New labour’s rights policies on inclusive education and rights Essay

To realize advantages and shortcomings of inclusive education in practice we have to consider as well whether children’s rights are observed within the context of inclusion as well as to analyse the main provisions of legislative instruments and governmental documents regarding this sphere. This will give us a better insight of what forces act in the process of transition to inclusive education intensively promoted by New Labour government and what effect they have upon children-recipients. Internationally, the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child has established a near global consensus concerning the minimum necessary rights for children: rights to provision, protection and participation – the 3 â€Å"Ps† (Pugh 2005, p. 4). The UK does not stand apart in international processes of providing all children, including the most vulnerable children wit SEN, with the opportunity to exercise these rights. Many observers admit that the election and re-election of more ‘children friendly’ New Labour governments in 1997 and 2001 resulted in significant political development for children’s rights, as an extensive range of new policies and laws affecting the lives of children both directly and indirectly have been promulgated (Foley et al. 2003, p. 38). They include Health Action Zones, The Children’s Taskforce, The Children’s National Service Framework, The National Childcare Strategy, Early Years and Development and Child Care Partnerships, Quality Protects, Removing Barriers to Achievement, Sure Start, Every Child Matters etc. (Pugh 2005, p. 1). Besides, a very important document was adopted in 2001 – a new statutory guidance from New Labour Government â€Å"Inclusive Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs† (DfES 2001) which sets out the main principles of inclusive education: – with the right training, strategies and support nearly all children with special educational needs can be successfully included in mainstream education; – an inclusive education service offers excellence and choice and incorporates the views of parents and children; – the interests of children must be safeguarded; – schools, local education authorities and others should actively seek to remove barriers to learning and participation; – all children should have access to an appropriate education that affords them the opportunity to achieve their personal potential; – mainstream education will not always be right for every child all of the time. Equally, just because mainstream education may not be right at a particular stage it does not prevent the child from being included successfully at a later stage. This document stipulates that schools’ and local education authorities’ ability to refuse a mainstream place for a child with special educational needs is severely restricted. They are able to refuse a mainstream school place to a child if it would be incompatible with the efficient education of others; however, reasonable steps must be taken to prevent that incompatibility (DfES 2001). The Green Paper Every Child Matters further illustrates New Labour’s commitment to reform services delivered to children, especially those with SEN, with the purpose to provide all of them with the opportunity to be healthy, to stay safe, to have high academic attainments, to participate in life of community, enjoy and develop, and to achieve financial well-being. The focus of this document is on early intervention, removing the barriers to learning – both physical and social, preventative work and integrated services for children (DFES 2003). The latter provision reasonably stresses importance of transagency collaboration and coordination to achieve better quality of services delivered to children in need. The use of collaborative teaming among professionals, agencies, the child, and family members, the use of the curriculum that focuses on the interactions between the pupil and his/her environments as well as the establishment and use of interagency linkages to facilitate the smooth integration of the child in mainstream school are the most important components of this cooperation (Cheminais 2006, p.19). A crucial motif in such policies is the idea of equal worth and recognition for people deemed to be disadvantaged, marginalised and excluded. Notions of children locked in cycles of personal and social deprivation, excluded, but also self-excluding, emotionally damaged and lacking confidence and skills permeate these initiatives (Rieser 2000, p. 148). These legal instruments, in actual fact, established broad social investment programmes focusing on attaining such major outcomes for all children, including those with SEN, as to assure them to be healthy, to live in safe environment, to improve their academic achievements, to participate in full measure in social life, enjoy and develop, and to attain financial well-being (DFES 2003). The government has raised family incomes by introducing a national minimum wage and through policies such as the working families’ tax credit (Pugh 2005, p.8). The establishment of a Cabinet Committee on Children and Young People’s Services, and a Children and Young People’s Unit in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), with a remit to develop a cross-departmental approach to policy as well as administering the Children Fund with ? 450 million to help to alleviate child poverty and social exclusion (DfES 2003), offer further testament to government commitments to children. The introduction of the National Childcare Strategy and Quality Protects with its strong recommendation that local authorities appoint a Children’s Rights Officer for looked after children, combined with the establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit and a number of community initiatives such as Sure Start designed to help preschool children, have increased assistance to children and their families, especially in severely disadvantaged areas (Pugh 2005). But any review of the Labour government’s record must include brickbats alongside bouquets. New Labour has reduced the number of children in poverty in recent years but the figures remain substantial for a country which ranks among the seven most industrialised nations in the world (Corbett 2001, p. 67). Young people under the age of 22, moreover, are exempted from the adult minimum wage of ? 