INT. J. INCLUSIVE EDUCAT ION, 2000, VOL. 4, NO.

2, 133 ± 151

Exc e lle n c e for all c h ild re n Ð false prom ise s! The

failure of c u rre n t polic y for in c lu siv e e d u c ation an
d
im plic ation s for sc h oolin g in th e 21st c e n tu ry
CHRIS LLOYD
(Originally received 18 July 1999 ; accepted in ® nal form 11 October 1999)
This paper argues that the claims of current UK education policy, for children with special
educational needs (SEN) to provide excellence and equality of opportunity, are false. Critically
examined are issues of social justice and equity in relation to the work of disability theorists
and this critique is then applied to recent policy in education, in particular the Green Paper
Excellence for All Children; Meeting Special Educational Needs, to demonstrate that as long as
the organization of schooling, the curriculum, and assessment and testing procedures remain
unchallenged, equal educational opportunitywill remain amyth. In conclusion, having shown
that the central energy in educational change seems to be devoted to perpetuating the status
quo, thus reinforcing inequality and discrimination and precluding excellence for all children,
this paper attempts to set a new agenda for the 21st century that might possibly o€ er a genuine
entitlement for all children to an equal educational opportunity. Although the paper is centrally
concerned with a critique of policy in the UK, it is believed that the implications have
international relevance as they are fundamental issues relating to human rights and equity.

New Labou r , `n ew ’ polic ie s for SEN?

The graveyards of history are strewn with the corpses of reformers who failed utterly
to reform anything, of revolutionaries who failed to win power . . . of anti revolutionariesÐ
men and women who failed not only because of the forces arrayed against
them, but because the pictures in their minds about power and in¯ uence were simplistic
and inaccurate. (Dhal 1970: 15)
Since the Warnock Report (DES 1978) , education policy in the UK for
children identi® ed as having special educational needs (SEN) has been
based on the assumption that the means to ensuring equality of educational
opportunity is the mainstream school. The principle of integration into the
mainstream school, as bene® cial for pupils with SEN, was ® rmly established
in the 1981 Education Act. This principle was reaﾁ rmed by the 1988
Act, when the entitlement for all children to equal educational opportunity
was enshrined in legislation and the means to ensuring that entitlement was
perceived as the National Curriculum. The introduction of the Code of

