Special Educational Needs in Initial Teacher Education (SENITE)
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Teacher Education North and South [SCOTENS]
Report of SENITE Conference,
Trinity College, Dublin. Monday 22nd & 23rd March 2004
Delegates:
David Carey. Froebel College
Patricia Eaton. University College Galway
Anne Marie Farrell. St Patrick's College, Drumcondra.
Sean Griffin St. Nicholas Montessori.
Hugh Kearns. Stranmillis University
Jackie Lambe. University of Ulster
Bernard McGettrick. University College Dublin
T.D.Hourihane. University College Cork
Maeve Martin NUI Maynooth
Ena Morley, Marino College
Ruby Morrow, Church of Ireland College of Education (CICE)
Eileen Winter Queens University Belfast
Michael Shevlin. Trinity College Dublin
Don Mahon, Divisional Inspector, Department of Education, ROI
Paddy Manning Education and Training Inspectorate DENI
Frank Quinn. St Mary's University College, Belfast
Conference Objectives
In the context of Special Educational Needs and Initial Teacher Education the conference sought to conduct a shared review and assessment of practice in the North and South of Ireland, to establish a supportive network of researchers and practitioners and to develop a rationale for future action.
Introductory speakers:
Hugh Kearns & Michael Shevlin introduced the conference theme from the perspectives and contexts of teacher education in each of their own jurisdictions. Paddy Manning (Department of Education, Education and Training Inspectorate Northern Ireland) and Don Mahon (Department of Education Inspectorate, Republic of Ireland) each reviewed SEN provision in schools in their jurisdictions. These introductions outlined the implications of recent and emerging trends in Initial Teacher Education and in provision for Special Educational Needs North and South. They developed a rationale for the organisation and the objectives of the conference and the issues upon which the views of representatives needed to be sought. The following discussion ensued:
Teacher education in the North of Ireland has been focussed around the NITEC (Northern Ireland Teacher Education Committee) competence framework introduced in 1998 integrating the work of a teacher education partnership including the university/colleges, the Education and Library Boards and schools. The planned development of SEN competence throughout the three stages (Initial, Induction and Early Professional Development) was outlined and considered by conference. The implications of the introduction of the North of Ireland Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (also introduced in 1998) for teacher education were also reviewed. The combined implications of these two major reforms indicated a sequential acquisition of five explicit SEN “competences” throughout the three stages of teacher education. The effects of the introduction of a common curriculum and an extended role for school-based training upon the special education content of initial teacher education were also considered. In the Republic of Ireland there has been less centralised control of teacher education, teacher induction, continuing professional development, the curriculum and of procedures for managing Special Educational Needs but trends indicate considerable increase in resources, a growing interest in prescription on all of these matters and a great diversity of developments under a wide range of peripheral and centralised initiatives. The implications for schools, teachers and teacher education of greater regulation and the linking of SEN funding to pupils and services were considered. There were lessons to learn from NI and from English practice [to which NI has been closely aligned because of direct rule and the continuing difficulties of the NI Assembly]. There is also a danger that bureaucratic assessment and prescription might easily dominate teacher education and the politicised / litigious development of SEN detract from young teachers natural relationships with pupils in need. There were real dilemmas facing teacher educators: A medical model of SEN was necessary for reasons of accountability. Traditional notions of SEN needed to be constructed but greater inclusion meant that SEN had also to be deconstructed. Knowledge about SEN and knowledge about teacher development had to be integrated. Teachers need to be aware of political, legal, medical, charity, rights and cultural discourses around SEN and be able to think in more inclusive ways. They needed SEN competence but not as a bolt-on to existing teacher education programmes. A wide range of SEN competence needed to be embedded in ITE courses
Institutional Reports of Practice
Individual representatives had already reported by e-mail survey to the conference upon the SEN content of their ITE programmes. Representatives reported upon:
1. Programme level (under / postgraduate); 2. Teaching phase (primary or post primary); 3. Curriculum content (title/s, objectives); 4. Requirement (optional or compulsory / assessed or certified); 5. Practical or theoretical / awareness; 6. Trainer Expertise (Visiting speakers); 7. Staff SEN experience / qualifications / development initiatives; 8. Formal institutional policy for SEN within training; 9. Disabled student entry to teacher education. The information provided included courses with SEN, disability or learning difficulties in the title and was therefore collated as a set of first draft institutional reports, not to be disseminated until representatives had a better idea of the groups definition of what constituted SEN provision. Was differentiated teaching, teaching through ICT, assessment in classrooms to be included? Was teaching ethnic minorities to be included? There had been no formal institutional reviews following an agreed definition of SEN provision informing the reports of representatives. A wide range of practice was reported. In all institutions there were courses that were compulsory and in most institutions courses that were optional. Postgraduate SEN courses and special school experience were popular with students but more direct student contact with SEN pupils was needed. Placements are difficult to organise for everyone due to the shortage of schools and experienced tutors. Contact time on SEN courses varies widely. Specialist training in specific severe difficulties is difficult to provide or justify for all students. Overviews of the continuum of needs and provisions are common with recommended independent learning resources for further study. Provision for gifted children is addressed on some courses but does not fall under the definition of SEN in NI. Training in collaborative working and in the maintenance of parent and pupil relationships is difficult to organise on school placements, particularly among secondary students. Newly qualified teachers can never be fully competent in teaching children with SEN and realistic targets had to be set for all students and for those who choose greater specialist experience and knowledge. Graded assessment of students placed in special schools raised problems fro students particularly when the last teaching placement and the one most chosen for SEN placements was assessed. The same criteria could not be applied for all students on the final placement.
