1
Standards and effectiveness for special educational needs: interrogating conceptual orthodoxy
This book is the second 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 how ideas about educational 'effectiveness' can be more inclusive. The seminar also considered different perspectives on educational standards and assessment, in particular issues related to the use of the P scales for pupils with learning difficulties. The theme for the seminar was to interrogate conceptual orthodoxy. The main paper was given by Richard Byers, from the School of Education, Cambridge University, who had been involved in the recently developed curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon, from Durham University and Dr Seamus Hegarty, Director of the NFER discussed this paper. The book concludes with a summary of the discussion that followed the papers and the response 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.
Special Educational Needs
Policy Options Steering Group
Standards and effectiveness for special educational needs: interrogating conceptual orthodoxy
Policy Paper 2
(4th series)
Contents:
Chapter 1: Introduction to Policy Paper
Chapter 2: Main paper:
Learning to Learn – Learning for Life: an exploration of some of the implications of recent developments in planning, teaching and assessing the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties.
Richard Byers, School of Education, University of Cambridge.
Chapter 3: Discussants' responses
i. Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon, Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre, University of Durham.
ii. Dr Seamus Hegarty, Director of National Foundation of Educational Research
Chapter 4: Summary of discussion and conclusions : Brahm Norwich
Edited by Brahm Norwich
Chapter 1:
Introduction to Policy Paper
1. Background to the policy paper
This paper is a record of the recent invited Policy Seminar held at the Institute of Education, London University (18th October 2001), the second of the fourth series of policy seminars, which examined the question of standards and effectiveness in special education. The aim of the seminar was to examine questions concerned with:
i. how to broaden concepts of effectiveness to be more inclusive,
ii. what are appropriate assessment and / or measures for this, such as the new P scales, and
iii. what are the different perspectives on these issues.
The theme for the seminar was to interrogate conceptual orthodoxy in this area.
We invited Richard Byers, from the School of Education, Cambridge University, to present the main paper as he had been involved in the recently developed curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. As discussants we invited Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon, from Durham University as her centre had been involved in evaluation of the P scales and Dr Seamus Hegarty, Director of the NFER, who has had extensive experience of research in the wider SEN field. About 40 people participated in the 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.
2. SEN policy options steering group
This policy paper is the second 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
Mr Keith Bovair, Head teacher Durrants 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; Mrs Philippa Russell, Director of Council for Disabled Children; Sonia Sharp, Assistant Director, SEN Birmingham LEA; Mrs 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 4 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 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
Policy Options Papers from fourth seminar series published and available from NASEN.
- The equity dilemma: allocating resources for special educational needs
Richard Humphries, Sonia Sharpe, David Ruebain, Philippa Russell and Mike Ellis
Chapter 2:
Main paper
Learning to Learn – Learning for Life: an exploration of some of the implications of recent developments in planning, teaching and assessing the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties.
Richard Byers
Introduction
The notion that we are all working towards an increasingly inclusive framework for teaching and learning is gaining acceptance, although there is continuing, and sometimes energetic, debate about the practical application of inclusive principles. For staff working in specialist contexts, the process of working towards a more inclusive future raises questions. It can be assumed that making progress towards inclusivity entails the rejection of the idea of an alternative curriculum delivered through specialist approaches in separate and highly individualised activities. However, staff who work with pupils with learning difficulties may justifiably have their doubts about simply accepting mainstream frameworks for planning, teaching, learning, assessment, reporting, review and evaluation as a ‘one size fits all’ solution to the debate about the relative merits of specialist and generalist approaches. It may be more appropriate, in working towards a more inclusive future, to consider how developments in the specialist sector can inform policy making for inclusion and the development of more inclusive practice.
This paper will explore the possibility that looking at recent developments in relation to curriculum design; the recognition of achievement and approaches to assessment; and frameworks for promoting progress and progression for learners with severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties can influence the wider debate. Reference will be made to the recent project to develop curriculum guidelines for pupils with learning difficulties (QCA/DfEE, 2001). A theme running through the paper will be the development of learner self-awareness, autonomy and control.
The intention of this paper is to raise discussion points in relation to an evolving area of policy making and practice. Beyond the positive experiences reported by individual schools or clusters of schools, there are, as yet, no firm research-based conclusions to be drawn in relation to the issues raised in this paper. The final section provides some questions which are intended as prompts for further debate. While the examples explored in this paper are specific to the education of young people with learning difficulties, it is intended that the issues will have resonances for staff working with other learners in a range of contexts.
What should be taught?
According to the rhetoric of the time, the curriculum provided for pupils with learning difficulties in special schools in the 1970s and 1980s was designed to focus on teaching in response to the ‘needs’ of pupils. These needs tended to be defined in terms of practical skills for living, often called self-help skills, life skills or independence skills (see for example, Staff of Rectory Paddock School, 1981). The curriculum based on these priorities came to be seen as narrow and utilitarian (see for example, Sebba, Byers and Rose, 1993). In effect, the effort to equip pupils with learning difficulties with the skills needed for everyday life by offering a separate or alternative curriculum was regarded as disenfranchising these pupils from the community of learners in mainstream schools who, in contrast, were seen as enjoying access to a broad curriculum. The debate around these ideas was partly focused upon curricular content (broadly, subject matter or what is taught) and partly concerned with pedagogy. Some commentators criticised the specialist sector for over-emphasising the acquisition of practical skills (see, for example, Byers, 1994). By simply teaching pupils how to do things, some staff began to regard themselves as denying their learners knowledge and understanding about the world. Adherence to behaviourist teaching regimes came to be seen as a way of promoting an over-reliance on teacher-directed learning. Some colleagues wanted to make pupils more self-aware as learners by teaching them how to learn and empowering them to create their own learning opportunities through interaction and discovery (Nind and Hewett, 1994; Collis and Lacey, 1996).
The guidance associated with the introduction of the National Curriculum (NCC, 1989; NCC, 1990; NCC, 1992) was therefore greeted enthusiastically by some. Here was a ‘curriculum for all’ with common content. Some subjects were quickly seen as familiar, or relevant, or reasonably accessible by staff working with pupils with learning difficulties. According to this new agenda, everybody – whether in a mainstream or special school; with or without learning difficulties – could and should learn mathematics and science; English and art. Difficulties were encountered, however, when staff tried to develop inclusive responses to other subject areas. How were staff to teach history or modern foreign languages, for example, to pupils with profound learning difficulties? Questions were raised about the practicability of this task – and about the value of the outcomes. Some commentators questioned whether time spent creating ‘access’ to certain areas of the curriculum effectively disenfranchised pupils with learning difficulties from learning a range of essential skills for living; gaining understandings which may be important pre-requisites for learning; or benefiting from specialist approaches (see, for example, Pease and Chapman, 1992).
The revised National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) goes some way towards resolving some of these issues. It incorporates a framework for teaching personal, social and health education and citizenship for all pupils. This framework, and QCA’s associated guidance for staff working with pupils with learning difficulties (QCA/DfEE, 2001), focus on preparing young people for adult lives in a more inclusive society. Staff are encouraged to prepare young people to ‘play an active role as citizens’ and to help each pupil to develop ‘a healthy, safer lifestyle’ and ‘good relationships’. Set alongside the programmes of study for the full range of subjects, and opportunities for promoting spiritual, moral, social and cultural development across the curriculum, this suggests that all pupils will share in learning about all aspects of life; that they will be given access to the world of learning across all the disciplines.
In addition, it is proposed that all pupils learn a full range of essential skills. These key skills are defined as including, predictably and appropriately enough, basic communication skills; literacy and numeracy skills; and skills in the use of information technology. The broader key skills agenda encompasses learning about working with others; encouraging pupils to improve their own learning and performance; and problem solving. The revised National Curriculum also invites staff to take account of thinking skills, or ‘learning how to learn’. Further, staff working with pupils and students with learning difficulties are encouraged to address other priorities for learning, including:
- physical, orientation and mobility skills, for example, learning to hold, grasp and manipulate objects and developing independent movement between rooms;
- organisation and study skills, for example, learning to pay attention, to sustain interest and motivation and to complete a task independently;
- personal and social skills, for example, learning how to manage their own behaviour and emotions as well as how to eat, drink, dress and undress and use the toilet;
- daily living skills, for example, learning to use money and public transport and learning to cook and use kitchen appliances safely;
- leisure and recreation skills, for example, learning to make their own decisions about the use of time at home and to become involved in social organisations and the use of amenities in their local areas.
These skills are not designed to be taught separately but in the context of lessons or activities focused on other aspects of the curriculum. It is suggested, for example, (QCA/DfEE, 2001; DfEE, 2001; DfEE, 1998) that targets focusing upon skills such as these can be included in the individual education plans of pupils and students experiencing difficulties in learning. These targets may then be incorporated into plans for subject-focused group activities rather than being addressed in separately timetabled teaching opportunities. Where teaching and learning become integrated in this way, it is appropriate to acknowledge the importance of experiences in relation to the curriculum as well as focusing on measurable learning outcomes. This key idea is not, of course, unique to pupils with learning difficulties. The development of skills in key areas is now an entitlement for all learners (DfEE/QCA, 1999). All learners develop their key skills and thinking skills in the context of experiences that relate to various subjects in the curriculum. The idea of subjects providing experiential contexts for achievement in other areas of learning is well-established in the literature and in practice (see, for example, Byers and Rose, 1996; Grove and Peacey, 1999; Byers, 1999) and, far from being a specialist distortion of curricular entitlement, draws upon inclusive models for learning.