Changes in Legislation Relating to the Identification and Management of Special Educational NeedsEssay Preview: Changes in Legislation Relating to the Identification and Management of Special Educational NeedsReport this essayCritically examine changes in legislation relating to the identification and management of special educational needs.This essay intends to examine changes in legislation relating to the identification and management of special educational needs with regards to Statementing, The Warnock Report and the subsequent Every Child Matters 2003 and The Children Act 2004.
Special Educational Needs (SEN) is a concept which is difficult to define and has been subject to many different implementations of legislation, with inconsistencies as to what counts and what does not. A committee was established in 1974 under the chair of Mary Warnock which was completed in 1978, resulting in a report with recommendations for children with SEN (Wall, 2006). This report criticised the orthodoxy of segregation and suggested that the current policy of labelling children offered no assistance to their needs in educational terms this was often referred to as the medical approach (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009). It was argued that this was damaging, as it defined children by their deficit instead of identifying possible needs, and how these needs should be met within mainstream school. This was significant as it bought about a shift towards assessment of SEN rather than a diagnosis of disability and was evident in the 1981 Education Act which provided the impetus for integration (Wall,2006). Nonetheless, it could be argued that this system saved subsequent Governments from facing the true costs required to cope with the range and complexity of needs and by removing the old system of categorising children it offered no clear definition to the requirements of learning disabilities (Macbeath, et al, 2006).
The dominant principle of the 1944 Education Act was all children be given the right to education, it stated that all local education authorities had to meet the needs of handicapped children and offered eleven categories of handicap where the identification of disability was judged by Doctors and other people in the medical profession who were trusted (Hodkin & Vickerman, 2009). Psychometric testing was deemed reliable and valid so parents were compelled to submit their children for examination of their mental capabilities using IQ tests advocated by Cyril Burt who in part created the categories where inclusion or exclusion was justified on quasi-scientific grounds (Barton, 2012).
It was then deemed sensible to educate some children outside the normal school system with all children being enabled to reach a level of education that matched their aptitude and ability (Farell, 2001). The Macbeath and Galton Report 2005 supported this further in their recommendations for special schools having a significant role as expert resources for mainstream schools (Wedell, 2005). However, serious doubt was cast on the validity of Psychometric testing as it failed to take into account the holistic nature of the child educational difficulties and was seen as limiting childrens educational opportunities so many argued the test was flawed (Farell, 2003).
The Warnock Report 1978 expected childrens SEN to be met in ordinary schools with only a small number of children merely 2% being identified with distinct difficulties which would require an official statement of needs. Integrating children into the school system was seen to facilitate access in society, although this took many years to happen it by no means signalled the end to segregation, but was a step in the right direction. The Education Act 1981 guaranteed all children the right to a place in school and introduced the statementing process to identify the specific learning needs of individual children, this was sought in the form of a Statement of Educational Needs which is a legal document stating how these needs should be met (Hodkins & Vickerman, 2009). This was written in terms of offering professionals advice on how to recognise a childs individual needs and was further revised when it was realised that many issues are interrelated and fall into four categories including Communication and Interaction, Cognition and Learning, Behaviour, Emotional and Social Development, and Sensory and/or Physical. What they failed to recognise however, is social deprivation contributing to educational needs which was short sighted on their part. Nevertheless as outlined by Lindsay 1997, the act was inconsistent and failed to ensure each child received a quality assessment and provision that met their needs (Walls, 2006).
Statemented children had the right to be included in mainstream schools and provision to be tailored to their individual needs, however, this was providing they did not affect the learning of others, which is difficult to quantify and determine since effects on learning are hard to prove (Hodkins & Vickerman, 2009). Additionally, inclusive education is a highly abstract term and is inadequate when it is unclear what it stands for, what outcomes it wants to achieve and what direction it is to take. The Local Education Authorities (LEAs) had no firm direction as to how to implement this. Therefore, there was no significant shift towards a more inclusive system. (Cowne, 2003)
Furthermore, Warnock grossly underestimated the number of statements of SEN that were needed, further suggesting that statementing had become a protracted process, and a battle for more resources in turn becoming a bureaucratic waste of money (Jenkins, 1997).
Warnock produced a leaflet in 2005 and suggested a U-turn on her original views in 1978, she felt that including children with problems in mainstream school caused confusion and children were the casualties (Wall, 2006). The disability rights commission further supported this claim and agreed that children with disabilities continued to experience inequality in the education system even after the 1981 Act. LEAs decided if children would get a statement and this was often determined by how much money the LEAs had, this was inconsistent across the country (AInscow, 1999). Warnock later argued that many children with SEN would have been better served in special schools rather than in an inclusive mainstream school where inclusion would be impossible without the resources. This is further supported by Sarah Teather the Minister of State for children and families who also suggested the current
n of public ownership of public schools as a primary means of making funding more accessible. The proposal for greater funding led to many problems, including the growing disassociation between special schools and primary schools, as well as the disincentive for specialised schools to offer free range education, and higher turnover among children from small and minority schools. The Government is now trying to address and adapt this problem by increasing local awareness through better funding for local support services in schools. This must include a better understanding of social, linguistic and cultural barriers to education
There has been concern both about the funding to teach in schools and its impact on the health of children and communities at large. In December 2013 we published an article on the funding of primary school programmes for mental health, which raised a similar question of what sort of funding was needed. The main takeaway is that public health funding is not a panacea for disability and is very uneven and should not be a “fiscal silver bullet”. Instead public school funding should be provided to those suffering from, or at the very least with support from, the people who need it most. This should include parents, students and teachers.
Many people think of the “mental health” or “poverty” issue as having to do with the fact that disability affects both men and women. However, research on children who are socially disadvantageous is far from comprehensive and therefore we are not currently seeing a lot of progress in defining the cause of any particular disability. Some disability groups, such as the Disabled at Play in Schools (DOTK), consider that children with any of the above needs a diagnosis, and others like the National Disability Law say that any single diagnosis is insufficient to assess disability (Proulx & Naylor, 2009). These groups are working hard to provide an inclusive system of diagnosis for all children, all at the same time. Some research into mental health can only support a diagnosis for what is considered normal or not, and the disability rights commission’s focus on this needs to be strengthened.
There is also mounting evidence that public and private funding is essential to provide appropriate help for individuals with disabilities and families within the wider disability community. The research on mental health in school is very limited and there is the evidence that it can be challenging to get parents to support their child with social and physical issues (Harlow, 2004). As this issue is still hotly debated, many parents have taken the stand with them to support their child. The role of parents in the policy-making process is to determine when and where the best time for funding should be, rather than to decide for particular particular needs or the family size. These are crucial determinants for any funding debate in the future.
There is also growing evidence that there may be different pressures to support children without social and physical disabilities
The disability rights commission continues to study the issues of these two issues now and in the future. Since 2007 the organisation has helped several key stakeholders to draw up the guidelines to ensure that support for children with special needs and social service needs will match those for children without social and physical disabilities. These guidelines include some recommendations on the need for schools where there is limited enrolment to provide, and some guidelines on who can be supported in the child. In June 2009, the Trust for Children published its own report on different forms of funding for disabled children with specialised illnesses. An earlier submission from some of those that were involved with the report argued that the general guidelines should not be implemented from a policy-making point of view, the approach could be different depending on who is involved.
There is growing evidence that there may be different