4. 10 (Rieser 2000, p. 154). The centralisation of education, the imposition of national curricula and league tables and the privatising of certain aspects of education, are unlikely to promote children’s participation rights or provide them with a voice in the running of their ‘inclusive’ schools. Perhaps most significantly, New Labour’s election has regressed into a populist and authoritarian series of measures, such as curfews and electronic tagging. The Home Office, moreover, encouraged public perceptions of young people as unruly, out of control and requiring policies which stress containment (Robertson 2003). Indeed, children must be subject to the necessary guidance and discipline of adults, but they have to be partners in this process – not just passive recipients, if we talk about real inclusive schooling. In actual fact, legally, the paternalistic notion that the ‘best interests of the child’ must be protected has increasingly come to be supplemented by the principle that children have a right to express their views and have their wishes taken into account in legal decisions which concern them (Cheminais 2006, p. 23). In particular, the Children Act 2004 carefully straddles the divide between protectionist or paternalist and participatory rights. Its guiding principle is that the child’s welfare is paramount, but the legislation also supports the principle that, where possible and appropriate, the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned should inform decisions (HMSO 2004, Part 2). In truth the judiciary continue to interpret this latter requirement conservatively falling back on paternalistic assumptions of children’s incompetence (Robertson 2003). Thus, it comes as no surprise that Armstrong (2005, p.138) argues that â€Å"a transformatory agenda [of New Labour government] may be characterized by the rhetoric of change rather than by any substantive transformation of values and practices†. Moreover, contradicting to its own declared values concerning inclusive education New Labour government sees special schools at the front position of the wider education agenda and emphasises the need to recognise and value their contribution within a framework of inclusion (DfES 2003). It is obvious that continuation of segregated special schools is contravening human rights – real inclusion cannot happen in the special school. As recent studies on the trends in the UK educational system show that he formalisation of relationships in education has been encouraged by the growing tendency towards extending the scope of bureaucratic intervention in the everyday life of schools (Atkinson et al. 2002). Increasingly, every aspect of education is subjected to rule-making and regulated through inspection and auditing. As a result of a highly centralised system of education managed by an interventionist bureaucracy little is left to chance (Foley et al. 2003, p. 112). It has been noted that even primary school teachers are allowed little initiative to exercise their professional judgment. The national curriculum dominates the classroom and teachers’ activity is regulated by the need to respond to the demands of standardised tests and inspections (Thomas & Vaughan 2004, p. 63). The expansion of bureaucratic control is justified on the grounds that it ensures the maintenance of standards of education (Armstrong 2005, p.141). While the impact of the standardisation of teaching on the quality of education is debatable, its consequences on the relationship between the different parties – teachers, students, local authorities, parents – are strikingly clear. New Labour government declared that its top priority is raising educational standards – it is a great target, but what is troubling that the government’s purpose has also been clearly signalled – education is valued less for its intrinsic qualities of self-development and more for its contribution to creating a new kind of society (Armstrong 2005, p.136). In that way, future prosperity of the UK rests with its capacity to develop and harness the skills required to be a significant player in the new knowledge-based international economy. Here it is evident that New Labour government sees the role of education explicitly in terms of social engineering. It means that the inclusion agenda in the UK has a moral and rhetorical appeal, while its conceptual vagueness can be seen after closer analysis. Conclusion. The conducted study demonstrated that there are no simple solutions to the task of inclusive thinking, relations and practice, that here is no room for complacency in the pursuit of understanding and implementing inclusive education. Without a doubt, inclusion can make great contribution to maximising the participation of all learners and the removal of discriminatory and exclusionary assumptions and practices in schools. Fortunately, recently society has shifted from a sentimental approach to disability to one which concerns entitlement. Inclusive education theorists and practitioners have moved distinctly on from a preoccupation with mere physical location in a school or college and a campaigning for civil rights issues. Physical access and disability rights continue to be ongoing struggles and theoretical concerns but the overriding practical priority in schools is that of coping with difficult behaviour and with learning difficulties. Here it is important not to see inclusion as the concern of special educators but of concern to all those involved in the school or college settings. While the earlier integration focus tended