International Journal of Inclusive Education ISSN 1360± 3116 print/ISSN 1464± 5173 online #2000 Taylor &Francis Ltd
http://www. tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/13603116. html
Chris L loyd is Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Education, Roehampton Institute, London. In addition
to working in Higher Education, she has taught in primary and secondary mainstream, and in special
schools and has been an advisory teacher for special educational needs. Her research interests and
publications have been in the areas of disability, equality and education, special educational needs
and the early years of education, strategies for developing inclusive learning and teaching,
collaborative learning and teaching. Correspondence should be addressed to: Chris Lloyd,
Roehampton Institute London, Froebel College, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ, UK; email:
C.M.Lloyd@ roehampton.ac.uk
Practice for the Identi® cation and Assessment of SEN (DfEE 1994) , implemented
in all schools since 1994, was similarly designed to ensure that
pupils identi® ed as having SEN remain, wherever possible, within the
mainstream school and receive the same, albeit modi® ed, curriculum
entitlement as their peers with a range of compensatory measures to support
them, dependent on the availability of resources.
The term `integration’ has been translated in policy documents, during
the past 20 years of educational change and reform, into the notion of
inclusion. We have been enjoined time and again to develop more inclusive
practice in mainstream schools to keep children with SEN in the ordinary
classroom, the received wisdom being that their educational opportunities
will be best served in this way. Thus policy has represented the education
of pupils with SEN as an issue of ensuring the same educational diet
and experience as peers with some compensatory support, and/or extra
resourcing as a means to accessing their entitlement.
As a backdrop to these developments, over the past 15 years or so the
organization of the whole of education in the UK has undergone massive
change inspired and underpinned by a competitive market ideology where
children’ s achievement and the success of schools are measured against
national norms and results are published, with inevitable implications for
recruitment and, therefore, for funding. Large- scale changes have taken
place in the curriculum and it has come increasingly under the control of
central government in terms of its content and delivery in schools. A new
system of inspection of schools, linked again to publication of results and to
the `naming and shaming’ of schools identi® ed as failing, has also been
introduced. Education in the UK has indeed experienced large- scale
change over the past 11 or 12 years, change which has often seemed to
address the needs of pupils with SEN as an afterthought.
The advent of a new political era, with the landslide victory in the
General Election in May 1997 for `New Labour’ , raised hopes that with
a more left wing government in power, issues related to social injustice and
inequality in education would begin to be seriously addressed and education
policy might start to re¯ ect this in its underpinning. The publication of
the Green Paper Excellence for All Children; Meeting Special Educational
Needs (DfEE 1997) was, therefore, eagerly awaited.
The Green Paper claims to o€ er a vision of education for children with
SEN for the 21st century:
Our vision is of excellence for all. This inclusive vision emphasises children with
special educational needs (SEN) . . . what is not in question is the case for setting
our sights high for all these children . . . . Good provision for SEN does not mean a
sympathetic acceptance of low achievement. It means a tough minded determination
to show that children with SEN are capable of excellence. . . . The great majority of
children with SEN will, as adults, contribute as members of society. Schools have to
prepare all children for this role. (DfEE 1997: 4)
Having presented `the vision’ of excellence for all, the Green Paper
introduces six themes seen as ensuring the provision of equal educational
opportunities for all:
Expectation of a new approach was dashed. As in all the previous policy
and legislation this document disappointingly reproduces all the rhetoric,
assumptions, fundamental misunderstandings and confusion about the
issues and fails totally to address in any way the central issue, genuine
access to an equal educational opportunity.
Assum ption s u n d e rpin n in g th e Gre e n Pape r
Perhaps the most dangerous assumption underpinning this document, and
indeed the whole stream of recent and current government documentation
relating to education, is that there is some kind of agreement about what is
meant by equality of opportunity and inclusion. There is no attempt in the
document to de® ne these concepts , except in relation to existing educational
provision, as seen above in the `vision’ for education for the 21st
century. Indeed, there seems to be a complete failure to recognize that
these are problematic and contentious concepts open to a number of
di€ erent and interpretations.
Further assumptions resulting from this lack of conceptual de® nition
and clarity are highlighted in the simplistic notion that success in basic
literacy and numeracy equals excellence in education. The emphasis on
parental involvement is also represented as non-controversial and unproblematic,
which takes no account of the reality of modern society,
where families are often dysfunctional and disparate and parents may be
unwilling, unable and even unsuitable as partners in their children’ s education.
The possibility that parents may contribute to or even create their
children’ s SEN is also totally ignored by the rhetoric.
Much emphasis is placed, as in previous policy (Education Acts 1981,
1993) on resourcing as the means of providing access for pupils with SEN
to the mainstream school and to creating an inclusive environment. The
role of special schools as resource centres ; enrolling all pupils at a mainstream
school ; pressure on local education authorities (LEA) to develop
policies for inclusion; the reaﾁ rmation of the Code of Practice on the
Identi® cation and Assessment of SEN; emphasis on the role of learning
support assistants ; are all evidence of this. The fundamental assumption
underpinning the whole paper is that what is on o€ er in the mainstream
school is, with minor modi® cation and a little redistribution of resources, a
means to ensuring educational excellence and equity.
Without a doubt the intention of ensuring excellence in education for
all children is a laudable and vitally important goal. What is clear , however ,
from this latest in a whole stream of government documents on the issue is
that no attempt has been made to address the issue seriously. There is no
recognition at all that to provide excellence in education for any, let alone
all, children, highly problematic and controversial issues relating to equity
and social justice must ® rst be addressed. Nor is there any recognition that
the organization and provision of education as it is currently conceived can
itself be seen as a vehicle for perpetuating, and indeed promoting, social
injustice and inequality, especially for those children identi® ed as experiencing
SEN (Tomlinson 1982, Barton 1989, Ball 1990a, b, Oliver 1990,
Skrtic 1991, 1995, Slee 1996).
As in all the oﾁ cial documentation and policy relating to pupils with
SEN for the last 15± 20 years or so the route to equal educational opportunity
is through the current provision in mainstream schools. Inclusion for pupils
with SEN is presented as a matter of minor modi® cation to the curriculum,
extra support, more eﾁ cient organization and increased involvement of parents.
Educational success and achievement are presented in terms of basic
skills in literacy and numeracy. No reference is made to social and economic
deprivation and disadvantage, cultural diversity, discrimination and oppression
and their in¯ uences on access to educational entitlement. Inclusion is
presented as a simplistic matter of relocation rather than a problematic and
controversial concept which is open to a wide range of de® nitions and about
which there is little agreement or shared understanding. The route to providing
excellence for all children is simply that schools must become more
e€ ective and more e cient at what they are already doing.
The Green Paper can be seen, then, as simply another contribution to
the rhetoric which has been established around the issue of equal educational
opportunities for all children which serves to obsfucate the problematic and
controversial nature of the issue by concentrating on tinkering around with,
and adjusting organizational factors rather than seriously addressing the
fundamental underlying issues of social injustice and inequality, which are
endemic in society and perpetuated throughout the education system.
The central argument here is that that as long as the current policy
organization provision and practice of schooling; the curriculum; the
assessment procedures and concepts of success and achievement continue
to be seen as the means of access to an educational opportunity, educational
excellence for all children will remain a myth.
To address this it is important to examine concepts of social justice and
equality in relation to the work of disability theorists and to use this
examination as the basis of a critique of current policy for SEN with a
view to identifying some characteristics of a model of educational provision
which might indeed o€ er educational equity and excellence for all children
in the 21st century.
Soc ial ju stic e , e qu ity an d d isabil ity
Rawls (1972) identi® es three major trends in thinking with regard to
notions of social justice and equity: the liberal/democratic approach ; the
market/individual approach ; and the social/democratic approach. He
de® nes the liberal/democratic approach as: removing barriers, arising
from unequal power relations ; and preventing equity, access and participation
(p. 60). This is an approach that should surely underpin and inform
any attempt to move towards the provision of genuine educational opportunity
and excellence for all. The market/individual approach can be
summed up as entitlement to what you produce which is not incompatible
with the social/democratic view where the market again holds sway but is
controlled by the state so that distribution of social justice is not an arbitrary
exercise. While issues relating to social justice have long been debated
and are surrounded by much controversy, there is a growing recognition
that the dominant political interpretation in the UK over the past 15± 20
years has veered towards the market/individual approach , and more
recently towards the social/democratic approach with the promotion by
`New Labour’ of the notion of the `Third Way’ (Rizvi and Lingard
1996). The underpinning ideology of the market in educational policy
can be seen clearly in concepts of e ciency, value for money, e€ ectiveness ,
competition, etc. Citizens are seen as consumers of publicly provided goods
and public services, including education, are viewed as commodities.
Distribution of public services is made according to consumer demand
and these services must compete for customers/clients in order to succeed.
Apple (1989) sums up this dominant trend as follows:
The citizen as `free’ consumer has replaced the previously emerging citizen as situated
in structurally generated relations of domination. Thus the common good is now to be
regulated exclusively by the laws of the market, free competition, private ownership
and pro® tability. In a sense the de® nitions of freedom and equality are no longer
democratic but commercial. (p. 11)

