Hello again. In future posts, I’ll be sharing my experiences with a variety of approaches and resources that I use in a more generalised, SEND way of supporting children in my everyday practice in mainstream education. Some upcoming posts will be about how I use WidgitOnline, iPads and Colourful Semantics to adapt and individualise class work for SEND learners. For now though, I’m continuing to share my research from my Masters in Autism dissertation.
I had to do a lot of reading. Oh boy, so much! Unsurprising of course, it was a Masters degree after all! I had to train myself, as the dissertation was self-led with one or two tutor sessions sprinkled in. For anyone about to start studying, I recommend Thomas Frank or Matt D’Avella on YouTube, they helped me get my study programme sorted. I did go a little nuts – 4:30am writing sessions took a while to get going! Weirdly though, you get up at that time, switch on the laptop and words seem to appear on the screen. Some of my best work was done at this time!
Anyway, below is my literature review. I’ve tried to include all my references at the end for anyone interested in reading full articles or books. Please forgive me if I’ve missed any.
Introduction
When seeking to define inclusive practice for autistic children in mainstream primary settings, it is necessary to contextualise this. Current provision exists as the outcome of a tumultuous history. Various positionalities have resulted in a myriad of opinions, understandings and approaches to both autism and inclusion.
My literature review explores:
- Historical special educational needs discourse from the Warnock Report, examining how the educational landscape has altered over time, concerning special needs education generally, and autism in particular;
- A medical defining of autism by the Camberwell Study, proceeding medical theories of autism, subsequent interplay between educational and medical positionalities and its impact on autistic children;
- Challenges faced by mainstream education in the pursuit of inclusive practice;
- Literature on re-framing Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) attitudes and policy as a rights-based approach.
Historical discourse; how the Warnock Report planted the seed of inclusive practice in mainstream schools
The most comprehensive review of special needs education to be commissioned by a UK government was the 1978 Warnock Report (Shaw, 2017; Webster, 2018). The report used the term ‘integration’ to describe inclusive ideas and approaches. This implies pupils adapt to schools, yet Warnock required schools to adjust. Its findings provided a major challenge to the medical model of disability. Warnock challenged the deficit language that had marginalised children and introduced the term ‘special educational needs’ (Shaw, 2017).
The Warnock Report transformed discourse on special needs and disability, and sought to accelerate progress towards inclusive approaches to education. It led to the 1981 Education Act, which initiated requirements for mainstream schools to cater for SEND children, and introduced statements (Webster, 2018). The recommendations, however, were not fully enacted until 1994, when the government signed up to the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994; Ainscow, Slee & Best, 2019). This required governments to adopt inclusive education, enrolling all children in mainstream schools, unless there were powerful reasons for alternatives (UNESCO, 1994).
Special needs language introduced by the Warnock Report and 1981 Education Act permeated educational consciousness (Welton & Evans, 1986). The 1993 Education Act created a ‘Code of Practice’ concurrent with the Salamanca Statement. Despite this period of apparent progress in inclusive practice, the subsequent Code of Practice (2001) focusedon individual children’s needs, rather than on barriers to children’s learning (Runswick-Cole & Hodge, 2009). This has remained in the current 2015 Code of Practice.
However, inclusion is aspirational for all mainstream schools. Legislation, policy and practice emphasise the rights of SEND children to full participation and equality of opportunity in all aspects of life (Glazzard, 2011; Ainscow, Slee & Best, 2019).
The influence and impact of the medical field; Camberwell Study and theories of autism
Concurrent with the Warnock Report, Lorna Wing and Judith Gould’s Camberwell research of 1979 conducted a study of children referred for psychiatric assessment and identified a group with a social impairment not evident in others with equal learning. Wing and Gould identified three areas, becoming known as the Triad of Impairment; social interaction, social communication and flexibility and creativity of thinking (Wing & Gould, 1979). It introduced the ‘autistic spectrum’. It offered a different view of autism, by defining autism as a continuum of severity rather than distinct entities, challenging the established medical view at that point, described as rigid by Kanner decades previously (Feinstein, 2010; Gerrard, 2012).
