A Critical Discussion Paper And Person Centred Plan
The past forty years have seen increasingly rapid advances in the field of special educational needs. Hodkinson (2019) notes the term ‘special educational needs’ commonly known as SEN – was coined by the 1978 Warnock Report. A key aspect of the Warnock Report, it helped redefine the meaning of SEN by focusing on the child’s educational need rather than their actual disability (DES, 1981b). Prior to the vital report, children were labelled as ‘handicap’, nowadays the term SEN refers to a child or adolescent who has a special educational need or disability that makes accessing education and learning challenging compared to their classmates who do not have a special educational need (Glazzard, et al., 2015). The term ‘special educational needs and disabilities’ often abbreviated to SEND was developed under the Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition government in 2014 (DfE, 2014). Subsequently the introduction of the term SEND became regularly used in education. To help assist children with SEND, schools need to work alongside the government to ensure the correct practices are being implemented, and the practices that are put in place are there to guide the learner through education as well as help prepare them for the future. The beginning of the 21st century saw the introduction of person centred planning, the 2001 ‘Valuing People’ report included that planning should be based around the individual with the special educational need or disability and take into considerations their aspirations they want to achieve (DoH, 2001). The purpose of this paper is to explore the importance of person centred planning and how it can assist in a child’s learning. The personalisation of learning is the focal point of this paper and will be examined in relation to person-centred planning. It will specifically discuss the person-centred plan for Errol; a six-year-old boy with Global Developmental Delay (GDD).
The 1989 UNCRC explain in Article 28, that all children have the equal right to education, additionally in Article 23 they declare that children with a disability have the right to a fulfilled life; including healthcare, education, rehabilitation and employment (UNICEF, 2020). As explained in the introduction, the term ‘special educational needs’ has varied over time due to policy changes. Policies for young children and adolescents with a special educational need and disability have changed over time, Wood (2004) points out that the Forster Act (1870) which introduced compulsory state schooling was to generate workers who would contribute to the working society, however Hodkinson (2019) argues the 1870 Act did not feature requirements for children with SEND, yet it highlighted the need for children to be educated overall. In 1889, the Egerton Commission suggested that all children under the age of five with a visual impairment should have their education arranged for them by the school boards, furthermore children with a hearing deficiency should be taught by specialist teaching staff (Education England, 1889a). Following from this, the 1893 Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act forced school boards to deliver education for children with sensory impairments (Education England, 1893b). Overall, these studies provide an early insight to the policies that were put in place for children with a sensory impairment, however after the 1893 Act pressure created from educators and medical officers led to the government creating the Sharpe Committee, this was due to children who had a physical impairment not being included in policies in education (Hodkinson, 2019). Gibson & Blandford (2005) established the importance of the Sharp Committee and the crucial policies they raised, the most vital recommendation published was that schools for SEND children should have compulsory and efficient provisions in place for students who have disabilities as well as impairments. Errol’s experience of education would have been vastly different, if born before the 20th century. He would have been included in mainstream education, whilst suffering from GDD and would not have received any additional help. At this time, sensory and physical impairments were the main focus surrounding SEND legalisations, although GDD can affect a child’s ability to talk and movement skills, unless correctly diagnosed, it can be seen as a child not reaching a certain milestone yet.
According to Hodkinson (2019), provisions in education were unchanged until 1944 for children and young people with a special educational needs and disabilities, this was due to societal ideologies, according to Frederickson & Cline (2009) these societal beliefs led to pupils with a SEND being separated from a mainstream setting and educated at special schools. However, the 1944 ‘Butler’ Education Act became a pivotal policy for SEND children, it stated that local authorities must have provisions in place for children with a sensory or physical impairment or disability, whether this be through a special school or special educational methods (Roberts, 2007). Furthermore, local authorities had the power to force parents and guardians to submit their children for examinations against their mental capabilities (DES, 1978a). During the 1970s, under the Conservative party, the then Minister for Education – Margaret Thatcher – commissioned the Warnock Report. The Warnock Report concluded that there should be a continuum of special needs rather than separate categories (Gibson & Blandford, 2005). Furthermore Evans (1995), mentioned that children who are displaying educational needs should be formally assessed by several professionals, as well as all information regarding the case should be officially recorded. Following on from Gibson & Blandford (2005) analysis, Soan (2005) pointed out, new vocabulary should be used for children with a special educational need. Finally, the last critical legalisation of the 20th century was the 1981 Education Act, Hodkinson (2019) points out the 1981 Act features several recommendations from the Warnock Report. Furthermore, the 1981 Education Act included that children with SEND should be educated in mainstream schooling beside their peers, as long as schools had methodical resources for the SEND pupils, and other pupils would not be negatively affected (Wearmouth, 2001a).
Although, we have briefly examined the changes in SEND policy over two centuries, it is also important to consider the influential frameworks. Within special education, there were two main models of disability: medical and social (Bartlett & Burton, 2016).
