My son has learning difficulties. He was lucky to get an education health and care plan (EHCP), which was then known as a Statement, when he was just five years old. It was supposed to be the start of the journey for him to be successful in school.
But, while the EHCP did ensure there were additional resources to support him in class, it also brought a wealth of unintended consequences that profoundly impacted his school and life experience.
We didn’t realise it at the time, but he was being structurally excluded.
In primary, he spent less time with the teacher and more time with his TA. He was removed from class time and time again for interventions, and then found it difficult to understand what was going on in class or be part of the conversation. He got “star of the week” for “trying” rather than achievements. And, as he spent less time with peers and more time with supporting adults, he became segregated and, ultimately, isolated.
Nobody meant for this to happen, but we have a system that is defined entirely by separate provisions. Indeed, the SEND Code of Practice says that children with identified special educational needs or disabilities should receive provision that is “additional to and different from” what children without SEND receive.
The consultation process in the new SEND Green Paper gives us a chance to make real change, and to ensure the system reflects the true principle of inclusion - to include.
More by Margaret Mulholland:
The evidence is hard to ignore. Rob Webster of the University of Portsmouth (and previously at University College London) has studied this area intensively. His new book, The Inclusion Illusion, which is due to be published this summer, brings together findings from two research projects, conducted between 2011 and 2017.
MAST (Making a Statement) involved pupils with high-level needs in mainstream primary schools and SENSE (Special Educational Needs in Secondary Education) tracked these pupils into secondary school, replicating MAST in these settings. It is the largest classroom observation study ever conducted in the UK on pupils with SEND.
The results are shocking. In primary schools, pupils with EHCPs spend the equivalent of more than a day a week away from the class, separated from their teacher, peers and the curriculum. In secondary, withdrawal from the classroom is less frequent but pupils with high level SEND still miss out on time with their teacher and with their peers, often working in groups classified as low attainers.
It is policymakers, not schools, that Webster blames for this. He argues that the way schools are organised and classrooms are composed creates a form of structural exclusion, which preserves mainstream education for “typically developing” pupils and “justifies a diluted pedagogical offer for pupils with high-level SEND”.
It’s clear that, in some instances, the system is actively damaging the progress of young people.
Perhaps there are two competing structural problems. One is generated by accountability to additional funding and the other is the school accountability framework, which prioritises academic attainment over all else.
Either way, we must address this form of non-inclusive inclusion. A whole-school approach is part of the answer, but first, we need to recognise that the children who need good teaching the most are the ones being short-changed by the system.
The Inclusion Illusion will be free to download here from 4 July.
Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders
