Mental impairments in mainstream school education

This paper examines how effectual statute law is in footings of promoting students with damages into mainstream instruction as opposed to particular schools, foregrounding the efforts to better inclusion in statute law and supplying a statistical analysis to judge its success. The survey was conducted, with the motive of demoing that societal justness is non needfully being achieved. The method of attack used was doing usage of educational theory, natural statistics and statistical analyses to supply grounds exposing that statute law can be effectual in some cases ; nevertheless there was voluminous grounds that showed no positive alteration after the debut of other illustrations of statute law. It is concluded that the most effectual intercession ( statistically ) was the debut of the pupil referral units ; nevertheless grounds that Numberss of students go toing particular schools staying changeless suggests advancement is non every bit abundant as intended.


In this paper I shall try to measure the effectivity of a piece of statute law in bettering the inclusion of people with physical and mental damages, by usage of literature and statistics provided by governmental administrations. In this paper, by effectivity, I will mention to the statistical component instead than the quality of the inclusion itself by analyzing the impact that the act has had on engagement in mainstream schooling. The purposes of this paper are to underscore the importance of inclusion supported by the usage of literature, to derive an apprehension of the history and nature of inclusion of impaired students in England prior to 2001 and to determine how the piece of statute law has attempted to change the motion of students towards the mainstream and if, with usage of statistics, there is grounds of success. The piece of statute law being referred to in this paper is the Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 subdivision 11 ( 1 ) to ( 4 ) .

The portraiture of the impaired by popular civilization is one of inability and breakability, something that seemed to hold infiltrated my understanding anterior to my instruction pattern. Due to the every kid affairs agenda, I knew there would be a favorable chance that meeting the specific state of affairs would happen, and it finally did. This experience drew no analogues to any of my concerns and later fostered my involvement in inclusion, specifically that of the impaired. This paper will besides pull upon the history of damage in instruction, looking at the issue in footings of societal justness, which is critical to holding an equal and merely society. If the aspiration for any progressive society is to supply of import services to all members, governmental policy and how good it works is important, supplying ground for the necessity of this probe.

It would look pertinent, when bring forthing a paper whose nucleus subject is that of disablement and damage, to understand what is meant by the footings. The definitions as provided by the World Health Organisation are as follows:

“ Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering damages, activity restrictions, and engagement limitations. An damage is a job in organic structure map or construction ; an activity restriction is a trouble encountered by an person in put to deathing a undertaking or action ; while a engagement limitation is a job experienced by an person in engagement in life state of affairss. ” ( WHO, 2010 )

Hughes and Paterson ( 1997, p. 328 ) support the differentiation between damage and a disablement with the former referring to the biological defects and the latter to the end point of this due to society. They claim that the best definitions of the two are provided by the Union of the Physically Impaired against Segregation ( UPIAS ) ( 1975, p. 14 ) . They define impairment “ as missing portion of or all of a limb, or holding a faulty limb, organ or mechanism of the organic structure ” and disablement as “ the disadvantage or limitation of activity caused by a modern-day societal administration which takes no or small history of people who have physical damages and therefore except them from engagement in the mainstream of societal activities. ” These shall be the definitions to which I shall mention when the footings are mentioned in this paper.

From these definitions it would look that an inclusive society would seek to eliminate disablement. Disability could be viewed as an obstruction to societal justness, as when a member of society is excluded from of import facets of societal life – as is schooling – when it is their right to be included, societal justness as defined classically by Rawles ( 1972, cited in Gewirtz, 2002, p. 140 ) is absent, he states:

“ The capable affair of justness is the basic construction of society, or more precisely, the manner in which the major societal establishments… distribute cardinal rights and responsibilities and find the distribution of advantages from societal cooperation. ”

Harmonizing to Barnes ( 1998, p. 66 ) , in the late 1940 ‘s, Parsons argued that “ the ‘normal ‘ province of being in Western developed societies is ‘good wellness ‘ , accordingly illness, and by deduction damages, are divergences from ‘normality ‘ . ” Paterson and Hughes conversely argue that this sentiment is portion of an out-of-date apprehension of the functional necessities to go a productive member of society ( 2000, in Howson, 2004, p. 26 ) .

Disability in instruction is normally interpreted by two theoretical accounts, the medical and societal theoretical accounts, although other theoretical accounts exist or have existed in the yesteryear, they have had a minimum societal impact ( Barnes and Mercer, 2010, p. 14 ) . The medical theoretical account of disablement in instruction is explained by Chapman et Al. ( 2010 ) with a chief focal point on the scholars, admiting their damages and therefore supplying individualized support when incorporated into the mainstream ( p. 5 ) . The societal theoretical account in contrast, gives prominence to the demands of a individual instead than the personal calamity that a disablement causes ( Barnes, cited in Shakespeare, 1998, p. 76 ; Barnes and Mercer, 2010, p. 14 ; Howson, 2004, p. 26 ) . The focal point of the theoretical account is that difference can take to difficulty in larning, therefore schools and schoolrooms should be antiphonal and reorganize harmonizing to nature of the scholars ( Dyson and Millward, 2000, p. 161-163 ) .

One could oppugn the inclusive nature of an instruction system, but it is ab initio critical to determine its significance. Booth et Al. ( 2000, cited in Florian et al. , 2010, p. 709 ) supply a definition of what constitutes inclusive instruction, saying it is the ‘process ‘ of cut downing exclusion and increasing engagement in “ civilization, the course of study and the community of mainstream schools. ” Polat ( 2011, p. 50 ) efforts to take this farther by explicating that inclusion non merely involves the school but the instruction system as a whole, including educational policy and statute law, declaring that “ Inclusion involves the procedures of altering values, attitudes, policies and patterns within the school scene and beyond. ”

It should be made clear that this piece of work is set in the context of the English instruction system, and in order to understand the effectivity of the said statute law, there must be an apprehension of the state of affairs before every bit good as after its execution. Using the available literature I shall try to supply the grounds that this piece of statute law promotes inclusion, and to measure its effectivity to the issue of inclusion of impaired students in mainstream schools.

The History of Particular Education in England

There is a expansive history in England of the execution of particular establishments for the impaired which can be tracked prior to the 18th century, frequently started by spiritual constitutions, charitable administrations and persons ( Sutherland, 1981 cited in: Swann, 1981 p. 94 ) . Dale ( 2007 ) explains that kids diagnosed as mentally faulty were placed in establishments such as Starcross refuge – established in the 1860 ‘s – where they besides on occasion received basic preparation and some instruction ( p. 22 ) . Although the statement exists that these establishments were introduced with purposes of philanthropic gift it is doubtless the instance that these establishments caused segregation and a lessened apprehension of the impaired by other members of society. Percepts of the impaired today are still influenced by this period of history ( Armstrong, 2007, p. 556 ) .

Moves toward inclusion became apparent during the Second World War, harmonizing to Armstrong ( 2007, p. 559 ) due to the blitz bombardments, educational substructure was ‘profoundly affected ‘ . In add-on to this the mass emptying of kids from big metropoliss caused upset to the instruction system, the addition of birth rate and the developing rule from the populace that the impaired should be brought into mainstream instruction held influence in the debut of the Education Act of 1944 ( ibid. ; Warnock, 1978, p. 22 ) .

