Policies towards the Integration of Mentally Handicapped Children in Education Author(s): Tony Booth Source: Oxford Review of Education,

Vol. 9, No. 3, Mental Handicap and Education (1983), pp. 255-268 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050287 . Accessed: 05/04/2011 10:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oxford Review of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

OxfordReview of Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1983

255

Policies Towards the Integration of Mentally Handicapped Children in Education

TONY BOOTH

WHAT IS MENTAL HANDICAP IN EDUCATION? Officially there is no mental handicap in education nor is there any other category of disability. According to the 1981 Education Act in England and Wales, in which the category system in use since 1959 was replaced, any impediment to the participation of pupils in the ordinary school curriculum is to be defined as a learning difficulty. Teachers can be heard referring to the children they teach as 'the group we used to call...'. They used to call children with moderate learning difficulties 'ESN(M)' [Educationally Subnormal (Moderate)] and children with severe learning difficulties-'ESN(S)'. The term 'mental handicap' is more freely applied outside schools and when children leave school. It reflects a set of institutions, practices, professionals and attitudes concerned with people we define as being at an extreme of incompetence. The use of 'mental handicap' denotes a value we place both on people who are incompetent in certain ways and also on the skills we choose to measure in them. That we value people according to their abilities and bodily appearance is a social fact that may be obscured but not altered by a change of words. Children who are regarded as severely mentally handicapped frequently acquire their label before they get into school. The negotiation between doctors and parents over the labelling of children as mentally handicapped is well described by Tim Booth [1], though, as he reports, it is not always the doctor who is most keen to introduce the label. Children with Down's Syndrome are a large and special subgroup of children who are identified as mentally handicapped in this way. But their diagnosis may rest, frequently, not in their abilities but on their distinctive appearance. Despite a propensity for many doctors to regard all children with Down's Syndrome as severely mentally handicapped they in fact display wide variations in ability [2]. Within education, categorisation of children as ESN(M) or ESN(S) has been based in part on arbitrarydivisions on an IQ scale. But the psychometric tests which George Thomson (pp. 236) portrayed as heralding a new humanitarianism may be seen instead as lending scientific legitimacy to an inequitable process. Sally Tomlinson [3] and others have demonstrated how disproportionate numbers of working class and black children have been selected for testing and categorised as ESN(M). The less than caring effect of the introduction of IQ tests may be revealed, too, by the experience of families who have been subject to them. One mother described how a psychologist's assessment, prior to 1971, resulted in an attempt to exclude her child from the education system: Jacqueline started at an ordinary school when she was five just as a normal child. When she was moved into the second year her teacher said she was

256

OxfordReview of Education
at the bottom of the class but wouldn't need special education. Then, I don't know how it came about, but she had this IQ test. We had a terrible time with this man. He was very abrupt. Quite the wrong type. He immediately made you feel nervous. He had a strong Scottish accent which I had difficulty in understanding, let alone her. He showed her pictures of household things saying 'which one do you coook on' and of course my daughter didn't know which one you 'coook on', it was a 'cooker',you see. So she did get a lot wrong. She was all nervous and she could feel the tension in us. He didn't have the right manner at all. I told him he needed to be more gentle and understanding, and he got on his high horse about being a fully qualified psychologist. He might have been, but he certainly didn't have the right manner! I complained because of his Scottish accent and he said he would agree to do another test, but when we went in he was even more put off by us because we had complained. He sat her in front of his desk and told me to sit in the far corner and not to make a sound, so of course my daughter was even more nervous than she normally is, and when he started firing questions at her she just couldn't answer them, though they were things I knew she knew. Anyway she was given an IQ of 49. At that time if the IQ was below 50 you were deemed ineducable and came under health. [4]