The Camberwell Study was a pivotal moment for autistic children. It bestowed a ‘jumping on’ opportunity for educational professionals; an understandable, less fearful, more congenial presentation of autism that teachers could connect with (Gerrard, 2012). The Triad of Impairment became the go-to resource for professionals seeking guidance on autism (Beardon, 2007).
Theories of Autism
Within this context, several autism theories emerged: Theory of Mind (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985); Executive Function (Howlin, 1998); Central Coherence (Frith, 1989); and Systemising-Empathising Theory (Baron-Cohen, 2009). These are based on psychological, cognitive and/or medical ideas about autism. They adhere to the medical/individual model of disability, problematising autism by demonstrating what autistic children cannot do.
Theory of Mind explores ability to empathise with others and imagine thoughts and feelings. Baron-Cohen (1985) suggested autistic individuals find it difficult reflecting on behaviour, understanding social expectations of situations and maintaining friendships. Baron-Cohen believed cognitive processes are impaired or deficit in autistic children (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985). However, validity of Theory of Mind is questionable: a significant number of autistic children can pass the false-belief task. Task failure could relate to language processing or memory difficulties (Eisenmajer & Prior, 1991), or a lack of motivation to deceive (DeGelder, 1987). Later studies suggest that Theory of Mind might simply be delayed rather than absent (Baron-Cohen, 1992; Happe, 1999).
Executive Functioning includes cognitive skills, such as planning, organising, switching between tasks, and maintaining focus. The belief is that autistic people experience ‘executive dysfunction’ (Hill, 2004). Executive Function suggest that autistic people might like routines and struggle with change; they have difficulties paying attention to specific tasks; organisation may be hard; and shifting attention between tasks may be difficult (Howlin, 1998). However, are these attributes unique to autistic individuals, and how problematic are they, and for whom? Indeed, executive function tests that demonstrate a clear rationale are passed by autistic individuals (Hill, 2004).
Weak Central Coherence theory (WCC), or Central Coherence theory (CC), suggests that a specific perceptual-cognitive style, loosely described as limited ability to understand context or ‘see the big picture’, underlies central disturbance in autism and related autism spectrum disorders (Frith, 1989). Autistic individuals have weak central coherence, meaning a tendency to focus on small details, rather than general aspects. This theory suggests autistic people have: a tendency to focus on small details rather than big; difficulties grasping broad social meanings of interactions due to over-scrutinising small details; difficulties using context to provide meaning; and difficulties using social cues to prompt behaviour (Frith, 1989). However, no consensus exists on the validity of WCC theory. Studies found results refuting CC theory, suggesting autistic individuals performed as well as others within tests (Ozonoff, Strayer, McMahon & Filloux, 1994).
The Systemising-Empathising theory (Baron-Cohen, 2002) classifies individuals based on scores along two dimensions: empathising and systemising. It measures strength of interest in empathy (identifying and understanding thoughts and feelings of others, responding to these with appropriate emotions); and strength of interest in systems (the drive to analyse or construct them). The underlying idea is we exist on a continuum, and autistic people tend to have profiles of stronger systemising preference and lower empathising preference. However, there is a lack of broad numbers within the study, and the test relates to Baron-Cohen’s captivation of the notion of the ‘male brain’ (McGough, 2003). His belief is males are more interested in systemising than females, while females are more empathising than males (Furfaro, 2019). How scientifically testable this is is problematic, and is inherently sexist.
Interplay between educational and medical fields and lasting impact
The Warnock Report and Camberwell Study changed established views of special needs in general and autism in particular. Here, we have a snapshot of the interplay between medical and social views of SEND. This dynamic has informed, changed and challenged approaches to inclusive practice in mainstream education. While the Camberwell Study influenced change in medicalised discourse on autism, it, and subsequent theories, still rely on a deficit view of autism that problematises the individual. Subsequent theories particularly have created tropes (Parsloe, 2015) based on psychological, cognitive and/or medical ideas about autism ‘within the individual’; the medical/individual model of disability (Oliver, 1984; Shakespeare, 2004).
