Inclusive Learning - Principles and Recommendations - …dera.ioe.ac.uk/15072/1/inclusive...

A Summary of the Findings of the Learning

Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee

Principles andRecommendations

I n c l u s i v eL e a rn i n gI n c l u s i v eL e a rn i n g

THEFURTHEREDUCATIONFUNDINGCOUNCIL

THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING

COUNCIL

The Council is responsible for allocating the

funds put at its disposal by parliament to

those colleges in England which comprise the

further education sector and to local

education authorities and others for those

further education courses which are

prescribed in schedule 2 to the Further and

Higher Education Act 1992.

Cheylesmore House

Quinton Road

Coventry CV1 2WT

Telephone 01203 863000

Fax 01203 863100

© FEFC September 1996

Principles andRecommendations

I n c l u s i v eL e a rn i n gI n c l u s i v eL e a rn i n g

iii

Page

Introduction by the Chairman, Professor John Tomlinson 1

The Committee’s Principles and Recommendations 13

Terms of Reference and Membership of the Committee 25

Committee Publications 27

C O N T E N T S

A Summary of the Findings of the Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee

1

The Further Education Funding Council (theCouncil) had asked the committee to examinecurrent educational provision for those withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities and tosay whether the new legal requirements ofthe Further and Higher Education Act 1992were being satisfied and, if they were not inany respects, how that could be remedied.Tackling these questions has been a majorundertaking. There was not any completedescription of existing provision as inheritedfrom the former local education authorities(LEAs) and in the specialist residentialcolleges. There were no agreed definitionsby which to set the boundaries of theenquiry. There had been very little re s e a rc hinto appropriate ways of learning, curr i c u l u mor management. Means by which to assessthe learning achieved, by stages to assist in further learning or summatively to register achievement, were comparativelyunder-developed. Progression from school tocollege was not managed to the same depthin all areas. And, although many LEAs,colleges, health and social servicesauthorities, and voluntary organisations hadcollaborated successfully in the interests ofstudents with learning difficulties, progresscountrywide had been very uneven andeverywhere the sudden lifting of the furthereducation colleges out of the local

government system had left jagged edges.

In consequence, we have had to undertakesome fundamental research. Wecommissioned a review of the researchliterature (Bradley et al., 1994) and a reporton the law as it bore upon both the Counciland other agencies or authorities. Wecommissioned a nationwide mapping of theprovision for students with learningdifficulties and the incidence of disabilitiesand learning difficulty. We arranged forevidence to be submitted in ways that gaveall concerned opportunities to put their viewsand recommendations; and we commissioneda unique series of workshops in which thestudents themselves and their advocatescould speak directly (SCPR, 1996).

As a result of these enquiries and our visits,oral evidence and discussions, we have agreat deal of robust quantitative andqualitative data on which we have based ourfindings and recommendations. Mostimportant of all, we have thought our waythrough to an approach to learning whichrepresents another step forward, perhaps thefinal step, on the long march towardsembracing students with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities fully and unequivocallywithin the general approach to learningappropriate for all students.

Introduction by theChairman, ProfessorJohn TomlinsonIn this introduction I try to convey an idea of the informing spirit of the committee and our report. I touch upon the values and perspectives which we brought to bear, some main lines of analysis and argument, and our pivotal insights and recommendations. It is not a substitute for the report; there can be no substitute for reading the carefulanalysis and interlocking recommendations in the body of the report. It is only the key to the door. Please tour the house and enjoy its design and furniture in your own way .


The intellectual challenge set the committeewas considerable. So also has been theexcitement of finding ways to meet it asp e rennial educational dilemmas and pro b l e m sof effective management have been faced,argued out, and resolved into clear andrealistic proposals.

Like any human group who spend threeyears together on a daunting task, weourselves learned a great deal and thereforewere changed people by the end. Likewisethe world moved on as we worked. The newfurther education system called into being in1992 not only expanded rapidly but grewmore self confident as new relationshipsbetween a national funding council andcollege corporations became established.This confidence and capacity to causeeffective action will be needed if the Counciland its collaborators decide to implement ourreport. Change is easier in a period ofexpansion and that period is virtually at anend so that resources are likely to becomemore scarce, at least in the immediatefuture. Our contacts with colleges and othersin the further education world and especiallythe results of the testing we arranged for ourproposed approaches, in some 20 colleges,convince us that there is a hunger in thesystem to move forward and that a lead fromthe Council and others in authority will bewelcomed and acted upon, if the conditionswe recommend can be created.

The repor tThe immediate purpose of this report isradically to improve educationalopportunities for about 130,000 of ourcitizens who are currently attending furthereducation colleges and other centres. To thatend we make a number of proposals that canbe put in hand in the next two years withincurrent resources. Its deeper purpose is toextend further education to thousands notnow included. To that end, we makestructural proposals requiring a five- to ten-year timescale and the reordering of somepriorities. The combined effect would be to

transform the further education system ofthis country to the immeasurable benefit offuture generations, our economy and thequality of our whole society.

The backgroundWhen I first entered educationaladministration, nearly 40 years ago, some ofour citizens were deemed ineducable andnever offered any formal educationalopportunity or stimulus, seeing out theirchildhood and adult lives in families (whoreceived little help or advice), in hospitals orin occupation centres (later called trainingcentres). That regime was brought about bythe terms of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913,and the attitude it betokened was altered inlaw only in 1970 (1980 in Northern Ireland)and then only so far as schoolchildren wereconcerned. Those who experienced thatregime, at least for some of their lives, may stillbe as young as 30. If they are over 45, it willhave covered what for other children wouldhave been their whole experience of school.

For those with disability or learning difficultywho were permitted to attend school, thestarting-point was usually the description oftheir condition given by doctors. Whatevermay have been the intentions of thosepassing the Education Act 1944, the effectwas to define special educational need asspringing from physical or mental disability.The formal process that was required inorder that an LEA could ‘ascertain’ the needfor special education often entailed resort tocompulsory medical examination or the useof intelligence testing and invariably meantassigning the child to one of the statutorycategories of handicap. It was not until 1959that parents were given a right to appealagainst the LEA’s decision. Once ascertainedas needing special education, children werefor the most part taught in separate schoolsor classes. The term ‘educationally sub-normal’ remained in law until 1981.Such rigidities and perceptions perpetuatedthe isolation of children receiving specialeducation, even though they were technicallywithin the education system.

2


3

However, attitudes and understanding werechanging rapidly in the post-war years. In1976 an Education Act declared that as faras practicable all children with specialeducational needs should be educated inordinary schools. In 1978, the Warnockcommittee, in a landmark report, brokethrough with proposals to achieve this andmuch more which led to the Education Act1981, now amended and extended by the Actof 1993. As a result, the lives andexpectations of very many have beentransformed. They include not only thechildren themselves, who have experienced amore sensitive and effective education, butalso other children who have had theexperience of working alongside them, andteachers, who had hitherto not worked inthese ways; and not least, the families of thechildren and the organisations and servicesthat collaborate with the education service.

Those working in further education need toremember this history and that our adultsociety contains at least three layers ofexperience. Depending on the period inwhich you grew up and the nature of yourdisability or learning difficulty, you may havebeen excluded altogether from education,included but isolated within it, or incre a s i n g l yregarded as part of the whole work of theeducation service.

While these developments in attitudes toward schildren of school age were taking place,further education, in the post-war years,became a more recognised and vigorous partof the education service. It was thus betterable, when called upon from the 1970s, toplay a part in providing for older people withlearning difficulties and/or disability. Section41 of the Education Act 1944 had placed aduty on every local education authority ‘to secure the provision for their area ofadequate facilities for further education, thatis to say, full-time and part-time educationfor persons over compulsory school age’.G rowth was slow and achieved with diff i c u l t y.Immediately after the war, resources wereconcentrated on rebuilding and extending theschool system. From the mid-1950s,

governments began to emphasise the needfor technical education and during the next20 years building programmes wereintroduced and numbers grew dramaticallyso that in 1974 there were 335,000 full-timeday students compared with 52,000 in 1953;and 727,000 part-time day students compare dwith 333,000 (Bristow, 1976). However, thegeneral expectation was that students whoentered further education courses wouldhave the required minimum standard ofeducational achievement and be able to takethe courses as offered. A survey of 1973,which did not include those with severelearning difficulties who had not been in theschool system up to that time, found that only10% of those leaving special schools enteredfurther education. A further 9% enteredspecial residential courses, an importantreminder of the historical significance ofspecialist residential colleges and thefoundations which supported them. Some51% of those considered ‘suitable’ for furthereducation were without any provision at all.

