55 British Journal of Special Education Volume 24, No. 2 (June 1997) Value Systems Values, Rights and Dilemmas Geoff Lindsay Introduction The education of children with special educational needs (SEN) does not exist in a vacuum. Increasingly, the sector has been affected by the changes, many of which are radical, in the education system in general. Some influences are direct (the National Curriculum and Local Management of Schools) while others are more subtle (the influence of selection and of the growth of the grant maintained sector on other schools’ intakes). At the same time, professionals, voluntary bodies and individual parents and children have continued to shape up special needs education, including the extension of integration and aspiration to an inclusive system. People with a disability have themselves increasingly contributed to the debate. Education is not simply about the development of competences. Permeating all educational debates is a consideration of value: the development of the National Curriculum is a case study in the impact of politicians’ value systems on the educational process (Graham, 1993). How does a consideration of disability and SEN fit in? In this article, I shall explore the current system with respect to the value systems which have guided the recent changes. Special needs education has for too long been regarded as the Cinderella, the afterthought when system changes have been planned or operated. Now, the sector is firmly embedded in the mainstream of education ideology and planning and the values we hold (and which have to some extent been embodied in special needs education) may be seen to be in conflict with those values which drive the mainstream sector. Ever-increasing standards, individual responsibility for success, and reward for the most successful (for example) sit uneasily as aims for a service for pupils requiring disproportionate support, whose absolute level of achievements are lower, and whose capability for individual responsibility requires longer to develop; and where the value system emphasises support, collegiality and joint working rather than competition. Will this brave new world of higher standards (all 11-year-olds to reach level 4 in English by 2006, according to the Labour Party’s proposals; Times Educational Supplement, 28.2.97, p. 4) include all children with SEN? Or will they continue to be the group who are an afterthought, not included in the development of mainstream education policies? Perhaps it is time for us to emphasise our value systems not only to protect children with SEN, but as a positive contribution to the education system as a whole. Disability and values People with a disability have become more involved in the debate about society’s provision to meet their needs, rather than be ‘spoken for’. Oliver (1992) argues: ‘As a disabled person and academic, I am in favour of academic debates about the nature of disability: what concerns me about this one is that it is yet one more example of people with abilities attempting to speak authoritatively about us.’ (p. 20) Oliver is critical of the language used (‘people with disabilities’) and the ‘old’ debate concerning integration. He stresses a view that conceptualises integration as a means (not an end); as problematic, requiring a change in school ethos rather than organisation; and based on moral and political rather than legal rights. Rather than an acceptance and tolerance of children with SEN, they should be valued and celebrated. However, Pfeiffer (1994) reminds us of the eugenics movement in the United States, and the continued existence of state laws which are a threat to disabled people. Montgomery (1996) also presents a powerful statement about the effect of discrimination on the lives of deaf people and has made a powerful case against the integration of deaf children, arguing that this would lead to a disintegration of deaf people’s society (Montgomery, 1981). In the same vein, the cochlea implant programme can be interpreted as a form of genocide. There are, therefore, a number of dilemmas with regard to disability and values. The terms used (and Pfeiffer’s preferences differ from Oliver’s) may be seen as relatively minor compared with the existence or not of a group of people. How should society reconcile the good of the prevention of a disability with the right of disabled people themselves to exist as such, or even at all? Is there a position that accords positive value to a person with a disability, while seeking to prevent such disabilities occurring, alleviating suffering or improving quality of life (processes with which all of us in special needs education are concerned)? Within the education system, such dilemmas are less acute: we do not determine the prevention of life. Furthermore, education has been seen as inherently positive; as a right, one denied to many children especially in developing countries, but also denied to our pupils excluded from school, or to many of our most vulnerable Professor Geoff Lindsay, Director of the Special Needs Research Unit at The University of Warwick, is the fourth of the new professors to contribute to the debate on the future of Special Education.