A quick calculation with a blunt pencil on the border of the evening newspaper reveals that I have worked with approximately 5800 children thus far in my career. Four of them are burned in my heart for eternity. They are burned into my heart, not my brain, not my soul- my heart.
Schools should be inclusive places. Many will pin up a banner near the entrance saying ALL ARE WELCOME. Everyone should be welcome. We probably all agree that schools should embrace children from all races, all religions, all creeds. Those who are different are also welcome. One passes down the corridor of any school and sees the child with glasses, with braces, with cochlear implants. All seems normal.
But then we have the child with Downs, with Cerebral Palsy, with Angelman Syndrome. Now some schools balk. The inclusion banner that spans the main entrance is suddenly rolled up, stored in a cupboard. Those schools will still tell you that ALL ARE WELCOME. What they mean is that they welcome everyone who fits the mould; the narrow brand of an education that allows them to churn out 30 or 60 or 90 identical protégés each year. Children that read and write beyond national standards; children that play a musical instrument, read the new Harry Potter book on the same evening it is released and are stressed that their homework won’t be finished before their yoga lesson begins.
Pass down the corridor of these schools and one won’t see the Angelman child. Access has been denied, usually through that old Health and Safety chestnut: What if there was a fire, how would we be able to keep him safe? It is for his own good, this school is not best suited to his needs. The other school, down the road, he would be happier there. What they mean is that the child will never achieve the national expectations in reading and writing, no matter how hard any teacher tries and therefore could cost the school 2,3 even 4% off its overall exam results.
Inclusion applies to everyone. Every one. It means all are welcome, regardless of need. And if the school can’t meet the child’s needs because of the physical space, then the physical space needs to be transformed.
Ten years ago I was starting my second headship in a high flying but dysfunctional school. The school was top 5 in the exam league tables but was seriously outdated in its practice. Seriously outdated. My brief was to eradicate its deeply rooted and antiquated ethos and drag the school (kick and screaming if necessary) into the new Millennium.
The school had a 300 year old history and was housed in a building considered to be of huge importance to English Heritage as it was the oldest purpose-built school in London. Charles Dickens had rented rooms there to read his stories aloud to Victorian devotees. The place oozed history.
Two grated, wrought iron staircases framed the building to the east and west. The ground floor was base to for the younger children. At the age of 7, classes moved upstairs to mingle with the high oaken eaves and beams.
Soon after arrival, I admitted a child who used a wheelchair for mobility. Questions were asked, first in stuffy, secret conversations but later more overtly; how would this child be able to access the school once she reached 7 years old? The question masked what was in my opinion, their real concern; how will this child pass her exams and keep the school in the elite?
As the girl approached the age when the class would graduate to the upper floor, the same people began to ask how she would negotiate the great, historic staircase. It did present a puzzle. Adapting the staircase with a chair lift was not an option. English Heritage would not permit such a staircase to be modified. Only an American would consider desecrating a set of steps ascended by Dickens, by Queen Elizabeth (yes Her Majesty had visited the school and yes the open grates had been temporarily carpeted so that no commoner could gaze up the royal skirt).
The conundrum taught me a lesson I still apply to my work today; inclusion can always happen, there is always a way to make it work. I took the decision to move the class to the ground floor, to allow the 7 year old girl continued access. The Queen and Dickens staircase remained, but so did the child at the school.
But I know, even in my commitment to accommodating all-comers, that there are limitations.
My rule of thumb is simple. Education is a human right, but one person’s rights end where the next person’s rights begin.
To illustrate: I have a right to smoke the 25 Benson& Hedges cigarettes that I enjoy daily. I can smoke any time, any place in my home. However, if I were to light a fag in a lift, in an elevator, my right to smoke would infringe on my fellow passenger’s right to clear air. Therein my rights end and the rights of next person’s begin.
Inclusion also means being open to children with severe behavioural issues. These needs can be the most trying for schools. Such children will not only demand a disproportionate amount of the teacher’s time but also the school’s resources and energy. A different curriculum frequently needs to be generated; extra meetings before and after school with parents to make certain common messages and strategies apply at home and school. For the most part, it works. It takes patience, perseverance, tolerance, but it mostly works.
But alas, dear readers, I would be deceiving you if I claimed there were no causalities. There are some children, despite our best intentions, despite months of trying various strategies, different approaches; we simply cannot reach. Children who are so damaged, so distressed for whatever reason that they cannot function in a mainstream school.
It is in this cold realisation that the Head Teacher faces the hardest decision. When a child is not responding, not engaging in the slightest, when the child is causing damage to his peers, the very adults that are committing to helping him, the questions surface: Is including this child excluding others from their education? Are the rights of this child to a mainstream education crossing over and preventing others from exercising their right to an education?
During my previous 14 years as a Head, I have, on occasion, been forced to ask myself these questions. In the past I have answered yes only three times. Last week marked the fourth. Permanently excluding a child from a school built on inclusion is surrender. It a white flag hoisted over the ramparts declaring, for the good of the many, I surrender this one child. It is defeat and defeat sits uneasy on the heart.
So the four children I have surrendered down the years are burned into my heart. They were and will always remain The Un-reachables. They are the four I had to leave in the blazing building in order to save the other 5796. I cannot remember all the names of the 5796. But I know the names of The Four and even now I scrawl them on the margin of the evening newspaper with a blunt pencil.