This accentuates autistic children as marginalised, different or ‘other’ (Biklen & Attfield, 2005), problematic and requiring intervention. This has permeated society, influencing how autism is perceived in education, determining a viewpoint of autistic children as lesser in comparison to neurotypical children. Schools face the dichotomy of adapting to the needs of learners through an inclusion agenda, while understanding the implications of a diagnosis (Fisher, 2012; Hellawell, 2017).
Challenges to inclusive practice for autistic children in mainstream education
Contradiction exists between desire for equality and educational entitlement, and pathologising and defining of SEND children (Macartney & Morton, 2013). The medical view of autism remains as a spectral presence in education, with teachers valuing and seeking the input of professionals when working with autistic children (McDonnell, 2003). More than 70% of autistic children in England attend mainstream schools, yet 40% of parents feel their child’s school does not fully meet their child’s needs, and fewer than 5 out of 10 teachers feel confident about supporting autistic children (Gillan, 2017). The medicalised positioning of autism imparts a perception of specialised approaches to working; autistic children are complex, and require professionals and an alternative curriculum.
Teachers are understandably apprehensive when working with autistic children under the weight of this perception (Macartney & Morton, 2013). Teachers are now on the coalface of special needs delivery, and carry the greatest responsibility for meeting the needs of SEND children. However, they are often the least consulted professionals in partnerships, and are understandably concerned (Hellawell, 2017). Teachers experience blame and shame if seen to fail in their commitment to inclusion. They are expected to be responsible for self-development, “with little opportunity to articulate doubts and fears.” (Hellawell, 2017, p178).
Most teachers define themselves as inclusive, yet understanding of the term is varied (Gedge, 2016). Misconceptions of inclusive practice for autistic children include isolated practice, placing them with a teaching assistant (TA) away from the classroom; expecting them to partake in work without any necessary adaptations; and allowing behavioural issues to remain unchallenged or applying the same behavioural policy expectations to all pupils (Gedge, 2016).
The dichotomy of educational entitlement for all children, and segregation of autistic children is inbuilt in key legislation intended to guide the practice of teachers when working with SEND children: The Children and Families Act 2014 and the subsequent Code of Practice 2015. The Code of Practice purports to place children, young people and their families, rather than professionals, at the heart of needs identification, provision and reviewing processes (Hellawell, 2017), and yet continues to problematise SEND children by relying on deficit language that defines children by diagnoses (Runswick-Cole & Hodge, 2009). Children’s learning, participation, and access to the curriculum are restricted, despite the documents’ inclusive suggestion (Macartney & Morton, 2013).
Negotiation between different sectors with ‘loaded’ interests is inherent in policy-making. Failures abound; 5,679 SEND tribunal appeals were made in the 2017-18 academic year, up 20% from the previous year. Almost half of these, 2,458, related to autistic children (Roberts, 2018). Children without the ‘right cultural assets’ face difficulties in navigating their way through school, and some schools deploy “subtle forms of selection” (Ball, 2013, p3). School competition has produced an “economy of student worth”, with “clear interplay between policy requirements,” “institutional self-interest” and “student experience which work against the interests of some students” (Ball, 2013, p16).
While importance of stakeholders is emphasised, through pupil voice and participation, the definitions of SEND in the Code of Practice are based on the medicalised model of disability, and there is an emphasis on difference between the attainment of SEND children and their peers (Castro & Palikara, 2016).
School settings may seek to off-roll pupils or exclude them. Speaking after the release of the Timpson Report (2019) on exclusion, Jane Harris, Director of External Affairs at the National Autistic Society stated autistic children are three times more likely to be formally excluded than children without SEND, while others face being unlawfully excluded or off-rolled (Tirraoro, 2019). Autistic children account for just over 1% of the school population, but constitute 2.5% of all exclusions. Exclusions of autistic children increased by at least 44% in England between 2011-12 and 2015-16 (Hazell, 2018).
