’less better than the rest’: perceptions of integration in a multi‐ethnic special needs unit

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 26 November 2014, At: 06:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

’Less Better Than The Rest’:perceptions of integration in amulti‐ethnic special needs unitAnne Sinclair Taylor aa Institute of Education , University of WarwickPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Anne Sinclair Taylor (1995) ’Less Better Than The Rest’: perceptions ofintegration in a multi‐ethnic special needs unit, Educational Review, 47:3, 263-274, DOI:10.1080/0013191950470303

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191950470303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0013191950470303

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191950470303

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1995 263

'Less Better Than The Rest': perceptionsof integration in a multi-ethnic specialneeds unit

ANNE SINCLAIR TAYLOR, Institute of Education, University of Warwick

ABSTRACT As a result of provisions under the Education Act 1993 (see Circularno. 4, December 1993), LEAs are to be required to assess and establish the statusand funding of their special unit provision. A spectrum of unit provision alreadyexists, serving a range of purposes and being funded and constituted in a number ofways. The focus of this article is on those units currently described as freestanding'. These units are located on mainstream sites, possibly sharing schoolbuildings, but operate autonomously. This article analyses the experiences of pupilsin a free standing' unit who were statemented under the 1981 (now 1993) Act owingpredominantly to emotional and behavioural difficulties. The unit was located in acomprehensive school to promote educational and social integration between pupilsin the mainstream and the unit. Analyses of observational and pupil interview datarevealed that integrative policies became subverted by a complex process of label-ling and stereotypification of pupils allocated unit placements. Paradoxically, theunit, rather than promoting integration, fostered the marginalisation of its pupils.Aspects of the model used in this case study may prove helpful to practitioners andpolicy makers who wish to consider the developing roles of their units in the lightof proposed legislation. In engaging with the debate about effectiveness of inte-gration it will be argued that the children themselves need to play an active role inthe evaluation process.

Introduction

This article sets out to do two things; to provide a framework for analysis ofintegration between pupils from a unit and their mainstream peers and to look at theperceptions of staff and pupils about their experiences of integration. It is hoped thata combination of these two elements will help us get a firmer analytical grip on theissues which influence the functioning and effectiveness of unit provision in relationto integration.

Research into the purpose and function of units is timely. Recent draft circularshave raised the issue of funding for the range of units already in existence, as wellas the development of Pupil Referral Units. This article focuses on those units thatare currently 'free standing', that is part of a mainstream campus but whose pupilsare not on the main school roll. Such units are expected to 'in future become part ofa host school' (Department for Education, 1993, p. 21). The success of these

0013-1911/95/030263-12 © 1995 Educational Review

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

264 A. Sinclair Taylor

developments will rest, at least in part, on participants' perceptions of integration.Integration is an essentially contested concept, perhaps most usefully described interms of a continuum of experience (see, for example, Wade & Moore, 1992). Thereis a symbiotic relationship between how schools facilitate integration and how eachchild responds. A complex web of structural, political, legislative, social andeducational influences impacts on those experiences. This article uses a model foranalysis which helps to illuminate these factors.

Research Based at Limeleigh School

The research was based at Limeleigh, a three form entry, multi-cultural comprehen-sive school. A qualitative approach was adopted in which general observations,shadowing and conversational recordings, augmented by interviews, were made ofstaff and pupils in the unit and the mainstream school. Relevant Local EducationAuthority (LEA) and school documents were also analysed. As a case study, it mustbe emphasised that these findings relate to one set of experiences and may not begeneralisable to other situations. However, as Elliot tells us, the value of case studiesrests on their 'usefulness as projective models for others in exploring their ownunique situations' (Elliot, 1990, original emphasis).

