Policy, Provision and Practice for Special Educational Needs and Disability

Perspectives Across Countries

Peter Wood

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367725006
• eBook ISBN: 9781000534115
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book showcases the diverse nature of policy, provision and practice for special educational needs and disability (SEND) across different international settings.

Situated across a backdrop of varied international policies relating to inclusion, the book offers insights into the rhetoric of SEND policy and practice across a range of settings to contribute to our understanding of SEND provision. It explores the complexities, concerns and challenges experienced by staff, pupils, parents and carers in contemporary education settings. Chapters draw on empirical research and are structured around four parts: special education needs and disability within policy; stakeholder perceptions and experiences of SEND provision; meeting the needs of SEND children; and moving towards inclusive practice.

The volume will challenge thought, stimulate critique and provoke debate in the field of special educational needs both locally and globally and will be of interest to researchers and postgraduate students in the field of inclusive education, special needs education and comparative education.

1

Introduction

Making the case for the exploration of special educational needs and disability policy, provision and practice across countries

Peter Wood

DOI: 10.4324/9781003155034-1

Introduction

With an increasing emphasis in the sphere of policy, practice and the enactment of inclusive education both nationally and internationally, there is now a greater focus on how to best cater to students’ special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). A common trend in the identification of SEND across countries, for researchers such as Westwood (2015, p. 4), relates to a child’s inability to ‘learn in the same way as other children’. That said, undoubtedly there is variance in the identification of students with SEND across countries. In England, for example, a child is identified as having a SEND if they have a learning difficulty that calls for special educational provisions to be made (Briggs, 2016). In the USA, to receive special educational provision, a child must have a ‘defined disability’, whilst in Australia, children are eligible for government support if they have an ‘evidenced’ impairment that has an educational impact in terms of its effect on learning (Farrell, 2017).

Not only is there difference in the identification processes of SEND students, but also in the approaches, guidance and requirements set out in policy. In England, new duties regarding the provision of support for children and young people with SEND are contained in the Children and Families Act 2014, and the associated regulations made under the Act. The duties are amplified in the statutory guidance: Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years (Code of Practice) published jointly by the Departments for Education and Health (DfE and DoH, 2015). In addition, the approach to the inspection of such issues has been set out in detail in both the Framework and Handbook for the inspection of local areas’ effectiveness in identifying and meeting the needs of children and young people who have special educational needs and/or disabilities (Ofsted and CQC, 2016). As will be seen in Part one of this book, as well as chapters elsewhere, the requirements and guidance set out in government policy across countries are often interpreted and adhered to with variance.

Although, across countries, there is a degree of commonality of policy, in their recognition of an ‘inter-connectedness of services’, the ‘encouragement of collaboration’ and the ‘inclusion for all within mainstream provision’ (Rix, Sheehy, Fletcher, Crisp, and Harper, 2013), p. 390), a range of questions persist relating to international approaches to SEND governance, curriculum and placement (Norwich, 2008). Seemingly, and as exemplified in the English SEND Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015), there is a growing international trend towards decentralisation of governance, greater parental involvement and more specialised provisions. Although there is now an ‘international language’ (Rix et al., 2013) of SEND, as will be shown in this book, countries have an eclectic approach to practice (Rid-dell, Tisdall, Kane, and Mulderrig, 2006). Furthermore, whilst policy, regulation and guidance are provided for practitioners working with children with SEND, there is little consensus both nationally and internationally as to the most effective ways of supporting such students (Banks, Frawley, and McCoy, 2015). As such, the final part of this book is dedicated to material that offers real-life workable advice and models that may be used to facilitate more inclusive practices.

It is against the national and international concerns outlined earlier that this book is situated. By drawing on contemporary empirical research, opinion pieces and newly proposed models for better working practices, the chapters collectively explore how SEND policy and provision are conceptualised, operationalised and enacted by a range of school stakeholders across countries. The book aims to create an insight into both the rhetoric and reality of SEND practice across a range of settings and, in doing so, contribute to our understanding of the interpretation and utilisation of SEND provision. The book uncovers the complexities, concerns and challenges experienced by staff, pupils and their parents and carers in contemporary education settings with the distinct aim to challenge thought, stimulate critique and provoke debate in the field, locally, nationally and globally. The book consists of 12 chapters, split into four parts. Part one explores how special education needs and disability are situated within policy internationally, and consists of three chapters. The chapters within Parts two and three utilise data gathered from school-based stakeholders and focus on their perceptions of provision (Part two), and the role of the learning environment in meeting the needs of SEND children (Part three). Part four, consisting of two chapters, concentrates on ways and means of creating more inclusive educational practices.

