Children with learning difficulties need their special schools

[Canopus]

Children with learning difficulties need their special schools

 

by Tina Wingfield

 

THERE IS overwhelming support among primary and secondary school teaching staff for the re-establishment of special educational needs schools.

 

A survey published last month by the Times Educational Supplement found that two-thirds of secondary headteachers say some of their pupils should be in special schools and four out of five teachers want an end to the closure of special schools.

 

The survey comes close on the heels of a spectacular U-turn by a prominent pioneer of the 'inclusion' concept, which led to the mass closure of well-performing special needs schools.

 

The woman behind the misguided policy of integrating pupils with learning difficulties in mainstream schools, Baroness Warnock, has now admitted that the system she helped to establish is failing both mainstream pupils and the special needs pupils it was supposed to help. In a complete turn-around, Baroness Warnock argues that rather than teaching all children in mainstream schools, more special schools should be established to effectively accommodate pupils with a range of learning difficulties.

 

In a polite rebuttal of the current P.C concept that equality is absolute, she points out that, "children are different, and it is essential to acknowledge this, since refusal to address genuine differences can wholly undermine our attempts to meet children's needs."

 

This Labour Government has championed integration policies and, in 2001, introduced the Special and Educational Needs Disability Act which states that the special educational needs of children will normally be met in mainstream schools. It is adherence to this principle that has forced local authorities to close down dedicated special schools - tailored to meet individual abilities and needs - and, instead, to channel all children into a uniform 'one size fits all' system.

 

Despite the evident disillusionment of the original proponents of the policy, outright opposition of teachers and a growing body of evidence that confirms the folly of forcing children with special needs into standard environments, Labour intends to intensify its 'inclusion' crusade and continue its closure of specialist schools.

 

But while the Government applauds its own politically correct credentials, our most needy children will continue to be deprived of the chance to attain the levels of progress that small-scale, individually tailored, specialist school environments are proven to deliver.

 

Published in December 2005 issue of Voice of Freedom magazine

[phasmid]

Canopus there are some bits of that I'd like to quote in my dissertation. Do you have a full reference for it by any chance? If not do you know where I might find a link to this journal?

[DaisyProudfoot]

Well, it's very bold of her to hold her hands up and say: "OK, I was wrong" but how do we get the special schools back Hmmmmm?

[Canopus]

Canopus there are some bits of that I'd like to quote in my dissertation. Do you have a full reference for it by any chance? If not do you know where I might find a link to this journal?

 

Voice of Freedom is published by the British National Party and anybody can subscribe to the magazine.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Kris

[adamsmum]

Voice of Freedom is published by the British National Party and anybody can subscribe to the magazine.[/url]

 

 

One of my boys was taken out of special school we dident wont this but where told his place would end at the end of term and if we dident co-operate he would end up with no suport. My poor boy is now struggling. He has a classroom asistent but its also a social issue. He lashes out at other kids and his self asteem is at an all time low so yes we need to stop putting kids in mainsteem. sham it took so long for them to realise. I dout it will change enything

Edited December 21, 2005 by Kris

[phasmid]

Thanks Canopus

[mossgrove]

Voice of Freedom is published by the British National Party and anybody can subscribe to the magazine. [/url]

 

Canopus

 

 

At least we know where your recent wild ideas about 'Council Estate people' and demographic changes came from.

 

There is nothing in the article that I disagree with but it is a re-hash and re-spin of what has been in the papers for the last few weeks rather than an original piece of work.

 

We should not have links to the BNP web site on the forum. This site is assocuated woth tolerance and respect, not the odius aims of an organisation like the BNP.

 

I am going to drop off this form for a while now to calm down, but I am VERY uncomfortable that this thread is being used to promote the BNP as much as it is to promote the views in the article, and I would find it vey hard to stay a member this forum if stays there with the links intact.

 

Simon

Edited December 21, 2005 by Kris

[Kris]

Canopus

 

 

At least we know where your recent wild ideas about 'Council Estate people' and demographic changes came from.

 

There is nothing in the article that I disagree with but it is a re-hash and re-spin of what has been in the papers for the last few weeks rather than an original piece of work.

 

We should not have links to the BNP web site on the forum. This site is assocuated woth tolerance and respect, not the odius aims of an organisation like the BNP.

 

I am going to drop off this form for a while now to calm down, but I am VERY uncomfortable that this thread is being used to promote the BNP as much as it is to promote the views in the article, and I would find it vey hard to stay a member this forum if stays there with the links intact.

 

Simon

 

All

 

I have removed the links to the BNP which have no place on this forum. I do however understand that the article in itself is not in anyway offensive and therefore will not remove this thread (just the link)

 

If you require the link then please PM the original poster.

 

I hope you understand my position on this.

 

Regards,

 

Kris

[mossgrove]

Thanks Kris.

 

Simon

[pumpkinpie]

I dont agree that special schools are the correct option for all chidlren with learning diffficulties. Likewise I do not thisnk the policy of including all sen children in mainstream is correct. Children and families need and deserve choice, whether its units within mainstream, special mainstream etc. Its time we looked at whats going on in other counties as many offer much more flexibility and choice for families. Our kids deserve much more than the inflexible and oppressive system now which cares more about protecting budgets and staff than the best education for special kids.

[mossgrove]

The survey comes close on the heels of a spectacular U-turn by a prominent pioneer of the 'inclusion' concept, which led to the mass closure of well-performing special needs schools.

 

The woman behind the misguided policy of integrating pupils with learning difficulties in mainstream schools, Baroness Warnock, has now admitted that the system she helped to establish is failing both mainstream pupils and the special needs pupils it was supposed to help. In a complete turn-around, Baroness Warnock argues that rather than teaching all children in mainstream schools, more special schools should be established to effectively accommodate pupils with a range of learning difficulties.

 

In a polite rebuttal of the current P.C concept that equality is absolute, she points out that, "children are different, and it is essential to acknowledge this, since refusal to address genuine differences can wholly undermine our attempts to meet children's needs."

 

This isn't actually true.

 

She continues to believe that the overall aims of the inclusion policy were correct, but that in certain cases (particularly for children with Autism) the policy of inclusion may have gone too far. She has neither rebutted or u-turned the original aims of her report all those years ago. For many children, especially those with other diabilities, inclusion is definitely the preferred option and she has not u-turned on that or used the term 'political correctness'.

 

So I think the article has over-dramatised the point for journalistic effect.

 

Interstingly the number of children in special schools has remained static for the last few years.

 

Simon

Edited December 21, 2005 by mossgrove

[bookwyrm]

This report actually came out several months ago and had nothing to do with the BNP. If those sad stupid people are trying to use it for their own ends it is a shame, but should not distract from the point that someone at last is doing something to save the option of special schools for children for whom they will provide the best environment. Inclusion is a very nice idea, but the reality is that schools in general are not the happy welcoming places that they would need to be to make that nice idea come to fruition. It would cost more money not less to make it work, but it is being supported as the powers that be think it would save money. A balance needs to be available so every child can have access to a suitable placement whether mainstream or special school - and don't forget home education, that is often the best option, although not in every case.