Second: The importance of fairness

‘Special’ schools, it would further the strengthening and protection of provisions for disabled children, giving the issue more exposure. Furthermore, to introduce children to differences, and disability could strengthen empathy and understanding, leading to a normalisation of disability. It is an issue of prejudice, and stigma based historical rhetoric that able-bodied children's learning capacity will be affected by the presence of a child with special educational needs and disability.

Second: The importance of fairness.

Social policy must put fairness at the heart of decision making. Reflecting constituents' needs as diverse individuals referring to the constituents for input, emphasising active community engagement and communication. A government that has not had the same experiences as the people it governs must make it a priority to become informed and socially aware in a contemporary context.

I would like to infer a possible reason for the continuing unsuitable policy by revisiting Social Identity theory mentioned in chapter two. We are taught to consider the origins of prejudice, coming from lack of knowledge of, ‘out-groups’ who we do not identify with, usually because of a lack of knowledge or exposure to the group. Lumen Learning describe the origins of prejudice and discrimination and they provide the example of, “public and private schools are still somewhat segregated by social class.” 121 The Sutton Trust provided a

121Lumen learning, Why do Prejudice and Discrimination Exist? [n.d.] <https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/why-do-prejudice-and-discriminationexist/> [Accessed 22 January 2021] (para. 1 of 7).

report that detailed the educational background of appointed ministers to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s cabinet. Considering that only about 6%122 of the UK’s entire population attend fee paying schools, it is interesting to contemplate the figures that have emerged from (2021) Boris Johnson’s cabinet. A cabinet that is elected to reflect the people’s interests allowing them to work as our representatives. The education history statistics for this cabinet are as follows: 65% attended private school. Half of the new cabinet attended either Oxford University or Cambridge University which in stark contrast with the general public, which less than 1% have attended123 . Recalling social identity theory laid out in chapter one I would like to refer to Carrie Foster’s writing on social psychology, “They identify more with similar people (in-group) than with those who are less similar (out-group). Due to things like ingroup favoritism and negative stereotyping, minorities are often excluded from group membership and decision-making activities.124” The population is the Etonian’s ‘out group’ .

An example of the effects of not putting fairness and consideration in place is the effect of the under-occupancy tax, (bedroom tax) had on disabled people, forgotten within implementing this strategy. Often disabled people living independently will struggle to fulfil the requirements of finding additional people to fill the occupancy.

122 Frances Green. Jake Anders. Morag Henderson. Golo Henseke. Who chooses private schooling in Britain and why? Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (2017) <https://www.llakes.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Green%2C%20Anders%2C%20Henderson%20%26%20Henseke.p df> [Accessed 19 January 2021] (pp. 3-36).

123 Social Mobility Commission, The Sutton Trust, Elitist Britain 2019- The educational backgrounds of Britains leading people (2019) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/811047/Eliti st_Britain_2019_-_Summary_Report.pdf > [Accessed 19 January 2021] (pp. 1-2). 124 Carrie Foster, ‘Social Psychology – Discrimination-Organisation Development’ (Organisation Development 2013) <http://organisationdevelopment.org/social-psychology-discrimination/> [Accessed 27 January 2021] (para. 19 of 22).

The Supreme court ruled in favour of two families who campaigned against the department of work and pensions to allow disabled children who need a spare room for an overnight carer to be exempt from the taxation. A disabled woman: Jacqueline Carmichael, campaigned for her right to be exempt from the under-occupancy tax due to her spare room being essential for her and her partner. They were unable to sleep together, owing to her disabling medical condition. The consequences of the medical condition meant that she had to sleep in a hospital bed. Due to the space restrictions, the couple said there was categorically no room for another bed in the same room as Jacqueline. The bedroom tax was unfair and inappropriate for them. This situation stresses the need for policy to be more considered and diverse. There would have been no need for the couple to go through four years of legal proceedings if this has been done initially. “Jacqueline referred to the Supreme Court decision as a ‘human rights victory.”125

“Let’s also not forget that the claims of five other families were dismissed by the court. These were largely brought by disabled people deemed not to have a ‘transparent medical need’ for another bedroom {…} One of the claimants used the room to store his vital medical equipment and was told his needs could be met through a separate assessment as part of the Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) Scheme.”- Sue Bott, Deputy CEO Disability Rights

UK126 .

Bott goes on to describe how the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the forementioned case, using the Commission’s legal powers, highlighting Article 14 of the United Nations Convention of Human Rights which outlines the law that Human Rights must

125 Sue Bott, Bedroom tax: success and failure for disabled people at the Supreme Court, (Equality Human Rights Commission 2016) < https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/blogs/bedroom-tax-successand-failure-disabled-people-supreme-court> [Accessed 30 November 2020] (para. 3 of 13). 126 Sue Bott, Bedroom tax: success and failure for disabled people at the Supreme Court, [Accessed 19 January 2021] (para. 5 of 13).