Another mother, of a child with Down's Syndrome, had a somewhat similar experience: They sent a young girl round, very nice but straight out of university and she didn't have a clue. She unpacked her box of bricks on the floor and asked William to do this and that with them. He, being very tidy-minded, packed them all away again neatly in the box, and she wrote down 'has no concept of play'! Then she asked me to go out of the room while she took William around asking him to name things. When she came out she said 'He's got no vocabulary has he?' and I said 'Of course, he knows an enormous number of words', and he named them all for me. It wasn't that he didn't like her, he just clammed up. [5] William was later retested and given an IQ score of 70 which might have assigned him to an ESN(M) school but in his county as in several others it was the rule that children with Down's Syndrome were sent to ESN(S) schools irrespective of their ability. The authorities did not want to put parents off from attending ESN(M) schools by placing children in them 'who looked mentally handicapped'. Such an attitude imposes an additional handicap on children with Down's Syndrome. Broadly speaking, children who have attended ESN(S) schools or have been defined as having severe learning difficulties persist with a special categorisation as mentally handicapped when they leave school. Then they usually attend Adult Training Centres; day centres for people with mental handicaps. As they get older there is an increasing likelihood that they will be put in a subnormality hospital because of the death or infirmity of their parents. This still occurs despite the development of hostels and housing schemes with support in some areas of the country. Although between 1969 and 1977 the numbers of children in subnormality hospitals dropped from 7100 to 3900, the numbers of adults remained relatively static, falling by only 3000 to 44,000 [6]. The ascription of 'mental handicap' may lead to a life of dependence as well as

Integrationof Mentally HandicappedChildrenin Education 257

being a consequence of it. People in Adult Training Centres may be lifelong 'trainees', usually without any prospect of real work. On the other hand, the status 'ESN(M)' may disappear with few traces when children leave school although whether or not they are thought of as 'mentally handicapped' will depend on their possibilities for employment and their dependence on family or state. 'Jacqueline' was eventually allowed to attend an ESN(M) school after her parents appealed to the secretary of state and her IQ was retested. When she left school she obtained and kept a job after a period of sheltered work training. But her family did join their local society for mentally handicapped children which continues to provide Jacqueline's major social outlets. Now 28, 'Jacqueline' lives in a group home for people with mental handicaps run by the church. Although she does not believe in God, a condition of her residence is that she goes to Sunday school. She is the only resident in paid work but is not allowed to keep her wages. She receives 'pocket money' so that she is not seen as different from her house-mates. Ironically, her mother now refers to her as mentally handicapped. The influence of the ESN(M) label is becoming increasingly potent with rising unemployment. There is a growing number of special schemes for ESN(M) school leavers at Further Education colleges, sometimes financed by the Manpower Services Commission. There is also a new pressure on Adult Training Centres to take leavers from ESN(M) schools who cannot obtain jobs. Some centres are beginning to operate a selection policy in which some severely and profoundly handicapped adults are excluded. Frequently, careers officers have equated 'mentally handicapped' with 'unemployable' and this has sustained a picture of the fairness of the labour market and has disguised the fact that many people defined as mentally handicapped are perfectly capable of doing paid work [7]. The linking of 'unemployable' and 'mentally handicapped' has added poignancy where the loss of a job is regarded by some as the achievement of incompetence. The stereotype of mentally handicapped people as more incompetent than they are, is quite general. It is a consequence, in part, of treating mentally handicapped people as a uniform category. Pupils in ESN(S) schools display a very broad range of skills and capacities: whilst some multiply handicapped pupils remain unable to walk or communicate, others learn to read and write and later may lead a relatively independent life. Whether or not they do so may well depend on the approach that is taken in school. John Morton has described a scheme to prepare his pupils for taking responsibility for their own care. He lived in a house with a group of his older pupils for a fortnight and documented his policy of minimum intervention [8]. But not all teachers actively encourage independence in this way. In another school a teacher inadvertently revealed her motives for wanting her pupils to remain dependent: I love the children. They're so affectionate-not a bad thought in their heads. I need affection from children-I don't like older children so much as they have a mind of their own... If we could raise the children's IQs by 40 to 50 points the school would have enormous problems: they wouldn't be our children. They'd become more intelligent and more difficult; they'd want more autonomy and would challenge authority. [9] The attempt to define the essential nature of children in terms of their disabilities is a feature of the clinical view of handicap. When children are perceived as clinical entities a label which might depict one aspect of their body or skills comes to define

