Ekklesia’s Jonathan Bartley confronts David Cameron’s Conservative manifesto pledge to “end the bias towards the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools.”
This is absolutely fascinating.
Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia had a chance encounter with David Cameron a couple of days ago. Here’s how it all started:
This morning, my son Samuel had an appointment at the Evelina children’s hospital. We arrived early for the appointment and saw the TV crews and their vans just around the corner, so went over to watch David Cameron’s speech that was being shown in one of the TV vans.
Whilst we were watching, a Conservative party official came up to us and asked if Samuel and I would like to meet David when he had finished speaking. We said that we would and duly waited. The party official then came to get us, and took us outside the exit where David Cameron was to emerge after his speech. The Conservative leader was then brought over to us, and I explained my concerns about the Conservative’s plans for children with Special Educational Needs.
And here’s a juicy vid of the confrontation:
This link takes you to a “factCheck” on David Cameron’s comments to Jonathan, from the Channel 4 website:
Channel 4 – Do Tories encourage special needs children in manistream schools?
And they conclude:
The verdict
Cameron said his manifesto “absolutely” did not suggest the emphasis towards educating disabled children in mainstream schools would be ended.But that’s exactly what it says, even if further briefing from the Conservative party points towards parents being given greater choice, and therefore still being able to still send their disabled children to mainstream school if they so wish.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
Cameron denied “absolutely” that his manifesto suggested ending the bias towards educating disabled children in mainstream schools.However, that’s exactly what it does say. The Tories subsequently briefed that parents should be given greater choice, allowing them to send their disabled children to a mainstream school if they wished.
But that’s not a subtlety contained in the manifesto, as Cameron should know. On the basis of what he said to Mr Bartley though, he needs to do some homework on just what is contained within the smart hardback cover of his manifesto.
The following are comments from Jonathan Bartley posted this morning on the Ekklesia website:
During last night’s prime ministerial television debate David Cameron referred to our exchange over Special Educational Needs as having taken place ‘on the street’.
The meeting was of course set up ‘on the street’ by Cameron’s staff, possibly to get a photo with a disabled child and his father. They certainly asked me on the way over to Cameron’s car – where we were instructed by the party official to wait for him – whether we would mind having a few photos taken. If so, I don’t hold that against him. He is a politician and this is an election campaign.
Following Brown’s ‘bigotgate’ incident, quite a few journalists, and last night’s Politics Show, have speculated about what Cameron said in the car as he left after our exchange. I too have been wondering more and more as the days pass. During our exchange Cameron promised to meet with me and other parents of disabled children. One of his staff took my number promising to call. But there has been no contact from CCHQ or Cameron’s office at all. Neither did Cameron’s staff discuss the party’s policy with me after the event as some newspapers reported (which now leads me to wonder where the newspapers got that impression from, and if anyone briefed them that this had taken place).
Channel 4 Fact Checked what Cameron said in response and found that it wasn’t in fact true. Cameron said his manifesto “absolutely” did not suggest the emphasis towards educating disabled children in mainstream schools would be ended. But as FactCheck concludes: “But that’s exactly what it says”.
Since Tuesday I have been inundated by messages from parents of disabled children, and disabled people, asking me to raise their concerns with David Cameron if we meet. I have promised that I will. They are greatly concerned that the Conservatives are not in fact offering true choice as they claim they are.
There have been two big recurring themes, and both directly address the idea of ‘choice’ which David Cameron is saying he is offering. The first comes from those parents who have struggled desperately to get their children into mainstream school, and then to keep them there, feeling that schools need to be made more inclusive. The second are parents who feel there is no alternative in mainstream schools for their child, and so have only felt they have the option of special schools.
But there are no proposals from the Conservatives to make inclusion work more effectively in existing mainstream schools. As such they are not representing the needs of thousands of families. If the Conservatives are to offer real “choice” as they claim, they are going to have to address this issue. As time moves on however, I believe less and less that this was a serious concern for David Cameron as he was being driven away in his Lexus.
Kudos!
Tags: Education, Politics, Science & Medical
April 30th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
This is the politics of sentimentality, some parents being unable to connect with the reality of their childrens special needs.
This is a result of the vain emotions built in to the false reality of the politics of diversity, equality and inclusion.
Overall both special needs and able-bodied children are the losers of this enforced guilt and sentimentality.
I know of a child with severe autism who spent 6 years in a mainstream school with his educational needs being denied because both the parents and the teachers could not face the reality of his condition and needs due to the false world of sentimentality they had projected on to the child.
