Pupil Inclusion network blog

Who is accountable? And when will we see some real progress?

The general election has stolen the focus from the local elections and we need to ask ourselves, do any of our local administrations really care?

I can’t help to think every politician in the country must hold some sense of relief that we are not yet at the end of the referendum and election merry-go round. I keep returning to an image in my head of a magician using distraction and sleight of hand to keep our focus from what is really going on. The general election has stolen the focus from the local elections and we need to ask ourselves, do any of our local administrations really care? I suspect not as it keeps the focus away from what really matters.

Whether it is housing, policing, health care or education, every local authority across the country should be concerned about, and held accountable for, their part in the worrying statistics that appear nationally. In 2016, 170,329 pupils in Scotland’s schools (publically funded primary, secondary and special) were identified with an additional support need (ASN), representing just under a quarter of all pupils (24.9%). While this is an increase of 44% since 2012, we have seen an 11% per pupil reduction in funding over the same period.

Over recent months I have witnessed the repetitive back-and-forth argument of the Scottish Government pointing to local authorities’ obligations and local authorities insisting they can’t meet these obligations without more funding. At the same time I am meeting increasing numbers of parents desperately concerned about the education and wellbeing of their children.

Local authorities are accountable, in law, and they play a key role in meeting the additional support needs of children and young people.

It is crucial we move beyond this cyclical blame and counter blame. Local authorities are accountable, in law, and they play a key role in meeting the additional support needs of children and young people. We need them to use their budgets to help children and young people in their communities get the best possible start in life and realise their full potential.

At the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition (SCSC) we have long campaigned on behalf of vulnerable children and young people. In our manifesto for the local authority elections, we asked incoming administrations to take a number of steps in order to create some real, positive progress for children and young people with ASN. These include increased investment in additional support for learning and early years’ services; early assessment and intervention; greater support and staffing in mainstream schools; increased specialist provision; better training of mainstream teachers, health professionals and other practitioners, and; greater partnership working between the public and independent and third sectors.

Now that we enter the final few weeks of election fever in the run up to June 8th, we must look beyond the smoke and mirrors and call on our new council administrations to put children and young people with ASN first so that they too can reach their full potential. 

Kenny Graham
Kenny Graham is Head of Education at Falkland House School, member of the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition


Twitter: @FalklandHouse / @the_scsc

When invisibility becomes inequality

If all you knew about “Scotland’s leading preventable cause of learning disabilities”1 was what you read in the latest report to the Scottish Parliament on the implementation of our landmark ASL Act2, then you would know nothing at all. It is not even mentioned once in this 49-page Scottish Government document.

Based upon the most conservative epidemiological evidence from other OECD nations (Scottish/UK data do not yet exist) more than 500 Scottish babies each and every year are born with fetal alcohol harm.3 Thus, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) adversely affects roughly 10,000 young Scots right now.

The associated media ‘debate’ has been much more myth producing than clarifying. Balanced coverage does not mean pitting two extreme, equally inaccurate claims against each other, e.g. “any drinking before you knew you were pregnant has ruined your child’s life”, versus “drinking wine regularly does not ‘count’ and cannot harm a foetus”.

The simple truth is that lifelong, irreversible brain damage can be caused by alcohol exposure in utero from any kind of alcohol during every trimester of pregnancy. This has enormous implications for individuals, parents, pre-schools and schools, as well as the larger society and the public purse.4 In Canada, these are referred to as ‘million dollar babies’ because of the extra costs of dealing with the diverse and damaging consequences of FASD – a price exceeded only by the human costs to the individuals and families impacted by this preventable harm.

