Inclusion of Deaf Pupils in Mainstream Schools - Essay Example

Running header: Inclusion of Deaf Pupils in Mainstream Schools Your Introduction The SEN and Disability Act 2001(DDA), launched in January 2002 a radical rectification of the Education Act 1996 which formalised the concept of inclusion of the formerly segregated disabled pupils to be integrated into the mainstream schools. It sought to enforce voluntary inclusion of children with special education needs (SEN) acceptable in mainstream schools at the behest of their parents. The policy of inclusion aims at adjusting the educational framework to the needs of SENs to not only achieve the educational needs of children suffering from disabilities but to also serve their social needs through inclusive education, particularly those having ‘social, emotional and behavioural difficulties’ (St. Bartholomew’s, 2006, p. 3). Analysts argue that with the performance of the deaf children falls below the national average, as children with hearing impairments are most likely suffering from social adjustments deficiencies that are further aggravated by inadequate support facilities (Burns, 2006); (Cline and Frederickson, 2002); (Greville, 2009); (Stillman, 2002); Nunes et al, 2005; (Rustemier, 2003). According to a National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) report 2008, only 33 percent of deaf students achieved a GCSE grade of between A and C as compared to the national average of 57 percent. This translated to a 42 percent less likelihood of hitting the benchmark. The provision for inclusion of SENs in the mainstream schools is therefore a noble ideal that will incorporate the UN objectives of equal rights for all children (UNICEF, 2006) and (NDCS, 2008). Wells (1937) categorised school going children with defective hearing into three major segments. Grade I are those with partial hearing problems and can lip-read hence are more easily assimilated into normal classroom settings. Grade II, are children who need some sort of assistance due to slightly poorer hearing loss thus may require special educational aids but not necessary with the severely impaired. Grade III are those with advanced hearing problems that require ample special education needs [See Table: 1]. According to the definition of the Deaf Persons Act, Grade I does not fall in the category of hearing defects although this are children who must be carefully scrutinised to avoid falling into neglect due to their partial hearing problems (WELLS, 1937). Table 1: Hearing Impairment Dimension Levels Hearing Distance Level Hearing Test (Gramophone/Pure-Tone Audiometer) Assimilation Level Grade I 20ft and Over Gramophone - 15 decibels and Pure-tone - 35 decibels Can assimilate into Public Sch., Lip-read Grade II Between 20ft and 2ft Between 15-40 decibels on Gramophone/Pure-tone at 35-60 decibels Grade IIa can accommodate ordinary Sch. with assistance. Grade IIb require Special Educ. devoid of severely deaf Grade III Less than 2ft Gramophone - 40 decibels/ Pure-tone audiometer - 60 decibels Lack any speech dev. Hence need Special Sch. and teaching aids Source: Wells, 1937 The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (BATOD) and the National Autistic Society (NAS) assert that due to the lack of adequate special schools for autistic children, there was no option but to assimilate them in the mainstream schools except for those severely impaired(BATD, 2004). By 2006, there were over 90,000 special needs pupils nationally, while the number of specialist schools was 7,500 (BATD, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, 2004); (BBC, 2006). Advocates of the inclusion approach emphasized the need to have a more interactive approach between the special needs schools and their counterparts in the mainstream category. However, opponents of the system, citing the Cambridge Report findings including David Willetts, the Shadow Education Secretary disparaged the inclusion policy alleging that, ‘The obsession with inclusion is unfair on children with special educational needs, unfair on the rest of the class and unfair on teachers’ (BBC, 2006); (CSIE, 2008) (Farrell, 2006). According to a report commissioned by Cambridge University regarding the inclusion into the mainstream schools, the cost or toil for assimilating children with SENs in the mainstream schools, was found to be too profound on other children, but particularly so on the teachers ill trained in handling such students but whom nevertheless bear the heaviest burden while trying to integrate the physically challenged children. This burden was most profound among pupils in secondary schools who often had acute health problems including metal impairment (MacBeath et al, 2006). According to Prof MacBeath, one of the authors of the Cambridge Report and a critique of the system, "Physically sitting in a classroom is not inclusion. Children can be excluded by sitting in a classroom thats not meeting their needs." (BBC, 2006, p. 1); (Halpin, 2006) Value Added Project The Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) provides data on the learning levels of pupils in public schools hence enabling