{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014245014245014245, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009116809116809116, 'mean_word_length': 5.204946996466431, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Special educational needs: a new look

It is probably symptomatic of the complexities of the issues which surround debates about inclusive education, that 32 years after the publication of the Report of the committee of enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (Department for Education and Science 1978) – the Warnock Report – that it can still find its place in discussion about provision for pupils with special educational needs. Indeed, such was the authority of this report that its influence has been felt not only in the legislation which followed the immediate aftermath of its publication (Department for Education and Science 1981), but in much of the educational policy which has appeared in the subsequent 32 years. Furthermore, teachers, policy makers, researchers and politicians have all interpreted the ideas which were presented in the Warnock Report to further their own beliefs about how schools and wider society should address the needs of a population which has long been marginalised within the education system. If the Warnock Report was present at the gestation and birth of special education in the various guises in which it is recognised today, we can certainly acknowledge the fact that it has remained as an influence upon its subsequent development and interpretation throughout the period since its publication. However, as Mary Warnock herself suggests, a report that intended to provide a more unified response to the education of children with disabilities and special educational needs, whilst achieving some of its objectives, has also played a major role in the factionalised responses that have come to dominate the discourse in this area. Writing in 2000, Mary Warnock described how she: