Tag: disability

New Scottish Government guidance for schools on Gender Based Violence

On By Iain NisbetIn Bullying, Equality Act 2010, Getting It Right For Every Child, Pupil Welfare / WellbeingLeave a comment

Friday 8 March 2024 is International Women’s Day. Presumably to co-incide with this, the Scottish Government have released “Preventing and Responding to Gender Based Violence: A Whole School Framework“. It is noteworthy that the Scottish Government describe the document as a framework, rather than as guidance. However, the document does say that one of its purposes is “providing guidance to support schools’ responses to GBV experienced, or carried out by, children and young people or other members of the school community, including staff”. How well it succeeds in this aim may be the subject of debate, as we shall see.

Children’s Rights

The framework is set in the context of children’s rights (as it should be) and in particular references the right to protection from violence (Article 19, UNCRC) and the right to an education which develops respect for others’ human rights (Article 29, UNCRC). Of particular relevance here, for those looking for some additional reading, is General Comment 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices (issued jointly with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women).

Gender Based Violence is defined as “any form of violence used to establish, enforce or perpetuate gender inequalities and keep in place gendered orders” and thus includes violence against women and girls, but also homophobic and transphobic violence. The framework notes that Gender Based Violence can take many forms, including:

  • physical, sexual, emotional, verbal or psychological abuse and violence;
  • domestic abuse or relationship abuse (including coercive control);
  • rape, incest or unwanted touching;
  • non-consensual sharing of sexual images;
  • sexual harassment or intimidation (including online);
  • commercial sexual exploitation;
  • “honour based” violence, including female genital mutilation and forced or child marriage;
  • transphobic, homophobic or biphobic bullying.

Disability

There is a mention of intersectionality and, within that section, specific mention of pupils with disabilities. The framework notes “Violence targeted at disabled girls may include abuse targeted at their disability as well as misogyny, and they may also encounter additional barriers to accessing support.” To this I would add that pupils with disabilities may be particularly vulnerable to abuse due to their disability, particularly where assistance with personal care is required, and may experience difficulties in communicating instances of violence or abuse to appropriate bodies where there are communication difficulties.

A whole school approach

The framework describes itself as a “Whole School Framework” and espouses a whole-school approach to addressing Gender Based Violence. This is seen as encompassing:

  • universal approaches – e.g. challenging gender stereotypes and roles, changing the language and practices that support gender inequality, and curricular input
  • targeted action – e.g. responding to patterns of incidents or unacceptable attitudes / behaviours which are not directed towards an individual
  • targeted action – e.g. responding to incidents involving individuals, wellbeing assessments and meeting individual needs
  • specialist action – e.g. child protection procedures

The aim is to “positively influence school culture by fostering a shared, consistent approach tackling the underlying gender inequalities that underpin Gender Based Violence”.

From the outset the framework is clear that “If there is a risk of significant harm to the child or young person, school staff should always invoke child protection procedures, rather than seeking multi-agency voluntary support.” The dividing line between Gender Based Violence that involves a risk of significant harm, and Gender Based Violence that does not, is less clear.

Among the key features of a universal approach is this: “All school policies should actively promote gender equality. The prevention of Gender Based Violence will intersect with all areas of school life, such as uniform policy or subject choices.” Indeed, the recent consultation on school uniform included the principle that national school uniform policy should promote “equality, including recognising specific matters relating to religion and belief, disability, sex and gender.”

The one clear recommendation which comes through here (as it does elsewhere in the framework), which should be top of schools’ “to do” lists would be to ensure that you have a Gender Based Violence policy (or a Gender Based Violence section within your existing behaviour and relationships policy). The policy (or section) should “provide specific information about how [the school] will manage instances of Gender Based Violence and support all those involved”. Regrettably, there is little in terms of specific guidance on what such a policy should contain. An example policy, or a style with headings and prompts would have been extremely useful – and is sadly lacking.

Preventing Gender Based Violence

The section on preventing Gender Based Violence is at some length and is probably where the framework is at its strongest. It includes plenty of links to resources which a school could use as part of a strategy to address gender inequality. The key tools here are seen as:

  • school culture and ethos;
  • policies and systems;
  • professional learning and development; and
  • curriculum.

Schools are urged to consider, for example, “whether the rules on school uniform reinforce gender stereotypes or place undue restrictions on girls and young women, and whether girls and young women have equal access to sports activities, play and resources.” The framework goes further, noting that ensuring equal access to sports may require “protecting time slots for girls to use equipment or spaces”.

In terms of the curriculum, there are some specific suggestions on how to promote gender equality across the curriculum, including:

  • taking a non-gendered and inclusive approach to PE;
  • discussing gender stereotypes in texts;
  • asking whose voice has not been heard in novels;
  • learning about feminism and women’s rights in social subjects;
  • learning about a diverse range of women artists / scientists as well as “their often more famous white men counterparts”.

The framework also includes a list of suggestions from primary school pupils, which include “more opportunities for girls to play football and boys to play netball”, “maths questions shouldn’t say girls do skipping and boys kick a ball” and “uniforms should be .. equally enforced” – all of which is absolutely fair enough. As a side note, I did play netball at primary school (Goal Defence, if you’re interested)!

The framework encourages a trauma-informed approach to all of this, which includes making sure that “children and young people know what will happen if they make a disclosure relating to Gender Based Violence”. However, the framework itself is not really clear (in my view) about that. It does specify that child protection procedures should be followed in some cases – but not really what should happen if those procedures are not to be followed (or while they are being followed).

Responding to Gender Based Violence

The framework then turns from questions of culture, ethos and training (which I feel it does quite well) to the issue of responding to incidents of Gender Based Violence, which I think suffers from a lack of detail and direction.

The threshold set out by the framework for applying child protection procedures is where a member of staff “has concerns that a child is at risk of significant harm”. The term “significant harm” is not defined or illustrated within this document. Perhaps professionals are already sufficiently familiar with the term from other contexts?

There are broad exhortations to respond sensitively, to support the children involved, and to align the response with the National Child Protection Guidance. All of which is fine. But there is little in terms of specific notes on what to do. I suspect that what schools are looking for here is clarity, but they will have to look elsewhere – or create their own.

For example, there is an example given of a suggestion made by children and young people’s groups in Stirling and Angus that “It might be helpful to ask if the person experiencing Gender Based Violence would like a friend to accompany them while they speak with school staff, if staff members consider this appropriate and in light of the need to protect the wellbeing of all young people.”

Setting aside for one moment the fluent management speak the young people of Stirling and Angus seem to have adopted wholesale, what are we to make of this? The framework presents this suggestion in a shaded box, divorced from the rest of the text. So, is this a good idea? Is it good practice? Should schools include this in their policies? When would it be considered appropriate (or not)? Should parents be invited / allowed to attend such discussions? We are not told.

In terms of a response to incidents of Gender Based Violence at school, there is a lot about support for both those who have experienced Gender Based Violence and those who have carried out Gender Based Violence. A child’s plan is mentioned more than once as a tool which might be used for a pupil who has carried out Gender Based Violence “with a view to identifying causes and appropriate interventions including additional resources to reduce the likelihood of recurrence”.

Schools are encouraged to identify and name behaviour that constitutes Gender Based Violence, and their policy should set “clear expectations of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and the associated responses which school staff can utilise.”

Again, examples of either would have been of use here, I feel. In fairness, the framework does make the important point that using restorative approaches may well be inappropriate as it “has the potential to be unsafe or retraumatising” and notes that “reconciliation may not be possible or advisable in cases of Gender Based Violence”

Child Protection

The framework is pretty clear on this point – “School staff should report incidents of Gender Based Violence where they are aware of, or have reason to believe, that a crime may have occurred or that a child or young person has been seriously harmed.” Onward reporting to Police Scotland and social work should be in line with school child protection procedures.

