“They therefore require alternatives, such as Braille, tactile maps and diagrams and ‘talking books’ (recorded on to audiotape), if they are to participate fully in the curriculum.
They are also likely to need special help in order to develop their orientation and independent mobility in the environment.” (Berveridge,1999, p43)
The second of the special educational needs is ‘Physical Impairment’ which is a substantial area.
Henderson and Sugden (1991, cited in Berveridge (1999) estimate,
“Up to 15 per cent of pupils have a degree of physical impairment which can interfere with their progress at school.”
As Berveridge (1999) explains, physical impairments range from poorly developed motor coordination’s (such as dyspraxia), to more specific physical impairments (such as spina bifida) and the effects upon the child in the classroom are extensive,
“Some may experience difficulty with fine motor skills, such as handwriting and drawing, some with gross motor skills, for example in P.E. and games, and some with the planning and coordination of speech.
If their needs are not recognized, their self-confidence, social relationships and behaviour can also be affected” (p.44)
Cognitive impairments are associated with genetic disorders and birth problems. However as Berveridge (1999) suggests
“Environmental influences play a significant part, and that the interaction of within-child and environmental factors is complex.” (p.48)
Cognitive difficulties in children include Downs Syndrome, Autism and more recently Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD).
Berveridge (1999) points out that even though Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder is associated with behaviour it also has a “strong cognitive component” (p.48)
“They experience chronic and persistent difficulties in responding to classroom tasks and routines, and often demonstrate low self-esteem. Some children are prescribed medication intended to aid concentration and reduce impulsiveness and over-activity” (Berveridge,1999, p47)
Obviously with an increasing number of children being diagnosed with the condition classroom intervention is vital.
The category of Emotional and Behavioral difficulties is very hard to define due to the fact that there are so many varieties.
“Emotional and behavioural difficulties are manifest in many different forms and severity of behaviour. Children with these difficulties exhibit unusual problems of adaptation to a range of physical, social and personal situations. They may set up barriers between themselves and their learning environment through inappropriate, aggressive, bizarre or with drawn behaviour.” (DES, 1989c cited in Upton (1992) p.98)
Despite using this caption in his book, Upton (1992) later points out that it is very difficult to be able to distinguish between “emotional disturbance and behavioural problems”. He also states that placing children in to one of these categories is not always done through clinical assessment and perhaps just a method of dealing with a ‘problem child’.
Now I have a better understanding of special educational needs and how they are manifested within the classroom I will move onto the second research question,
‘How has legislation and the Local Education Authority responded to children with special educational needs?’
Gulliford and Upton (1992) claim that the term ‘special needs’ came into use in the late 1960’s. This was due to the fact that the terminology being used at the time to classify handicapped children into groups was unacceptable. (p.1)
Therefore, in 1970 The National Bureau for Co-operation in Child Care’s ‘Living with Handicap’ it was suggested that;
“Categories should be viewed not so much as a categorisation of handicaps not a categorisation of children but as a categorisation of special needs; moreover the concept of special needs should include personal and social needs as well as more strictly educational ones” (Cited in Gulliford and Upton (1992))
This was obviously an early breakthrough, it encompasses the notion that children should not be viewed and labelled simply from their problem/s and take on a wholeist approach by considering a variety of factors. It is also important to point out that previous to this children with special needs were often described as ‘maladjusted’.
In 1972 Margaret Thatcher backed the White Paper ‘Education: A Framework for Expansion (DES 1972) Mittler (2000) points out that despite the paper suggesting a large expansion of nursery education, in reality the paper delivered very little results.
1974 brought about the Warnock Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. Its aim was to review the current special educational provision.
“The committee wished to see a more positive approach and recommended the term special educational needs seen not simply in terms of a child’s particular disability but in relation to, ‘everything about him, his abilities as well as disabilities – indeed all the factors which have a bearing on his process’” (Gulliford and Upton 1992, p.2 )
The report made it the Local Education Authorities responsibility to assess special needs, this moved the focus away from a medical model of ‘diagnosis’.
The report identified the three main forms of integration,
“Locational – where special provision is available as a separate entity on the same site, but the children are not part of the mainstream classroom
Social – where children remain in their special unit/class for core subject teaching but attend mainstream classes for some subjects such as art, music, physical education
Functional – where children with special needs are full members of the mainstream classes and class teachers take full responsibility for their education”
Warnock Report (1978) cited in Wall (2003)
The Children Act of 1981 also stressed the Warnock reports principles and gave thorough definitions of special educational needs (as seen previously)
It emphasised the need for “effective multidisciplinary working systems” Wall (2003)
“The Children Act, like the 1981 Act, clearly defines the need for communication between teachers, the school health service and social services departments (SSDs) as well as between the LEA and SSDs at a senior management level”
(Anderson-Ford (1994;20) as cited in Wall (2003))
However, more recently the 1989 has been surpassed by the Education Act 1993 in which the secretary of state was required to issue a code of practice on special educational needs and more responsibility for parents.
