew, to be ‘Disability Equality in the Classroom: A Human Rights Issue’. Launched by ILEA three weeks before its demise, copies of the 280page handbook were sent to every school in Inner London and every English Education Authority. Largely due to Micheline’s thinking a uniquely radical approach to the education of Disabled people, covering impairments, curriculum, disability equality, pedagogy and self-representation.

Micheline became a life-long friend and collaborator. The Alliance for Integration was formed following an initial conference. The 2000 remaindered books were delivered to us. Disability Equality in Education was formed to

deal with the distribution and training over the next 17 years. Founding the Alliance, Micheline worked with me to develop a constitution that would represent all our allies but have a majority of the Council as Disabled people, so it could be part of the UK Disability Movement. It sounds cumbersome but as the first elected Chair for 12 years, it was very effective, following Micheline’s leadership. We decided the Alliance would be for campaigning and DEE would be for training and distribution of resources as a charity. In the first 12 years ALLFIE supported many parent led local campaigns for inclusion, drafted an Integrated Education Bill for Parliament, adopted Inclusion rather than Integration, changed its name, worked closely with Parents for Inclusion, Education Psychologists for Inclusion, spoke at education and training conferences, set up Young and Powerful. Funded by Platinum Trust and Barrow Cadbury.

In 1995, Save the Children approached the Alliance, concerned at the lack of portrayal of images of Disabled children, to organise a conference of children’s image makers, authors and programme makers. This was the highly successful Invisible Children Conference. Out of this came the 1 in 8 Group which led to real changes both in books, children and adult programming.

Comic Relief were keen to work with us. Micheline became a member of their Board. The change in their images, patronizing approach and their grant giving to DPOs is largely due to Micheline’s tenacity. They could not fund children but were able to commission a pack for training the adult workforce for inclusive education. ‘Altogether Better from ‘Special Needs’ to Equality in Education’ was another collaboration between Micheline and me. We produced a more practical case for inclusive education. With a film from Anthony Minghella - Break down the Wall and Griff Rhys Jones in a head-to-head with a Disabled student from Tottenham, linking film extracts. This was a powerful salvo for inclusive education, selling

10,000 copies and used throughout the country for training education professionals.

Comic Relief funded the first national Disability Equality Trainers Training for Education at the Leicester Holiday Inn,1992. They gave an interest free loan for a second edition of a further 5,000 Disability Equality in the Classroom. In 1998, Comic Relief was able to fund children’s activities, and they funded ‘Young and Powerful’, ‘The Alliance’ and ‘Disability Equality in Education’ (DEE), a small charity based on our work. DEE trained a national network of 100 Disabled Disability Equality Trainers. Its training was received by over 100,000 educationalists in the UK. This developed a more positive view of inclusive education in the Disability Movement. It ended in 2008. Labour had changed their mind and would no longer fund this important work.

Other major achievements: a meeting with David Blunkett MP before 1997 General Election, as future Secretary of State for Education he committed to developing inclusive education; amending the Disability Discrimination Act to bring all Education establishments under it; removing 2 caveats preventing parents wish for mainstream - compulsory segregation); publication of the Inclusion Assistant later taken up by the Government (2007) for Learning Support Assistant training.

However, as David Blunkett said to Lucy at a Young and Powerful meeting: ‘Send Micheline and Richard a message. I could not do what I promised. The forces arrayed against us are too powerful.’ This was an unholy alliance of ‘SEN experts’, politicians led by David Cameron, special school headteachers, some teachers, ill-informed parents, LA bureaucracy. Baroness Warnock, author of the report that led to the 1981 Act, changing her mind about inclusion and a government laisse faire approach, not requiring schools to admit Disabled students.

By 2007 Andrew Adonis, Schools’ Minister, told the Education Select Committee ‘that Labour did not have a policy of Inclusive Education’. This led Micheline to speak in public debates on TV.

In 2010, the Conservative/Liberal Government had a policy of countering the ‘Bias to Inclusion’ which was nonsense. Together with austerity it led to an onslaught on the rights Disabled people had gained. Rosa Branson launched her Portrait of the Inclusion Movement, which puts Micheline at the centre of multiple avenues of change.

At UK Disability History Month (UKDHM) 2016 Micheline read two of her poems. Micheline’s poems are powerful. Not Dead Yet (2006) is as relevant now as then, with threats to introduce assisted dying.

I have lived to see another spring

To breathe in the blossom’s perfumed air

To feel again the sun warming my skin

To wonder at the life we share

I have another chance to notice

Shining eyes meeting my own

Some with love, some with questions

The hope, fear, pain we have all shown

Physical pain I have known plenty

Impairments hold little fear for me

But to feel unwanted, a burden, a weight

Is the intolerable pain I fear

The answer cannot lie in murder made easy

In fuelling guilt, complicity and dread

It lies in the courage to create a kinder world

In which no one would choose to be dead

Happily, I am not dead yet I have lived to see another spring I will use every precious moment I have left

This welcome change to bring

Micheline’s illustrations have often convinced people more than screeds of words.

In 2019 for UKDHM Micheline and myself did an interview on the History of the Alliance for Inclusive Education.

In retirement, Micheline was free to write and began to drill down into some of the thought barriers we had come up against, reversing the moves to inclusion. Micheline, always an optimist, strongly believed that we had challenged the status quo of segregation which could not be reversed.

‘Incurably Human’ and ‘Dear Parents’ published by Inclusive Solutions, bear witness to this deeper thinking and both stand as invaluable templates for rekindling the Inclusive Education Movement.

Those of us who worked closely with her will venerate and be thankful for her insights and the challenge she provided, moulding the journey forward. In her memory we must continue. I will never forget her joy and laughter.

As Joe Hill said on his death by firing squad “Don’t Mourn. Organise!”

Richard Rieser friend, collaborator and comrade

Micheline has powerfully written about this formative process and how it strengthened her in her book sh self-published 'An Ordinary Baby: Tales of Childhood Resistance'

Where next for inclusive education?

By Mel Ainscow, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Manchester.

Mel has recently published a new book:

Developing Inclusive Schools: Pathways to Success

The last three decades have seen major international efforts to encourage educational improvements.

The importance of these developments being inclusive was emphasised in the UNESCO Salamanca Statement, published 30 years ago.

In a much-quoted extract, the Salamanca Statement concluded that:

"Regular schools with [an] inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the costeffectiveness of the entire education system."

As this key passage indicates, moves towards inclusive schools can be justified on a number of grounds. There is an educational justification: the requirement for schools to educate all children together means that they have to develop ways of teaching that respond to individual differences and that therefore benefit all students; a social justification: inclusive schools are able to change attitudes to difference by educating all children together, and form the basis for a just and non-discriminatory society; and an economic justification: it is likely to be less costly to establish and maintain schools which educate all children together.

A reform agenda

The tendency in many countries is to think of inclusive education as being concerned with Disabled students and others categorised as having special educational needs. Furthermore, inclusion is often seen as simply involving the movement of students from special to mainstream contexts, with the implication that they are ‘included’ once they are there.

Image: Mel Ainscow, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Manchester

“

I see inclusion as an educational reform strategy. As such, it involves a neverending process, rather than a simple change of state, and as dependent on continuous developments within schools.

In contrast, I see inclusion as an educational reform strategy. As such, it involves a neverending process, rather than a simple change of state, and as dependent on continuous developments within schools. This is concerned with overcoming contextual barriers that may be experienced by any student. The implication is that every school is inclusive to some extent and that all schools have to continue a never-ending process of finding ways of reaching new students who bring with them new challenges.

The aim of inclusive education must be to eliminate social exclusion that is a consequence of attitudes and responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability.

It represents a challenge to existing thinking regarding the development of education systems.

Such a change is difficult to introduce, however, not least because traditional perspectives and practices associated with the field of special education continue to dominate thinking in the field, encouraged by what Oxford researcher Sally Tomlinson refers to as ‘an expanded and expensive SEN industry’.

Moving forward

The approach to promoting inclusive education I propose has emerged from our research in many countries. It demands an effective implementation strategy. In particular, it requires an emphasis on the following factors:

• Policies based on clear and widely understood definitions of what the term inclusion means;

• Strategies informed by evidence regarding the impact of current practices on the presence, participation and achievement of all students;

• An emphasis on whole-school approaches in which teachers are supported in developing inclusive practices;

• The use of approaches that draw on the experience and expertise of everybody who has an involvement in the lives of students, including children themselves; and

• Education departments at the national and local area levels providing leadership in the promotion of inclusion as a principle that guides the work of teachers in all schools.

Recently I have seen how reforms based on these ideas are working effectively during visits to Italy, Norway and Portugal. In these countries the principle of inclusion guides the development of national education policies.

Labels

In relating this reform agenda to England, a worrying factor is the expansion of labels that situate problems of educational progress within children, not least through the adoption of the term ‘special educational needs and disability’. This has led to the widespread use of the unfortunate shorthand label ‘SEND children’.

Alongside the pressures on English schools created by market forces, this unquestioned emphasis on student deficits has led to a massive expansion in the number of learners being labelled in order to attract additional resources to support their education. This, in turn, is placing additional pressures on local authority budgets that are already stretched. And, of course, it is creating further barriers to the promotion of inclusive education.

This reminds me of the ground-breaking research of Gillian Fulcher who described how, in Victoria, Australia during the 1980s, a new policy led some students in regular schools to be labelled as ‘integration children’. She explains how over 3,000 children came to be seen as being in this category, which had not existed prior to 1984, and that often schools would argue that these students, who were already there in local mainstream schools, could not be taught unless extra resources were made available. The implication is that policies for integration can lead to more segregation.

Conclusion

So, thirty years on from the publication of the Salamanca Statement, and despite the strong lead of international organisations such as UNESCO, the struggle to achieve inclusion in schools and equity across education systems continues.

The transformative approach I am suggesting is radical and will take time to implement, particularly here in England where the emphasis of policies based on competition results in winners and losers.

Therefore, progress will require major changes at all levels of the education system and a collective will to make them happen.

“ The aim of inclusive education must be to eliminate social exclusion that is a consequence of attitudes and responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability. It represents a challenge to existing thinking regarding the development of education systems.

Alternatives to Post-16 Specialist Residential Educational Settings

By Sharon Smith, Mother & Researcher

In this article Sharon Smith discusses systemic issues within the SEND system that limit the opportunities available to Young Disabled people and cause barriers transitioning to higher education and employment.

Some of these issues were previously raised in the summer edition of Inclusion Now magazine, where participants in ALLFIE’s Our Voice project were critical of the Government’s apprenticeship system: The Exploitation of Young Disabled People Transitioning from Education to Work.

Our Voice described how there isn’t enough public awareness about the barriers Young Disabled people face within the education system and employment. Members emphasised that they do not have equal chances within the field of work and are denied meaningful work opportunities. In this article I will discuss both education and employment, to continue the conversation.

Last week, my 19-year-old daughter Tanzie’s best friend left for specialist residential college. This is a story of two Young ladies who have Down’s syndrome, who have been best friends since they met at approx. 18 months old. They are so close that they call each other ‘sister’. The fact that her closest friend is moving away during term times for three years will be a huge loss to my daughter. She is already missing their regular long chats at weekends and in the evenings, and is having to work out what a long distance friendship looks like. Her ‘sister’ is not her only friend who has started a specialist residential college this year; two other friends started earlier in the year. All these three-year placements were secured after lengthy SENDIST tribunal appeals led by their parents.

Whilst I am in no doubt that this residential placement will be a huge success for my daughter’s best friend, who throws herself into every opportunity that comes her way, the fact she will not be in our lives as much as she has been has led to me reflecting on how the current further education/post-16 landscape is simply not offering many Young people who have Down’s syndrome or similar learning disabilities the opportunities that they need to thrive and to develop independence. And this comes at a great cost to local communities, as Young Disabled people move away to live in a separate specialist setting, often hours from home, only returning to their local communities during the holiday periods. These Young people are not engaging in social or leisure activities in their local communities, they are not working in local businesses, they are no longer present or visible for much of the year. This makes me wonder why we cannot foster more inclusive opportunities for Young people, within their local communities, whilst encouraging greater independence and individual aspirations.

The purpose of this article is not to point the finger at parents. Having spoken to several parents who have challenged the local authority to secure a residential placement for their Young person, they clearly have done so because of the incredibly limited post-16 offering in their local areas. When their children attend college locally and are mainly provided with worksheets, colouring and word searches, parents conclude that such residential specialist education is the best (or maybe only) option for their Young person. Residential education settings provide a safe opportunity for a Young person to learn skills for independence and the workplace, and to spread their wings. Parents often argue that nondisabled Young people get to go to university for three years, so why shouldn’t their Disabled child have the chance to move away from the family home too?

Although the SEND Code of Practice (January 2015) states that:

"Where Young people have EHC plans, local authorities should consider the need to provide a full package of provision and support across

Parent view

education, health and care that covers five days a week, where that is appropriate to meet the Young person’s needs"

And goes on further to state that this five-day package can include non-educational activities such as:

• volunteering or community participation

• work experience

• opportunities that will equip Young people with the skills they need to make a successful transition to adulthood, such as independent travel training, and/or skills for living in semi-supported or independent accommodation, and

• training to enable a Young person to develop and maintain friendships and/or support them to access facilities in the local community this rarely happens in practice, unless the family have been persistent.

We were one of those persistent families. Tanzie did not want to go to residential college, as she wanted to stay close to her friends and family and to continue engaging in the local activities that she enjoys, so we needed to find a way to ensure that she could secure the skills, confidence and experiences she would need to be successful in adulthood, but within her local community. We wanted her to be able to develop self-advocacy skills, to learn how to be live and work in her local community, and that she would be supported to achieve her personal goals and aspirations. We had to appeal via the SENDIST tribunal to achieve this, which was an unnecessary and very stressful experience. It would be better if local authorities had a range of pathways and opportunities available for Young people, that can be put in place without the stresses of a tribunal appeal. My daughter could not appeal to SENDIST without our support, meaning that it had an impact on the whole family.

My daughter now has a five-day package which includes 3 days in one setting and 2 days a week in another. Her package provides some bespoke activities that have been included specifically support her to develop life skills and independence, for example travel training support. Importantly, for us as a family, this is in

Parent view

her local community and does not require her to move out of the family home, something she doesn’t feel ready for (yet!). She also has travel training provision, that is flexibly provided in the college holidays, to ensure she is learning and rehearsing skills on travel routes that matter to her, ie to the local bowling alley or to the next town where her ‘sister’ lives.

