Reaffirming the right to the education to every human being is a pledge made through the World community. This was done at world conference in the year 1990. Education for all is a right given to individuals irrespective of the individual differences. United Nations 1993 report on equalization and opportunities for people with disabilities. This urges that education of people with the disabilities is the chief part of education groups. The advocacy groups, parent groups, community and government involvement of improvising access to education for the majority of people who require special needs. The active participation of highly representative groups and specialized agencies in the world conference is necessitated. It has been believed that every child will be given fundamental right to education. The opportunity must be provided for maintaining acceptable learning levels. It is to be remembered that every child has unique interests, learning needs, interests and characteristics.
The Education system must be designed and programs must be implemented for taking into account the extensive diversity of different needs and characteristics. Students with the special needs of education must be provided with schooling access. Regulatory schools those have inclusive orientation have been welcoming communities and creating a society that aims at education for all. The effective education must be provided with majority of students and improve the effectiveness as well as effectiveness costs of the whole education system. The highest budget priority and budget for improvising the education systems for enabling all the children regardless of differences. The principle of inclusive education states enrolling all the children is compelling.
The established and participatory mechanisms for monitoring, planning and evaluation of educational provision for adults and children with special needs of education is promoted. The Encouragement and facilitating the participation of communities and parents and organization of people with disabilities in the decision making process. This is concerned with provisions regarding the special education needs (Stavenhagen, 2015). Investment of greater effort in early intervention and identification strategies ensures the systematic change in various teaching education programs(Shakespeare, 2018). This includes both in-service and pre-service addressing the special needs provisions. The international community needs to cooperate with international governments in exchange of programs and funding agencies, especially the world conference sponsor required education for all. The world communities need to endorse the inclusive schooling approach and support the special need education development needs. This is an integral part of different educational programs. United Nations and specialized agencies can be a part of educational programs (Carlile, 2018).
Social model of disability
The social model of disability views disability has been caused through the methods a community is organized other than individuals’ difference or impairment. The view is to look at the different methods of eradicating barriers which give restriction on life choices for incapacitated people (Pearson, 2016). On removing the barriers, disabled people are independent and equal with relevance to society. When given choices, people are able to control their own life. Research scientist’s people have developed this social model of disability as the conventional model does not provide personal experience and help is required in living inclusively. Impairment is defined as the person’s limitation of physical, mental and sensory functions on a long term basis. Barriers given cannot be only physical, different perceptions found are based on stereotypes and prejudice and disabled people have equal opportunities to become the society’s part (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2016).
The social model attitude cannot deny the reality of impairment and neither its influence on the human beings. However, this will emphasize the challenge of the attitudinal, physical, and social as well as communication environment which will accommodate impairment as expected human diversity incident. The social model will bring the change in society and accommodates people living with impairment. It will not seek the impairment people to be accommodated in society. The point of view is supporting the persons with disability have full rights as participating citizens and this is one equal basis with other people (Zembylas, 2015).
The social model of disability has been internationally recognized and addresses disability with a different view point. The convention of United Nations on the rights of people with disabilities has created the paradigm shift in perception and attitudes towards the persons who have disabilities and approaches for disability concerns. People who have disability cannot be regarded as charity objects and social protection to subjects. These must have rights and capable of claiming rights and be able to take the decisions for their own life’s perspective based on the free consent and become the active members of society. In the above context-Impairment can be defined as the condition of medical ailment that leads towards disability. Disability is thought as a result of interaction between the people living with barriers and impairments in attitudinal, physical as well as communication environments (Lundy and Martinez Sainz, 2018).
The Warnock report 1978 has published the findings of Warnock committee inquiry and deciphers the student’s needs with SEN in the English schools. Before, the report published, this medical disability model was holding much prevalence within the English society point of view of a SEN. As a result, there have been not in demand for the children and providing education in mainstream schools as they are deemed to be incapable of educational learning within mainstream setting. This was indicating through the categories students were placed in those times (Osler, 2018). Warnock has encouraged eradication of labels and has provided the overarching and new label which has been regularly criticized for creation of situations where children can collectively labeled as the special needs and losing the individuality. The labels like educational autism and/or learning difficulties can have pedagogical value because of existing differences existing within individuals and with the same condition. Scholars have started arguing in education that there should be a paradigm movement from the utility of labels and focusing on individual needs (Egan, 2018). There has been a debate whether these labels have been negative. The 2020 campaign has been objecting for special schools and also claiming that there will be little difference. There are few of them that will embrace labels like autistic and deaf persons. The parents of students with SEN who are seeking labels are claiming to make accommodations. This highlights the gaps between the formality and ideal, but in reality, any sort of funding has not been provided without the provisions of reason (Grover, 2018).