258

OxfordReview of Education

their whole personality. Such an approach may be used to justify the elevation of medical or other specialists from the role of doctor, adviser or helper to that of custodian [10]. For example, the clinical cause for Down's Syndrome has a relatively small influence on the range of abilities, interests, experiences and emotions of people with the syndrome. The features which the biographies of people with Down's Syndrome do have in common may be produced as a self-fulfilling prophecy, by them being treated as a group. As one mother whose child with Down's Syndrome attends an ordinary school, observed of a group of 'mentally handicapped' children they had met on a trip to the seaside: They came to the beach holding hands, all plodding along with their heads down. They looked as though they'd come straight from an institution. Peter was half a mile away by the sea, having a great time. They didn't do anything, they just sat and stared into space. They didn't communicate at all, whereas Peter had always got something to add to the conversation. Half of them had Down's syndrome. Why is there such a contrast between Peter and these others? [11] There can, then, be no easy definition of 'mental handicap' and the value of such an ascription can be legitimately disputed. Its use tells us less about the people it defines than about attitudes and values within society, which shift with changing social and economic conditions. WHAT IS INTEGRATION IN EDUCATION? I define integration in education as the processof increasingthe participationof children and young people, their families, communitiesand teachersin the educationaland social life of ordinaryschoolsand colleges.Usually integration is taken to refer only to the process of bringing children with disabilities or educational handicaps from special into ordinary schools. But a definition of integration as a processwithout any end point highlights the possibilities for a further increase in the participation of children with disabilities once they are within the ordinary school. Can they join in ordinary lessons? Can they have and determine rewarding social contacts with other children? Can they play as significant a role in school life as other children? But if we are willing to examine the degree to which we permit the participation of children with disabilities then it makes sense to do the same for all children and to increase the extent to which all children receive an appropriate education irrespective of their class, sex, colour, background, culture or disability. The process of integration, then, involves no less than the creation of a comprehensive system of nursery, primary, secondary and further education in which 'comprehensive' means 'for all'. My definition of integration also includes parents and teachers as well as the community in which the school is located. It would, after all, be inconsistent to ask how schools respond to the needs, interests and choices of pupils without doing the same for all their participants. What lessons do children receive about the value or function of their participation if their teachers exert no control over their own work? But there is also a more specific reason for including adults. Most people with disabilities are adults, particularly old people, and our failure to make schools accessible excludes them from participation in their children's or grandchildren's education, as well as from community facilities based in schools. Most significantly a lack of access precludes people with disabilities from working as teachers, school

Integrationof Mentally HandicappedChildrenin Education 259

secretaries,educational advisers and support professionals. In considering integration within education we must take a new look at the inclusion of people with disabilities in work both inside and outside schools. Integration can be seen then as part of a process in which schools increasingly respond to the needs of their communities and in which communities have an increasing role in determining the nature and content of schooling. Whilst some form of community schooling is the ultimate goal of such a process, achieving the goal involves many steps. It is change in the direction of increasing participation rather than any particular form of educational provision, which defines integration. The education for some groups of children with disabilities might be supported by a centralised resource base in the ordinary school as one step in returning them from segregated schooling (see Jones, p. 247). Whether or not it is feasible or desirable for all children to attend their neighbourhood schools can only be determined as the integration process is implemented. The points I have been making can be clarified by the following two continua. Table I represents the range of educational provisions available to mentally handicapped pupils. It does not include all the possible variations in provision but in general integration involves the transfer of pupils from provision low down the continuum in Table I to those higher up.
TABLE

I. A continuumof educationalprovisionfor mentally handicapped students

Full-time in ordinary classroom with support of welfare assistant Part-time in ordinary class, part-time with specialist teacher in resource base Full-time in special class in ordinary school Part-time attendance at day special school Full-time attendance at day special school Full-time at residential special school Full-time attendance at subnormality hospital and hospital school

Table II on the other hand displays the first continuum as only one stage in the re-evaluation of the curriculum and function of ordinary schools. The participation of the consumers of education is enhanced at each stage of this second continuum. This process entails and emphasises a transfer of power to the consumers from the providers. Integration, therefore, is displayed as an essentially political process. WHY ARE CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS? I find it useful to divide into two sorts the arguments commonly used to justify the exclusion of children with disabilities from ordinary schools. The first sort, centralisation arguments, highlights the efficiency with which resources can be deployed. It concerns a perceived need to centralise specialist equipment, teachers and support services for some children. Now while such arguments are frequently taken to imply a need for separate special schooling they cannot be used, legitimately, in that way. For the physical centralisation of resources and the grouping together of 'special' children and teachers can occur within ordinary schools as easily as on a separate site. Valid arguments for segregated schooling, on the other hand, must justify the isolation of groups of children as an essential feature of their education, and these, isolation arguments, form the second sort. The isolation of children may be advo-

260

OxfordReview of Education
TABLE II. An alternativecontinuumof integration [12]