Collecting Data, Staff and Scenarios

The framework concludes with a section on monitoring, recording and evaluation, and one of Gender Based Violence experienced by staff, neither of which we have time to cover in this (already overly lengthy) article.

There are seven scenarios listed at the end of the framework, although the responses tend to be in the “you should consider these factors” rather than “here’s what you should do” model.

An appendix of professional learning and resources at the end is comprehensive and includes some excellent material. There is enough further reading here to keep you going for months!

Conclusion

I should begin by stating that I am not an expert in this field, and have only occasionally have had cause to advise families whose children have experienced Gender Based Violence. Overall, I think the framework does a very good job of raising and discussing the issues, and I think it would be very helpful in assisting schools with the ethos and culture / preventative side of things. I am less clear of its usefulness in terms of responding to actual incidents.

There are mixed messages about bullying. The National Approach to Anti-Bullying is not listed as one of the resources, although it is referenced within a description of the resource on challenging homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. The National Approach appears to draw a clear line between bullying and Gender Based Violence: “Some behaviour can be perceived as or assumed to be bullying. However, certain incidents can often be more serious and, in fact, criminal in nature. Understanding the individual circumstances is important to ensure that there is a clear distinction between bullying and criminal offences such as hate crime, child sexual exploitation and gender-based violence such as domestic abuse and sexual assault. For instance, when someone is coerced or pressurised to do something sexual or is touched inappropriately, this is not bullying, this is sexual assault or abuse and a form of gender-based violence.” Whereas the framework lists bullying as an example of Gender Based Violence. Some clarity on this point would be welcome.

The section on the law at the end of the framework slightly overstates the reach of the Equality Act 2010 – claiming that it places specific requirements on schools “to prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation in their schools”. The equivalent section within the National Approach is more accurate – “Although the harassment provisions of the Equality Act 2010 do not protect pupils from harassment by other pupils, the Act creates a duty on public bodies to have due regard to the need to: eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation; advance equality of opportunity; and, to foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not (known as the public sector equality duty).”

In my (admittedly limited) experience, victims of Gender Based Violence at school and their families are usually principally concerned about how to protect themselves from contact of any sort with the person responsible in the future, and whether that person is going to be held accountable. In practice, my experience has been that the expectation or the easier route is often for the victim to move classes or schools – which does nothing to address the second point and discourages disclosure as it can feel like they are being punished for speaking up.

For example, there is an anonymous quote provided by Childline on page 9:

I was sexually harassed by a boy at my school. It makes me cry every time I talk about it. I’ve had meetings with the school and they told me they can’t do anything because there is no evidence of it happening. I have to see him every single day at school and it makes me so angry. I hate feeling like this. I just want to move on but I can’t.

Girl, 17, Childline

An awful situation, but I fear that there is little in the framework which would assist either the child or the school in determining what ought to happen in these circumstances. It is notable that the framework does not mention disciplinary or punitive measures once. The framework focusses on supportive measures, unless the case has reached the threshold of criminal behaviour, in which case it should be reported to the Police. I find it surprising that there are no circumstances in which a school would / could / should be imposing disciplinary measures as part of a response to Gender Based Violence. Or, if there are, that it is not discussed in this document.

Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions to Adulthood) (Scotland) Bill

On By Iain NisbetIn Consultation responses, Equality Act 2010, School EducationLeave a comment

The Education, Children and Young People Committee is the lead committee for the Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions to Adulthood) (Scotland) Bill, a private member’s Bill, introduced by Pam Duncan-Glancy MSP.

The period for interested parties to submit their views on the Bill to the Committee has recently ended. Here is a summary of my submissions.

Continue reading “Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions to Adulthood) (Scotland) Bill” →

Exclusion statistics 2020/21

On By Iain NisbetIn Exclusion, School Education1 Comment

The Summary Statistics For Schools In Scotland 2021 have been released, with the more detailed stats being available as of March 2022. These statistics are based on the annual pupil census (conducted in September 2021) and the attendance, absence and exclusion returns for the 2020 to 2021 school year. As always, I am particularly interested in the exclusion statistics.

As you may be aware, exclusion statistics are collected only every other year, so the previous data is from 2018/19. Since then there has been a 44% drop in the number of exclusions – with education authorities noting that Covid-19 related school closures as a reason for this reduction.

In the whole of Scotland, for the last academic year, only one pupil was permanently excluded from a (local authority) school – referred to in the statistics as being “Removed from register”. I am not convinced that this is accurate. My (admittedly anecdotal) impression is that education authorities are taking a leaf out of the independent schools’ playbook and finding other, less formal ways of removing pupils from their schools. One case I dealt with earlier this year involved the education authority insisting that they had not excluded my client, they had merely decided to move all her learning opportunities outwith the school building!

Boys are more than three times more likely to be excluded than girls. Depressingly, pupils with additional support needs are almost five times more likely to be excluded, and pupils living in areas most associated with deprivation are four times more likely to be excluded than those in the least deprived areas. The summary statistics don’t specifically highlight the figures for looked after children, but these have not historically been a pretty picture – despite recent commitments to end the practice.

It remains the case then, that exclusion – which is known to have long-term damaging effects, and which is not effective as a management tool – is disproportionately targeted on our most vulnerable pupils. Disabled pupils facing exclusion have an effective remedy available in the Health and Education Chamber Tribunal, which has found more than one education authority to be systemically discriminating against disabled pupils in their exclusion policies and procedures. However, looked after children, and those from deprived areas have to make do with the largely ineffective education appeal committee appeals process.

Reasonable adjustments for schools in a time of pandemic

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, Equality Act 2010Leave a comment

Schools have had a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils since amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force in 2001.  These duties were later expanded to include “auxiliary aids and services”.  The phrase “reasonable adjustments” is fairly well known by now, but prompts the question – “what is reasonable?” and specifically, what might be regarded as reasonable in the particular circumstances of a global pandemic crisis.

Overview of the legal framework

Part 6, Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010 is the part of the Act which applies to schools.  It applies to all schools in Scotland, i.e. public schools (those managed by a local authority); independent schools; and grant-aided schools (those receiving specific direct Scottish Government funding).

The legal duties rest with the responsible body for the school.  In the case of public schools, this is the local authority as a whole – an important point when the discussion turns to funding and resources.  For independent or grant-aided schools, the managing body (e.g. a board of trustees or SCIO) is the responsible body.

The Equality Act 2010 applies across all nine “protected characteristics”, but there are two types of discrimination which only apply in relation to disability.  These are the reasonable adjustments duty (Section 20) and discrimination arising from disability (Section 15).

Reasonable adjustments

In the case of disabled pupils and schools, it is only the first and third requirements of the reasonable adjustments duty which applies.

The first requirement arises where a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage.  The requirement is to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage.  The EHRC’s Technical Guidance for Schools in Scotland gives the example of a school policy forbidding the use of external USB devices with school computers.  In the example the school amends the policy so that a disabled pupil can be given a login that will allow him to attach an adapted keyboard in class. (para 6.9)

The third requirement arises where, without an “auxiliary aid or service,” a disabled person would be at a substantial disadvantage.  The requirement is to take reasonable steps to provide the auxiliary aid or service in question.  The Technical Guidance gives the example of a school providing a coloured plastic overlay sheet for a pupil with dyslexia.

The second requirement concerns substantial disadvantage which may arise because of a physical feature.  The schools duties do not include a requirement to remove or alter physical features of the school for disabled pupils.  However, there is a planning duty contained in the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils’ Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002 which requires responsible bodies for schools to set out their plans to improve access (including physical access) to the school, on a three year cycle.

Discrimination arising from disability

This type of discrimination occurs where a disabled pupil has been treated unfavourably, because of something “arising in consequence of” pupil’s disability unless that treatment is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Unfavourable treatment is a fairly broad category and (unlike other types of discrimination) does not require a direct comparison.  That is, there is no need to find someone who has been treated more favourably than the disabled pupil.

Recent cases at the Tribunal have dealt with exclusion from school, the use of physical restraint and a refusal to allow an additional year at school as unfavourable treatment.

In cases where the unfavourable treatment is admitted or established, the responsible body may argue that the treatment was not unlawful as it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal.  Often the aim pursued is self-evidently legitimate, and the question is then whether the treatment in question was a proportionate means of pursuing that goal.

The Technical Guidance gives an example (at para 5.47) of a pupil excluded from school meals because she found queueing distressing.  There may be a legitimate goal in this case, but if there are less restrictive means of achieving that goal (e.g. could the pupil be allowed to go straight to the head of the queue?) then the responsible body will struggle to show that the treatment is justified.

Overlap with additional support needs framework

The Equality Act 2010 is not the only piece of legislation which may apply, as disabled pupils may also have “additional support needs” in terms of Section 1 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.  There are several areas in which there is an overlap between these two legal frameworks.

It is worth noting, for example, that neither the definition of additional support needs, nor the definition of disability require a formal diagnosis.  Both Acts are more focused on the day to day experience of the individual pupil.  Indeed, the definition of additional support needs specifically includes pupils who require additional support “for whatever reason”.

The First-tier Tribunal for Scotland’s Health and Education Chamber has jurisdiction for both types of case, and can join cases together where this is appropriate.  For example, in a case involving support for a disabled pupil to access an after school guitar club, the Tribunal considered the matter as a failure to comply with the child’s CSP and a reasonable adjustments case at the same time (cf. “Landmark victory for disabled pupil”, Daily Record 19 June 2013)

Issues arising during the Covid-19 pandemic

Questions of reasonable adjustments and disability discrimination arise in school even when there is no global pandemic to complicate matters.  However, there have been some specific issues arising which relate directly to the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures taken in response.

  • Some auxiliary services which required close contact with staff were restricted or ceased altogether (e.g. personal care needs, communication support needs).
  • Some auxiliary aids / assistive equipment which required handling (and therefore cleaning) were removed, or were available only on a restricted basis.
  • There was not consistent application of guidance on which children with additional support needs or disabilities could have access to learning hubs during periods of school closure. Disagreements arose as to who was regarded as “vulnerable”.
  • Some pupils required reasonable adjustments in order to access online learning.
  • Legal authority for the closure of schools – Educational Continuity Directions – was not in place at first.  The directions disapplied some of the ASL legislation, but only in a limited fashion.
  • There are ongoing issues relating to pupils who have missed education / transition planning, and reasonable adjustments may be required for disabled pupils.
  • Some disabled pupils found that access to online learning suited them well, and the return to in person lessons has been difficult, or impossible.  Reasonable adjustments may be required in terms of delivery of the curriculum in new and innovative ways.

Recent Tribunal cases

During the pandemic the Tribunal, after a short period in which only urgent cases were progressed, has adapted quickly and well to online hearings and electronic case papers.  There is no current backlog and cases (including disability discrimination cases) continue to be heard and determined.

Over the last academic year (2020-21) the Tribunal has considered disability discrimination cases which have covered a wide range of topics including: differentiation of the curriculum, subject choices in the senior secondary stages, exclusion from school, requests for additional time at school, specific strategies for addressing dyslexia, and the use of physical restraint. Few (if any) were directly related to the pandemic, but that is the context in which they took place.  To the extent that it was considered, it is reassuring to note one Tribunal’s comments in relation to transition planning:

“the COVID-19 pandemic does not remove the obligations of the responsible body to comply with the transition regulations.”