Outside of education, she also has secured a paid part-time job working as a sales assistant through the Down’s Syndrome Association WorkFit programme. For the last 18 months, she has worked 6hrs a week on a Saturday at H&M and is loving this role and the money she is earning. This is giving her vital skills that will be valued by future employers, some financial independence, and she is working in her local community. My daughter can experience part time work alongside her studies, meeting new friends and engaging with store customers. She is thriving. Having won store and Area employee of the month earlier this year, she has been invited to two events in the coming weeks where she will meet other regional winners, and will have an opportunity to make a presentation to them about her role at H&M. She is very excited indeed. Unfortunately, similar opportunities for work are not always available to Disabled Young people. This needs to change.

We have further sought out opportunities for her to engage in developing her self-advocacy, disability advocacy and peer support skills. To date, she has helped to design and deliver training for professionals, spoken at an education conference and met her local MP to discuss her work experience at H&M. This is only the beginning for her, I am sure.

My daughter’s package of educational activities only came about because of our persistence and lack of acceptance of the 16hr a week course that was on offer, spread across 3 days per week. We demanded that she was provided with opportunities to gain the skills she needs as she approaches adulthood and as she shapes her own life and makes her own decisions about her future. We have had to challenge the local authority via the tribunal process, which was

emotionally draining and time consuming, and we have had to actively seek out other opportunities through national charities such as the Down’s Syndrome Association and NDTi because they have not been available locally. But it should not be down to the parents to have to do this.

In conclusion, the post-16 landscape needs to be more aspirational, more creative and more flexible, to better support learning Young Disabled Young people to achieve their aspirations and hopes for the future. There needs to be a wider range of courses on offer, that suit the individual interests and goals of Young Disabled people, as well as person-centred planning and support, tailored and individualised careers advice and meaningful work experience (with reasonable adjustments as required). Learning Young Disabled people need to have the opportunity to shape the services and support that are available to them, which means more opportunities are needed for them to learn self-advocacy skills. They should be able to do this in their local communities with friends and family, engaging in leisure activities of their choosing, supported by an educational package that recognises their abilities, interests and desires as they move towards greater independence and employment.

Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) recognises ‘the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others’ which requires States to ‘take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community’. It goes on to detail how Disabled people should have the opportunity to choose where they live, have access to the support needed to support living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community, and community services should be responsive to their needs. This requires educators, local authorities and employers to have a greater vision, to think flexibly and creatively about how to support greater community inclusion, rather than to stick with the current limited opportunities available to so many Young people today. How do we move forward to reach this point?

Reflections on 100 Days of Labour: Has the Labour Government done anything to fix the SEND Crisis?

By Dr Edmore Masendeke, ALLFIE’s Policy and Research Lead

When it came into office, Labour inherited a SEND system that was in crisis –increasing number of Disabled children and Young people missing school; increasing number of Disabled children and Young People being enrolled in special schools and alternative provisions; reports of abuse of Disabled children and Young People in special schools and alternative provisions; mainstream schools and local authorities clamouring for more resources; and parents forced into court to secure support for their children. All these issues needed their urgent attention.

The 13th of October 2024 marked the end of Labour’s first 100 days in office. It was a good time to ask: Has the Labour Government done anything to fix the SEND Crisis? But before we answer this question, it may be helpful to first look at what was the Labour’s manifesto promise on the issue?

Labour’s Manifesto Promises

In its 2024 election manifesto, Labour pledged to “take a community-wide approach, improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensuring special schools cater to those with the most complex needs.” However, there was no definition of what “a communitywide approach” or “inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools” means. Labour also pledged to “make sure admissions decisions account for the needs of communities and require all schools to co-operate with their local authority on school admissions, SEND inclusion, and place planning.”

Restructuring of the Department for Education

On 10 July, the Department for Education (DfE) was restructured to place responsibility for SEND and AP under its Schools Group “[t]o ensure that improving inclusion in mainstream schools is the heart of our plans to improve opportunity for those children with SEND.” This means that responsibility for SEND and AP now sits with the school’s minister. This responsibility previously sat with the children and families minister.

The restructuring is meant to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools. It may result in the education of Disabled children and Young people being considered alongside the education of non-disabled children and Young people. However, there is no guarantee that this will result in the government making the necessary changes to ensure that Disabled children and Young people are fully included in mainstream schools.

The restructuring will not improve mainstream inclusivity unless the government also addresses the systemic injustice and discriminatory policies and practices working against inclusive education for all Disabled children and Young people. We are deeply concerned that the government appears not to be committed to going this far as there has been no indication that any changes will be made to the Children and Families Act 2014, which provides the legal framework for children labelled with special educational needs. Also, there has been no indication that the government will provide schools and local authorities additional resources, financial or otherwise, to ensure that

Policy

Disabled children and Young people get all the support that they require in mainstream schools. Nor has there been any indication that any measures will be taken to ensure that mainstream schools have accessible infrastructure and inclusive teaching practices.

Extra funding

Before the parliamentary summer recess, Labour announced “a new core schools budget grant to provide special and alternative provision schools with over £140 million of extra funding in this financial year.” The purpose of the extra funding was “to help with the extra costs of the teacher pay award and the outcome of the negotiations about increased pay for support staff as well.”

However, there was no extra budget grant announced for the high needs funding distributed to local authorities, schools and colleges to address the needs of Disabled children and Young people in mainstream educational settings. Nor was there any extra funding provided to schools and colleges that do not get the high needs funding.

Thus, no extra funding was provided for the support and accommodations required by Disabled children and Young people in mainstream educational settings. Yet, the lack of support and accommodations in mainstream setting has forced many Disabled children and Young people into special education, alternative provision, private schools, home schooling and out of the education system altogether. We believe that the government should have prioritised this to show its commitment to “improving inclusivity … in mainstream schools.”

Advanced British Standard scrapped

On 29 July, the Labour government scrapped plans to introduce a Advanced British Standard (ABS), a qualification that would have replaced A Levels and T Levels. The cancellation was due to budget constraints and to make room

for funding other areas of the profession. ALLFIE sees this as a positive development. We were concerned that introducing the ABS would further marginalise Disabled pupils as it sought to increase the breath of the curriculum, to achieve better employment outcomes, without first addressing the systemic discrimination and social injustice in teaching and examination practices as well as the failure to provide support and accommodations for Disabled children and Young people in schools and colleges. These issues still need to be addressed regardless of the fact the plans to introduce the ABS were set aside.

New Ofsted inspection framework

In September, the government and Ofsted announced that it will be introducing a new inspection framework that will have “inclusion” as a “new criteria.” These changes will be introduced in September 2025, subject to consultation.

According to a Schools Week report, Ofsted said that its inspectors will evaluate the quality of schools’ support for “children and Young people with vulnerabilities such as socioeconomic disadvantage and SEND” and “grade down” those “that refused to take children with SEND or off-rolled them.”

Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, told Schools Week that Ofsted will celebrate and champion the work of schools that “take on” children with complex needs and “do good work for them” and “grade down” schools that refuse or off-roll children with ‘complex needs’. In relation to the new inspection framework, the Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell, has said that DfE wants “every school to be driving to be as inclusive as it can be, so that mainstream provision is provided for as many children as possible.”

Ofsted has not set out exactly what metrics it would judge inclusion on. However, Ofsted awarded the National Children’s

Bureau (NCB) charity a £90,000 seven-month contract to help it “conceptualise vulnerability and inclusion.” The NCB will undertake a literature review and hold consultations certain stakeholders – pupils, professionals and senior leaders across sectors including education – to help Ofsted “better understand vulnerability and its complexity” according to the terms of reference.

Matt Keer has highlighted several concerns with the proposed inspection framework. These concerns include how the framework will measure the murky nature of the concept of inclusion – that is, it can be difficult to understand and apply in practice – and covert practices used to refuse Disabled children and Young people from schools. In addition to these concerns, we also have at least three concerns of our own.

Our first concern is that the aim of the research being undertaken by the NCB. A better understanding of “vulnerability and its complexity” does not necessary lead to a better understanding of inclusion and its complexity. This means that even if the study achieves its aim, it will not necessarily lead to an inspection framework that is capable of measuring ‘inclusion’ in schools.

Our second concern is that different approaches will be taken to inspecting special schools. This is a concern because Ofsted has said that in future its frameworks will be “tailored to the types of providers we inspect.” Ofsted has not yet clarified what the differences will be between the frameworks. However, there is a risk that there will be less emphasis on inclusion, learning and educational outcomes for Disabled children and Young people in special schools, as is the current practice. Taking such an approach will only reinforce longstanding prejudices and social injustices against Disabled children and Young people in special school.

Our third concern is that this change process has begun and continues with very little, if any, involvement of Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs). This has excluded the voice of Disabled people from the conversation. Yet, Disabled people have lived experience of segregated and inclusive education which can help shape the development of an inspection framework that better measures “inclusion” in schools.

Free Breakfast Clubs for all Primary Schools

The government is also planning to introduce a Children’s Wellbeing Bill that will extend free breakfast clubs to all primary schools in England next year. It has not yet provided details of what model of provision would be adopted. ALLFIE is however concerned that a food-only model would fail to cater for Disabled children and Young people whose requirements remain unmet in schools due to lack of staff, resourcing and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

On 19 July 2024, the Department for Education launched a Curriculum and Assessment Review. The press release states that: “The review will look closely at the key challenges to attainment for Young people, and the barriers which hold children back from the opportunities and life chances they deserve –in particular those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, or with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND).”

It is not clear what this means but ALLFIE expects that the government will take this opportunity to review and address all the systemic injustices of the existing curriculum and assessment system. In particular, the government should develop and implement a more dynamic curriculum and assessment system that achieves just and equitable outcomes for all children and Young people.

Policy

20% VAT on Private Schools

The Labour government plans to introduce a 20% VAT rate on private school fees from January 2025 and use this money to invest in state schools. Rachel Filmer highlighted the likely impact of this new policy such as Disabled children and Young people moving to mainstream schools. ALLFIE believes that parents should be confident that mainstream schools can provide adequate support for Disabled children and Young people. Therefore, we urge government to direct resources towards ensuring adequate support and resources for Disabled children and Young people in mainstream schools, making the system better for those who move from private schools and those who are already in mainstream schools. The goal should be for all Disabled children and Young people to pupils/students alongside their nondisabled peers in mainstream schools.

Please note that this article was written before the Chancellor delivered the Autum 2024 budget. You can find ALLFIE’s review of the budget here

Conclusion

In conclusion, Labour has made very little progress towards addressing the SEND crisis in its first 100 days in office. Despite commitments to inclusivity, no new resources have been channelled to local authorities and mainstream schools, leaving gaps in support and accessibility for Disabled students. Although restructuring the Department for Education and scrapping the Advanced British Standard (ABS) signal a willingness to make positive changes, the absence of comprehensive funding and support frameworks limits the immediate impact of these efforts. Additionally, the new Ofsted inspection framework and Curriculum and Assessment Review represent

future potential for inclusivity but lack clear, actionable metrics.

To fulfil Labour’s pledges of inclusive and equitable education, sustained focus on practical, funded solutions in mainstream settings is essential. Through meaningful collaboration with Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) and clear accountability measures, Labour can move closer to a truly inclusive educational landscape, where all Disabled children and Young people have equal opportunities to learn alongside their peers.

Recommendations

• Develop new legislation to secure inclusive education in mainstream settings for Disabled students, including requirements for accommodations, anti discrimination policies, and penalties for non-compliance.

• Develop plans to phase out special schools and alternative provisions with a goal to ensure inclusive education in mainstream settings for all Disabled people.

• Provide a dedicated budget for inclusive education in mainstream schools, ensuring these funds are channelled towards making infrastructure accessible as well as providing adequate support and accommodations.

• Ensure free breakfast clubs are inclusive and accessible, meeting the needs of every child and Young person.

Image: Dr Edmore Masendeke, ALLFIE’s Policy and Research Lead

How the language of SEND has devalued education

My name is Yewande Akintelu-Omoniyi.

I am ALLFIE’s Our Voice Youth Project Co Lead. In this article, I will be examining the language of SEND.

SEND stands for “special educational needs and disabilities.” It refers to a child or Young person’s ability to learn. This can include:

• Their behaviour when socialising, for example trying to make friends.

• Reading & writing

• Being able to understand information

• Concentration

• Physical ability

The term SEN originates from the 1978 Warnock report. Historically, there has been a lack of aspiration for Disabled pupils, and segregated schools were recommended as “treatment” for Disabled children and Young people, so the number of segregated schools and institutions increased. Mary Warnock led a committee, which in hindsight did not go far enough to introduce inclusive education but was the first to argue that education needed to take an integrative approach to education for Disabled children and Young people. That’s how the term SEN was born.

Prior to this, after World War two the 1944 Education Act was created. However, under this act many Disabled children and Young people were deemed “uneducable” and were under the NHS for educational “treatment”.

This is in line with the Medical Model of Disability.

Mary Warnock also explained that education for Disabled children and Young people needed to consider their medical needs and to prepare them for future employment. Many of the recommendations from the Warnock report formed the basis of the 1981 Education Act. The Act was the foundation for the modern SEND system that we have today.

Some of the recommendations were:

• A specialist teacher in every school, who are now known as Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs)

• Teacher training courses to have a module on SEND

• Higher education institutions to publish policies regarding students with SEND.

As previously mentioned, the Warnock report received major criticism that it did not go far enough in developing an inclusive education system. However, as I mentioned earlier it became an integrative education system which still exists today. A 2020 Inclusion Now article stated that:

“Integrated ‘placements’ resulted in deeper isolation and continued segregation in mainstream settings for many Disabled learners.”

Language

This isolation continues in the present day for Disabled children and Young people who attend mainstream school.

The “D” for Disability in SEND was only introduced after the 2001 Disability Discrimination Amendment Act which brought Education fully under the Disability Discrimination Act and introduced Duty of Reasonable Adjustment into schools and colleges. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005, introduced the Duty to promote Disability Equality into education. This Act went further than the 2010 Equality Act in terms of promoting Disability Equality in the education system. The Equality Act also left the definition of Disability “undefined” which makes it difficult to have Disability equality as part of the education system. This lack of definition has also been emphasised in ALLFIE’s campaigning work for many years.

