This year’s autumn Biannual took place in Bratislava, Slovakia, and my first reflection came about before I even arrived in the designated country. As it happened, timings of flights meant that it would be easier for me to fly into Vienna airport and take a bus from there to Bratislava. Indeed, that section of the journey, crossing the border and arriving in midtown Bratislava, was quicker than my commute from my home in North London to our offices in Hackney. As the Director of EASNIE mentioned in his remarks to the conference, the geopolitical reality is that there are discernible differences in relation to approaches to inclusion internationally (think for example of the US – Europe divide re Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies). The geographical closeness I personally experienced highlighted the importance of European unity around the concept of inclusion, with all its moral weight.
On day one, we had our exchange session which this time was titled ‘Inclusive pedagogy, curriculum and assessment’. It was exquisitely timed, just hours after the publication of the Curriculum and assessment review final report. I took the opportunity to ask my European colleagues a question which grounds much of the debate around the intersect of SEND, policy and practice: what curricular framework might support inclusion for all while acknowledging and attending to significant differences within a classroom? Or, more simply: how can a curriculum support a variety of needs while still being meaningful and ambitious for all?
What follows is by no means a robust, academically valid survey, but anecdotally, in the room we had three approaches:
- The English and Dutch systems, rely on prescriptive curricular frameworks, which include specified age-related expectations (statutory expectations relating to taught content at every year group and key stage). While having the advantage of setting clear standards and supporting sequential learning, the age-related expectations mean that some pupils will fall below them and potentially disengage. There is a worry, that such a curriculum becomes a mechanism for stratification. And, of course, this curriculum does not cater for those who are not able to reach even the first step on it, for example learners who require a non-linear, functional programme of learning. In these systems, then, the curriculum in effect sets the boundaries of inclusion. The Curriculum and Assessment Review report calls for guidance on adaptive teaching to ensure those with SEND are able to engage with the curriculum – a lot will ride on this if the curriculum is to better serve learners of all abilities.
- The Austrian model: following the evolution of special education in Austria, a number of curricula are available, corresponding to types of impairment and diagnoses: an impairment-specific curricular framework. ‘Transporting’ the separate curricula of special schools into the mainstream system is intended to answer the question we posed – to facilitate inclusion. In practice, often pupils in mainstream schools will be instructed separately from their peers, for example, those with ‘intellectual disabilities’ or ‘mild cognitive impairments’. While offering a degree of individualised content and approach, this also risks creating a de-facto within-school segregation.
- The Welsh – Icelandic model, where the curriculum sets out a set of competencies without the strict age-related expectations. These curricular frameworks place an emphasis on progression which is understood as being individual in its pace, as set out in clear terms in the Welsh framework – “While there may be particular threshold concepts that represent a significant shift in a learner’s understanding, these are not linked to specific ages, nor will they happen at the same time in different Areas for individual learners”. This means that all learners, and particularly those with additional needs (ALN in the Welsh terminology), can learn at a pace suited to them without facing the prospect of being labelled as ‘failing’. The Icelandic curriculum similarly works around the concept of competencies with only broad expectations set for wide age brackets (grades 4, 7 and 10). Schools and teachers have the autonomy to set the assessment methodology, without state-set, standardised assessments. The Icelandic framework encourages varied forms of assessment, including pupil self-assessment. Both these systems see assessment as predominantly an ongoing formative assessment for learning. These two systems, then, use the curriculum as a broad guide to learning, tasking teachers to adapt it (potentially in a very significant way) to the individual abilities in their class. This system draws some criticism on the grounds of concerns regarding consistency, rigour, and outcomes (in the context of PISA scores). Other concerns centre on the huge task of curriculum design for a diverse pupil body and the question if teachers have been well enough enabled to carry this out.
It must be put on record, no representative in the room felt their system was perfect.
The upcoming and delayed White Paper is now expected early in the new year. We don’t have any detail on what it will include, but we do know from the principles which have been set out for the reforms, that the intention is to increase inclusive practice in mainstream schools. One implication might be, that in time, fewer pupils will attend specialist provision as their needs will be adequately identified and met in mainstream. On the last day of the Biannual, during a conference dedicated to inclusive education in the host country of Slovakia, I came across an interesting initiative by the Ministry of Education, which aims at transitioning pupils from special schools to mainstream. The key to this enterprise is the precise target group. In this case, it relates to learners from the Roma community, who have been diagnosed with moderate learning disability. While the language used here – ‘desegregation’ – might feel loaded to some, the project does possibly shine a light on the potential to assertively question if particular groups genuinely require to be educated separately.
The Slovakian context is different from ours, but the concept of targeting a specific group for inclusion, using an intersectional lens to do so, seems a helpful one. It will require, of course, some nuanced and intentional use of data. EASNIE has been attending to the question of data as well, as part of the Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Inclusive Education Policy project. While the debate in England continues around how might we best use data and accountability to ensure better outcomes for all learners (think Ofsted reforms; the role of LAGESCO), EASNIE articulated a number of key points for what is meaningful evidence which chime, I think, with what we require here as we reform the SEND system. Amongst the key points: connecting lost learning and school exclusions with long-term outcomes; evidence that is co-produced with excluded learners; seeking new sources of evidence and data which reflect what inclusion means, such as participation and belonging. For those interested in data collection and accountability, Dr Verity Donnelley sets out in a video key principles in understanding the importance of data collection for accountability and use of data in inclusive education.
As we ended the conference, EASNIE’s Director, Joao Costa shared an intriguing thought as a call to action: it wasn’t that long ago that left-handedness was considered an impairment requiring ‘correction’. Joao made the point that as those attitudes have changed, so we should we be steadfast in changing approaches to SEND, and more broadly difference and diversity. He shared an image of a book, which appears ridiculous today – I hope this gives some hope to all of you carrying the weight of the fight for inclusion.
