Debate the current emphasis on inclusion of children with special needs and disabilities in Early Years (Birth-7)
Introduction
Inclusion is an ideology with no established definition; however, there are clear principles, which have been implemented within legislation and policy. The Salamanca Agreement discusses the idea of inclusion by stating:
Schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children… (UNESCO 1994, p. 6).
This assignment will discuss how professionals attempt to promote an inclusive setting and the impact of inclusion on children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Additionally, a critical analysis will be made of the changes in policy and legislation and the potential issues and benefits of parental involvement in the provision for children with SEND.
What are Special Educational Needs and Disabilities?
The History of SEN Provision
The provision for children with SEND has progressed considerably throughout history; opinions on the importance of educating these children have changed and policies and legislation reflect this (Devarakonda, 2012). From the Butler Education Act in 1944 where children with SEND were deemed ‘uneducable’ by authorities to the Warnock Report in 1978 where the idea of inclusion was introduced, the ideologies regarding SEND are constantly evolving (Armstrong and Squries, 2012, p.12 and Warnock, 1978).
This progression has continued into the 21st Century where changes are still being made. In 2001, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) was created in order to ‘amend Part 4 of the Education Act 1996’ (Dfe/DoH, 2001, p.1). One element of the act was the obligation for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) to be educated in mainstream settings (HMSO, 2001). At the time of these changes in legislation, there was an increase in the amount of teaching assistants from ’64,200 in 1997 to 103,600 in 2002’, potentially due to the increase in children attending mainstream schools with SEN (DfES, 2002, cited in Armstrong and Squires, 2012, p.17). This growth could be viewed as beneficial for children with SEN due to increased support with their learning. However, Blatchford et al. (2009) argued that teachers have limited time and might not inform the teaching assistants on how to monitor and assess the children; suggesting that their impact could be limited.
There are arguments into the effectiveness of educating children with SEND in mainstream settings. Farrell (2000) as cited in (Ellis, Tod and Graham-Matheson, 2008) argues that ‘educational inclusion’ is an appropriate approach. It is stated that the focus should be on the provision of an education that suits the need of the child, rather than the setting in which the provision takes place. In argument against mainstream education, MacBeath et al. (2006) described a situation in a nursery where a child with autism was displaying aggressive behaviour. The staff felt like they lacked knowledge on how to manage the child’s behaviour, leaving them feeling ‘helpless and deskilled’. It could be argued that staff in a special school may have better experience in managing behaviours exhibited by children with SEND; suggesting that the changes in the SENDA may not be beneficial.
Following on from the SENDA the SEN code of practice was published in 2001. The SEN code of practice derived from the SENDA. However, it has an increased emphasis on educating children with SEN in a mainstream setting and a duty for settings and local authorities to work with parents (DfES, 2001). Additionally, the Code states that children with SEN should be provided with a ‘broad, balanced and relevant education’ when using the foundation stage curriculum; known as the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfES, 2001, p. 7).
The EYFS Statutory Framework was published in order to provide practitioners with a set of principles that they are required to use in the delivery of education to children from birth to five years old (DfE, 2012). The framework aims to deliver a consistent and appropriate learning experience that encompasses all children and their needs (DfE, 2012). Furthermore, the framework claims that all children are unique individuals who learn in a range of ways and at varying speeds suggesting an awareness of the potential SEND that could impact children’s development (DfE, 2012). The progression of children within EYFS settings is recognised through the ‘early learning goals’ which are ‘knowledge, skills and understanding children should have at the end of the academic year in which they turn five’ (DfE, 2012, P.5).
The effectiveness of the EYFS statutory framework in the education of children with SEN is a contentious issue that was evaluated in the Tickell Review (2011), which makes recommendations on how the framework could be developed. One element that is discussed is the appropriateness of the ‘early learning goals’. The framework states that settings should use other, more appropriate assessment tools in order to track the progress of all children, but does not provide any further guidance (Tickell, 2011). As a result of the lack of alternatives, it could be argued that a child with SEND, when measured using the same assessment tools as their peers, would appear to be underachieving in accordance with the early learning goals. This could suggest that although the EYFS framework is aware of the various needs of children, it does not make specific recommendations for early years practitioners working with children with SEN.
The most recent documentation used by professionals is the ‘SEND code of practice: 0-25 years’, published in 2015 (DfE and DoH, 2015). Building upon the previous 2001 SEN code of practice, the SEND code of practice has recognised the importance of including disabilities within the guidance for practitioners (DfE and DoH, 2015). Prior to the SEND code of practice, children with severe SEN were issued a Statement of Special Educational Need that meant local authorities had to provide extra resources and support to schools (Armstrong and Squires, 2012). Statements of Special Educational Need were replaced in the SEND code of practice: 0-25’ with Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans (DfE and DoH, 2015). EHC plans aim to match the provision of education to the requirements of the child to improve their educational outcomes (DfE and DoH, 2015). EHC plans have multiple purposes including specifying the provision that will meet the child’s educational and health needs and taking an account of the opinions and ambitions of the parents and the child. The success of EHC plans relies on multi-agency working to ensure a holistic assessment of the child is accurately portrayed; where professionals should collaborate ideas to produce one detailed document (Department for Education, 2014 cited in Castro and Palikara, 2016).