Five basics are clear from the evidence. First, FASD is a risk, i.e. neither a predictable outcome nor an inevitable one, when alcohol is consumed during any pregnancy. Second, FASD primarily is manifest through how affected people think, act and learn, not how they look. Third, while FASD can exist on its own, or be mistaken for other neurological conditions, it often is only one of multiple learning disabilities (co-morbidities) within the same individual. Fourth, naming, blaming, shaming and punishing mothers (or the children themselves) is both cruel and ineffective. No one drinks alcohol because they want to harm their baby. Fifth, FASD-affected pupils do not act inappropriately in classrooms — or fail to meet educational standards –because they are willfully disobedient, uncaring or ‘bad’, but rather because of the varying degrees of invisible damage to their brains and central nervous systems (including diminished impulse control). The point of the ASL Act (as well as Curriculum for Excellence and the Children and Young People Act) is to provide the support needed for every student to reach her/his potential – and, of course, those affected by FASD also have strengths upon which schools must build.

Those are the essential facts. Meanwhile, none of the annual governmental reports on implementation of the ASL Act ever recognised how widespread, serious and detrimental fetal alcohol harm is in Scotland’s schools today. That will be a difficult omission to correct now, since annual reporting is no longer required by law. Further, while these SG reports list and schools compile data based upon roughly 20 different ‘reasons for support’ beyond that offered to all Scottish pupils, FASD is not even on the list. Instead, these children are labeled either as having a ‘social, emotional, or behavioural difficulty’ or as needing extra help because of an unspecified ‘learning disability’. These ‘catch all’ categories are where the ‘leftovers’ in the system are placed, not students for whom there is serious assessment, action and evaluation. More than one-third of all excluded students are from these two ill-defined categories.5

Playing ostrich and burying our heads in the sand in relation to FASD is appealing. If the involved public bodies and systems – including education, health, children’s services, justice and children’s hearings – ever acknowledge the truth and prevalence of fetal alcohol harm, then they will have moral, professional and legal obligations to deal well with affected children and young people. Unfortunately, avoiding costs and actions now to prevent, identify/diagnose and properly manage FASD only dramatically increases the eventual price and creates additional problems – from substance misuse to very risky pregnancies to persistent petty criminality.6

It is widely agreed Scotland has an ‘unhealthy relationship with alcohol’. And yet, the consequences for schools of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder are usually left unacknowledged. Scottish education, and other relevant public bodies, have rarely addressed FASD’s challenges robustly and equitably. Will PINS now use its extensive network, and its real influence, to end the invisibility of fetal alcohol harm and to give FASD priority in the year ahead?


  1. This evidence-based statement was repeatedly made by Professor Sir Harry Burns. His successor as Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr Catherine Calderwood, convinced all UK CMOs to agree on no alcohol advice during pregnancy, or when trying to conceive, as part of the effort to prevent FASD.
  2. Scottish Government, Supporting Children’s Learning: Implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act, 2016: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497314.pdf
  3. See, for example, the British Medical Association’s 2016 report on alcohol and pregnancy: https://www.bma.org.uk/collective-voice/policy-and-research/public-and-population-health/alcohol/alcohol-and-pregnancy
  4. NHS Education Scotland (and Children in Scotland’s) still active 2013 on-line course/resource on fetal alcohol harm: http://www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk/home/learning-and-cpd/learning-spaces/fasd.aspx
  5. Scottish Government, Supporting Children’s Learning, 2016, page 23
  6. For further information on FASD in Scotland, please see: https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/zika-virus-not-birth-defect-risk-scotland-should-be-most-worried-about For additional international news and evidence, subscribe free to EUFASD News by request to Mr Lauri Beekmann at: lauri.beekmann@eufasd.org

Dr Jonathan Sher
Independent Consultant based in Edinburgh. You can reach Jonathan at: jonathan@deltaforce.net

Everything to play for

We seem to love many things Nordic. So why not a Nordic-style kindergarten stage? Sue Palmer blogs for PINS.

Space for comments below

Educational inclusion is a basic principle of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). But, like many great principles, it’s difficult to put into practice. When a single teacher is responsible for the education of thirty-odd very different children, it’s not easy to cater for all their individual, disparate needs.

