Social versus Medical Understanding of Special Educational Needs - Essay Example

? Social versus medical understanding of special educational needs: History, developments, and comments on SEN policymaking and practice Instructor Class 6 May 2011 Table of contents Introduction 3 History of SEN 4 Warnock Report 4 Developments in Policy since 1981 5 Current Legislation, Guidelines, Policies and Practices 6 Medical and Social Models of Special Needs 7 Personal Experiences and Commentaries 10 Conclusion 12 Reference List 14 INTRODUCTION Practitioners need to further understand policies and practices about special education needs (SEN), so that they can work more effectively with children and their parents. The call for inclusive education is progressively more becoming widespread across Europe and the rest of the world, because diverse institutions and governments assert that to separate children with special needs from other students can be considered discriminatory. If the policies of education for people with SEN in the beginning of the twentieth century began with segregation, or separating children with SEN from mainstream students by placing the former in special education facilities, the Warnock Report in the 1970s started the evolution of special education toward integration, and later on, to inclusion (Tassoni, 2003, p.14). Integration is differentiated from inclusion, because integration can refer to the mainstream system remaining the same, but with addition of facilities for SEN. Inclusion, on the contrary, is defined by Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (2001, p.2) as the: ...process by which schools, local education authorities and others develop cultures, policies and practices to include pupils. With the right training, strategies and support nearly all children with special educational needs can be successfully included in mainstream education. (qtd. in Lloyd, 2008, p.222). Inclusion, however, has its conceptual and practical dilemmas. Terzi (2005) observes the “dilemma of difference”, which pertains to the conflict between treating children with SEN as the same as mainstream students and providing individualised education instruction to attend to their individual special education needs. This paper differentiates the social and the medical understanding of special educational needs. It gives examples of where each is demonstrated in policy and practice and personal experiences. It begins with a brief history of SEN and then a discussion of social and the medical understanding of special educational needs. The final sections are personal experiences and the conclusion. HISTORY OF SEN SEN evolved greatly for the past two centuries. It started from the medical model, followed by the social model of understanding special education needs. This section focuses on the Warnock Report and developments in policymaking and educational practices after 1981. Warnock Report In 1973, Margaret Thatcher, then Secretary of State for Education, commissioned the Warnock Enquiry. The Enquiry began the seminal review of the state of British special education, which was under pressure from worldwide calls of “integration” (Rayner, 2007, p.20). The Warnock Report was published in 1978 and formed the concept of special education needs (SEN). SEN refers to the whole extent of children experiencing learning difficulties and the Report indicated that 20 per cent of the school population would need “special help” during their school careers (Rayner, 2007, p.20). The Report stresses that a child with disability should be viewed as an individual with complete human rights and definite special education needs, instead of a patient with a medical illness or disorder (Rayner, 2007, p.20). It also stressed that professionals should work with parents, because the latter are partners in helping the child cope in school. This marked the departure from the medical model of special needs toward the social model. The Report also made numerous recommendations. It referred to the importance of a “whole school policy” in making provisions for SEN and the need to adopt integration measures for mainstream education (Rayner, 2007, p.20). Three kinds of integration were named and included: 1) Location: where children attended separate special units, but on the same location as mainstream schools. 2) Social: where children attended special classes, but mixed with mainstream children during mealtimes, play times, assemblies, and other school activities. 3) Functional: where children attend the same classes and have the same curriculum as children with no special needs. The Report classified children who might still depend more on special needs schools, such as children with severe emotional problems and severe intellectual disabilities. The Report then argued for a lesser role for special needs schools, but considered the difficulties of integrating special needs children into mainstream classes and activities (Rayner, 2007, p.20). Developments in Policy since 1981 In 1981, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government passed the 1981 Education Act, which generally applied majority of the philosophy of the Warnock Report. The proposals for change, nevertheless, were “resource neutral” (Rayner, 2007, p.21). The government did not initiate free additional money, even for what Warnock identified as priority areas. Some of the crucial implications of the 1981 Education Act were that from April 1, 1983 (Rayner, 2007, p.21): 1) It repealed all former Education Acts concerning special educational treatment needs. 2) It introduced the concept of “special education needs” into law. 3) It mandated local authorities (LA) to produce a “statement” on every child, including his/her individual special educational needs and that this must be reviewed yearly (with parents helping out to assemble the statement). 4) The LA had the responsibility to provide special education for children as young as two years old and from birth on the request of parents. 