When Inclusion Becomes Segregation

David Carlisle

So the Department for Education just dropped this brand new guidance on mainstream Inclusion Bases, and, uh, right in the text, they, they actually admit that the academic research backing them up is, well, limited. But then they literally write that while there are several academic studies that identify strong benefits associated with inclusion bases as a form of provision, the actual official evidence is still under review. It, it blew my mind.

Harper Bennett

Wait, limited academic evidence? They put that in writing while pushing schools to build these bases right now?

David Carlisle

Yeah, exactly, right in the document! And because it is non statutory guidance, heads can just pick and choose what to follow. So the protective rules, like, you know, saying you cannot use an inclusion base as a disciplinary isolation room, those become totally optional. Meanwhile, the document contains this wild assertion that removing a kid to a base long term is somehow, um, fully compatible with being included.

Harper Bennett

Removing a pupil from the classroom full time is fully compatible with inclusion? That is pure doublespeak, David! I mean, if a rule isn't statutory, an underfunded school under pressure for league table results is going to treat optional safeguards as, well, polite suggestions.

David Carlisle

Oh, absolutely. I, I, I saw this exact thing happen in my own school a few years back. We had this quiet nurture room, super well intentioned, supposed to be a drop in sensory reset. But without statutory backing or strict legal shields, within six months, er, it just turned into a holding pen for neurodivergent kids who were struggling with the noisy main building. The advice on paper said best practice, but real life turned it into in school segregation.

Harper Bennett

It isolates them under the banner of inclusion! That makes me so furious because it shields the system while leaving the pupil out in the cold.

Harper Bennett

Speaking of being left out in the cold, have you looked at what councils are doing to Section 19 packages lately? It is an absolute bureaucratic nightmare.

David Carlisle

Section 19 alternative provision? That is for kids who are too sick or unable to attend a standard school, right?

Harper Bennett

Right, Education Otherwise Than At School, or EOTAS. So a council will sign off on a bespoke package, say, morning tutoring at a library and afternoon sensory OT at a clinic. But then the family applies for travel support, and the council hits them with their standard policy line, quote, this applies to the beginning and end of the school day only and does not include travel between institutions, end quote.

David Carlisle

Wait, does not include travel between institutions? But if the council designed a multi site day, how on earth is a nine year old supposed to get from site A to site B at midday?

Harper Bennett

Teleportation? I, I don't know! And here is where the catch twenty two gets really sinister. When parents ask for mid day transport, the council says, oh, EOTAS is classified as school, so standard daily home to school travel rules apply. But when parents point to the DfE guidance saying councils must support multi site alternative provision, the local authority reverses position and says, ah, but EOTAS is not a traditional school, so that guidance does not apply to you!

David Carlisle

That is... wow. They flip the definition depending on which one lets them say no.

Harper Bennett

It is a complete trap. In my occupational therapy work, I see disabled kids and wheelchair users get blamed for non engagement by case officers! The officer literally writes down that the pupil refused to attend therapy, when the truth is the council refused the two mile taxi ride between the tutor and the OT clinic. It makes me want to throw my keychains across the room.

David Carlisle

They offer provision on paper, make it physically impossible to reach, and then blame the family for failing to show up.

David Carlisle

It makes you wonder how these policies keep getting approved without parent groups screaming from the rooftops. But, er, Sabiha Aziz, the former chair of the Birmingham Parent Carer Forum, actually just spoke out about why the whole system is broken from the inside.

Harper Bennett

Sabiha Aziz? What did she say?

David Carlisle

She exposed how the 2014 promise of co production, you know, nothing about us without us, has completely decayed. She explained that when boards are bound by strict confidentiality and a mandate not to criticise partner agencies, they risk becoming institutional shields. Those were her exact words.

Harper Bennett

When boards are bound by strict confidentiality and a mandate not to criticise, they become institutional? Wow. So the council gives the forum a seat at the table, pays for their admin budget, but gags them from publicly calling out systemic failures?

David Carlisle

Spot on. If a parent leader speaks up about local transport refusals or illegal inclusion base usage, they get accused of breaching board rules or risking the forum's funding grant. So the independent, grassroots voices just resign in frustration, leaving behind a compliant body that stamps official approval on bad policies.

Harper Bennett

It turns parent carer forums into public relations cover for failing councils! They can tick the co production box on paper while filtering out every single uncomfortable truth from real families. I, I honestly wonder if true co production is just a myth when the state holds the purse strings.

David Carlisle

Maybe we need to stop asking for seats at institutional tables that come with gag orders, and start building independent, adversarial watchdog groups that cannot be silenced by grant conditions.

Harper Bennett

If you have to stay quiet to keep your seat, you are not co producing anything, you are just spectating.

David Carlisle

Yeah. Something's got to change. Good chat, Harper.

Harper Bennett

Talk soon, David.