Part II subdivision 36 of the act ( as enacted ) stated that “ It shall be the responsibility of the parent of every kid of mandatory school age to do him to have efficient full-time instruction suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude, either by regular attending at school or otherwise. “ , with subdivision 40 foregrounding the duty of the Local Education Authority to implement this ( hypertext transfer protocol: // ) . This displays big stairss toward an attempt to promote parents to present impaired students to the instruction system, nevertheless subdivision 57 ( 4 ) shows the really antithesis of inclusion, supplying avenues to except students based on mental damages, which acknowledges that impaired kids may be uneducable or they could negatively impact the instruction of their schoolmates

Due to the mentioned societal factors there was an ascertained lessening in the figure of students at particular schools, from 51,152 in 1939 to 38,499 in 1946. This nevertheless proved to be a false morning as from 1945 to 1955 with an addition in substructure figures rebounded from 38,499 to 58,034 severally ( Warnock, 1978, p. 22 ) . An perceiver could recognize that the act had been by and large uneffective in footings of inclusion of the impaired in the mainstream.

Finally the progresss in medical intervention meant that the Numberss of kids with serious conditions had reduced ‘dramatically ‘ ( Armstrong, 2007, p. 561 ) . Harmonizing to Hurt ( 1988, p. 172 ) due to the lower demand for attention, they became more likely to be introduced into mainstream instruction. The following big measure towards inclusion came in the signifier of the Education ( Handicapped Children ) Act 1970, which removed powers from old Acts of the Apostless that deemed students uneducable, specifically the obliteration of subdivision 57 of the Education Act of 1944. The Acts of the Apostless ‘ debut indicates its neglect for the sentiment that some kids are uneducable in the school environment.

The Warnock study in 1978 explained that the 1970 act reduced the segregation of the impaired by taking “ the power of wellness governments to supply preparation for these kids and required the staff and edifices of junior preparation Centres to be transferred to the instruction service ” ( Warnock, 1978, p. 28 ) . Warnock besides held the belief that due to the act, all ‘handicapped ‘ kids were now included in the ‘framework of particular instruction ‘ ( p. 35 ) . Evidence of the effectivity of the act is the addition from 11,027 to 21,245 in the figure of students go toing particular categories and units in mainstream schools from 1973 to 1977 severally ( p. 99 ) , although this could be viewed as another signifier of segregation.

The Education Act 1981 provides farther grounds of an effort at inclusion of impaired kids in mainstream instruction, notably subdivision 3. Where in old Acts of the Apostless at that place has been chance to hedge duty to this demographic ( The Education Act 1944 subdivision 57 ( 4 ) ) , the diction is extremely specific in that a kid is non merely deemed incapable of instruction, it requires that commissariats be taken in coaction with parents for ‘provisions other than in a school ‘ . In add-on to this were implemented the specific appraisal for eligibility for commissariats. Section 15 ( 4 ) ( a ) besides gives power to the LEA to move when they are of the sentiment that “ the school selected by the parent as the school to be named in the order is unsuitable to the kid ‘s age, ability or aptitude or to his particular educational demands ” taking possible maltreatment of powers by parents when make up one’s minding their kid ‘s educational format ( ) .

Repeatedly nevertheless it seems that there is grounds of avenues for exclusion notably Section 2 ( 3 ) presuming that the instruction of students sharing a category with an impaired kid would be negatively impacted, and that the instruction of an impaired student should hold a monetary value bound.

Discrimination is described by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 subdivision 5 ( 1 ) as the indefensible ( with grounds ) , less favorable intervention of a handicapped individual with regard to others without disablement ( ) . Discrimination in instruction contradicts Rawles ‘ apprehension of societal justness and terrestrial time could be argued that by definition, inclusion can non take topographic point whilst there is favoritism. Although wary of political rhetoric Collins ( 2003, p. 21 ) finds some foundation in the extract taken from the Department of Trade and Industry, back uping the statement that ‘Discrimination normally amounts to exclusion in some signifier ‘ ( cited in Collins, 2003, p. 21 ) . This statement is supported by Ballard ( 1999, p. 3 ) , explicating that “ seeing pupils such as the handicapped as ‘other ‘ creates the favoritism of ‘them ‘ and ‘us ‘ , valued and non so valued, that is a footing for exclusion. ”

Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001

Having gained some apprehension of the historical patterned advance of inclusive instruction in England, there could be justification for a claim that inclusive instruction has taken topographic point officially from the Education Act of 1944. By definition, as mentioned, inclusive instruction is the ‘process ‘ of cut downing exclusion and increasing engagement, and this act and others following it, although holding mercantile establishments for exclusion, are portion of a procedure and hence there are evidences for the avowal. A procedure therefore besides suggests that changeless development of statute law is necessary. The Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 addresses favoritism in instruction straight, it besides seeks to regenerate and better the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act with regard to instruction ( ) , which contained limited statute law on attitudes toward the handicapped and dealt largely with administrative issues ( ) .

Subsection 11 ( 1 ) of the act – besides subdivision 28A in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 – entitled, ‘Discrimination against disabled students and prospective students ‘ , addresses the mostly negated topic of favoritism of the impaired in the instruction system ( see Appendix 1 for a transcript of the statute law as enacted ) . There is an effort to eliminate favoritism from all facets of the schooling procedure, including the entry ( 28A ( 1 ) ) , the services provided for the intent of instruction ( 28A ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ) , and exclusion ( 28A ( 4 ) ) . Subsection ( 1 ) ( a ) makes it improper to know apart with respect to finding admittance, this issue shall be raised once more when look intoing the figure of SEN students go toing independent schools. Subsection ( 2 ) possibly relates more than the others to the existent services provided by an establishment, with accent on the instruction and ‘other services ‘ provided to students. It can be viewed as straight related to the medical theoretical account of disablement in instruction, in that commissariats should be made to do the scholastic experience of the impaired equal to that of the unimpaired.

For the period 1994 to 2000 there was an one-year addition of students with SEN in maintained mainstream schools in England, with the rate of addition cut downing somewhat after 1996 ( statistics available in Appendix 2 ) . After 2001 there is no noteworthy alteration in the Numberss of SEN students in kept up mainstream schools, it could be interpreted that the 2001 act had an inauspicious consequence on the inclusion attempt as the uninterrupted additions over the old old ages had halted and levelled off. If the act was to the full executed, due to its more inclusive nature as supported by the theory that favoritism relates to exclusion, one could anticipate at least an addition of the Numberss of particular educational demands students in kept up mainstream schools in line with the tendencies prior to 2001. Of class this is working on the premise that there is no impregnation in the Numberss of SEN pupils overall.

The five old ages from the debut of the pupil referral units in 1995 to 2000 for which there is definite available informations there is a unvarying addition. A five twelvemonth period besides compares favorably to the figure of old ages that a student spends in a primary or secondary school in England. One could determine that the Numberss increased yearly due to the entry of the station pupil referral unit coevals, once more supplying that there are comparatively steady measures of students with particular educational demands per twelvemonth group. This would explicate the impregnation observed station 2001, with new students replacing those who complete their schooling.

Undoubtedly the proportion of mainstream educated SEN students from 2001 onwards is higher than at any point since 1994, with approximately 52 % increasing to an estimated 61 % ( ONS, 2004 ) . The grounds for this is likely to be due to the debut of the pupil referral unit instead than any displacement in inclusion policy, nevertheless the fact that these students attend mainstream school instead than particular or independent schools can be viewed as a success for inclusion. The consistent figures for particular schools is grounds for this, although there is no important lessening in the figure of students in particular schools, this could convey in to oppugn if adequate advancement is being made to convert parents that inclusive instruction is the ideal environment for a kid to develop. O’Connor ( 2006, p. 542 ) analyzing a survey held in Northern Ireland on parents perceptual experiences of inclusion found that parents had reserves about their kids ‘s engagement in inclusive instruction of mainstream schooling and that particular schools had an of import function. A similar survey for England could supply some lucidity on why particular schools still teach such a big proportion of impaired students.

