Neurodiversity- be aware of becoming exclusive when thinking of being inclusive!

10 years on from the Sayce report…

There is a famous quote by Verna Myers, a leading diversity and inclusion expert that says,

“Diversity is being invited to the party.?Inclusion is being asked to dance.”

In 2010, the Coalition government commissioned Liz Sayce, who was head of Disability Rights UK to examine what modern disability support should look like?in the workplace. This was called The Sayce report and was published in 2011. Some of the reasons for this was to raise aspirations of what disabled people could achieve across education, health, and social care services; and

?: "developing more equitable ways to:

– ‘get in’ – more disabled people doing apprenticeships, work experience, work placements, and on-the-job learning;

– ‘stay in’ – better promotion of Access to Work for retention;

?– ‘get on’ – whether setting up your own business or mutual or gaining skills for career development."

At the time in the report she made an important point that is as valid today as it was then:

?“One of the key factors is personalized support – available in whatever work the individual is in – so they can pursue opportunities in the labour market as it is now and, in the future, with its increase in short-term contracts, portfolio careers, and varying working practices.”

Do time and circumstances change our attitudes?

Over the last year during the pandemic, the proportion of people who are disabled and who are in employment has gone down, while the proportion who are either unemployed or economically inactive, has gone up and has risen from 45.9% to 47.7% in the year to October-December 2021. This has meant that that the disability employment gap has increased over the last year from 28.1% points to 28.8 % points. The ONS has also reported that a higher proportion of disabled employees have been made redundant than employees who are not disabled. In July-November 2020 , 21.1 per thousand disabled employees were made redundant, compared to 13.0 per thousand employees who are not disabled.

Whenever a group of people is deemed less valuable or less important, they become vulnerable to abuse, neglect, discrimination, and exploitation. Stereotypes, misinformation, and a general lack of interest all contribute to a culture of ignorance where people with developmental or cognitive disabilities are viewed as a single, homogenous group, rather than as individuals with unique abilities, skills, interests, and needs.

This week Dame Rachel de Souza , the new Children's Commissioner for England wrote about considering the individual child:

"During my tenure, I want my work to improve the chances of every single child, whatever their early standing in life, wherever they are, from the inner city to the most remote corner of every county in England."

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, supported by the UK Government states that each person has:

“The right to work on an equal basis with others in a market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible.” We also have the Equality Act 2010 operating in the UK as well.

So let's think about our today's framing and if the words we use and how they change our actions.

Neurodiversity is about us all. The term recognizes that some of us vary from the social stereotypes of being literate, numerate, able to verbally communicate and understand everything said to us, move, act, and process information at a specific pace and in a specific way. For some of us, we may have more time to learn a new task or adapt the way we do it or where we do it. For some of us, we may also need to avoid some tasks and do things a little differently or have some support to enable us to gain access to society as a whole - including work, education, and everyday living.

During a recent debate in the House of Commons on children and young people’s mental health, James Sunderland, Conservative MP for Bracknell, made a speech about school exclusion and children with SEND . In his contribution Mr. Sunderland said:

“Specialist and dedicated settings are the way forward, and I want more dedicated schools established for SEN. Why? It is because it is not fair on the 95% of children in a class if 5% are disruptive, nor is it fair on the 5% to be constantly out on a limb, feeling the odd one out or being excluded.”

This statement is an interesting one as it goes to the heart of what I want to discuss this week.

Is inclusivity ensuring all of us can be within society or do we decide it is too difficult to do this and then start to exclude or separate on the basis that is right? Who is it right for?

What is it about a society that says we can and do belong and we have the right to do so, or we are not allowed to because it is too difficult? Or if we do get included, we are placed near but not in... in a different room or in a special unit so that we are close.... but not too close?

If we do this in education does employment mirror these actions?

Have we really changed our attitudes over the last 50 years or is the pendulum swinging back once again?

Are we proud of our history of past segregation of children?

In the past large numbers of British and American disabled people were put away in institutions on the grounds that it was for their own good and the good of society. In the 19th century, special educators in many European countries argued for and helped develop provision for children and young people who were excluded from educational provision.

