appendix 8

During your period as Secretary of State for Education and Science in the 1970s, what provision did you plan for the integration of disabled children in mainstream schools? In addition, were you broadly in favour of this integration at the time?

I was broadly in favour of integration [inclusion]. I think that this was the general view in the Department, and of the very experienced Parliamentary Under Secretary on the Schools side of the Department, the late Ernest Armstrong.

Postal interview with Lord Reginald Prentice, Former Secretary of State in the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. Interview answers supplied in February 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

During the 1970’s integration was an element in a social trend towards the greater opportunity for women, those with disabilities and ethnic minorities. It was considered of sufficient importance to warrant the sanctioning of two trips to Sweden and Denmark that I made, one with a DES [Department of Education and Science] architect and one with a member of the Welsh Inspectorate. These were completed before the Warnock Committee started work. Committee members visited the USA to [see] the results of integrative legislation…

Although the Warnock committee gave integration only a limited endorsement community and parental pressures together with the policies of individual local education authorities increased pressure to increase integrated provision. HMI’s role, as was common, was to report on the quality and appropriateness of all forms of education. Personally I believed that increased special educational provision in primary and secondary schools was desirable…

Postal interview with John Fish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Schools involved with the Warnock Report and the 1981 Special Education Needs Act. Interview answers supplied on the 19^th June 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

What, in your opinion, were the committee’s * most important findings in relation to disabled students?

We chose, after a good deal of discussion, to concentrate on special needs because:

a) we wanted to bring home the message that, in the context specifically of education, it did not matter so much about the nature of a child’s disability, but on what steps could be taken to ensure that he had access, as far as possible, to the curriculum. We wanted to move away, if we could, from the quasi-medical model of diagnosis of what was wrong, without enough thought being given to active steps to make education possible. (After all, the concept of education for all children was relatively new).

b) There are numerous children with multiple handicaps, and some have disabilities not even classified.

c) Most important… we wanted to widen the scope of ‘special education,’ beyond those with specific ‘handicaps’ to include those who, temporarily or permanently, were falling behind their contemporaries, for whatever reason. Thus we found that, instead of the 2% of children with ‘handicaps’ previously identified, the figure with special needs, in our new sum, was more like 20% of all school children of school age.

Postal interview with Baroness Mary Warnock, Chair of the Committee of Enquiry. Interview answers received on the 4^th May 2000.

…………………………………………………………………….

What was the stance of the Callaghan Government to the Warnock Report?

Supportive. The general idea that more children should be taught in mainstream schools was favoured, but it was recognised that facilities and appropriate training would have to be provided if that was to be successful. There was some concern that severely disabled children might suffer if introduced into mainstream schools that were not equipped to deal with their special needs…

During your time in the Callaghan Government, what were

your aims and intentions when considering the integration of disabled children into mainstream education?

To integrate as many as could benefit, but recognising that facilities for severely disabled children in mainstream schools were very scarce - for example wheelchair access was very limited at that time, and there were few funds available for improvements because so much had to be spent on "roofs over heads"…

Was the stance taken by the Callaghan Government to the Warnock Report taken as a result of the supplication of disability lobbyists or educationalists, or was it as a result of independent political opinions?

I and my junior ministers met with a number of interested groups. We then discussed what they had said with civil servants, HMIs (Her Majesty's Inspectorate) and other educationalists. The report was not the object of much partisan debate...

What changes in classroom teaching did you envisage as a result of the findings of the Warnock Report?

Primarily the training of teachers to recognise the needs of disabled people, and an emphasis on a community approach that educated children to accept the differences in one another, whether gender, race or physical attributes. A fair amount of discretion was left at the time to individual schools and teachers - it was before the national curriculum.

Postal interview with Baroness Shirley Williams, former Secretary of State for Education. Answers Received on 17 January 2000

…………………………………………………………………….

The committee although originally set up by a Conservative administration was not formed before the Labour Party won a general election. The membership and terms of reference were modified by the new administration. However, before the report was published there was another change of Government and the Report landed on the desk of Sir Keith Joseph as the new Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Postal interview with John Fish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Schools involved with the Warnock Report and the 1981 Special Education Needs Act. Interview answers supplied on the 19^th June 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

In hindsight, do you feel that the findings of the committee* were fully justified, and if not what changes would you have made?

On the whole, given the evidence that we had, and the fact we were specifically told, in our terms of reference, not to include social deprivation as a cause of ‘special needs’ or ‘handicap’ (a prohibition that, today, looks absurd), I think our findings were justified.