to be on physical access and specialist resources, inclusive education implies a shared responsibility and a joint concern. In such a way, now SEN is at the core of educational agenda, and it is seen as the business of mainstream schools to address basic skills and to meet individual needs. If successfully implemented inclusive schooling can give the opportunity for children with a disability to participate fully in all the educational, employment, consumer, leisure, community and domestic activities that characterize everyday society. But to advance an agenda for inclusion and to make the ideals represented in New Labour government policies a meaningful reality in schools, the society has much to do. Our study proves rightfulness of Armstrong’ arguments that even if being ambitious and extensive New Labour’s policies promulgating inclusive education do not yielded in practical results for children with SEN. To date they remain in many aspects just a declaration of what changes in education would be implemented, but the rhetoric of change has not been followed by substantive transformation of values and practices towards inclusion. Many children come to school with problems. Recognition of this and sensitivity to it is part of inclusive education as we revealed in our study. A responsive school climate, which views problems as challenges and not obstacles, is a key factor in successful movement to really inclusive education. The focus in it has to be on institutional systems, attitudes, flexibility and responsiveness rather than on the special needs child. In order to provide such a highly developed level of inclusiveness, schools have to be willing to work consistently on improving and adapting both their curriculum and social climate. It has to be a school which relates to individual needs, institutional resources and to community values. Today inclusion in school settings, for all the political rhetoric, remains the cause of a good deal of anxiety with the vast majority of teachers, parents and children. To work to advance an agenda for inclusion, in the target-driven and achievement-oriented market place that education has become, requires placing emphasis on breaking down the barriers which create exclusion. It means that we have to work on the attainment of a more inclusive society, which is not solely the responsibility of teachers in schools, and which is most likely to be achieved only when we will be able to develop a more equitable educational system. References Ainscow, M. , Booth, T. , Dyson, A. , with Farrell, P. , Frankham, J. , Gallannaugh, F. , Howes, A. & Smith, R. 2006, Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion, Routledge, London. HMSO 2004, The Children Act 2004, HMSO, London. Armstrong, D. 2005, ‘Reinventing ‘Inclusion’: New Labour and the Cultural Politics of Special Education’, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 135–151. Atkinson, T. , Cantillon, B. , Marlier, E. , & Nolan, B. 2002, Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Booth, T. , & Ainscow, M. 1998, ‘From Them to Us: Setting up the Study’, in From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education, eds. T. Booth & M. Ainscow, Routledge, London, pp. 1-20. Booth, T. , Ainscow, M. , & Dyson, A. 1998, ‘England: Inclusion and Exclusion in a Competitive System’, in From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education, eds. T. Booth & M. Ainscow, Routledge, London, pp. 193-225. Clark, C. , Dyson, A.& Millward, A. 1998, ‘Introducing the Issue of Theorising’, in Theorising Special Education, eds. C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward, Routledge, London, pp. 1-6. Cheminais, R. 2006, Every Child Matters: New Role for SENCOs, David Fulton Publishers, London. Clough, P. , & Corbett, J. 2000, Theories of Inclusive Education: A Students’ Guide, Chapman, London. Corbett, J. 2001, Supporting Inclusive Education: A Connective Pedagogy, RoutledgeFalmer, London. DfES 2001, Inclusive Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs, DfES Publications, Nottingham. DfES 2003, Every Child Matters, DfES Publications, London. Farrell, M. 2006, Celebrating the Special School, David Fulton Publishers, London. Foley, P. , Parton, N. , Roche, J. & Tucker, S. 2003, ‘Contradictory and Convergent Trends in Law and Policy Affecting Children in England’, in Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century, eds. C. Hallett & A. Prout, Routledge, London, pp. 106-120. Mittler, P. 2000, Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts, David Fulton Publishers, London. Pugh, R. , 2005. Whose Children? The State and Child Welfare [online]. Phoenix, Arizona State University. Available from: http://www. asu.edu/xed/lectures/images/Pugh05. pdf [Accessed 25 April 2007]. Rieser, R. 2000, ‘Special Educational Needs or Inclusive Education: The Challenge of Disability Discrimination in Schooling’, in Education, Equality and Human Rights, ed. M. Cole, Falmer Press, London, pp. 141-161. Rose, R. 2003, ‘Ideology, Reality and Pragmatics: Towards an Informed Policy for Inclusion’, in Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice, eds. R. Rose & C. Tilstone, RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 7-17. Robertson, C. 2003, ‘Towards Inclusive Therapy: Policies and the Transformation of Practice’, in Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice, eds.R. Rose & C. Tilstone, RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 97-116. Skrtic, T. M. 1995, ‘Special Education and Student Disability as Organizational Pathologies: Toward a Metatheory of School Organization and Change’, in Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education for Postmodernity, ed. T. M. Skrtic, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 190-232. Thomas, G. , & Loxley, A. 2001, Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham. Thomas, G. , & Vaughan, M. 2004, Inclusive Education: Readings and Reflections, Open University Press, London.