1 Coming out of special schools Gaining entry to ordinary schools Becoming full time members of ordinary schools Having positive contact with other children Participating jointly in educational activities Participating in ordinary lessons Participating in academic lessons Participating in the core curriculum Reorganising ordinary schools Extending mixed ability teaching Relating the curriculum to the needs and interests of pupils Organising support through team teaching Revising the relationship between examinations and the curriculum Making the core curriculum of the school reflect the capacities and interests of all the pupils 3 Developing community schools Using schools as a resource for the whole community 4 Changing patterns of control in ordinary schools Sharing control of education between teachers, pupils and the community Developing patterns of democratic control 5 Delivering education to the community Making educational resources freely available to the community wherever people need them Supplying the means for communities to determine the nature of and make provisions for their own educational needs. 2

cated for their protection or our own or because their isolation brings a positive benefit to them or the people that work with them. Separate education for mentally handicapped children is frequently justified on the grounds that they need protection from the harshness and competitiveness of ordinary schools. Frequently, children are assigned to schools for 'the maladjusted' for the sake of the safety and peace of mind of children and teachers in the ordinary schools. Some people, including many deaf adults, argue that deaf children need to be isolated from the hearing world in order to develop a sense of community as well as proficiency as sign language users [13]. Of course, there are historical reasons for the existence of special schooling which have nothing to do with the logic of arguments used in its favour and these help to account for some of the confusions that have arisen. The misapplication of arguments for centralising resources depends on the confounding of 'special provision' and 'special placement'. Special provision can be delivered to any site. Such a confusion may have arisen, partly because it has suited the professionals involved in the education of children with disabilities to believe that their assignment to a special place guaranteed their receipt of 'special treatment'. SEGREGATION AND SELECTION The existence of special schooling can best be understood as dependent on the same selection philosophy or political ideology which underpinned the sorting of children by an 11+ examination into Grammar and Secondary-modern schools. Such a philosophy has two main strands: firstly that children could and should be divided into homogeneous groupings which require a uniform style of education; secondly that such education should take place in separate buildings. It is important to note

Integrationof Mentally HandicappedChildrenin Education 261

that the second aspect of selection does not follow from the first; the separation of children into homogeneous groupings does not entail that such groups require separate buildings for their education. The justification for such separation in the case of Grammar schools is that it is easier to surround distinct buildings with an aura of high status for both pupils and teachers and thus make them serve as an educational carrot. A consequence of applying a selection philosophy at the upper end of the ability-range is that segregated schooling for children of 'low ability' will serve as an educational stick; separate schools for children with 'moderate' and 'severe' learning difficulties will have low status and attendance at them will be perceived as a punishment. There can be little doubt that ESN(M) schools, whose pupils are predominantly working class, have been frequently regarded in this way and a considerable amount of 'persuasion' has been needed to discourage parents from resisting transfer of their children to them. Sally Tomlinson has described such schools as providing a stigmatised education without credentials for working-class children which plays a part in legitimating and reproducing the class structure [14]. At first sight it might seem that there is less stigma attached to the ESN(S) label or placement in ESN(S) schools partly because they contain a wider social mix. Placement in them is often seen as an inevitable consequence of a label assigned to a child at birth or shortly afterwards and may meet with less resistance and hence appear to be subject to less compulsion. However there is evidence against such an interpretation. Where parents have challenged the appropriateness of ESN(S) schooling for their children, the forces for compulsion have been revealed. The attempts of one group of parents to persuade their LEA to provide a class in an ordinary school were summarily dismissed by the LEA on the basis of false claims about the abilities of the children and the 'unrealistic attitudes' of the parents to them [15]. The stigmatised nature of ESN(S) education is also powerfully revealed by the alacrity with which parents will accept a redefinition of their child as ESN (M) and their disappointment if this process is reversed. It is shown too by the vigilance with which some heads of ESN(M) schools keep out children, such as those with Down's syndrome, who they think 'look' mentally handicapped. An interesting comment on their attitude to two groups of pupils was shown by one LEA which sited a unit for pregnant schoolgirls in the grounds of one of their ESN(S) schools. Nor should ESN(S) schools be regarded as always being a haven of acceptance for their pupils; since they are at the extreme of a system of schooling based on selection by ability it is hardly surprising that rigid segregation often operates within them. The profoundly and multiply handicapped children, known as the 'special-care' group often have no contact at all with the rest of the school. At one school there were several subdivisions even within 'special care' [16]. When the school opened in 1971 the special care department contained two undifferentiated groups. By 1977 these had been subdivided to form groups for immobile, semi-mobile, 'problem and hyperactive children' and had been joined by a new group formed from children 'presenting behaviour problems' in the rest of the school. Staff in the department felt that they had reduced status in the school and walfare assistants rotated their duties there, regarding it as 'serving their time'. Suggestion by the headteacher that some special care children be included with other groups part-time met with strong resistance. Staff argued that it would disrupt the lessons of the 'normal'mentally handicapped pupils.