Theoretical Framework

There are now numerous analytic frameworks within which sociologists have placedspecific events or processes. Much progress has been made since the influential workof Hargreaves (1967) and Lacey (1970) who, using an interactionist perspective,illuminated processes within the education system which influenced pupil experi-ences. Reynolds & Sullivan (1979), for example, suggest a way of reconcilinganalyses on the macro and micro levels, which have traditionally been viewed insociology as rival explanatory paradigms. They argue that what happens in schoolsis determined by the influence of 'macro' societal forces, the 'micro' organisation ofeducational provision and the nature of individual schools. In relation to Limeleighschool and its special unit, it became clear that pupils' learning experiences could notbe explained by looking exclusively through the micro-analytical lens, but thatneighbourhood, local authority and national policies impacted on pupils' everydaylives.

The framework developed by Troyna & Hatcher (1992) appeared to offer promisein this respect. It was designed for application to racist incidents in schools. Itdescribes such events as resulting from 'the fusion and interaction of the variouslevels subject to analysis'. The model provides a 'synchronic analysis' whichemphasises the salience of influences at various levels, which are likely to result inthe occurrence of particular events. (For a fuller description of the model see Troyna& Hatcher, 1992.) Although this study focuses on the restrictions of physical andsocial contact placed on pupils labelled as having 'special needs', predominantlyemotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD), it is also important that account istaken of an over-representation of African-Caribbean pupils in the unit (45%compared with 9% in Limeleigh's school population). This strengthens theapplicability of the framework.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Integration in a Special Needs Unit 265

Political/ideological

Cultural

Institutional-.

Sub-cultural contextual

FIG. 1. Modified framework (source Troyna & Hatcher, 1992, p. 40).

Modified Framework

As the dominant focus of the study is on 'special needs' certain adaptations to theoriginal framework have been made. The modified framework is shown in Fig. 1.

Structural Aspects which Influence Integration of Individuals with 'Special Needs'

Individuals within any groups will have varying experiences, however, certain trendsare discernible which signify an unequal distribution of opportunity for certainmembers of ethnic minorities or those with 'special needs'. That is the greaterlikelihood of experiencing structural inequalities in access to education, employmentand housing (see, for example, Mason & Rieser, 1994). Members of these groupsmay also become labelled and marginalised and this can result in segregation of oneform or another.

Political/Ideological Influences on Educational Integration (Focusing on SpecialUnit Provision)

This layer of the model refers to the political and ideological underpinnings of thespecial education system. For example the 1993 Education Act promotes integrationin principle, but sanctions differential status for pupils with 'special needs' throughstatementing procedures (see Slee, 1993). Most LEAs still use the Education Act tojustify the use of separate special provision.

On-site units have occupied 'an ambiguous legal twilight zone' (Office for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Standards in Education [OFSTED], 1993, p. 9.) in terms of status and funding, buthave two advantages. First, they are cheaper than special schools because they oftenuse surplus classroom space in mainstream buildings. Second, they can be describedas providing a buffer between mainstream and ordinary school, introducing 'specialcare' into the 'ordinary' education system. However, there is a weakness in theideological construct which underpins the system, i.e. it continues to reflect a deficitmodel of assessing individual needs and perpetuates labelling and segregationistthinking.

An unpublished report following an inspection of the Limeleigh unit was criticalof curricular opportunities available to pupils and concerned about their isolationwhen in mainstream classes. Suggestions for improvements focused on internalmanagement practices. Single factor explanations for problem resolution are seldomadequate and in this case failed to take into account wider ideological and politicalinfluences or pupil perceptions. The purpose of this research was therefore to try toembrace pupils' views in a wider framework.

Cultural Influences on Integration at the Limeleigh Unit

Limeleigh School had an intake which reflected the changing ethnic composition ofits neighbourhood. Many South Asian and African-Caribbean families were movinginto what was once a white community. The school was adjacent to an area whichwas the epicentre of inner urban and, some argue, racially motivated disturbances inthe 1980s.

A number of studies have shown an over-representation of African-Caribbeanpupils in special schools and units for pupils with EBD (for example Cooper et ai,1991). Recently OFSTED (1993) concluded that there was a four-fold over-represen-tation of black pupils subject to school suspensions. The significance of the ethnicityof pupils on the work of the Limeleigh unit is profound. The local authority in whichthe unit is located espoused equal opportunities' policies, while at the same timesuspending four times the number of black pupils to whites. Residents in the localcommunity had experienced the effects of racist hostility and social fragmentation.The percentage of the Limeleigh unit pupils who are Afro-Caribbean (45% ascompared with 9% in the main school) has further implications for unit integration.