Another CfE principle that doesn’t translate well into practice is the play-based nature of the Early Level for children aged 3 to 6. In many P1 classrooms – and increasingly in nursery settings – ‘play’ is largely translated as teacher-directed activities, aimed at developing literacy and numeracy skills. Scotland’s extremely early school starting age has created an educational culture in which politicians, parents and (sadly) many teachers are unaware of the deep significance of self-directed play in early child development. The introduction of tests and academic benchmarks for five-year-olds is likely to exacerbate this problem.

That’s why Upstart Scotland is campaigning for the introduction of a Nordic-style kindergarten stage for three to seven-year-olds, with a completely different ethos from primary schooling. There’s no evidence that pressure for academic achievement during these years is beneficial in the long run but there’s plenty showing that long-term well-being and educational success are enhanced by unhurried engagement with caring adults and opportunities for active, creative play, as often as possible outdoors.

Basic human capacities such as social and communication skills, adaptability, problem-solving, self-regulation and emotional resilience can’t be ‘taught’ – they have to develop in each human child through experience. Play is the experience through which evolution has designed these capacities to develop – it is, in fact, a biological necessity which is now lacking from all too many children’s lives. Along with sensitive adult support – including plenty of stories, song, art and other tried-and-tested early childhood activities – time and space to play in the early years is the best way of Getting It Right For Every Child, right from the start.

What’s more, if we give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential in terms of self-regulation, resilience, social skills and so on, it’ll also be much easier for teachers further up the system to create inclusive classrooms where all children can achieve their full educational potential.

Sue Palmer
Founder, Upstart Scotland
See the short film below for more Upstart information:

Inclusion – Does anyone have a plan?

In this rousing blog, David Cameron challenges us to reflect upon the current meaning and purpose of inclusion. 

Share your experience in the comments below.

Does anyone have a plan?

I wonder if anyone else thinks that this is a question worth asking. Recent weeks have certainly put it at the forefront of my mind. We have had concerns expressed that “the presumption of mainstreaming is not working” and a criticism that inclusion was not serving the interest of young people. I wasn’t sure who was going to be surprised by that. The experience that I have had has always been that “inclusion” appeared to work better with younger pupils, and the risk of exclusion grew with the age of the pupils. Young people were consistently more likely to be in alternative provision or on long-term or repetitive exclusions in their last two years before reaching school leaving age than at any other time. I am confident that any analysis of national data would support that. For youngsters, whose behaviour was a concern, my sense was that as the level of physical threat they presented increased, any commitment to their inclusion diminished.

I became depressed at the level of spending on young people who were in alternative provision with no realistic expectation that they would return to mainstream schooling. The level of investment was such that it dominated much of the thinking about the whole budget. When I was Director of Children’s Services in Stirling we commissioned consultants to look specifically at this area of spend. We felt that we could not adequately invest in preventative strategies and maintain the commitment that we had made to these older children. That situation doesn’t seem to have changed. I am now involved with both Kibble and Mirren Park schools and the age profile remains the same.

To have young people excluded at the point of transition from school makes a mockery of any commitment to inclusion. It is as sad as the situation that far too many young people face as they move on from special schools and find that the range of options open to them is desperately restricted. Who wants a policy based on the “presumption of mainstreaming for a while, maybe until it becomes too difficult”? Yet it seems that that is the policy that we have had for years and, worse still, we have too often been smug about it.

As Head of Education in East Lothian, I encountered significant criticism when we decided to open a new specialist provision for younger children on the basis that “it flew in the face of inclusion”. Then, as now, I wished that there was more commitment to learners and less to slogans. I have always had the view that we needed a range of provision to meet a spectrum of need. My clichéd allegory was with swimming pools where there might be a training pool, a shallow end and a deep end and users could move between these as they saw fit. They could also stay in the shallow end until they were able to cope in the deep end and return there if they lost confidence or whatever. That model made sense to me. There should be provision that offers choice to young people and their parents. There should be opportunities for young people at all ages and stages to have interventions that would allow their needs to be addressed.