Special education needs and disability within policy

Guided by the principles of Education for All (UNESCO, 1990), over the past 30 or so years ‘considerable effort’ has shifted international policy and practice towards more inclusive forms of education (Ainscow, Slee, and Best, 2019). The ‘Salamanca Statement’ – the product of the World Conference on Special Needs Education, attended by participants representing 92 governments in 1994 – reaffirmed that inclusive education was to be the ‘norm’, and called on governments globally to ensure that inclusive policies and principles were upheld (UNESCO, 1994). Further, international treaties, such as the United Nations Convention of the Rights of: ‘the Child’ (UNCRC) (United Nations, 1992) and ‘Persons with Disabilities’ (UNCRPD) (United Nations, 2006), set out the requirements of governments to ensure that educational establishments such as schools, colleges and universities include everyone. Central to ‘Salamanca’ and further reemphasised in more recent UNESCO publications (see UNESCO, 2015, 2017) is for an inclusive approach to ‘Special Needs Education’ internationally. Countries across the globe have responded in a variety of ways. In the UK, for example, recent legislation, such as those set out in the Children and Families Act (2014), heralded ‘important changes for all teachers about the education and inclusion of pupils with SEND’ (Briggs, 2016, p. 1). Section 19 of the act sets out some key principles that local education authorities (LEAs) must consider when supporting children with SEND, including their participation in decision-making; providing detailed information to facilitate the likelihood of this; and full consideration of the views, wishes and feelings of the pupils and their parents. Stemming from the Children and Families Act (2014) was the SEND ‘Code of Practice’ (DfE and DoH, 2015), which provides statutory guidance for establishments that work with, and support children and young people with SEND. First published in 2014 and updated in January 2015, the ‘Code of Practice’ clarifies the responsibilities of health organisations, LEAs and the range of educational establishments to those with SEND, in accordance with the Children and Families Act (2014). Although this ‘shift’ towards more inclusive forms of education for children with SEND is welcome, as will be seen in ‘Part one: Special education needs and disability within policy’, complexities arise when the ‘rhetoric’ of policy is enacted in ‘reality’.

John Kambutu and Lydiah Nganga’s chapter, the first in ‘Part one’, focuses on the positioning of migrant children with SEND within educational policy. Here, they critique the role that policy plays in catering to culturally and linguistically diverse populations across countries, with a specific focus on the USA. After identifying how migrant children are more likely to experience educational disadvantage as a consequence of their SEND, John and Lydia call for a renewed approach to policy and practice, grounded in the principles of culturally responsive pedagogy, so as to facilitate the likelihood that educational experiences for all children are both culturally and linguistically sensitive. Rachel Bowden, Su Lyn Corcoran and Helen Pinnock, academics and consultants from the Enabling Education Network, also focus on policy enactment in the next chapter: Education policy and inclusive education: People and processes. Drawing on their vast and ranging experience of inclusive education policy development and delivery in middle- and low-income countries, they explore processes of policy formation, interpretation and adaption in Kenya, Rwanda and The Maldives, and in doing so uncover both differences and similarities in policy enactment across countries. They identify a range of themes and practical recommendations for policy-makers that will help bring about more inclusive education systems for learners with SEND. The final chapter in Part one, the book’s fourth, written by Lydiah Nganga, Sapna Thapa, John Kambutu and Samara Madrid Akpovo, focuses on the adoption of colonial educational policies and practices in Nepal and Kenya. The authors explore how Western ideology has impacted upon policy and its enactment across both countries, in doing so limiting the capacity of contextually relevant education practices. Pointing to a series of, what they term, ‘disconnects’, they highlight the potential for discrepancy regarding the rhetoric of policy and its subsequent enactment in practice, and in response call for approaches that are not only contextually relevant but explicitly focused on SEND.