the enhancement of their progress by virtual of appropriate Value Added (VA) techniques. A government commissioned a national value added project to do a curriculum assessment in 1998, which included 200 secondary schools, ten of which were those with special needs recorded performance pointers using the Value Added Pilot model(OFSTED, 2006); (DFEE, 1998). The objective was mainly to appraise the development at ‘National Curriculum Key Stage 3 tests at 14 years and GCSEs/GNVQs scores at the end of Key Stage 4 at 16 years’ (Powers, 2007, p. 2). Among the ten special schools graded, two were those of deaf pupils. The results of the test revealed that these schools performed exceptionally better than the others schools particularly School B, which was leading at +21.6 score well above the second best at +7.1 and the national average of -0.5 value added score. The assertion that deaf children lag behind their peers in terms of academic performance and aptitude is contradicted by this study. [See Table: 1 below]. Table 1: Deaf Schools Performance Compared to National Average Value Added Score School (A) +4.1 School (B) +21.6 Average for All schools (England) -0.5 Source: BATOD, 2007 Although value added assessment appraises previous performance which has been deemed the most crucial assessment forecaster of pupil’s results, other critical performance indicators need to be incorporated to have a more rounded analysis. This include measures that are outside the domain of schools’ control, such as gender, mobility and the extent of deficiency, thus a more extensive measure named the contextual value added model is employed [See Table:2]. Nonetheless, the model still fails to take into account other variables that are considered critical but hard to integrate in the model. These include the educational levels of the parents, occupation of the parent or economic status, the commencement of the deafness, any other impairment, and the deaf status of the parents (Powers, 2007). Inclusion into Mainstream Schools The US National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) defines hearing impairment as any ‘reduced sensitivity to sound of any type’ (NASET, 2007). NASET nevertheless asserts that pupils with hearing impairment tend to have a more profound vocabulary growth than other with unimpaired hearing due to the tendency to feign conception and structure, which reinforces an enduring optimal learning capability. By allowing deaf students into mainstream schools, those with minimal impairments can be easily be assimilated into a more normalised social life and curriculums which could otherwise be aggravated by seclusion with severely impaired children. In the classroom their integration is entrenched by having them sit close to the teachers who must avoid unnecessary lip movements, including shouting and murmuring. Although deaf children are born with similar levels of intelligence as other ‘normal’ children, they often lapse later in life in their educational training due to the challenges in assimilating learning because of impaired hearing. A study by Conrad (1979) for Scottish pupils indicated that deaf school leavers had an average reading age of nine years. This was still the same state twenty years later when a DFEE commissioned research returned similar results. Grimes & Cameron (2005) allege that academic performance for deaf children is impended by the lack of appropriate communication tools including learning to use a sign language, lip-reading and other hearing aids within the classroom setting. [See Figure1] Figure 1 Source: http://www.isec2005.org.uk/ Disadvantages of Inclusion Pupils brought up by normal hearing parents and educated in mainstream schools lack an identity as a special needs person as their impairment is obscured in these settings. This builds resentment later when they discover the environment greatly disadvantaged them by pairing them with unequal educational schoolmates. Deaf children have a higher incidence of mental health incidences at 40 percent as opposed to 25 percent among hearing children. This is further amplified by having them integrated in the mainstream schools where the stress encountered in dealing with normal children classroom mannerisms, which include whispering and giggling will seem offensive and stressful to the hearing-impaired child. Without a comparable conducive learning environment, the pupil will lapse into further extreme heal problems. Communication barriers with other children are most pronounced within a mainstream school environment where large groups of hearing children will be enable to form friendship with the deaf pupil. This isolation can be another form of discrimination that has a negative impact on the growth of the deaf pupil. The tendency of teachers and trainers to assume the child has minimal hearing deficiencies within the mainstream school environment is very real to the detriment of the pupil. That happens when the pupil tries to ‘assimilate’ hence feigns minimal hearing impairment to be accepted by other children. The pupil will henceforth deteriorate rapidly in educational and social terms often desiring to