We should blur the lines between “mainstream”, “alternative” or “specialist” provision; our thinking should be less stark in terms of “either or”, and we need to think about “right for now”. Rather this than obsess with the idea that there is some form of provision which will always be right for every young person.

I often use the quote that “purpose is not simply a target that an organisation aims to achieve. It is its reason for being”. Inclusion is not a purpose; it could be a way in which we fulfil our purpose in education and surely that is to enable all young people to develop and fulfil their potential. If that is the ambition that we have, we need far better planning than we currently have. We need a plan which allows flexibility and fluidity, which offers a range of provision and which aims to have young people included with their peers at the end of their formal education as often as they are at the beginning.

It would be great to get a debate about this through PINS. In education we seem too easily seduced by the dichotomy and the adoption of positions, let’s start 2017 on the quest for synthesis and progress.

David Cameron
Education Consultant
Find him tweeting @realdcameron

Childless Parents

PINS member, Hazel Whitters, reflects on the difficult circumstances that surround the removal of several siblings from parents, and the ongoing needs and rights of both children and adults.

The topic of multiple removals is accompanied by intense emotion and a sense of failure mixed with success. The term describes circumstances which lead to several brothers and sisters in a family being adopted. The SHANARRI indicators support Professional’s decision-making in such circumstances. For birth-parents, however, there must be hope at every stage that changes can be made and the removal of children averted. Such circumstances are difficult, but we must champion the rights of the child.

All human beings have rights. Rights contribute to our understanding of ourselves, and our roles in the world. Rights grant us freedom of choice. Rights allow us to be all we can be. Children in the 21st century have a right to experience childhood within a birth-family culture, but society has the responsibility to assess and decide if the circumstances fulfil the child’s human right to achieve potential – the human right to enjoy life’s journey.

Research by NSPCC (2016) shows that 60,000 UK children were recorded on the child protection register, or had a child protection plan in 2013.  In Scotland in 2015, 2,700 children were on the child protection register. Statistics tell us that children who experience a childhood in the care-system are four times more likely to have mental health difficulties, and seven times more likely to have behavioural issues than their peers.

Practitioners are well aware of the inter-generational cycle of families who are involved with services, time and time again. Today’s support mechanisms are multiple, and child protection is everyone’s responsibility – health, education, social work, voluntary sector, housing, police, and local community embrace vulnerable families. The Family Nurse Partnership, New Orleans Model, Mellow Parenting, Solihull Approach, Positive Parenting Programme, and the therapeutic relationship are approaches used throughout the country by professionals who are determined to make an impact upon the cycle of deprivation. We want parents to succeed, but we have to action the rights of the child, and we have to recognise and accept that every mother and father cannot achieve active parenting within their child’s formative years.

Colin Morrison reflected upon the work of PINS in a previous blog. He identified the driving force as needs and rights, and describes a practitioner’s “burden of responsibility.” But empathy and compassion have always been in abundance in the third sector. We are vocational workers and responsive caring is what we do best, and this liberates practitioners to recognise that there are several vulnerable human beings in a context of multiple removals: the child, and the childless parents. The mother and father whose child has been adopted still require our help, in a different category of need, as vulnerable adults.

Hazel G. Whitters

Senior Early Years/Child Protection Coordinator in a Glasgow Voluntary Service.


Now that the Ministerial engagement events have drawn to a close (with the final session in Dunoon yesterday, December 5th), it’s worth thinking about both the formal text of the current Education Governance Review, as well as the messages and tone from the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, and Scottish Government officials at the events.

The Engagement events have shown that the intent of the Review is to encourage real reflection on the principles and practices of the Scottish education system. However, the heavy going language of the Review document does present somewhat of a barrier to those stakeholders for whom changes will be most felt – children and young people. In the series of events – a catch up of which can be found through twitter’s #edgovrev – conversations about practitioner’s experience of Scottish education are indeed full and broad. There seems to be a general agreement that the education system does well in serving a lot of learners, but for those whom barriers exist it is not nearly good enough. If we can cut through the formality of the Review consultation questions, we really can get to the nub of the changes we need to make. At the Edinburgh session I recently attended, the focus needed was identified as being on the child’s experience of school and learning, from 3 to 18.

Excellence and equity matter – but we need to engage children, young people and communities in what these concepts mean to them. So when we think of excellence and equity, we need to ask questions like:

Why do some children struggle at school?
What would an excellent school be like?
What would a school be like if everyone had the same opportunities – and no-one was left behind?

On the Pupil Inclusion Network site there are links to various bits of information about the Education Governance Review – http://pinscotland.org/theme-education-review.html. Yes, there are 17 formal questions asked, but you don’t need to answer them all! And in those questions, there are issues that children, young people, parents and carers need to express their views on.

Colin Morrison
PINS Co-ordinator

PINS launches a new blog series with a bit of reflection of our own.

PINS is 10 years old. From the beginning the Network has been about encouraging practitioners to pause, reflect and question; helping the sector rise to the challenge of working together to address inequality and improve educational outcomes. We launch this new PINS Blog with a bit of reflection of our own.

PINS emerged from the Review of Guidance Provision in Schools in 2005. An aspect of the review aimed to find out what children, parents and voluntary sector agencies thought of the support available in school[1]. When it came to relecting on how agencies were working together, one contributor summed up the challenges: They are not working together well enough to keep every pupil on the school roll. Many pupils are lost to special school or non-attendance.

The Scottish Executive team in the Pupil Inclusion Unit recognised that this disconnect between schools and external agencies wasn’t just a practice issue; it was also a concern up-the-line, reflected in the relationship between Government and voluntary sector providers in the development of policy and guidance. The challenge was, what could be done to help create opportunities to inform and engage thus giving 3rd sector agencies and practitioners recognition and influence? Government colleagues initiated discussion and with the possibilities offered by the virtual world it was decided a new online community might help address some of the gaps.

As it is now, PINS remains committed to being a hub for information and dialogue about what we [our networked community of approximately 1300 members] do and what we need to do better to support children and young people with learning, both in and out of school. PINS is not about campaigning or representing, but we are driven by the necessity to make our education system more concerned with the needs and rights of children, young people and communities. If the mantra is about equality and equity, then the burden of responsibility for changing practice is on we professionals and the organisations we work for.

At 10 years old PINS is still a conversation about collaboration. At a PINS seminar[2] in 2006 Professor Chris Huxham reminded participants that “It is only sensible to collaborate if real collaborative advantage can be envisaged.” At the same seminar delegates made the point that collaborative working is difficult. Knowing this, PINS continues to bring together 3rd sector practitioners, teachers, colleagues from NHS, Police, Universities and Colleges, Local Authorities and Scottish Government; because by understanding each others positions and sharing solutions we contribute to making a difference.

Do you have a practice issue, policy insight, something to celebrate, or a bugbear that a PINS blog can highlight? Get in touch with info@pinscotland.org

[1] Support in School: The Views of Harder to Reach Groups http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20692/52505

[2] Working Together for Scotland’s Children: How do we get partnership right? http://pinscotland.org/pins-reports-working-together.html

Education Governance Review

The Education Governance Review is about how education is run in Scotland.

If you are working with children and young people in any capacity, you can have your say as part of the Review. You can also help others to take part and give their views; including children and young people, parents and carers.

The Review is interested in some big issues and challenges and there are a number of questions posed by the Review. You don’t have to have an opinion on them all, but many are of huge importance to the children, young people, families and communities that PINS Members work with. Questions like:

  • What services and support should be delivered by schools?
  • How can children, parents, communities, employers, colleges, universities and others play a stronger role in school life? What actions should be taken to support this?
  • How can the governance arrangements support more community-led early learning and childcare provision?
  • How can effective collaboration amongst teachers and practitioners be further encouraged and incentivised?
  • How could the accountability arrangements for education be improved?

Visit the PINS Education Review page to find out more about how you can have your say: