Accessible summary• Some children with disability find it hard to make choices because they cannot talk.• Schools are trying to find ways to help them to be more included.• People that support these children need to work together better.• All children need to feel included at school. SummaryRecent policy initiatives in the United Kingdom within the field of disability have rightly highlighted the importance of hearing the child's voice. However, it is also imperative that professionals work effectively together to enable this to happen. This study presents the perspectives of teachers, speech and language therapists and teaching assistants on involving children with severe learning and communication difficulties in decision-making at school. Key findings are discussed, and these are presented under three main themes: child-focused issues, professional practice and variation in perspective according to professional role. The discussion explores the links between these findings and the research and policy literature and considers the need for professional development opportunities that enhance effective teamwork.

Anthony Feiler, senior lecturer in special needs, and Howard Gibson, senior lecturer in language and literature (both at Bath Spa University College),suggest that within the field of special educational needs the movement towards inclusion is endangered. Four key threats are explored: the lack of precisionin definitions of inclusion; the lack of research evidence; the tendency for some children to experience what is termed ‘internal exclusion’ inschools; and the continuing inclination to label children (as an example of labelling the media’s presentation of the term dyslexia is examined). Theauthors argue that if inclusion is to take hold in schools more attention needs to be paid to these threats.

Increasingly in recent years, the involvement of disabled people as co-researchers has been regarded as 'good practice'. This has been informed by growing participatory and emancipatory research paradigms as well as user-focused policy imperatives. The benefits of these shifts apply to the research itself (improved definition, direction, applicability and impact), to non-disabled researchers (personal growth and enhanced understanding of the reflexive research process), to people with disabilities involved as researchers or collaborators (personal growth and enhanced opportunities), and (if externally funded) to the funder whose ways of operating are likely to be challenged profoundly. In this paper, Ann Lewis, Sarah Parsons and Christopher Robertson (based at the University of Birmingham), Anthony Feiler, Beth Tarleton and Debby Watson (based at the University of Bristol) and Richard Byers, Jill Davies, Ann Fergusson and Claire Marvin (based at the University of Cambridge) discuss the work of three independent research teams carrying out concurrent projects. The authors share their experiences of trying to take seriously the participation of disabled people in research. All three projects were informed, to a significant degree, by their respective reference groups of disabled people. The work of these groups in each of the three projects is outlined and then discussed in relation to five common themes: formal contracts with members of reference groups; considerations concerning drawing on an established reference group; planning for reference group involvement; style of reference group involvement; and building on good practice.

No abstract

No abstract