Special Educational Needs

Ronald Gulliford, Graham Upton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781134910595
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The contributors focus on particular areas of special educational need, arguing that effective educational provision can be enhanced with reference to the particular problems experienced by children. Set in the context of a generic understanding of special education, this timely book addresses commonly-raised questions: what is the condition and how can I recognise it? why does it occur? what sort of educational, personal, and social consequences are there associated with it? are there any specialist skills and resources which I should know about? what are the implications for educational provision, teacher support, curricular access, assessment and classroom management? This popular book has been fully revised to provide a comprehensive overview of special needs provision. A such it is the key text on special needs in the '90s.

1 Curriculum Issues

Keith Bovair

DOI: 10.4324/9780203033777-2

In a language lesson, Kathleen sits, listening attentively to her teacher. French is the spoken word and the conversation is focused on the lunch being served. There is cheese, bread and lemonade. The object of the exercise is to greet the teacher with the word ‘Bonjour’, to request an item on the table and to say, ‘Merci’.

There are approximately six other pupils in the class and the teacher and her assistant are busy speaking to each one. Kathleen is keen to get their attention and says very clearly, ‘Excusez moi, Pardon’. The teacher does not hear this, but soon turns to her for the greeting, the request and the reply and the thank you, which Kathleen produces successfully and elicits the reply from the teacher of ‘Bon’.

This exercise was videotaped and when the teacher reviewed it, she was surprised to hear the extended language Kathleen had picked up by listening to the teacher and assistant speaking. This is not uncommon in classrooms, but what was surprising was that Kathleen is a pupil who attends a school for children with severe learning difficulties and is participating with pupils from a school for children with moderate learning difficulties in a Modern Language lesson where she will obtain the same certificate of achievement as children in mainstream schools. This same young person would have been totally excluded from this experience if she had been educated in the very early 1970s; so would the children with whom she was sitting. Prior to 1971, she would probably have been excluded from any type of education, with the exception of self-help and care.

The Education Reform Act of 1988 established the principle that every pupil in maintained schools is entitled to a relevant, broad, balanced and differentiated curriculum. It identified three core areas of the curriculum - English, Maths and Science - and the foundation areas of History, Geography, Technology, Music, Art, Physical Education and a Modern Foreign Language; it can be delivered through cross-curricular schemes of work or modules. The intent of this was to bring clarity and continuity of learning to the British educational system and to raise standards by an injection of political rhetoric and a new legislated framework.

What was not expected by the new education reformers was that educators in special education would take up the challenge which it laid down. Children with special educational needs, who were once dealt with on the fringes of education, had legislated for them the right to a curriculum that was being offered to those children who were in the mainstream of education. This new legislation provided special educators an opportunity to turn the rhetoric of the architects of the 1988 Education Act into reality (Ashdown etal., 1991).

Her Majesty's Inspectors had actually fuelled enthusiasm about the curriculum in their Education Matters series, Curriculum from 5 to 16(DES, 1985a). The following definition, for example, was invigorating for special educators who were trying to extend the curriculum for all children, but particularly, those with special educational needs:

A school's curriculum consists of all those activities designed or encouraged within its organisational framework to promote the intellectual, personal, social and physical development of its pupils. It includes not only the formal programme of lessons, but also the informal programme of so-called extracurricular activities as well as those features which produce the school's ethos, such as the quality of relationships, the concern for equality of opportunity, the values exemplified in the way that the school sets about its task and the way in which it is organised and managed.

(Whitaker, 1988, p. 20)

As Whitaker (1988) pointed out:

such a definition promotes an inclusive view of curriculum design and suggests an altogether more holistic approach than we have been traditionally used to. It was a statement seen by educators in special education that helped encourage the opportunity for inclusion of pupils with special educational needs into the mainstream of curriculum opportunity by pointing to ‘the equality of opportunity’.

(Whitaker, 1988, p. 21)

However, Sexton (1991) suggests a more cautionary, if not jaundiced, view of the key words used in proposals for curriculum reform_

those euphemisms ‘relevant’, ‘balanced’ and ‘broad’, so readily trotted out, originated with the HMI (Her Majesty's Inspectorate). Relevant meaning parochial, limiting the child to his or her immediate experience; balanced meaning shying away from clear conclusions or statements; broad meaning a smattering of everything and a clear knowledge of nothing.