The impetus for change came from twodirections. Some LEAs encouraged andfunded provision, often spurred on bycolleges themselves, by expert advisory staffand the experience of implementing the 1970and 1981 Education Acts in schools. And theManpower Services Commission, formed in1974, promoted a series of youth trainingschemes as youth unemployment rosedramatically. Courses in basic educationbecame a significant element in theprogrammes, as those with learningdifficulties were increasingly disadvantagedin the changing labour markets. A survey of1987 identified some 250 courses of thiskind, in approximately half the colleges offurther education in England (Stowell, 1987).

This, crudely summarised, was the situationat the passing of the Further and HigherEducation Act 1992 in which students withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities are theonly group of students specially mentioned.It not only places these students fully withinthe scope of further education, itself apowerful message, but also signifies the


importance attached by government andparliament to provision for them. It is alandmark in the development of educationpolicy. The Act says that the FurtherEducation Funding Council ‘shall haveregard to the requirements of persons havinglearning difficulties’ in the course of carryingout its general duties to provide full-time andpart-time education. ‘Have regard’ is arelatively flexible duty in law and gives theCouncil room for the exercise of judgementas to what should be done for any individualaccording to circumstances. It is thus thestarting-point of the Council’s turning to thecommittee for advice and of the advice wenow offer.

Our approach tolearningCentral to all our thinking andrecommendations is the approach towardslearning, which we term ‘inclusive learning’,and which we want to see adoptedeverywhere. We argue for it because it willimprove the education of those with learningdifficulties, but believe it is also true thatsuch an approach would benefit all and,indeed, represents the best approach tolearning and teaching yet articulated. Whenwe tested our approach in a number ofcolleges, that is what we were told.

Put simply, we want to avoid a viewpointwhich locates the difficulty or deficit with thestudent and focus instead on the capacity ofthe educational institution to understand andrespond to the individual learner’srequirement. This means we must moveaway from labelling the student and towardscreating an appropriate educationalenvironment; concentrate on understandingbetter how people learn so that they canbetter be helped to learn; and see peoplewith disabilities and/or learning difficultiesfirst and foremost as learners.

It may sound simple, even obvious; but it hasprofound consequences. There is a world ofd i ff e rence between, on the one hand, off e r i n g

courses of education and training and thengiving some students who have learningdifficulties some additional human orphysical aids to gain access to those courses,and, on the other hand, redesigning the veryprocesses of learning, assessment andorganisation so as to fit the objectives andlearning styles of the students. But only thesecond philosophy can claim to be inclusive,to have as its central purpose the opening ofopportunity to those whose disability meansthat they learn differently from others. Itmay mean introducing new content intocourses, or it may mean differentiated accessto the same content; or both.

Let it be clear that this approach does notinvolve glossing over disability or learningdifficulty, still less pretending that givensome change to the ways we teach theymake no difference. Many individuals withdisabilities and/or learning difficulties told usbluntly that we should not seek to minimisestill less ignore the real difficulties ordifferences that a disability or learningdifficulty can bring into a person’s life. I recall vividly, for example, at one of themany conferences I have addressed since westarted, a man who had been blind frombirth telling me emphatically:

I am blind, I have always been blind andalways will be. I don’t mind peopleknowing that: in fact I want them toknow it. What I do not want is their pityor condescension. And what I do want isto be able to learn the same kinds ofthings as sighted people learn .

I have not forgotten. However, that instanceand many others in the evidence we receivedonly serve to re-emphasise that for a teacherthe focus should not be on the disability itselfbut on what it means for the way thatperson can learn, or be helped to learn evenmore effectively.

Moreover, all students in further educationbring with them a history of earliereducational experiences of more or lesssuccess in learning. That is especially truefor those with disability or learning difficulty

4


5

because of the history I have already outlinedof our changing approaches to their educationover the last 50 years. Since so much of theburden a disability or learning difficultyplaces on individuals is thus sociallyconstructed — the result of attitudes andattributions by those who deem themselveswithout disability or able to learn normally— all the more reason for all those ineducation, governors, managers andteachers, to make their central concern theways an individual learns and how they canbe accommodated.

A key element in reconceptualising provisionfor students with learning difficulties is therecognition that their needs are cognate withthose of all learners. Ensuring that all pupilsor students make progress demands thatteachers do not treat them uniformly, butdifferentiate their approaches according tothe previous experience and varied learningstyles of those pupils or students. Providingaudio-tapes for a blind learner, amplificationor photographs for a deaf person orsimplified text for a hesitant reader arematters of degree rather than kind.Moreover, teachers have to select materialsand methods appropriate to the subjectsbeing taught: artists must encourage visualawareness and skill with colour, shape andtexture, scientists must foster observationand an experimental approach, historiansmust learn how to use evidence from thepast. Each domain of knowledge has itsdifferent procedures for examining theworld, different tests for truth. Each studentmust learn the ways needed to proceed inthe chosen study and adjust their learningstyles accordingly. The task of teachers isalways to effect a marriage between therequirements of particular subject-matterand the predispositions, stage ofdevelopment and capacities of those whowould learn. The wider the spectrum thegreater the insight and ingenuity called for.We extend this view to the learning strategiesadopted by people with disabilities and/orlearning difficulties and their teachers.

One more thing needs to be said about this

approach to learning, for the removal ofdoubt. Our concept of inclusive learning isnot synonymous with integration. It is alarger and prior concept. The first step is todetermine the best possible learningenvironment, given the individual studentand learning task. Colleges told us, inevidence and when we tested this approachwith a few, that this was increasingly theirapproach to all students. For those with alearning difficulty the resulting educationalenvironment will often be in an integratedsetting and, as in schools, increasingly so asthe skills of teachers and capacities of thesystem grow. Sometimes it will be a mixtureof the integrated and the discrete. Andsometimes, as in the specialist residentialcolleges, it will be discrete provision. Weenvisage a system that is inclusive and thatwill require many mansions. Each elementof the system will need to play its part: theteacher and learner; the institution orcollege; and the whole further educationsystem. We acknowledge that this willrequire a degree of sector-wide and regionalplanning and collaboration so that scarceresources are best matched to estimatedneeds; and for this purpose the Council’sregional committees and the colleges willneed to co-operate and agree on sensibledivisions of labour.

This is consonant with the proposal we alsomake that the time has come when collegesmust share with the Council the legal duty ‘to have regard’ to the requirements of thesestudents and thus assist in building a systemthat is ‘sufficient’ and ‘adequate’ for all whocome forward. It also is realistic. Somecolleges have made great strides over the last10 years or so towards the inclusiveapproach. The different stages ofdevelopment can be a basis for planning forthe future, but in a way that can allow allwho so wish to develop new capacities.

But there is also clear evidence that thequality of the provision made for thesestudents is less good than that to be found incolleges generally. The work seldom featuresin college-wide systems of strategic planning,


6

quality assurance or data collection andanalysis. Few questions are asked about thepurpose or relevance of what students withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities arebeing asked to learn. Monitoring andevaluation of students’ achievements is lesscommon in this work than elsewhere andmanagers often lack awareness orunderstanding of what is required. Werecognise fully that there is good provisionwith skilled teachers and knowledgeablemanagers, but remain concerned about theoverall quality of provision nationally.

So much remains to be done, even in thebest served areas, especially in terms ofenfranchising those now mainly excluded —those with mental ill-health, with emotionaland behavioural difficulties, and those withprofound and multiple disabilities — that nocollege or service which may wish to developits provision need be denied the opportunity.With so much still needing to be done, a co-operative and interdependent approach isessential.