The dominance of the market approach can clearly be identi® ed in recent

policy, provision and practice in education and there has been:
a major change in the way we think about and talk about schools. This has been
achieved through the application of a market approach . . . . Increasingly the language
of performance indicators, targets, cost e€ ectiveness, appraisal, accountability have
become part of everyday speech. (Barton 1993: 35)
Competition, specialization, privatization, parental choice are all concepts
with which education has become increasingly familiar in recent years but
how compatible are these ideas with notions of entitlement for all and equal
educational opportunity, especially in relation to those children identi® ed
as having SEN?
Disability and e quity in education
Work in recent years by disability theorists (Abberley 1987, Barton 1989,
1993, 1995, Oliver 1990, 1992, Barnes and Mercer 1997) has demonstrated
that traditional medical , de® cit models of disability, resulting in segregated
educational provision based on notions of treatment and remediation, have
failed totally to ensure even a basic educational opportunity for children
with SEN (Tomlinson 1982, Oliver 1992) .
While some progress has been made in moving away from these models
in education to a recognition of the role of learning contexts and school
experience in exacerbating and creating SEN (DES 1978, DfEE 1994) , the
range of compensatory measures provided to support access for children
with SEN to the mainstream of education has individualized the issue and
been geared at `normalizing’ children to ® t them into existing exclusive structures,
thus perpetuating inequality and inferior educational opportunity.
Indeed, many of these compensatory measures rely on market forces and
competition for an ever-shrinking pot of resourcing for their distribution.
Oliver (1992) identi® es the need to propose a new view of education for
children identi® ed as having SEN, which recognizes disability as an equal
opportunity issue. He believes that the current approach
must be replaced with a view which challenges the very notion of normality in education
and in society generally and argues that it does not exist. Normality is a construct
imposed on a reality where there is only di€ erence. The new view is underpinned by
an entirely di€ erent philosophy, what might be called the politics of personal identity.
This demands that di€ erence is not merely to be tolerated and accepted but that it is
to be positively valued and celebrated. (p. 11)

He sees the need for disabled people to `free themselves from the chains of
oppression’ (p. 26).
For Barton and Landeman (1993) it is `a human rights issue involving
participation, choice, empowerment. Issues of social justice and equity are
thus central to the question’ (p. 41) . This demand for equity and social
justice as genuine participation, from a group traditionally viewed as
de® cient, dependent and in need of care and protection (Oliver 1997) ,
can be seen to be totally at odds with the market/individual and social
democratic approaches to social justice discussed earlier. Indeed, as
Oliver makes clear above, it requires a view that recognizes and celebrates
the value and worth of di€ erence and personal identity and which depends
on interdependence and diversity, an approach which is far more compatible
with the liberal/democratic view in which
Groups with di€ erent circumstances or forms of life should be able to participate
together in public institutions without shedding their distinct identities or su€ ering
disadvantage because of them. The goal is not to give special compensation to the
deviant until they achieve equality, but rather to denormalize the way institutions
formulate their rules by revealing the plural circumstances and needs that exist, or
ought to exist, within them. (Young 1990: 140)

It can clearly be seen that these views of equity and social justice are
associated with transforming society, and its institutions, with models of
change and development which recognize the need as an imperative, particularly
at the dawn of a new millennium, to search for new solutions
rather than reproducing and reframing current approaches which are
patently not working.
Late 20th Century public education ® nally must confront the fact that it is neither
excellent or equitable. Moreover it must do so without recourse to the existing and
legitimising e€ ort of the functionalist discourse on schools failure. To continue
making the claim that it is democratic the institution of public education must, at a
minimum, reconstruct itself to be both equitable and excellent. (Skrtic 1995: 247)

Nowhere in the Green Paper is there any reference to the need fundamentally
to change and reorganize the provision of education genuinely to
address issues of equity and excellence. Indeed, there is a constant reaﾁ rmation
that what is in place in mainstream education meets the require-
138 CHRIS LLOYD

ment of both. The curriculum is represented as appropriate for all ; `The

National Curriculum means that all pupils, including those with special
educational needs, bene® t from a broad, balanced curriculum’ (DfEE
1997: 19). The policies presented are all concerned with either modifying
or adapting current structures and nowhere is there any challenge to provision
of the 1988 Education Act which has shaped educational provision
according to a market ideology rooted in competition and survival of the
® ttest (Ball 1990a, b).

SEN e d u c ation pol ic y an d e qu al e d u c ation al opportu n ity:

th e in te gration /in c lu sion d e bate
The central development in attempts to address inequality of educational
opportunity for children with SEN, in the UK, and indeed in the much of
the Western world, over the past 20 years has been the policy of integration,
or what is now referred to as the move towards inclusive schooling. Oﾁ cial
national , and indeed international, policy (DES 1978, 1981, DfEE 1994,
Salamanca Statement 1994) is underpinned by the view that children with
SEN should, wherever possible, be educated within the mainstream of
education and that in order that their needs should be e€ ectively addressed,
mainstream schools must become more inclusive organizations. This view
® nds its origins, in the UK, in the Warnock Report (DES 1978) , which has
been severely and widely criticized for its naive and simplistic approach to
inclusion.
What is both interesting and unfortunate about the discourse of special education is
that it has been dominated by the integration/segregation debate. What has characterised
this debate has been the narrowness in terms of its failure to see integration as
anything other than a technical issue about the quality of educational provision.
Oliver, and others working in this area (Tomlinson 1982, Barton and
Corbett 1990, Skrtic 1991, 1995, Barton 1993, Lloyd 1994) , identify a
growing rhetoric surrounding the issues of integration and inclusion
which, far from assisting the development of genuinely inclusive education
for all, has instead obscured the problematic matter of bringing about
change in the system.
The rhetoric of integration has given rise to a new kind of educational discourse of
which the changing labels of both professionals and children is a part. To put it rather
bluntly children with special educational needs still get an inferior education to everyone
else. Although the rhetoric of integration as process seems to obscure and mystify
the fact, the reality remains. (Oliver 1992: 63)
This view is even more strongly endorsed by Barton and Corbett (1990) :
`Such simpli® ed forms of discourse are essentially fraudulent. They misrepresent
and, therefore, underestimate the seriousness of the issues
involved and the degree of struggle required for the necessary changes to
be realized. Thus they are in and of themselves, part of the disabling process’
(Conference Paper , Stockholm 1990) . Clearly emerging from these
criticisms of attempts to move towards integration/inclusion for children
with SEN, is a view that an instrumental model of education underpinned
by amarket ideology is unlikely to ensure any sort of entitlement to genuine
educational opportunity (Ball 1990a, b, Kelly 1990, Oliver 1992, Vissor and
Upton 1993, Lloyd 1994, Barton 1995, Slee 1996).
Once again the Green Paper is disappointing, to say the least, in its
simplistic portrayal of inclusion.
By inclusion, we mean that pupils with SEN should, wherever possible receive their
education in a mainstream school, but also that they should join fully with their peers
in the curriculum and life of the school . . . . But separate provision may be necessary
on occasions for speci® c purposes. (DfEE 1997: 44)
The whole issue of inclusion as an entitlement is fudged. The familiar `let
out’ clauses are inserted and the implications of genuine inclusion as full
participation are avoided. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that this view
is anything more than another contribution to the rhetoric discussed above.
Inte gration /in c lu sion an d sc h ool eOEe c tiv e n e ss
Skrtic (1995) , working in America, identi® es further issues for concern
within the integration/inclusion debate that are relevant and pertinent to
this critique policy and practice in the UK. These relate to the problematic
nature of school organization and the current obsession with school e€ ectiveness.
He maintains that the school e€ ectiveness movement has reinforced
the bureaucratization, regulation and standardization of school
organizations, all counterproductive to the notion of celebrating di€ erence
and diversity, which is essential to any concept of genuine inclusion in
education. `Under the e€ ective school formula, many schools have returned
to the 19th Century practices of standardising curriculum instruction and
thus ignore individual di€ erences’ (p. 244). Skrtic sees increasing specialization
and professionalization of the bureaucracy engendered by attempts
to make schools more e€ ective as counterproductive to development and as
responsible for increasing exclusion and exclusive practices in schools. This
view is supported by Elliott (1996) who sees school e€ ectiveness research as
promoting a mechanistic and instrumental view of schooling as a means to
social control. To be e€ ective, schools must adopt a mechanistic model
where a hierarchical leadership promotes values of orderliness, uniformity
and adherence. This model also holds schools and teachers responsible for
compensating for socio-economic factors and disadvantage and they are
therefore held accountable for pupil success and failure. Clearly these
approaches can be seen to be instrumental in perpetuating the status quo
since they fail to recognize the possibilities for education to have a role in
transforming society rather than simply re¯ ecting it.
There is no doubt that this model of school e€ ectiveness and target
setting underpins recent and current education policy and indeed the
Green Paper (DfEE 1997) is riddled with the language of school e€ ectiveness
with its bench marking and target setting.
We will help mainstream schools to set realistic targets that are relevant to pupils with
SEN and compare performance with other schools. . . . Ofsted will make available to
140 CHRIS LLOYD
inspectors and schools aggregate data for special schools which will contribute to
target setting. (p. 19)
We attach high priority to the development of new regional arrangements for improving
the e€ ectiveness of SEN provision. (DfEE 1997: 4)
While there is much scope for more e€ ective targeting of expenditure within the SEN
budget, we know that there will be transitional costs . . . . The pace of change will be
linked to the availability of resources. (DfEE 1997: 6)
The target setting will help schools and LEAs to focus e€ ort and resources where they
will have the greatest impact on raising standards, including the provision made for
children with SEN. (DfEE 1997: 17)
There is throughout the Green Paper, an emphasis on links between
school e€ ectiveness and children’ s achievement ; on targets for performance
; on assessment and identi® cation linked to literacy and
numeracy skills and on education as preparation for the world of work.
The route to providing greater inclusion in schools is presented as
being largely to do with organizational changes , such as registering all
children on the roll of a mainstream school although specialist provision
may be made elsewhere for part of the time. Extra grants , we are told, will
be provided to schools and LEAs that commit themselves to higher
levels of inclusion. Standards relating to school e€ ectiveness may be set
and `kite marks’ could even be developed for schools which reach these
standards.
We need to ® nd ways of helping LEAs to shift resources from separate provision
towards support for inclusion. . . . We should also fund research to assess the relative
costs, bene® ts and practical implications of education children in mainstream and
special schools. Increasing levels of inclusion for SEN will be a continuing process;
as technology skills and con® dence develop; so will the scope for inclusion. (DfEE
1997: 48)
Once again there is a worrying lack of recognition that the organization of
schools, the curriculum or pedagogical practice are in any way in need of
change, indeed the assumption is that if there is any de® ciency at all it is in
the e€ ectiveness and e ciency of the schools and teachers , and that these
de® ciencies can be addressed by additional, or more e€ ective management
of , resources.
This view presupposes that school organizations are rational and that
changing them is a rational process (Skrtic 1995) . It also presupposes that
change and development are about expansion and rede® nition of existing
structures in order that children can be o€ ered the same educational provision,
irrespective of ability. This view totally fails to recognize the importance
of personal identity, di€ erence and diversity, discussed earlier as
prerequisites for providing genuine educational opportunity to all children
(Oliver 1994) .
Equ al ity of e d u c ation al opportu n i ty
Far from re¯ ecting the importance of capitalizing on the enrichment of
diversity, recent and current educational policy is founded on the principle
of the same provision for all as the means to entitlement to an equal oppor-
tunity. `Schools are still based on the assumption of homogeneity and uniformity.
They still require conformity and obedience to the rules that are
based on the requirements of administrative convenience rather than moral
principles’ (Rizvi and Lingard 1996: 24) . Dyson (1997) points to the fact
that much recent policy, legislation and practice in the area of SEN has
simply reproduced segregated special education inside mainstream schools
and far from creating an enriched, inclusive education for all, has further
individualized and led to exclusive practice. To illustrate this he refers to
the inadequacy of the National Curriculum as a curriculum for all.
Despite the rhetoric of `breadth, balance, relevance and di€ erentiation’, it is di cult
to imagine how it could have been more narrowly and retrospectively academic, more
exclusive in its emphases and more inaccessible in its demands. What children were
entitled to, therefore, was not participation in meaningful educational experiences so
much as con® nement within a rigid and inappropriate hierarchy of knowledge.
(Dyson (1997: 154)
Perhaps the most crucially important issue which emerges from Dyson’ s
critique is that entitlement without access to genuine participation is inevitably
a vehicle for the production of inequality of opportunity rather than a
means to ensuring equality.
Gerber (1996) discussing a curriculum and a view of schooling which
might o€ er an educational opportunity for all, points to the need to recognize
that genuinely inclusive education requires complete restructuring of
the provision and resourcing of education to account for and address diversity
and di€ erence. `Clearly any such description of equality must accept
not only that children may consume di€ erent resources to reach di€ erent
goals, but also that they may consume di€ erent resources to reach di€ erent
equally valid goals’ (Gerber 1996: 166) . He goes on to highlight other
realities:
I f we are committed to universal education for all students in a world of scarce and
limited resources then we must contend with the fact that e€ ort invested in many
disabled students may alter the distribution (narrowing it) while having little or no
impact on the mean outcomes of schools. This formulation has serious implications
for the concept of school e€ ectiveness. (p. 170)
Genuinely inclusive education, which addresses the educational needs of all
children requires, it seems, very di€ erent organization and very di€ erent
goals from those currently enshrined in recent educational policy and
legislation in the UK for pupils with SEN. To quote Skrtic (1995) again:
Late 20th Century public education ® nally must confront the fact that it is neither
excellent nor equitable. Moreover it must do so without recourse to the distorting and
legitimising e€ orts of the functionalist discourse on schools failure. To continue
making the claim that it is democratic, the institution of public education must, at
a minimum reconstruct itself to be both excellent and equitable. (p. 247)
The Green Paper can clearly be seen totally to fail to face up to Skrtic’ s
challenge, but the question remains, how, then, might we begin the process
of reconstructing education for excellence and genuine equity in the 21st
century?

