Task 4 Ilustration - Timeline of policy area
Learning Journal
Timeline of policy area
For my task, I chose to use the format of a timeline, as this would show how key events influenced the application of policy. This was also useful for the group discussion, as another group member chose a timeline format, and we were able to find may similarities by comparing. What was interesting that the overall trends in inclusion policy followed the same structures, and that specific events, such as conferences, had the similar outcomes in changes to policy in both the UK and the Netherlands.
I wanted to include the key events that have had significant impact, which is why the time period between 1902 - 1944 is relatively sparse, as there was not much movement between positive changes for inclusion policy. The Salamanca statement in 1994 triggered a wave of change in the UK. From the 1900-50s, the policy towards inclusion was conservative, focussed on exclusion and perpetuating the norms in society. Some progress was being made by greater diagnosis of differences, however students were educated out of mainstream education. In the 1960’s some changes started happening focussing on developing the quality of education in the alternative schools, which is showing a move towards a more liberal policy, where the attention to the quality of education with different student groups is focussed on improving their individual aims and outcomes. With the Salamanca statement in 1994, a multitude of changes occurred that led to some developments which could be called critical, recognising that society needs everyone to function together, and establishing that it should be a right for all students to attend ‘their local school’. As a result, what is in practice in schools is a combination of liberal and critical practices, that can vary with institutions. In my school, for example, we have a ‘excellent’ rated provision for inclusion, however, from the practice that I have observed there is still a long way to go to include all students. The processes are largely reactionary, and if we were to be a ‘fully critical’ institution, there would be more in place to ensure students are not left on the periphery. For example, classes are placed in sets. The ‘lowest set’ group is essentially and SEND class, and is based on attainment in maths and English. I see this as a liberal practice. The students are still excluded from the mainstream cohort of the school, however the reason for this is so they can receive a more ‘specialised education’, with more ‘appropriate’ resources produced, smaller classes sizes and more learning assistants. This is liberal because it is focused on thinking about the individuals progress, or perhaps even neo-liberal as it is focused on the individual with the pressure of new public management and not wanting the SEND students to distract the ‘higher ability’ pupils who’s higher attainment is required to meet progress measures.
It is my hope that the next stage in inclusion policy can recognise that any ‘exclusion’ is contrary to inclusion, and that the scope of who this needs to recognise is all learners, not just those with diagnosed needs.
From doing this timeline, I also noticed a correlation between political events and public opinion slowing pushing the direction of policy. I think that the Salamanca statement had a large impact on education policy in the UK because there was already a lot of work happening from the public to push these ideas forwards, without this, it may have taken longer. This is just speculation- but the Netherlands inclusion policies followed the same general structure (from our group discussion) however was a few years behind. I think this is interesting, as I would have assumed the inverse, with the UK being a much larger society, and in my experience rooted with conservative values, however it was not the case. I think this is because of the work of the public before the official conferences, which laid the groundwork for faster change. This could also be the impact of ‘new public management’, where one positive change could be the prompt application of policy.
![]()
Timeline of policy area
For my task, I chose to use the format of a timeline, as this would show how key events influenced the application of policy. This was also useful for the group discussion, as another group member chose a timeline format, and we were able to find may similarities by comparing. What was interesting that the overall trends in inclusion policy followed the same structures, and that specific events, such as conferences, had the similar outcomes in changes to policy in both the UK and the Netherlands.
I wanted to include the key events that have had significant impact, which is why the time period between 1902 - 1944 is relatively sparse, as there was not much movement between positive changes for inclusion policy. The Salamanca statement in 1994 triggered a wave of change in the UK. From the 1900-50s, the policy towards inclusion was conservative, focussed on exclusion and perpetuating the norms in society. Some progress was being made by greater diagnosis of differences, however students were educated out of mainstream education. In the 1960’s some changes started happening focussing on developing the quality of education in the alternative schools, which is showing a move towards a more liberal policy, where the attention to the quality of education with different student groups is focussed on improving their individual aims and outcomes. With the Salamanca statement in 1994, a multitude of changes occurred that led to some developments which could be called critical, recognising that society needs everyone to function together, and establishing that it should be a right for all students to attend ‘their local school’. As a result, what is in practice in schools is a combination of liberal and critical practices, that can vary with institutions. In my school, for example, we have a ‘excellent’ rated provision for inclusion, however, from the practice that I have observed there is still a long way to go to include all students. The processes are largely reactionary, and if we were to be a ‘fully critical’ institution, there would be more in place to ensure students are not left on the periphery. For example, classes are placed in sets. The ‘lowest set’ group is essentially and SEND class, and is based on attainment in maths and English. I see this as a liberal practice. The students are still excluded from the mainstream cohort of the school, however the reason for this is so they can receive a more ‘specialised education’, with more ‘appropriate’ resources produced, smaller classes sizes and more learning assistants. This is liberal because it is focused on thinking about the individuals progress, or perhaps even neo-liberal as it is focused on the individual with the pressure of new public management and not wanting the SEND students to distract the ‘higher ability’ pupils who’s higher attainment is required to meet progress measures.
It is my hope that the next stage in inclusion policy can recognise that any ‘exclusion’ is contrary to inclusion, and that the scope of who this needs to recognise is all learners, not just those with diagnosed needs.
From doing this timeline, I also noticed a correlation between political events and public opinion slowing pushing the direction of policy. I think that the Salamanca statement had a large impact on education policy in the UK because there was already a lot of work happening from the public to push these ideas forwards, without this, it may have taken longer. This is just speculation- but the Netherlands inclusion policies followed the same general structure (from our group discussion) however was a few years behind. I think this is interesting, as I would have assumed the inverse, with the UK being a much larger society, and in my experience rooted with conservative values, however it was not the case. I think this is because of the work of the public before the official conferences, which laid the groundwork for faster change. This could also be the impact of ‘new public management’, where one positive change could be the prompt application of policy.
Task 4
Education Policy
Education Policy