The Salamanca statement, a report that has been issued through the United Nations have been called for the massive inclusion of the children with SEN on an international basis and has taken the step further when compared with Warnock report and has presented a view that children with SEN must have access to the mainstream schools and it is the schools responsibility or adjusting to meet with the needs. Warnock has been able to maintain two percent of children, which needs to be educated in the special schools. According to the Salamanca statement which has claimed that the fully inclusive system of education is the only method to achieve the combat discrimination. There is no legislative power hidden, this is simply intention statement and there are consequences left behind for not doing as it has been left behind. Approximately after the 40 years of Warnock Report and 15 years of Salamanca statement, there are 42 percent of scholars in England who are identified as requiring the additional sources and provide help through SEN statements have been in special schools (Tang, 2018).
In order for securing the resources that are required for full inclusion, it will be necessary for pursuing pedagogical and medical labels. Before any attempts can be made for changing this, there is a need for a social and political overhaul because the changes made at the school level will remain ineffective. Despite, the huge criticism of Warnock report, an essential step towards the English higher education system and a significant movement towards the social model of disability within the existing education system is necessary (Eras, 2016).
Criticisms of the SEN System
With the complete figures, it is clear from educating 90 percent if students with SEN within the mainstream and having the fully inclusive higher education system. The recent codes of practice from IPSEA completely have taken over inevitable inclusion state. These states children with SEN having special disability needs and must get education in a special setting or mainstream range. When more than half of the children with SEN statements are being educated in specialty school, the practice code has arguably resolved mainstream schools-the responsibility towards inclusion. If there does not exist a legislation which states the students with SEN always be highly educated and accommodated in the mainstream schooling (Ozturk, 2018). The NASEAN argues argue when school proves they are unable to meet with the needs of students, they must advocate for students to move to special school. However, full inclusion is regarded as ideal and forcing students’ needs to remain in environments which cannot pass to meet with the needs. The Autistic students those are present in mainstream settings are being bullied at higher rates when compared with the neurological disorders peers. The students experience a high level of self-harm, suicidal ideation and anxiety. This is a result of inadequate accommodation, inclusion and acceptance. It has been argued that all the students have right to attend the mainstream schools and children must be always safe. This must should never be compromised while schools struggling for reaching ideal inclusion. Obviously, the need is for establishing the link as between special and mainstream schools (Barrow, 2001).
The present code of practice has emphasized the significance of student’s voice and local authorities should get involved with just not the students’ family. Also, with the decision to support and placement must be taken into consideration. Few argue that the importance of the students rights for attending the higher mainstream school, when the student is interested in attending the special school the conflict of interest will be arisen. It is not morally right or appropriate to force the student for attending the higher mainstream school for the inclusion sake and doing so may or may not ignore the voice. In order of effectively meeting with the wants of students, which were better met in specialty schools, have been still working towards inclusion, and resourced provisions have been established (Farrell, 2010).
The guiding principles inform that framework which schools must accommodation of all the scholars regardless of emotional, physical, social and intellectual, linguistic conditions. This includes gifted and disabled children, working and street children and also from the nomadic population and children from the cultural or ethnic minorities. These conditions will create the range of many challenges to the existing school systems. In the context of this given framework, the terminology special higher educational needs have been referred to all youth and children arouse from learning disabilities. Most of the children experience the learning difficulties and have special needs towards education at the sometime during the period of schooling. Schools need to find the ways through which successful education of children is possible. This also includes serious disadvantages as well as disabilities. There must be an emerging consensus whether the youth and children with higher special educational needs to be included in educational arrangements that are made for children (Ekins, 2015).
The Code of Practice
The Code of practice is units or bases attached with mainstream schools and those have special meaning of providing the specialization towards the SEN and this was often found lacking in the higher mainstream schools. Improving the education quality for students with the SEN, and data suggest that fewer than 5 percent of students with statements, a number which have been decreased in the past six years. Parents have been reporting greater amount of confidence in mainstream schools as the child’s needs are being met (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2016). However, in reality, these provisions will suffer a number of the barriers such as higher mainstream schools are having few resources when compared with special schools. There are few studies into code of conduct, but the present studies suggest there is no assistance with higher inclusion as scholars are often sent back. Mainstream schools cannot avoid the inclusion responsibility. This result in students having to travel the greater distances for attending school and less included with local communities. This involvement has been advocated through every child report.
Higher Mainstream teachers will not be always taking the responsibility for students and high reliance over the staff. Warnock has been arguing with the view and claims education of students with SEN has carried primarily through supporting staff as well as code of practice has been re-emphasized that all the students are regarded as the responsibility of class teachers. In summation, code of conduct has created more segregation and labeling between SEN who are in the mainstream. Students with places in resource provisions will be receiving more amounts of funding rather than mainstream peers. These results in picking up the students who are similar with needs and experience vast different level of funding interventions. It may appear that the approach of bridging the divide of higher mainstream and special has been failed (Armstrong, Armstrong and Spangadou, 2010).