The next landmark piece of SEND legislation was the 2014 Children and Families Act, in which Education, Health, Care and Plans (EHCPs) replaced Statements of Need. EHCPs are for Disabled children and Young people under 25, with greater collaboration between Education, Health and Care service providers, so their needs could be met more efficiently. However, at ALLFIE we know from our decades of campaigning work that successive SEND reforms have failed to deliver the inclusive education that Disabled children and Young people deserve. In fact, we think that the SEND label has devalued education for Disabled children and Young people.

For example, PHD researcher Sharon Smith and ALLFIE Director Michelle Daley discuss in their article for Inclusion Now magazine how things have gone “backwards" for many Disabled children and Young people, who are being denied their right to mainstream education. The system is complicated and problematic for parents, children and Young people to navigate, especially in trying to get an EHCP plan. According to Sharon and Michelle’s article, EHCPs are too long and detailed, with language that is inaccessible for Disabled Young people.

As a result of this, many Disabled Young people are unable to take part in decision making about their education, which is a requirement of the EHCP process. This might also leave them with a lack of confidence about making decisions when they are adults. Research done by the Disability Policy Centre revealed that Disabled Young people perform worse off than their non-Disabled peers at several levels during school. They leave school with “fewer opportunities”. Their research also showed that 65% of parents had to fight for their child’s EHCP, and in some local authorities 100% of pupils in Pupil Referral Units (PRU’s) had been diagnosed as having SEND. Many parents are also being pushed into seeking segregated education for their children and Young people.

This also backs up what ALLFIE found during our research for the submission of the 2022 SEND review Green Paper. ALLFIE said in the May 2022 edition of Inclusion Now: "Due to the lack of reasonable adjustments that are being made for Disabled students in mainstream education, parents are having to choose segregated education for their children and Young people."

The SEND system also causes issues for Disabled children and Young people in terms of their sense of identity. The SEN part of the legislation is rooted in a deficit model, focused on what Young people cannot do. It is a system that is based on the medical model and tends to focus on diagnosis only. As ALLFIE’s SEND review submission found in 2022, the SEND system doesn’t take an intersectional approach to education. Even though the “D” part of the SEND law is based on Disability Rights, this is not reflected in the SEND system.

Disabled children and Young people have multiple identities other than Disability, such as their race and gender. The SEND system doesn’t examine how the intersectional discrimination that pupils and students face, can affect their ability to access a mainstream education. As our SEND review submission said, EHCP’s and its assessment process “fail to view Disabled children and Young people in a holistic manner.”

When I was at mainstream school as a Disabled child and Young person, I felt like there was focus on what I couldn’t do academically, I could sense that I had to fit into what already existed with the curriculum. Especially in subjects such as Maths, Science and PE. There was no effort make the curriculum or school life inclusive. I also struggled to make friends with my non-Disabled peers because we as Disabled pupils at school felt isolated and distanced from them. These experiences really had a negative impact on my confidence as a Disabled Young person.

Similar experiences to this were also echoed in ALLFIE’s 2024 research about the educational experiences of Black/Global Majority Disabled pupils in mainstream education, and their parents within London.

So, what is the alternative to a system that very clearly keeps failing Disabled children and Young people? ALLFIE has campaigned for years for an inclusive education system underpinned by Article 24 of the UNCRPD with a human rights approach to education. This has been emphasised in our 2024 Manifesto. The system further disables children and Young people. If education was more inclusive, and focused on liberation and empowerment, many Young Disabled people wouldn’t feel as if they are a problem that should be fixed.

Disabled activist and academic Miro Griffiths describes this perfectly when talking about discovering language that made him feel liberated as a Young Disabled person. When he first came into the Disabled People’s Movement, he used medical model language that referred to himself as “the problem”. Then, he spoke to more experienced activists who introduced him to the Social Model of Disability, and language rooted in justice which set him on his journey to activism and leadership.

As the Disability Policy centre mentioned in their research, the 2014 SEND reforms had good intentions. However, at ALLFIE we see a SEND system that is broken and not fit for purpose.

Language

The language of SEND has not been helpful to Disabled children and Young people that are entitled to an inclusive education and an inclusive learning experience which should be on par with their non-disabled peers.

Disabled children and Young people’s needs should not be considered “special” which implies their educational needs are “favour”, and not a human right. The education system needs to do away with SEND language and replace it with inclusive language that liberates Disabled people.

As Sharon Smith and Michelle Daley emphasise: “The system should be delivering a service that intersects with the other departments which enables children and Young people to have a good education, having a happy childhood and fulfilled adult lives.” (How might Education, Health and Care plans be improved?: Inclusion Now 68, 2024)

Language is a powerful tool that shapes human behaviours, as evidenced by its influence on policy and decision-making in SEND. Policymakers need to realise the profound impact that the language and systems within SEND have on the lives of Disabled children and Young people. University College London (UCL) captured this sentiment well in their 2023 inclusive language toolkit. They assert:

“Language is powerful. It can help people feel valued and included or dismissed and excluded. It can destigmatise, enable respectful relationships, and build trust.” (Using inclusive language in education: UCL 2023)

At ALLFIE, our campaign demands that those working in SEND provisions and services address the critical issue of systemic inequalities. We need a radical shift to end the oppressive systems and offensive language that disproportionately harms Disabled people and people from marginalised communities. Education for Disabled children and Young people must not be recognised as “special” but as their rightful entitlement, ensuring every pupil and student receives the respect and support needed for an inclusive education.

Inclusive practice

What is an EHCP?

By ALLFIE's Melody Powell, Social Media Co-Lead, and Sharon Smith, Mother and PhD researcher

An education, health and care plan (EHCP) is a legal document for children and Young people aged 0-25 with special educational needs, whose needs cannot be met by standard mainstream school provision. It identifies the child's or Young person's special education, social care and health needs, and looks at how education, health and care can work together to support them and sets measurable goals to work towards.

Impact on schools

Mainstream schools struggle to meet the needs outlined in EHCPs due to restricted budgets or believing that they lack specialist training or resources, and often feel that trying to stretch finances to meet the needs of Disabled pupils negatively impacts the non-disabled pupils. This is causing Special Schools to become overrun, as mainstream schools are refusing children due to the added cost.

Attitudes towards support

Mainstream schools often have negative attitudes towards providing support and say they cannot meet the child's needs as the unreasonable budget allocations will impact other children or they do not believe that they have the specialist knowledge required. Local authorities can then force a school to accept the child and support their needs, but this may cause bad experiences due to the school's negativity towards SEN support.

Image: Left, Melody Powell. Right, Sharon Smith

Inclusive practice

Barriers within an EHCP

An EHC needs assessment should be completed within 20 weeks once requested. Parents only have 15 days allocated to look over the draft, which is often written in lengthy, complex language. As alternative formats are not offered upfront, this prevents Disabled parents from being able to review the draft in that timeframe.

Low-level SEN Support

There is a push to avoid EHCPs as early intervention with low-level SEN support is less costly in time and money. Every school is expected to spend the first £6,000 in low-level SEN support per child out of the nominal SEN budget. The school does not have to disclose if they spend the SEN funding on supporting the child or in other areas.

