This year’s Spring Biannual meeting was held in a somewhat celebratory mood, marking the 30th anniversary of EASNIE. While everyone involved with the work feels immensely proud of EASNIE’s work, it seems clear that on one front we still need to push harder, and that is in exposing more people to EASNIE, its work and the resources it produces. So, if you are reading this, please do share with young people, parent / carers, teachers and early years practitioners, school leaders, and policy makers.
The anniversary has sharpened the focus of EASNIE’s work, and I believe the words of the Director powerfully echo the direction of travel set by our own Government in the recent SEND reform proposals (not withstanding reservations many in the sector have over some of them): to foster environments where every learner is valued, supported and empowered. EASNIE has created an anniversary programme of events, including a series of webinars focussed on different aspects of inclusive practice – all are free to watch and available through the link.
Crucially, the anniversary has promoted a future-thinking posture, and EASNIE has produced a document setting out the principles, or pillars, required for inclusive system transformation, in the form of its Ten Pillars Shaping The Future Of Inclusive Education document. Addressing aspects related to the social and human ‘core’; Transformation of learning; and System conditions, these pillars can act as guidance for those considering reforming education systems with a view to becoming more inclusive – so suggested reading for us here in England. It will not provide the specific policies needed in any given country but can certainly provide a benchmark to test proposed reforms against.
The Biannual took place in sunny Larnaca, Cyprus, and as always included in the opening session, a presentation on the data EASNIE generates, known as EASIE (European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education). Statistics are not always easy (if you’ll excuse the overused pun) for the lay person to relate to, but a recent report summarising data generating over the years 2018-2023 is useful, I think, in assessing system-level trends in Europe and considering their relevance to the realities we see in England, as well as policy directions. There is much to consider in the report, but here are a couple of things which caught my eye:
Falling numbers of pupils in primary education. This phenomenon is recognised in England as well, and has been a cause for concern for many, especially in regard to associated funding ‘per head’. However, EASNIE points out the potential to leverage this change in its policy recommendation: Stagnation or even decline in the number of learners at primary education level provides an opportunity to leverage the existing human, financial and material resources for inclusive education. This, incidentally, is very similar to the message from Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the NAHT, in a recent Schools Week article, where he pointed to the “real opportunity here for the government to use these population changes to deliver positive benefits, like smaller class sizes and its ambition of more SEND inclusion in mainstream”.
Separate placements of learners grew faster within than outside mainstream schools. This means that across EASNIE member countries there is an increase in the use of separated classes within mainstream settings. EASNIE considers the provision of education in these settings ‘non-inclusive because it is not in line with the 80% time benchmark or the various proxies for this benchmark’. This is a helpful reminder to us in England as we consider the push for expansion of the newly termed Inclusion Bases: while they offer an opportunity to meet a greater variety of needs within mainstream, they also carry an inherent risk of becoming spaces of ‘internal segregation’.
The key session during the Larnaca Biannual was run by Dr Alyssa Alcorn, and centred on the topic of neurodiversity in the classroom. In England, this is an important issue to consider, given one in three pupils with an EHC plan are identified with a primary need of ASD (more on the terminology in a moment). It is striking that, unlike other ‘primary needs’ (aside from PMLD and SLD), a larger proportion of those diagnosed with ASD have an EHCP that those on SEN Support. One obvious question this data raises is, are mainstream schools simply not built, structured and run in a way that is likely to suit a neurodiverse pupil body?
Our session touched upon these questions and set out clearly what the ‘neurodiversity paradigm’ is and what it means for practice. As a paradigm it shares some important tenets with the social model of disability, in that it sees neurodiversity as a natural, positive aspect of wider human diversity. It further rejects the normative assumption that there is a ‘right’, ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’ kind of mind, or learning. The social model rests upon contrasting the notions of impairment and disability; this is harder to do when discussing neurodiversity, but the neurodiversity paradigm does have a stance on disability: some neurodivergent people will be disabled; not all, and it will depend on their view of themselves, their environment and circumstances (health and other).
There is a complicated relationship between the neurodiversity paradigm approach and neurodevelopmental diagnoses: in short, the latter is rooted in the medical, ‘pathology’ paradigm, and so we see many people shifting between the two approaches and sets of terms, think of educational psychologists, for example, using ASD on formal correspondences (and as I did above, reflecting the terminology used in DfE data) but the neurodiversity language when speaking to family members. Dr Alcorn made the important point that we are not saying the same thing when we speak of a neurodevelopmental disorder versus saying someone is neurodivergent. The former implies a ‘deficit’; the latter is an expression of a characteristic.
The key takeaway from the lecture and following conversations was that education systems must consider how well they are designed in their physical structures, routines and regimes for a wide range of needs associated with neurodiversity; namely, for differences in information processing, sensory processing, social interactions, and communication styles and needs. With that in mind, here are a couple of handy resources to support better fitting environments: an open-access programme to support children to understand neurodiversity; and a whole-school toolkit to support inclusive policies round neurodiversity and belonging. And, lastly, don’t be the one making this mistake: an individual cannot be ‘neurodiverse’ – that is a characteristic of a group (and pretty much all groups are); individuals within a group might be ‘neurodivergent’, by which we commonly mean that their traits diverge from those of the majority.
As is custom, we were treated to a cultural evening by the Cypriot Ministry of education: a guided walking tour through Larnaca, ending on the lovely promenade and marina, followed by traditional dancing and a gigantic meal in a traditional tavern. Our tour guide didn’t shy away from reflecting on the complicated relationship between the Cypriot Greek community and their Turkish neighbours; for many tourists in the country, it is sometimes a forgotten fact that Cyprus is a divided country, with a capital divided by a UN buffer zone. In the world of SEND, it’s important to remember there is always much to celebrate and be thankful for, for example all of the brilliant parent / carers and professionals working for better outcomes – see here for a wealth of examples of good practice in a collaboration between EASNIE and UNESCO. We do, of course, remember that not all of our children and young people are currently enjoying the educational experience they deserve. Similarly, there was plenty of pride and beauty (and grilled meat) on display during our Cypriot evening; but also, a reminder that this small country still faces unresolved political strife. Here’s to good news on both fronts. Yassou.