IncreasingparticipationAn inclusive approach to the education ofthose with learning difficulties and/ordisabilities has two aspects. The approachto learning just outlined would raise thequality of the educational experience ofstudents in the colleges. But we must alsofind ways to increase participation andensure that all who may want furthereducation can be welcomed on terms theycan accept. This means both trying tounderstand the underlying dynamic ofcurrent patterns of participation and creatingways to help the Council and colleges toknow better how far they may be satisfyingthe potential demand. There is no escapingthe fact that this requires clear definitions ofwho may be included in the phrase ‘learningdifficulties and/or disabilities’. A processthat allows us to know in broad terms forhow many we should be providing does notrequire the definitions that used to beattached to individuals once they are within

education, and we have demonstrated that itis more effective to concentrate on providingthe education environment needed to meetan individual’s learning goals.

We commissioned major research projects tomap existing provision and participation andalso to create an instrument — a practicalguide — for measuring how far need is beingmet in a locality, which could be placed inthe hands of the colleges. While we weredoing this, the Council’s committee onwidening participation in further education,chaired by Helena Kennedy QC, began itswork and we have shared our thinking andresults closely with it. A general strategy t owiden access and participation can only be ofbenefit to those with learning diff i c u l t i e s andwould create a strong framework for themore specific strategies we recommend.

The mapping exercise provided the best datanow available about the number of studentswith learning difficulties in sector colleges(Meager et al., 1996). The figure is 131,000,roughly 5% of the total student population.This figure is about three times the numberfound by a survey in 1985, allowing for theaddition of sixth form colleges to the sectorsince and remembering that our definitionswere more fully thought through and thedata collected more rigorously, thanks to thequality of the work by the researchers at theInstitute for Employment Studies and the co-operation of the colleges. There is littledifference between type of college in the‘average share’ per college of students,evidence that most colleges are strenuouslyseeking to extend their work in this field.There is, however, considerable variationbetween regions. In future, theindividualised student record (ISR), ifadapted in the ways we suggest, will allowboth colleges and the Council to maintainstatistics on a consistent basis so that for thefirst time, we shall have a reliable picture ofhow provision and participation may bechanging over time.

Turning to the other question, of how manyought we to be providing for, it is far moredifficult to make progress. The Council’s


7

statisticians examined carefully the largenational data sets that are available, but eachhas been compiled on a different basis fromthe rest, relating to its prime purpose.Regretfully we have had to conclude that it ispossible at the moment only to makeincomplete estimates of the incidence oflearning difficulties and/or disabilities in thepopulation. The data we would need inorder to do better have not been collected,presumably because public policy has nothitherto embraced the desire to offer furthereducation to adults with learning difficulties.Only now is it possible to think of anentitlement and hence to ask how far policyis providing it.

The data that are available, however, arethought-provoking. The 1991 census recordsjust under 3,000 16 to 19 year olds with alimiting long-term illness living in communalestablishments and a further 69,000 living inprivate households. This is considerablyhigher than the estimated 46,000 16 to 19year olds with a disability estimated from theOPCS disability survey of 1995. The 1991census records nearly 2 million aged 16 to59 with a limiting long-term illness, while thelabour force survey of 1993 gives a figure ofjust over 3 million based on answers toquestions about health problems ordisabilities which affect the kind of paidwork the person can do. The generalhousehold survey (GHS) of 1992 gives thehighest figure for 16 to 64 year olds withhealth problems, namely almost 6 million.This is likely to be due to the phrasing of thequestion in the GHS which relates to anylong-standing illness, disability or infirmitythat limits the activities of the respondent.The general impression seems inescapable:there must be many more who could benefitfrom education than the 130,000 nowinvolved. The statistical instrument that wehave had devised, if used by colleges in thefuture, should allow them to make usefulestimates of the incidence of learningdisabilities and/or difficulties in their area, as part of a strategic approach to needsanalysis, itself one of the many approachesneeded to widen access.

The studentOur proposals are rooted in the belief thatstudents with learning difficulties should behelped towards adult status. This requiresthe achievement of autonomy, and a positiveself-image realistically grounded in thecapacity to live as independently as possibleand contribute both to the economy and thecommunity.

The case for providing further education forthose with learning difficulties isfundamentally no different from that forproviding it for anyone, just as the WarnockReport declared 20 years ago (HMSO, 1978,para. 1.4). Moreover, the economic case forimproving educational opportunities forthose with learning difficulties and/ordisabilities should loom much larger inpublic policy than it has done hitherto.Involvement in productive economic activityof people of working age with disability isone half that of those without disability (40%compared with 83%). Two-fifths (41%) ofdisabled people of working age have noeducational qualifications compared withunder one-fifth (18%) of non-disabled people;but for those who are economically active theproportion is 26% (compared with 16% fornon-disabled). The economic advantage ofeducation for both individual and society ismanifest. Yet, unemployment rates (on theInternational Labour Organisation definition)among people with disabilities are aroundtwo and a half times those for non-disabledpeople (21.6% compared with 9%), and thisis about the same for both men and women.(Sly et al., 1995, and Institute of ManpowerStudies, 1995). There can be little doubt thatmany of our citizens are failing to contributeas they and society would wish because loweducational opportunities have reinforced thedifficulties presented by disability.

We developed strategies to meet our concernfor the involvement of the students. The callfor evidence was couched so as to encourageresponses in many modes and we receivedaudio- and video-tapes, drawings, paintingsand artefacts as well as text in manylanguages and in Braille, amounting to over


1,000 items many of which could be deemedthe direct voice of the student. In addition,we organised 10 workshops in various partsof England through which students and theiradvocates could speak dire c t l y. Theirtestimony is vibrant, direct and often moving.It has been an important shaper of ourrecommendations (SCPR, 1996). Many ofour recommendations are designed to ensurea continuing place for students in both theirown learning and the management andreview procedures of the colleges.

A further essential feature of an improvedservice will be extended collaboration withother services, especially health, social work,the LEAs, TECs and voluntary organisations.Where such arrangements already exist,their value and effect speak for themselvesand we recommend that time is found towork at the many inter-disciplinaryrelationships which are necessary for acomprehensive further education service,from counselling and assessment, throughteaching and assessment on course totransition from further education into workor other settings. Not least, such inter-disciplinary co-operation and thedevelopment of mutual understanding andsupport will need to suffuse the enhancedprogrammes of staff training for bothteachers and managers, which are anothermajor feature of our recommendations.

Quality: Management;teaching andassessment; inspectionThe part played by college governors andmanagers in colleges and services is one ofthe constant factors determining the qualityof what the student receives. Evidence fromall parts of further education confirms thatunless senior management is knowledgeable,committed and energetic in the pursuit ofcreating a good service for students withlearning difficulties, the work and dedicationof middle management and teachers isdiminished or frustrated. Likewise those

holding departmental, faculty and similarsenior but middle-range positions ofresponsibility must ensure that teachers aresupported in making the provision intendedby college plans. Their role is crucial also,and we were given evidence from manyquarters that strong and sympathetic middlemanagers can help create the optimumconditions for learning and teaching.

It is clear beyond all doubt that thoseteaching students with learning difficultiesbring a dedication and humanity to the taskthat is admirable and deeply appreciated bythe students. To join a class or workshopsession, or to observe an assessment orreview is often to see a range of humanunderstanding and giving and receiving (byboth teacher and student) which is at a levelof emotional intensity greater than thecommon modes of teaching require.Moreover, as those with disability andlearning difficulty have increasingly becomemembers of the ‘ordinary’ classroom orworkshop, so both teachers and otherstudents have had the humanisingexperience of these extended relationshipsand procedures in the pursuit of learning.Just as in the school system over the last 15years, so increasingly in further education,the system and the experience of all in it hasbeen enriched as those with disability havetaken a full place and made a uniquecontribution.

However, the existing levels of training ofteachers working with those with learningdifficulties are not sufficient, taken overall,and urgently need improvement.

Some salients have been made in the recentpast so the system does not lack the seedcorn now needed. The Further EducationUnit produced several key documents in the1980s which show the way to a richercurriculum. A Special Professionalism(Stafford, 1987), an enlightened clarion call,was produced by a joint committee followinga report by the Advisory Council on theEducation and Training of Teachers (ACSET)in 1984. There are some regional

8


9

organisations offering training and a fewinterested universities.

