National and international approaches to special education needs and disability provision

With an increasing emphasis in the sphere of policy, practice and the enactment of inclusive education both nationally and internationally, there is now a greater focus on how to best cater for students’ special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). A common trend in the identification of SEND across countries, for researchers such as Westwood (2015, 4), relates to a child’s inability to ‘learn in the same way as other children’. That said, undoubtedly there is variance in the identification of students with SEND across countries. In England, for example, a child is identified as having a SEND if they have a learning difficulty that calls for special educational provisions to be made, (Briggs 2016). In the USA, to receive special educational provision, a child must have a ‘defined disability’, whilst in Australia, children are eligible for government support if they have an ‘evidenced’ impairment that has an educational impact in terms of its effect on learning, (Farrell 2017).

Not only is there difference in the identification processes of SEND students but also in the approaches, guidance and requirements set out in policy. In England, new duties regarding the provision of support for children and young people with SEND are contained in the Children and Families Act 2014, and the associated regulations made under the Act. The duties are amplified in the statutory guidance: Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years published jointly by the Departments for Education and Health (DfE and DoH 2015). In addition, the approach to the inspection of such issues has been set out in detail in both the Framework and Handbook for the inspection of local areas’ effectiveness in identifying and meeting the needs of children and young people who have special educational needs and/or disabilities (CQC and Ofsted 2016). As will be seen in the articles offered by Janice Wearmouth and Cathal Butler; Peter Wood and Nathan Legg; and Rebecca Hibbin and Jo Warin in this special edition, the requirements and guidance set out in these Acts, forms of guidance and publications are often interpreted and adhered to with variance.

Although, across countries, there is a degree of commonality of policy, in their recognition of an ‘inter-connectedness of services’, the ‘encouragement of collaboration’ and the ‘inclusion for all within mainstream provision’ (Rix et al. 2013, 390), a range of questions persist relating to international approaches to SEND governance, curriculum and placement (Norwich 2008). Seemingly, and as exemplified in the SEND Code of Practice (2015), there is a growing international trend towards a decentralisation of governance, greater parental involvement and more specialised provisions. Although there is now an ‘international language’ (Rix et al. 2013) of SEND, as will be shown in the articles by Khairul Farhah Khairuddin and Susie Miles; and Peder Haug, countries have an eclectic approach to practice (Riddell et al. 2006). Furthermore, whilst policy, regulation and guidance is provided for practitioners working with children with SEND, there is little consensus both nationally and internationally as to the most effective ways of supporting such students (Banks, Frawley, and Mccoy 2015). As such, the final paper in this special edition, written by Garry Squires, offers a model that may be used to facilitate more inclusive practices.

It is against the national and international concerns outlined above that this special edition is situated. By drawing on contemporary empirical research, and newly proposed models for better working practices, this issue explores how SEND policy and provision is conceptualised, operationalised and enacted by a range of school stakeholders in places including Britain, Norway, Malaysia and across Europe. The articles are intended to create an insight into both the rhetoric and reality of SEND practice across a range of settings and, in doing so, contribute to our understanding of the interpretation and utilisation of SEND provision. Collectively, the articles reveal the complexities, concerns and challenges experienced by staff, pupils and their parents and carers in contemporary education settings, with a specific focus on the 3-13 age range. At the heart of the special edition, however, is the distinct aim to challenge thought, stimulate critique and provoke debate in the field both locally and globally.

The special edition consists of six articles, the first two of which focus on the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders regarding the provision for children with specific SENDs. In the first paper, that harnesses Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators’ (SENCOs) views of the provision they deem effective for autistic children, Janice Wearmouth and Cathal Butler share research findings from a recent project that sought to establish the realities of the support on offer for autistic children, and the constituents of best practice. To aide them in this quest, the authors gathered data from a group of SENCOs working in English schools, focussing specifically on their perceptions of their own, and the teachers’ abilities in meeting the statutory requirements related to children with autism. Next, Khairul Farhah Khairuddin’s and Susie Miles’ paper focusses on school stakeholders’ experiences of inclusive practice within mainstream schools for deaf children. Utilising data from parents, specialist teachers, teachers, teaching assistants and children across three primary schools in the state of Selangor, Malaysia, the authors explore how these key participants navigate the provision and practices for deaf pupils, that have been developed to facilitate inclusivity and equity. As will be seen, both papers demonstrate not only how the many stakeholders make sense of specific SEND provision, but also the disparate nature of practice within mainstream schools.

Whilst also being attentive to practice and provision, articles three and four focus largely on the role of the learning environment as a means of meeting the needs of SEND children. Peter Wood’s and Nathan Legg’s research in primary and secondary academy schools in a single multi-academy trust in Central England is captured in the third paper. Using existing documentation pertinent to SEND provision across the participating academy schools, as well as interview data derived from groups of staff, their work identifies the barriers that may hinder inclusive practices, as well as the approaches and strategies that may bring about their realisation. Peder Haug’s article, the fourth in this special edition, draws on survey data gathered from over 10,000 Norwegian children, in order to help establish how pupils with SEND perceive their learning environment when compared with others, without such needs and/or disabilities. Adopting a multi-dimensional approach to inclusive practice, the findings reported here reveal a complex and nuanced picture, and shed light on the experiences of children with a range of needs who receive support in both mainstream and specialist provisions. After clarifying how the environment in which SEND is enacted influences the ‘quality’ of provision, these two articles go on to offer firm and feasible suggestions for schools to help establish more inclusive provision.

Peder’s work illustrates how the learning environment has particular consequences for children with behavioural difficulties and, as a continuation of this theme, Rebecca Hibbin and Jo Warin discuss a range of strategies and means of support for pupils identified as having a social, emotional and behavioural difficulty (SEBD). Their main arguments stem from qualitative data taken from two research studies, both of which focus on relational approaches to SEBD across a range of mainstream and specialist education providers. The narratives provided by their staff member participants reveal a rich insight into potential avenues for inclusive provision for SEBD children, emphasising the importance of strong relations and effective communication. The final article – ‘A European consideration of Early School Leaving as a process running through childhood: A model for inclusive action’ – by Garry Squires, explores the factors that contribute to early school leaving for SEND children, with a particular focus on member states of the EU. Here, Garry employs an exhaustive review of the existing literature and EU policy as his main evidence base, and theories proposed by Lewin (1943) and Bronfenbrenner (1986) as a theoretical lens, in the development of a model for inclusive action. The model, in turn, identifies concrete steps that may help SEND children overcome the problems they face, whilst also alleviating the likelihood of early school leaving.

We feel privileged to have been able to act as guest editors for this pertinent and timely special edition. The six composite articles not only demonstrate the diverse nature of SEND provision across the various countries and education establishments, but also how they and some of the associated inclusive practices are understood by our contributing authors. We feel that the various tensions that this collection of articles capture emphasises the continued requirement for open and honest discussion, so that both practitioners and academics alike can work towards establishing effective SEND provision that is tailored to the needs of the education providers and the children within. By positioning SEND provision and inclusive practice as disparate and diverse both within and across establishments and countries, we can begin to challenge policy directives that favour monist approaches to special educational needs and disabilities, and we hope this special edition facilitates such agency and action.