Children with disabilities are one of the many groups of children still not enrolled in primary education in developing countries. However, their educational exclusion and right to education are now receiving more policy attention. This paper reviews some of the key issues and challenges in relation to disability, education and development: definitions and data, policies, service delivery and finance, and capacity development. Drawing on a review of education sector planning and provision in 28 developing countries and other literature, the paper makes comparative reference to policy and practice in a number of developed and developing country contexts.

In 1998 the Government of Uganda (GoU) began implementing an ambitious reform programme called the Education Strategic Investment Plan (ESIP) in order to effect Universal Primary Education (UPE). This paper offers a perspective on how the GoU has met the challenge of financing education reform, addressed the need to improve the quality of basic education and increased access and equity while improving efficiency at primary and post-primary levels of education. The development model described in this paper privileges good governance and donor co-operation within a Sector Wide Approach. Important lessons have been learned in Uganda including the need for political commitment to universal primary education within a clear conception of whole sector reform. However, the discourse of SWAPs tends to function primarily in the formal sphere and not at the level of the experience of most teachers, pupils and their families, yet it is at this level that national education policies have to be mediated in practice. More attention needs to be given in education sector reform to the processes as well as the context of change.

Hazel Bines trained as a primary teacher in 1970 after taking a first degree in social sciences. She then worked in Sheffield as a class teacher in a primary school and as a subject teacher of history, geography and social studies in a comprehensive school where her interest in working with pupils with learning and behaviour difficulties took her into special education. Following SEN diploma and masters study alongside working in an assessment centre for juvenile delinquents and in a support service for pupils with behaviour problems, she became a SENCO in a comprehensive school. This experience encouraged her to do a Ph.D. on the redefinition of remedial education into a new conceptualisation of SEN provision in mainstream schools. In 1986 she was appointed as a lecturer in SEN at Oxford Brookes University where she subsequently became deputy head of the School of Education. In 1995 she became professor and head of teacher education at the University of Northumbria, and in 1999 she moved to the UK Government's Department for International Development as a senior education adviser. She is currently working in Pakistan. During her career she has also published numerous articles and books, on both SEN and on teacher and other professional education.

This paper discusses current trends in government policy for special educational needs. It reviews both the legacy of previous reforms and key elements of current approaches, namely raising educational standards and increasing inclusion. It is suggested that although the incorporation of SEN into mainstream policymaking is to be welcomed, there are a number of features of policy and practice which may undermine intentions to enhance provision and outcomes.

Current policy in relation to special needs prioritises early intervention and inclusive education, at least as 'good intentions'. This article argues for a paradigmatic shift away from individualist models of learning and disability. The social context of play is emphasised as the crucial arena for realising such good intentions, as long as it is geared to responding to, and developing, the self-determination, control, and identity of young disabled children becoming disabled adults in a disabling society.

This article explores the provenance and features of the new Code of Practice for special educational needs and then reports on research on the implementation of the Code in one Local Education Authority. It is argued that the Code has managerial, curricular and consumer dimensions, all of which have a number of implications for policy and practice, for both LEAs and schools. In particular, the Code can be seen as a mechanism for controlling and targeting resource allocation as well as a means of increasing accountability in relation to provision and partnership with parents. The Code is also closely linked to the changing role of LEAs and is therefor likely to affect the relationship between LEAs and schools.

Andrew Loxley and Hazel Bines have analysed data from a number of primary and secondary schools regarding the perceptions of headteachers and special needs co‐ordinators regarding the Code of Practice. The results make interesting reading, noting that while most welcome the Code there are a number of concerns from a managerial, curricular and consumer point of view.

This article explores the marketization of special educational needs (SEN) within the quasi‐market structures established by Conservative government reform of education and other public services. It considers recent legislation on SEN, including the Code of Practice, and identifies the market‐based systems and procedures, and managerialism, now characteristic of SEN policy and provision. It is argued that reform may have limited impact on choice, accountability, quality and schools’ capability to provide for SEN, and may also have various repercussions for longstanding issues in SEN policy such as equity and inclusion.