This provided guidance to the Local Education Authorities and school governors regarding their responsibilities towards children with special educational needs.
The SEN legal website emphasies the right for parents to appeal on behalf of their child, if they are dissatisfied with the education authorities treatment or their child, for example if their child has been placed in a ‘special school’.
This is due to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal System (SENDIST) which stemmed from the Education Act of 1993
Soon after in 1994 a Code of Practice ‘guidance document’ was produced including identification and assessment of special educational needs (which included a statement of the child’s special educational needs) and regular reviews of process, provision and statements.
But perhaps most importantly was the introduction of the special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) (Wall (2003) p.15)
The introduction of a special educational needs co-ordinator is significant because it provides pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools with a structure within the curriculum to suit the child’s specific needs.
Since then the Code of Practice has been revisited in 2001 which led to The Special Educational Needs and Disability Discrimination Act also in 2001.
The new Code of Practice (2001) cited in Wall (2003) has updated several important factors including,
“A stronger right for children with SEN to be educated at a mainstream school” (p.18)
This leads on to my final research question, which is;
‘Is it possible for children with special educational needs (SEN) to be educated into mainstream institutions?’
It is obvious from researching the legislation into special educational needs that the focus has been on trying whereever possible to intergrate children with special educational needs with other children in mainstream schools.
It is now unaccecable to simply attriblute a childs learning difficulties to a disibility. As Jones (2004) explains that with the ‘whithin child’ or ‘individualistic’ model “The focus of atterntion is on the individual learner or child who is deficient in some way or who has the ‘problem’ (p.9)
She continues to explain,
“It can also refer to the dominance of medical professionals in ‘diagnosis’ of a difficulty” (Jones 2003, p.9)
As discussed previously one of the main focuses with new special educational needs legislation was the move away from simplistic categories of disability and instead leaving the role assessing every aspect of the child’s life to the Local Education Authorities.
However, despite the introduction of special educational needs legislation to promote integration between children within schools, by using its terminology alone creates somewhat of the same problem.
Children are not being medical diagnosed with a disability but instead they are separated in another way as Jones explains,
“On the one hand, we are encouraged to work towards ‘inclusion’; on the other, the language of SEN, rooted in the medical model of disability, legitimises the idea that some children are ‘normal’ while others are ‘special’. (Jones 2003, p.11)
The definition of ‘inclusion’ is provided by Mittler (2000)
“Inclusion implies a radical reform of the school in terms of curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and grouping of pupils” (p.10)
Therefore, referring back to the problem of the stigma which can be carried by a child with the label of ‘special’ is it possible for those children to be included?
Booth (1999) cited in Mittler (2000) points out that inclusion into mainstream institution is not simply isolation from exclusion,
“I define inclusion in terms of two linked processes. It is the process of increasing participation of learners in and reducing their exclusion form the curricula, cultures and communities of neighbourhood mainstream centres of learning” (p.11)
If this is the case then in the following journal, ‘Which strategies are effective for supporting primary aged children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in mainstream classrooms’, the inclusion of special educational needs children has been possible;
“Common to all was the provision of rewards such as minutes of free time for play (sometimes with chosen peers) or listening to music for on-task and non-disruptive behaviour, and loss of rewards for off-task and disruptive behaviour” (Evans, Harden and Thomas 2004 p.5.)
The method seemed to be successful, there was a reduction in disruptive behaviour from the pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties,
“Because of the whole class nature of these interventions, an element of peer support and pressure appears to be important for the success of these strategies” (Evans, Harden and Thomas 2004 p.5.)
Despite the problem of labelling, this is clearly an example of successful inclusion of children with special educational needs within a mainstream classroom setting.
Obviously it is only a very small representation of the large amount of special educational needs, but with the appropriate interventions it seems that mainstream education is and can be a reality.
Methology and Methods
In order to obtain rich qualitative data and opinions this small scale investigation will include one interview and a questionnaire distributed to 10 people, half of which will be via email and the other half to be giving to personally.
The purpose of these interviews is to expand the topic of special educational needs to discover whether there are any additional issues apart form the research questions which might be relevant, for example of personal experience by the interviewee. Because of this I have decided to use a ‘Semi-structured’ approach
“A Semi-structured interview schedule involves a set of questions, which are phrased in such a way as to allow a respondent to answer relatively openly” (Hayes, 2000, p.121)
The questionnaire will consist of around 5 open ended questions leaving the opportunity for the respondents to add their own thoughts and ideas, however some of the questions will be closed yes/no responses in order to perhaps compile some statistical evidence.
