The impact of the National Curriculum on twelve special schools in England

Abstract

The National Curriculum represents one of the most significant UK educational reforms of this century. However, it was planned and introduced with little reference to pupils with special needs, particularly those attending special schools or units. Alongside pragmatic responses to the implementation of the National Curriculum in special education, there has been a lively and continuing debate about its appropriateness, in principle, for pupils in special schools. This paper reports data derived from interviews with headteachers of twelve special schools (encompassing three distinct special needs groups). Continuities of view, notably an acceptance of the principle of a national curriculum for all pupils, are discussed. Divergent Views reflected an adherence to equality or individuality as underlying educational principles. The findings are placed in two contexts: first, the process of curriculum change, and second, the links between integration and curricular conformity as reflected in some European special education literature.     

Children’s play behaviour and social communication in integrated special day-care groups

This paper considers the role of the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO), the teacher responsible for the implementation of policies relating to the teaching and learning of children with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools in England and Wales. SENCOs also have a role to play in the inclusion of children with learning difficulties/disabilities in mainstream schools. Yet research indicates that despite the revision of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice in 2001, many SENCOs are still overwhelmed by the operational nature of the role with little support, time or funding to consider more strategic aspects of inclusion and SEN. The article draws on research by the author and offers the voices of SENCOs from two unitary authorities in the north of England which suggest that where the SENCO is supported by senior management within the school, the role can be a powerful one in relation to inclusion. It concludes by arguing that the role of the SENCO needs to be re‐conceptualized, redefined and remunerated as a senior management post within mainstream schools. If this were to be enforced by national policy, every mainstream school could have at least one powerful advocate for the inclusion of children with learning difficulties/disabilities.     

民办教育政策歧视现象分析

民办教育政策歧视有三条判别标准，即当平等处不予以平等、当差异处不予以差别对待、当补偿处不予以补偿。当前，我国民办教育政策歧视主要表现在学校税收、教师待遇、学生资助、学校办学自主权、特殊受教育群体补偿等方面，政策，中突、政策模糊和政策盲点是导致歧视发生的原因。     

NOTES ON ONGOING RESEARCH IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

ABSTRACT

With the support of Unicef and Unesco, the Romanian Ministry of Education has since 1993 been operating a programme to promote the educational and social integration of children and young people with special needs. In a comparatively short time the programme has grown from a pair of pilot projects to comprise a number of interactive elements which include a Joint European Project within the EU's TEMPUS programme, as well as provision for networking, and for describing, monitoring and generalizing experience of good practice. In this process a ‘philosophy’ of integration has developed which is appropriate to Romanian realities and which offers the possibility of an integration project to everyone concerned with special needs. The paper stresses the importance of the voluntary organizations and their new cooperative relationship with the institutions, and of the role of the universities in professional training. The paper ends with a discussion of the barriers and supports to integration, together with some conclusions about the significance and future of the programme.     

The 'new' politics of education in Britain's changing times

The British Labour Party has continued to make progress on education, following two broad policy paths and adopting a pragmatic approach that does not attempt to force these to cross or converge. One path is that of the quasi market inherited from the previous Conservative administration; the other is characterised as 'intervention' to support those for whom the market remains almost entirely irrelevant. Some observers regard this dual approach as 'opportunism' and Labour's education policy as a 'betrayal' of principle, by which is meant the principle of 'equal opportunity'. Of course, that principle provides equal opportunity to fail as much as to succeed. Rather than leaving education to the market, Labour has focused on the needs of those most likely to be failed by the principle of 'equal' opportunity in a quasi market.     