262

OxfordReview of Education

WHO CAN BE INCLUDED IN ORDINARY SCHOOLS? The extent to which it is possibleto include children with disabilities within ordinary schools can be assessed to a great extent simply by considering the nature of the arguments for and against it. After all how could it be more difficult physically to locate a given degree of specialist support within an ordinary school rather than in a separate and distant building? But a view on the possibility of integration can also be informed by practice. Examples of the successful integration of children with almost any given disability irrespective of severity, can be found somewhere in the United Kingdom [17]. At the end of the report on their study on integration in England and Wales, Hegarty & Pocklington remark: The resounding conclusion to emerge from this study is that integration is possible. Special educational needs can be met in the ordinary school, and to a far greater extent than is currently the practice... As long as some pupils attend special schools when their peers with comparable special needs elsewhere receive satisfactory education in ordinary schools, there are grounds for disquiet. [18] Clearly, children who are effectively educated in an ordinary school in one area could be so in another comparable area. The vast majority of children in special schools, therefore, could be transferred with their special provision into ordinary schools. Segregated ESN(M) education, which has always contained pupils whose problems overlap precisely with uncategorised pupils in ordinary schools and which comprises by far the largest group of special schools, could simply disappear and the specialist resources which were released as a result would benefit a far wider group. There are many reports of schemes and approaches to integration and such reports indicate that children can be included within ordinary schools irrespective of the severity of their disability. Perhaps the greatest challenge is posed by children who are disaffected or present discipline problems and are sent to 'disruptive units' or 'maladjusted'schools. The number of children designated as ESN(S) who are included in ordinary schools is disproportionately small but there are examples of the inclusion of such children, both individually and in groups. Since 1971 groups of young children with severe mental handicaps have attended ordinary schools in Bromley. In 1971 too, all the mentally handicapped children in south Derbyshire began to attend ordinary schools for the duration of their schooling irrespective of the severity of their difficulties. In south Oxfordshire an ESN(S) school has placed a class group of children in the infant department and another in the junior department of a neighbouring primary school. They will place a third group in a nearby comprehensive secondary school from September 1983. None of these schools can be regarded as educational perfection; the participation of the children could be enhanced considerably in all of them. Yet in each case parents, teachers and pupils are pleased with the system of education. Pupils in south Oxfordshire have even objected to the insistence that they return to their special school on a Friday afternoon for an assembly. Springfield primary school in south Derbyshire includes profoundly mentally handicapped children-'the immobile' or 'special care' children of the ESN(S) school described earlier. They are in a special unit attached to the ordinary school building and whilst it is difficult to assess the benefits to the children themselves, the lack of isolation of both staff and parents is a clear advantage. The benefits to other children who accept people with mental handicaps as a normal part of their

Integrationof Mentally HandicappedChildrenin Education 263

community are also considerable. Perhaps the chief advantages for these very profoundly handicapped people emerge when they grow up in an area where attitudes have permitted the development of a range of alternatives to care in a large institution, even for the most profoundly handicapped people. Of course, knowledge about who can be included in ordinary schools cannot actually determine decisions about who should attend them. For whether one favours a principle of integration or segregation must remain a moral choice. In fact it is the values one brings to an examination of integration schemes which influence the lessons derived from them. For depending on one's initial assumptions, problems in integration can be viewed as evidence of failure or as a challenge to be overcome.

WHAT IS GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARDS INTEGRATION? I would define policy as a coordinated attempt to control the direction of practice. It involves the elaboration of a set of principles and a plan on which actions might be based and also a definite intention and commitment to implement such a scheme. Adherence to integration in principle entails a desire for integration in practice; but as I shall argue, this consistency of intention and action has not been a dominant feature of government policies towards education. In assessing government policy, as I have defined it, one has to look both at official rhetoric and at the reality of government actions. In education we are used to working with approaches to policy-making which fall far short of a coherent strategy for change. In fact the very notion of such policymaking runs counter to a national educational slogan for local autonomy. In one common approach, policies may be identified with written documents such as a government circular or a curriculum plan for a school. But the trouble with this view is that it assumes a correspondence between public documents and the private intentions, as well as the public actions, of their authors which is rarely realised. Furthermore, official papers cannot be prescriptions; they simply do not contain sufficient detail to be unambiguously interpreted. On a second view, officials might describe the policy of a Local Education Authority or government department by cataloguing local or national practice. But such an approach may involve the deception that what is going on is the product of a rational design. It may also obscure the fact that officials do attempt actively to create policies in a direction which they would like to remain hidden and hence beyond criticism. As one senior educational administrator remarked at a recent conference, "I didn't get where I am today by committing myself." In understanding policies towards integration it should be clear that government discussions and documents have not linked the participation of children with disabilities in ordinary schools to the development of comprehensive education. Although the movement to comprehensive schooling was given impetus by Circular 10/65 [19] which suggested comprehensive schools might contain 'the whole ability range', this circular was issued at a time of unprecedented expansion of segregated special provision. In looking at government policies towards integration, then, we can ask two distinct questions. What are government policies towards the inclusion of children from segregated schooling? What are government policies towards the development of comprehensive education? The answers to each of these questions throws light on the other.