Pressure on family

An EHCP should detail what a child or Young person needs to thrive. However, this is not guaranteed, and parents often have to fight to get schools to meet basic needs. Sometimes, parents feel pressure to remove their child from school due to the lack of support offered by schools, putting pressure on families to give up work and attempt home-education.

What is an EHCP?

An education, health and care plan (EHCP) is a legal document for children and young people aged 0-25 with special educational needs, whose needs cannot be met by standard mainstream school provision

It identifies the child's or young person's special education, social care and health needs, and looks at how education, health and care can work together to support them and sets measurable goals to work towards

Impact on schools

Attitudes towards support

Mainstream schools often have negative attitudes towards providing support and say they cannot meet the child's needs as the unreasonable budget allocations will impact other children or they do not believe that they have the specialist knowledge required

Local authorities can then force a school to accept the child and support their needs, but this may cause bad experiences due to the school's negativity towards SEN support

Mainstream schools struggle to meet the needs outlined in EHCPs due to restricted budgets or believing that they lack specialist training or resources, and often feel that trying to stretch finances to meet the needs of Disabled pupils negatively impacts the nondisabled pupils

This is causing Special Schools to become overrun, as mainstream schools are refusing children due to the added cost

Barriers within an EHCP

An EHC needs assessment should be completed within 20 weeks once requested Parents only have 15 days allocated to look over the draft, which is often written in lengthy, complex language

As alternative formats are not offered upfront this prevents Disabled parents from being able to review the draft in that timeframe

Low-level SEN Support

There is a push to avoid EHCPs as early intervention with low-level SEN support is less costly in time and money Every school is expected to spend the first £6 000 in lowlevel SEN support per child out of the nominal SEN budget

The school does not have to disclose if they spend the SEN funding on supporting the child or in other areas

The number of pupils in England with SEN support/SEN without an EHCP is up by 4 7% from 2022

Pressure on family

An EHCP should detail what a child or young person needs to thrive However, this is not guaranteed, and parents often have to fight to get schools to meet basic needs

Sometimes, parents feel pressure to remove their child from school due to the lack of support offered by schools, putting pressure on families to give up work and attempt home-education

34% of parents feel that their child is not receiving suitable support at school

The Crisis in the SEND System in England: A Call for Urgent overhaul

By Iyiola Olafimihan, ALLFIE’s Campaigns and Justice Lead

We are deep into the new school year now and it is obvious, the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system in England, designed to support Disabled children and Young people remains in crisis. At the heart of this system is the Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP), a legal document that outlines the specific support a Disabled child requires to succeed in school. ALLFIE campaigns for an inclusive education system underpinned by Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the social model of disability, an intersectional approach and practice, and the recognition that all humans are equal and that society benefits profoundly when Disabled children and their peers are learning and playing together in mainstream educational settings.

The system has been plagued by delays, inconsistencies, and a lack of adequate resources, leaving many families struggling to

access the support their children need to be included in mainstream educational settings. This crisis has profound implications for the Disabled children it is meant to serve, as well as for the broader education system and society.

The Scale of the Crisis

The number of children in England requiring SEND support has been steadily increasing. As of 2023, over 1.5 million children in England were identified as having special educational needs, with approximately 500,000 of these children holding an EHCP. Despite the growing demand, the system has been overwhelmed, resulting in significant delays in assessments, a lack of suitable school placements, and inadequate funding to meet the needs of Disabled children.

In a recent report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO), education complaints constituted more than a quarter (26%) of all complaints received in 2023-24, vastly outnumbering those related to housing

(16%), adult care (14%), or highways (12%). Specifically, there were more than 4,600 complaints about education, compared to fewer than 3,000 about housing. This disparity illustrates the significant challenges faced by families navigating the SEND system.

Key Issues Contributing to the Crisis

Several interrelated factors contribute to the current crisis in the SEND system:

1. Underfunding: One of the most significant issues is chronic underfunding. Local authorities have struggled to keep up with the rising demand for SEND services due to budget cuts and insufficient government funding. This has led to a shortage of specialist staff, inadequate training, and a lack of suitable educational placements for children with complex needs. Schools are increasingly not being able to meet the requirements of Disabled children and an increase in demand for EHCPs, thus leading to a decline in the quality of support available to Disabled children and Young people labelled as SEND.

2. Delays in EHCP Processing: The statutory timeframe for completing an EHCP assessment is 20 weeks. However, many local authorities are failing to meet this deadline due to a lack of resources and high caseloads. Families are often left waiting for months or even years, during which time their children may not receive the support they need, leading to further educational setbacks, complete exclusions from schools and distress to families and Disabled children.

3. Inconsistent Quality of EHCPs: Even when Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are issued, the quality can be highly inconsistent. Some plans are vague and lack specificity, making it difficult for schools to implement them effectively. Additionally, there are widespread concerns about the adequacy of the provision outlined in EHCPs, with many parents feeling that their children’s needs are not being fully met.

4. Lack of Suitable School Placements: Finding `appropriate school placements for Disabled children labelled with SEND is increasingly difficult. Disabled children should be placed in mainstream settings in their communities and

not miles away or segregated in so-called special schools. However, many mainstream schools lack the resources or expertise to accommodate Disabled children and in so many cases mainstream schools are turning families and their children away because of the league system that penalises schools with a high intake of Disabled children. This has resulted in some children being placed in unsuitable environments or being left without a school place altogether.

5. Parental Battles and Tribunal Cases: The inadequacies of the system have led to a surge in the number of tribunal cases, where parents challenge local authorities over EHCP decisions. The SEND tribunal system is now overwhelmed, with many families facing long waits for hearings. The adversarial nature of the process places additional stress on families and often leads to costly legal battles, which can further delay support for the child.

The Impact on Disabled Children and Families

The failures of the SEND system have devastating and harmful consequences for Disabled children and families it is supposed to support. Disabled children are at greater risk of exclusion from mainstream educational settings, no education or unsupported home schooling, social isolation (no friendships or play with their peers), and mental health issues. The stress and uncertainty faced by parents navigating the system can also lead to a breakdown in family relationships and financial hardship, as many parents are forced to reduce their working hours or give up work entirely to look after their children.

Moreover, the inadequacies of the system contribute to wider societal issues. Children who do not receive appropriate support are more likely to become disengaged from education, leading to long-term disadvantages in terms of employment opportunities and social inclusion. The strain on the education system also impacts other pupils, as schools struggle to manage large numbers of children with unmet needs, affecting the quality of education for all.

Policy

The Need for Urgent Overhaul

The crisis in the SEND system requires urgent and comprehensive overhaul. For over thirty years, ALLFIE has been campaigning for an inclusive education system that is well resourced, and values Disabled people like our non-disabled peers. ALLFIE believes an EHCP should not even be necessary if the default is a fully funded and well-resourced inclusive education system. However, the following actions are crucial to addressing the deep-rooted issues within the current system. ALLFIE’s Manifesto offers some solutions:

• Increased Funding: The government must allocate sufficient funding to meet the growing demand for SEND services. This includes investing in inclusive education training for all teaching staff, and resources for schools, as well as ensuring that local authorities have the financial support, they need to deliver timely and effective EHCPs (ALLFIE’s Manifesto demands 3 and 5).

• Streamlining the EHCP Process: The EHCP process needs to be streamlined to reduce delays and improve efficiency. This could involve simplifying the assessment process, improving coordination between education, health, and care services, and ensuring that local authorities are held accountable for meeting statutory deadlines. Sections 26 (3)(4) and 36 (2) Children and Families Act 2014

• Improving the Quality of EHCPs: There must be a focus on improving the quality and specificity of EHCPs. This includes ensuring that plans are child centred, with clear and measurable outcomes. Regular reviews of EHCPs should be conducted to ensure that the provision remains appropriate and effective.

• Supporting Families: Families navigating the SEND system need greater support and guidance. This could include the provision of independent advocates, improved access to information, and measures to reduce the adversarial nature of

the tribunal process. Ensuring that parents feel listened to and respected is crucial in rebuilding trust in the system.

The Need for Inclusive Education

The ongoing crisis within the SEND system reinforces the urgent need for a more inclusive approach to education. Inclusive education is not just about including Disabled children into mainstream schools; it is about creating an environment where all children and Young people, Disabled or non-disabled, can thrive together. This requires a systemic overhaul that prioritizes the needs of every child, ensuring that support is readily available and that schools are equipped to handle the diverse needs of their pupils.

Conclusion

It is possible to create a system that truly meets the inclusive education requirements of all children and Young people labelled with SEND, with adequate funding, streamlined processes, and a renewed commitment to supporting every Disabled child’s right to education.

For over 30 years ALLFIE has been at the forefront of the campaign for inclusive education for all Disabled people. We continue to fight for this right, and to stop the ongoing discrimination and oppression being experienced by Disabled children and Young people. We will not stop until while Disabled people are being denied their human right to inclusive education and failed by the education system.

What you can do

• Please sign and share ALLFIE's Manifesto Read and sign ALLFIE’s Manifesto: 'Inclusive Education for All'

Inclusive Education in English County Councils and Local Government Association

In July 2024, ISOS Partnership published its report, ‘Towards an Effective and Financially Sustainable Approach to SEND in England’.

In this article Richard Rieser, World of Inclusion, anwers the question: Should the new UK Government be following this advice or going a different route to achieve its stated aim of ‘more inclusive education’?

What can we agree with in the Report are the key facts of the crisis in SEND?

1. ‘The number of children with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs, formerly statements) is higher than at any time and has risen from 240,183 in 2014/15 (1.4% of school population) to 575,973 in 2023/2024 (3.3% of school population)’. Not strictly true.

2. ‘There are more children and Young people than ever before whose needs are not being met in mainstream education, and thus require specialist provision’. It does not follow that they require specialist provision. In 2024 the number is 197,098, the highest ever figure. This does not account for an unknown number of children with SEND not in school at all, either off rolled, excluded or absenting themselves, estimated at 20% of the secondary cohort in Year 10 last year.

3. ‘More money than ever before is being invested in SEND, but it is significantly less than what is actually being spent on SEND by Local Authorities (LAs), health services and education settings. Despite increased national funding to reflect the growth in EHCPs and specialist provision, this has not kept pace with the growth in expenditure.

Government funding, in the form of high needs block allocations to LAs, has risen from £4.8 billion in 2014-15 to £9.2 billion in 202425.’

4. The school-based funding which is not ring fenced and has not kept up with funding to schools in England, was only at a level of budgets in real terms as of 2010, according to the National Education Union (NEU). Austerity has led to myriads of cuts in teaching assistants, small group teaching and good inclusive practice in mainstream schools.

5. The outcome for Disabled Young people and their families, and their day-to-day experience, has not improved.

We can say that Local Authorities in the main have not been listening to Disabled children and their parents. According to a representative sample of 3,593, Disabled children (aged 8-17) are clear about what they want for a better world, as they told the Children’s Commissioner in England in March:

• To be understood, seen and heard;

• To benefit from a fantastic, ambitious education in mainstream school (where

possible), and support at school when they need it;

• For all activities and services to be accessible;

• To receive high-quality care locally and quickly;

• To be free from harassment and discrimination;

• For transitions to be smooth and prepare them for adulthood;

• For services to see them as part of a family, and to take a whole family approach. None of which is happening and so Local Authorities are in breach of the Duty as outlined in Paragraph 19 Part 3 Children and Families Act.

The ISOS Report crisis the SEND system solutions are problematic. The fundamental issue is what type of reform?

ISOS say 2014 Act has not been a success. They say, “what is needed is national reform” and those of us committed to developing an inclusive education system would agree, setting the national ambition – vision and principles. We think this should be more deeply values based on human rights and inclusive values and practices as outlined in Article 24 of the UNCRPD as clarified in General Comment No 4.

ISOS argue “to create a National Framework that describes types and levels of needs, and that provides clarity about the levels of need to be met in mainstream education and expectations of ordinarily available provision”.

This takes us back to a medical model approach where Disabled Young people are seen and classified by their level of need. But their needs are largely created by a school system full of restrictions and barriers to Young people with a range of impairments.

As Micheline Mason, (who we are mourning and celebrating currently) and I argued in our 1994 ‘Altogether Better’ publication, we need to move from a continuum of provision based on a deficit model of need (‘What you can’t do?’), to an inclusion model of pedagogy and provision where a constellation of services supports the Disabled Young person and their teacher. This requires a wholesale restructuring of our school system.

ISOS propose “a series of measures to enable inclusive practice in mainstream education settings. We propose the development of a new “core offer” of targeted, multi-disciplinary support – from therapists, EPs and other services – that all education settings can access without children and young people requiring a statutory plan.”

The Inclusion Movement has long argued to fund schools rather than children to get rid of barriers and develop inclusive practice. Also, that is those with the most significant impairment who most need to be included socially and in terms of learning as they are the one who have historically been most isolated and abused.

ISOS also recommend “to reform elements of the SEND statutory framework so that the state can set out a clear, consistent, equitable and sustainable offer of support for children and young people with additional needs. This should enshrine the practice behind the original idea of EHCPs, in the form of regular, personalised assessments, planning and reviews of what we are calling a new Learner Record”. So, we are back here to a hierarchy of impairments which denies the fundamental purpose of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which the UK has ratified.

The ISOS solve a funding problem for Local Authorities. It will not safeguard the Human Rights of Disabled Young people.

ISOS recommend creating a new Destinations and Progression Service in each local area. “This service would have oversight of all children and young people with additional needs as they approached the transition from children’s to adult services and in the years after that age of transition”. On the face of it a good idea, but would they have the power to challenge disability discrimination and the means to come up with workable solutions? Of support and specialist provision) and decision making regarding future statutory plans”.

So that the structure to design and build more segregated provision would be in place and the right of parents to want mainstream provision and their recourse to the SENDIST Tribunal to force the decision would disappear.

There are some improvements in funding for mainstream SEN, but it will be cash limited, ruling out more expensive reasonable adjustments.

ISOS propose to further incorporate the private provision. This will be part of Local Inclusion Partnerships. It appears ISOS is suggesting the reinstatement of compulsory segregation which was got rid of in the 2001 Education Amendment Act. So, for profit organisations and segregated provision with all the safeguarding issues that they present will effectively become part of state provision, though ISOS do recommend a limit of profit making. It is hard to see how the fee structure that lead to profits could be adapted.