Support for LearningVolume 9, Issue 2 p. 61-67 From bureaucrats to advocates? The changing role of local education authorities HAZEL BINES, HAZEL BINES Hazel Bines is Deputy Head of the School of Education, Oxford Brookes University and a lecturer on special educational needs on a range of initial teacher training and Inset courses. Previously she taught in primary, secondary and special schools in South Yorkshire. She is particularly interested in whole-school policies, whole curriculum provision and teacher education for special needs. Her publications include Needs, Rights and Oppor t unities: Developing approaches to special education (with C. Roaf, Falmer Press, 1989).Search for more papers by this authorGARY THOMAS, GARY THOMAS Gary Thomas is Reader in Education in the School of Education at Oxford Brookes University. He has also worked as a teacher and educational psychologist. He is author of Effective Classroom Team work: Support or intrusion? (Rout ledge, 1993).Search for more papers by this author HAZEL BINES, HAZEL BINES Hazel Bines is Deputy Head of the School of Education, Oxford Brookes University and a lecturer on special educational needs on a range of initial teacher training and Inset courses. Previously she taught in primary, secondary and special schools in South Yorkshire. She is particularly interested in whole-school policies, whole curriculum provision and teacher education for special needs. Her publications include Needs, Rights and Oppor t unities: Developing approaches to special education (with C. Roaf, Falmer Press, 1989).Search for more papers by this authorGARY THOMAS, GARY THOMAS Gary Thomas is Reader in Education in the School of Education at Oxford Brookes University. He has also worked as a teacher and educational psychologist. He is author of Effective Classroom Team work: Support or intrusion? (Rout ledge, 1993).Search for more papers by this author First published: May 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.1994.tb00159.xCitations: 11AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References ALEXANDER, A. (1991) Managing fragmentation: Democracy, accountability and the future of local government. Local Government Studies, 17 (6), 63–75. 10.1080/03003939108433606 Web of Science®Google Scholar AUDIT COMMISSION (1989) Losing an Empire, Finding a Role: The LEA of the future. Occasional Paper No. 10. HMSO: London . Google Scholar AUDIT COMMISSION/HMI (1992a) Getting in on the Act: Provision for pupils with special needs: The national picture. HMSO: London . Google Scholar AUDIT COMMISSION/HMI (1992b) Getting the Act Together: Provision for pupils with special educational needs: A management handbook for schools and local education authorities. HMSO: London . Google Scholar BALL, S. J. (1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education. Routledge: London . Google Scholar BARTON, L. (1991) Teachers under siege: A case of unmet needs. Support for Learning, 6 (1), 3–8. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1991.tb00197.x Google Scholar BINES, H. (1992) Developing roles in the new era. Support for Learning, 7 (2), 58–62. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1992.tb00458.x Google Scholar BINES, H. (1993) Whole school policies in the new era. British Journal of Special Education, 20 (3), 91–4. 10.1111/j.1467-8578.1993.tb00046.x Google Scholar BOOTH, M., FURLONG, J. and WILKIN, M. (1990) Partnership in Initial Teacher Training. Cassell: London . Google Scholar BOWE, R. and BALL, S. J. with GOLD, A. (1992) Reforming Education and Changing Schools. Routledge: London . Google Scholar CLARK, C., DYSON, A. and MILLWARD, A. (1990) Evolution or revolution: Dilemmas in the post ERA management of special educational needs by local authorities. Oxford Review of Education, 16 (3), 279–93. 10.1080/0305498900160301 Web of Science®Google Scholar COPELAND, I., AYLES, R., MASON, H. and POSTLE-THWAITE, K. (1993) LEA support for SEN pupils: Two years on from the 1990 SENNAC survey. Support for Learning, 8 (2), 43–50. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1993.tb00119.x Google Scholar DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1992a) Special Educational Needs: Access to the system. A consultation paper. DfE: London . Google Scholar DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1992b) Parent's Charter: Children with special needs: A guide for parents. DfE: London . Google Scholar DYSON, A. (1990) Effective learning consultancy: A future role for special needs coordinators? Support for Learning, 5 (3), 116–27. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1990.tb00400.x Google Scholar DYSON, A. (1991) Rethinking roles, rethinking concepts: Special needs teachers in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 6 (2), 51–60. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1991.tb00410.x Google Scholar DYSON, A. and GAINS, C. (1993) Special needs and effective learning: Towards a collaborative model for the year 2000. In A. Dyson and C. Gains (eds), Rethinking Special Needs in Mainstream Schools: Towards the year 2000. David Fulton: London . Google Scholar EVANS, J. and LUNT, I. (1992) Developments in Special Education under LMS. Institute of Education: London . Google Scholar FLETCHER, J. (1991) Putting Circular 7/91 into practice for special schools. In T. Bowers (eds), Schools, Services and Special Educational Needs: Management issues in the wake of LMS. Perspective Press: Cambridge . Google Scholar FLETCHER-CAMPBELL, F. and HALL, C. (1993) LEA Support for Special Educational Needs. NFER: Slough . Google Scholar GIPPS, C., GROSS, H. and GOLDSTEIN, H. (1987) Warnock's Eighteen Per Cent. Falmer Press: Lewes . Web of Science®Google Scholar GOACHER, B., EVANS. J., WELTON, J. and WEDELL, K. (1988) Policy and Provision for Special Educational Needs: Implementing the 1981 Education Act. Cassell: London . Google Scholar HAMBLETON, R., HOGGETT, P. and TOLAN, F. (1989) The decentralisation of public services: A research agenda. Local Government Studies, 15 (1), 39–55. 10.1080/03003938908433451 Web of Science®Google Scholar HEWARD, C. and LLOYD SMITH, M. (1990) Assessing the impact of legislation on special education policy: An historical analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 5 (1), 21–36. 10.1080/0268093900050102 Google Scholar HMI (1993) Local Management of Schools and Pupils with Special Educational Needs. A Report by HMI. DfE: London . Google Scholar HIGGINS, K. (1993) The Local Education Authority: A disappearing phenomenon? Local Government Policy Making, 19 (5), 15–20. Google Scholar HOUSDEN, P. (1993) Bucking the Market: LEAs and special needs. NASEN Enterprises: Stafford . Google Scholar INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH (1993) Education: A different version: An alternative White Paper. IPPR: London . Google Scholar JOWETT, S., HEGARTY, S. and MOSES, D. (1988) Joining Forces: A study of links between ordinary and special schools. NFER/ Nelson: Windsor . Google Scholar KOGAN, M. and CORDINGLEY, P. (1993) Caring for Education: The functioning of local government. Jessica Kingsley: London . Google Scholar LE GRAND, J. (1990) Quasi-Markets and Social Policy. Studies in Decentralisation and Quasi-Markets No. 1. School for Advanced Urban Studies, University of Bristol: Bristol . Google Scholar LUNT, I. and EVANS, J. (1992) Special Educational Needs under LMS. Institute of Education: London . Google Scholar MOORE, J. (1991) Local education authority restructuring under ERA: Meeting or creating special educational needs? Support for Learning, 6 (1), 16–21. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1991.tb00200.x Google Scholar MOSES, D., HEGARTY, S. and JOWETT, S. (1988) Supporting Ordinary Schools: LEA initiatives. NFER/Nelson: Windsor . Google Scholar PRYKE, R. (1993) Opting into irrelevance. Times Educational Supplement, 1 October, pp. 12–13. Google Scholar RANSON, S. (1990) From 1944 to 1988: Education, citizenship and democracy. In M. Flude and M. Hammer (eds), The Education Reform Act 1988: Its origins and implications. Falmer Press: Basingstoke . Google Scholar RANSON, S. (1992) The Role of Local Government in Education: Assuring quality and accountability. Longman: London . Google Scholar RUSSELL, P. (1990) The Education Reform Act: The implications for special educational needs. In M. Flude and M. Hammer (eds), The Education Reform Act 1988: Its origins and implications. Falmer Press: Basingstoke . Google Scholar STOKER, G. (1988) The Politics of Local Government. MacMillan Education: London . 10.1007/978-1-349-19303-5 Google Scholar SWANN, W. (1992) Segregation Statistics, English LEAs, 1988–91. Centre for Studies in Integration: London . Google Scholar THOMAS, G. (1992) Local authorities, special needs and the status quo. Support for Learning, 7 (1), 36–40. 10.1111/j.1467-9604.1992.tb00452.x Google Scholar WEDELL, K. (1993) Special Needs Education: The next 25 years. NCE Briefing No. 14. National Commission on Education: London . Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume9, Issue2May 1994Pages 61-67 ReferencesRelatedInformation

(1994). Squaring the circle?: government reform of initial teacher training for primary education. Journal of Education Policy: Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 369-380.

Now that mainstream schools have a duty under the 1993 Education Act to state their policies on provision for special educational needs, they will have to decide on the content of their policies in detail. Hazel Bines, School of Education, Oxford Brookes University, offers some suggestions.

Special education has been somewhat neglected in the sociological study of curriculum change, despite the value of sociological perspectives on policy and provision for special educational needs. This article considers the redefinition of special education over the last decade, in both mainstream and special schools, drawing on other sociological analyses of curriculum redefinition and realisation. Particular attention is given to the professional interests involved and the contexts within which change has taken place. The article concludes with a review of the implications of recent legislation for the redefinition of special education. It is suggested that the increasing convergence of policy and curriculum frameworks for both special and mainstream education requires an integrated approach to future research and analysis.

This critique of the recent government consultation document on initial teacher training is concerned with both curricular and managerial aspects of the proposed reforms. It is argued that the model of teaching, and of partnership with schools, put forward in the proposals, fails to grasp the complexity of the nature of teaching as an activity, and undermines the contribution that both schools and institutions of higher education could make to initial professional formation. The consultation document also fails to acknowledge the resource and other managerial implications of the proposals, including the potential impact on INSET provision and teacher supply. It is suggested that teachers and teacher educators pursue the key questions of quality, cost and control to redefine notions of ‘survival’ teaching and training that permeate the government's proposals.

This discussion by Hazel Bines neatly complements the previous article by Alan Dyson. She examines teaching roles in the light of the National Curriculum and makes a number of pertinent observations that, in general, support the Dyson thesis. Carefully she examines the various elements that might constitute a more effective role for special needs teachers and finds these best summarised in the term ‘advocate’. The rigorous thinking of Bines, Dyson and others is taking the debate into new territory.

As noted in a previous review article in this journal (Vol. 15, No. 2, 1989), special education has undergone considerable change in the last decade. These changes include: a broader and more flexible definition of special educational needs, involving up to one in five of the school population; a recognition of the responsibility of all teachers and not just special educators to make policy and provision; developments in the role of special schools, including enrichment of the traditional special curriculum and involvement in integration programmes; links between special needs and other equal opportunities policies, particularly in relation to curriculum entitlement and integration; and the adoption of a 'whole school', cross-curricular, advisory and support role for special needs teachers and schools. The majority of publications on special needs are now very much concerned with this new model of 'good practice'. However, as noted in the previous review, although many writers have commented on the potential implications of the 1988 Education Reform Act, few are yet able to consider in detail its likely impact on special needs policy and provision. Writing a review two years on, this situation remains largely unchanged. It is partly due to the inevitable delay between finishing a manuscript or research project and actual publication. Some books, of course, are also not particularly concerned with current policy, focusing instead on broad historical or comparative issues and trends outside the immediate policy arena, or on teaching approaches for particular needs, subject areas or phases within the classroom rather than the wider context. It is also still extremely difficult to predict with any real accuracy either the short or long-term