Relatively the volume of SEN students go toing independent schools has remained consistent and when contrasted with the other two types of school, it can be said that the Numberss are rather undistinguished. In 2003 under 3 % of all SEN students attended independent schools ( ONS, 2004 ) , which falls below the 7 % portion of all students that attend independent schools in England ( DfES, 2003 ) . One could oppugn if there is a degree of favoritism of students that require particular educational demands in the choice procedure of independent schools and therefore neglecting subdivision ( 1 ) ( a ) of the act. As of 2009, the Office for National Statistics shows in Table 1.4 ( DCFS, 2009 ) , that the tendencies observed in 2003 have non altered significantly ( see Appendix 3 for Table 1.4 ) , taking an perceiver to presume that the statute law has done small to consequence old pattern in this country, nevertheless it should be emphasised that there could be other finding factors.


The purposes of this paper were to underscore the importance of inclusion, to derive an apprehension of the history and nature of inclusion of impaired students in England and to determine the effectivity of the said piece of statute law taken from the Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Theoretical grounds was drawn from literature to underscore the importance of inclusion in instruction, pulling on the links between societal justness and favoritism. In contrast nevertheless Wendell ( 2001 ) stresses that societal justness may in some cases have no impact upon the physical or psychological emphasiss that impairment can do ( p. 18 )

An analysis of the history of particular instruction was carried out, trying to measure the inclusive nature of instruction at assorted intervals throughout English history. Questions arose about its inclusive nature and if any advancement, nevertheless little can represent inclusion based upon the definition provided by Booth et Al. An effort to verify how effectual statute law is in an attempt to cut down favoritism towards the impaired in instruction and thereby better inclusion showed that there are non needfully great statistical differences in footings of Numberss of SEN students in mainstream schools since the statute law was implemented in 2001. The dead nature of the figure of students at particular schools, as opposed to the additions post the 1944 act, shows that there have been effectual steps introduced over the past 50 old ages. Statistically, possibly the most effectual intercession to advance inclusion were the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the debut of the pupil referral units, ensuing in a big addition of SEN students in the mainstream. However statistics do non state the full narrative, at this point it is pertinent to inquire the inquiry, what are the purposes of the instruction system? Maynard and McGrath ( in Behrman and Stacey, 1997 ) suggest that schooling provides a readying for full engagement in big life and society ( p. 125 ) , inclusion seeks to turn to this purpose, both for the impaired pupils themselves but besides for those without particular educational demands. Hornby ( 1999, p. 156 ) supports this statement saying “ every bit much societal integrating as possible should be encouraged, for the benefit of all students. ”

Questions were besides raised about attitudes toward inclusive instruction of the parents of impaired students were besides raised, foregrounding possible avenues of farther survey in order to supply an improved overview of the issue. Studies comparable to O’Connor ‘s, look intoing parents ‘ perceptual experiences of inclusion and their effects on the procedure of choice of schooling method for England could be of benefit. Although a similar probe has been done by Waddington and Reed ( 2006 ) , it is largely based on a specific damage ( ASD ) instead than a general survey embracing all particular educational demands. Other possible surveies could include a comparable survey to that of Lindsay ( 2004 ) in Australia, who sheds visible radiation on the Numberss of pupils who face disablement favoritism and the troubles they face in an inclusive instruction system, in order to set up if inclusion has emotional disadvantages to students. It is of import to understand that although academic accomplishment is of import, it should besides be the desire of educationists to supply students with a positive and of all time bettering school experience and surveies to measure the truth of this in England are surely necessary.


Armstrong, F. , 2007. Disability, Education and Social Change in England since 1960.A History of Education, 36 ( 4 ) , 551-568.

Ballard, K. , 1999.A Inclusive instruction: international voices on disablement and justness. London: Falmer Press.

Barnes, C. , ( Date Unknown ) . The Social Model of Disability: A Sociological Phenomenon Ignored by Sociologists? In: Shakspere, T. , 1998.A The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives. London: Cassell.

Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. , 2010.A Exploring Disability. 2nd erectile dysfunction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Booth, T. , Ainscow, M. , Black-Hawkins, K. , Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L. , 2000.A Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools.. Bristol: CSIE.

Chapman, C. , Ainscow, M. , Duggan, J. , Miles, S. and Sandill, A. , 2010. Leadership for advancing the accomplishment of kids with particular educational demands and disablements: A reappraisal of literature. The University of Manchester.

Collins, H. , 2003. Discrimination, Equality and Social Inclusion.A The Modern Law Review, 66 ( 1 ) , 16-43.

Dale, P. , 2007. Particular Education at Starcross before 1948.A History of Education, 36 ( 1 ) , 17-44.

Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009. Education and Training Statistics for the United

Kingdom: 2009 ( Internet merely ) . Education and Training Statistics for the United Kingdom 2009 Edition. London: HMSO. 2009

Department for Education and Skills, 2003. Statisticss of Education: Schools in England. Schools in England 2003 Edition. London: HMSO. 2003

Disability Discrimination Act 1995. 2011.A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .

Dyson, A. and Milward, A. , 2000, Schools and particular demands: Issues of invention and inclusion, London: Paul Chapman.

Education Act 1944. 2011.A Education Act 1944. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .

Education ( Handicapped Children ) Act 1970. 2011.A Education ( Handicapped Children ) Act 1970. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .

Education Act 1981. 2011.A Education Act 1981. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .

Florian, L. , Young, K. and Rouse, M. , 2010. Fixing instructors for inclusive and diverse educational environments: analyzing curricular reform in an initial instructor instruction class, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14 ( 7 ) , 709-722.

Gewirtz, S. , 2002.A The Managerial School: Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education. 1st erectile dysfunction. London and New York: Routledge.

Hornby, G. , 1999. Inclusion or psychotic belief: Can one size tantrum all? .A British Museum Publications, 14 ( 4 ) , 152-157.Howson, A. , 2004.A The organic structure in society: an debut. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hughes, B. and Paterson, K. , 1997. The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a sociology of impairment.A Disability & A ; Society, 12 ( 3 ) , 328.

Hurt, J. S. , 1988.A Outside the Mainstream: A History of Particular Education. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.

Lindsay, K. , 2004. ‘Asking for the Moon ‘ ? A Critical Appraisal of Australian Disability Discrimination Laws in Promoting Inclusion for Students with Disabilities.A International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 ( 4 ) , 373-390.

O’Connor, U. , 2007. Parental concerns on inclusion: The Northern Ireland perspective.A International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11 ( 5-6 ) , 535-550.

Office for National Statistics, 2004.A Students with statements of Particular Educational Needs ( SEN ) : by type of school: Social Trends 34. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // vlnk=7298 & A ; More=Y & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .

Polat, F. , 2011. Inclusion in instruction: A measure towards societal justice.A International Journal of Educational Development, 31 ( 1 ) , 50-58.

Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. 2011.A Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .

Sutherland, G. , 1981. The Origins of Particular Education. In: Swann, W. , 1982.A The Practice of Particular Education. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

UPIAS, 1976.A Cardinal Principles of Disability, The Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation and The Disability Alliance. London

Waddington, E. and Reed, P. , 2006. Parents ‘ and Local Education Authority Officers ‘ perceptual experiences of the factors impacting the success of inclusion of students with Autistic Spectrum Disorders.A International Journal of Particular Education, 21 ( 3 ) , 151-164.

Warnock, H. M. , 1978. Department of Education and Science. Particular Educational Needs. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the instruction of disabled kids and immature Peoples ( Warnock Report ) . London: HMSO. 1978

Wendell, S. , 2001. Unhealthy Disabled: Treating Chronic Illnesses as Disabilities.A International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16 ( 4 ) , 17-33.

WHO, Disabilities. 2011.A WHO Disabilities. [ ONLINE ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; [ Accessed 03 January 2011 ] .


Appendix 1

Appendix 2