Institutional Influences on the Integration of Pupils from Unit and Mainstream

Limeleigh School has an explicit equal opportunity's policy which offers specialistattention to the academically able and those with learning difficulties. It is estimatedthat 120 pupils across the school have difficulties. There is only one member of staff,the 'remedial' specialist, who supports these pupils. This teacher operates withdrawalfor 'remedial' year seven pupils and year ten and eleven 'non-achievers'.

By operationalising withdrawal as a means of support and labelling pupils'remedial' and 'non-achievers' the institution is promoting and sanctioning astratified system of educational delivery. By the application of a system of negativelabelling, children are at risk of becoming alienated and marginalised (Hargreaves,1967). For some pupils this means they join pupils from the unit for lessons; as willbe shown, this relegates mainstream 'non-achievers' to the lowest status group in theschool.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Sub-cultural/Contextual: the organisation of unit provision within Limeleigh school

The unit is located in a school which has, arguably, limited support for pupils with'special needs'. It consists of a series of interlinking classrooms in one of the mainteaching blocks. The prospectus describes it as a 'special unit', staffed by 'specialistteachers' trained to meet the needs of 'statemented pupils' who are supervised in'their own accommodation'. Consider the discourse in which these descriptions areembedded: pupils are described as 'statemented', which signifies differences; theyare 'supervised', not taught, and they have 'specialist', not generalist, teachers in'separate' accommodation. This description eschews a concern to elucidate sharedneeds, but signals a separate identity which potentially works against integration.

Descriptions and Characteristics of Pupils Designated Unit Placements

Of the 22 pupils in the unit; 18 (82%) are described in school records as having EBDand 10 (45%) identified as African-Caribbean. The assumptions embedded in theseschool documents were also expressed in the behaviour and daily discourse of somepupils and staff. From observations in the school and conversations with staff andpupils it emerged that a link between ethnicity and behaviour difficulties haddeveloped. The explicit linkage of African-Caribbean pupils with emotional andbehavioural difficulties further compromises their integration into the school.

A number of distinct themes can be distilled from the case study.

Experience, Views and Perceptions of the Unit

Pupils' Perceptions of What it Meant to be Described as a 'Unit Kid'

How unit pupils thought mainstream pupils described them revealed their percep-tions of the unit's role. The discourse was invariably negative and pejorative. Theterm 'unit kid' had become a new form of negative labelling, as the followingcomments illustrate.

They (mainstream) call us unit kids and provoke us and say we arespastics. He look like one himself (jabbing fingers toward mainstreamboy). (Pupil aged 16, unit)

Other kids say the unit is for dunce people and spastics who ain't got muchsense. (Pupil aged 15, unit)

They (mainstream) say the unit's a dunce's place for stupid kids who actsilly. (Pupil aged 14, unit)

Main school kids tease you, they see the unit as a place for mentalpeople—less better than themselves. (Pupil aged 12, unit)

They call you stupid kids, are you having your lessons over there then?They think you're dossing. (Pupil aged 13, unit)

As the use of racist language exemplifies the salience of 'race' in Troyna &Hatcher's (1992) analysis, so the use of pejorative labels about unit pupils' perceivedqualities and abilities denotes the discriminatory attitudes of mainstream pupils. Thishas important implications for pupils in this unit. They become an identified categoryof children with inferior credentials and are conscious of this.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Labelling theory offers one explanation of the processes in play. Becker (1963)argues that deviance is created by societies and institutions attaching negative labelsto those who are regarded as committing deviant acts. These labels may be assignedto individuals because of stereotyped perceptions held by others, frequently derivedfrom stereotypical images based on social class, ethnic origin and gender.