Image by Hatice EROL from Pixabay

Dyspraxia Awareness Week 2020

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support NeedsLeave a comment

This week (4-10 October 2020) is Dyspraxia Awareness Week. According to the NHS, “Developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD), also known as dyspraxia, is a condition affecting physical co-ordination. It causes a child to perform less well than expected in daily activities for their age, and appear to move clumsily.”

It can also have a wider impact, affecting things like processing, short-term memory and spacial awareness.

Continue reading “Dyspraxia Awareness Week 2020” →

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)” →

Case summary – Drexler v. Leicestershire County Council (Court of Appeal)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, Case summary, School EducationLeave a comment

This case was an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court, rejecting a human rights challenge brought against a change in the SEN transport to school policy of the local authority.  The case was Drexler v. Leicestershire County Council [2020] EWCA Civ 502 and while the appeal was unsuccessful and concerning provisions in English law, it has some useful and interesting points for us to consider.

Continue reading “Case summary – Drexler v. Leicestershire County Council (Court of Appeal)” →

Proposed Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions) (Scotland) Bill – consultation response

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, Consultation responses, Equality Act 2010Leave a comment

Johann Lamont MSP recently launched a consultation on a proposed private member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament.  The consultation period for the Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions) (Scotland) Bill ended today (22 January 2020).

The proposals for the Bill were developed with the assistance of Camphill Scotland and Inclusion Scotland.  As the consultation document points out:

At age 16, the aspirations of disabled and non-disabled young people are broadly the same. By 26, however, disabled people are more likely to be out of work than their non-disabled peers, and are three times more likely to feel hopeless and to agree that “Whatever I do has no real effect on what happens to me”.

The Bill, as set out covers three main big ideas:

  1. A National Transitions Strategy;
  2. A Scottish Government Minister with special responsibility for transitions; and
  3. Transitions plans for every child and young person with a disability.

In principle, the Bill addresses some big issues, but I do think the details and structure proposed need some work.

My full consultation response can be found below.

Continue reading “Proposed Disabled Children and Young People (Transitions) (Scotland) Bill – consultation response” →

Presidential powers to refer to Scottish Ministers used for the first time

On By Iain NisbetIn Equality Act 2010Leave a comment

In my earlier post on the Ashdown House School Case, I mentioned in passing, the enforcement powers of the Tribunal in Scotland:

Of course, in Scotland, the President of the Health and Education Chamber has specific powers to monitor the implementation of Tribunal decisions. In the event that such decisions are not implemented, a referral to the Scottish Ministers (who have enforcement powers and mechanisms in relation to both public and independent schools) may be made.

These powers have now been used for the first time since the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland were first set up (back in 2005). In a recent disability discrimination case, the child (who was the litigant in that case) complained that the education authority in question had not complied with the orders made by the Tribunal within their decision.

Rule 12 of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Health and Education Chamber Rules of Procedure 2018 state:

Power to monitor implementation of First-tier Tribunal decisions

12. The Chamber President may, in any case where a decision of the First-tier Tribunal required an authority to do anything, keep under review the authority’s compliance with the decision and, in particular, may—

(a) require the authority to provide information about the authority’s implementation of the First-tier Tribunal decision;
(b) where the Chamber President is not satisfied that the authority is complying with the decision, refer the matter to the Scottish Ministers.

So, while it is true that the Scottish Ministers do have enforcement powers in relation to both public and independent schools, the powers of the President do seem to be limited to decisions affecting education authorities.  They would not be available where the responsible body was the proprietor of an independent school.  Apologies.  I will amend the original article to reflect this.

In this case, however, the orders were made in relation to an education authority and the President, having first considered the authority’s information provided, and thereafter allowed a short period in which to further progress compliance with the decision, considered that the authority had not complied with the decision.  She therefore took the unprecedented step of referring the matter to the Scottish Ministers.

So, what will the Scottish Ministers do now?  Section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and Section 27(9) to (11) of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 both give the Scottish Ministers powers to require education authorities to take certain action in relation to their functions under the 2004 Act (in the latter case) and in relation to the 1980 Act or “any other enactment relating to education” (in the former).

