Introduction
Access to learning opportunities in the UK is designed for primary education to serve as a levelling tool so that all children can take this opportunity equally. Nevertheless, the idea is rather rosy and does not reflect the sour realities involved, which commonly affect students with Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) (Brussino, 2020). The Send system, an old mechanism to address students’ diverse learning abilities, has become problematic, still resulting in bias and unfairness in the education system. These challenges are from inadequate funding and the need for more human capital to well-off schools and plenty of available resources and service providers. The multiplier effect of that fact is the depreciation of attempts at educational aspiration and, accordingly, any physical and mental illness. This essay aims to go deeper into the various problems linked with the UK primary schools’s SEND system, which involve systemic inequalities and ethical questions. This essay proceeds to delve into a detailed description of the historical context, philosophical foundations, current challenges concerning education, and theoretical perspectives. The aim is to explain the complexities underlying inequities in primary school education. At this moment, the thesis of the essay concludes that only by providing the needed changes to be introduced in the primary schooling sector, particularly in the context of the SEND system, can one get out of the dark to see equitable access and opportunities for all learners.
Historical Context and Philosophical Foundation
Dame Mary Warnock is the one people can say: ‘Oh, that is her!’, not knowing that she played a central role in the making of the Report of 1978 on Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND), which steered the course of the whole system of education for people with disabilities (Murdoch et al., 2020). Warnock, as the head of this revolutionary publication, became the advocate for this radical approach in education, strictly mentioning that the educational landscape is complete with a fundamental paradigm shift towards a more flexible and uniquely customized approach. To Warnock, the core idea was acknowledging the diverse learning needs of children disabled by conditions and problems that got in the way of learning because they could not be educated within the current education system (Murdoch et al., 2020). Through this, she highlighted the suitability of bringing these children into mainstream schools, enforcing an educational standard that embraces heterogeneity and allows all participants to engage fully.
Warnock’s notion that all children in education, regardless of their abilities, should have equal opportunities is reflected in his idea by rejecting the seclusion and victimization affected by SEND (Murdoch et al., 2020). On the contrary, she outlined a system that could make every learner feel wholly embraced and worthy, regardless of their firm or weak points. To improve the situation of children with SENDs, Warnock used individualized support and accommodations to help them reach their potential, which is essential for them to thrive within the educational system (Murdoch et al., 2020).
This approach that Warnock advocates for gains comparison with the broader philosophical perspectives in which John Dewey’s pragmatism ignites an idea. Dewey was an influential American philosopher and educationist who emphasized the inclusivity of education, learner experience, democracy, and individual growth. At the heart of Dewey’s idea of education is his conception, which states that education transforms the learner and that it is essential for learners to participate in the meaning-creation process and encourage logical thinking actively.
In connecting Warnock’s philosophy to Dewey’s pragmatism, a common thread emerges: the presented approaches share the idea that quality education should be not the privilege of the wealthiest social groups but a mandatory component of the democratic space (Murdoch et al., 2020). As Dewey’s educational framework comprises a building block of societal cohesion and individual development, which resonates similarly with Warnock’s values of inclusive learning environments, we must always leave room for those who learn differently (Iryani et al., 2023). Both Plato and Aristotle ought, at the same time, to disapprove of education as a universal idea, supporting an original and responsive procedure that pays attention to each particular person’s different talents and perspectives.
Current Issues in the SEND System
UK SEND system is based on modern education as a basis for providing support and extra services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), thereby allowing them to develop accustomed to the academic environment. The essence of the SEND Code of this system constitutes the primary laws of the SEND Code of Practice (Zhang, 2023). This model highlights the legal standards and procedures the organisations must adhere to while providing education to children with SEND and strives to ensure that an inclusive environment is a high priority and that the necessary support is tailored for each child.
The SEND system encompasses four primary areas of support, reflecting the diverse needs of children with SEND: language and communication, thinking hard, learning, behavioural and mental disorders, and physical and sensory disabilities are among the challenges that intellectually gifted individuals encounter. Special education and support staff are entrusted with delivering individualized interventions and accommodations that will go through learner growth and development in these fields.
The SEND framework is an excellent initiative with the noble goal of ensuring that SEND learners get equal opportunities for education as non-SEND learners. However, the SEND framework faces several challenges and hurdles that tend to undermine it. The over-than-insufficient funding mostly leads to a lack of resources and higher opportunities for SEND learners. Lack of funds to employ qualified support staff, buy assistive technologies, and provide the required accommodations hinder schools’ responsiveness to SEND students’ needs, causing many of them not to get the required help in the end (Al-Shammari et al., 2019).
Not only that, understaffing also affects the system’s ability to work with the SEND effectively. Schools, especially today, are facing shortages of appropriate special education teachers and support staff; the situation has even worsened the course of the struggle for exceptional education learners. Many SEND pupils need help to bypass the scaffolding they require when they need adequate individualized services.
