Making Exclusion Visible —
Language, Labels and Attitudes
by Dr Caroline Jones
With an increased emphasis on the role of children’s centres in early intervention and early help, it is timely for all those agencies and practitioners engaging with children and families to remind themselves of the influence of language and labels on values, beliefs and attitudes towards those identified as somehow different from perceived ‘norms’. As the position of children’s centres and linked services continues to evolve, there is an opportunity for leaders to develop their centres into hubs of high quality, diverse and inclusive practices, striving to reduce exclusion, and support each family so that children have the best possible chance to reach their individual potential.
Children’s centre leaders are working in a context where as many as one in five children, are described by professionals as ‘having’ ‘special educational needs’ and/or disabilities (SEND). But what does this term mean in relation to your own role, who decides which children’s needs are ‘special’, and what are the consequences of being identified as ‘special’?
HISTORICAL REFERENCES
Various formal and informal labels have been assigned to children perceived as different from the ‘norm’ in an attempt, firstly to segregate, and later to integrate into existing patterns of provision. As seen in Table 1: The Changing Language of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, terms such as ‘mentally defective’ or ‘backward’, regarded as divisive and stigmatising, have gradually been replaced with ostensibly more enlightened labels. Have these new labels resulted in any fundamental change of attitude and approach to difference, or is it simply the same book with a new cover?
WHO HAS SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS?
The term ‘special educational needs’ was officially introduced in the 1981 Education Act, following a recommendation in the Warnock Report (DES 1978). In an attempt to move away from a narrow focus on labelling, categorisation and decisions about where children should be educated the Report recommended the abolition of the eleven official categories of ‘handicap’ established in 1945 (Table 1), and the introduction of a broad more flexible umbrella term ‘special educational needs’ (SEN). The result was the expansion of the child population that came under the ‘special’ umbrella from 2% to 20% of the school population. Although viewed as a radical step forward, the term SEN was unclear, relative and contextual. Even Baroness Warnock herself, later admitted ‘The concept of ‘special need’ carries a fake objectivity. For one of the main, indeed almost overwhelming difficulties, is to decide whose need is special and what ‘special means’ (Warnock, 1982, p.372).
Even without taking account of various sub-categories, not included in Table 1, for example, Dyslexia and Dyspraxia, there are more labels than ever before, and children can, of course, still fall into more than one category. Research is continually producing new labels within labels, for example Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) syndrome, a sub-category of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). How do these labels impact positively or negatively on the child and family and how do they influence your own professional values and attitudes?
A MEDICAL MODEL
Attempts to categorise children reflect the dominance of what is commonly known as the ‘medical’ or ‘within child’ model of disability, where the child is perceived as having a problem or defect, somehow abnormal. Mason (1992, p.23) summarises this view of SEND:
A medical problem, belonging to the individual concerned, which needs treating, curing or at lease ameliorating. It is fundamental to the philosophy of segregation which separates young children from each other on the basis of their medical diagnoses, and the designs of a curriculum aimed at ‘normalising’ the child as far as possible.
These quotes from my own interviews with professionals illustrate the influence of the medical model on professional attitudes towards difference:
‘As soon as we realise the children have obviously got problems which will be over and above the average children’
‘You can see those who aren’t picking things up and you realise they have got a problem’
‘Early identification is essential … if you don’t catch it while it’s young and sort it out, it becomes a bigger problem later on. You must get them up to the skills of their peers.
A mother of a four-year old diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, was also influenced by the notions of ‘special’ and ‘normal’, emotionally stating that,
‘I love him to bits, but I’d love him to be, I’ll be crying in a minute,…I’d love him to be normal but…although it’s years, I still find it hard.’ (Jones, 2000)
Most categories in the SEND Code of Practice (DES and DoH 2015) are expressed in terms of ‘difficulty’ or disorder’ re-inforcing the view that SEND comes from within a child rather than being associated with external factors.
A SOCIAL MODEL
The medical model fails to consider external factors, for example, the family context or interaction with learning environments as influential in the creation or exacerbation of ‘need’. Alternative ‘social’ models of SEND suggest children’s special educational needs may be caused or exacerbated by interaction with external environments, including schools, curricula, families, and communities. In spite of this there has been no change to the official definition of the term SEN since the Education Act (1981). The SEND Code of Practice, uses the original definition, stating that:‘A pupil has SEN where their learning difficulty or disability calls for special educational provision, namely provision different from or additional to that normally available to pupils of the same age…’ (DoH DES 2015 para 6.15).
This definition remains unhelpful and depends on the provision normally available, as well as the ‘learning difficulty’ being relative to the abilities of the other children of the same age.
Nevertheless, the Code (DES & DoH 2015 para 6.15) does acknowledge that, in primary school, the quality of teaching may be a factor.
‘Making higher quality teaching normally available to the whole class is likely to mean that fewer pupils will require such support.’ (DoH DES 2015 Para 6.15)
This suggests that where there is appropriate support and provision, for all children, the numbers of children described as SEN will reduce. The move away from viewing SEND as an individual deficit to a model that considers the wider context is encapsulated in the concepts of ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive practice’.
INCLUSION AND INCLUSIVE PRACTICES
It is now widely accepted that schools and early years’ settings, including children’s centres, should be inclusive of children described as having SEND. According to Booth and Ainscow, (2002) inclusion involves two complementary processes, firstly, increasing participation and secondly, reducing exclusionary pressures. They suggest organisations promote inclusion along three dimensions, by creating inclusive cultures; developing inclusive practices and producing inclusive policies. However, it is important to remember inclusion is not the exclusive remit of ‘special educational needs’ and disability, but refers to the vast array of social, cultural and linguistic diversity, indeed the uniqueness of every child and family context.
HAS ‘SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS’ OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS?
Even by using the term SEND in this article, I am aware I am contributing to the survival of this outdated official label. Equally, I am not suggesting a non-labelling stance or denial of difference and disability but a reconsideration of how labels, language and ‘problem’ or ‘vulnerable’ children and families are constructed, and consideration of the contextual factors that lead to children and families being put in one pigeon hole or another. Children’s centres are well-placed to develop an inclusive vocabulary based on the rights of every child and family. This leads to a situation where every child is special but ‘none so extraordinary as to merit exclusion’ (Hegarty, 1993, p.67).
References
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for Inclusion. Bristol, England: CSIE.
Department of Education and Science (DES) (1978) Special Educational Needs Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children (The Warnock Report)
Department of Education and Science, Department of Health (2015) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice 0–25 Years. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25
Hegarty, S. (1993) Making the Ordinary School Special. London, England: Cassell.
Jones, C. (2004) Supporting Inclusion in the Early Years. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Jones, C. (2015) The language of special educational need: learning from the past to build the future in Reed, M. and Walker, R. A Critical Companion to Early Childhood, London, England: Sage Publications.
Masson, M. (1992) The integration alliance: background and manifesto in T.Booth, V. Swann, M. Masterson and P. Potts (eds) Policies for Diversity in Education. London, England: Routledge.
Tomlinson, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education. London, England, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Warnock, M. (1982) Children with special needs in ordinary schools: integration revisited, Education Today, 32 (3) p.56–61.
Dr Caroline Jones is an Associate Fellow and Consultant at the University of Warwick. She has worked for the Open University and is a guest lecturer on a variety of Early Years Programmes in England and abroad. Caroline, a former primary teacher and nursery inspector, works as a freelance consultant and owns a small group of nurseries in the West Midlands.
