Baroness Mary Warnock’s misgivings about the progress of inclusion was one of the most widely publicised developments in inclusive education in 2005. Baroness Warnock had a major role in promoting education of disabled pupils in mainstream schools with a radical report 25 years ago. But in a pamphlet published in June by the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, she claimed that the Government’s inclusion policy had caused confusion of which ‘children were the casualties’ and called for an urgent review. Her so-called ‘U-turn’ was followed by demands from the Conservative Party and some parents for a halt to the closure of special schools as part of the inclusion agenda. One of the most vocal supporters on behalf of retaining special schools was the then Tory Education Spokesman, David Cameron, whose three year-old-son has cerebral palsy and epilepsy. He claimed the system of including disabled pupils in mainstream schools was not working properly, that the special needs statementing procedure had become ‘a total nightmare’ and that parents were denied choice.

However, supporters of inclusion were quick to express their concerns that the campaigners were expressing a ‘distorted view’ which undermined 25 years of effective inclusive development. Education charities, teachers, parents and disabled people pointed out that the problems referred to were the result of poor integration into mainstream without effective support. Inclusion was about changing and improving mainstream schools so that all children could flourish. Attention was also drawn to the contradictory nature of the criticisms. Discrimination and denial of human rights in mainstream schools was being tackled by further discrimination and denial of human rights by segregation into separate, special schools. As Simone Aspis, of the British Council of Disabled People, which represents 130 groups run by disabled people, pointed out, ‘Nobody would suggest opening up special schools for black children or Jewish children if they experienced racism or anti-Semitism … why should it be any different for disabled children?’ Disabled people’s experience of separate special education included being subjected to bullying, verbal, physical and emotional abuse; and impoverished learning opportunities – the same kind of complaints made by the pro-Warnock campaigners about mainstream.

No reduction in special school places

Another contradictory factor which emerged during the debate was that statistics for special school closures in fact revealed no reduction in the number of special schools places over recent years – a trend already pointed out by Ofsted in a report on inclusion last year. Although some special schools had indeed closed others had opened. One Government official was reported as saying, ‘The number of places in special schools has remained constant since 1997. What we are delivering is bigger and better special schools.’

A particular example reported in South London concerned Thurlow Park Special School where parents and governors complained that the school’s closure was a cost-cutting measure carried out in the name of inclusion. They said that although inclusion was given as the reason for the closure of Thurlow Park, most of the pupils did not move to mainstream but were sent to other special schools supporting a wider range of difficulties. In Basildon, the headteacher of Cedar HallSchool, Paul Whelan, asking why pupils had to suffer in mainstream school under the Government’s inclusion policy before being finally placed in a special needs school. He said that most pupils now joining his special school were around ten-years-old and had ‘endured years of unhappiness’ in mainstream before joining Cedar Hall.

Other items in the news during the year relating to special schools included reports of plans for closures, reprieves from closures, shelving of proposed reprieves, mergers, improvements, new models, co-locations, and even a special school becoming ‘a good inclusive school’ by opening its doors to pupils said to be more able but struggling in mainstream. Twelve special schools were also awarded ‘specialist’ status as part of the Government’s vision of creating ‘centres of excellence’. They were given extra money to invest in their ‘specialism’ and were expected to share expertise with mainstream schools. The plan was greeted with scepticism by the Disability Rights Commission which suggested that perhaps special schools were not best placed to offer advice on inclusion. In a similarly confusing fashion, the need to reduce waiting lists at four special schools, said to be caused by the growing number of youngsters needing what was called ‘one-to-one education’, was given as the reason for one Council’s decision to secure more placements in mainstream schools. Elsewhere teachers threatened strike action ‘for the sake of their pupils’ who were moving from special school to mainstream and there were protests in other areas from teachers who felt ‘betrayed and misled’ by closure plans. A number of protests by parents were also reported.

Plethora of alternatives

Bearing in mind the experience reported at Thurlow Park, it was difficult to know to what extent pupils’ human rights to inclusive education were being upheld or violated in this plethora of alternatives. However, a call at a teachers’ conference for a ‘new breed of special school to house problem pupils from dysfunctional families’ seemed a clear step in the wrong direction, while in Sheffield the phased closure of a special school looked more hopeful. It was reported that the transfer of pupils to mainstream which began in 2002 was finally completed with a gala day including clowns, fire eaters, magicians and a bouncy castle. Staff were said to have maintained high standards at the special school during the change-over period and ensured that all new places in mainstream offered as good if not if not better support than those left behind in the segregated setting.

In the voluntary sector SCOPE, the charity for people with cerebral palsy, was criticised by Ofsted for failing to meet basic standards of care for disabled students at one of its colleges. And in the private sector, The Priory Group bought a Royal National Institute for the Blind residential school to refurbish and run as a school and further education college for pupils with autism and Aspergers. As part of the change-over the company announced it was offering opportunities for jobs to former RNIB staff at the school.

Once again, the regular survey of trends in inclusion and segregation by the Centre For Studies on Inclusive Education, CSIE, revealed widespread variations throughout the country. Children categorised as having special needs were 24 times more likely to be to be segregated for their education if they lived in parts of the North East of England than in London’s East End. It was reported that representatives of both the most and least inclusive authorities in the study said consultations with families had influenced their placement policies for special needs pupils.

A new survey from Ofsted also repeated earlier findings that mainstream provision for pupils with special needs was mixed with many schools still finding it a challenge to meet pupils’ needs. However, inspectors also found that most schools had a commitment to inclusion and were good at promoting it. Similar findings were reported in a survey for Community Care Magazine which found that the overwhelming majority of social workers backed inclusion. It seems that training is one of the major problems facing teachers in supporting disabled children in mainstream. Surveys for the Times Educational Supplement found that most teachers received less than a day’s training on how to teach pupils with special needs. Teachers themselves estimated that up to 25,000 children in England and Wales in mainstream education would be better off in special schools. Yet, despite their reservations, most teachers supported inclusion where possible and believed the education of other children was enhanced by special needs pupils.

Disability Discrimnation Act beginnining to bite

The Disability Discrimination Act was reported as beginning to bite as a £425,000 lift was installed in order that a high school could fulfil its responsibilities towards a pupil who had difficulty walking. Without the lift the pupil would have had to travel an 88 miles round trip from his home to a special school. The possible closure of an adult education centre in Norwich – a Grade 1 listed building – because of the legislation was ruled out but staff said courses might have to move. And in Merseyside and Cheshire it was reported that 622 schools and colleges and other organisations were being investigated under the Act following complaints about lack of access. On a happy note a change of policy influenced by the Act which led to a young women with learning difficulties joining her local secondary school was heralded as a ‘blow for equality’.

In other legal news, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) advised a parent that they had no power to deal with schools which failed to implement the Tribunal’s orders. The mother said the school’s failure to apologise to her daughter for discrimination made her feel staff were ‘laughing’ at her family. The Tribunal said the only course of action for the family would be to take up the matter with the Department of Education and Skills.

Towards the end of 2005, Government proposals began to emerge for what was called ‘a new system of independent state schools’. The implications of this new Education White Paper were not immediately clear but the prospects for a positive effect on inclusive education did not look promising.