A vision of education for the 21st century

If education in the 21st century is genuinely to strive to meet the challenge
of providing excellence for all children, the development of policy, planning
and provision must be underpinned by a clearly agreed understanding
of the concept of equity. Genuine equity, as discussed above, can be seen
to require full participation, as a right (Skrtic 1991, 1995, Barton and
Landeman 1993) ; a celebration of di€ erence and diversity as enrichment
(Oliver 1992) and a liberal democratic view of social justice which challenges
unequal power relations in society (Rawles 1972) . To ensure genuine
equity, and through this excellence in education, a major reconstruction is
absolutely essential. The current rhetorical discourses and practices associated
with change and development in education, which dominate policy
planning and provision, have been shown above to be vehicles for perpetuating
the status quo rather than e€ ecting genuine innovation, and
must therefore be discarded. As Skrtic puts it, `If public education is to
reduce the gap between its claims and its practices it should base its models
on a di€ erent set of assumptions’ (1995: 263) . If this is not done there is a
real danger that education in the 21st century will simply continue to
reproduce and extend the current inadequacies and problems of the
20th century and will therefore continue to fail to be either excellent of
equitable.
En su rin g e qu ity, e xc e l le n c e an d soc ial ju stic e in
e d u c ation
Skrtic (1995) suggests that a driving force for the process of reconstructing
education is diversity itself , `regardless of its cause or extent student diversity
is not a liability in a problem-solving organisation, it is an asset, an
enriching source of uncertainty and this is the driving force behind motivation,
progress and the growth of knowledge’ (p. 249) . In earlier work he
emphasizes the importance of di€ erence and diversity for the development
of collaborative approaches to learning which for him are the foundation of
excellent and equitable educational experience for all children.
Excellence is more than basic numeracy and literacy; it is a capacity for working
collaboratively with others and taking responsibility for learning. Moreover educational
equity is the precondition for excellence, growth, knowledge and progress for
collaboration means learning collaboratively with and from varying interests, ability,
skills and cultural perspectives and for taking responsibility for one’s own learning
and for that of others. Ability grouping and tracking have no place in such a system
because they reduce children’s capacity to learn and collaborate with one another.
(Skrtic 1991: 233)
In addition to stressing that a curriculum for excellence must go further
than promoting basic literacy and numeracy skills, a view which is certainly
at odds with the current pressure on schools and the curriculum with the
central imposition and control of the literacy and numeracy strategies,
Skrtic presupposes that educational organization and activity should be
® rmly rooted in problem-solving approaches. This is, of course, not a
unique view but one that has been supported by many great and respected
educationalists of the 20th century (Dewey 1963, Rogers 1969, Freire 1973,
Bruner 1986 , Stenhouse 1986). Pragmatic approaches to education,
strongly promoted by Dewey, are rooted in the notion that changing society
and its practices and institutions, inclusive schooling, requires engagement
in a constant process of problem-solving aimed at reconstruction (Rorty
1989) . Dewey (1966) saw the development of communities critically engaging
in a continuing process of challenging problem-solving activities, with
a view to extending and expanding experience and potential, as a prerequisite
for genuine democracy. Education underpinned by this approach `is the
principle mechanism by which society cultivates its citizens to want to be
socially responsible, which it does by developing in them an awareness of
interdependence and community, a critical attitude towards received
knowledge and an appreciation of uncertainty’ (Skrtic 1995: 255) .
A very di€ erent view of education from the dominant o cial view in
the UK, and indeed in many other countries, at the end of the 20th century
emerges from the ideas above. Education where organization and practice
are, rooted in problem-solving which promotes critical re¯ ection through
collaboration, interdependence and diversity, and which recognizes uncertainty
as a prerequisite for innovation, can indeed be seen as a model for
inclusive equitable and excellent education which provides access and
genuine participation for all. A model compatible with a liberal democratic
view of social justice (Rawles 1972) . This is a view of education that is the
complete opposite to the current instrumental, market driven view where
policy, organization and practices of education can be seen to be in direct
opposition to the development of collaboration, interdependence and the
celebration of diversity.
Collaboration is clearly an essential ingredient for the development of
genuine participation and for the promotion of critically re¯ ective problemsolving
in education. `Individual skills are integrated in the group . . . over
time, as group members work through various problems . . . they learn
about each other’ s abilities. They learn how they can help one another
perform better, what each can contribute to a particular project and how
they can best take advantage of one another’ s experience’ (Reich 1990: 20) .
Here Reich is discussing a model of collaboration that has the potential to
enable and support participants in the processes of valuing and celebrating
di€ erence and diversity as enrichment. This model also supports the development
of interdependence and taking responsibility for learning.
`Homogenous grouping practices work against promoting social responsibility
in students and developing the capacity for negotiation within a
community’ (Skrtic 1995: 255) . In a period of incredibly rapid technological
development and change, it would seem imperative that one
recognizes as essential the aim of developing in young people the capacity
to problem solve, to work interdependently, to take responsibility for
learning and to regard uncertainty as opportunity ; to educate young
people who can control their own lives, to participate fully in society and
take responsibility for its development as empowered citizens. Clearly to
achieve these aims education must enable and empower all young
people, irrespective of ability, to strive towards the development of their
full potential.
An em pow e rin g e d u c ation in prac tic e
Perhaps the ® rst and most important point to make before beginning to
look at how such education might develop in practice in the future is that
education and schooling are not synonymous. Indeed, it is possible to make
the case that schooling in some of its manifestations over the past century or
so has had little to do with education at all, particularly in the case of many
of those children who have been identi® ed as having SEN. Perhaps one of
the most pressing issues to be addressed, therefore, is whether one should
continue to be locked into a model of schooling which was designed for a
very di€ erent purpose, at a very di€ erent period of history. Serious questions
arise about the adequacy relevance and appropriateness of policy,
organization and, indeed practice, which is more than a century out of
date for the current needs of society in a post-industrial period of rapid
technological change and development. I believe that to meet the challenge
of ensuring that education is both excellent and equitable, the ® rst barrier
to be removed is the notion that one can only provide education within the
current framework and system of schooling and that change, development
and reform in education are concerned with re® ning and rede® ning it. If we
are to promote collaborative, problem-solving, critically re¯ ective empowering
education the organization of schooling as it is currently conceived
must radically change.
On this theme Elliott (1996) suggests that `The school of the future is
likely to be a more ¯ exible organisation with highly permeable boundaries.
. . . I can imagine the project of constructing a vision for general education,
as opposed to more specialised and increasingly individualised education
vocational education (in the broadest sense of discovering one’ s individual
talents) will become increasingly urgent’ (p. 223) . He also suggests that
schools `may have to reconstruct their role in society as the co-ordination
centres of electronically based learning systems and networks which are
¯ exible and open to inputs from learners faced with the task of constructing
their own futures’ (p. 223). Certainly information and communication technology
(ICT) has the potential dramatically to reconstruct the way in which
a great deal of society is organized and the way in which the members of
society participate in that organization. In educational terms one has only
just begun to investigate the real possibilities of ICT as a learning tool and
to recognize its potential to transform learning environments, enable
communication and support and enrich collaborative activity. Creative
innovative employment of ICT should certainly lead to a very di€ erent
organization of education. Unfortunately current initiatives in the area
seem much more directed at using it as a substitute for books and the
chalkboard rather than recognizing its potential to transform the organization
and provision of education. Perhaps the most exciting development
at our disposal for reconstructing the provision and organization of education
is in danger of being consigned to use as an additional classroom
FAILURE AND IMPLICAT IONS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCAT ION 145
resource, thus perpetuating the status quo rather than exploiting it as a
means for transforming educational organizations and providing genuine
access to participation in learning. The preoccupation in terms of change
and development with ICT centres around reorganization, e€ ectiveness,
e ciency and rede® nition of the current systems and there is no attempt to
recognize the possibility totally to reconstruct what we do in education for
the future.
I believe that we need to move away from this preoccupation with
e€ ective and e cient schools and schooling, as currently conceived , to
the notion of an optimal learning environment. A barrier-free, ¯ exible,
responsive, inclusive learning environment where everyone is entitled to
participate fully and to develop his/her full potential. A learning environment
where learning is enabled and underpinned by a critical pedagogy
such as that proposed by Giroux (1990: 208):
Schools need to be viewed as democratic public spheres where students learn the skills
and knowledge to live in and ® ght for a democratic society. As such they will have to
be characterised by a pedagogy that demonstrates its commitment to engaging the
views and problems that deeply concern students in their everyday lives. Equally
important is the need for schools to cultivate a spirit of critique and a respect for
human dignity that is capable of linking personal and social issues around the pedagogical
project of helping students to become critical active citizens.
Such a model clearly recognizes the role of education as a transforming
agent in society with the potential to change it, rather than as a vehicle for
transmitting and perpetuating current dominant practices. This is a view
supported also by Freire: `Freire sees education as supporting people in
becoming more fully human, that is in developing their ability to transform
the circumstances in which they live’ (Dumbleton 1990: 17) . However, as
Dumbleton goes on to discuss, Freire sees problems and stumbling blocks
to this emancipatory view of education in the way in which powerful
groups, governments and policy makers, impose their views of education
and its purposes. `He sees education as often being abused by powerful
social groups to persuade other groups that they have no real choices and
that their situation is beyond their control. This leads to a `culture of
silence’ in which the oppressed see themselves as powerless and see
powerlessness
as a part of the natural order of the world’ (Dumbleton 1990: 17) .
It is possible in the current educational scene to identify in schools, and
among teachers this feeling of powerlessness in the face of league tables,
Ofsted inspection and continuing centralized imposition of control over
education, its implementation and practices. This is clearly counterproductive
to the aim of developing education so that it can meet the challenges of
being equitable and excellent as discussed earlier. It is important, therefore,
to address what the role of teachers will be in developing education to meet
and achieve these aims.
Role of te ac h e rs
Clearly the role of teachers in moving towards a new agenda for the 21st
century is, as Elliott stresses, crucial.
Involving teachers in the development of a form of mass education which gives all
pupils equal access to the cultural resources of society, is in my view, a major challenge
for school improvement in the future. Let’ s hope that the teaching profession is
not kept too busy implementing and evaluating their school development plans in the
National Curriculum dominated schools of today, that they neglect to notice that they
are working in a time warp and that they have failed to rise to the challenge. (Elliott
1996: 223)
Teachers need to understand the challenge and to recognize that they do
have the power, and indeed the responsibility, to act as agents of change in
education and in society. The bureaucratization and centralization of control
and the burdens imposed on teachers of the National Curriculum,
Ofsted inspection, standardized testing and countless government initiatives
over the past 10 years or so have contributed to the disempowerment
of teachers. It is diﾁ cult for teachers to regard themselves as having the
power to transform, change or control their own practice when they are
constantly being directed to implement yet another strategy, with yet
another set of rules, under the constant threat that their performance in
implementing this latest initiative will be measured and they will be paid or
removed according to the results. However what is clear is that the shift to a
genuinely critical pedagogy, as proposed above, is dependent to a great
extent on teachers. Giroux places responsibility for the reshaping of education
squarely on the shoulders of teachers ;
it is through the mediation and action of teacher voice that the very nature of the
schooling process is often either sustained or challenged. That is, the power to shape
schooling according to the logical emancipatory interest is inextricably related, not
only to a high degree of self understanding, but also to the possibility for radical
educators to joint together in a collective voice as part of a social movement dedicated
to restructuring the ideological and material conditions that work both inside and
outside of schooling. (Giroux 1990: 207)
According to Giroux, then, teachers have the power either to challenge or
reinforce policy and practice in education. Certainly if we are to move to a
model of educational provision that ensures full access to an equal educational
opportunity for all children, there is a need to challenge a great deal
of what goes on both inside and outside of schooling. The process of
transforming education for equity requires that teachers understand and
challenge the contradictions that underpin the notion of purporting to
provide educational excellence through a vehicle (the current provision of
schooling) which is inaccessible, founded on notions of competition, organized
and resourced according to market forces, geared towards eliminating
di€ erence through standardized practices and assessment and informed by
a view of education as narrow academic achievement and the acquisition of
basic skills. There is a need also to challenge the dominant assumption that
schooling, itself a vehicle for perpetuating discrimination and inequality, as
discussed earlier, can be held responsible for redressing social disadvantage
and for ensuring social justice.
Teachers have recently been enjoined by the Teacher Training Agency
(TTA) to develop research-based approaches to professional development
(TTA 1996) . This call is informed by a view of practice-based research as a
means to improving school e€ ectiveness and e ciency, as yet another
FAILURE AND IMPLICAT IONS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCAT ION 147
means to reinforce and rede® ne current practices rather than to initiate
genuine change and development. However , the development of genuinely
critical practice-based research, informed by a model of critical pragmatism
as proposed by Cherryholmes (1987) could indeed provide the basis for a
real challenge. Critical pragmatism
does not present a neat approach to education and certainly not a structured one. . . .
Critical pragmatism brings a sense of crisis to considerations of standards and conventions.
Critical pragmatism considers not only what we choose to say along with
their e€ ects but also what structures these choices. . . . Critical pragmatism is concerned
with evaluating and constructing the communities, educational and otherwise
in which we live and work. (p. 4)
Such a model of critical enquiry which depends on challenging underlying
assumptions, on deconstructing discourses and reconstructing educational
practices in the light of this process, would certainly seem to o€ er some real
possibilities for teachers to rede® ne and reshape educational practice. It has
the power to address the underlying contradictions identi® ed above and to
begin to establish a serious agenda for changing and developing schools
towards equity and excellence.
Applied to the professions critical pragmatism is both a way of continually evaluating
and reappriasing what a profession does (critical practice) and a way of continually
evaluating and reappraising how it carries out such critical appraisals of its practice
(critical discourse) . . . it does not seek objective knowledge or monological truth.
Rather the goal is education or self formation. It is a pedagogical process of remaking
ourselves as we think, act and write, read and talk more about ourselves and our
practices. (Skrtic 1991: 29)
In calling on teachers to become a research-based profession the TTA
was certainly not proposing the model of critical pragmatism advocated
by Cherryholmes (1987) and Skrtic (1991) , however , such a model,
which is compatible with the notions of Freire (1973) and Giroux (1990) ,
certainly o€ ers the possibility of developing professional, collaborative,
critical problem-solving approaches to practice, which have the potential
to enable the processes of transformation and genuine change in education.
Indeed, I believe that the implementation of this model in practicebased
research is crucial and essential in the struggle to develop more
equitable and excellent education because it recognizes that the
assumptions that underpin current practice must also be challenged and
criticized and does not fall into the trap of much empirical enquiry in
education which fails to do this and is responsible, therefore, for contributing
to the reinforcement of inequitable practice. It is a model that
recognizes the problematic nature of education and its discourses and
practices and has the potential to challenge the dominant rhetorical
devices employed by those in powerful positions in order to control education.