The gap between funding of less privileged and more privileged schools widens the gap in the SEND framework, with some schools catering to those with SEND who perform better than others. Resource allocation is very dissimilar throughout the schools, which is why inadequate services and accommodations exist. This unequal resource distribution way thix keeps the existing inequalities at that lower level. Thus, learning with difficulties does mean having unequal access to resources.
Lack of disadvantaged access to resources, including assistive technologies and specialized equipment, also affects SEND learners more, which might be why. An aspect common in many schools is usually the need for more facilities and resources essential for the comprehension of SEND learners to understand well. This, in turn, restrains the educational progress of the SEND learners and, hence/thus, their development.
Theoretical Perspectives on Inequality in Primary Education
The effects of the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system on education inequalities in primary education are being analyzed, and multiple theories and specific findings from research provide evidence for the complexity of this problem. A point of view suggests that the SEND system (which strives to meet all individual needs with provision and support) can help reduce educational inequalities by addressing issues concerning the diversity of learners (Al-Shammari et al., 2019). The proponents of the SEND system claim that it allows people with special educational needs through the specific interventions and specialized services necessary, which enables access to education facilities which, in other cases, would be unavailable. Additionally, inclusive education provides an atmosphere of belonging and dignity to SEN learners, supporting equality and social justice that the education system vies for.
However, the detractors of the SEND system argue that the deprivation approach might be internalized and then recycled back into the educational system as one of the methods to segregate and marginalize as well. People assert that when a group of special needs students are being set aside in a particular educational setting, they may incur stigmatization and social separation. This will widen the gaps in the education system. In addition, some critics argue that matters such as lack of funding and employees and discrepancies in services offered are some of the problems that SEND has to deal with in implementing devolution successfully. In addition, the reasons for this opposing position are that the challenges of these people become an obstacle to the system of providing quality learning for SEND children and diminish the possibility of level inequality in primary education.
According to the above statements, the research findings bring forth the efficacy of the SEND system in closing the gap between the socio-economic disparities in education. Interestingly, this SEND system has been steadily improving as some studies report a positive impact on SEND learners; other studies indicate the persistence of challenges and inequality (Dimitrellou and Male, 2020). For instance, studies show that SEN learners still have lower attainment grades and exclusions on a wide scale and rarely get the same opportunities their non-SEN peers get. These findings re-emphasize that there should subsequently be an ongoing evaluation and re-shaping system of SEND that will help to deal with the issues of SEND learners and put them at par with their peers in primary education.
Ethical and Moral Implications
With implementing the SEND system in primary education, numerous ethical elements and moral issues emerge, which require an in-depth evaluation. The first big issue to consider is the fallout from possible further segregation and marginalization that special needs students may suffer within an academic atmosphere. In addition to putting SEND learners in special-needs classes or peripheralizing them within mainstream classrooms, the education system has the imminent danger of reinforcing the underclass’s negative stereotypes and image of social being (Dimitrellou and Male, 2020). Exclusion is a common practice that, apart from the deprivation of SEND learners from meaningful learning opportunities, leads to the erosion of their belongingness and dignity and those of the school community.
Resource distribution inequalities are deservingly depicted as another ethical obstacle in SEND. Funds are restricted, and resources lacking need to be improved. This may produce situations where SEND learners need equal opportunities for support services, assistive equipment, and other specialized accommodations (Ofsted, 2021). The disparity in the distribution of resources contributes to the escalation of the existing gaps and opens the doors of the systemic barriers that hinder the educational progress of gifted children with special needs. Besides, more or less distributing financial sources could deepen the social gap, and more excluded groups could need help in being embraced within this education system.
There are ethical dilemmas regarding the identification and permissions of SEND learners, given that this caveat also applies. The procedure for arranging precisely what students with special educational needs need can only work well when teachers, parents, and healthcare members do it jointly. For instance, misidentification, misinterpretation, and the absence of consent from SEND students or their parents could hinder the identification process’s fairness and accuracy. Moreover, SEND students may be scorned and demotivated when they do not participate in facilitating processes regarding their education and support plans. This is because of the feelings of disempowerment and disenfranchisement it can set in.
As ethical concerns emerge in this matter, it becomes immediately apparent that the educational system must encapsulate ethics of fairness, inclusivity, and respect for SEND student rights and autonomy as well. This implies changing the traditional methods of inclusive education that are often oriented towards the goals of one specific student group. A holistic approach that includes all students’ varied needs and outlooks is ideal. This type of education provides a nurturing and welcoming setting where SEND learners are recognized and appreciated for who they are, not merely workers meant to accomplish specific items. Moreover, the advocacy for fairness and inclusivity will only be complete if systemic obstacles such as inadequate funding, understaffing, and variations of resource allocations, which significantly impact the equal provision of support services for learners with special needs, are addressed.
