38
Rethinking the 14-19 curriculum: SEN perspectives and implications
This book is the fourth publication in the fourth series of seminars organised by the SEN Policy Options Steering Group to examine policy issues to do with special educational needs.
The aim of the seminar was to examine issues that arise in the rethinking of the 14-19 curriculum from a SEN perspective. The seminar considered curriculum themes relating to the academic/vocational divide, disaffection, the location and range of providers, entitlement and appropriateness, Government policy, an EU perspective and research on the possible impact of a more inclusive scheme for certification.
Papers were presented by Dr Lesley Dee, School of Education, University of Cambridge, Christopher Robertson, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Ann Gross, Head of SEN Division, DfES, Professor Geoff Lindsay, University of Warwick and Keith Bovair, Head teacher, Enfield LEA. The book concludes with a summary of points by Professor Michael Young, who chaired the seminar, and the discussion that followed the papers and the responses of the presenters to this discussion.
The main purpose of this publication is to provide policy makers at all levels of the education system with an examination of relevant and practical policy options in the field of special educational needs. The book raises crucial issues and outlines ways forward.
Rethinking the 14-19 curriculum:
SEN perspectives and implications
Policy Paper 4
(4th series)
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction to Policy Paper
Chapter 2: The vocational/academic divide and students with special educational needs
Dr Lesley Dee, School of Education, University of Cambridge
Chapter 3: The Vocational/academic divide and students with special educational needs: an EU perspective
Christopher Robertson, School of Education, University of Birmingham
Chapter 4: The 14-19 Green Paper and SEN
Ann Gross, SEN Division, DfES
Chapter 5: Modelling the implications of ‘Graduation’ for 16 year olds in three geographical areas
Professor Geoff Lindsay, Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR), University of Warwick
Chapter 6: Fourteen to Nineteen – Creative or Contradictory
Keith Bovair, Head teacher, Durants School, Enfield LEA
Chapter 7: Summary of discussion and conclusions
Brahm Norwich
Edited by Brahm Norwich
Chapter 1
Introduction to Policy Paper
Background to the policy paper
This paper is a record of the recent invited Policy Seminar held at Regent's College, Regents Park, London (14th November 2002), the fourth of the fourth series of policy seminars, which examined issues that arise in the rethinking of the 14-19 curriculum from a SEN perspective. The seminar considered curriculum themes relating to the academic/vocational divide, disaffection, the location and range of providers, entitlement and appropriateness, Government policy, an EU perspective and research on the possible impact of a more inclusive scheme for certification. It was chaired by Professor Michael Young, Institute of Education, London University. Papers were presented by Dr Lesley Dee, School of Education, University of Cambridge, Christopher Robertson, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Ann Gross, Head of SEN Division, DfES, Professor Geoff Lindsay, University of Warwick and Keith Bovair, Head teacher, Enfield LEA. About 40 people participated in the half-day seminar, coming from schools, LEA support services, LEA officers, DfEE, Government Agencies, parent groups, the voluntary sector, health service professionals, educational psychologists and universities.
SEN Policy Options Steering Group
This policy paper is the fourth in the 4th series of seminars and conferences to be organised by the SEN Policy Options Steering Group. This group organised the initial ESRC - Cadbury Trust series on policy options for special educational needs in the 1990s. The success of the first series led to the second one which was supported financially by NASEN. (See the list of these policy papers published by NASEN at the end of this section). The Steering Group has representatives from LEA administrators, head teachers, voluntary organisations, professional associations, universities and research. The further success of the second and third series of policy seminars and papers led to this fourth round of seminars which has also been organised with further funding from NASEN. These events are intended to consider current and future policy issues in the field in a pro-active way. They are planned to interest all those concerned with policy matters in special educational needs.
Aims and objectives of the Policy Options Steering Group for the 4th series
The main orientation of the SEN Policy Options Group is to consider likely future policy issues in order to examine relevant practical policy options. This emphasis is on being pro-active on one hand and examining and evaluating various options on the other. The purpose is to inform and suggest policy ideas and formulation in this field. More specifically the aims of this series will be:
1. to identify current and likely future policy problems and the options for solutions in providing for children and young people with learning difficulties and disabilities following the SEN Action Plan, the revised SEN Code of Practice and the implementation of the SEN and Disability Rights in Education Bill;
2. to organise seminars and events for policy-makers, professionals, parents, Government officers, voluntary associations and researchers to analyse and debate significant issues in the field and publish the proceedings for wider dissemination;
3. to enhance the inter-relationship between policy and service issues and research agendas.