264

OxfordReview of Education

What is Government Policy Towardsthe Inclusionof Childrenfrom Special Schools? Since the early 1950s central government documents about integration have suggested that a principle of integration was official government policy [20]. Through the 1970s a series of documents and books claimed not only adherence to a principle of integration but also that such a principle was being implemented[21]. However, for almost all categories of special provision the numbers of children in special schools grew considerably throughout this period [22]. Although the growth in special provision for all groups except those labelled 'disruptive' has ceased in the early 1980s there is no sign of a general national move towards the development of an integrated education system. Will the 1981 Education Act, which was implemented from April 1st 1983 (Good Friday and All Fools Day), create a new push towards integration? It was written, apparently, in the false belief that there was already a general national move towards integration. Clearly a law required to encourage and regulate a trend would be written differently from one intended to initiate it. Although a superficial reading of the words of the Act might lead one to suppose that the law did imply a new movement of children from special into ordinary schools, that would not appear to have been the intention of those who wrote it. Section 2 of the 1981 Act actually replaced Section 10 of the 1976 Act (which was never implemented) because Section 10 was regarded as too integrationist [23]. The fact that the 1980 White Paper and the 1981 Education Act went on to include words which were virtually identical to those in the 1976 Act is mystifying in the extreme. It is made only marginally less so by knowing that discussions about integration have been misleading by tradition. The 1982 Act followed on the Warnock Report whose chairperson Mary Warnock remarked, "People have said we fudged the issue of integration, but we fudged it as a matter of policy" [24]. In Circular 1/83, which contains the DES directive as to how assessments of special needs are to be interpreted and implemented, there is a section on 'placement' but integration is not mentioned at all [25]. One senior HMI closely concerned with this circular suggested at a recent conference that he preferred the word 'placement' to 'integration'. Furthermore, administratorsat the DES have been specifically disclaiming that the Act is integrationist. At local government level the policy intentions and actions of officials about integration appear equally guarded. Most LEAs who returned a recent questionnaire to the Advisory Centre for Education and the Spastics Society showed no inclination to change their present segregated system of special education [26]. It is still possible that the letter of the 1981 Act may yet be enforced by pressure groups so that it gives a fresh impetus towards integration. But the unintended consequences of a law cannot amount to government policy. Education? What is Government Policy TowardsComprehensive In the United Kingdom, unlike most other developed nations, whether or not children should be selected by ability for different kinds of school remains a significant issue. Comprehensive secondary schools were never introduced in Northern Ireland and Grammarschools remain in many areas of England. But even within Comprehensive schools the ethos of Grammar schools and the social and academic divisions on which they depended are still common [27]. In the UK the answer to the question 'What is government policy towards comprehensive education?', may appear to be self-evident for opponents and proponents of such education divide