Medical model
Social model
Disability is an individual problem
Disability is a society problem
Disabled people need care
Disabled people have rights
The agent of change is the professional
The agent of change is the individual, advocate or anybody who affects the arrangements between the individual and society
Segregation
Social integration
The remedy for disability and its related issues is a cure for or normalisation of the individual
The remedy for disablism is in the interactions between the individual and society
Disabled people can never be equal to non-disabled people
Disabled people have the same rights to full equality in society and education as all citizens
Personal adjustment
Environmental manipulation
Figure one, Contrasting the medical and social models (Hodkinson, 2019)
It is argued, that the medical model is based upon tradition combined with Western influences (Hodkinson, 2019). The model is summarised as the need or disability that a person is ‘suffering’ with, can be treated or cured by specialists (Goering, 2015). Following from treatment, a person will be labelled and treated based upon their diagnosed need or disability (Skidmore, 1996; Bartlett & Burton, 2016). On the other hand, the social model shifts the focus from the individual towards society. Morgan (2012) argues, that the restrictions in society contribute towards a person’s disability, as they are limited in communication compared to people without impairments. Furthermore, it is identified that the perception of SEND through social progressions, has resulted in individuals being labelled and marginalised (Bartlett & Burton, 2016). Errol suffers from GDD, a condition that is caused by faulty genes or chromosomes, this can be further enhanced by a premature birth or childhood infection (Contact, 2020). Both models neither fit Errol nor his needs, however taking elements from both can help Errol lead a comfortable childhood.
Policies are the defining changes the government creates (Ham, 2009). According to Wearmouth (2016b), policies should be based upon a school’s mission, values, visions and objectives. In 2014, a seminal document was published, which then became statutory guidance. The SEND code of practice provides guidance for local authorities, educational settings such as schools and nurseries, so they can recognise, evaluate, and deliver provisions for a child’s disability or need (Hodkinson, 2019). Furthermore, the document features how to prepare children for adulthood; eliminating barriers to learning and improving inclusion within schools; collaborating with parents and external organisations for support; and most importantly, highlighting the needs of young children and adolescents (Wearmouth, 2016b). To assist Errol with his learning in school, educational settings must have a special educational need coordinator (SENCO) in place (Hodkinson, 2019). Furthermore, the school must work alongside with Errol’s parents to ensure provisions that are in place in schools, are implemented at home too. Errol attends a mainstream school based in the city. According to the Code, mainstream schools should be encouraging inclusion by engaging children with a SEND alongside those who do not have a need or disability (DfE, 2014). According to a definition provided by Glazzard (2014), inclusion is the amendments and modifications that settings make, to cater for the needs for their learners. To ensure Errol is fully included within his school, school staff have provided support staff to work with Errol in the classroom. Although, inclusion is about the changes made to support the learner, inclusion should also make the learner feel comfortable too. The 2014 Code states, that educating staff that work with a child who has a SEND should continually plan, assess and document a child’s progress, alongside what is expected of them at that age (DfE, 2014). Although, planning is a focal part of the 2014 Code, person-centred planning (PCP) was originally introduced in 2001 (DoH, 2001), and was based upon the social model of disability. As all children learn differently, it is important to personalise their education, from this point educators can learn about a child’s personality, dreams and values (McCance, et al 2008; Cloninger, 2011; Thornton, 2011). Using the four-step process; assess, plan, do, review (DfE, 2014), teaching staff can help to personalise Errol’s learning. Teachers have assessed issues regarding Errol’s global development, following forward a PCP has been created under the planning step. Moving forward using the PCP, teachers can adapt their teaching so it is more inclusive for Errol, and finally staff will review and evaluate what worked well with Errol, and what did not work well (Thornton, 2011).
As explained above, PCPs are crucial for SEND students and assisting them through education through to adulthood. The main aims of a PCP are to be centred around Errol and his interests. Although, the PCP will be mainly used in an educational setting, the parents/guardians and friends of the child will be included in the planning (Friend & Cook, 1996). The aims of the PCP will be focused on short term, medium term and long-term goals for Errol. The goals will be based to support Errol at school as well as at home. Although, Errol’s parents work irregular hours, Errol’s siblings and close family and friends have been included in the planning process. American psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner identified three major systems; microsystem, exosystem and macrosystem, and these systems are based upon a child’s development and environment working cohesively (Keenan, et al., 2016). McDowall Clark (2013) highlights a microsystem as the daily interactions a person encounters, furthermore a child has two systems: one for home and one for school. Errol’s microsystem features his family, his school friends, and teachers. However, to ensure Errol’s needs are being fully met, both his microsystems must work together. Bronfenbrenner (1979) identifies this as a mesosystem. For a mesosystem to work efficiently, communication is vital (Musgrave, 2017). Alongside the microsystem, there is the exosystem, which is the formal and informal environments that support a person’s psychological and physical growth (Keenan, et al., 2016). Errol’s exosystem is made up of his extended family from the local church and after-school club that he attends twice a week. Finally, the macrosystem embodies the policies and legislations that will affect a child (Musgrave, 2017). For Errol, the 2014 SEND Code will be a major part of his macrosystem. Together these studies show, the importance of a child’s environment and what can positively and negatively impact it. To fully support Errol during childhood and through to adulthood, his home and educational settings must collaborate with professionals to give him the best chance in life. The ideology of special educational needs have adapted and changed over time, thus resulting in attitudes shifting towards these disabilities and needs. The importance of past and current reports and practices highlight the importance of involving all settings a child is apart of, as well as cooperating with family too.