The undermentioned paper shall discourse the educational commissariats available for pupils with profound and complex demands. Such persons have severe cognitive and neurological disfunctions, which at times are besides accompanied by centripetal damages. Their rational degree can non be exhaustively assessed. They form a vulnerable group of individuals who are in demand of changeless aid, even to execute the most basic demands of eating and personal hygiene ( Arthur-Kelly et. al. , 2008 ) .
So what should be taught to the members of this group? Is it meaningful to follow the national course of study? Or should it be modified? What learning attacks should be used in order to maximize their acquisition and consciousness? Can these attacks be used in ordinary categories? And if so, will it impact negatively on the other non-disabled pupils? Should they be included in mainstream schools? These are some of the pungent and yet delicate statements which shall be tackled in the undermentioned paragraphs.
A1. What is Inclusive Education?
Article 26, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that instruction is a cardinal right of every human being ( United Nations, 1948 ) . The right to instruction is embraced by all since it opens the Gatess for employment chances ; enhances the quality of life ; gives authorization to the person ; and promotes equity in society ( Peters, 2007 ) .
‘All kids should hold entree to an appropriate instruction that affords them the chance to accomplish their personal potency ‘
( DfES 2001b:2 )
Inclusive instruction refers to the instruction of particular instruction demands ( SEN ) pupils together with their non-disabled equals in mainstream instruction schools. It values the right of all pupils to have ‘quality instruction with equal chances ‘ ; whereby they can take part in meaningful acquisition and therefore develop their full potency ( Peters, 2007:99 ) . Such schools shift their focal point from the construct of disablement and work to take barriers of engagement for all pupils ( Barton & A ; Armstrong, 2001 as cited in Ypinazar & A ; Pagliano, 2004 ) .
‘The end of inclusion is non to wipe out differences, but to enable all pupils to belong within an educational community that validates and values their individualism ‘
( Stainback et. al. , 1994 )
A primary papers which, identified that the manner frontward to make instruction for all is through ‘inclusive instruction ‘ , was the Salamanca Statement in 1994. It declares that every kid is diverse in his or her abilities and is hence alone. It goes on to state that chiefly:
‘Every kid has a cardinal right to instruction, and must be given the chance to accomplish and keep an acceptable degree of larning… .. Those with particular educational demands must hold entree to regular schools which should suit them within a child-centred teaching method capable of run intoing these demands ‘
( UNESCO, 1994, para 2 pp: eight )
The doctrine of the Salamanca Statement is underpinned by the societal theoretical account of disablement ; whereby larning troubles are non considered as the job to educational exclusion, but instead that the general instruction system needs to be antiphonal to the demands of all pupils ( Peters, 2007 ) .
A2. Historical Overview in the UK
Gone are the yearss when kids with physical and rational damage were labelled as being ‘ineducable ‘ , ‘idiots ‘ , or ‘defective ‘ ; and therefore segregated off into refuges for ‘imbeciles ‘ ( Pickles, 2004 ) .
The state of affairs started to take a better bend with the 1944 Education Act. It stated that handicapped kids had the right to have an instruction tailored harmonizing to their demands, nevertheless, this had to be done in particular scenes ; segregated off from their households and the remainder of the community ( Pickles, 2004 ) .
The Warnock Report in 1978 coined the term ‘special instruction demands ‘ ( SEN ) ; a term which included all those kids who had some type of rational and/or physical disablements. The study was a cardinal point in the history of inclusive instruction. The 1981 Education Act followed it. Both studies introduced a multi-disciplinary attack ; whereby representatives from the Education, Health and Social Services sectors, teamed up in order to pull an accurate profile of the kid, such that whenever possible the kid was included in mainstream categories. The Act besides empowered the parents or defenders in make up one’s minding on the type of instruction proviso for their kids. This statute law brought about a alteration in the composing of particular schools. More kids with mild to chair demands started to go to mainstream schools, go forthing their equals with profound and complex demands segregated in particular schools ( Pickles, 2004 ) .
Another two studies followed in 1992, in order to reexamine the aims of the 1981 Education Act. However, the Green paper, Excellence for All Children ( DfEE, 1997 ) and later the White Paper ‘Program for Action ‘ ( DfEE, 1998 ) were decisive, for these brought about the motion of the bulk of SEN pupils into mainstream schools. The documents besides addressed the fiscal resources of schools ; and therefore saw to the improved criterions in all schools.
A3. Inclusive Education at the bend of the twenty-first century
The Particular Educational Needs and Disability Act in 2001, together with The Particular Educational Needs Code of Practice ( DfES, 2001 ) were introduced, and emphasised the importance that local instruction governments ( LEAs ) should conform to the parents ‘ pick of schooling proviso, except when the school:
‘ … . is unsuitable to the kid ‘s age, ability, aptitude or particular educational demands, or the arrangement would be incompatible with the efficient instruction of the other kids with whom the kid would be educated, or with the efficient usage of resources ‘
( DfES, 2001:107 )
The SEN Code of pattern coined the thought of Particular Educational Needs Co-ordinators ( SENCO ) , in order to work closely with instructors and parents to the best possible educational result for the SEN pupil and pulling up and Individual Educational Plan ( IEP ) .
Removing Barriers to Accomplishments ( DfES, 2004 ) followed, beef uping inclusive attacks in schools and advancing early intercession programmes. It states that:
‘All instructors should anticipate to learn kids with SEN and all schools should play their portion in educating kids from their local community, whatever their background or ability ‘
( DfES, 2004:5 )
The policy promotes further usage of appraisal tools ; where at the age of five the kid is assessed in order to travel on to formal schooling. The appraisal is based on the ‘Early Learning Goals ‘ . However these 13 ends are non classified adequate to include the advancement made by those kids with profound and complex demands, who may besides hold extra centripetal damage. Therefore its ‘inclusive ‘ nature is really much contested ( University of Manchester, 20009 ) .
In 2006, the Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group stressed the importance of individualized acquisition as the manner frontward. Personalised learning agencies:
‘Taking a more structured and antiphonal attack to each kid ‘s acquisition, so that all students are able to come on, accomplish and take part. ‘
( DfES, 2006:41 )
This attack is of import for the advancement of all pupil ; particularly those with SEN and in peculiar those with profound and complex demands.
Section BB1. Special and Mainstream Schools – Should they fall in forces?
The sensed divergency between particular and mainstream schools should be reduced such that ‘inclusion becomes a shared construct ‘ , and finally the policies practiced in ordinary schools are adapted as to supply for the corporate involvements and educational demands of all pupils ( Zelaieta in Armstrong & A ; Moore, 2004:33 ) . At the bend of the century, the authorities has assigned a new function for particular schools ; whereby these have to be:
‘outward looking Centres of excellence working with their mainstream spouses and other particular schools to back up the development of inclusion. ‘
( DfES, 2001:23 )
Mittler ( 2000, as cited in Rose & A ; Howley, 2007 ) believes that the function of particular schools in supplying educational services for those pupils with profound and complex demands has been and still is, of utmost importance. Yet, today, it is widely accepted that students are referred to particular schools merely when mainstream schooling does non provide for their educational demands. Improved cooperation between mainstream schools and particular schools, has led to partnerships being established in order to assist the passage of pupils from particular schools to ordinary schools ( Rose & A ; Coles, 2002 as cited in Rose & A ; Howley, 2007 ) . Such coaction is to the advantage of those instructors in mainstream schools who are willing to larn from the expertness of those who work with pupils with particular educational demands ( McLeod, 2001 as cited in Rose & A ; Howley, 2007 ) . As they work closely together there will be more sharing of thoughts and resources, finally to the benefit of all the pupils.
The DfES Report of the Special Schools Working Group states that:
‘Special schools have a huge wealth of cognition, accomplishments and experience which, if harnessed, unbarred and efficaciously utilised by mainstream schools, can assist guarantee that inclusion is a success. ‘
( DfES 2003b: 6 as cited in Cheminais, 2003:4 )
As Cheminais puts it, ‘one size will ne’er suit all ‘ ( 2003:5 ) . She believes that every bit long as there is diverseness of demands, particular schools can non be all closed down. She looks at ‘inclusion ‘ from a realistic point of position ; one which backs the impression that a little minority of pupils, normally those with terrible and complex disablements, will ever ask particular educational commissariats in peculiar scenes.
B2. To be included, or non to be?
Advocates of inclusion affirm that:
‘the particular instruction system is a cardinal component in the creative activity and prolongation of the societal subjugation of handicapped people ‘
( Barnes, Mercer & A ; Shakespeare 1999:104 )
Butterfield and Arthur ( 1995, as cited in Arthur-Kelly et. al. , 2008 ) stressed the importance that pupils with profound and complex demands should see meaningful communicating experiences both from their equals and instructors. Such communicative interactions could merely be achieved in inclusive scenes, whereby non-disabled equals could link with them. An inclusive schoolroom could put the evidences for meaningful communicating, and it is ‘the best societal forum for experiences such as turn-taking, bespeaking and recognizing ‘ ( Arthur-Kelly et. al. , 2008:163 ) .
In fact, in his survey, Foreman et. al. , ( 2004, as cited in Arthur-Kelly et. al. , 2008 ) concluded that inclusive scenes farther addition equal interaction and battles for pupils with PCLD when compared to those pupils go toing particular schools.
Furthermore, Ypinazar and Pagliano ( 2004 ) retain that the segregation of SEN pupils in particular schools accentuates their ‘disability individuality ‘ and therefore the stigma of labelling. However, Knight ( 1999 ) argues that stigmatization will non disappear merely by puting a pupil with PCLD in a regular schoolroom. Peers need to be taught how to accept their difference and travel beyond.
‘Inclusion is far more than merely about the location of a kid ‘s school arrangement ‘
( DfES, 2004 as cited in Runswick-Cole, 2008:174 )
MacKay ( 2002, as cited in Armstrong and Moore, 2004 ) believes that there might be instances where inclusion is non ever appropriate ; particularly in the instance of those pupils with terrible and complex acquisition troubles. When the mainstream school does non run into the demands of the SEN student, it would be extremely irresponsible to let the child attend such a school ; such a state of affairs leads to the physique up of force per unit area both on the student and instructors likewise. John MacBeath, a Professor at the University of Cambridge, late declared that mainstream categories can be ‘a signifier of maltreatment ‘ ( BBC News, 2006 ) . He affirms that:
‘Physically sitting in a schoolroom is non inclusion. Children can be excluded by sitting in a schoolroom that is non run intoing their demands. ‘
( BBC News, 2006 )
And in fact Peters ( 2007 ) argues that inclusion is more than merely the physical presence ; it means flexible course of study for some pupils ; instructors who are willing and prepared to welcome an array of abilities ; and a welcoming school community.
In 2002, Hanafin and her co-workers concluded that mainstream instruction does non carry through the construct of inclusion. They feel that mainstream instruction is set up on ‘a flawed impression of intelligence ‘ and is stultifying the larning procedure of many pupils ( Hanafin, Shevlin & A ; Flynn, 2002:410 ) . Giving that the national course of study is chiefly based on lingual and mathematical accomplishments, those pupils who are non as proficient in these countries are traveling to happen highly hard to get by. Whereas, if the formal course of study had to give farther importance to other topics which do non necessitate such accomplishments, such as art, music and play ; so all scholars would profit. Furthermore, larning and assessment depend on the ability to read and compose ; those pupils with terrible disablements, whose abilities are undeveloped if non wholly absent, are at a disadvantage. As Camiletti ( 1996 ) puts it, SEN pupils ‘constantly have to trust for larning on their weakest resources ‘ ( as cited in Hanafin et. al. , 2002:417 ) .
‘Young people with severe/profound rational disablements are frequently excluded from meaningful engagement in mainstream instruction. As a consequence they seldom have an chance to interact with their non-disabled equals… . and remain an stray and marginalised group. ‘
( Shevlin & A ; O’Moore, 2000, as cited in Gibson et. al. , 2005:23 )
Norwich goes on to state that this issue of pupil arrangement and location of commissariats is a immense quandary, particularly in the instance of pupils with profound and complex disablements. If these kids are educated in mainstream schools it is really likely that they will non hold entree to allow resources and installations ; if on the other manus they receive their instruction at particular schools it is likely that they will non hold meaningful interactions and therefore experience excluded by their equals ( Norwich 2007a as cited in Norwich 2008 ) .
From his survey ( 2007 ) , Norwich concludes that inclusion can hold its negative facets every bit good. The survey revealed that sometimes badly handicapped pupils are made to experience unwelcome as their equals do non accept them as their friends, with the consequence that they feel excluded in their ain category. Furthermore their acquisition procedure can besides be compromised by deficiency of instructor preparation and appropriate resources, every bit good as hapless attitudes from the instructors ‘ side.
B3. Has inclusion gone excessively far?
The extent to which inclusion can be implemented still remains problematic. Baroness Warnock ( 2005 ) criticised the authorities for seting kids with particular educational demands in one graduated table. There is n’t a individual group of kids with SEN ; every kid is an single with his or her alone acquisition trouble, and it is incorrect to categorize kids with SEN and those without. The term SEN covers a wide spectrum of larning troubles and demands, which need to be addressed on an single footing when be aftering the Individual Educational Programme. The demands of a kid with intellectual paralysis who is wheelchair edge differ widely from those of a kid with Asperger ‘s syndrome.
Mercer ( 1997, as cited in Knight, 1999 ) argues that pupils with profound and complex disablements may non profit from inclusive schoolrooms, since their demand of extremely specialised services, such as physical therapy or address therapy will non be catered for in regular categories. The deficiency of such commissariats will negatively impact the larning potency of these pupils. In fact there are state of affairss where inclusion has a antagonistic consequence ; that of exclusion, since the demands of the kid are non being met while in the regular schoolroom ( Knight, 1999 ) . These positions are besides reflected by some instructors, who when interviewed said:
‘I do n’t believe it [ inclusion ] is realistic because a mainstream school does n’t hold installations to run into their demands and the assortment of different things they need like physio, address and medical demands ‘
( Simmons & A ; Bayliss, 2007:22 )
Baroness Warnock, who coined the thought of inclusive instruction more than three decennaries ago, has now criticised the extent to which inclusion policy has been carried. In her study Special Educational Needs: a new expression, she criticises the fact that particular schools are shuting down with the consequence that pupils have no pick but to go to a mainstream schools, which fails to run into their demands. She goes on to state that particular schools should still play an of import and on-going function in the lives of those pupils who need particular commissariats ( House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, 2005/6 ) .
Baroness Warnock adds that the construct of ‘inclusion ‘ has gone excessively far. She rejects the thought that for effectual inclusion all pupils need to be under the same roof at all times. She believes that pupils with particular educational demands should be included ‘in the common educational endeavor of acquisition, wherever they learn best ‘ ( Warnock, 2005 as cited in Norwich 2008:137 ) .
This thought is further reinforced by the Centre for the Study of Inclusive Education ( CSIE ) who accepts the impression that SEN pupils can pass portion of their clip outside the regular schoolroom, every bit long as it is for a limited period of clip and the pupil is engaged in meaningful learning Sessionss.
‘Time spent out of the ordinary schoolroom for appropriate single or group work on a portion clip footing is non segregation… . provided it is clip limited for a specified intent. ‘
( Thomas & A ; Vaughn, 2004:137 as cited in Norwich 2008:137 )
Furthermore, despite the increasing Numberss of SEN pupils go toing mainstream schools and really making good advancement ; in 2004, the Office for Standard in Education ( OFSTED ) reported that schools in England and Wales still lack the needed readying, accomplishments and resources in order to provide efficaciously for the demands of SEN pupils ( Rix et.al. , 2009 ) . In fact statistics show that while in 1974, 1.3 per cent of the school population attended particular schools ; in 2004 there was merely a little alteration in the sum, with 1.1 per cent of the school population still go toing particular schools ( DfES 2006 as cited in Runswick-Cole, 2008 ) . This hints that possibly mainstream schools still leave much to be desired!
B3. Teacher preparation
The issue of deficiency of instructor preparation has been addressed by several bookmans. Harmonizing to Forlin ( 2001, as cited in Florian, 2008 ) it is one of the chief barriers to inclusion. Cook and Schirmer tried to place ‘what is ‘special ‘ about particular instruction ‘ ( 2003 as cited in Florian, 2008:204 ) . In their survey they explained that the same instruction methods used with SEN pupils are as effectual when used with pupils who have no acquisition troubles.
Hence, Lewis and Norwich ( 2005 as cited in Florian, 2008 ) proposed the thought that learning attacks should be designed in a ladder-like spectrum from high to low degrees, so as to make all, from the most talented to the least ; instead than designed harmonizing to one peculiar type of larning disablement. Furthermore, Florian is confident that most of the instructors, irrespective whether they teach in mainstream or particular schools, have enough cognition and accomplishments to learn all kids ; all they need to make is to hold the bravery to set their expertness into pattern ( Florian, 2008 ) .
Florian ( 2008 ) looked in deepness at the function of instructors as an influential factor in the success of inclusion. Teachers have to be cognizant that non all pupils are the same, and therefore it is in their duty to guarantee that every pupil is take parting in schoolroom activities. It is really distressing that OFSTED Reports in 2004 showed that instructors are still loath to execute the necessary versions to the national course of study to include all scholars ( as cited in Runswick-Cole, 2008 ) . School observations in mainstream categories conducted by Simmons and Bayliss ( 2007 ) confirmed that assorted instructors struggled to run into the demands of those kids with profound and complex disablements. One teacher clearly stated that:
‘if staff want to larn more, so it ‘s up to them personally to fall in a class off their ain back – though we do n’t hold clip to make that at the minute ‘
( Simmons & A ; Bayliss, 2007:21 )
In my sentiment it all burns down to attitude ; instructors need to concentrate on the potency of kids with PMLD instead than on their damage ( Peters, 2007 ) . A survey conducted by Higgins and co-workers ( 2009 ) showed how one primary school chief felt about her school:
‘there is a household type environment here… . we ‘ve got the brother system up and running… . I do something on values at assembly each hebdomad… . … the large kids besides learn [ to be inclusive ] from the school staff… . that ‘s how we are here ‘
( Higgins et. al. , 2009:482 )
This proves that if the instructors ‘ attitudes are positive so inclusion is possible. As Hart et. al. , ( 2004 ) put it:
‘things can alter, and alteration for the better on the footing of what instructors do in the present ‘
( Hart et. al. , 2004 as cited in Florian, 2008:203 )
B4. The Role of Parents
Parents normally have the backbreaking undertaking of holding to take the type of educational proviso for their kid. Those parents who value socialization tend to take mainstream schooling ( Duhaney & A ; Salend 2000, as cited in Flewitt & A ; Nindt, 2007 ) ; while those who prioritise on academic public presentation tend to choose for a continuum of services ( Palmer et. al. , 1998 as cited in Flewitt & A ; Nindt, 2007 ) .
However, a recent survey by Flewitt and Nindt ( 2007 ) showed that nowadays the prevalence of parents choosing to unite both inclusive and particular instruction is increasing steadily. It seems that in the bulk of the instances this combination worked really good for the kids ; and the parents were happy that their kid is basking healthy equal interaction in the inclusive schoolroom while at the same clip benefit from equal resources at the particular school. One parent said ‘we had no vacillation approximately combined arrangement – it merely evolved ‘ ( Flewitt & A ; Nind, 2007:434 ) . Yet, some of the parents in the survey were concerned about the possibility that this combination would finally do confusion since the kid would be go toing two different scenes.
The pick of uniting two educational commissariats clearly shows that parents are looking for an ideal state of affairs, and this ‘ideal ‘ can non be found in either one of the commissariats entirely. In their survey Flewitt and Nind ( 2007 ) found that a common logical thinking expressed by parents was:
‘The kid would acquire the best of both universes. Copying healthy kids and blending with them socially, but besides acquiring pyhsio, and physical support and exercising they needed to better ‘
( Flewitt & A ; Nind, 2007:436 )
This point is farther examined by Zelaieta, where she points out that since ordinary schools are non yet equipped to supply for the demands of all pupils ; some SEN pupils have to ‘attend two different schools, unlike the remainder of the population. ‘ She proposes that particular schools should alter their attack, and alternatively of operating as single organic structures, start working towards an inclusive policy ; since, she believes, finally these will melt out and ‘mainstream schools [ shall ] transform themselves into communities for all scholars ‘ ( Zelaieta in Armstrong & A ; Moore, 2004:41 ) .
Richard a male parent to a badly handicapped kid relates his narrative:
‘At this phase, we were terribly acute, gaining he was different and so, still seeking to include him in the local community… but he was being kind of parked in a corridor and he was really being quite literally excluded because he was at the [ local ] primary school. So we started looking at particular. ‘
( As cited in Runswick-Cole, 2008:178 )
It is a commiseration that the ground that drives parents to choose for particular schools is one of a sense of exclusion and uncertainness from regular schools. In his survey, Runswick-Cole ( 2008 ) observed that some parents had to abandon their original premiss of directing their kids in mainstream schools, due to attitudinal barriers present in the regular educational scenes. Parents looked for a welcoming environment where their kids could experience to the full included, and for some particular schools provided such safe and friendly environment.
Puting up educational commissariats capable of back uping all scholars, including those with disablements is non an easy undertaking. Educators are expected to react to student diverseness, through a scope of educational attacks. New learning attacks, such as the usage of Augmentative and Alternative Communication devices, enabled the effectual engagement and acquisition of those pupils who antecedently were unable to entree the course of study ( Rose & A ; Howley, 2007 ) .
By right every kid should hold entree to mainstream schooling. Choosing whether the kid shall go to mainstream or particular schools depends on the parents ‘ penchants and the kid ‘s demands. Students with mild and moderate acquisition disablements are progressively being educated in mainstream schools. Particular schools with their supported environment are most frequently seen as the best option for those with profound and complex demands. There are parents who choose to unite both commissariats in order to happen the ideal educational scene for their kid. James, a male child with intellectual paralysis attends a combined scene. He says:
‘If I was born 20 old ages ago I might non hold had the chance to travel to a mainstream school. I would n’t hold had the friends I ‘ve got now, so things have got a batch better, but we have got a long manner to travel. ‘
( House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, 2006:37 )
Inclusion develops a greater sense of diverseness, and helps society in general to larn that despite such differences all persons have equal rights ( Millar & A ; Morton, 2007 ) .
‘ … . regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effectual agencies of battling prejudiced attitudes, making welcoming communities, constructing an inclusive society and accomplishing instruction for all. ‘
( UNESCO, 1994, para 2 pp: nine )
ReferencesArmstrong F. , & A ; Moore M. , ( 2004 ) Action Research for Inclusive Education: changing topographic points, altering pattern, altering heads. RoutledgeFalmer, London
Arthur-Kelly M, Foreman P. , Bennett D. , & A ; Pascoe S. , ( 2008 ) Interaction, Inclusion and pupils with profound and multiple disablements: towards an docket for research and pattern. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. Vol. 8 issue 3:161-166
Barnes C. , Mercer G. , & A ; Shakespeare T. , ( 1999 ) Researching Disability: a sociological debut. Polity Press, Cambridge
Department for Education and Employment ( DfEE ) ( 1997 ) Excellence for All Children: meeting particular educational demands. DfEE Publications
Department for Education and Employment ( DfEE ) ( 1998 ) Meeting Particular Educational Needs: A Programme for Action. DfEE Publications
Department for Education and Skills ( DfES ) . ( 2001 ) . Particular Educational demands and Disability Act 2001. DfES Publications
Department for Education and Skills ( DfES ) . ( 2001b ) Particular Educational Needs Code of Practice. DfES Publications
Department for Education and Skills ( DfES ) . ( 2004b ) Removing Barriers to Achievement – The Government ‘s Strategy for Special Educational Needs. DfES Publications.
Department for Education and Skills ( DfES ) . ( 2006 ) Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review. DfES Publications
Flewitt R. , & A ; Nind M. , ( 2007 ) Parents taking to unite particular and inclusive early old ages scenes: the best of both universes? European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 22, Issue 4:425-441
Florian L. , ( 2008 ) Special and inclusive instruction: future tendencies. British Journal of Particular Education Needs, Vol. 35, Issue 4:202-208
Gibson S. , & A ; Blandford S. , ( 2005 ) Pull offing Particular Educational Needs: a practical usher for primary and secondary schools. Sage Publications, London
Hanafin J. , Shevlin M. , & A ; Flynn M. , ( 2002 ) Reacting to pupil diverseness: lessons from the border. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, Vol. 10, Issue 3:409-423
Higgins N. , MacArthur J. , & A ; Kelly B. , ( 2009 ) Including handicapped kids at school: is it truly simple as ‘a, degree Celsius, d. ‘ ? International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 13 Issue 5:471-487
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee ( 2006 ) Special Educational Needs, Third Report of Session, Vol. 1, House of Commons, London
Knight B. A. , ( 1999 ) Towards inclusion of pupils with particular educational demands in the regular schoolroom. Support for Learning Vol. 14 issue 1:3-7
Millar R. , & A ; Morton M. , ( 2007 ) Bridging two universes: particular instruction and course of study policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 11, Issue 2:163-176
Norwich B. , ( 2008 ) What hereafter for particular schools and inclusion? Conceptual and professional positions. British Journal of Particular Education, Vol. 35, Issue 3:136-143
Peters S. , ( 2007 ) “ Education for All? ” : A historical analysis of international inclusive instruction policy and persons with disablement. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 18 Issue 2:98-108
Rose R. , & A ; Howley M. , ( 2007 ) The Practical Guide to Special Educational Needs in Inclusive Primary Classrooms. Sage Publications, London UK
Runswick-Cole K. , ( 2008 ) Between a stone and a difficult topographic point: parents ‘ attitudes to the inclusion of kids with particular educational demands in mainstream and particular schools. British Journal of Particular Education. Vol. 35 Issue 3:173-180
Simmons B. , & A ; Bayliss P. , ( 2007 ) The function of particular schools for kids with profound and multtple larning troubles: is segregation ever best? British Journal of Particular Education. Vol. 34 issue 1:19-24
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation ( UNESCO ) ( 1994 ) The Salamanca Statement and model for action on particular needs instruction. Paris: Writer
University of Manchester ( 2009 ) Profound and Complex Learning Disability: Education Child and Adult Issues, Sections 6 to 9. Unpublished class unit resource for PCLD programmes. Manchester: University of Manchester
Warnock, M. ( 1978 ) Special Educational Needs. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. Department of Education and Science. London: Her Majesty ‘s Stationery Office
Ypinazar V. , & A ; Pagliano P. , ( 2004 ) Seeking inclusive instruction: disrupting boundaries of ‘special ‘ and ‘regular ‘ instruction. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 8 Issue 4:423-442
Zelaieta P. , ( 2004 ) From confusion to coaction: can special schools contribute to developing inclusive patterns in mainstream schools? In: Armstrong F. , & A ; Moore M. , ( Eds ) Action Research for inclusive instruction: changing topographic points, altering patterns, altering heads. London, Routledge Falmer.