They are also suggesting that the newly created National Institute would create the Framework

which as we have seen will be based on medical model and exclusionary principles.

No organisations that support inclusive education fully were consulted by ISOS.

ISOS is not identifying the wider key issues in Educational Policy that need to change which are organisational but not just in the SEND system. As a recent letter from the Association of Educational Psychologists counter signed by 16 other SEND organisations to Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson makes clear: “Our children and young people need a coordinated and united approach to improving the education system, and an end to the current culture of blame.

It is in your power to be part of the solution. We ask you to please raise awareness of the broken, ‘bolt-on’ approach to SEND with your colleagues in the Department of Education and the Treasury. Please could we ask you to request that any response is not limited to reference to the SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan, which does little to address these issues, or any funding initiatives for local authorities already mentioned. Please press your colleagues to engage with a full review of the whole education system and curriculum to address the inconsistencies outlined here, and to place the needs of those with additional needs at the forefront so that all children and young people can access a meaningful and relevant educational experience within which they can thrive and have a sense of belonging within their own communities”.

We know Inclusion Works our job now is to intervene at every level in the debate this Report will create to convince those in power.

Disability History Month

Disability, Employment & Livelihood

UK Disability History Month 2024

Over the last 35 years the UK, in response to the Disability Movement, the Trade Union Movement and the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) now the Equality Act 2010, has completely transformed its response to disability in the workplace.

In times of war when non-disabled men have gone to fight, more Disabled workers were recruited in 1914–18 and 1939–45. This has led to Disabled workers being part of the reserve army of labour. In the past, heavy industry like mining, steel-making and construction have had a high rate of accidents leading to more Disabled workers. Depending on organised labour’s strength some have been able to accommodate these workers on light duties. This was particularly true in mining areas where the Unions and the local community facilitated the welfare of Disabled miners and their families. Long before the Welfare State.

Many people know of the National League for the Blind 1920 three-way march on London for a decent wage and conditions for Blind workers. Far fewer know of the long history of their struggle with many local strikes over the previous 30 years.

The idea that Disabled people in the 19th Century were increasingly locked away in asylums, the workhouse and long stay hospitals is only partly true and is being challenged: “Disabled people have always been at the heart of British economic and labour history, but their contributions in the workplace often go unrecognised. Once the Industrial Revolution got underway in the late eighteenth century, the narrative that Disabled people were unable to work and instead depended on the workhouse or on charity took hold; a myth that persists to this day. But this stereotype is not historically accurate” Gill Crawshaw

All students, pupils and adults in the community or work can learn about this history and draw strength from the right to not be discriminated and have reasonable adjustments in the workplace.

For more information and to get involved in UK Disability History Month: https://ukdhm.org/

Legal Question

Despite legal frameworks designed to ensure that Disabled children can attend mainstream schools, many still face significant barriers and are refused admission. This is particularly an issue for Disabled children labelled with "complex needs or challenging behaviours". Schools often refuse admission by claiming they cannot meet the specific needs. This situation raises significant legal and ethical questions for parents of Disabled children, especially concerning the legality of such refusals.

How can these issues be challenged, in particular:

• What is the legal position on refusal due to the perceived needs of Disabled children?

• Why are some schools still allowed to act unlawfully?

• Why are some schools still failing to meet their legal obligations to provide inclusive education within mainstream schools, despite existing laws?

As a general principle, Local Authorities (LAs) are required to ensure that Disabled children are educated in mainstream school. This is known as the mainstream presumption and includes learners with special educational needs as set out in the Children and Families Act (CFA) 2014. All children have the right to mainstream education if preferred by their parents (subject to a few exceptions which are detailed below).

School admissions authorities cannot discriminate against a child because they have a disability. They are legally required to consider applications from all parents and children, and cannot refuse admission to a child because they consider they are unable to meet their needs.

If a child has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and the parents seek a mainstream placement, this can only be denied if the placement would be incompatible with the education of others, and no reasonable steps can be taken to avoid this (s. 33 CFA 2014). This is a deliberately high threshold, and the focus should be on removing any barriers to the child accessing that school place.

Children without an EHCP must be admitted to a mainstream setting (s. 34(2) CFA 2014) unless for example the parents choose to fund attendance at an independent school or electively home educate their child. Learners without an EHCP can only be placed in alternative provision in extremely limited circumstances.

Since 2002, every school must have an accessibility plan to eliminate barriers to Disabled individuals from accessing their preferred school. This document should be available directly from the education providers.

Discriminating against learners because of disability is contrary to the protections afforded under the Equality Act 2010, which identifies that discrimination occurs if someone is treated unfairly due to something arising from their disability, and that treatment is not ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. Mainstream schools also have a Public Sector Equality Duty to prevent discrimination.

As Education Law providers, we all too often see instances of schools failing Disabled children. Unfortunately, it is often up to parents to challenge the actions of LAs or schools.

If the child has an EHCP, an action could be brought to the SEND Tribunal to challenge the school named in the EHCP. The legal presumption in favour of a mainstream placement is strong, and in our experience appeals of this nature for mainstream placements frequently succeed.

Applications for Judicial Review, made to the High Court, can be submitted against school admissions decisions in some instances. The Court will consider the legality of any decision to refuse admission, for example if a discriminatory policy has been applied.

It is also possible to bring disability discrimination claims against schools in the SEND Tribunal.

In the first instance, parents should voice their concerns and request a rational explanation from the school. If informal resolution fails, legal advice should be sought regarding action that could be taken.

Legal question posed by ALLFIE’s Michelle Daley and Catherine Bebbington, and answered by Beverley Simpson and Lucy Atherton, Simpson Millar Solicitors

The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE)

A national campaigning organisation led by disabled people. ALLFIE works to change laws, practices and procedures which discriminate against Disabled Young people and prevent inclusion. ALLFIE works together with allies to build a social climate in which everyone has a valued place.

336 Brixton Road, London SW9 7AA

Tel: 020 7737 6030

Email: info@allfie.org.uk

Website: www.allfie.org.uk

In collaboration with:

Inclusive Solutions

A team of psychologists and associates who specialise in cutting edge practical strategies and ideas for developing effective inclusion in local mainstream schools and communities. We work with anyone who wants to bring about the real systems changes that are necessary to move towards a truly inclusive society.

World of Inclusion

Tel: 0115 9556045 or 01473 437590

Email: inclusive.solutions@me.com

Website: inclusive-solutions.com

A consultancy that provides advice, resources and training in the UK and around the world to develop equality for disabled people especially in education. Richard Rieser is an expert disabled international equality trainer, consultant, film maker and writer and teacher.

Basement, 78 Mildmay Grove South, London N1 4PJ

Tel: 020 7359 2855 or 07715 420727

Email: rlrieser@gmail.com

Website: worldofinclusion.com

DISABLED PEOPLE, PARENTS AND ALLIES, WORKING TOGETHER to educate, facilitate and empower everyone who wants to be part of the growing inclusion movement. Together we want to bring down the barriers so all young people can learn, make friends and have a voice in ordinary school and throughout life. For each and every young person, this is an essential human right.