The result of this process in schools is that children who are assigned negativelabels suffer marginalisation from the mainstream and identify with those similarlylabelled (Corrigan, 1979; Burgess, 1983). In this study evidence shows that anegative cycle of events was reinforced by children being assigned unit placements.Marginalisation is due not only to the labelled pupils themselves closing ranks, butto mainstream pupils actively distancing themselves. Of the 18 mainstream pupilsinterviewed, none spoke positively about the unit or its pupils; the least negativeresponses were those of disinterest, the majority were pejorative.

I don't bother them and they don't bother me. (Pupil aged 13, mainstream)

Unit pupils are seen as strange, not part of the community. (Pupil aged 16,mainstream)

They try to act normal, but they're not treated normal. (Pupil aged 15,mainstream)

It's for dossers over there, I don't even notice them in the playground.(Pupil aged 14, mainstream)

The unit's a dunce's hole. The kids are in it because they act silly. I've gotmy own friends. (Pupil aged 15, mainstream)

One reason for locating the unit in the main building was to allow pupils thepotential to perceive themselves and be perceived as mainstream rather than'special'. The following shows how these aspirations were generally unfulfilled.

Pupils' Experiences of Integration in the Playground

Of the eight pupils shadowed throughout their day, four were solitary during breakand dinner times. Of the others, three played with other unit pupils and the remainingpupil, aged 15, played with two mainstream pupils, aged 11. These pupils all adoptedstrategies to avoid contact with others. One pupil, aged 15 years, moved away whenanyone came within a radius of 10 feet. Another, aged 14 years, stood with his backagainst a wall, avoiding eye contact. Three girls aged 13, 14 and 15, played together,but frequently approached adults about pupils picking on them, calling them names,kicking them and even looking at them.

This tendency towards marginalisation corresponds with existing research. Forinstance, Hurford (1979) and Lowden (1985) found in their respective surveys ofon-site units that in the playground children from units were often solitary or, at best,involved in parallel activities with other unit pupils.

Views of Pupils in the Unit about Playground Experiences

The following comments illustrate pupils' feelings about their participation in theplayground. Break time, for some pupils, became an experience to endure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Main school kids say horrible things about the unit. I stay away from themas much as I can. (Pupil aged 16, unit)

I don't bother with friends in the playground, just stand there. Break soonends, it's only 20 minutes. (Pupil aged 15, unit)

I get bullied sometimes, W (mainstream boy) tries to trip me up. I wish Ididn't have to go out. (Pupil aged 16, unit)

I don't like the playground. I would rather be somewhere else. I don't likethe unit much, I would rather be in another secondary school. I wouldn'twant to be in main school for lessons though, I hate the big school. (Pupilaged 14, unit)

The playground's too big. I've got no one to play with. I'd like to be athome with Mum and Dad. (Pupil aged 13, unit)

Much has been written about the negative effects of streaming on pupils'self-esteem and social relationships. Corrigan (1979) noted how pupils can becomealienated by being in marginal groups in the school (lower streams), while Harg-reaves (1967) showed how behaviour difficulties among pupils are more stronglyassociated with school organisation than inherent pupil characteristics.

The Limeleigh unit is effectively more segregated than a separate lower stream. Ithas a separate label and identity which is linked with children being seen as inferior.This causes social stratification in the playground, children from the mainstreamschool and the unit, the 'normal' and 'not normal', tend not to mix. Break time failsto provide an arena for integration for some pupils; rather, it underpins differencesand reinforces notions of inferiority.

Unit Staff Perceptions of Integration of Pupils in the Playground

Unit staff seemed aware of the isolation of 'their' pupils in the playground. Therewas an acceptance of the fact that pupils from the unit tended to be solitary or staytogether.

Children should mix as they are physically in the same place (playground),but unit kids tend to play together. (Teacher A, unit)

One or two kids do play team games, a lot don't though. Some are isolated,one boy stands in the same spot every day. In fact this pupil will takeavoiding action is anyone comes within 10 feet. (Teacher B, unit)

Well my impression is that they (pupils from unit) stick together, don'tsocialise. Two pupils A and B are isolates. They used to like to standamongst the sheds. They were very upset when the sheds were removed,it was their sanctuary. (Teacher C, unit)

One explanation for the teachers' acceptance of pupils' isolation relates tolabelling theory and the deficit model of viewing pupils. Branson & Miller (1989)argue that labels attached to children failing the 'normality' test lead to differentexpectations. While hopes and aspirations for children must be modified dependingon age and needs, the most basic need, that of social contact and belonging, eludedsome unit pupils.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Pupil Perceptions of the Functioning of the Unit

Pupils from the unit also expressed negative views about their experiences ofintegration in mainstream lessons. In contrast, the unit was described by 90% of itspupils as a sanctuary.

I like unit staff because they're nice and kind. If you didn't have a unityou'd be in main school all the time and that would be terrible, lousy andboring, the other kids would be nasty. Units are good because you feelsafer here. (Pupil aged 15, unit)

Unit teachers here have got time and patience to help. If you've gotproblems you can talk to them. Main school teachers think the unit isstupid so they don't take much notice of you. (Pupil aged 13, unit)

The unit staff do a good job. I feel more relaxed with these staff. Mainschool staff are OK but lose tempers a lot and go on at you, a bit too strictreally. (Pupil aged 13, unit)

Some teachers in main school think they're really hard, tough nuts.Teachers in the unit are a little bit loose and don't mind if you are a littlebit late. I'm in here for tempers and fighting, they suspend and expel youfor tempers in main school. (Pupil aged 14, unit)

These children had a shared history of displacement from ordinary schools. Theirperception was that the unit was a safe place, away from the pressures of themainstream. They saw the unit as offering a preferred, segregated alternative to themainstream, a function which was at odds with integrative policy intentions.

Pupils' Views about Experiences in Mainstream Lessons

Mainstream lessons also provided opportunities for social contact between unit andmainstream pupils. Unit pupils had integrated curricular experiences ranging from nomainstream teaching to 80%. Two pupils having three lessons per week in themainstream school were tracked. Their comments signal concerns about pedagogicand social isolation.

I'm not doing an exam in main school. Don't do what the other kids do,sometimes my reading, spelling and writing not all that good. Get exhaus-ted, wears you out. I would rather be in the unit all the time. (Pupil aged16, unit)

Sometimes in main school I find things hard to understand. I'm afraid toask for help because I feel shy, but I try to hide it. I don't like going acrossfor lessons much. (Pupil aged 15, unit)

These 'integrated' children sat and worked alone in mainstream lessons. In contrast,two pupils who had 80% of their timetable in main school spoke positively abouttheir experiences.

I've got a lot of friends, one friend who's in the unit, all the others are inthe main school. I got friendly in the classroom, just started to sit by themand got friends. (Pupil aged 14, unit)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


I've got no best friend, but I've got friends, mainly in the main school.They are mostly in my form (for registration). (Pupil aged 13, unit)

It might be argued that the reason these pupils were able to integrate was that theywere more academically and socially able. Yet both had been allocated unit placesdue to their learning and behavioural difficulties. Could it have been that becausethey spent the majority of their time with mainstream pupils they had becomemembers of the school, not the unit? Some writers (Fish, 1985; Sayer, 1987;Kyriacou, 1986) argue that the most effective way of helping vulnerable pupils is notby segregating them for special help, but by implementing mixed ability teaching.The experiences of these pupils supports this view and indicates that careful scrutinyof initiatives needs to take place to protect children who are 'integrated' at varyinglevels.

Teacher Perceptions of Integration of Pupils from the Unit into the Mainstream

All mainstream staff interviewed were aware of the problematic nature of integrationbetween pupils from the unit and the mainstream. While no teacher admitted tofeeling distanced from unit pupils themselves, they spoke in terms of 'their own'pupils not perceiving unit pupils as part of the school. Teachers tended to opera-tionalise a deficit model when describing unit pupils.

