Search

Copyright of European Early Childhood Education Research Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Conceptualisations of disability that emphasise the contextual and cultural nature of disability and the embodiment of these within a national system of data collection present a number of challenges especially where this process is devolved to schools. The requirement for measures based on contextual and subjective experiences gives rise to particular difficulties in achieving parity in the way data is analysed and reported. This paper presents an account of the testing of a tool intended for use by schools as they collect data from parents to identify children who meet the criteria of disability established in Disability Discrimination Acts (DDAs). Data were validated through interviews with parents and teachers and observations of children and highlighted the pivotal role of the criterion of impact. The findings are set in the context of schools meeting their legal duties to identify disabled children and their support needs in a way that captures the complexity of disabled children’s school lives and provides useful and useable data. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article describes the development and national trial of a methodology for collecting disability data directly from parents, enabling schools and local authorities to meet their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA; 2005) to promote equality of opportunity for all children. It illustrates the complexities around collecting this information and also highlights the dangers of assuming that special educational needs (SENs) equate to disability. The parental survey revealed children with medical and mental health needs, but no SENs, who were unknown to schools. It also revealed children with a recorded SEN whose parents did not consider that they had a disability in line with the DDA definition. It identified a number of children whose disability leads to absences from school, making them vulnerable to underachievement. These findings highlight the importance of having appropriate tools with which to collect these data and developing procedures to support their effective use. We also draw attention to the contextual nature of children’s difficulties and the importance of retaining and respecting the place of subjective information. This is central to adopting a definition of disability that hinges on experience or impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Equality Act 2010 further enshrines the duties on organisations set out in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to safeguard the rights of vulnerable children. However, disability is a complex phenomenon, which makes the collection of data, and the subsequent identification of children who might be classed as disabled, problematic. This article, written by Dr Jill Porter, Director of Studies for research students at the Department of Education, University of Bath, Professor Harry Daniels, Director of The Centre for Socio-cultural and Activity Theory Research, University of Bath, Dr Anthony Feiler, Reader in Education at the University of Bristol, and Dr Jan Georgeson, Research Fellow at the University of Plymouth, explores the findings of a nationwide survey with questions about multiple indicators of disability. The authors argue that methods for collecting disability data need to reflect the uncertainties surrounding the relationship between neurological conditions, their expression and the socially mediated nature of the impact of disability. In exploring the data the authors note that families have different expectations of their children and of family life and, as a result, the presence of an impairment has a differential impact; this argues, the authors suggest, for the need for parents' views to be privileged in the collection of disability data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]