Because policy is implemented by organisations and individuals, it is open to influence and interpretation (O’Brien, 2019). Autism-Europe vice-president Pietro Cirrincione (2016) highlights conflicts that exist at the delivery point of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Autistic children more likely to be victims of abuse, bullying or violence than other children. There is a need to raise awareness and to develop support services in local communities for autistic children using European Structural Investment Funds (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006, 2013). Conflict between providing quality education and social development are overcome by inclusive mainstream education by qualified personnel and peer support (Cirrincione, 2016).
What can be done to improve inclusive practice?
I have experienced others’ unwillingness to engage with autistic children as a barrier to inclusive practice in mainstream primary schools. This unwillingness is born through fear of the unknown. Teachers have preconceptions of the challenges a child with an autism label presents (Hodge, in Runswick-Cole, Mallett & Timimi, 2016), the child’s identity lost behind the veil of a syndrome or condition (Runswick-Cole & Hodge, 2009). It is tempting to use ‘autism’ as an umbrella term linked to specific intervention and support approaches (Hassall, in Runswick-Cole, Mallett & Timimi, 2016). Accountability and standards pressures also play a role (Adams, 2019). Children are data, worthiness determined by academic achievement. Inevitably, children perceived as a ‘poor time investment’ against attainment are overlooked, excluded or off-rolled (Tirraoro, 2019).
One would hope those who work with children understand their moral and ethical duties to ensure all children are valued and have their needs met. Adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) ensures this. The best interests of the child must be a top priority in all decisions and actions affecting children (article 3). Article 12 refers to respect for the views of the child, and Article 23 states disabled children have the right to live a full and decent life with dignity and, as far as possible, independence and to play an active part in the community; and governments must do all they can to support disabled children and their families (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008) states disabled children have equal rights to other children. What is best for the child must be the most important consideration. Disabled children have the right to be heard in processes affecting them and support should be given to children to enable this (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, United Nations, 2008). Both Conventions are part of a larger moral, ethical and legal map for state signatories to follow to reach an ultimate destination: equal human rights.
Engaging autistic children may present challenges for schools. Nonetheless, teachers can be brave and place the UN Conventions at the heart of practice. Changing one’s mindset from a ‘fixed mind-set’ to a ‘growth mind-set’ (Dweck, 2008) allows educators to: remove imposed burdens by a standards- and results-driven culture; and experiment with problem-solving that promotes the needs of all learners through enabling support strategies (Dearden, Emerson, Lewis & Papp, 2016; Crowne & McDonald, 2018). Indeed, when adults actively engage with autistic children, this is enabling of the educational process. When neurotypical and autistic peers interact, opportunities arise for socialization, including the formation of friendships, and practice of language, communication, and social skills (Kemp, Kishida, Carter & Sweller, 2013).
‘Othering’ (Biklen & Attfield, 2005; Parsloe, 2015) through preconceptions of what autism means (Hodge, in Runswick-Cole, Mallett & Timimi, 2016), the domination of a results driven educational culture and the associated determined social worth and value of children (Ball, 2013) impact on autistic children’s sense of belonging. Schools are being driven by performance targets (Adams, 2019), not by the needs of children (Riley, 2019).
Belonging impacts on children’s happiness, but happiness is at its lowest since 2010, with almost 20% of children having serious problems in their lives, many emanating from school (Riley, 2019). If schools foster belonging, through enabling environments and attitudes, children’s academic performance, social and cultural development improves (Riley, 2019; Allen & Boyle, 2016).
Riley (2017) suggests three actions: seeing, thinking and doing. Seeing: by looking at school afresh, one can understand how school life is experienced; who feels included/excluded and what changes can be made to increase engagement and reduce alienation. Thinking: changing perceptions enables recognising the importance of beliefs, values and possibilities. A sense of what matters in schools emerges: relationships, aspirations of and for children. Doing: by acting on what has been deemed important, positive change occurs (Riley, 2017). This echoes the ‘Hearts, Heads, Hands’ approach of social pedagogy (McGuire, 2016).
