Category: Inclusion

Pride and Prejudice

On By Iain NisbetIn Bullying, Equality Act 2010, InclusionLeave a comment

As Pride month for 2021 draws to a close, I thought it would be appropriate to write a brief article outlining what the law says about discrimination and LGBTQ pupils.

LGBTQ young people with additional support needs or a disability can face particular issues not experienced by straight / cisgender disabled people, or by non-disabled LGBTQ pupils. As the Scottish Commission for People with Learning Disabilities 2018 report “Safe and Healthy Relationships” points out: “people with learning disabilities who identify as LGBT [are] a “minority within a minority” (Elderton et al, 2013, p.302). This subgroup experience a double disadvantage which can increase the barriers in forming relationships which are safe, healthy and reciprocal.”

Protected Characteristics

The Equality Act 2010 provides protection from unlawful discrimination across nine “protected characteristics”. These include sexual orientation (section 12) and gender reassignment (section 7).

Sexual orientation is defined as “a person’s sexual orientation towards— (a) persons of the same sex, (b) persons of the opposite sex, or (c) persons of either sex.”

Gender reassignment is defined as being when “a person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” A recent case in the Employment Tribunal (Taylor v. Jaguar Land Rover) has clarified that the reassignment need not be viewed strictly as male to female or female to male – and thus pupils identifying as gender-fluid or non-binary would also be protected.

A person will be protected because of gender reassignment once:
• he or she makes his or her intention known to someone, regardless of who this is (whether it is someone at school or at home, or someone such as a doctor);
• he or she has proposed to undergo gender reassignment, even if he or she takes no further steps or decides to stop later on;
• there is manifestation of an intention to undergo gender reassignment, even if he or she has not reached an irrevocable decision;
• he or she starts or continues to dress, behave or live (full-time or part-time) according to the gender with which he or she identifies as a person;
• he or she undergoes treatment related to gender reassignment, such as surgery or hormone therapy; or
• he or she has received gender recognition under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
It does not matter which of these applies to a person for him or her to be protected because of the characteristic of gender reassignment.

Technical Guidance 5.114

Schools

Part 6, Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010 covers all schools in Scotland (education authority, granted-aided or independent) and provides that the responsible body for a school must not discriminate against a pupil (or prospective pupil) in terms of admission to school; provision (or failure to provide) education or other “benefit, facility or service”; or by excluding a pupil or subjecting them to any other detriment. This would cover direct or indirect discrimination cases.

However, the prohibition on harassment (s.26(3)) does not apply in relation to the protected characteristics of sexual orientation or gender reassignment (s.26(10)). In practice, most incidents of harassment would be caught by the direct discrimination provisions in any event.

Example: As part of health and wellbeing education, a teacher describes homosexuality as ‘unnatural’ and states that he will be covering only straight relationships in the lesson. A bisexual pupil in the class is upset and offended by these comments. This may be direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Technical Guidance 5.19

Schedule 23, para 3 of the Act provides a general exception in relation to communal accommodation (which covers residential schools’ accommodation). Matters in relation to communal accommodation will not be unlawful in relation to sex discrimination or gender reassignment discrimination. In relation to gender reassignment, consideration must be given to whether the decision in question is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Consequences

Unlike disability discrimination cases, there is no specialist Tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to schools cases involving sexual orientation discrimination or gender reassignment discrimination. These cases are instead heard by the Sheriff Court (Section 114(1)(c)). To my knowledge, there is no case law involving cases of this type. It is hard to tell whether this is a good thing (because there are few examples of discrimination against LGBTQ pupils by schools) or a bad thing (because a lack of awareness or other factors mean people do not want to bring cases when they arise). It may be a bit of both.

There is a six month deadline for bringing cases to court (s.118), and the Sheriff should ordinarily appoint a specialist “assessor” to assist in considering the case (s.114(8)). The Sheriff Court has wide ranging powers to make a range of court orders where discrimination has taken place, including compensation for injury to feelings (s.119)- awarded on the so-called Vento scale.

Examples

In the absence of case law in education cases, we have to look to cases in other fields (usually employment) and to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Technical Guidance for Schools in Scotland. Although some of the examples are of fairly obvious cases of discrimination, it is helpful to consider what the guidance says nonetheless.

Example: An independent religious school has information on its website indicating that it does not tolerate homosexuality. This could constitute direct sexual orientation discrimination

Technical Guidance 2.17

Example: A school has a policy covering racial bullying and any pupil who participates in racial bullying is excluded for at least one day. However, the school does not have a policy dealing with homophobic bullying and pupils who participate in such bullying are usually given only a detention. This could lead to direct sexual orientation discrimination unless the bullying of homosexual pupils was not related to their sexual orientation.

Technical Guidance 3.7

Example: A lesbian pupil undertakes a project charting the history of the gay and lesbian movement as part of her coursework. Her teacher tells her that her topic is inappropriate and that she should keep her personal life to herself. As a result, the pupil is subsequently given low marks for her project. This is likely to be direct discrimination because
of sexual orientation.