abscond from school attendance in an effort to avoid the humiliations. Teachers with normal hearing who disregard offering hearing aids or teaching with sign languages thus relegating the pupil to obscurity and inability adopts this attitude. In the mainstream schools, deaf pupils lack the opportunity to learn the appropriate communication techniques that can be taught in the special needs educational centres. These include lip-reading, sign language, and other non-oral visual communication methods. This serves as a setback in later life when confronted with situations requiring their use of non-verbal communication hence leaves them at disadvantage to attain fulfilment and achievement. In mainstream schools, deaf children are rarely engaged in the question-answer sessions with their teachers due to communication and time lapse impediments existing in the classroom. Teachers of deaf children (TOD) have to coordinate with the mainstream teacher all the time otherwise; the pupil is hard put to follow the lesson. A deaf student must constantly have a clear field of vision in regards to the mainstream teacher, TOD as well as the whiteboard. Any deviation always put the pupil at disadvantage in assimilating the lesson. This would not be the case in the specially designed schools for the deaf. In cases where the TOD has lower concentration levels in regards to the mainstream teacher, the deaf pupil suffers as a result. There is lack of social integration or assimilation in the mainstream schools by other students. A study by Ridsdale and Thompson (2002) of deaf children integration in mainstream schools revealed that they were largely constrained with minimal assimilation and lacking real friends among other students. This was paralleled in their academic performance, which was mostly below the schools average. Most worrying was the degeneration of their social esteem in the midst of other ‘normal’ hearing children, hence the authors noted that ‘the hearing-impaired young peoples social experience was very akin to that of those children with very low sociometric status’ (pg.34) According to Nunes et al (2005) although most advocates of integration of deaf students in mainstream schools cite many positive attributes, the approach should be tempered with caution due to the social implication on the deaf children who will ultimately suffer hardship as they navigate the turbulent world of formal mainstream schooling system. In their study of deaf pupils’ integration in mainstream schools, Nunes et al have employed ‘peer ratings, sociometric status and interviews’, however they did not detect any undue antagonism from other normal hearing students in their peer groups, nonetheless they concluded that this pupils were likely to suffer from neglect from these same children, basically lacking in friendship. The authors therefore recommended a more proactive role by the school administration in helping the students be better assimilated. McKee and Smith (2003) in a survey of Itinerant Teachers of the Deaf (ITODs) in New Zealand concluded that learning in mainstream schools would be enhanced by earlier training or earlier intercession and having better facilities including ‘acoustics, illumination, and seating arrangements.’ The pupils also need to have a mentor program for easier integration in the mainstream schools. Deaf children with social skills deficiencies can have this improved through a more assimilative integration in the mainstream schools. Advantages of Inclusion According to the organisation Save the Children (2003), parents lacking economic means to enrol in the SNEs can have them enrolled in the mainstreams schools. This similarly assist the children get better acquainted with their peers with normal hearing, hence accumulate enhanced social associations. The organisation advocates for the use of a ‘child-centred rather than curriculum-centred’ with an aim at ensuring each pupil is accorded own space to develop since each has their own unique characteristics (Save the Children, 2003). Children with special skills are able to compete with other pupils of normal hearing to the best of their abilities. These include skills in sporting activities, academic excellence, and though warehousing techniques can assist them discover ways of handling conflicts while ultimately assisting them get better accorded normal child status rather than a retarded person. Other children with normal hearing abilities benefit from having to interact with pupils with certain deficiencies since they get to learn how to deal with diversity as well as having amiable tolerance for the less fortunate in the society. The children will also acknowledge the cliché that ‘disability is not inability’ as they get to appreciate the other unique talents of their peers with hearing impairments. [See Table for summary of advantages] Table 2 Source:www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/ Whether to have a child integrated in the mainstream schools category should be based on the particular child’s educational needs rather the needs of the school to seem accommodating. A pupil can either be progressively assessed