Accessibility and Display Options and Information

CERES: Centre for Education for Racial Equality in Scotland

23 February 2005

Michael Courtney

SEED

Additional Support Needs Division

Area 3B (North)

Victoria Quay

EDINBURGH

EH6 6QQ

 

EDUCATION (ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR LEARNING) (SCOTLAND) ACT 2004

CONSULTATION AND DRAFT CODE OF PRACTICE, DRAFT POLICY PAPERS AND DRAFT ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS

RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION BY CERES

CERES is represented on the Inclusive Education Reference Group and supports the IERG’s submission on the Code; CERES welcomes the initiatives taken in the ASfL field and offers the following points for consideration.  Our response attempts to link comments to relevant sections of the Code, as requested.

GENERAL: The overall structure and format of the Code

• We believe that the Code needs to be much more explicitly linked to inclusive education and that this orientation should be to the fore in formatting terms.  CERES welcomes the inclusive statement on ASfL in section 2.6 but feels that this orientation is not emphasised enough throughout the Code, which regularly reverts to more deficit oriented terminology.
• The Code, in our view, should also firmly embed Additional Support for Learning in the wider Scottish education equalities agenda and account more for the diversity of our society.  The document’s language and approach do not, in our view, relate enough to the multilingual and multicultural environment characterising Scottish schools and communities today.
• Too little account appears to be taken of institutional discrimination as a possible factor producing possible barriers and difficulties for learners; these may be of particular significance in areas where EAL provision is limited or where schools and authorities have still have much to do in developing race equality policy and practice.  Such discrimination may affect a wide range of children requiring additional support for learning in schools.
• The Code does not appear to have been informed by an explicit acknowledgment of the Act’s impact on race and other equality issues (see response to Section 1, below).
• The scenarios would benefit from expansion and, in relation to race/ethnicity, from an acknowledgment of the real difficulties that black and minority ethnic and Gypsy/Traveller people may encounter in accessing ‘mainstream’ services which meet their needs.  This is particularly important in the assessment field and in the coordination of suitable support across agencies and services.

SECTION 1: ASfL framework and wider legislative policy context

• As indicated in 1.4 the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 [RR(A)A] and its attendant Scottish Order (2002) does not appear to be referred to directly in the Code.  Under the Act/Order, we believe, the impact of the ASfL Act on the General Duty to promote race equality (and the Specific Duties relating to education) need to be assessed and their outcomes accounted for.  If on impact assessment has been undertaken, it would be useful to CERES to obtain a copy.

SECTION 2: ASN – the framework

• It is of particular importance in our view that the more inclusive perspective on ASfL outlined in 2.6 is given prominence and generalised throughout the Code.  We have already encountered circumstances where ASfL and SEN are considered synonymous and where, in discussing ASfL, there is ignorance that other equality issues other than ‘disability’ are included in the Act’s provisions and scope.  More broadly we wish to avoid the observable tendency for inclusion to be a substitution for the integration of children and young people with special needs in mainstream schools.
• The description of factors is useful, but it excludes the possible influence of personal, social and institutional prejudice and discrimination which, as is well documented, can substantially impact on individuals, families and the learning environment.  In our view the implementation of the ASfL Act should acknowledge such factors (which are not covered by bullying) more explicitly and steps should be taken to promote equalities issues positively via the Act’s processes and provisions, eg in CPD for all relevant staff.
• Where appropriate the inclusion of local Race Equality Councils could help in implementation as could representative and/or specialist black and minority ethnic groups.

SECTION 3: Supporting Children’s learning

• We acknowledge the statement made under Values and Principles of Assessment (last bullet point, p.25) regarding the need to ‘take into account issues of equality and diversity and to ensure that outcomes do not discriminate against children, young people and their families.’  However we believe this perspective requires to be permeated through the code and promoted, near the beginning, as a core (and legally required) component.
• The section could profitably be divided into more digestible sub-sections as it is very long and wide-ranging.
• We cannot over emphasise that, should institutional and ‘unintentional’ prejudice and discrimination not be explicitly tackled in conceptual and in operational terms, the possibility of negative outcomes is significant, especially for vulnerable individuals and families involved in complex multi-agency systems.

SECTION 4: Supporting Children and Families

Our comments above apply across the key issue-areas.

SECTION 5: General Provisions

Our comments above apply.

CONCLUSION

CERES is supportive of the spirit of the ASfL Act but feels that the embedding of (race) equality issues at the core of its provisions and processes is necessary if its outcomes are to be achieved for all children, young people and families.

Note:

CERES agrees that this contribution to the consultative process be made publicly available.

Back to top