Proposed Solutions and Recommendations
Taking the current disparities in primary education, prioritizing the special needs students being the most vulnerable, it is opportune that we anticipate a holistic process that the core of this is systemic reform and inclusion. Primarily, the government must spin around the idea of giving more funding where it is specially granted for SEND education (Graham et al., 2019). The provision of this financing should strengthen the capacity of schools to employ staff with specialized knowledge, equip them with necessary assistive technologies and arrange specific support based on the individual nature of the learners with SEND (Lindsay et al., 2020). While additionally emphasizing staffing levels and professional development programs for educators and support staff are steps to bolster the capacity and expertise in supporting SEND students, they remain the critical foundation stones (Kaimara et al., 2022). Besides making suitable learning resources by improving facilities, it ensured accessibility. It provides comprehensive services that meet the diverse needs of everyone, including physically disabilities learners or people with sensory impairments.
Moreover, the symbiosis of teachers, parents, health workers, and community actors in comprehensively solving the situation is necessary for SEND students to succeed. Using collaboration with local authorities and other institutions, the schools could use these avenues for other services and resources, including the SEND learners and their families (Muscutt, 2020). The maximum result-based indicator is in using practices and interventions that are scientifically proven to provide academic and social-emotional benefits to SEND students, and these need to be introduced. It means using what research shows and assessing the impact of the events implemented using conventional methods to guide decision-making and support resource allocation in the future (Graham et al., 2019).
Raising awareness and creating tolerant schools and communities are central pillars on which the structure of the sight of learners with SEND problems is built. Schools are to run a campaign to educate, conduct workshops and add disability issues to the school curriculum to enhance an understanding and acceptance of others’ distinctions. Beyond that, keeping an eye on progress, applying outcome measures to identify areas for improvement, and assuring accountability factors to steer the course through the SEND system are the keys to successfully addressing inequities in education.
Conclusion
To sum up, the problems of the primary education system in the UK are compelling to be considered. There are the overlooking features. One of the significant areas of consideration is the issue of SEND. Many problems, ranging from poor financing, differences in distribution, and barriers in identification and consent processes, have been studied. The problem of these inequalities becomes acute by overlooking ethical issues and principles and neglecting theoretical aspects. Stimulation of an accepting, supportive, and self-confident learning environment is core. Include fairness, inclusivity, and upholding the rights of learners with low ability to learn, which comes with SEND. At the same time, stakeholders can produce a more balanced and just education system. However, poverty in primary school can be prevented by collective efforts, informed decisions, and evidence-based approaches. According to it, every student can succeed and use their potential in the future.
References
Al-Shammari, Z., Faulkner, P.E. and Forlin, C., 2019. Theories-based inclusive education practices. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.73
Brussino, O., 2020. Mapping policy approaches and practices for including students with special education needs. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
Dimitrellou, E. and Male, D., 2020. Understanding what makes a positive school experience for pupils with SEND: can their voices inform inclusive practice? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(2), pp.87-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12457
Graham, B., White, C., Edwards, A., Potter, S. and Street, C., 2019. School exclusion: a literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain. Department for Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36480.97289
Lindsay, G., Wedell, K. and Dockrell, J., 2020, January. Warnock has spent 40 years developing special educational needs since the Warnock Report and its implications for the future. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 4, p. 164). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00164
Murdoch, D., English, A.R., Hintz, A. and Tyson, K., 2020. Feeling heard: Inclusive education, transformative learning, and productive struggle. Educational Theory, 70(5), pp.653-679.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/edth.12449
Muscutt, J., 2020. Child Rights, Disability, School and Educational Psychology and Inclusive Education. International Handbook on Child Rights and School Psychology, pp.501-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37119-7_32
Ofsted, 2021. SEND old issues, new issues, and next steps. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-old-issues-new-issues-next-steps/send-old-issues-new-issues-next-step
Kaimara, P., Deliyannis, I. and Oikonomou, A., 2022. Content design for inclusive educational environments. In Inclusive digital education (pp. 97-121). Cham: Springer International Publishing.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gema-De-Pablo/publication/364747503_Breaking_the_Digital_Gender_Gap_with_Inclusive_Digital_Education/links/63b30b23097c7832ca84cbf1/Breaking-the-Digital-Gender-Gap-with-Inclusive-Digital-Education.pdf#page=105
Iryani, E., Hufad, H. and Rusdiyani, I., 2023. The Trend of Inclusive Learning Models: Systematic Review Study. PPSDP International Journal of Education2(2), pp.143-158.http://ejournal.ppsdp.org/index.php/pijed/article/download/117/93
Zhang, Y., 2023. Learning, Assessment and Evaluation: Cases about Sino-British Cooperative Higher Education. The Educational Review, USA, 7(3), pp.333-337.http://www.hillpublisher.com/UpFile/202304/20230423184104.pdf
write