As the new term gets underway special educational needs and the Inclusion agenda continues to take a high priority within educational debates. nasen, an educational charity and a membership association which supports those who work with children and young people with special and additional educational needs have been looking at the current issues and contributing to the current educational debate on SEN.

At the end of last term, a report commissioned by the NUT, The Costs of Inclusion: A study of Inclusion policy and practice in English primary, secondary and special schools by John MacBeath et al. gave a very negative view on the impact of inclusive practice within English schools. The report received a great deal of media coverage and debate mainly caused by the dramatic headlines ‘School Inclusion can be abuse’ and ‘Teachers struggling with special needs provision’

What the report did acknowledge was that teachers and teaching assistants often go ‘beyond the call of duty’ to help and support pupils with special educational needs. It also acknowledged that there is a positive attitude towards the principle of inclusion from professionals working in schools.

Inclusion is a process not a state. A large number of factors need to be taken into account when seeking to understand the term inclusion. It is not just about the place in which the individual is taught. It is about the provision that supports their special needs, the curriculum, the extended school activities, the attitudes and behaviours of their peers, teachers and other staff and most of all the requirements and wishes of the pupil and their parents.

Late in July the report on SEN from the House of Commons Select Committee for Education and Skills said that the Government was sending a confused message on inclusion policy. The report highlights that the Government’s definition of SEN had been confusing and contradictory and had led to special schools closing and forcing some individual children into mainstream schools without the relevant and necessary resources to enable them to access a high quality education.

nasen in their response to the select Committee report wrote:

“nasen welcomes the report and congratulates the committee for their in depth inquiry and the extensive and diverse evidence that they gathered from a wealth of interested parties indicating the passion and commitment that surrounds special educational needs and disability within the educational debate.

“The report reflected many of the issues that were highlighted in nasen’s written and oral responses and all the recommendations are welcomed by the Association. It is nasen’s hope that the Government will consider all these recommendations and clarify their position on SEN and establish a clear national framework that Local Authorities can work within. It is especially important that this national framework supports local authorities in the statementing process to reduce the “postcode lottery” that currently exists.

“nasen particularly welcomed the acknowledgement that high quality special schools are a vital part of the inclusion agenda and provided excellent provision for some children and young people with special educational needs. We hope that there will now be clarification from the Government on their position on inclusion especially in regard to the role of special schools within that agenda.

“nasen is pleased that the committee highlighted the lack of training at both Initial Teacher Training and Continuing Professional Development for all teachers and would support the recommendations that the Government restart their negotiations with the Training and Development Agency in regard to this matter as quickly as possible.

“Finally, nasen is delighted that the committee recommends that all Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCOs) should be in all cases be qualified teachers and in a senior management position in the school… and should be given ongoing training opportunities to keep their knowledge up to date as well as sufficient non teaching time to reflect the number of children with SEN in their school. It is imperative that the Government act on this recommendation and clarify the status of SENCOs especially with the increased responsibility placed on the SENCO in regard to the Every Child Matters Agenda.”

There are no immediate plans for the Government to review SEN policy although their response to the Select Committee report is due in early October. The committee argue that the current system is not working and many parents are facing difficulties because their child is failing to receive an appropriate education to meet their needs. It is hoped that the Department for Education and Skills do acknowledge the issues in the report and act on them to ensure quality provision for all.

Finally, Ofsted also published a report in July, entitled Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught? Their report examined the factors that promote good outcomes across a range of different provision for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities. It found effective provision was distributed equally between mainstream and special schools when certain factors were securely in place. However, more good or outstanding provision existed in resourced mainstream schools.

The special educational needs agenda must become an integral part of the mainstream agenda in education, in line with the committee’s recommendation “the Government needs to give greater priority to SEN and take full account of its need to have a central position in education” and in doing so must acknowledge that it must fund and resource appropriate and relevant, high quality education for all.