Integrationof Mentally HandicappedChildrenin Education 265

along party political lines. Yet clearly the answer is more complex, for the nature of comprehensive education has never been defined by government. Does it imply groupings mixed by ability? Does it require curricula adapted to the interests and backgrounds and cultures of pupils? Does it imply power sharing of education with the communities of the school? Table II was intended to bring out some of these possibilities. The present government favours selection by ability and a return to selective schooling. It is also opposed to mixed-ability grouping. In the Times Educational Supplement (TES) for the 18th March 1983, Mr Stuart Sexton, political adviser to Sir Keith Joseph, was reported as saying: "The government is doing its best to encourage setting and streaming at the top end of the primary school." He also admitted that when assessing the educational grounds for closing a school, one of the determining factors was whether it had mixed ability teaching. He said that the government should not condone a system of mixed ability teaching wherever such teaching was avoidable. Now whether or not this orthodoxy percolates through the DES and LEA administrations or to the schools is another matter, but the intentions are clear. And there is some evidence of its adoption by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. In an otherwise favourable report on a comprehensive school in Sheffield, published in the same edition of the TES, HMI stated that they were "particularlyworried by mixed-ability teaching in the first two years in many subjects". Obviously a Conservative government with such views about selective education would not curtail segregated schooling for children with mental handicaps becauseof adherence to a comprehensive ideal. And before a Labour administration did so for that reason it would have to make a new link in its thinking between comprehensive education and selection by low ability or disability. It would also need to spell out the implications of a non-selective philosophy for the organisation and curricula within so-called comprehensive schools. Why aren't Childrenwith Mental HandicapsIncludedin OrdinarySchools? Of course, it might have been the case that the mixture of children with and without mental handicaps was so potentially explosive, that segregation had to be preserved for their protection. But that was the very argument used against the desegregation of black and white children in the southern states of the USA when in reality it was more likely that segregation exacerbated racial friction rather than helped to reduce it. In fact where mentally handicapped children are in ordinary schools they are accepted to a great extent, just as, by and large, they learn to live with nonhandicapped brothers and sisters in their families. Nor is it possible to argue that they receive a better education in special schools. For the efficiency of their education will depend on their teachers, their friends and their parents, not on the site of the building in which they are schooled. There is nothing in their nature which requires that children with mental handicaps should be isolated for their schooling. Although it is perfectly feasible to include children with mental handicaps within ordinary schools, their inclusion is rare and is widely resisted. Official rhetoric in favour of integration is belied by the actions of policy-makers and even where innovations have occurred they have not spread. In the London Borough of Bromley, for example, the children are integrated until eight years old. After that they have to move on to a special school. This is not because the administration believed that the education in ordinary schools was a failure but because at the very

266

OxfordReview of Education

time that the ordinary classes were established the administrator responsible set in motion the building of a new ESN(S) school. Children were actually moved from the integrated provision to the special school in order to make the numbers 'respectable' [28]. The overwhelming conclusion is that where integration does not happen it is because people with the power to make the changes do not want children with disabilities in ordinary schools. The forces for segregation still predominate over the forces for integration. These forces are not based on medical or educational facts about children with disabilities. Instead they concern values of selection and achievement which lie at the heart of our social structure. It is commonly believed that the education system can and should provide pupils with an equality of opportunity to achieve wealth and status in society. Such a view depends in turn on hiding the assumptions that education could provide pupils with a fresh start, that they should compete for limited rewards and that they can do so on equal terms. That we should be forced to acknowledge the ordinariness of a group of pupils who are incompetent through no fault of their own may challenge such cherished beliefs. The presence of mentally handicapped pupils in ordinary schools is a constant reminder not only that people have unequal starting positions but that the available opportunities depend on who controls the definition of success. Expanding the opportunities of mentally handicapped pupils, then, involves us in giving up ours. NOTES AND REFERENCES
[1]BOOTH, TIM (1978) From normal baby to handicapped child, Sociology,12, pp.

203-221.
[2]RYNDERS, J.E. & HORROBIN, J.M. (1980) Education provision for young children with Down's syndrome, in: GOTTLIEB, J. (Ed.) Educating Mentally Re-

tardedPersonsin the Mainstream (Baltimore, University Park Press). [3]TOMLINSON, S. (1981) Educational Subnormality.A Study in Decision-Making (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul). [4]BOOTH,T. (1982) Jacqueline Cunningham, a daughter, in: BOOTH, T. & STATHAM, J. (Eds) The Nature of Special Education, pp. 111-112 (London, Croom Helm). J. (1982) Establishinga Unit for Children With Down's [5] BOOTH,T. & STATHAM, Syndrome in an Ordinary School, p. 17 (London, Campaign for Mentally Handicapped People, CMH). [6]GosTIN, L. (1982) Mental handicap policy in Great Britain, Mental Handicap, 10(2), pp. 39-41.
P. (1982) An ESN(S) P., BOOTH,T., CROFT,S. & TUCKWELL, [7] See BERESFORD, school and the labour market, in: BOOTH,T. & STATHAM, J. (Eds) op. cit. (note 5), pp. 230-242; LANE, D. (1980) The Work Needs of Mentally Handicapped

Adults (London, Disability Alliance).