(Sexton, 1991, p. 20)

This view might well have applied to the curriculum in some special schools though there had long been debate about how to turn such concepts into reality. In the area of learning difficulties, Segal (1963) and Tansley and Gulliford (I960) had discussed the type of curriculum that would meet the needs of the population of pupils who experienced a disability of mind and body. Each identified key curriculum areas; Segal saw basic skills, citizenship, safety, health and hygiene, religious and moral education, leisure, vocational guidance and science as key areas of the curriculum. Tansley and Gulliford identified oral and written language, number, creative and practical work, religious education, knowledge and awareness, physical education and social competence as broad curriculum areas with the core of the curriculum being language and number. Unfortunately, for a long period of time, special schools and units stayed with the core of language and number, narrowing the vision that Tansley and Gulliford offered; one that recognised ‘a periphery of additional knowledge about the environment, creative and aesthetic activities, and practical interests’ (Wilson, 1981, p. 12). Instead specialist settings and schools tended to provide a deficiency based curriculum as described by Swann (1988) and Bovair (1989). Typically, the deficiency based curriculum was based on English, Maths, PE and Art under the guise of project work (Bovair, 1989) although it might be extended by the particular interest of the staff employed at some time in a specialist setting or special school. Often, however, when these staff involved moved on, so did the interest area. This is still experienced in relation to subjects such as modern languages in special schools.

THE WARNOCK REPORT

Interest in the education of children with SEN was accelerated by the publication of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) which was seen as compensating for the marginalisation of children with special educational needs which had gone before. In curriculum terms, the Warnock Report encouraged a set of twofold goals of education. They are:

different from each other, but by no means incompatible. They are, first, to enlarge a child's knowledge, experience and imaginative understanding, and thus his awareness of moral values and capacity for enjoyment; and secondly, to enable him to enter the world after formal education is over as an active participant in society and a responsible contributor to it, capable of achieving as much independence as possible. The educational needs of every child are determined in relation to these goals.

(DES, 1978, p. 5)

This pro-active statement, which saw the individual as a participant rather than a receiver of care and education, encouraged special educators to begin to test and stretch the boundaries of their previous educational and caring worlds.

Brennan's writings (1979, 1985, 1987) tackled the systems, structures and content of the curriculum during this time. He showed how to ensure that children could have access to a wide curriculum and still have their individual needs met by individual programming as in the example he gave of John.

John is severely physically disabled. He has no legs or arms and his mobility is totally dependent on a wheelchair. He requires assistance, not only to move around the comprehensive school, but also to move around the classroom. His school timetable must be carefully organized so that the support he requires is capable of ensuring he is in the right place at the right time. Once there he learns normally in academic subjects though he requires special help with recording. School progress is satisfactory. John has successful GCE ‘O’ level studies behind him and is continuing at ‘A’ level.

(Brennan, 1985, p. 35)

At the same time as interest in the development of curriculum for children with special educational needs was growing so was the interest in greater integration of this population of children into ordinary school settings. Also observations and criticisms had emerged about the limitations of the curriculum in special schools and classes. It was identified as being narrow and repetitive (DES, 1978). These criticisms were justified but recognition that specialist settings were extending their relationship with their educational community were either ignored or seen as an attempt to protect the existence of the special school. The field felt the pull of this duality of ‘either - or’ during the 1980s. Either you segregate children or you integrate seemed to be the only possibilities. Yet as was being discovered by the practitioners in the field, a common ground was being established by special educators working with their colleagues in ordinary schools.

This recognition of overlap and extension of opportunity was accelerated by the interpretation of the 1981 Education Act and its supposed focus on integration, stating that whenever feasible a child with special educational needs should be educated within the mainstream. Educators in special education were taking their experiences of individualising the curriculum and transferring these skills to a wider curriculum area.

Those working in specialist settings were looking at ways and means to expand educational opportunities for children with special educational needs. They were also changing their roles to become active in the provision of outreach and support for their colleagues in ordinary schools, the management of which was often complex (as identified by Baker, 1989) and under-resourced. However, special schools pursued outreach in various guises (Day, 1989) and several took on the challenge of the extension of the curriculum by a closer collaboration with ordinary schools.

The collaboration was assisted by the Technical and Vocational Educational Initiative (TVEI) which encouraged skills of direct value at work, equipping students to enter the world of employment, to develop problem-solving skills and establishing a bridge from school to work through relevant activities. It also created a forum in which special schools sat alongside secondary schools and further education to work collaboratively on projects within the guide-lines of TVEI. Money was made available to establish in-service training (TVEI Related In-Service Training - TRIST) for all staff involved, and it was here that a strong common ground was well established, leading to exchanges of ideas, of resources and of students and staff between the different kinds of establishments. Other ventures into curriculum development followed in the wake of this initiative. Collaboration over GCSE course work and shared facilities were assisted by a new way of grouping schools. Clusters of schools were set up to work together in their education communities and when primary schools entered into this world under the guise of Grant Related In-Service Training (GRIST) (often considered by educators as TRIST without money), a healthy relationship benefited all children. This included moving from further education placements to projects where, for example, secondary age children from a special school with learning difficulties pilo...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Curriculum Issues
• 2 Management of Special Needs
• 3 Learning Difficulties
• 4 Severe Learning Difficulties
• 5 Speech and Language Difficulties
• 6 Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
• 7 Visual Impairments
• 8 Hearing Impairments
• 9 Physical Disabilities
• 10 Psychological and Health-Related Problems
• 11 Multi-Sensory Impairments
• Name Index
• Subject Index