on whether to be gradually integrated with others, or partially by special arrangement of exclusive teaching in a mainstream school, or taken to the special needs school altogether (Farrell, 2006). Globally the obligation towards inclusion of children with disabilities into mainstream schools has taken root in a number of countries propelled by various UN resolutions and conventions. This includes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993) and the UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement (1994). Among those countries that have embraced the system, include Canada, India, UK, US, and South Africa among others (Rustemier, 2003) A 1999 report by OECD countries asserted that inclusion of pupils with disabilities into mainstream schools has now become established in many more countries globally. The report thus recommends that educational needs be integrated according to the needs of the pupils rather than those of the school. In Italy, there is almost full inclusion at 99.9 percent as in Canada’s New Brunswick province where all schools are of mainstream classification. research by Icelandic local authorities have revealed that teaching a disables pupil in a mainstream school with special aids has similar outlays as using special schools, while World Bank and OECD studies reveal that operating dual systems is more costly than having a singular mainstream school system (Simpson, 2004); (CSIE, 2008); (Cline and Frederickson, 2002); (Rustemier, 2003). Ideal School Setting for Deaf Pupils I. Infrastructure and Props In ideal school structure, there must be provisions for all the children’s ‘health, welfare and safety’, which can be availed through a good plan design. The school design must encompass safety and security of the pupils, creating good visual lines, evading re-entrant or secreted sections. All the stakeholders including pupils, teachers and support staff health and comfort must be well provided. Communication props through professional facilities must be erected to form a communication friendly environment; including sensory impairments, stimulus objects hence evolve a relaxing classroom. According to the DfES Building Bulletin77, other building design provisions crucial for an ideal school setting should encompass mobility and access necessary to accommodate the SENs special equipment, including frames and other aids. Similarly, the design ensures SENs behavioural growth is augmented to ease complications involving those with SENs thus allowing movement and expression, social awareness and involvement, as well as providing spiritual support to these children (DfES, 2005). The Department of Education and Science in Ireland has proposed a combined classroom design for ‘primary and post primary with a surface area totalling 470 m² for primary schools and 552 m² for post primary schools’ respectively. This design will generally incorporate two classrooms measuring 70m² that are connected via a central playground in the region. Supplementary spaces are provided which include a personal withdrawal room off each classroom, support toileting and other facilities like stores, office among others. The exterior has a playing area, sensory garden and additional parking space (Greville, 2009). II. Curriculum The St. Bartholomew’s Church of England Primary School has proposed three critical objectives crucial in providing a good education through incorporation in a school’s curriculum. These include creating appropriate settings and educational challenges, reacting to student’s assorted educational requirements, surmounting over budding impediments to education and appraisals for specific students or groups of students (St. Bartholomew’s, 2006). The Doncaster School for the Deaf has modelled its curriculum along the guidelines proposed by OFSTED. The OFSTED has advocated for early teaching of the British Sign Language (BSL) or English to deaf students, which assist in enhancing their inner language development and communication effectiveness in view of their status (Doncaster School for the Deaf, 2009). III. Classroom Ratio The National Disability Authority (NDA) of Ireland called for a reduction in the number of pupils in a classroom, which tend to militate against SENs whose needs are obscured due to lack of spaces. The maximum recommendation was for a 20:1 ratio to cater for the needs of these SENs. Mainstream schools with inclusion policies must make provision for support for SENs including their special needs assistants (SNA) who provided an essential service to the children within the schools. Grimes and Cameron (2005) however noted the inadequacies of having some SNA interpreters forced to translate complex subjects, who are ill trained to handle all academic subjects. IV. Appraisal Levels In the lower school levels, Pfau (2005) has questioned the rationale used in the assessment in mainstream schools for the SENs who regard English as second language after the sign language, hence can be graded below their peers though of higher intelligence (Pfau, 2005). Powers (2007) however asserts that the contextual value added model (See Table: 2 above) can effectively