Stakeholder perceptions and experiences of SEND provision

Although ‘The Salamanca Statement’s’ basis for its intentions on educational reform positioned ‘students with special educational needs at the centre of the policy’ (Hunt, 2011, p. 469), transnational responses now see teachers as ‘the lynchpin of special educational provision’ (Briggs, 2016, p. 15). The location of teachers at the heart of SEND policy, provision, enactment, management and evaluation has been promoted in a range of international publications, including UNESCO’s (2009), Policy guidelines on inclusion in education and guidance from the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2012) in their Teacher Education for Inclusion: Profile of Inclusive Teachers. Although these may emphasise differing skills, knowledge, attitudes and competencies expected of ‘inclusive’ teachers, all position practitioners as central to special needs education. The latter of the two publications, for example, calls on practitioners engaged in special needs education to be competent in supporting all learners, working with others, and to value continual personal professional development, so that they are well-equipped to meet the needs of children with SEND. Such competencies, amongst a swathe of other requirements, duties and expectations for practitioners, form part of the English Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2015, 1.24, p. 25) so that ‘special education provision is underpinned by high quality teaching and is compromised by anything less’.

Yet, despite a re-affirmation of practitioners as ‘front and centre’ of SEND provision and practice (see UNESCO, 2017), research findings across countries, including China (Feng, 2012), Zimbabwe (Chitiyo, Hughes, Changara, Chitiyo, and Montgomery, 2017), Ethiopia (Franck and Joshi, 2017) and the USA (Cooc, 2019), demonstrates how the teaching of children with SEND is affected by a lack of resources and training, which in turn limits teacher preparedness, expertise, self-efficacy and time spent in the classroom. Noting the common pressures associated with the role, including the ever-changing curriculum (Forrester and Garrat, 2016), the rise of performativity (Webb, 2006) and increased regulation of practice (Perryman, Maguire, Braun, and Ball, 2017), many doubt the likelihood of successful outcomes for both practitioner and pupil (Burton and Goodman, 2011; Parsons and Platt, 2017). Furthermore, as school-based practitioners are now expected to undertake a greater number of tasks in a shorter period of time (Galton and Macbeath, 2008), and with autonomy over their roles and duties ever dwindling (Alexander, 2015), the positioning of practitioners as the focal point of SEND, within international policy and guidance for schools, does require attention on a practical level, hence the focus of the book’s second part, dedicated to ‘Stakeholder perceptions and experiences of SEND provision’.

In the first chapter of ‘Part two’, Janice Wearmouth and Cathal Butler share research findings from a research project that sought to establish the realities of the support on offer for autistic children and the constituents of best practice. To aide them in this quest, the authors gathered data from a group of Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCos) working in English schools, focusing specifically on their perceptions of their own, and the teachers’ abilities in meeting the statutory requirements related to autistic children. Next, Khairul Farhah Khairuddin’s and Susie Miles’ chapter focuses on school stakeholders’ experiences of inclusive practice within mainstream schools for deaf children. Utilising data from parents, specialist teachers, teachers, teaching assistants and children across three primary schools in the state of Selangor, Malaysia, the authors explore how these key participants navigate the provision and practices for deaf pupils that have been developed to facilitate inclusivity and equity. As will be seen, the two chapters within ‘Part two’ demonstrate not only how the many stakeholders make sense of specific SEND provision, but also the disparate nature of practice within mainstream schools.

Meeting the needs of SEND children: the role of the learning environment

Article 24 of the UNCRPD (United Nations, 2006) guarantees disabled students a right to participate in all forms of mainstream education with appropriate support. The UK’s ratification of the UNCRPD in 2009 had two key caveats – the first adapts its definition of a ‘general education system’ so that it includes segregated education; the second provides the right to send disabled children to special schools outside their local area – both highlighting the integral role of the ‘learning environment’ in the education of children with SEND. Although central to the ‘learning environment’ is the physical space, the social interactions, atmosphere and culture that pupils experience and perceive in schoo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents Page
• List of figures Page
• List of tables Page
• About the contributors Page
• Preface Page
• Acknowledgements Page
• 1 Introduction: making the case for the exploration of special educational needs and disability policy, provision and practice across countries
• Part One Special education needs and disability within policy
• Part Two Stakeholder perceptions and experiences of SEND provision
• Part Three Meeting the needs of SEND children: the role of the learning environment
• Part Four Moving towards inclusive practice
• Index