Social pedagogy is based on a set of values concerning social justice, inclusion and the equal valuing of all human beings (Kyriacou, 2014). Within schools, it can take several forms. Pastoral staff are now a common school feature. They occupy the same strategic space within the community as social pedagogy (Calvert, 2009). Support such as this can present as mentoring; academic, behaviour and/or emotion focused support; developing resilience; counselling; and therapeutic intervention.
Social pedagogy provides tangibility to an approach that could be deemed by detractors to have little economic value, in a climate where academic attainment measures a child’s worth. It enables a framework for practitioners to build a relationship with a child, developing trust and understanding, leading to greater insights into the child’s nature, characteristics and needs (Kyriacou, 2014).
Social pedagogy leads to improved engagement with education, increased attainment, improved staff/peer relationships, and a sense of involvement and increased happiness and well-being. For adults, there is: improved well-being and motivation; better relationships with children, colleagues and professionals due to increased confidence; encouragement to be themselves, use interests and creativity; enhanced trust and autonomy, and an increased ability to reflect (Holthoff et al., 2019). Schools foster positive, non-judgemental cultures, with increased sense of ownership of values and vision, improved communication and multi-agency working (Holthoff et al., 2019).
Conclusion
The impact for autistic children of the Warnock Report and Camberwell Study has been both positive and negative. They brought discourse on the nature of SEND in general and, in the case of the Camberwell Study, autism to the fore, seeking to re-frame their negative perceptions. However, they were also inevitably exclusionary, through their use of terminology which has perpetuated throughout education, creating a subset of children seen as ‘other’ (Runswick-Cole & Hodge, 2009).
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism report on how education in England works for autistic children (Gillan, 2017) sought to inform implementation of meaningful change. While much is positive, the report’s recommendations frequently refer to meeting the requirements of the Code of Practice, with a focus on diagnosis, by:
“measuring the progress of all pupils on the autism spectrum across the four areas of need set out in the SEND Code of Practice” (Gillan, 2017, p35)
Children cannot be defined by diagnosis alone. This undermines and erodes their rights. Instead, by investing time to ‘hear’ a child, deeper knowledge is gained. Issues abound when assuming autistic children can be supported in the same way – everybody, autistic or not, is an individual (Beardon in conversation, in Severs, 2018).
Adhering to a rights-based approach, informed by UNCRC and UNCRPD, is important. Fostering children’s belonging and self-worth enhances inclusion. Arguably the greatest adaptation to ensure inclusive practice is a changed ethos that reframes children as individuals, and that rejects seeing them as data or a diagnosis (Hodge, in Runswick-Cole, Mallett & Timimi, 2016).
References
Adams, R. (2019). Ofsted under fire in its own survey of teachers’ wellbeing. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jul/22/ofsted-teacher-wellbeing-survey-stress
Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). Editorial: the Salamanca Statement: 25 years on. International Journal Of Inclusive Education, 23(7-8), 671-676. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1622800
Allen, K., & Boyle, C. (2016). Pathways to school belonging. The Educational And Developmental Psychologist, 33(1), ii-iv. doi: 10.1017/edp.2016.13
Ball, S. (2013). Education, justice and democracy: The struggle over ignorance and opportunity [Ebook]. The Centre for Labour and Social Studies. Retrieved from http://classonline.org.uk/docs/2013_Policy_Paper_-_Education,_justice_and_democracy_(Stephen_Ball).pdf
Baron-Cohen, S. (1992). Out of Sight or Out of Mind? Another Look at Deception in Autism. Journal Of Child Psychology And Psychiatry, 33(7), 1141-1155. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00934.x
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248-254. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01904-6
Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory. Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences, 1156(1), 68-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x
Baron‐Cohen, S. (2009). The empathising‐systemising theory of autism: implications for education. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 14(3), 4-13. doi: 10.1108/13595474200900022
Beardon, L. (2007). Is Autism a Disorder? [Ebook]. Retrieved from https://autisticuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/AUTISTIC-UK-NEED-TO-KNOW-1-IS-AUTISM-A-DISORDER.pdf
Biggam, J. (2017). Succeeding with your Master’s dissertation (4th ed.). London: Open University Press.