Postal interview with Baroness Mary Warnock, Chair of the Committee of Enquiry. Interview answers received on the 4^th May 2000.

…………………………………………………………………….

What were the economic pressures that affected educational funding in the mid 1970s and early 1980s?

See Below [I assume that Lord Prentice wanted to make a big point of this question, as he took a large amount of space to answer it last. For doing this, I am most sincerely grateful to him].

...

I can be more eloquent!

Economic pressures had always affected educational funding and always will. Even when rises in spending are available, (i.e. in most years, to some extent) there is generally a larger rise in needs and/or expectations.

In the mid-70’s and early 80’s [when the 1981 Special Educational Needs Act was debated and introduced] the pressure was intense. Economic pressures pointed to lower spending.

The Mid-70’s

We took office confident that we could reverse “Tory cuts.” Following my appointment on the Monday after Polling Day [to Secretary of State for Education], I went to our first cabinet that afternoon. On the way in, Denis Healey, the new Chancellor, told me we must meet soon to [review] some spending plans.

The reality: no extra money and, a few weeks later, deeper cuts.

For example, Margaret Thatcher (my predecessor) abolished free school milk for older children so as to direct more funds to nursery education and to the needs of handicapped children. The labour manifesto had promised (a) to restore the milk, (b) to expand nursery education much more. It was soon clear to me that we could not do both. I rapidly decided to drop the proposal for school milk. A few weeks later I was faced with cabinet decisions for more cuts. Reluctantly I cut nursery provision below the Thatcher level, so as to [fund] the basic primary and secondary programmes.

Strange to say, I achieved one major breakthrough which cost a lot of money – the appointment of the Houghton Committee, and the agreement of the Cabinet, in advance, to implement its proposals. This led to the biggest salary increase in the history of the profession.

(In these days all Departmental estimates were automatically increased for rising costs, including salaries. This is no longer the case.)

Later in the 70’s there were more cuts due to the economic pressures, culminating in the IMF crisis in 1976 [in which Denis Healey had to borrow money from the International Monetary Fund to stabilise the British Economy].

Postal interview with Lord Reginald Prentice, Former Secretary of State in the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. Interview answers supplied in February 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

Before you saw the results of the Warnock Report, did you plan drafting a parliamentary bill [of your own]?

No. We had no majority that would enable us to carry through a bill unless it had the full support of other parties and we were unlikely to get that, as our experience of trying to reform GCEs so clearly showed. The more right wing elements of the Conservative Party were very much opposed to closer co-operation in educational matters.

Interview with Baroness Shirley Williams, former Secretary of State for Education. Answers Received on 17 January 2000

…………………………………………………………………….

Postal interview with Lord Reginald Prentice, Former Secretary of State in the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. Interview answers supplied in February 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

Postal interview with John Fish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Schools involved with the Warnock Report and the 1981 Special Education Needs Act. Interview answers supplied on the 19^th June 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

The Conservative administration came in with a very clear policy to raise standards in primary and secondary schools and was very reluctant to implement any of the Warnock Report. It was only that the [Government] had to be seen to be doing something for the 1981 International Year of the Handicapped Person that initiated the [1981 Special Needs] Act for which no additional resources were to be made available.

Postal interview with John Fish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Schools involved with the Warnock Report and the 1981 Special Education Needs Act. Interview answers supplied on the 19^th June 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

The early 1980’s

The Conservative government came into office committed to a strict [regime] of public spending. This led to heavy cuts in certain programmes, e.g. the heavy subsidies which had been going into failing industries. There were some rises in spending, e.g. Defence and the Police. [Some] Departments were in a more “neutral” position. I think [this] included Education.

Later there were steady increases. In the mid-80’s [after the introduction of the 1981 Special Educational Needs act] as a Conservative back bench M.P., I recall telling the teachers’ unions in my constituency of considerable increases in the average spending per child…

Was the Special Educational Needs Act put through Parliament in 1981 to coincide with the Year of the Disabled?

I think that the main reasons for priority were the importance of the issues, the strength of the arguments in the Report, and the general welcome for it in the education world and in Parliament. The Year of the Disabled was probably a contributory cause. [However the] Government would have wanted to be seen to be taking important initiatives at the time. As Minister for the Disabled in the previous year, I had encouraged that view throughout Whitehall.

Postal interview with Lord Reginald Prentice, Former Secretary of State in the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. Interview answers supplied in February 2001.

…………………………………………………………………….