Given that this case was a claim (under the Equality Act 2010) and not a reference (under the 2004 Act) it seems likely that the Scottish Government will use the Section 70 route.  This now has a statutory procedure, set out in the Section 70 (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, and would ultimately allow Scottish Ministers to declare the authority to be in default of their duties, and to require them to take specified action to remedy that default.

Given that there is the possibility for this process to be used in relation to most Tribunal decisions, those drafting orders should bear in mind the need for any requirements to be clear and specific – it should be obvious whether a decision has been complied with or not.  Orders should also, in appropriate cases, come with time limits.  Otherwise it can be difficult to know when a delay (or even an ongoing process) might be viewed as a failure to comply.

This is a significant development, and a reminder to claimants and appellants with a decision in their favour that there is a way in which the implementation of the decision can be monitored and – if necessary – enforced.

Mainstreaming, I presume … (Part 2)

On By Iain NisbetIn Additional Support Needs, InclusionLeave a comment

In the first part of this series (Mainstreaming, I presume … (Part 1)) I looked at the legislative basis for the presumption of mainstreaming.  In this next part, we will be looking at the question of inclusion.

The term “inclusion” is not used in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000, or in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.  In fairness, it is a difficult concept to define in statutory terms.  However, the explanatory notes to the 2000 Act, talk about the presumption of mainstreaming in these terms: “This section aims to establish what is effectively a presumption in favour of ‘mainstream education’ for all children in Scotland. It will strengthen the rights of children with special educational needs to be included alongside their peers in mainstream schools.”  So, a right to inclusion has always been the intention of the legislation.

From an international perspective, it is Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which best outlines the position, with its requirement on signatories (including the UK) to “ensure an inclusive education system at all levels”.

It goes on to require:

a) Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability;

b) Persons 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;

c) Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;

d) Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;

e) Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion.

Article 24(2), UNCRPD

The UNCRPD is not currently incorporated into UK or Scots law in the same way that the European Convention on Human Rights is, or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be (under current proposals).  However, it remains an international obligation (albeit one which the UK Government have accepted with two fairly substantial reservations – see ALLFIE on Article 24).  Governments, including the Scottish Government, are required to have regard to the Convention in making law and policy and to take steps to ensure its effective implementation.  The Convention can also be referred to by individuals taking legal action, as an aid to the interpretation of existing law (as it is presumed that neither Westminster nor Holyrood Parliaments would legislate in a way which is incompatible with its international obligations).

“A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People” is the Scottish Government’s delivery plan for the UNCRPD to 2021.  However, this does not make specific mention of the right to inclusive education, or of Article 24, or of the presumption of mainstreaming.  It does make mention of “Disabled people are visible and participating within communities, learning and education, volunteering and employment.” and “Equal opportunities for disabled people in education and employment.” – which captures some of it, I suppose.

The Ministerial Foreword to the guidance, however, could hardly be clearer in its intentions re: inclusion, with the Cabinet Secretary for Education spelling out the benefits of inclusion: “affords all children and young people the opportunity to be a part of a community, boosting their emotional wellbeing and aiding the development of social skills.” as well as being clear on the limitations of the presumption of mainstreaming: “Being present in a mainstream school should not be the primary marker of successful inclusion.”  There is also, a very welcome (and child-centred) acknowledgement of the importance of how inclusion is experienced by the individual pupil.

The introduction to the guidance then gets to grips with what is meant by “inclusion”.  This is helpful, actually.  The “Scottish vision for inclusive education” is pretty vague as you might expect – but usefully links an inclusive approach to the achievement of equity and excellence (the tiresome two watchwords of modern education policy in Scotland).

What is more helpful, in my view, is the identification of four key features of inclusion:

  • Present
  • Participating
  • Achieving
  • Supported

The guidance goes on to consider each of these features in turn, as will I …

Edited (18 November, 2019) following helpful input from A24 Scotland.

Image by Michal Jarmoluk from Pixabay