It also needs to be acknowledged that thosein the colleges, whether rightly or wrongly,feel that they have made the manyimprovements we have noted despite ratherthan because of FEFC requests forinformation and the government’srequirements for efficiency savings. It mustnot be forgotten that, whatever structuralchanges may be made or opportunities forstaff development may be offered, thetransformation we wish to promote isdependent ultimately on changes in attitudesand practices of staff which challenge manyaspects of current thinking and organisation.

We are clear that a major, carefully plannedand adequately funded programme of staffdevelopment supported by ear-markednational funding is essential. Its purpose willbe not only to train the current cohorts ofmanagers and teachers, but also totransform provision so that universities andothers continue to offer teacher training andcurriculum development of the highest order.We place the improvements needed in thetraining of managers equal in importancewith that needed by teachers for theclassrooms or workshops. And we place thistotal necessity for a nationally-planned andfunded development of staff in our group ofmost essential and urgent recommendations.

It will be necessary for the developmentprogramme to attend concurrently to threeaspects. These are ‘teacher training’,‘management training’ and ‘organisationaldevelopment’. Some programmes ofeducational innovation have approached onlyone or other of these, with less thansatisfactory results in consequence. Teacherswho have been trained in new approacheshave continued to work in unsuitableorganisational structures, managed by peoplewho had not been given the opportunity tounderstand their changed role in supportingthe new purposes and methods of teaching.Or managers and organisations have been‘developed’ according to general theories

which were not sufficiently related to theeducational purposes of the organisation. In designing the recommended nationaldevelopment programme there will be theopportunity to adopt an integrated approach.

These better trained teachers and managerswill need to work in a stronger frameworkwhich has higher expectations. Inspectionarrangements should be strengthened sothey can provide evidence of the matchbetween student needs and a college-wideinclusive environment. Monitoring ofprovision, the use made of funding andanalyses of future needs must become aregular feature of both college and FurtherEducation Funding Council management,notwithstanding the fact that, in theeducational process itself, students need not,and should not be labelled. Inspectionreports on the specialist residentialestablishments should be published, as are those for sector colleges. In their self-assessments, which will increasinglybecome a feature of a more mature system,all colleges should vigorously measure theirprogress towards inclusive learning.

Further EducationFunding CouncilThe Council has access to four levers on thefurther education system: funding, audit,college development plans and inspection.The Council should require that, in future,colleges should accept a responsibility tohave regard to the requirements of studentswith learning difficulties and/or disabilities.The Council and colleges should use the newstatistical instruments to establish the extentof need and monitor progress towardsmeeting it. The Council, through its regionalorganisations, should ensure that the systemis trying to be inclusive and monitor progresstowards it. That may mean, in a few cases,a more interventionist policy; but we doubtit, given the concern for the work we havefound throughout the system. Inspectionalso has a key role to play in the way just


described by clarifying standards of highquality, the evidence that may be gatheredfor their presence and the use made ofadditional units of funding.

The funding methodology will remain thebedrock of the Council’s policy. It not onlyprovides the resources, but sends signalsabout priorities. When we started our workthe methodology was brand new. BothCouncil officers and college staff werelearning what it meant. There was a gooddeal of anxiety, even some suspicion inplaces. Three years on, our conclusion isthat the basic concept of providing additionalunits on a mounting scale of need isappropriate and has helped most colleges toimprove their provision. We do not suggesta radical re-design, though as we worked,the Council made some changes that werecommended and in the report furthersignificant detailed amendment is proposed.We do think, however, that there is a need toexplain the system more clearly so thatcolleges may realise its potential value.Amendments to the interpretation ofschedule 2(j) to the Further and HigherEducation Act 1992 are stronglyrecommended, which should meet the mosturgent concerns put to us by colleges,students and voluntary organisations.Individual equipment and learning technologyshould be brought within the scope of theadditional support bands. And, as local orregional development plans are approved, sonew funding arrangements will be needed toset up new provision in key places, becausethe present system cannot provide for thequantum leap, especially in the capitalfunding, that is required. Developmentplanning needs to promote co-operationbetween specialist colleges and sectorcolleges backed by continued convergencebetween fee levels for comparable provision.For at least five years there must be ear-marked central funding for the staffdevelopment programme. Our most radicalproposal is that the Council should urge thegovernment to establish a common funding

base for all post-16 education whether in

schools or further education. We have been

convinced that current differences affecting

students with learning difficulties make no

sense in educational terms and are not in the

public interest because they only add to the

anxieties of students and their families or

advocates at times when choice should be

based solely on the quality and

appropriateness of educational provision.

The Council asked the committee: ‘Is the

system properly “having regard” to students

with learning difficulties and/or disabilities

and is the provision made “adequate” and

“sufficient”?’ The answers must be ‘no’ in

enough respects to require concerted action.

Whilst the sector is, we believe, complying

with the law as it is written, a more genero u s

interpretation is clearly needed in the light of

changing conditions. The volume of pro v i s i o n

is probably meeting demand as currently

expressed, but there is clear evidence that

many groups are under-represented,

including adults with mental health

difficulties, young people with emotional and

behavioural difficulties and people of all ages

with profound and multiple disabilities. For

those who are taking part, the quality of

provision is not good enough, and as a result

student experience is too often unacceptably

inferior. A combined effort to improve

management, teaching, support systems and

collaboration with other services is essential

to build the framework for learning and the

inclusive system we could now create. The

levers for doing that are largely already in

the hands of the Council. Others require

action by government and other authorities

and agencies. Our proposals set out a

programme of immediate action and

middle-term structural change, all dependent

on increased expertise in the managers and

the teachers. To deliver all this would not

only transform the opportunities for the

students, but would also release a vital flow

of further talent into the economic life of the

country.

10

The British ought to feel some pride in theapproach they have made to the educationbeyond school of those with disabilitiesand/or learning difficulties. Without thestructure of a formal constitution bestowingrights on individuals, we have yet found apowerful way in which to promote theenfranchisement of those with learningdifficulties. During school age this is donethrough formal requirement for a statement,now backed up by a transition plan, andaccess to special education for up to about20% of the age group as may be required byindividuals from time to time. In the USA,for example, a similar legal frameworkbrings between 14 and 16% of the schoolpopulation within reach of the IndividualEducation Plan. Beyond school in the USA,however, the individual has no rights underany education law. He or she must claim aright to ‘reasonable accommodation’ underlaws to do with disability or rehabilitation.In the USA the system shifts its basisabruptly from paternalism relying onprofessional expertise during the compulsoryschool period to individualism, relying on thestudent’s strength in the market, thereafter.And there is much concern in that countryabout the extent of exclusion from education,training and employment of adults withdisabilities, considerable though theprovision for those brought within scope maybe in many respects. In England by contrast,the Further and Higher Education Act 1992required the Further Education FundingCouncil ‘to have regard’ to students withlearning difficulties in all aspects ofdischarging its responsibilities. The more wehave examined the implications that followfrom this formulation, coupled with therequirement that further education should be‘adequate’ and ‘sufficient’, the more we havecome to appreciate how strong thefoundations of an excellent further educationservice for such students are. Our reportand its recommendations are, in an essentialway, designed to reveal them and provide theblueprint for the building.

Everything we propose is within the grasp ofthe system if we all want it enough, becauseits full growth or its seeds are alreadypresent somewhere: we are notrecommending an idealistic dream, but thereality of extending widely the high qualitywhich already exists in pockets, locked inthe minds and actions of the few who mustbecome the many.

Postscript‘Reports are not self-executive’, FlorenceNightingale, an energetic writer of reports forgovernment, continually reminded herself.And indeed some good reports have onlygathered dust and some good ideas in othershave not been taken up.

We urge that if the Council sees merit insome or all of our analysis andrecommendations, it will set up mechanismsto attend to their implementation. Everystep needs not only resourcing, butmonitoring and evaluating so that we learnfrom our new experiences. It is the strengthof an executive agency that it has executiveauthority.