“In hindsight, do you feel that the findings of the committee* were fully justified, and if not what changes would you have made?

…[As] it turned out, the recommendation, which was incorporated in the 1981 Act, that children whose difficulty/needs were especially complex should have ‘statements’ was not a good idea. In the context of the extreme financial restrictions in which education is now provided, (sic.) (a) Children without statements get hardly any extra provision (b) Statements have become dishonest, a child’s needs being stated in the light of what a local authority is prepared to spend rather than on what he actually needs. An authority is still legally bound to provide whatever the statement says; and the [outcome] is that it says very little.

I do not know what better recommendations we could have made. But, because we did no costing of our own recommendations, (all because, even if we had, they would not have been incorporated into the [1981] Act) the whole report looks more like a set aspirations than anything else. [Even] as such it did, I suppose, more good than harm…

How do you feel that the committee* has had an impact on contemporary education in England and Wales?

It had a vast impact, in raising people’s awareness of the problem of children with special needs, especially those in mainstream schools. But it is now more than 20 years ago that the report was published, and it may be that there should another committee by now. Educational thinking has moved on. The impact of the 1988 Act was very great, or harmful to those children with special needs [who were] in the new competitive mainstream schools.”

Postal interview with Baroness Mary Warnock, Chair of the Committee of Enquiry. Interview answers received on the 4^th May 2000.

…………………………………………………………………….

“[It] has to be remembered that prior to the Warnock Committee Report:

a) there were 10 statutory categories of handicap. Children ascertained as handicapped (considered a form of certification at the time) were placed in one of the 10 categories.

b) the concept of disability was not in common use in education.

c) the right of all children to education had only recently been recognised by the 1970 Education Act.

The Warnock Report (Chapter 3) was anti-classification by category. Its evidence showed that there were very few children with a single disability. Most of the children deemed to have special educational needs had a variety of needs: hence the Report’s stress on the need for an individual statement. Children were not considered to be part of a single category. Subsequently a different form of labelling arose from administrative practices.

Classroom practices were not an issue at the time. HMI reported on the effectiveness of all kinds of practice. There were no national guidelines even for special education…

… The general view was in favour of a mixed economy. There were powerful social arguments to limit the social isolation of many in special schools and to introduce them to the world of other children and adults.

At the time the Report was published there was a unique opportunity to have a specially trained teaching force in primary, secondary and special schools. The teacher training section of the Report was almost totally ignored until after the 1981 [Special Needs] Education Act.

The main counter arguments to integration came from parents and from the staff of special schools. It has to be remembered that the woolly aim of inclusiveness did not exist except among a limited number of disability campaigners. A slow move to planned, and properly staffed and financed, provision in primary and secondary schools was not particularly controversial [1]…”

Interview with John Fish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Schools involved with the Warnock Report and the 1981 Special Education Needs Act. Interview answers supplied on the 19^th June 2001.

Meeting at the Department for Education and Employment, Sanctuary Buildings, Westminster

Interview with Government Spokes Persons for Special Needs Education, Annette Jones & Kevin Aitchison, 6^th May 1999.

Preface

The following is the report of an interview of two government spokes persons for special educational needs (perceptual disabilities) at the Department for Education & Employment on Thursday 6^th May 1999. Before the interview, copies of the interview questions were requested and e-mailed to the Department for Education and Employment. The interview date was set after the questions were e-mailed. These questions are listed below:

1. Does the government have any specific policies for teaching children with sensory impairments?

2. Does the government have any specific policies for the art & design education of visually disabled people?

3. What is the government’s policy on the full inclusion of pupils with visual disabilities into mainstream schools & the National Curriculum? Does the government have an opinion on full inclusion for visually disabled pupils?

4. What difficulties does the government envisage when including children with visual disabilities into mainstream education & the National Curriculum?

5. What extra resourcing does the government provide for the inclusion of students with visual disabilities into mainstream education & the National Curriculum?

6. What problems do the government envisage teachers experiencing when instructing students with visual disabilities?

7. What training policy does the government have for the teachers of visually disabled students?

8. What research has the government used as a basis for its policy for the education of students with visual disabilities?

9. Does the government envisage any circumstances in which it would be reasonable to withdraw school children with visual disabilities from art & design education?

10. Does the government envisage either positive or negative social factors in the art & design education of students with visual disabilities?

The interview was recorded using pen and paper. A tape recorder was taken to the interview, but in the event it was not used. This report is also to be submitted to the DfEE for validation before it is included in any further research reports.