Technical Guidance 3.8

Example: A school fails to provide appropriate changing facilities for a transsexual pupil and insists that the pupil uses the boys’ changing room even though she is now living as a girl. This could be indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless it can be objectively justified. A suitable alternative might be to allow the pupil to use private
changing facilities, such as the staff changing room or another suitable space.

Technical Guidance 3.20

A previously female pupil has started to live as a boy and has adopted a male name. Does the school have to use this name and refer to the pupil as a boy?
Not using the pupil’s chosen name merely because the pupil has changed gender would be direct gender reassignment discrimination. Not referring to this pupil as a boy would also result in direct gender
reassignment discrimination.

Technical Guidance 3.36

Example: A member of school staff repeatedly tells a transsexual pupil that ‘he’ should not dress like a girl and that ‘he’ looks silly, which causes the pupil great distress. This would not be covered by the harassment provisions, because it is related to gender reassignment, but could constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Technical Guidance 5.19

For further reading, you might want to take a look at Education Scotland’s resource on Addressing Inclusion – Effectively Challenging Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.

Image by Sharon McCutcheon from Pixabay

Potential Energy (Part 8)

On By Iain NisbetIn ASL Review, Exclusion, Inclusion, Pupil Welfare / Wellbeing, School EducationLeave a comment

The section of the ASL Review which covers Theme 7: Relationships and behaviour is on the short side for such an important topic. But that it because it is largely reiterating things which are already well known and have been covered well in recent years by other documents and initiatives, including:

In particular, the review recognises as a “key point of principle” that:

All behaviour is communication.

Included, Engaged and Involved Part 2
Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 8)” →

Taking Stock – the Audit Scotland education report

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, ASL Review, Inclusion, School EducationLeave a comment

Audit Scotland have just published “Improving outcomes for young people through school education”, a report which started out looking at how effectively the Scottish Government and local authorities were improving outcomes for young people, and ended up considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the responses to that. The report covers both issues, up to around January 2021.

The report is not focused on additional support needs, and there is much which is to do with the process of collecting data and evidence. Which is important, but probably not what you want to read about. I will therefore take you through the edited highlights as they are relevant to children and young people with additional support needs and their families.

Continue reading “Taking Stock – the Audit Scotland education report” →

Potential Energy (Part 6)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, ASL Review, Inclusion, School EducationLeave a comment

With apologies, first of all, for the gap in returning to the ASL Review, let us turn to Theme 5: workforce development and support. It is an obvious point that the success or otherwise of any child’s education is going to rely on the staff (teaching and non-teaching) involved in that education.

The review begins with a recognition that where things are working well for children with additional support needs that is primarily down to committed and determined individual staff members who make things work, in spite of the system (as opposed to because of it). That is quite a depressing thought, but also give some cause for optimism. Think how much better things could be once / if the other recommendations from the report are implemented.

Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 6)” →

Potential Energy (Part 4)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, ASL Review, Inclusion, School EducationLeave a comment

Theme 3 of the Support for Learning review is “Maintaining focus, but overcoming fragmentation”.  It is a shorter section, covering only two A4 sheets, but addresses an important issue.  How do we ensure specialist knowledge and experience is available in the system for those who need it, without creating “silos” and giving the impression that additional support for learning is only for specialists?

Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 4)” →

Potential Energy (Part 3)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, ASL Review, Inclusion, School EducationLeave a comment

Following consideration of Theme 1: Vision and visibility, we turn our attention to Theme 2: Mainstreaming and inclusion. This obviously covers a lot of the same ground as the revised “Guidance on the presumption to provide education in a mainstreaming setting” on which I recently completed a ten-part series of blogs. You can read my conclusions on that guidance in Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 10).

Thankfully, this review reaches many of the same conclusions about mainstreaming, and explicitly adopts many of the key concepts and principles from the guidance:

  • the review confirms that the “physical presence of a child” in a mainstream school alone does not constitute inclusion;
  • it adopts the four principles of inclusion from the guidance – present, participating, supported and achieving; and
  • it underlines the importance of inclusion “in the life of the school” which includes the playground, school trips, sporting events, social events and being “visible as part of the community”.

Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 3)” →

Potential Energy (Part 1)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, ASL Review, Equality Act 2010, InclusionLeave a comment

As promised, and following a delay (for which I apologise), I finally turn my attention to the independent review of the implementation of Additional Support for Learning legislation in Scotland.  The review was chaired by Angela Morgan, and the report, titled “Support for Learning: All our Children and All their Potential” was published in June 2020. A formal response from Scottish Government and COSLA is expected in the Autumn.

There has not been much in the way of commentary on the review, with this interesting article by Alison Brown being a rare example.

I plan to take the same approach as I did with the mainstreaming guidance, which is to consider the report in shorter chunks.  This keeps things manageable for me, and allows for a more in-depth analysis of each section. As always, my focus is on the legal implications.

Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 1)” →

Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 10 – Conclusions)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, Equality Act 2010, Inclusion, School Education1 Comment

So, we have finally reached the end of the Scottish Government’s guidance on the presumption of mainstreaming.  Having gone through it in that level of detail, I have obviously had the opportunity to form a view on it.

Reading through the previous nine articles, you will see that I have some criticisms and some concerns in relation to individual sections.  However, overall, I would say that this guidance is pretty good.

It is well written and well structured.  It provides a useful working definition of inclusive education, through its use of the “four key features of inclusion”.  It is a practical document, which you can actually see education staff, parents and young people making use of in tackling the issues which arise.  The practitioner questions, in particular, are a really useful approach and identify the right questions without dictating an answer in any individual case.  It also valiantly attempts to move the terminology on from “mainstreaming” to “inclusive education / inclusion” while hampered with legislation which bears the crossheading “Requirement for mainstream education”.

So, as I was asked on the facebook page recently …

What’s your stance on presumption of mainstreaming?

A good question.

One of the points to consider here is how well the Scottish legislation (Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000) implements Scotland’s international obligations (Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

But Section 15 was never an attempt to implement the UNCRPD.  Scotland’s presumption of mainstreaming law (passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2000) predates the UN Convention (came into force on 3 May 2008) by several years.

At that time, as far as I know, the leading international source for inclusive education was the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (from June 1994), with its call for children with special educational needs to have access to “regular schools” with an inclusive orientation”.

It is a measure of the speed at which progress was made that less than 15 years later, there was a UN Convention requiring all States Parties (including the UK) to ensure that “[p]ersons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;”  And it is therefore perhaps not surprising that legislation which predates that Convention does not fully reflect its requirements.  Time for a legislative review?

One of the big problems which exists here is with the terminology.  A “presumption of mainstreaming” – is almost tailor made to get parents’ backs up.  Why are you taking important decisions about my child on the basis of a presumption?  Look at them as an individual and make a decision that is best for them!

And look at how it is structured.  A duty on the education authority to ensure that children (subject to the three exceptional exceptions) are provided with school education in schools which are not special schools.  The assumption was that the presumption of mainstreaming was something which parents could use to ensure access to “regular schools”.  Too often, it is something which is imposed on parents against their better wishes.  This is compounded where the provision then does not deliver on reassurances made by education personnel (who may not work within the school in question).

What if the legislative language was not about taking children and deciding where to put them – like some kind of low-grade Sorting Hat?  What if, instead of a duty to place children in mainstream schools, the education authority had a duty to make its mainstream schools inclusive for all pupils?  What if, instead of a duty to put children in local schools, there was a duty to make local schools accessible, inclusive and welcoming for children with disabilities or additional support needs?

The Equality Act 2010 and the (oft-forgotten) accessibility strategies go some way to achieving this – but not far enough.  Just this year, I represented a family who could not send their child to the local school for want of an accessible toilet, which the authority refused to install for cost reasons.  Besides, there was an accessible school not too far away and we will pay for a taxi for you.  This is – as the law stands – perfectly legal.

It is not my role to make suggestions about how we could improve things, but if it were, I might suggest the following:

  1. Review and revise the legislation so that it better reflects Scotland’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  2. Strengthen the Accessibility Strategies process so that schools and authorities take it seriously, and they are externally audited (as they used to be).
  3. Schools should give parents at least an indication of the supports available for their child in advance of attendance.  Being told that the child will attend, and then the school will determine the level of support required is not at all reassuring.
  4. If a child is to attend a mainstream school, the right support and financial backing must be given to allow their full participation in all aspects of the school – after school clubs, school trips etc.
  5. Children and young people should be at the centre of and involved in decisions about their own education.
  6. A diversity of provision – including smaller, quieter schools – would be of benefit to a diverse range of learners.  Those with additional support needs and those without.

Thanks for sticking with me over the course of this ten part series, and for those who have provided useful comments and feedback.

Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 9)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, Inclusion, Placing Requests, School EducationLeave a comment

And so, we finally get to the core of the guidance, which is the duty itself and – almost as importantly – the three exceptions to that duty.  As the guidance notes: “If there is doubt about the suitability of mainstream provision, it is the role of the education authority to use the legislation to weigh up a range of matters including the child or young person’s wellbeing, in order to reach a conclusion on the application of the three exceptions..”

Continue reading “Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 9)” →

Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 8)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, Equality Act 2010, Getting It Right For Every Child, Inclusion, Placing Requests1 Comment

The Scottish Government guidance we have been looking at is called “Guidance on the presumption to provide education in a mainstream setting“, and yet it is only now – on page 13 of the document – that we reach consideration of the sometimes thorny issue of deciding on the right provision for a child or young person.

Continue reading “Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 8)” →