John TomlinsonJune 1996


11

References

Beachcroft Stanleys (1996) Duties and Powers:The Law Governing the Provision of FurtherEducation to Students with LearningDifficulties and/or Disabilities: A Report to theLearning Difficulties and/or DisabilitiesCommittee, London, HMSO

Bradley, J., L. Dee and F. Wilenius (1994)Students with Disabilities and/or LearningDifficulties in Further Education: A Review ofResearch Carried out by the NationalFoundation for Educational Research, Slough,National Foundation for Educational Research

Bristow, A. (1976) Inside the Colleges ofFurther Education, London, HMSO

Stafford, D.V. (1987) A SpecialProfessionalism: Report of the FurtherEducation Special Needs Teacher TrainingWorking Group, London, HMSO

HMSO (1978) Special Educational Needs.Report of the Committee of Enquiry into theEducation of Handicapped Children and YoungPeople (Warnock Report), London, HMSO,Cmnd 7212

Institute of Manpower Studies (1995) Equalityfor Employment Targets: A ConsultativeDocument

Johnstone, D. (1995) Further Opportunities:Learning Difficulties and Disabilities in Further Education, London, Cassell

Meager, Nigel, Ceri Evans and Sally Dench (ofThe Institute for Employment Studies) (1996)Mapping Provision: The Provision of andParticipation in Further Education by Studentswith Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities: AReport to the Learning Difficulties and/orDisabilities Committee, London, HMSO

SCPR (1996) Student Voices: The Views ofFurther Education Students with LearningDifficulties and/or Disabilities: Findings from aSeries of Student Workshops Commissioned bythe Learning Difficulties and/or DisabilitiesCommittee, London, Skill: National Bureau forStudents with Disabilities

Sly, Frances, Robert Duxbury and ChristineTillsley (1995) Disability and the Labour

Market: Findings from the Labour ForceSurvey, London, HMSO

Stowell, R. (1987) Catching up? Provision forStudents with Special Educational Needs inFurther and Higher Education, London,NBHS/DES


12


13

BackgroundThis document is based on the report ofthe committee set up by the FurtherEducation Funding Council to advise it onf u rther education for students with lear n i n gd i fficulties and/or disabilities. It r e p ro d u c e sthe committee chairman’s introduction tothe report, the key principles underpinningthe committee’s recommendations, and therecommendations themselves.

The full report is available from HMSO.Publication details of reports produced bythe committee or associated with its workare on page 27.

CHAPTER 1: MAIN FINDINGS ANDR AT I O N A L E

In this chapter, the committee describes itsterms of reference; the early work by theCouncil and its concerns; the committee’sevidence strategy; and the committee’s mainfindings. The committee argues that theweaknesses it finds in the quantity andquality of provision can be explained in partby the history of the provision; and that theweaknesses can only be addressed if there isa renewed focus on learning.

CHAPTER 2: INCLUSIVELEARNING

In this chapter, the committee describes itsthinking about inclusive learning, and looksat how a focus on inclusive learning willimprove the quality of learning for studentswith learning difficulties and/or disabilities.There is also discussion of how this focuswill make participation in further educationmore inclusive, and what the implications ofthe committee’s thinking are for colleges,teachers, learners, and the Council. Finally,the committee looks at how to combineinclusive learning with the continued need toallocate resources for students with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities and to monitorthe level and quality of their participation infurther education.

CHAPTER 3: THE COUNCIL’SLEGAL DUTIES

In this chapter, the committee explores theC o u n c il’s legal duties towards students withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities, asrequired in its terms of reference; and inparticular assesses how the Council can bestinterpret and act upon its legal duties inorder to promote inclusive learning acrossthe sector as a whole.

The Committee’sPrinciples andRecommendationsThis section r e p roduces the committee’s principles and recommendations from each chapter of the report. Chapters 1 and 2 do not include either principles orrecommendations.

14A Summary of the Findings of the Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee

The Committee’s Principles

The committee adopted two principles whichinformed its analysis and guided itsrecommendations, that:

• the committee should aim tounderstand fully the Council’s legalduties; to explore the full extent of itspowers; and to help others tounderstand those duties and powers

• wherever possible, the committeeshould encourage the Council to take abroad and proactive view of its duties.

The committee made no recommendations inthis chapter of the report.

CHAPTER 4: PARTICIP ATION

In this chapter, the committee considers howfurther education as a whole can provideadequate and sufficient provision to matchthe number and individual requirements ofthose who might participate. The committeeconcludes that this match has not yet beenachieved and therefore that certain groupsare significantly under-represented andrecommends ways of addressing this.


The committee adopted the followingprinciples:

• everyone who can benefit from furthereducation should be able to participate

• further education provision shouldmatch the individual requirements ofthose who might participate

• the further education sector shouldwork in conjunction with otherproviders to ensure a pattern ofprovision which maximisesparticipation.

Recommendations

The key recommendations about part i c i p a t i o n :

Strategic planning

The Council should provide colleges withmore help in planning their provision

strategically and should require them to takemore systematic account of local needs. Itshould also promote collaborative planningbetween colleges and other agencies in alocal area. Specifically, the Council should:

• develop and publish the practicalguide for colleges which is currentlybeing produced as a result ofcollaborative work between thecommittee and the wideningparticipation committee

• require colleges to use that guide intheir needs analysis

• require colleges to explain in theirstrategic plan why the studentpopulation does not reflect the localpopulation and comment on this in thepublished inspection reports, includinga grading based on the extent of thematch between the two populations

• set up regional subcommitteescharged with monitoring theparticipation of those with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities in theregion and with encouraging collegesand others to respond collaboratively,possibly by setting targets and usingstart-up funding, where there isevidence of gaps in provision

• report on the effectiveness of thesearrangements in its annual report tothe secretary of state which isrequired under the DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1995

• consider extending to colleges arequirement to ‘have regard’ to thelocal needs of these learners in theirstrategic plans, as a condition offunding.

Data

The Council should amend its individualisedstudent record (ISR) so that more effectivedata on the participation of students withdisabilities and/or learning difficulties arecollected. Specifically the Council should:

• rename the existing ‘registered’disability field in the ISR as ‘disabilityand/or learning difficulty’. This fieldwould refer to students identifying

15


themselves as having a disabilityand/or learning difficulty and wouldallow them to specify the type(s) ofdisability and/or learning difficultythey have

• issue broader guidance on thedefinition of disability to be used in theISR to include moderate and severelearning difficulties, specific learningdifficulties, emotional and behaviouraldifficulties, and mental healthdifficulties

• introduce a new field in the ISR whichidentifies whether the student hasbeen assessed as requiring additionalsupport for learning, irrespective ofwhether such support is fundedthrough the Council’s additionalsupport funding methodology

• retain the field in which Council-funded additional support isrecorded.

Disaffected young people

The Council should encourage theDepartment for Education and Employmentto produce a national strategy by whichcolleges, schools and others can betteraddress the needs of disaffected youngpeople, as highlighted in the Dearing Reviewof the 16 to 19 curriculum.

Funding

The Council should encourage concertedaction by colleges and other agencies topromote opportunities for participationparticularly by under-represented groups,through their funding. Specifically:

• the Council should encourage localeducation authorities to transfermanagement of their discretionaryawards and transport budgets tocolleges to explore how far a morecoherent system of funding can bedeveloped which better matches thelearning and learner support needs ofstudents

• the government should consider theadvantages of a single post-16 fundingagency which includes discretionaryawards and funding for schools and

external institutions, to ensure thatthere is greater consistency ofparticipation between areas and sothat the choice of provision made bystudents is not adversely affected bydifferences in the way courses arefunded

• the Council should urge theDepartment of Health and theDepartment for Education andEmployment to work together to createa joint strategy and provide guidanceand advice to purchasers andproviders. The guidance should makespecific reference to adults withprofound and complex learningdifficulties; and those with mentalhealth difficulties.

CHAPTER 5: ASSESSINGSTUDENTS’ REQUIREMENTS

In this chapter, the committee examines howstudents’ requirements should be assessede ffectively in order to ensure inclusive learn i n g .


The assessment of students’ requirementsmust be continuous and properly funded. It should be inclusive in that it is:

• guided by the students’ wishes; theassessment process should offeropportunities and support to theindividual, or their advocate, to maketheir views and wishes known and toinfluence decision-making

• fair; the assessment process should beimpartial and take into accountindividual differences, including anyeffects of the student’s ethnicity,gender and age in relation to theirdisability or learning difficulty

• transparent; the purpose, criteria, andoutcomes of the assessment processshould be understood by the studentand, where re l e v a n t , their parents,carers or advocates

• accessible; the assessment processshould be straightforward anduncomplicated so that the studentsand their parents or advocates mayparticipate more easily and fully.

Recommendations

Funding the assessment of students’requirements

The Council should continue to recognise thecosts of providing effective individualassessment and should promote a widerunderstanding of its funding by publishingaccessible information on its fundingarrangements.

The Council should consider allocatingadditional new funds to the entry stage ofthe learning programme within the tariff, totake account of the new costs of assessmentwhich may arise for all students as a resultof the committee’s recommendations.

Assessment for placement at a specialistcollege

The Council should continue to improve itsmethods for funding students at specialistcolleges. Specifically, in relation to theassessment of students’ requirements, itshould:

• publish details of its response rate forplacement at specialist colleges,preferably as part of its report to thesecretary of state

• take account of the importance andcomplexity of assessing students’requirements by retaining itsinsistence on an assessment andinterview by a sector college before aplacement decision is made. TheCouncil should, however, recognisethat for some students, the first term’splacement might also represent anassessment which should be funded,without necessarily lengthening theoverall period of the course

• work with representatives of thecareers service, local educationauthorities and the Department forEducation and Employment to ensurethat careers officers retain andimprove their knowledge of furthereducation in sector and specialistcolleges so that they may continue toadvise students effectively on their

options. They should also beencouraged to maintain their contactwith students at specialist colleges aspart of their contractual obligations tostudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities, until such studentsare settled in their career or futuretraining intentions.

Students with transition plans

The Council should further encouragecolleges to take account of a student’stransition plan by:

• requiring evidence during inspectionthat the college has in placearrangements for using information intransition plans to contribute to theassessment of students’ requirementsand to subsequent reviews andassessment of students’ progress andachievement.

Students with care plans

The Council should require evidence duringinspection carried out by the Council, orjointly with OFSTED, or the social servicesinspectorate, that the college and otherservices participate jointly in assessment andreviews and that the learning opportunitiesprovided by the college are consistent withthe overall aims of the student’s learning andcare plan(s).

Assessment of progress in the learning of

students at specialist residential colleges

The Council should promote more effectiveassessment of progress in the learning ofstudents at specialist residential colleges.Specifically, the Council should require thesecolleges to:

• develop assessment and recordingprocedures which draw togetherdifferent aspects of a student’slearning programme by strengtheningthis aspect of its inspection ofspecialist colleges and by requiring thecolleges to describe their assessmentand recording policies when aplacement is being considered


17


• improve the skills of staff in assessinghow students with profound andmultiple difficulties learn best, whattheir learning goals are and how theirlearning environment can best matchtheir requirements.

CHAPTER 6: TEACHING,LEARNING AND MANAGEMENT

In this chapter, the committee examines thefactors that contribute to effective teachingand learning, and considers the implicationsfor college management.


The committees principles in this chapterare:

• good teachers take account of howstudents learn and of their learninggoals and help students to progressand achieve success

• good management supports andpromotes good teaching and improveslearning opportunities.

Recommendations

The committee’s key recommendations aboutteaching, learning and management:

The Council’s role

The Council should support the evident wishof the sector to move towards inclusiveteaching, learning and management andshould encourage colleges to adopt theapproach to teaching and managementadvocated in this report. Specifically, theCouncil should:

• review the factors which influence thequality of teaching and its impact onstudent achievement through thecollege self-assessment proceduresusing the criteria given in this chapter

• review the policy, resource allocationand management structures likely toprovide learning which is inclusive andrequire these to be part of the colleges’self-assessment report.

College management

The Council should support college managersin developing a strategic approach toinclusive learning. Specifically, the Councilshould:

• encourage colleges to produce a long-term strategy and action plan toimplement the principles identified inthis report

• encourage colleges to establish forumsfor debate on management issues, toinclude all those agencies involvedwith students to enhance collaborationand partnership

• audit staff training requirementsrequired to provide inclusive learningwhich provides opportunity for all tolearn

• encourage colleges to review the roleof the college co-ordinator and theestablishment of inclusive learningmanagers

• offer briefings to college governors oninclusive learning

• involve corporation boards inmonitoring the progress made by thecollege to provide learning which isinclusive.

CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVESUPPORT FOR LEARNING

The committee’s focus on inclusive learningidentifies support for learning as an essentialcomponent of the individual learningenvironment for many students. In thischapter, the committee examines collegearrangements for support for learning, anddescribes how these might be made moreeffective.


The committee believes that support forlearning is essential because it:

• enables all students in a college tohave equal access to the curriculumthey have chosen


• helps students to progress and achieve

• assists effective transition to college,between courses and beyond college.

It follows that:

• the responsibility for support withinthe college should be clearly allocatedand recognised by all staff within thecollege and be evident to those outside it

• the organisation and provision ofsupport must be systematic.

Recommendations

The key recommendations in relation toeffective support for learning are:

Funding

The Council should ensure that its fundingarrangements continue to enable colleges tomeet the costs of individual support forlearning, currently achieved through theadditional support bands. Furtherrecommendations are made in chapter 11 onfunding. Specifically, the Council should:

• work with colleges to derive a clearstatement which indicates whatgeneric support students can expect inevery college

• require colleges to review and reporton the effectiveness of their supportfor learning as part of their self-assessment within the inspectionframework

• e n s u re that learning technology centre sa re funded for the development andsupport of staff working with studentswith learning difficulties and/ordisabilities using enabling technology

• investigate the costs of externalspecialist support on a national basiswith a view to identifying qualitystandards and reasonable levels ofcharges.

Regional arrangements

The Council and colleges should work withother agencies at regional level to ensurethat internal and external support forlearning is available throughout the region.

Specifically, the Council should ensure theremit for regional subcommittees includesreview of the support available for studentsin their region in order that:

• there is adequate provision ofspecialist support for studentsthroughout the region

• regional gaps in the provision ofenabling technology may be identified

• start-up funds may be allocated to fillany gaps in the availability of supportfor learning

• collaborative arrangements betweencolleges, including specialist colleges,are promoted.

Information

The Council, through its regionalcommittees, should encourage the agencieswhich provide and use support for learning,to provide information for each other on thestandard, level and cost of the services eachprovides and on how funding is allocated.

Quality of external support for learning

The Council should encourage specialistsupport services to develop quality assurancesystems, perhaps using a recognised,nationally validated quality hallmark.

CHAPTER 8: COLLABORATION

In this chapter, the committee addresses therole of collaboration between agencies andcolleges in promoting inclusive learning.


In relation to collaboration, we adopted thefollowing principles concerning inclusivelearning, which depends upon:

• the Council and colleges entering intomutually helpful agreements withother agencies that plan, fund, provideand monitor related services

• the Council actively encouragingcolleges and other providers to worktogether collaboratively wherestudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities are concerned

19

• effective collaboration is based on theprinciples that:

–individuals have the right to say whatthey want to do with their lives

–individuals’ aspirations should berespected and acted upon by theorganisations that work with them.

Recommendations

The key recommendation in relation tocollaboration is that the Council should workwith other agencies and governmentdepartments to create and define aframework for collaboration. Specifically,the Council should:

• urge the drawing up of a jointdepartmental circular setting out thepowers and duties of education, healthand social services where studentswith learning difficulties and/ordisabilities are concerned; the circularwould draw attention to the duties ofthese services, and the powers theyhave to work with, and to take accountof, the work of other departments

• work with others to provide easilyaccessible information for students,parents and their advocates on theduties and powers of respectivedepartments and relevant agencies

• establish subcommittees to its regionalcommittees which include seniorrepresentatives from colleges, schools,TECs, LEAs, careers services, healthand social services, voluntaryorganisations, advocacy groups andothers, with a remit to advise theCouncil’s regional committees on theadequacy and sufficiency of provisionat regional level and to act as a focusfor collaborative, strategic planning

• work with others to encourage thesupport and development of localfurther education transition groupswith a remit to plan the transition ofindividual students

• work with colleges and others toestablish the concept of the ‘namedperson’ in each college and to test

and refine the concept through asmall-scale pilot project

• work with colleges and others todevelop a further education plan, usingthe existing learning agreement as astarting point, together with a code ofpractice for its use

• encourage the undertaking of researchon the cost benefits of collaboration tothe Council, colleges and theindividual.