Interview

On the initial point, it is stated that the government regards special needs education very highly. On the specific policy of visual disability, the government does not regard students with visual disabilities separately when developing policies. The government simply sees all disabilities within the framework of special needs levels. The government believes that the degree of special needs is the most important issue when classifying children and deciding how best they can be educated.

There is no specific policy for the training of teachers of students with visual disabilities or any other disability. The training programs available are seen within the context of mainstream training projects. However, it is pointed out that all special needs teachers now need to undertake specific, accredited special needs training courses.

The government does not have specific policies for the inclusion or integration of visually disabled students in the National Curriculum. Different technologies make this difficult. For this reason, these issues are decided at a local level, through a Local Education Authority. The criteria for this inclusion is set out in the DfEE document, “Meeting Special Educational Needs.” The government believes that children with visual disabilities should be admitted to mainstream education if parents of children with disabilities want them to be educated within mainstream schooling, and if the three criteria, laid out in the 1986 Special Needs Act, are met.

It is emphasised that at this point in time the government is not, despite reports, in favour of closing all special schools and integrating all children with special educational needs into mainstream education. However, it is stated that the government's strongly held intention is to move towards inclusion and integration as much as possible. This includes a partnership between mainstream schools and special schools, leading to a new role for special schools. It is felt that the current role of special schools is too isolated. The government also feels that special schools should play a collaborative and consultative role. The Department for Education and Employment cites the current practice of partnership between local mainstream schools in Kent and the special school, Dalton House in Seven Oaks, Kent as an example of good practice.

The government does not envisage difficulties in the integration and inclusion of students with visual disabilities in mainstream education, as long as the resources are available to facilitate it. However, the government only sees resourcing as part of the integration equation, not the whole picture. For the government, the code is as important as the resourcing. In terms of resources, however, the government has just granted £200K to the RNIB for the production of Braille books. This budget is to be administered under the auspices of the National Library for the Blind. (In terms of resourcing, the entire special needs budget for the academic year 1999-2000 is £2.5billion.) However, there is no guarantee of continuing future budgets at present levels. Despite the money for the Braille books, there are no specific budgets for the education of students with visual disabilities. This group of students is only seen within the context of other initiatives; for example, the Braille books initiative is only seen within the auspices of the National Year of Literacy.

In terms of training, every teacher who teaches a whole class of students with registered disabilities has to have an accredited qualification. However, teachers teaching individual or mixed classes do not have to have specific qualifications in special educational needs. The training of peripatetic teachers, for example, is the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency.

The Department for Education and Employment do not conduct academic research relating to specific issues before developing and implementing policies. Instead they take advice and comments from organisations that have specialist knowledge of these fields. For example, on the education of students with visual disabilities, the DfEE consult organisations such as the RNIB, ROSB, and The National Library for the Blind.

In terms of the foreseeable difficulties of teaching students with visual disabilities, the government does see a problem with the regional definition of disability. Regional definitions of disability arise as a result of the Local Education Authorities having their own policies and standards when defining special educational needs. Additionally, the government believes that no child should be withdrawn from mainstream education unless its statements specifically advise it. Again, a child's statement is defined at a local level, and so is not under the direct control of the government.

In terms of the positive and negative social factors of the arts education of students with visual disabilities, the government believes that the only negative factors they envisage as a result of this form of education are those of society's acceptance of children with visual disabilities in general. The way the government sees this problem being overcome is to win over these detractors. It is not specified, however, how these detractors are to be won over. Again, it is emphasised that the government is fully committed to the full inclusion and integration of all students with disabilities.

Supplementary Question 1: Is there a hypothetical situation in which the government envisages children with visual disabilities being denied access to mainstream schools or curricula. The government considers that students with physical disabilities should not be sent to schools that have buildings, which are physically difficult to access. However, this situation would be very rare, and could only be envisaged in schools based in very old buildings in which it would be very difficult to provide built access, such as lifts. Although a large amount of resources are made available to convert school buildings, a small amount of these buildings would be very difficult to convert. Supplementary Question 2: Is there a hypothetical social situation in which students with physical disabilities would be denied access to schools or curricula. The only situation in which the government considers that students with disabilities should be socially excluded is when there are major behavioural problems and major incidents of bullying in schools. It is thought that students with disabilities are more vulnerable socially in these situations.

Some further points the Department for Education and Employment want to make clear are that the current government wants to see itself as having child/parent centred stakeholder policies. In terms of the statementing process itself, the government would also like to see Local Education Authorities using children's evidence where it is appropriate - although specific situations in which this is envisaged are not given. The government would also like their policies to be seen as representing children's needs and parents' wishes.

The government is currently working on changes to its Special Needs Code of Practice. The consultation period has now finished, and the resulting updated code is expected in approximately 18 months time (2001). The government like to see the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice as an evolving document; the government also like this document to be seen as user friendly - although in this context it is not specified who the user is. Finally, it is emphasised that the government likes their special educational needs policies to be seen within the context of the government's overall policies of raising performance standards throughout education.

A study of RNIB New College, Worcester, British Isles.

Report of the Interview With Nick Ratcliffe, Principal of RNIB New College, Worcester on the 31st August 2000.

Introduction: Interview Background

This interview was scheduled for the end of the summer term in my academic year of fieldwork at New College. Its purpose was to gather background information about New College to write an introduction about the college, and to discover the social and management issues that effect the development of the curriculum in the school.

The interview itself was held in the principal's home, which was the house provided by the school as an official residence. I was met at the door by the principal - who I had met before - himself, who showed me through to his sitting room. We both sat on adjoining sofas that were at 90^o degrees to each other. Because it was not a workday, both of us were dressed informally in open necked shirts. Before beginning the interview, the principal and I chatted informally about our experiences of decorating our respective houses, our backgrounds in education and the fact we had both had the opportunity to conduct personal studies at Oxbridge colleges as school teacher fellows.

During the interview, I used pen and paper to record my answers, as I had done previously. I still did not have my small tape recorder back from the student that I had lent it to. In addition, I also felt that I wanted to make the report of the interview more interpretive and less of a bland documentary of conversation. I of course asked the principal's permission before taking out the pen and pad. During the interview, I also stopped making notes several times and asked whether the principal wanted certain views recorded or not. And finally, I am sending a copy of this report to the principal for verification. If he feels that their contents do not represent his views or are factually inaccurate they can be altered retrospectively.

Report of the Interview

What was his educational background was before coming to New College. He said that his background was very conventional before arriving in 1997 as deputy principal. In 1999, he was made acting principal, and then in 2000 he was made the college's principal officially.

Why did he choose to teach in a special school, as he had no experience of such a school previously. He said that he had heard of this school through charitable work before applying to becoming a staff member. He said that he applied for this post because he thought that the job sounded interesting.

Did he teach blind children himself or was his role purely as an executive. He said that, yes, he did have a VI teaching role within the school. He said that he has insisted on keeping this teaching role, and feels that it is right to maintain this role in the future. The principal felt that his teaching role was relatively easy to maintain for the reason that being a boarding school he could arrange broader teaching hours that fit around his managerial responsibilities. During this section of the interview, the principal also mentioned his previous management posts as a deputy head in a mainstream school in Birmingham, and then as took a job with a managerial capacity in a FE college in Shropshire, before moving to New College.

Following on from this, what differences had he found in staff roles in mainstream schools and New College. He said that the personalities differed in the headteachers between the two types of school. The essence of New College, he felt, was also more complex because the students he had at here were far more dependent on staff members for all of their needs.

The principal also felt that New College had to battle constantly to maintain its staff numbers because their were so few pupils in the school compared to mainstream schools with larger numbers of students. (Obviously, if few students want to take a subject, or are even present in a year, New College cannot financially justify their full-time position.) However, at the same time the teachers that are employed by the school have a unique skill that few others have.

The funding of the school is also difficult to maintain because New College is an independent school. For this reason, it relies on the fees of its students, with small top-up fees and grants from the RNIB and the LEA. It also now also has a small (in effect, token) amount from central government - this academic year this is to be £15,000. However, despite the restrictions New College faces because of its independent status, the baseline for the survival of the school is that it can teach and support the National Curriculum.

The principal told me that the independent status of New College was protected by the Deed of Trust. However, this deed also insists that the school is open to students with all levels of disability. Although this deed has changed in the 1930s and then in 1988 after the college's merger with RNIB Chorley Wood school, this principle remains the same. For this reason, the entry to New College is not necessarily related to the legal definitions of blindness and visual impairment.

In the light of these entry conditions, what criteria are set down for the entry of children to New College. The principal said that LEAs, hypothetically, would pay the fees for a student with a visual impairment if it were proven that this LEA's own schools could not provide for that student. Nonetheless, even if LEAs have their own schools for students with visual impairments, or assigned mainstream schools with a visual impairment unit, then parents can still appeal to the SEN Tribunal (a neutral body) in an attempt to send their child to New College.

However, the principal feels that because this process is left to the process of a parental appeal, then the whole process becomes subjective. The principal also feels that the appeals to the SEN Tribunal depend on the knowledge, determination and political awareness of the parents involved. He feels, therefore, that the whole statementing process is, in itself, a political process. It does appear that relatively wealthy, well-educated middle class parents have the best possibility of succeeding in this appeals process.

Is the likelihood of appeal more successful for middle class parents? And if it is, is the intake to New College as a whole more likely to be middle class. The principal said that this was not necessarily so. The willingness of an LEA to send children with visual impairments to schools like New College, which are outside of its own area, is dependent on its own political and financial climate. For example, in his experience the principal felt that Labour LEAs would attempt more than others to include children with disabilities in mainstream schools and not send their students to mainstream schools would. Therefore, these LEAs are less likely to name such provision in their statements.

The principal gave Birmingham as an example of an LEA that is less likely to send students to New College, because they say that they are a large enough and well resourced authority to be able to provide such provision for themselves. However, the principal feels that the truth behind this matter is that they want to save money. His reason for thinking this is that Birmingham is currently closing one of its schools specially constructed for educating the visually impaired leaving only one remaining. In addition, some children have been sent to New College from this LEA after their parents threatened to take it to a tribunal.

How many staff and children are currently at school. There are 104 children currently on role at New College, and their ages go from primary school age to 19 years of age. In some exceptional circumstances, the school can also accommodate 20-year-old students. The age range is not completely standard for entry to the college because some children come to New College behind in their studies, and so are put back a year or so. In terms of their sponsorship, the students' funding is usually by their LEA until the age of 19, and then by the FEFC for a further year or so. The children are taught by 35 full time staff (or the equivalent in some cases in part time hours). The average class has 5 students, and the maximum size of class is 8 students. The teaching day is between 9 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. The teaching hours per member of staff works out slightly higher per member of staff than mainstream schools. The students also undertake prep work and other activities in the classrooms and other departments after school. I was also told that OFSTED were conducting an inspection in October. However, I was asked not to approach them before their inspection to ask them about this inspection, although I could approach them afterwards.

New College is also a government beacon school. As part of this scheme, the school's librarian, and heads of PE and Art all go out to speak to other educational practitioners who work with people with visual impairments but have less experience of doing so. In order to become a beacon school, New College had to bid, after having identified that it fit all of the criteria for doing so. In return, it is given £30,000 a year. However, the prestige and kudos the school acquires as a consequence of this status appears to be worth as much. In addition, the principal feels that their are other altruistic reasons for helping others with less expertise in such an educational discipline. The current period of New College's beacon status is limited to the period between 1998-2001. Saying this, the principal appears to want to extend this period. (The principal made a note on his Dictaphone at this stage to look at the proposal that they have to make for re-newing their beacon status.)

Is New College restricted itself to an intake of children from England and Wales - obviously Scotland and Ireland have a different education system, and it appears possible that other countries might be reluctant to pay a foreign school to educate their children. The principal said that the school occasionally takes children from Scotland, although it has not taken children from Northern Ireland - although it appears that this is a matter of coincidence rather than design. In addition, the school also takes children from countries such as Monaco, Nigeria and Hong Kong - although these children were paid for from private resources. (At this stage in the interview, the principal made a note on his Dictaphone to market the school in other countries.)

Is the future of New College unknown, especially in the light of recent political trends towards inclusion? The principal stated that there was a question mark over the long-term future of New College. However, he felt that there was a tremendous parental demand if the budgets of LEAs allow it. He also admitted the main factor behind the will to preserve schools. Although he cannot see the closure of the school, as it would be embarrassing for the RNIB and the government, only funding issues can ultimately determine New College's survival. The principal was at the same time insistent that the financing of the school and its curriculum could not become related. This would ultimately lead to a downward spiral and cease the function of the school.

On a final issue, the principal said that for the first time he and the National Association of Special Schools now inform the DfEE of the progress of New College.

Eco Sound Logo

To contact us:

E-mail:

editor@blindnessandarts.com

We are based in:

Leicester, UK

* This symbol denotes words altered at the request of Baroness Warnock.

[1] I have entered the reports of the interviews with the Principal at New College, the pilot interview with the Visual Impairment Special Needs Co-ordinator from the East Midlands, and my interview with officials from the DfES in Appendix 7 to give the perspective of school’s experiences as a result of these policies. The reader of this study is allowed to draw his or her own conclusions from these.