The rise, then fall, of Disabled children’s rights during the past ten years of Conservative Governments

By Joe Whittaker, ALLFIE Trustee

The many struggles for Inclusive Education (IE) have been recorded by Disabled Peoples Organisations, most notably ALLFIE and allies such as the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE), with Alison Wertheimer detailing national and international thinking about IE

The shifts away from the damaging segregation of Disabled children in isolated settings onto a path of IE with the prospect for a greater diversity of friendships and imaginative learning opportunities was a key debate throughout the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. The campaigns to create IE, had benefits for all learners which included:

• Pupil Centred Learning

• Team Teaching

• Teachers with different approaches to Teaching and Learning

• Introduction of senior staff to coordinate support around the school (SENCO)

• Stories of Disabled and non-Disabled students learning about each other for the first time

• Thousands of Teaching Assistants introduced to support Individual Learning Plans

• Different ways of assessing learning from a greater diversity of students

• Subject differentiation introduced to reach more students

• British Sign Language (BSL) as a second language for all to study

• Schools made physically accessible for Disabled people, Children, Teachers and Visitors

• Circles of Support

• Growth of Data and Materials celebrating the benefits to all from IE

• Disability History Month

The above and many more initiatives evolved from the struggles to make learning more accessible and more inclusive. However, the most significant shift was that Disabled children were not seeking permission to be included, it was their fundamental human right to be a part of their local schools and communities.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2007) was the culmination of those struggles - inclusion was now a Human Rights issue. This was a global message, contained in a document of fifty Articles, covering all areas of Human Rights for Disabled people to participate and contribute, on an equal basis as others, in their communities around the world. A key article of the convention and its interconnection with all other articles, for ALLFIE, was Article 24 - The RIGHT TO Inclusive Education.

Disabled People were instrumental in creating the language of this convention and pushing for IE as a Human Rights issue, Tara Flood, ALLFIE Director at that time, said:

“There was something really exciting about being at the UN, during the discussions to create the UNCRPD because for the first time in the history of the UN, non-governmental organisations were at the heart of shaping the convention text. For me, what was important was that the majority of NGO representatives were Disabled people, truly ‘nothing about us without us’. I went to New York representing ALLFIE and so my focus was securing a strong commitment to inclusive education in Article 24. This wasn’t easy because there were the usual arguments for ‘choice of education setting’, which as we know opens the door for segregated provision. However working alongside Richard Rieser (World of Inclusion) and Belinda Shaw (CSIE), we convinced government and NGO reps to support inclusive education as a human rights issue and therefore the aspiration of inclusive education for all Disabled pupils and students – an amazing achievement.”

ALLFIE was taking a key role in writing and making IE history. The UNCRPD made it clear that discriminations against Disabled people in the Institutions and Statutory Services should end. There was a recognition for those inside and outside of the Inclusion Movement we had reached a landmark based upon a solid foundation of Human Rights.

But then in came the Cameron Government in 2010. They quickly introduced a policy of ‘Ending the bias towards Inclusive Education.’ This policy was based upon a false assumption, that every Disabled child had the opportunity to enjoy IE and the Government wanted to strengthen ‘a choice agenda’ which as Flood suggested, was the ‘Trojan Horse’ to continue segregation.

The legislation to end discrimination and uphold Human Rights was not an overnight event, this was the time when the aspirations for IE had to be established as structural changes in the Schooling System, which would be a long journey. Richard Reiser, in 2011 asserted another reason the Government wanted to ‘end the bias towards Inclusive Education’

Inclusive approaches require transparency. Rieser’s assertion was correct, the Conservative Government intended to disguise their main aim, which was to increase the ‘marketplace’ in the schooling system. It is now obvious the Government have taken steps to undermine the rights of Disabled children whilst at the same increasing their attraction to a segregated ‘special’ economy.

How much will local authorities pay to private companies and charities to transport and segregate Disabled children from their homes and communities? It’s not the cost per child that is the concern, but the way Disabled children are packaged as a commodity. The more “complex” we construct and label a Disabled child, the deeper the segregation can be for that child and the higher the price on their head, paid by the local authority to a private company or charity, for private gain. If funding was available to create appropriate supports, where the Disabled child is the focus, accessing services in their local communities, the opportunities available could be transformed out of isolation into inclusion.

Statutory services cannot be an “event” done at an individual. Service has to be provided consistently and reliably from highly valued and well supported people, who are being guided by the Disabled person they are there to serve, it’s a reciprocal relationship. In 2011, the same Cameron Government set about removing Legal Aid, the significance of which will become apparent as we follow the undermining of Disabled children’s rights.

Increase in complaints

In the last five years Disabled children have increasingly been subjected to unlawful assaults from the Statutory Services, this is reflected in a soar of parental complaints to the Statutory Authorities, and the number of those complaints that have been upheld by independent bodies. Parents with children on Education and Health Care Plans (EHCP) were disproportionately assaulted.

This 90% increase in complaints from parents is likely to be the tip of an iceberg. If we were to include those parents who were justified in making a complaint but did not have the time, skills or support to follow a complaints procedure the figure is likely to be even higher. Often complaints procedures can be an ‘internal mechanism’ used to distract and exhaust an already busy parent.

Parent blaming

With such an increase in complaints some professionals and official responses were to simply to “blame the parents” adding insult to injury. Special Needs Jungle provide details of this increasingly common practice.

'Off Rolling' Disabled Learners

Another disturbing assault on Disabled children, which has increased in recent years. Ofsted (the Governments own Inspectorate of Standards Service) reported the practice of ‘off rolling’, where unknown numbers of children have been removed from the School Registers without explanation. These numbers disproportionately affected Disabled children. This practice reflects significant numbers of Headteachers and Local Authorities who are breaking the law. Examples include parents called into school by the Headteacher, sometimes with a Local Authority Officer present, and told that the school ‘cannot cope’ with your child because he had a ‘melt down’. The parent was then given ‘options’ - their Disabled child could go to a segregated special school, 35 miles away from home, or the parent could ‘home school’. This tactic to remove the child from school is unlawful

The practice of ‘off rolling’ was raised as a concern by Ofsted in 2017, indicating children had been lost in the system, without explanation. Ofsted refused to name the schools:

“We have identified around 300 schools with ‘exceptional levels’ of pupils coming off-roll between Years 10 and 11. We know that the most vulnerable children are more likely to be excluded or off-rolled."