Research and Development Workshop: Towards a Strategic Plan.
Representatives considered research and development priorities in the area that might extend ITE provision or knowledge about practice. A set of principles underpinning SEN within ITE should be developed. A pedagogy or set of strategies should be identified whereby these principles might be realised. A set of packages should be identified for different students: A mandatory package for all students in primary and in post primary schools; an advanced package for students who have sufficient time, need and/or interest to explore further. These packages should have college based and school based elements and be taught in partnership with schools. One particularly engaging issue was indicated to be the challenge of “embedding” SEN issues within many or all aspects of ITE. Could provision be effective if it was only discrete and not embedded? Could provision be effective if it was only embedded and not discrete? It was argued that subject, curriculum and teaching studies might seek to focus more upon the diversity of actual pupil performance and achievement within subjects, upon the totality of the individual pupils responsible for the performance and upon the strategies subject departments employ to address underachievement. Should subject study embrace the diversity of students studying the subject? Locating SEN within literacy, numeracy and personal/social development was necessary but limiting.
Many issues were identified for further research and for consideration at a second conference. A summary is provided below:
Questions:
1. The phasing of SEN content and experience within ITE: Early, later or throughout? Students are said to be concerned about themselves initially, then about curriculum and latterly about pupils. When are they ready? Are some more ready than others? Should competence with mainstream pupils be demonstrated first? Is this an excluding philosophy? Teaching practice grades are decided in the final placement. Completing SEN school experience later could be unpopular if there are fixed criteria for the assessment of teaching for all students.
2. The focus or balance of SEN content and experience within ITE: Which areas of SEN (disabilities and models) have priority? To what extent should courses promote an inclusive as contrasted with a medical model; provide a set of diagnostic or precision teaching skills; embrace fully the dilemmatic nature of SEN; be integrated within some or all aspects of curriculum study; adopt a legal or bureaucratic approach; focus upon bureaucratic systems for identification, assessment, recording communication and negotiation; be resource focussed; be integrated within pedagogical knowledge or teaching skills; be practical and task focussed in schools; develop philosophical perspectives; be embedded in general learning theory and theories of development; be prescriptive or facilitate case-based reasoning? These issues perhaps offer a range of alternatives appropriate within different institutions, courses, to different students and tutors. The politicised, cultural and value laden dimensions of SEN present challenges to achieving balance in limited time.
3. The minimum/maximum contact and study time that should/can be allocated within postgraduate and undergraduate courses; Should this be prescribed? Need it be?
4. The assessment of SEN knowledge and competence in ITE: Can/should it be assessed independently? To what extent and in which areas should the emphasis be on knowledge, understanding, reflective practice?
5. The diversity of trainers who should be included in delivery: Is this a political issue, a matter of balance, of priority? Is the politicised nature of SEN to be developed for students or is this a free forum for different points of view?
6. The organisation of visits and placements by students and/or institutions: Can we be in control if students organise their own placements? What messages does this send to schools and students? Are there additional legal, insurance issues? What role do we seek through partnership with schools in this regard? Is our role the same as with mainstream pupils. Should needy pupils be placed under student care with the same level of student supervision as mainstream pupils? Are schools and staff with SEN responsibilities ready for training students? Have they less experience of students? Do we need to prepare them? Can/ should our student meet with parents and have access to confidential reports?
7. The mentoring of students on SEN placements: Who in universities is competent to mentor? Must all/more tutors become competent? Can the inexperienced play a useful part? How will expertise become more diffuse?
8. Existing boundaries in ITE: Are the phase boundaries in teacher education and school experience (early years, lower primary, upper primary and secondary) supportive of the dissemination of SEN expertise? Are the subject boundaries and the prescriptions of subject/disciplinary knowledge supportive of inclusive curricula? Will SEN specialist training harm the career prospects of some student teachers who aspire to subject specialism? Does SEN in ITE threaten existing boundaries? Are ITE tutors justified in disengaging because of ignorance? Have SEN specialist staff to have more authority in the area?
9. The relationship between the embedded and the discrete content of courses: There are adverse messages from bolt-on provision and difficulties in finding the pervasive or embedded content.
10. The ICT component of SEN training within ITE: Has it particular relevance? Is this to be embedded for all or discrete?
11. The importance of classroom management / collaborative teaching (including team teaching and experience of SEN support teachers / classroom assistants) in student preparation for meeting SEN.
12. The place of a broader study of inclusive practice: teaching other excluded groups: minorities; speakers of other languages; racism in schools; disadvantage, gifted pupils.
Further research (Requirement for additional funding)
Institutional Views:
We believe that we need to run focus group interviews and workshops with a broader range of academic staff who have overall responsibility for the different strands of ITE programmes at postgraduate and undergraduate level in Ireland (eg: the education disciplines, subject studies, curriculum studies, teaching studies etc). We would like to target four institutions, one in each jurisdiction, one with responsibility for undergraduate and one for postgraduate courses.
Views of other resources/providers:
We would very much like to include mainstream and special school principals, student mentors in schools and regional SEN support services with a view to exploring the extension of training partnership arrangements, seeking to assess what training schools and support services can provide, how parents, other professionals and NGOs can contribute. The development of these as resources for active student learning activities is a particular interest. We would expect to produce a support manual or resource clarifying the possibilities and describing best practice.
Student Views:
We would also like to interview students who have and have not chosen to take optional SEN modules. We would like to ask: What are student teacher beliefs, expressed needs, interests, and perceptions in respect of SEN? How can ITE pedagogy access these beliefs and respond to them? What do they gain from existing provision? What do they seek to learn further?
Hugh Kearns & Michael Shevlin, May 11 2004
1