appraise the performance of individual students. V. Children Rights The rights of education for every child are enshrined under Article 24 (Education) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006), which asserts that all children are entitled to basic education. The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) recommends that, ‘as a matter of law or policy, the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise’ (Save the Children, 2003, p. 28). Burns (2006) has outlined some of the acute problems faced by the over 90 percent deaf children who attend mainstream schools in Scotland, including low self-esteem, lack of identity, poor friendship and isolation, classroom education problems, and inadequately trained teachers who lack of communication skills translate into the deaf pupil appearing unintelligent. VI. Acceptance and Integration To ease the integration of deaf pupils in the mainstream schools, Grimes & Cameron (2005) have described the new trend among schools in Scotland, which are adapting an ‘inclusive’ rather than ‘integration’ model. A teacher expressed that, ‘All staff work towards inclusion rather than integration. With integration, the child fits into the school. With inclusion, the school adjusts to the child’ (HMIE, 2002, Pg.8). Teachers of deaf children are encouraged to utilise questioning techniques constantly to ascertain whether the pupils are following the lessons in view of their impairments. Conclusion The advantages of having an integrated learning atmosphere can be mainly summed up by the need to avoid having parallel systems of education which tends to cast some children as not being ‘normal’ due to their apparent lack of physical in capabilities. The deficiency in some senses or abilities mostly does not translate into an individual being unintelligent hence with an inclusive policy; children can be assimilated into the mainstream faster, which gives them an advantage over their counterparts secluded in the formal learning atmosphere. Nonetheless, inclusion should be accompanied by a careful analysis of an individual pupil’s perceived impairments to avoid aggravating the problem within the mainstream environment. The advice of specialists and consent of the parents must also be taken into consideration before thrusting the child into a possible turbulent challenging system. Careful scrutiny of the infrastructure needed to integrate the disabled children must be undertaken, including erecting acoustics, visual and audio aids, among others. Similarly, the instructors or teachers plus the accompanying assistants must properly trained to ensure proper learning environment. References BATD. (2007). Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People. London: British Association of Teachers of the Deaf. BBC. (2006). School Inclusion Can Be Abuse. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from BBC Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4774407.stm.html Burns, E. (2006). Including deaf children in mainstream schools . Edinburgh: NDCS/Scottish Sensory Centre (SSC). Cameron, M. G. (1st - 4th August 2005.). Inclusion of Deaf Pupils in Scotland: Achievements, Strategies and Services. Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? Glasgow, Scotland: The University of Edinburgh . Charman, A. (2006). How Do We Fight Against School Failure and How Do We Remedy Its Consequences. Slovene: Centre Republic of Slovenia. Cline, N. F. (2002). Special educational needs inclusion and diversity:a textbook. Buckingham: Open University Press. CSIE. (2008). Including Disabled Children in Mainstream Schools. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education: http://www.csie.org.uk/disabled-children.shtml Conrad, R. (1979) The Deaf School Child.  London, England: Harper and Row. DFEE. (1998). Value Added Project . Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Department for Education and Employment Online: http://www.dfee.gov.uk/performance/vap-98.htm DfES. (2005). Designing for Pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities in Schools. London: BUILDING BULLETIN 77: Department for Education and Skills. Doncaster School for the Deaf. (2009). Draft School Prospectus: 25th February 2009. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Deaf-school.com/: http://www.deaf-school.com/school-prospectus.html Excutive, S. (2004). Advisory Committee: Report into the Education of Children with Severe Low Incidence Disabilities. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Scotland Goverment Online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc04/ridm-00.htm Farrell, M. (2006). Inclusion is not always right. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from TSL Education Ltd: http://www.tes.co.uk/publications.aspx?navcode=91/article.aspx.html Greville, E. (2009). Including Pupils with Special Educational Needs in Schools in Ireland. OECD: CELE Exchange 2009/1 , Pp.1-5. Halpin, T. (2006). Mainstream schools cant manage special needs pupils, say teachers. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from Times Online Services:: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article719849.ece.html HMIE (2002) Count Us In: Achieving Inclusion in Scottish Schools’. Edinburgh, The Stationery O John ffice. MacBeath, M. G. (2006). The cost to pupils and staff of inclusion in mainstream schools of children with SEN. London: National Union of Teachers; Cambridge University Report. Kent, B. (2006). They Only See It When the Sun Shines in My Ears: Exploring Perceptions of Adolescent Hearing Aid Users. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , Vol.11(4): Pp.461-476. Marian Grimes, E. D. (2007). Language Approaches Used With Deaf Pupils in Scottish Schools: 2001–2004. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , Volume 15 Issue 1. NASET. (2007). Hearing Impairment Topic Categories. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from National Association of Special Education Teachers: http://www.naset.org/exceptionalstudents/hearingimpairments2.0.htm NDA, N. D. (2005). Special Education Provision for Children with Disabilities in Irish Primary Schools – the Views of Stakeholders. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from National Disability Authority: http://www.nda.ie/primary_ed_report_04.htm#header NDCS. (2008). Must do better! Barriers to Achievement by Deaf Children. London: National Deaf Children’s Society. OFSTED. (2006). Inclusion: Does It Matter Where Pupils Are Taught? . Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Ofsted.gov.uk : http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/ OFSTED. (2009). Twelve outstanding special schools – Excelling through inclusion. London: OFSTED. Parkstone Grammar School. (2007). Policy for Meeting Education Needs. Parkstone Grammar School. Pfau, J. (2005). Classroom Interpreting: Parents - Case Studies: Exploring Different Perspectives on Educational Interpreting. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from Classroominterpreting.org: http://www.classroominterpreting.org/Pfau.asp.html Ponessa, R. L. (2005). Long Range Facilities Planning and Design Implementation for Students with Disabilities: A Guide for New Jersey School Districts. Newark, New Jersey: Education Law Center. Powers, S. (2007). The Educational Attainments of Deaf Pupils: A Discussion Paper on Data Currently Available. London: The British Association of Teachers of the Deaf. R. G. Baker, A. C. (1986). Television and Video Technology in the Education of Deaf Children. British Journal of Audiology , Vol. 20, No. 2, Pages 101-113 . Rustemier, S. (2003). Inclusive Education - A Worldwide Movement. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from CSIE: Inclusion Week: http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/inclusionweek/articles/worldwide.htm Save the Children. (2003). Schools for All: Including Disabled Children in Education. London: Save the Children. SCAA, (1997). The Value Added Project. Report to the Secretary of Sate, School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) London Simpson, P. (2004). Special Educational Needs and Disability: Towards Inclusive Schools. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from BATOD: http://www.batod.org.uk/index.php?id=%2Farticles%2Finclusion Smith, R. M. (2003). Report on a survey of Itinerant Teachers of the Deaf of ‘High’ & ‘Very High Needs’ Deaf Students in Mainstream Schools. Auckland, NZ: Deaf Studies Research Unit - Research Report No. 2, . St. Bartholomew’s. (2006). Policy for Inclusion. North Tyneside: St. Bartholomew Church of England Primary School. Standley, L. (2005). Sociolinguistic Perspectives on the Education of Deaf Children in Inclusion Placements. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. Pp. 2181-2188). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Stillman, I. (2002). May 2002 Parliamentary Report - Lords Hansard Text . London: UK Council on Deafness. Teacher Training Agency. (1999). National Special Educational Needs Specialist Standards. London: National SEN Specialist Standards. Terezinha Nunes, U. P. (2005). Deaf children’s social relationships in mainstream schools. Journal of Deaf Education International, , Vol 3, Pp.123-136. Terezinha Nunes, U. P. (2005). Deaf Children’s Social Relationships in Mainstream Schools. Journal of Deaf Education International , Vol. 3/, Pp.123-136. Thompson, J. R. (2002). Perceptions of Social Adjustment of Hearing-Impaired Pupils in an Integrated Secondary School Unit . Educational Psychology in Practice, , Volume 18, Issue 1 March 2002 , Pp. 21 - 34 . Tony Cline, G. d. (2002). Minority Ethnic Pupils in Mainly White Schools. Luton: University of Luton: Research Report RR365. UNICEF. (2006). Children with disabilities: get involved! - Draft Disability Convention. Geneva: UNICEF/Voices of Youth. WELLS, A. G. (1937). An Estimate of the Incidence of Defective Hearing in England and Wales: With Special Reference to A Deaf Persons Act. The British Medical Journal , Pp. 18-20. Williams, D. (2005). The delegation of SEN expenditure to schools in Wiltshire: A report of the conference for schools’ representatives held on 21 October 2005. Wiltshire Schools Conference on SEN Delegation (pp. 0900 - 1230). Wiltshire: The Corn Exchange, Devizes. Read More