Some heads of departments get on the integration bandwagon. They don'treally know unit pupils, they see integration as a good thing because theydon't know the pupils. (Teacher D, mainstream)

It is unsurprising to me that unit kids don't mix. Units should be separate.What is the point of putting kids into mainstream when their behaviourmeans they have already failed here, hence unit placements? They needtime and help otherwise problems are bound to occur.' You get flashoutbursts if you're not keeping an eye on them, we haven't got time to dothis. (Teacher E, mainstream)

By definition these pupils need extra help and supervision, by putting theminto a social context where they have already failed, they are bound forfurther failure. (Teacher F, mainstream)

Actually, in reality, mainstream pupils do not see unit kids as part of theschool; some remedial kids have similar problems. (Teacher G, main-stream)

Some of our pupils do not see the unit as part of their school nor thechildren in it. The difference is, unit pupils have social, emotional andbehavioural difficulties. (Teacher H, mainstream)

These staff expressed views about integration being problematic due to pupils'inherent difficulties. Thus a deficit conception of 'special needs' underpinned pupils'access to lessons.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Discussion and Conclusions

The disjunction between integration in policy and practice, as revealed in this study,is not unique. Many studies have illustrated a divergence between local authoritypolicies and institutional practices (McNay & Ozga, 1985; Troyna, 1993).

What is clear from staff and pupils at Limeleigh is that children based in the unitwere not perceived as part of the community of the school. Rather than the unitfacilitating integration, paradoxically it acts as a mechanism that promotes segre-gation. The discourse in which policy documents describe the unit is embedded inthe 1993 Act and its statementing procedures. The Act operates a deficit model oflabelling individual needs and thus perpetuates segregationist thinking. Schooldocumentation describes pupils as 'supervised' by 'specialist' teachers in 'separate'accommodation, which signals 'difference'. It is a 'difference' that is reflected in theperceptions of staff and pupils. Children from the unit know that some children fromthe mainstream see them as 'dossers', 'dunces' and 'spastics'.

There is an over-representation of African-Caribbean pupils in the Limeleigh unit.The unit's main function is in dealing with pupils with EBD. By linking a specificethnic group with certain characteristics, integration is further complicated. Futureresearch into integration needs to point up where 'special needs' and 'race' intersectto influence pupils' educational opportunities, as it is the fusion and interaction ofthese influences which distorts ostensibly equitable ideological policies. In theLimeleigh school culture an understanding developed that pupils from the unit are'less better than the rest'. This means that the integration of pupils from the unit andthe mainstream is problematical. Despite a real interest in individual pupils, staff areaware that isolation is experienced by some pupils. These attitudes have becomeinstitutionalised, accepted as 'normal'. One of the purposes of this article has beento demonstrate how analysis of integration can be placed in a framework whichilluminates the complex and problematical nature of integration. In consideringissues such as access to the mainstream for pupils with 'special needs', it isimportant to give weight to the wider context of national, local authority andinstitutional influences. This article illustrates how such a framework was applied toone school context.

Integration is not necessarily achieved by locating a unit centrally in a comprehen-sive school. Policies at Limeleigh became subverted by the labels and stereotypingwhich developed around the unit subculture. This is a factor which LEAs might takeinto account when assessing whether to pursue special school or host school status.

The legal framework governing children's educational experiences has hithertobeen authoritarian, reflecting the view that children are the property of their carersor teachers. Children with 'special needs' are highly vulnerable in this respect; theirrelationship with the system has been that of subordination. Pupils from theLimeleigh unit represent an example of a vulnerable group who have hitherto hadlittle say in their schooling. Their perceptions and experiences of integration werefundamentally at odds with establishment aspirations.

A growing body of work reflects the perspective that evaluations of educationaleffectiveness should include pupil views (see Cox, 1991; Keys & Fernandes, 1993).New provisions in The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment ofSpecial Educational Needs (DfE, 1994) require that account be taken of pupils'perceptions about their needs. In schools that operate within a participative and selfdisclosing ethos, pupils will be better prepared to give their views.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Methodological and ethical debates surround the development of strategies forinformation exchange with children with 'special needs'. Wade & Moore (1994)emphasise the importance of a flexible interview and response format, using a varietyof stimulus materials and preferred modes of response. They also point out theimportance of confidentiality and suggest the child chooses the place for and pace ofdata gathering. Minkes et al. (1994) suggest someone well known to the child, butnot directly involved with the service under scrutiny, conduct interviews to aidfrankness of response. Future research needs to actively engage with pupils in theconstruction, implementation and analysis of data wherever possible.