Current Steering Group membership
Keith Bovair, Head teacher Durants School (NASEN representative); Professor Alan Dyson, School of Education, University of Newcastle; Peter Gray, SEN Policy Adviser; Dr Seamus Hegarty, Director of the National Foundation for Educational Research; Claire Lazarus, Regional Co-ordinator (East of England SEN Regional Partnership); Professor Geoff Lindsay, Warwick University; Professor Ingrid Lunt, Institute of Education, London University; Steve McShane, Inspector Additional Educational Needs, Somerset LEA; John Moore, Senior Inspector, Kent LEA; Professor Brahm Norwich, School of Education, Exeter University; Linda Redford, NCH Action for Children, Education Officer; Philippa Russell, Director of Council for Disabled Children; Sonia Sharp, Assistant Director, SEN Birmingham LEA; Philippa Stobbs CDC; Professor Klaus Wedell, Institute of Education, London University; Chris Wells, Deputy Director of Education, Greenwich LEA.
Current series
The current series aims to organise four full or half-day events on special education policy and provision over the two years 2001-2002 which are relevant to the context of considerable changes in the education system.
If you have any ideas about possible topics or would like to know more about the events, please do contact a member of the Group or Brahm Norwich, Co-ordinator of Steering Group, at the School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU (01392 264805; email: )
Policy Options Papers from first seminar series published and available from NASEN.
1. Bucking the market
Peter Housden, Chief Education Officer, Nottinghamshire LEA
2. Towards effective schools for all
Mel Ainscow, Cambridge University Institute of Education
3. Teacher education for special educational needs
Professor Peter Mittler, Manchester University
4. Resourcing for SEN
Jennifer Evans and Ingrid Lunt, Institute of Education, London University
5. Special schools and their alternatives
Max Hunt, Director of Education, Stockport LEA
6. Meeting SEN: options for partnership between health, education and social services
Tony Dessent, Senior Assistant Director, Nottinghamshire LEA
7. SEN in the 1990s: users' perspectives
Micheline Mason, Robina Mallet, Colin Low and Philippa Russell
Policy Options Papers from second seminar series published and available from NASEN.
1. Independence and dependence? Responsibilities for SEN in the Unitary and County Authorities
Roy Atkinson, Michael Peters, Derek Jones, Simon Gardner and Phillipa Russell
2. Inclusion or exclusion: Educational Policy and Practice for Children and Young People with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
John Bangs, Peter Gray and Greg Richardson
3. Baseline Assessment and SEN
Geoff Lindsay, Max Hunt, Sheila Wolfendale, Peter Tymms
4. Future policy for SEN : Response to the Green Paper
Brahm Norwich, Ann Lewis, John Moore, Harry Daniels
Policy Options Papers from third seminar series published and available from NASEN.
1. Rethinking support for more inclusive education
Peter Gray, Clive Danks, Rik Boxer, Barbara Burke, Geoff Frank, Ruth Newbury,
Joan Baxter
2. Developments in additional resource allocation to promote greater inclusion
John Moore, Co Meijer, Klaus Wedell, Paul Croll and Diane Moses.
3. Early years and SEN
Professor Sheila Wolfendale and Philippa Russell
4. Specialist Teaching for SEN and inclusion
Annie Grant, Ann Lewis and Brahm Norwich
Policy Options Papers from fourth seminar series published and available from NASEN.
1. The equity dilemma: allocating resources for special educational needs
Richard Humphries, Sonia Sharpe, David Ruebain, Philippa Russell and Mike Ellis
2. Standards and effectiveness in special educational needs: questioning conceptual orthodoxy
Richard Byers, Seamus Hegarty and Carol Fitz Gibbon
3. Disability, disadvantage, inclusion and social inclusion
Professor Alan Dyson and Sandra Morrison
Chapter 2
The vocational/academic divide and students with special educational needs
Dr Lesley Dee
School of Education, University of Cambridge
Summary
This paper explores issues relating to 14 to 16 and 16 to 19 provision as well as the vocational/academic divide and its implications for students with special educational needs. The paper will argue that past attempts to reform the 14+ curriculum have largely served to disadvantage young people with special educational needs but that more recent proposals now signal the way for a more inclusive approach to planning.
Introduction: Pre and post 16 provision
The QCA (2002) summarises the differences between the pre and post 16 cultures as follows:
‘Until recently, pre-16 students undertook all their learning in a school, followed a broadly common curriculum and worked towards qualifications of the same type, taken at the same place at age sixteen. Across post-16 settings, provision has been diverse and characterised by choice...These features have led to different expectations, ethos, patterns of work and relationships in pre- and post-16 learning ...They have served to deepen the divide both between pre-and post- 16 and between ‘academic’, ‘vocational’ and work-based settings.’ (p.5)
While recognising that young people with special educational needs are not an homogeneous group, most pre-16 students with special educational needs, like their peers, follow a broadly common curriculum which has become increasingly inclusive (DfES, 2002; Byers 2002). They may or may not undertake examinations at 16. While exact figures are not available, it would appear that whereas most young people attending mainstream schools identified as having special educational needs are likely to leave school at 16 (if not before) those attending special schools are more likely to stay at school for two or three more years. Indeed, some young people with profound and complex learning difficulties remain beyond 19 (Florian et al 1999). While some groups of learners with special educational needs have benefitted from improved access to both vocational and academic routes through, for instance, examination accommodations and specialist equipment, others are marginalised by the academic school culture which forces them to leave school at 16 or earlier.
Many young people will at some point between 16 to 19 progress to either a local or residential college or work-based training but the extent to which these decisions are based on a genuine choice is arguable (Dee, 2002). Research has shown that factors other than the student’s disability such as aptitudes, interests and personal aspirations were rarely taken into account in the decision-making process and tended to be overridden by logistical or practical considerations. Furthermore, once students arrive at college evidence suggests that there is a similar disregard for personal aspirations and aptitudes as assumptions are made about what course is best for individuals. Rusteimer (2000) terms this ‘educational and vocational positioning’. Arguably, then the choice and diversity characteristic of mainstream post 16 education is not available to many young people with special educational needs.
The vocational/academic divide
In its definition, the QCA emphasises that the split between pre and post 16 provision has served to emphasise the vocational/academic divide. The tensions between the academic and vocational routes have been well documented (Hodgson and Spours, 1995; Spours and Young, 1995; Young,1998). Ironically, as some commentators have noted (Cockett, 1996) academic courses provide routes into a wider choice of vocational options than vocational courses particularly those at the lower levels which may lead only to unemployment. This fact has particular significance for many young people with special educational needs. For example, many of those with emotional and behavioural difficulties or moderate learning difficulties would in the past have gone out to work when they left school. Even so, May and Hughes (1985) found that for the vast majority this period was characterized by increasingly longer periods of unemployment interspersed with time spent on inappropriate government-sponsored training schemes. While many of this group now go directly on to education and employment schemes, seventeen years on, the quality of many schemes remains poor, failing to match the needs of young people. Chief Inspector's reports from the FEFC (1997, 1998, 1999) and now from the Adult Learning Inspectorate have consistently drawn attention to the poor quality of much further education and work based training provision with students being placed on inappropriate courses.
Attempts to bridge the academic/vocational divide in the school curriculum have tended to be bottom up designed particularly for those regarded as being low attainers e.g. Low Attaining Pupils Project ( LAPP). Raffe (1985) summed up the dilemma as follows:
‘Courses introduced at the bottom of the educational ladder acquire low status, and their students become stigmatised by employers and educational selectors as the less able. ...Abler and better motivated students are reluctant to enter the courses less they too be stigmatised...A vicious circle is thus created, and the net result of introducing educational reforms in this way might be merely to reinforce existing biases within education, by conveying the message that the new approaches are only relevant to those who lack ability or the motivation to try something better.’ (p. 20-21)
On the other hand, the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) was extended to include all pupils but the largely academic subjects of the National Curriculum later superseded this. ‘Disapplication’ at Key Stage 4 was introduced to enable certain pupils to follow an alternative programme often involving part-time attendance at local colleges on vocational courses and/or participating in extended work experience. Many of the young people who attend these courses are likely to have been identified by their schools as having special educational needs. Such link programmes for so-called disaffected and low attaining young people developed during the 1970s and 80s but fell from favour during the late 80s and early 90s when schools and colleges were encouraged to compete rather than collaborate. Now some two thirds of the 308 FE colleges make provision for 14-16 year olds, arguably partly as a result of the competitive ethos of many schools and inflexible school effectiveness measures.