There is a dilemma on how to proceed in the best possible conditions. There are people who advocate the complete abolition of resource provisions as well as distinctive schools and the absorption of know-how and skill in mainstream settings. There are areas that are undergoing through success in the implementation of the dual schooling placements for the students with SEN. This Autistic Society allows greater knowledge about sharing, experience and resources. It is clear the present inclusion system is far from effective and will be (Armstrong and Squires, 2012).
Special needs higher students’ education will incorporate the different sound principle teaching system from where all the students can benefit. The assumption is the human differences have been normal as well as learning can be adapted with needs of the children and must be fitted against all the assumption regarding nature and pace of learning process (Moore, 2018). The child centered methodology will be beneficial to all the students and also to the whole society. Experience has demonstrated that substantially reduces the repetition and drop out so much to be the part of the education system and ensuring higher average achievement levels. The child centered methodology can help avoid waste resources and bring hope dismissal which is a frequent consequences of worst quality instructions and 1 size will fit all mentality perception towards the education (Riddick, 2012).
The SEN system in England has been for many years and this will undergo the variations inclusion debate will be persisting. The Salamanca Statement and Warnock Report have pushed towards the socialist higher education model for the scholars with SEN, the inclusion that reports will be addressing that have been failed towards the development. When 40 percent of the scholars with SEN are being taught to be given as to special schools and the education system has been scholars are struggling for inclusion. Higher Individual schools cannot be alone blamed for this failure, especially when the resources, training opportunities and funding are in shortage. The vision that has been presented with both Warnock as well as Salamanca statement is holding the ideologies that are difficult to attainment and maintenance of the reality. Whether, the new code of practice can be interpreted as the one step back towards the conventional medical model and also the realization of education system reality. This inclusion is an enduring process and progress in the fully higher inclusive education system and community must be attempted, whether realistically ideal can be achieved or not.
This social policy trend from the last 2 decades has been promoting social integration and participating in the combating situation. Participation as well as inclusion is essential for human dignity along with human rights access. Within this education field, this is easily reflected in the strategies development that will bring genuine opportunity equalization. Experience in vast countries will be demonstrating that child integration as well as adultness must be achieved by higher inclusive schools that have been serving all children that are existing within the community.
.Armstrong, A., Armstrong, D. and Spangadou, I. (2010). Globalization: Internationalization of Inclusive Education’. Inclusive Education: International Policy and Practice, London: SAGE.
Armstrong, D. and Squires, G. (2012). Contemporary Issues in Special Educational Needs. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Barrow, R. (2001). Inclusion vs. Fairness. Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 30,(NO.3).
Carlile, A. (2018). Queer pedagogies: LGBTQ education, democracy and human rights. Human Rights Education Review, pp.01-02.
Egan, S. (2018). Human rights education: a vehicle for negotiating the challenges posed by global migration?. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), pp.90-92.
Ekins, A. (2015). The Changing SEN System. The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs Oxon: Routledge.
Eras, M. (2016). The Effects of Globalization on International Education: The Needs for Rights to Education and Rights in Education. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1).
Farrell, M. (2010). The alternative of inclusion as mainstreaming’. Debating Special Education Oxon: Routledge.
Grover, S. (2018). Rights Education and Children’s Collective Self-Advocacy through Public Interest Litigation. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), pp.65-83.
Hodkinson, A. and Vickerman, P. (2016). International Perspectives on SEN and Inclusive Education’. Key Issues in Special Educational Needs and Inclusion, London: SAGE.
Hodkinson, A. and Vickerman, P. (2016). Principles in SEN: Theoretical Perspectives’. Key Issues in Special Educational Needs and Inclusion, London: SAGE.
Lundy, L. and Martínez Sainz, G. (2018). The role of law and legal knowledge for a transformative human rights education: addressing violations of children’s rights in formal education. Human Rights Education Review, pp.01-24.
Mihr, A. (2015). Why Holocaust Education IsNot AlwaysHuman Rights Education. Journal of Human Rights, 14(4), pp.525-544.
Moore, R. (2018). Rethinking US education policy: paradigms of the knowledge economy. Journal of Education Policy, pp.1-2.
Osler, A. (2018). Human Rights Education: A Project for Our Common Future. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), pp.01-04.
Ozturk, A. (2018). Human Rights Education with Socioscientific Issues through the Environmental Education Courses. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(77), pp.1-30.
Pearson, S. (2016). Current Perspectives on Inclusive Education’. Rethinking Children and Inclusive Education. London: Bloomsbury (available on Moodle.
Riddick, B. (2012). Labelling Learners with SEND: the good, the bad and the ugly’.
Shakespeare, T. (2018). Materialist approaches to disability’. Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited. London: Routledge.
Stavenhagen, R. (2015). Indigenous Peoples' Rights to Education. European Journal of Education, 50(3), pp.254-257.
Tang, M. (2018). New research-based insights for human rights education. Human Rights Education Review, pp.01-03.
Zembylas, M. (2015). Foucault and Human Rights: Seeking the Renewal of Human Rights Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), pp.384-397.