Biklen, D., & Attfield, R. (2005). Autism and the myth of the person alone. New York: New York University Press.
Calvert, M. (2009). From ‘pastoral care’ to ‘care’: meanings and practices. Pastoral Care In Education, 27(4), 267-277. doi: 10.1080/02643940903349302
Cirrincione, P. (2016). IMPLEMENTING UN CRPD FOR THE AUTISM SPECTRUM CONDITIONS. Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.autismeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/implementing-uncrpd-for-autism-spectrum-conference-pdf.pdf
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). (2008). Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
Crowne, P., & McDonald, A. (2018). Everyday Equality: Our strategy 2017–2022 [Ebook]. SCOPE. Retrieved from https://www.scope.org.uk/scope/media/files/about-us/everyday-equality-strategy.pdf?la=en&hash=2F78CDC8DD567456249A4939DF9E288EF470BBC2
de Gelder, B. (1987). On not having a theory of mind. Cognition, 27(3), 285-290. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(87)80013-6
Dearden, J., Emerson, A., Lewis, T., & Papp, R. (2016). Transforming engagement: a case study of building intrinsic motivation in a child with autism. British Journal Of Special Education, 44(1), 8-25. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12137
Department for Education and Department of Health. (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education and Department of Health.
DfE. (2015). Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years [Ebook]. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf
Dweck, C. (2008). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine.
Eisenmajer, R., & Prior, M. (1991). Cognitive linguistic correlates of ‘theory of mind’ ability in autistic children. British Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 351-364. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835x.1991.tb00882.x
Equality Act. (2010). Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
Farrugia, D. (2009). Exploring stigma: medical knowledge and the stigmatisation of parents of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Sociology Of Health & Illness, 31(7), 1011-1027. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01174.x
Feinstein, A. (2010). A history of autism. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the Enigma. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Furfaro, H. (2019). The extreme male brain, explained. Retrieved 4 July 2019, from https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/extreme-male-brain-explained/
Gedge, N. (2016). Inclusion for primary school teachers. Bloomsbury.
Gerrard, S. (2012). from syndrome to spectrum. Retrieved 27 June 2019, from https://whatisautismanyway.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/whatever-happened-to-kanners-syndrome/
Gillan, C. (2017). Autism and Education in England 2017 [Ebook]. The National Autistic Society 2017. Retrieved from https://www.autism.org.uk/~/media/nas/documents/get-involved/held-back/appga-autism-and-education-report.ashx?la=en-gb
Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary school: voices of teachers and teaching assistants. Support For Learning, 26(2), 56-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2011.01478.x
Happé, F. (1994). Annotation: Current Psychological Theories of Autism: The “Theory of Mind” Account and Rival Theories. Journal Of Child Psychology And Psychiatry, 35(2), 215-229. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01159.x
Happé, F. (1999). Autism: cognitive deficit or cognitive style?. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 3(6), 216-222. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01318-2
Hazell, W. (2018). Exclusions of autistic pupils up 60 per cent. Retrieved 11 June 2019, from https://www.tes.com/news/exclusions-autistic-pupils-60-cent
Hellawell, B. (2017). ‘There is Still a Long Way to Go to be Solidly Marvellous’: Professional Identities, Performativity and Responsibilisation Arising From the Send Code of Practice 2015. British Journal Of Educational Studies, 66(2), 165-181. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2017.1363374
Hill, E. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism☆. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 26-32. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.003
Holthoff, S., Eichsteller, G., Priver, A., Carter, A., Firing, C., & Moorcroft, A. (2019). Social pedagogy impact – ThemPra Social Pedagogy. Retrieved 9 July 2019, from http://www.thempra.org.uk/social-pedagogy/social-pedagogy-impact/
Howlin, P. (2005). Children with autism and asperger syndrome. Chichester: Wiley.
