NALDIC (2007) state that inclusion should “permeate all school policies so that they increase learning and participation” with particular consideration given to SEN children and young people. Likewise, Fredrickson and Cline argue (2002, pg. 65) that integration is a process “where the onus is on the assimilating individual to make changes so that they can fit in”. Alternatively, inclusion involves “schools in a process of accommodation where the onus is on the school to change, adapting curricula, methods and procedures” so that it responds to the needs of SEN children and young people. Equally, inclusion is continuously impacting schools as a result of children being taught using adapted strategies in order to make satisfactory progress. Major
…show more content…
Efforts to move away from segregation have gathered momentum since then with arguments that integrating “children with SEN in mainstream schools would facilitate their access to and participation in society” (Fredrickson and Cline, 2002). Views differ, however, with regards to how much provision children with SEN should have in mainstream education. Limitations involve further developments taking place, determined by the Warnock review (1973) and its focus led to the needs of SEN children to be identified, assessed and provided for (Spooner, 2010, pp. 8 – 9). Spooner (2010) classified integration into locational, social and functional integration. Locational integration refers to being educated in a unit that is located close to the school. Secondly, if the child spent their playtimes or lunchtimes in the unit, then this was experienced as social integration. Lastly, functional integration was SEN children working with children in a mainstream …show more content…
The impact of such developments on inclusive practice encouraged the 2001 Special Education Needs and Disability Act (SEND) to embed the statutory rights and duties into all schools and Early Years settings. It also concentrates on SEN learners being educated in mainstream schools, including and informing parents of the measures put in place for their child. Schools therefore, were able to request “assessments for learners who they suspected had SEN” (SEN Code of Practice, 2001). For teachers, this should be a positive attribute because children with SEN would have Individual Education Plans (IEP’s) now replaced by Education Health and Care plans (EHC). Serious disadvantages of this form of assessment include, children are diagnosed at different stages or much later in life and provision put in place might not meet the child’s needs. This emphasises the need of greater cooperation and communication between all agencies including parents, teachers and educational psychologists. With further regards to the Warnock update (2005) issues arose surrounding the New Commission, examining inclusion and the process chosen to give children a statement which makes clear, they were not as effective as
Efforts to move away from segregation have gathered momentum since then with arguments that integrating “children with SEN in mainstream schools would facilitate their access to and participation in society” (Fredrickson and Cline, 2002). Views differ, however, with regards to how much provision children with SEN should have in mainstream education. Limitations involve further developments taking place, determined by the Warnock review (1973) and its focus led to the needs of SEN children to be identified, assessed and provided for (Spooner, 2010, pp. 8 – 9). Spooner (2010) classified integration into locational, social and functional integration. Locational integration refers to being educated in a unit that is located close to the school. Secondly, if the child spent their playtimes or lunchtimes in the unit, then this was experienced as social integration. Lastly, functional integration was SEN children working with children in a mainstream …show more content…
The impact of such developments on inclusive practice encouraged the 2001 Special Education Needs and Disability Act (SEND) to embed the statutory rights and duties into all schools and Early Years settings. It also concentrates on SEN learners being educated in mainstream schools, including and informing parents of the measures put in place for their child. Schools therefore, were able to request “assessments for learners who they suspected had SEN” (SEN Code of Practice, 2001). For teachers, this should be a positive attribute because children with SEN would have Individual Education Plans (IEP’s) now replaced by Education Health and Care plans (EHC). Serious disadvantages of this form of assessment include, children are diagnosed at different stages or much later in life and provision put in place might not meet the child’s needs. This emphasises the need of greater cooperation and communication between all agencies including parents, teachers and educational psychologists. With further regards to the Warnock update (2005) issues arose surrounding the New Commission, examining inclusion and the process chosen to give children a statement which makes clear, they were not as effective as