The findings of the first in-depth look at inclusion since legal reforms made it easier for disabled children to join mainstream emerged as one of the main developments in 2004. The report from Ofsted found that contrary to popular opinion the number of disabled children in mainstream schools had not increased since the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act of 2001. In addition, of those children who were in mainstream, only a proportion seemed to be benefiting. A minority of schools led the way by adapting their policies and practices to accommodate all, but in general the report gave a gloomy picture of inclusion. Campaigners said that because inclusion was difficult did not mean it was a mistake or could not be achieved. As the Ofsted report made clear, disabled pupils did well when mainstream schools adapted to their needs. They said it was up to the Government to ensure every disabled child, wherever taught, received the right support and that the support was better resourced than at present. Elsewhere the Government’s mixed message that both inclusion and segregation were appropriate for disabled pupils was blamed for the lack of progress.

On the bright side, a Leeds special schoolteacher reported unprecedented benefits from his school moving staff and pupils into mainstream together. He said the move provided opportunities and experiences which could never have been achieved in his ‘special’ school. New national standards for head teachers scored a first by stressing the importance of a commitment to inclusion and Bolton Institute, one of the leaders in training for inclusion, welcomed Russian education directors for a study tour.

A survey by the Down’s Syndrome Association had gloomy news with a third of parents saying they experienced discrimination from education staff and half reporting a lack of specialist knowledge. This report was followed by evidence of the positive aspects of inclusion for pupils with Down’s Syndrome. Liz Crowther, mother of nine-year-old Heidi, spoke about how her daughter was paving the way for greater understanding and tolerance about difference for future generations.

In terms of reorganisation, 2004 saw some interesting developments with a school for blind children setting up an inclusive nursery. In Darlington moves to integrate service provision led to plans for a multi-million pound ‘education village’ with a primary school, a secondary school and a school for children with special needs on the same site. According to the report, each school in the village will have a home base but most of the facilities will by co-used by all pupils. In Oxfordshire it cost £4 million to combine a special school and a primary school into what was described as a ‘model of inclusive education’. ‘New model’ was also the term used to describe the amalgamation of two ‘special’ schools. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and the Royal Institute of British Architects seemed to recognise that inclusion is here to stay by issuing a report stressing that schools of the future will have to respond to many new demands including how to include children with physical and emotional difficulties and how to adapt to an ever-changing curriculum.

During the year it was also made clear that the reform of school league tables would be going ahead to ensure that all pupils achievements could be acknowledged. The then Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, said he was concerned that league tables were hampering inclusion by making schools reluctant to take children with special needs. Exams came under the spotlight as well with an English teacher complaining that allowing special arrangements for disabled pupils in examinations was unfair – a criticism which was promptly discounted by parents who said it was unfair not to.

Government and LEA trends

The Department of Education and Skills’ keenly awaited new strategy document for special educational needs was published at the beginning of the year. The document, Removing Barriers to Achievement, made clear that the Government had no intention of recommending the closure of all special schools, saying that they were still needed for some children whose parents preferred them to go there. The Centre For Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) responded to the news with dismay and pointed out that special schools perpetuated discrimination, devaluation, stigmatization, stereotyping, prejudice, and isolation – conditions identified by disabled adults as the biggest barriers to participation and a full life.

Several LEAs followed the Government lead by announcing that its policy of inclusion was no threat to ‘special’ schools, although they conceded ‘special’ schools did face a changing role through greater links with mainstream. Despite the new emphasis on retention, closures of ‘special’ schools continued. It was said that falling rolls – the result of parents preferring mainstream – made them unviable. In Cheshire the County Council pledged that in the event of closure every child would be fully assessed as preparation for the move to mainstream. And in Gloucestershire it was reported that the battle for ‘special’ schools there was finally lost, although parents who held up traffic on a protest march appeared not to accept it. Various criticisms about the reorganisation taking place in Bradford were reported, including concerns about the teaching of deaf children using sign language interpreters in mainstream schools and the results of a survey among head teachers and special needs co-coordinators which found longstanding discontent with the special needs service generally.

Newham, one of the first LEAs to develop inclusive education, was successful in bidding for a share of £2.2 billion Government funding to rebuild or refurbish secondary schools in two years. It was reported that the money from the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ initiative would deliver fully accessible buildings with modern information technology facilities to support the borough’s inclusion policy.

School disputes and legal challenges

Important benchmarks for inclusive practice were reported in April as a result of two landmark cases at The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. In one case a tribunal ruled that a school which discriminated by excluding a pupil with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder should provide appropriate training for staff. And in another the Tribunal ruled that lack of continuity of support assistants for a pupil with cerebral palsy amounted to disability discrimination. The Tribunal heard that Sophie Needham had a series 14 temporary assistants after her two full-time assistants left. Meanwhile a father threatened to sue a comprehensive school for failing to provide proper maths lessons for his high-achieving daughters. He sought to recover the money he spent on additional home study courses, claiming that his daughters were neglected because the school concentrated on raising the achievement of less able pupils.

In Cardiff it was reported that action would be taken in the case of a teacher who taped up the mouth of a pupil with special needs to stop him chatting to classmates during lessons and in Hampshire a court decided to take no action against a couple because of their son’s truancy. The court heard that the boy missed 41 school days because he was struggling with learning difficulties and was too stressed to attend. In Liverpool a mother vowed that she would rather face prosecution than send her son to a ‘special’ school. ‘Special’ schools are closing in the area and the Council said it supported a policy of inclusion, but there were a small number of children for whom mainstream education was not appropriate. In London, the SEN and Disability Tribunal upheld the decision of Barnet Council not to pay £18,000-a-year for an eight year old pupil with cerebral palsy to attend a ‘special’ school for orthodox Jewish children. It agreed with the Council that it was not necessary for the girl to attend a religious school.

Comments, criticisms and campaigns

British Blind Sports Athletics (BBSA) warned that the country’s inclusive education policy made it more difficult to train the next generation of disabled athletes. A survey revealed that disabled pupils spent less time on sporting activities than their able bodied peers. In addition it was no longer as easy to spot potential talent now that disabled pupils had been dispersed into the mainstream from special schools. Criticism by Tory MP David Cameron that parents of disabled children felt pressured to find places in the mainstream was followed later in the year by the news that the Conservatives were reviewing Labour’s policy on inclusion and might reverse it if they came into power. They spoke of children being physically included but educationally excluded in mainstream.

The year ended on a strong note of protest with the launch of a new disability rights campaign to close all special schools by the year 2020 and bring disabled pupils into mainstream. The National Autistic Society said that some children with autism were better off in specialist settings. However, Scope, a major national charity for people with cerebral policy, said it supported the campaign and started discussions to consider alternatives for its special school pupils.