CHAPTER 9: ASSESSINGSTUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENTS

In this chapter, the committee examines howstudents’ achievements are assessed in thelight of the objective of promoting inclusivelearning.


The assessment of students’ achievementsshould be inclusive, in that the achievementsof all students are given equal value andstatus; and in that it is:

• based on self-advocacy; students areinvolved in deciding what they wish toachieve and in evaluating theirprogress towards these achievements

• fair; assessment regimes are fair,impartial and objective

• transparent; the purpose of criteria forand outcomes of assessment should beunderstood by students, parents andemployers

• accessible; assessment is conducted ina way that enables the individual toparticipate fully.

Recommendations

Pre-foundation awar d

The Council should support the developmentof a pre-foundation award called Skills forAdult Life which is relevant to all students,made up of the following units:

• employability (preparation for workinglife)



• understanding roles in the family,including parenting skills andrelationships

• understanding the local community,including travel, leisure pursuits, andvoluntary work

• understanding the society in which welive, including the laws and theindividual benefits and allowances.

Skills for Adult Life should be:

• available as an award within thenational qualifications framework atpre-foundation level

• incorporated with core skills into theGNVQ foundation level of courses

• designed to include opportunities forprogression from pre-foundation tofoundation level

• subject to quality criteria based on theassessment and recordingarrangements set out in paragraph9.45 of the report.

Enhanced national record of achievement

The Council should encourage thedevelopment and use of an enhancednational record of achievement (NRA).Specifically, the Council should:

• consider how it might be used tocontribute to evidence of progress inschedule 2(j) courses

• request evidence of its use duringinspection

• support the development of qualitycriteria which draw on current orcommissioned work on the value-added factor in programmes forstudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities.

Accessible and consistent assessment

The Council should encourage accessible andconsistent assessment. Specifically, itshould:

• encourage NCVQ, SCAA and others toreview the assessment requirement forwritten tests at GNVQ foundation andlevel 1 and consider the development

of alternative, rigorous and moreflexible approaches to assessment

• consider whether its fundingmethodology could do more toencourage colleges to offer units ofaccreditation by ensuring that collegeswhich offer them are notdisadvantaged financially

• ensure that awarding and examinationbodies are better informed about theCouncil’s funding arrangements forstudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities

• encourage these bodies to find acommon language to describe studentswith learning difficulties and/ordisabilities and their assessmentrequirements

• encourage examining and awardingbodies to allow centres greaterfreedom to make individualarrangements for students.

Schedule 2(j)

The Council should review its interpretationof requirements for schedule 2(j) by taking awider view of the meaning of progression.Specifically, the Council should:

• allow colleges a choice of two sets ofcriteria to demonstrate that aprogramme falls within the schedule;either:

i. progression to another coursewithin schedule 2 is a stated aim ofthe student’s learning programme:the student intends to progress toanother course and is able toprovide evidence of incremental orlateral progression or themaintenance of skills; or

ii. progression to another coursewithin schedule 2 is a stated aim ofthe student’s learning programmeand the student is working towardsaccreditation which meets thequality criteria described below;

• seek to have the list of courses underschedule 2 amended to includespecified courses which meet agreedquality criteria and which provide

21

suitable progression opportunities forstudents with profound and multiplelearning difficulties. Thisrecommendation is aimed at clarifyingthe intention of the Act rather thanseeking new legislation. It is not thecommittee’s aim that the Councilshould fund courses which arepresently funded by local authoritiesand which are primarily leisure orrecreational in purpose. Specifically,the courses should be concerned withthe further development of life skillsrather than with leisure or withrecreational activities

• review the funding for programmeswhich help students to maintain theskills they have by conducting furtheranalysis and discussion with providersand professionals who are experts inthis area of work

• review the effects of implementingthese recommendations after a certainperiod of time.

CHAPTER 10: QUALITYASSURANCE

In this chapter, the committee examines howthe quality of further education can beassured for students with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities and considers thearrangements that are required on the partof colleges and the Council.


The committee’s principles in this chapterare that:

• quality assurance arrangements mustbe fit for the purpose of monitoringlearning, participation andachievement

• good-quality assurance arrangementswill apply to provision made for allstudents

• effective quality assurancearrangements use clearly-definedstandards and are consistentlyimplemented

• the Council’s quality assessmentarrangements should apply equallywhether operated in independent orsector colleges.

Recommendations

The key recommendation is that the Councilshould encourage sector colleges to promotelearning which is more inclusive.Specifically, the Council should:

• establish a development fund tosupport colleges to deliver their actionplan on inclusive learning (see chapter12 on the quality initiative)

• inspect colleges on the extent to whichthey provide learning which isinclusive and which benefits allstudents and publish a specific gradefor this

• give a specific inspection grade forprovision for students with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities wherethis constitutes 5% or more of thecollege’s total provision

• review its performance indicators toinclude inclusive learning andparticipation

• ensure that the committee’srecommendations in this chapter arereflected in inspection arrangementsfor further education

• encourage colleges to ensure thatstudents receive support to participatein both formal and informal qualityassurance activities, using theapproach developed in the workshopseries.

The Council should help specialist colleges topromote learning which is more inclusiveand should adopt more demanding qualityassurance arrangements. Specifically, theCouncil should:

• publish the inspection reports aboutprovision it funds in specialist colleges

• encourage colleges to set standards forachieving high-quality learning forstudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities.



The Council should ensure that students withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities inresidential settings are properly protected.Specifically, the Council should:

• suggest to the government that itextends the Utting review of theChildren Act 1989 to includepotentially vulnerable students withlearning difficulties and/or disabilitiesin further education

• take steps to secure the protection ofvulnerable students in furthereducation provision, for example byrequiring that staff be subject to policevetting

• contract only with specialist collegesregistered under the procedures of theRegistered Homes Act 1994 ; andwhich have an effective students’complaints procedure.

The Council should ensure through itsinspection process that all colleges makegood-quality provision for students withlearning difficulties and/or disabilities.Specifically, the Council should:

• require an annual report on thecolleges’ self-assessment of theirdevelopment of learning environmentsfor all students

• secure systematic joint working withother inspectorates responsible forassuring the quality of provision forstudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities in further education

• provide training for inspectors oninclusive learning and participationand on how best to deliver jointinspection with other agenciesresponsible for the quality of provisionfor students with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities

• encourage colleges to develop qualityassurance arrangements which are fitfor the purpose of inclusive learning

• ensure that the committee’srecommendations in this chapter arereflected in inspection arrangementsfor further education.

CHAPTER 11: FUNDING

In this chapter, the committee considers howthe Council should obtain, allocate andaccount for funds to colleges for studentswith learning difficulties and/or disabilities,so that learning can be inclusive.


The committee’s principles are that, to haveregard for these students’ requirements andto avoid disproportionate expenditure, theway these public funds are obtained,allocated and accounted for should aim to:

• maximise the extent to which learningis inclusive

• maximise the rate of change by whichthe sector is able to offer inclusivelearning, consistent with realistic butdemanding expectations on colleges

• operate for those with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities in thesame way as for other students

• retain both the college’s responsibilityto plan its provision and allocate fundsand an allocation methodology fromthe Council which is based onstudents’ individual requirements.

Recommendations

In the light of the evidence presented to usand our guiding principles, the committeemakes the following recommendations to theCouncil:

Understanding the methodology

The Council should promote the ability of themethodology to secure inclusive learning.Specifically, therefore, we recommend thatthe Council:

• publish an accessible guide to thefunding methodology designed forstudents, parents and those who workwith them.