Forms of SEND
The SEND code of practice sorts various needs into ‘broad areas of need’ that aim to advise schools on how to provide for the children, rather than sorting the children into categories (DfE and DoH, 2015). These areas of need are ‘communication and interaction’, ‘cognition and learning’, ‘social, emotional and mental health difficulties’ and ‘sensory and/or physical needs’ (DfE and DoH, 2015). The specific types of SEND are sorted into these areas.
‘Communication and interaction’ needs refer to ‘speech, language and communication needs’ (SLCN) and Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Devarakonda, 2012). In 2008, around 7% of five year olds had significant SCLN (Bercow, 2008). Children with SLCN encounter difficulties in communicating with people; this could be due to issues in verbalising what they wish to say, or difficulties in understanding what is being spoken about (DfE and DoH, 2015). SLCN can either occur in childhood due as a primary difficulty or secondary to additional developmental disorders like autism (Bercow, 2008).
It is fundamental that early years practitioners are aware of the early signs of ASD in order to implement effective interventions at an earlier age (Boyd, Odom, Humphreys and Sam, 2010). ASD is classified as a ‘communication and interaction’ need because children with ASD tend to experience difficulty in social interaction and can have troubles relating to others (DfE and DoH, 2015).
‘Cognition and learning’ needs refers to
SLCN
BSED
ADHD
Physical – It also states that physical difficulties like hearing impairments can be identified between 0-2 through hearing screening tests (DfE and DoH, 2015).
Labeling too early?
The role of professionals
According to the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage, ‘Practitioners must consider whether a child may have a special educational need or disability which requires specialist support’ (DfE, 2012). To do this, practitioners can use the SEND Code of Practice, which provides on how to identify children with SEND within their settings (DfE and DoH, 2015). In addition, as advised in the Tickell Review (2011), the EYFS states that practitioners must track children’s development through the ‘prime’ and ‘specific’ areas (DfE, 2012). Practitioners should complete a progress check at age two to assess their children’s development in the ‘prime areas’ of the EYFS; ‘Personal, Social and Emotional Development; Physical Development; and Communication and Language’ (National Children’s Bureau, 2012, p.2). If concerns arise about a child’s development, the practitioners should work with the SENCO to create a targeted plan and should increase the support given to the child (Council for Disabled Children and 4Children, 2015). Through the early identification and intervention of SEND, future interventions at a later date will be minimised, thus reducing costs (DfE and DoH, 2015).
According to Garner (2004), 65% of parents of children with SEND believe their children receive a lower quality of education in comparison to children without SEND. There is discussion over how prepared practitioners are in meeting the needs of all children, through their initial teacher training qualifications (Devarakonda, 2012). Reem Al Hout is the Principal at an inclusive school that has children with a range of needs (Al Hout, 2017). She discusses how the school uses a multi-agency approach, where educational psychologists, speech therapists and occupational therapists work in coordination to plan for all the children. Moreover, the school trains their teachers yearly with special education specialists who aim to develop the teachers understanding of various teaching styles (Al Hout, 2017). Despite this example being set in the ‘American Academy of Beirut’, the ideas and methods they use could be implemented into mainstream schools in the United Kingdom.
Every educational setting is required to have a special educational needs coordinator (SENCO), who is responsible for implementing the setting's SEN policy and should make necessary provision for children with SEN (NAHT, 2015). As stated in the SEND code of practice, the SENCO must work in collaboration with the early years practitioner and the child's parents in order to analyse the needs of a child (DfE and DoH, 2015). Various professionals are recommended to intervene if a child is making little progress despite attempts at intervention and support, including: 'health visitors, speech and language therapists, Portage workers, educational psychologists or specialist teachers' (DfE and DoH, 2015). It is emphasised in the code that if a setting believes that further specialist support is necessary, the parents be involved in the decision (DfE and DoH, 2015).
The importance of parents
Examine critically the role of parents within the planning and implementation process of support.
From involvement in the education of their children, to the early identification of potential SEND, parents play a crucial role in the provision and support for children with SEND. The SEND Code of Practice argues that parental observations are essential for identifying developmental and sensory needs from birth to two years old (DfE and DoH, 2015). It is therefore crucial that parents build partnerships with practitioners in order to identify SEND and provide the best outcomes. In early years settings, practitioners should listen and acknowledge parents’ perceptions of their child (Tassoni, 2015). Parents may have varying views from the practitioner; considering these opinions should aid practitioners with the planning process (Tassoni, 2015). The idea of communication between parent and practitioner is supported by the Lamb Inquiry, which stated that treating parents as equal and trusting their expertise in the needs of the child is important for creating confidence in parents (DCSF, 2009).
When a child with SEND starts attending an early years setting, parents may experience anxiety over handing their child into the care of the practitioner (Wall, 2010). An effective early years practitioner should plan for these potential anxieties when preparing for the induction process (Wall, 2010). In addition, parents have essential knowledge on their children including their ‘likes and dislikes, progress to date, appointments attended, referrals made, reports written and friends’ (Wall, 2010, p.62). This information should be shared with practitioners to inform future planning and support the transition from parent to early years setting (Wall, 2010).
The emphasis of parental involvement dates back in literature; Dale (1995) argued that parents need to be informed on planned intervention and any arrangements made by the practitioner for their children. Additionally, practitioners may wish to share ideas on behaviour management and methods of teaching with parents (Dale, 1995). Despite being outdated, the sharing of information is crucial in settings in current day to ensure parents feel involved in their children’s education. One setting that effectively involves parents is the Pen Green Centre for Children and their Families in Northamptonshire.