Cloning the Blairs: New Labour's programme for the re-socialization of working-class parents

In his speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in July 1999, the UK Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett, set out New Labour's vision for a system of education in which there is ‘excellence for the many not just the few’. He outlined what is essentially a bi-focal strategy for achieving this vision. The first focus is on the education system itself, the structures and practices that New Labour believes need to be in place if schools and services are going to meet the needs of all children and not just a privileged minority. The second focus is on the need to promote ‘a culture of achievement’, as, according to Blunkett, the vision ‘depends on changing attitudes as well as the system itself’. This paper focuses on this second strategy, more specifically the government's attempts to change the attitudes of parents. It is argued that this strategy aims to eradicate class differences by reconstructing and transforming working-class parents into middle-class ones, that it represents possibly the most important and far-reaching aspect of New Labour's policy agenda, and that it has not so far received the attention it deserves. The paper is in two parts. The first part sets out what is involved in New Labour's programme of re-socialization and explores the mechanisms by which New Labour is attempting to universalize the values, attitudes and behaviour of a certain fraction of middle-class parents. The second part develops a critique of this programme.     

Education,education and indoctrination! Packaging politics and the three ‘Rs’

This paper explores how recent Labour governments have tried systematically to package educational and other social policies for media presentation and public consumption. This concern has resulted in the criticism that Labour is concerned with policy presentation above content: strong on policy spin but weak on policy delivery. The first section explores Labour’s attempts to set a favourable agenda in news media for its educational policies by implementing a rigorous news management strategy: the subsequent section analyses Labour’s unprecedented use of advertising to promote key areas of government policy. There is a particular focus on government advertising in the run up to the 2001 general election. The paper concludes that governments’ increasing reliance on advertising may cross the line which should separate the provision of public information from any attempt to persuade the public to support particular policy choices.     

Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: using critical discourse analysis

A number of writers have drawn attention to the increasing importance of language in social life in ‘new times’ and Fairclough has referred to ‘discourse driven’ social change. These conditions have led to an increase in the use of various forms of discourse analysis in policy analysis. This paper explores the possibilities of using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in critical policy research in education, drawing on a larger research project which is investigating the equity implications of Education Queensland’s reform agenda. It is argued that, in the context of new times, CDA is of particular value in documenting multiple and competing discourses in policy texts, in highlighting marginalized and hybrid discourses, and in documenting discursive shifts in policy implementation processes. The last part of the paper discusses how such research might be used by policy activists inside and outside education department bureaucracies to further social democratic goals.     

The new ‘market‐state’ and education

This paper argues that changes at all levels of education and training (i.e., learning) policy exemplify a new capitalist state formation. This has been aptly named by US political scientist Philip Bobbitt (2002) ‘the new market‐state’, particularly with reference to its administration or ‘governance’. It can be seen especially in the governance of education and training where a new centralized system of contracting or devolving provision to ‘non‐governmental agencies’ has all but replaced the previous ‘national system locally administered’ (Ainley, ). The latter typified the administration of the classic post‐war welfare state, which Bobbitt calls the ‘nation‐state’. Like the former welfare state, the new ‘market‐state’ is also a capitalist state and, therefore, also the means to rule for a persisting capitalist ruling class (Roberts, , pp. 169–192). The new state formation is, however, as different as the former welfare state was in turn from pre‐war capitalist state forms in England. This is particularly clear when the new ‘settlement’ of education and training, imposed by the 1988 Education and 1992 Further and Higher Education Acts, is contrasted with the former welfare state ‘settlement’ established by the 1944 Education Act. In conclusion, implications for opposition to the ‘new market‐state’ are discussed.     

Complexity theory,the capability approach,and the sustainability of development initiatives in education

Abstract

We defend in this paper the importance of redistributing power in the field of education development by enhancing the self-sustainability of education initiatives and minimizing their roots in dependency – these as pre-requisites for improving their sustainable development outcomes. We do this by considering an education development initiative run by the Barefoot College in India, and then developing an explanatory model based in complexity theory (as expounded by Edgar Morin) and in the capability approach (as developed principally by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum). We conclude that such a redistribution of power would help to ensure that education is better connected to its development context, more relevant to the interests and needs of the community it serves, and its quality enhanced. More generally, we reinforce existing arguments – but from the perspective and imperative of sustainability – why it is in the interests of policy-makers to devolve power and to provide resources to such initiatives. Doing so would enhance governments’ prospects of realizing their education and social development goals. The arrogation of power and resources towards the centre, an almost natural impulse in policy-making, is, in the end, counter-productive, and threatens sustainable education and social development.