The Council’s cur rent funding methodology

The committee recommends that the Councilmake a number of limited refinements to the

23


current funding methodology that helpssector colleges to offer inclusive learning.Specifically, therefore, the committeerecommends that the Council:

• include individual equipment, learningtechnology and minor adaptationswithin the scope of the additionalsupport bands

• require colleges and students to signthe additional support form

• introduce new arrangements forregional subcommittees to recommendfunding new provision where there isevidence of emerging need for thisand/or it can be done more effectivelythan at specialist colleges

• introduce more bands above the valueof the top band

• allocate new funds to the entrycomponent to enable properassessments of students’ requirements.

Funding provision at specialist colleges

The committee recommends that the Councilcontinue to fund individual placements atspecialist colleges where necessary.Specifically, the Council should:

• ensure that these colleges give valuefor money, with particular reference toprofit-making providers

• continue its policy of convergencebetween fee levels for comparableprovision

• develop a list of approved specialistcolleges which make high-qualityprovision and give better value formoney, based on explicit criteria

• publish its inspection reports onprovision it funds at these colleges

• promote funding arrangements thatenable and encourage collaborationbetween specialist and sector colleges.

Capital funding

The committee recommends that if collegesare to be able to provide appropriately forthose groups currently under-representedand to offer the technical support which

individuals need to learn effectively, thenmore attention needs to be paid toequipment for individual students and to thecapital state of the sector. Specifically, theCouncil should:

• commission a survey of theaccessibility of the sector colleges tostudents with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities

• publish a guide about good practice, onthe basis of the survey of accessibility

• include likely costings about individualequipment, enabling technology andaccessibility in its representations onbehalf of the sector about needs, in thelight of the survey.

Long-term principles to underpin the

development of the funding methodology

The committee recommends that the Councilapply the following principles to any reviewof the methodology in order that it promotesinclusive learning and participation. To haveregard for these students’ requirements andavoid disproportionate expenditure, the waythese public funds are obtained, allocatedand accounted for should aim to:

• maximise the extent to which learningis inclusive

• maximise the rate of change by whichthe sector is able to offer inclusivelearning, consistent with realistic butdemanding expectations on colleges

• operate for those with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities in thesame way as for other students

• retain both the college’s responsibilityto plan its provision and allocate fundsand an allocation methodology fromthe Council which is based onstudents’ individual requirements.

Other sources of funds

The committee recommends that, whilst theCouncil’s primary focus must be to allocatethe funds put at its disposal, it should alsohave regard to the wider pattern of fundsfrom other sources. Students and the public


purse would benefit if these were deliveredon a more coherent basis. Specifically,therefore, the committee recommends thatthe Council:

• meet with the Department of SocialSecurity (DSS) and the Department ofHealth (DoH) at the highest level toexplore the scope for co-operation andsimplification in the allocation of fundsto ensure that funding opportunitiesfor students are maximised anddouble funding minimised

• negotiate an agreement with the DSSand specialist colleges about theappropriate role of student benefits inmeeting the costs of residentialprovision

• seek to have transferred to it fundscurrently allocated by LEAs indiscretionary awards and transport tofurther education students, or, in theshort term pending such a transfer, tohelp colleges and LEAs negotiatemanagement agreements whereby thecollege manages the funds nominallyallocated by the LEA

• explore the establishment of a singlepost-16 funding agency.

CHAPTER 12: QUALITYI N I T I ATIVE – THE DEVELOPMENTOF STAFF AND ORGANISATIONS

In this chapter, the committee makes thecase for a national quality initiative aimed atassisting colleges to implement therecommendations in the report, anddescribes the three main elements andintended outcomes of the initiative.


The committee has adopted four principlesin designing the quality initiative:

• high levels of knowledge, skills,experience and confidence on the partof staff are essential if the furthereducation sector is to become moreinclusive

• if our recommendations are to work,senior managers must understand theimplications they have for their ownstrategic role

• a strategic, nationally co-ordinatedapproach is required to bring aboutthe changes the committee wants tosee in colleges

• the initiative must link with otherinitiatives in teacher education, staffdevelopment or curriculumdevelopment work in colleges.

Recommendations

The committee makes the followingrecommendations to the Council. It should:

• work with the Department forEducation and Employment, theTeacher Training Agency, the FurtherEducation Staff Development Forum,universities, institutes of highereducation, awarding bodies, collegeand professional associations andothers to establish a central co-ordinating and advisory body foraccredited teacher educationconcerning students with learningdifficulties and/or disabilities

• provide funds for a centrally co-ordinated programme of staffdevelopment to be provided over threeyears, supported by a consortium ofinterested bodies but centrallymanaged. The programme wouldhave objectives that are linked directlyto the committee’s recommendationson learning and learningenvironments, assessment,collaboration, support for learning,organisation and management

• make available funds for a period ofthree years in order to assist collegesto implement the committee’srecommendations.

25

THE COMMITTEE’S TERMS OFREFERENCE

Having re g a rd to the Council’s

re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s towards students with

learning difficulties and/or disabilities,

to review the range and type of further

education provision available, and to

make recommendations as to how, within

the resources likely to be available to it,

the Further Education Funding Council can,

by working with colleges and others, best

fulfil its responsibilities towards these

students under the Further and Higher

Education Act 1992.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair:

Professor John Tomlinson CBE, Director,Institute of Education, University of Warwick

Members:

Toni Beck Head of the School ofLearning Support,Oaklands College

Deborah Cooper Director, Skill: NationalBureau for Students withDisabilities

Gwynneth Flower Chief Executive, CENTEC(from March 1995)

Mike Hanson Former Chief Executive,South Thames TEC (untilSeptember 1994)

David Kendall Principal, Derwen CollegeLynn Lee Principal, St Vincent

College, GosportPeter Moseley Principal, Hull CollegeMargaret Murdin Principal, Wigan and

Leigh CollegeJill Murkin Training Manager, Marks

and Spencer (until July1994)

Peter Raine Former Executive Directorof Social Services, LondonBorough of Brent

Jo Stephens Chief Education Officer,Oxfordshire CountyCouncil

Sharon Welch Former Director of PublicAffairs, an internationalchildren’s charity

Mike Young Personnel Manager,OrganisationalEffectiveness, PersonalCommunications Division,British Telecom (fromMarch 1996)


Terms of Reference and Membership of the Committee

Assessors:

Eddie Brittain Further, Higher andYouth TrainingDirectorate, Departmentfor Education andEmployment

David Tansley Training, Enterprise andEducation Directorate,Department forEducation andEmployment (untilDecember 1995)

Eric Galvin Department forEducation andEmployment (alternaterepresentative)

Observer:

Richard Hart Further EducationFunding Council forWales

FEFC staff team:

Elizabeth Education programmesMaddison division and secretary to

the committee

Pat Hood Adviser to the committee

Peter Lavender Adviser to the committee

Merillie Vaughan InspectorateHuxley

Lisa Young Clerk and administratorto the committee

Beverley Mulvey Administrative assistant


27

Beachcroft Stanleys Duties and Powers: TheLaw Governing the Provision of FurtherEducation to Students with LearningDifficulties and/or Disabilities: A Report to theLearning Difficulties and/or DisabilitiesCommittee, London, HMSO, 1996

J. Bradley, L. Dee and F. Wilenius Studentswith Disabilities and/or Learning Difficulties inFurther Education: A Review of ResearchCarried out by the National Foundation forEducational Research, Slough, NationalFoundation for Educational Research, 1994

Nigel Meager, Ceri Evans and Sally Dench (ofThe Institute for Employment Studies)Mapping Provision: The Provision of andParticipation in Further Education by Studentswith Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities: AReport to the Learning Difficulties and/orDisabilities Committee, London, HMSO, 1996

SCPR Student Voices: The Views of FurtherEducation Students with Learning Difficultiesand/or Disabilities: Findings from a Series ofStudent Workshops Commissioned by theLearning Difficulties and/or DisabilitiesCommittee, London, Skill: National Bureau forStudents with Disabilities, 1996


Committee Publications

Published by the

Further Education Funding Council

September 1996

THEFURTHEREDUCATIONFUNDINGCOUNCIL

Inclusive Learning - Principles and Recommendations - …dera.ioe.ac.uk/15072/1/inclusive...

Documents

Transcript of Inclusive Learning - Principles and Recommendations - …dera.ioe.ac.uk/15072/1/inclusive...