Kemp, C., Kishida, Y., Carter, M., & Sweller, N. (2013). The effect of activity type on the engagement and interaction of young children with disabilities in inclusive childcare settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 134-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.003
Kyriacou, C. (2014). Social pedagogy and pastoral care in schools. British Journal Of Guidance & Counselling, 43(4), 429-437. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2014.974022
Macartney, B., & Morton, M. (2013). Kinds of participation: teacher and special education perceptions and practices of ‘inclusion’ in early childhood and primary school settings. International Journal Of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 776-792. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.602529
McGough, R. (2003). Could a Too-Male Brain Be One Cause of Autism?. Retrieved 4 July 2019, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10583036864206600
McGuire, K. (2016). Head, Heart, Hands. Retrieved 9 July 2019, from https://www.thefosteringnetwork.org.uk/policy-practice/projects-and-programmes/head-heart-hands
O’Brien, J. (2019). Old SEND terms were awful. But are ours better?. Retrieved 11 June 2019, from https://www.tes.com/news/send-language-offensive-schools
Oliver, M. (1984). The politics of disability. Critical Social Policy, 4(11), 21-32. doi: 10.1177/026101838400401103
Ozonoff, S., Strayer, D., McMahon, W., & Filloux, F. (1994). Executive Function Abilities in Autism and Tourette Syndrome: An Information Processing Approach. Journal Of Child Psychology And Psychiatry, 35(6), 1015-1032. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01807.x
Parsloe, S. (2015). Discourses of Disability, Narratives of Community: Reclaiming an Autistic Identity Online. Journal Of Applied Communication Research, 43(3), 336-356. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2015.1052829
Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006. (2013). Retrieved 21 July 2019, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1304/oj
Riley, K. (2017). Re-creating Schools as Places of Belonging: The Art of Possibilities [Ebook]. Professional Development Today. Retrieved from http://www.theartofpossibilities.org.uk/assets/docs/ReCreatingSchoolsAsPlacesOfBelonging.pdf
Riley, K. (2019). We’re a long way from a sense of belonging. TES, (5354), 18-21.
Roberts, J. (2018). Surge in parents appealing over special needs provision. Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.tes.com/news/surge-parents-appealing-over-special-needs-provision
Runswick-Cole, K., & Hodge, N. (2009). Needs or rights? A challenge to the discourse of special education. British Journal Of Special Education, 36(4), 198-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2009.00438.x
Runswick-Cole, K., Mallett, R., & Timimi, S. (2016). Re-thinking autism (pp. 49-66; 185-203: Does Everybody With An Autism Diagnosis Have The Same Underlying Condition? Richard Hassall, , Schools Without Labels, Nick Hodge). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Severs, J. (2018). Three golden rules for supporting autistic pupils. Retrieved 13 June 2019, from https://www.tes.com/news/three-golden-rules-supporting-autistic-pupils
Shakespeare, T. (2004). Social models of disability and other life strategies. Scandinavian Journal Of Disability Research, 6(1), 8-21. doi: 10.1080/15017410409512636
Shaw, A. (2017). Inclusion: the role of special and mainstream schools. British Journal Of Special Education, 44(3), 292-312. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12181
South, M., Ozonoff, S., & Mcmahon, W. (2007). The relationship between executive functioning, central coherence, and repetitive behaviors in the high-functioning autism spectrum. Autism, 11(5), 437-451. doi: 10.1177/1362361307079606
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. (1994). Retrieved 29 June 2019, from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
Timpson, E. (2019). Timpson Review of School Exclusion [Ebook]. DfE. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/799979/Timpson_review_of_school_exclusion.pdf
Tirraoro, T. (2019). The Exclusions Review tries hard but falls short of a fix. Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/the-exclusions-review-tries-hard-but-falls-short-of-a-fix/
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – Unicef UK. (1989). Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/
Webster, R. (2018). Why the Warnock report still matters today. Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://www.tes.com/news/why-warnock-report-still-matters-today
Welton, J., & Evans, J. (1986). THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY: WHERE DID THE 1981 ACT FIT IN?. Public Administration, 64(2), 209-227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1986.tb00617.x
Wing, L., & Gould, J. (1979). Severe impairments of social interaction and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology and classification. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 9(1), 11-29. doi: 10.1007/bf01531288
That SEND Teacher 