The education system can only develop effectively and responsively if the realconsumers of the service, the children, are listened to. Only the children can speakabout their daily experiences and the attitudes and behaviour of others towards them.LEAs engaged in establishing new status for their 'free standing' units will do wellto listen to pupils before making final decisions.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Barry Troyna and Mel Lloyd-Smith for their helpful advice onearlier drafts of this article and to Martin Merson and Seamus Hegarty on this finaldraft.

Correspondence: Anne Sinclair Taylor, Institute of Education, University ofWarwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

REFERENCES

BECKER, H. (1963) Outsiders (Oxford, Free Press).BRANSON, J. & MULLER, D. (1989) Beyond integration policy—the deconstruction of disability, in: L.

BARTON (Ed) Integration: myth or reality, pp. 144-167 (Lewes, Falmer Press).BURGESS, R.G. (1983) Experiencing Comprehensive Education (London, Methuen).COOPER, P., UPTON, G. & SMITH, C. (1991) Ethnic minority and gender distribution among staff and

pupils in facilities for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties in England and Wales, BritishJournal of Sociology of Education, 12, pp. 77-94.

CORRIGAN, P. (1979) Schooling the Smash Street Kids (London, MacMillan Press).Cox, M. (1991) The Child's Point of View (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf).DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1993) 'Pupils with Problems', the Education by LEAs of Children

Otherwise than at School, Circular no. 4, December (London, DfE).DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special

Educational Needs (London, DfE).ELLIOT, J. (1990) Validating case studies, Westminster Studies in Education, 13, pp. 47-60.FISH, J. (1985) Special Education, the Way Ahead (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).HARGREAVES, A. (1967) Social Relationships in a Secondary School (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).HURFORD, A. (1979) Social integration in a Language Unit, Special Education, 6(4), pp. 8-10.KEYS, W. & FERNANDES, C. (1993) What Do Students Think About School?, report for the National

Commission on Education (Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research).KYRIACOU, C. (1986) Effective Teaching in Schools (Oxford, Blackwell).LACEY, C. (1970) Hightown Grammar (Manchester, Manchester University Press).LOWDEN, G. (1985) The unit approach to integration, British Journal of Special Education, 12, pp. 10-12.MASON, M. & REISER, R. (1994) 'Altogether Better' (from 'Special Needs' to Equality in Education)

(London, Hobsons Publishing).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


MCNAY, J. & OZGA, J. (1985) Policy Making in Education. The breakdown of consensus (Milton Keynes,Open University Press).

MINKES, J., ROBINSON, C. & WESTON, C. (1994) Consulting the children: interviews with children usingresidential respite care services, Disability and Society, 9, pp. 47-57.

OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (1993) Education for Disaffected Pupils (London, OFSTED).REYNOLDS, A. & SULLIVAN, M. (1979) Bringing schools back, in: L. BARTON and R. MEIGHAN (Eds)

Schools, Pupils and Deviance: exceptional children, pp. 43-58 (Nafferton, Diffield).SAYER, J. (1987) Special Needs in the Ordinary School (London, Cassell).SLEE, R. (1993) The Politics of Integration—new sites for old practices?, Disability, Handicap and

Society, 8, pp. 351-360.TROYNA, B. (1993) Racism and Education: research perspectives (Buckingham, Open University Press).TROYNA, B. & HATCHER, R. (1992) Racism in Children's Lives (London, Routledge).WADE, B. & MOORE, M. (1992) Patterns of Educational Integration. International perspectives on

mainstreaming children with special educational needs (Wallingford, Triangle Books).WADE, B. & MOORE, M. (1994) Good for a change? The views of students with special educational needs

on changing school, Pastoral Care, 12(2), pp. 23-27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:12

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

’less better than the rest’: perceptions of integration in a multi‐ethnic special needs unit

Documents