In 1913, the passing of the Mental Incapacity Act in the UK led to around 40,000 men and women being locked away, having been deemed “feeble-minded” or “morally defective”. This often led to the establishment of Special Schools, run by voluntary organizations and separate from the schools attended by the majority of children. It was only in the 1970s that those learners categorized as ‘having severe learning difficulties' (previously referred to as mentally handicapped), were deemed to be even worthy of any education! The Warnock Report was published in 1978 and made some sweeping recommendations for change. It formed the basis of the 1981 Education Act, which gave parents new rights in relation to special needs, urged the inclusion of special needs children in mainstream classes, and introduced the system of 'statementing' children to give them entitlement to support.

Interestingly, Lady Warnock in 2000 reflected that her report and recommendations from the 1970s had gone too far..." She believed that, although it may have been right at the time, inclusion has been taken "too far", driven by political correctness rather than a judgment of what is always best for the child."

Provision for children experiencing challenges within mainstream schools grew in the second half of the 20th century because of a gradual recognition that some students were poorly served within and, in some instances excluded from, existing arrangements for providing education. As this provision developed, there was also increased emphasis on integration, as special educators explored ways of supporting previously segregated groups so that they could find places in local community schools.

In 1994 the?Salamanca Statement , which was signed by 92 countries, expanded the concept from focusing only on children with special needs to children from all backgrounds:?‘All children should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have. Inclusive schools must recognize and respond to the diverse needs of their students”.

In the late 1990s, there was increasing discussion about inclusion practices in schools from Ainscow and others in education. I remember this. I was also talking to schools about 'whole school approaches' at the time, and inclusive practice... yes I am that old! We also saw the closures of many special schools and lost some amazing specialist teachers who retired from teaching. Did we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

A recent in-depth review and reflection (this is worth a read) of the Warnock report in 2020 came to the conclusion for better joint working, upstream, and equitable support and personalized plans.

What about the workplace?

In the workplace, we had segregation and specialist settings as the dominant model until the Sayce report.

Liz Sayce’s concluded 10 years ago:

1. Employment matters. Work is positive for health, for income, for social status, and for relationships. Employment is a core plank of independent living and for many people work is a key part of their identity.

2. Public money should be used to deliver the best outcomes – for as many people as possible, on the most equitable basis possible.

3. There should be a clear recognition of the role of the individual, the employer, and the State in achieving equality for disabled people.

4. Disabled people should have choice and control over the support they need to work. Resources and power should be allocated to individuals who, where they wish, have the right to control that resource to achieve agreed outcomes.

5. There is a clear role for specialist disability employment expertise – as a resource not a world apart from mainstream support – available to those who demonstrably have the greatest support needs and/or labour market disadvantage, and also to those who support or employ them.

What do you think?

'Special' schools for 'special' people? Is that inclusion or exclusion? Or is this in fact ensuring equitable approaches in meeting the needs of each person?

What does inclusion really mean in the workplace?

Does inclusion mean developing and delivering universal design principles and processes that enable all to have an equal opportunity to access all jobs dependent on their skills and not determined by goodwill gestures or social background?

It sounds really great when an organization delivers a specialist programme for specified groups e.g. Autism (and of course there are some very good ones that are doing amazing work). The intent is usually good. But does this exclude groups that don't come under this specific umbrella? Does it exclude those with ADHD, Dyslexia, Tourette's, or DCD? How 'bad' do you need to be to get in? Do you need a formal diagnosis or can you self-diagnose? Are they biased and tend to have predominantly white middle-class males who are more likely to gain a diagnosis of Autism for example? Is this actually an exclusive club?

If our intent is inclusion we need to provide in-house support or use external expertise to help us to ensure there is equal opportunity for progression which is measured by talent and not merely tokenistic. How many people get promoted from 'special programmes'? We may need to consider if having a special ‘unit’ for 'these' people is potentially doing what was done a long time ago when we placed them as children in a 'special class'. Could this feel like being 'othered'?

What does equity mean- the right thing for each person- and having equal opportunity to thrive. Is this more about being at the dance and dancing than being on the sidelines and watching or is it choosing not to be at the dance at all because you prefer not to be there? Are we really talking about belonging?

What are your thoughts, please?

Professor Amanda Kirby is an eternal optimist and sees the framing of neurodiversity as a positive one. She and Theo Smith have a book coming out very soon.

Neurodiversity at Work: Drive Innovation, Performance and Productivity with a Neurodiverse Workforce

She is also the CEO of Do-IT Solutions - a tech-for-good company that has developed neurodiversity screening tools that are person-centered, and delivers training and consultancy.