Conclusions
I have sought to demonstrate that current policy in education for children
with SEN in the UK and indeed further a® eld, far from ensuring an en-
titlement to an equal educational opportunity, rea rms inequality and poor
educational experience. I have gone on to argue that concepts of educational
equity and excellence in education are misused and misunderstood
and that current policy, provision and practice in education, informed and
underpinned by these misunderstandings, are in fact vehicles for the promotion
of social injustice and discrimination.
In attempting to provide an agenda for education for the 21st century
that genuinely ensures equity and excellence, I have proposed a model
founded on a notion of collaborative problem-solving and critically re¯ ective
practice. A model in which learners, learning and a barrier free learning
environment, rather than e€ ective, e cient school organization, are the
central factors. The development of such a model requires the recognition
that the current view of schooling that dominates and underpins educational
policy provision is outdated and outmoded and counterproductive to
equity. For such a recognition to become a reality it is crucial that teachers
critically evaluate and develop their practice by engaging in collaborative,
participatory, professionally based research that continuously challenges
the underlying assumptions of policy and provision and practice. `We
need to create alternative discursive practices , rhetorical structures that
constitute a challenge to existing thought patterns. We need to ® nd a way
of thinking/speaking that give power no place to hide’ (Cherryholmes 1987:
310). Although this will not be su cient alone to produce an equitable and
excellent model of education for all, I believe that the development of active
critically re¯ ective practice and pedagogy in education will at least provide
a starting point for the beginning of the process of reshaping, reconstructing
and transforming education for the 21st century. Adcock (1995)
presents a view of education for the future focused on home- and resourcecentred
learning environments, including pupils and parents working
together with personal tutors. Other learning environments and facilities
in his vision include museums, art galleries, theatres , sports centres, concert
halls, libraries, etc. He promotes a notion of learning in, by, with and
through the community with the support of an enabler working in the role
of critical pedagogue , challenging and supporting the learners in the process
of learning and at the same time constantly developing and researching
his/her own professional practice as an integral part of that learning process.
This is indeed a very di€ erent view of education that would require
the total reorganization of policy, provision and practice and, more
importantly, a considerable shift in understanding about the aims of education
and its purposes, but it is a model, unlike the current one, that
certainly has the potential to provide both excellence and equity and
which, therefore, requires, at least, serious consideration, at the dawn of
a new millennium.

References
Abberley, P. (1987) The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability.
Disability, Handicap and S ociety, 2, 5± 21.
Adcock, J. (1995) In Place of Schools (London: New Educational Press) .
FAILURE AND IMPLICAT IONS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCAT ION 149
Apple, M. (1989) How equality has been rede® ned in the conservative restoration. In W. Secada (ed.),
Equity in Education (London: Falmer).
Ball, S. (1990a) Markets Morality and Equality in Education (London: Tufnell).
Ball, S. (1990b) Politics Policy Making in Education and Exploration in Policy S ociology (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul) .
Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds) (1997) Doing Disability Research (Leeds: Disability Press) .
Barton, L. (ed.) (1989) Disability and Dependency (Hove: Falmer).
Barton, L. (1993) Labels, markets and inclusive education. In J. Vissor and G. Upton (eds), S pecial
Education in Britain After the W arnock Report (London: David Fulton).
Barton, L. (1995) Segregated special education, some critical observations. In G. Zarb (ed.), Researching
Disabling Barriers (London: Policy Studies Institute).
Barton, L. and Corbett, J. (1990) `Transf er to Adult Life: Rhetoric or Reality’ conference, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Barton, L. and Landeman M. (1993) The politics of integration ; observations on the Warnock Report.
In R. Slee (ed.), Is T here a Desk W ith My Name on It? (London).
Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds Possible W orlds (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) .
Cherryholmes, C. (1987) A special project for curriculum post structural perspectives. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19, 295± 316.
Dahl, R. (1970) Modern Political Analysis (London: Prentice Hall).
Dewey, J. (1963) Experience and Education (New York: Macmillan).
Dewey, J. (1966) Democracy and Education (New York: Macmillan).
Dumbleton, P. (1990) An education for all. British Journal of S pecial Education, 17, 16± 18.
Dyson, A. (1997) Social educational disadvantage ; reconstructing special needs education. British
Journal of Special Education, 24, 152± 156.
Elliott, J. (1996) S chool E€ ectiveness and its Critics: Alternative V isions of S chooling (Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Institute of Education).
Freire, P. (1973) Education for Critical Consciousness (New York, Continuum).
Gerber, M. (1996) Reforming special education beyond `Inclusion’. In C. Christensen and F. Rizvi
(eds), Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice (Milton Keynes: Oxford University
Press) .
Giroux, H. (1990) Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice, rethinking the discourses of
education. In R. Sherman and R. Webb (eds) , Qualitativ e Research in Education: Focus and
Methods (Hove: Falmer).
Kelly, A. V. (1990) T he National Curriculum: A Critical Review (London: Paul Chapman) .
Lloyd, C. (1994) Special educational needs and the early years. In G. Blenkin and A. V. Kelly (eds), T he
National Curriculum and Early L earning: An Evaluation (London: Paul Chapman).
Oliver, M. (1990) T he Politics of Disablement (London: Macmillan).
Oliver, M. (1992) Intellectual masturbation ; a rejoinder to Soder and Booth. European Journal of
S pecial Educational Needs, 1, 58± 69.
Oliver, M. (1997) Emancipatory research; realistic goal or impossible dream. In C Barnes and G. Mercer
(eds), Doing Disability Research (Leeds: Disability Press).
Rawles, J. (1972) A T heory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon).
Reich, R. (1990) Education and the next economy. In S. Bacharack (ed.), Education Reform: Making
S ense of It All (Boston: Allyn & Bacon).
Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (1996) Disability, education and the discourses of justice. In C. Christensen
and F. Rizvi (eds) , Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice (Milton Keynes: Oxford
University Press) .
Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to L earn (Ohio: C. E. Merrill).
Rorty, R. (1989) Consequences of Pragmatism (University of Minnesota Press) .
Skrtic, T. (1991) Behind S pecial Education (USA: Love).
Skrtic, T. (1995) Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing Special Education for Post Modernity (New
York: Teacher’s College Press).
Slee, R. (1995) Inclusive education; from policy to school implementation. In C. Clark, A. Dyson and
A. Milward (eds), T owards Inclusive S chools? (London: David Fulton).
Slee, R. (1996) Disability, class and poverty; school structures and policy identities. In C. Christensen
and F. Rizvi (eds) , Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice (Milton Keynes: Oxford
University Press) .
Stenhouse, L. (1986) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Enquiry (London: repr. Heinemann).
150 CHRIS LLOYD
Tomlinson, S. (1982) A S ociology of S pecial Education (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul) .
Vissor, J. and Upton, G. (eds) (1993) S pecial Education in Britain After the W arnock Report (London:
David Fulton).
Young, I. (1990) Polity and group di€ erence; a critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. In
C. Sunstein (ed.), Feminism and Political T heory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Policy d oc um en ts
Code of Practice on the Identi® cation and Assessment of Sepcail Educational Needs (London: DfE,
1994) .
Excellence for All Children ; Meeting Special Educational Needs (London: DfEE, 1997) .
Meeting S pecial Educational Needs; A Programme of Action (London: DfEE, 1998).
Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped People and Y oung ChildrenÐ T he
W arnock Report. DES 1978 (London: HMSO, 1978).
Oth e r o c ial d oc um e n ts
T he S alamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Educational NeedsÐ adopted by the
W orld Conf erence on S pecial Needs Education ; Access and Quality, S alamanca June 1994 (New
York: UNESCO, 1994).
T eaching as a Research Based Profession ; Prompting Excellence in T eaching (London: Teacher Training
Agency, 1996).
FAILURE AND IMPLICAT IONS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCAT ION 151