[8]MORTON, J. (1982) Four handicapped teenagers in transition, in: BOOTH,T. &
STATHAM, J. (Eds) (1982) op. cit. (note 4), pp. 398-410. [9] FLYNN, R. & SWANN,W. (1982) The curriculum at Coates school for ESN (S) children, in: BOOTH,T. & STATHAM, J. (Eds) op. cit. (note 4), pp. 332-345, 336.

[10]See BOOTH (1978) op. cit. (note 1); see also Section 3 of BOOTH, T. (1983)

Eradicating Handicap, Unit 14 of E241 Special Needs in Education (Open University Educational Enterprises).

Integrationof Mentally HandicappedChildrenin Education 267

[11]Booth & Statham (1982) op. cit. (note 4), p. 25. T. & POTTS, P. (Eds) (1983) [12]This table is taken from chapter 1 of BOOTH, IntegratingSpecial Education (Oxford, Blackwell). [13] I have examined the cogency of such arguments in 'Integrating special education', chapter 1 of Booth & Potts (Eds) ibid. S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education (London, Routledge & [14]TOMLINSON, Kegan Paul). L. (1983) [15] See Booth & Statham (1982) op. cit. (note 4) and BURROWS, Integrationat Sancton Wood-some Lessons to be Learned (London, Centre for Studies in Integration, The Spastics Society). (1982) A case study of the development of the 'special care' depart[16]CORBETT ment within an ESN(S) school from 1971-82, unpublished paper. [17] A bibliography of integration schemes in the UK can be found in the appendix to Booth & Potts (Eds) (1983); see also Booth & Statham (Eds) op. cit. (note
K. (1981) 4); HEGARTY,S. & POCKLINGTON, Educating Pupils with Special

Needs in the Ordinary School (Windsor, NFER/Nelson); HEGARTY, S. & K. in Action POCKLINGTON, (1982) Integration (Windsor, NFER/Nelson). [18]Hegarty & Pocklington (1981) ibid., p. 507.
OF EDUCATIONAND SCIENCE(1965) [19] DEPARTMENT The Organisation of Secon-

dary Education, Circular 10/65 (London, HMSO). [20]In 1954 it was stated in Ministry of Education Circular 276 that "no handicapped child should be sent to a special school who can be satisfactorily educated in an ordinary school". In Section 2 of the 1981 Education Act the terminology had changed but the message was the same; it became the duty of LEAs making special provision for a child "to secure that he is educated in an ordinary school" provided it is compatible with his or her needs, the needs of others and with "the efficient use of resources". [21]For example, in the White Paper heralding the 1981 Education Act it was stated that "An increasing number of LEAs and teachers are tackling in ordinary schools the additional needs of children, particularly those with physical and sensory handicaps in every age group... The Government intends that the process of planned and sensible integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools should continue." Department of Education and Science (1980) Special Needs in Education, pp. 9, 13 (White Paper) (London, HMSO); see also Department of Education and Science (1974) IntegratingHandicapped Children,p. 3 (London, HMSO); Department of Education and Science (1978) Special Educational Needs, p. 99 (Warnock Report) (London, HMSO); CHAZAN, M., LAING, A.F., SHACKLETON BAILEY, M. & JONES,G. (1980) Some of our

Children,p. 122 (London, Open Books). [22] I have analysed these trends, the reasons for them and the gap between official rhetoric and reality in detail, in BOOTH, T. (1981) Demystifying integration, in: W. (Ed.) The Practice of Special Education (Oxford, Blackwell). SWANN, [23]As expressed in the 1980 White Paper: "For some children with special needs association, or full association, with other children is the wrong solution and to impose it would be unfair to the child, his parents, other children and the taxpayer..." Accordingly the Government does not propose to bring into force section 10 of the Education Act, 1976. (DES, 1980, op. cit. (note 21), p. 13). [24] TimesEducational Supplement,25th May 1978.
[25]DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATIONAND SCIENCE(1983) Circular 1/83, Assessments

and Statementsof Special Educational Needs (London, HMSO).

268

OxfordReview of Education

SOCIETY [26]ACE/SPASTICS (1983) Slow progress on integration, WHERE, No. 187, pp. 5-6. [27] See SAYER,J. (1983) A comprehensive school for all, chapter 5 in Booth & Potts (Eds) op. cit. (note 12). [28] The details of times and events and the implications they have for the development of LEA plans in the absence of a National Policy Commitment are discussed in detail in BOOTH, T. (1983) Creating integration policy, chapter 3 in Booth & Potts (Eds) op. cit. (note 12).