5) It mandated the provision of special education within mainstream schools, wherever feasible. The Act provided the definition for special education needs and this definition was critical to policy development for the next twenty years (Rayner, 2007, p.21). The same version has been used to extend statutory guidance with the publication of SEN Code of Practice in 1994. The definition was strengthened in the 1996 Education Act, Section 312, which stated that: “A child has special education needs...if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special education provision.” Current Legislation, Guidelines, Policies and Practices Inclusive education is presently entrenched as the primary policy for students with SEN. It aims to remove barriers to education, such as discrimination, and to improve access to mainstream education. The recent government publication that addresses the issue of inclusion and provision in mainstream schools for pupils with SEN is Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for SEN in 2004 (Lloyd, 2008, p.224). It sets the government’s vision for the education of children with SEN. It supplies national leadership that is buttressed by the determined programme of continued action and review, nationally and locally, in four main areas. The four main areas are: 1) Early Intervention: ensuring that children with difficulties and their parents have access to suitable help and childcare. 2) Removing Barriers to Learning: by embedding inclusive practice in all schools and early years’ settings. 3) Raising Expectations and Achievement: developing teaching skills and strategies and focusing on progress children make. 4) Delivering Improvements in Partnership: a hands-on approach to improvement. (Lloyd, 2008, pp.224-225). The Special Needs and Discrimination Act (2001) and the Disability Discrimination Act (2001) support the agenda for inclusion, as well as the Revised Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (Lloyd, 2008, p.225). Inclusion efforts, however, had mixed reactions and outcomes from teachers and other stakeholders. There were questions on the level of professional support that did not promote inclusion (Rayner, 2007, p.33). The Education and Skills Committee of the House of Commons just released their SEN report in 2006. It provided a detailed summary of its review of the SEN policy in England and considered different testimonies from different representative groups and practitioners. Eight issues were highlighted: 1) Boosting the levels of resource and forms of provision for pupils with SEN in mainstream schools. 2) Extending and having a stated policy support for SEN provision. 3) An initiative that seeks to improve the standards of achievement for pupils with SEN. 4) “Reforming” the SEN statement procedure. 5) Developing the roles of parents in making decisions about SEN placement. 6) Ensuring that the definition of SEN in national policy is clear. 7) Differentiating provision to suit different kinds of SEN. 8) Revising the legislative framework for SEN policy that would explain the need to focus on issues of discrimination and the Disability Act 2001. MEDICAL AND SOCIAL MODELS OF SPECIAL NEEDS This section discusses the main differences between the medical and social models of special needs. The review of literature shows that their main differences lie in the differences in beliefs about the responsibility of the government and education and the views on disability’s definition, source and related resolutions. The medical model of special needs very much dominated the early educational theories and special education policies. It stresses that the individual is the cause of disability. The medical model argues for the “deficit model of the learner” where the cause of SEN is the individual, and so the child is considered “deficient” (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.6). John Langdon Down (1866) recommended an “ethnic classification of idiocy” which includes a group that bears his name, whom he then termed as “Mongolian idiots” (Garner, 2009, p.27). This classification shared many similar sentiments then that people with SEN are The medical model asserts that external factors cannot cause this deficit (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.6). The medical model argues that it is the medical profession, not the government, educational institutions, or schools, who have the responsibility of taking care of people with SEN. “Treatment” was almost entirely exclusive to the medical field; and instead of education, children with SEN are described as requiring care, hospitalisation, and protection (Garner, 2009, p.27). Medical professionals exerted a large influence on this model. In fact, when the government started providing for special education during the nineteenth century, medical officers were greatly involved in identifying and selecting children with SEN and placing them in segregated schools (Garner, 2009, p.27). The education needs of people with SEN, according to the medical model, can be attained through segregating them from mainstream students. Sandow (1994, p.3) defines this perception of disability with a matching advocating for segregated education: The medical model is the most commonly cited explanation of special education needs. The doctor in the nineteenth century was subject to ideas about causality which was never perceived as social but always hereditary...the doctor sought only to prevent disability. (qtd. in Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.6). Butler enacted the 1944 Education Act, which stressed that the most effective way of teaching children with SEN were through special schools and sustained segregation after the age of eleven into secondary, technical, or grammar, which relies on the intellectual ability of the students (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.6). The medical model was increasingly criticised during the late 1970s and early 1980s. for many people with disabilities, this model to education is immoral, because it pushed educators to focus only on what the child cannot do, instead of helping them determine and polish what they can do (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.6). The model also provides the educational professionals a cloak to protect themselves for being accountable to goal of improving the learning achievements of their students (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.6). They could merely blame the child for lack of progress, instead of finding ways to enhance learning abilities. By the late 1980s, Marxist ideologies became more prominent and made scholars and practitioners more critical of the medical model. Abberley (1987) and Slee (1998) opposed segregated schooling, because it is part of the government’s aims to attain order and stability through “social control” (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.7). Young people who were not considered as useful for the capitalist system are fenced out or segregated (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.7). Pluralists argued that all people, with