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Surely a little common sense is needed here. Some children with certain physical conditions and/or mild learning difficulties can be sucessfully educated in mainstream schools. Other children have quite complex needs that are better addressed in smaller schools with specialist teachers who have access the specialist equipment that it would be neither possible nor desirable to provide in every State School.
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
@ Annie: You would have thought so. However I know that funds are so tight in schools that parents have to fight – often for years – for provision that is theoretically available to every eligible child. It adds enormously to the stress of family life.
May 4th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Typical Bartley – commentry and criticsm, but failing to step up to the plate.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:51 am
This is the politics of sentimentality, some parents being unable to connect with the reality of their childrens special needs.
@Goy. Charming and so condesending, (makes a change) do you want to support your general and ad hom claims.
Oh sorry, just noticed you did, from your experience of ONE child.
Dear oh dear, an exception, does not make the rule.
May 4th, 2010 at 7:54 am
but failing to step up to the plate.
@Fred, care to explain?
May 4th, 2010 at 8:57 am
@Caral,
Special needs is a catch all term, mainstream schools are not special needs schools this can only ever be a one size fits all policy. Would you go to your GP practice for intensive care, most of the “helpers” for these children are not specialist they are taken straight of the unemployment register.
It is nice to be nice but sometimes you have to be crual to be kind and tell parents that their child is indeed special.
For most children 80% the state education system is a disaster if it FAILS these children what makes you think that it can succeed with special needs children in mainstream schools.
May 4th, 2010 at 10:10 am
@ Fqithful Fred: “Typical Bartley – commentry and criticsm, but failing to step up to the plate.”
Jonathan Bartley confronted David Cameron directly on the issue. It was a brief exchange but that’s not JB’s faut. I can’t see where your comment fits in. What do you mean?
May 4th, 2010 at 10:38 am
@Goy,
I personally think that the label, speical needs, is one of the most stoopid politically correct labels ever.
However, my point was not at the stupidity of PC labels, and the foolishness of trying to label ‘all’ children under one banner regardless of the severity of disability. But at your conscending attitudes to parents. I think that parents are more than fully and painfully aware of their children disabilities. Yet mainstream schools, should still be a option for parents, regardless of the nanny state and governamental misleading, education and what this entails is still and will hopefully remain a parental responsibility.
Education isn’t just about the 3 ‘R’s, but about raising children to be contributing members of their community.
May 4th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
@ Caral: Both my children have issues that affect their health/education. My older son is gifted with a very high IQ but severe dyslexia. He gets round it to a large degree by using a laptop and spellcheck. The younger has brittle Type 1 diabetes. Because of this his attendance this school year has been under 50%. He’s had 4 hospital admissions since January. He’s in the first year of GCSE and these absences are hugely important.
My younger son attends a large comprehensive and, although we had teething problems, they’ve been pretty good about his health. He and I know the sickroom staff far better than we’d want, but they are kind and sensible.
The support at primary school was dismal. He nearly drowned when staff who took him swimming forgot to check his sugars. That’s the worst example, but there were lots. He even started trying to avoid school because he felt unsafe there.
The older son is OK now but had massive problems just learning to read. Attitudes at his first primary school. were horrifying. His headteacher showed us samples of his artwork. Proof, she said, that he was a bright child. I thought the idea that dyslexia = stupid went out in the 1960s but, no, it’s alive and well in Surrey.
We investigated special needs provision and eventually got him transferred to a primary school that catered for his needs. We also paid for private specialist help. His reading age went up three years in a term…
I know from personal experience that seeking just basic provision for a child with specific health problems is an obstacle course. You’d think that a child whose parents can supply medical reports and recommendations from an educational psychologist would automatically get appropriate provision. But they don’t. It’s a long baffling sequence of letters, meetings, appeals. The LEA make it an ordeal.
I don’t think people who don’t go through it have any idea how hard it is getting help through the system. The resources exist: it’s obtaining them that’s the trick.
It’s hard work being a parent. It’s much harder if your child has special needs. The education system significantly adds to that burden. Help is never offered. You have to fight for it with dogged determination every step.
Caral, you’re absolutely right in saying: “parents are more than fully and painfully aware of their children’s disabilities.” It seems to me that parents of “normal” children are more likely to have unrealistic expectations for them. They’ve never had to confront the realities that I can’t help but know will affect my children as they grow, whether in terms of work, independent living, or even life expectancy.