or without disabilities, deserve the same access to a complete and equitable life (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.7). From these emerging beliefs, the social model of special education needs was developed. The social model argues that an individual is accepted within society, according to the extent that they can follow the settled set of social protocols or rules (Garner, 2009, p.27). It calls for the responsibility of the government and education sector in helping people with SEN achieve better learning outcomes. The model says that educational institutions should provide pupils with social skills and trades, so that they can become productive members of society (Garner, 2009, p.28). The model contends that people with disabilities can take control of their own lives and make decisions for their sake (Garner, 2009, p.28). While the medical model identifies within-child factors of disability, the social model holds the society responsible for the social aspect of disability. Disability groups campaigned for equal rights for the disabled and argued that it is the society itself that creates problems for the disabled through erecting barriers of discrimination and segregation. These barriers prevent the disabled from reaching their full abilities as human beings (Garner, 2009, p.28). During the late 1970s, the Warnock Enquiry was conducted, which paved the way for the 1981 Education Act. This act embraced a more social model approach to SEN, as it argued for the mainstream education of children with SEN, whenever and wherever appropriate (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.9). The 1988 Education Act reinforced the social model of SEN, by stating that people with SEN should be treated equally and be given access to mainstream education (Gibson & Blandford, 2005, p.13). Present SEN policies argue for greater inclusion and eradication of all barriers to equal and mainstream education. PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND COMMENTARIES The social model of SEN is incomplete. For me, I agree with the critique of Lindsay (2003) on the social model, because it overlooks the within-child factors of disability and the complex interactions between individuals with SEN and their surroundings. Inclusion, in the terms of social inclusion, is only one of the many concerns of children with SEN and their parents (Lindsay, 2003). Lindsay (2003) argues: “...it is not good enough to ignore the question of within-child factors or the research evidence pertaining to all aspects of inclusion, including classroom practices, school organisation, LEA systems and government policies” (p.9). These are important elements to reaching inclusion. In my experience, by mixing students with SEN and mainstream students, this is not immediately “inclusion.” Inclusion has grand and wide-scale ambitions. It is about shaping cultures, policies and practices to include pupils and provide all special education needs (Lloyd, 2008, p.222). This can hardly be achieved if the school administration and teachers, for instance, do not agree on SEN policies, practices and measures of success. Some teachers insist on separating students in other classes, because of the diverse levels of cognitive, social, and emotional abilities of students. One even cried for not being able to advance to any topic for the past month, because one or two of her special students had tantrums the whole class time, which made her focus on them only, instead of the curriculum. We also have to take note that many schools have no teacher aides and parent assistants and it is hard to implement inclusion in its fullest sense. Inclusion should consider support systems and resources, because they are vital to truly including students with SEN into mainstream classes (Florain, 1998, p.14). Furthermore, I believe it would be useful to employ a capability approach to achieve inclusion. Terzi (2005) provides an insightful discussion of capability approach, “a normative framework for the assessment of poverty, inequality and the design of social institutions” (p.450). The capability approach stresses that equality and social systems should be assessed in terms of the theoretical avenue of capabilities, or the avenue of “real freedoms people have to achieve the valued functionings that are constitutive of their well-being” (Terzi, 2005, p.450). This approach combines social and medical models, where environmental and individual factors are considered in shaping individual special education needs curriculum. In addition, it works with existing resources and helps shape culture and social norms. The incremental movement toward inclusion is more realistic for me than embracing inclusion policies without clear and concrete directions. CONCLUSION SEN has evolved a great deal, from medical to social models of understanding. I believe that the social and medical models should be combined in helping students reach their uppermost learning abilities. These models also give a more holistic analysis of disability and defining proper special education needs for individual students. Furthermore, I believe it would be useful to employ a capability approach to achieve inclusion. It combines social and medical models, where environmental and individual factors are considered in shaping individual special education needs curriculum. Experience contradicts with literature, in the sense that practicing inclusion is not as easy as it seems. Different factors and conditions have to be considered and full organisational support are needed to achieve inclusion. Reference List Florain, L. (1998) Inclusive practice: what, why, and how? In: Tilstone, C., Florain, L. & Rose, R., eds. Promoting inclusive practice. London: Routledge, pp. 13-26. Garner, P. (2009) Special educational needs: the key concepts. Oxon: Routledge. Gibson, S. & Blandford, S. (2005) Managing special educational needs: a practical guide for primary and secondary schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Lindsay, G. (2003) Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30 (1), pp.3-12. Lloyd, C. (2008) Removing barriers to achievement: a strategy for inclusion or exclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (2), pp.221-236. Rayner, S. (2007) Managing special and inclusive education. London: Sage. Tassoni, P. (2003) Supporting special needs. Oxford: Heinemann Terzi, L. (2005) Beyond the dilemma of difference: the capability approach to disability and special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 (3), pp. 443-459. Read More