Due to the small scale of the investigation it is only practical to use a textual analysis approach. This involves dissecting the interviews, which have taken place, and highlighting any important ideas and findings.
Using multiple methods of investigation provides a better picture of what is being researched so triangulation of the results will be possible to some extent. It would not be appropriate to triangulate the data from interviews and a questionnaire alone in a larger research project However it will be interesting to compare and analyse the specific experiences of the interviewees and the questionnaires results with each other.
Access and Ethical Issues
I have considered the ethical implications and consequences of using interviews and questionnaires from research participants which conforms to the guidelines published by the British Psychological society (1990) cited in Hayes (2000).
This includes gaining their informed consent and fully debriefing them regarding the nature and purpose of the research.
Also, I have given the participants the opportunity to withdraw their contribution before including it in the project.
Perhaps most importantly, all the data I have obtained is fully confidential, I have specifically told the participants of the questionnaire not to write their names and have not disclosed the name of the interviewee.
For the questionnaire, I have chosen to use a process called “opportunist sampling”
“Effectively, this consists of asking whichever members of the population are available to complete the survey” ” (Hayes 2000 p.86)
Obviously the cross section of participants are likely to be of a similar age and situation of myself but I believe the results will be valuable due to the fact that they (the correspondents) would have fairly recently completed compulsory education.
The majority of the age group would have experienced some of the most important changes in SEN policy in the last 20 years.
Conclusion
After receiving nine of the ten questionnaires back from participants, the results were very interesting.
I think it was useful to email the questionnaires as I received all five of them very quickly. Only one person did not return the questionnaire by hand and this was due to the fact that they lost it.
Five out of nine correspondents had heard of the phrase ‘special educational needs’, those who had heard of the phrase and gave a reasonably correct definition had experienced some form of learning difficulties whether it was in their family or personally. Only one respondent had heard of the phrase ‘special educational needs’ and not had any experience of it themselves, however, their definition was inaccurate, just stating that special educational needs referred to ‘disabled people’.
The fact that only those who had experienced some form of learning difficulties could give a reasonable description of special educational needs is interesting.
It suggests that other ‘normal’ learners are either not aware of special educational needs, unless perhaps they are physical or more worryingly they;
“Deny the reality of disability in that the apparent wish to avoid creating negative labelling effects is tantamount to denying all differences” (Jones 2004 p.10)
Perhaps this is an exaggeration there are some who by non-labelling disability suggest that,
“Disability is no problem; it should be disregarded and not seen” (Soder 1992 cited in Jones 2004 p.11)
Out of the respondents who had experienced learning difficulties they had been responded tp in some way, the majority were not satisfied with the response.
One respondent stated that they were not satisfied with the response of their school, that the school should had identified the dyslexia and that there should have been more support in the classroom.
This suggests that without the support of parents, the respondent would have not received the extra help she needed. Children with parents who are involved in their education seem to be overly aware of learning disabilities. The Code of Practice 1994 stated that,
“If parents were to request and assessment of their child’s needs then the LEA must carry this out” (Wall 2003 p.17)
I seems that the control is in the hands of the parents regarding the educational wellbeing of children, however, this suggests that the children of parents who are not involved in their child’s education could be getting a ‘raw deal’
The results from the interview were similar to the responses of some of the questionnaire. The interview entailed the experience of a boy (now aged 18) with dyslexia and the responses of his school.
The Special Educational Needs Coordination should have been responsible for;
“Liaising with and advising fellow teachers, coordinating provision for pupils with SEN and liaison with parents” (Wall 2003 p.16)
In this example the interviewee was provided with extra classroom assistance which when looking he describes as beneficial, however, he describes being separated from the other children as difficult and upsetting.
“Groups and individual children are assigned specific labels, often leading to special or segregated provision. This contradicts the notion of inclusion and the drive to make early years setting more inclusive” (Jones 2003 p.11)
It is obvious that the extra help provided did substantially help the interviewee but it seems it was at the cost of himself feeling segregated from the rest of the class.
From the results I have gathered I believe that inclusion of special educational needs children into mainstream classrooms is a reality however there needs to be a rethink about the practical application of this. The results show that of the number of people who have experienced learning difficulties, they have been responded to appropriately by the school and parents etc, however this is only because we openly aware of special educational needs, the stigma of a label that a child has to carry is a much more important issue.
If I was to do the research project again I would defiantly send all the questionnaire of by email because the response was very good, however, I would try a larger variety of respondents and formulate patterns in the results according to age.
One interview gave a small insight to a single experience but I believe that a larger amount of single interview and/or a focus group interview involving people of similar experiences would improve results greatly.
Mittler, P. (2000) Working Towards Inclusive Education. Social Contexts. 3rd edn. London: David Fulton
Wall, K. (2003) Special Needs and Early Years. 1st edn. London: Paul Chapman
Jones, C.A (2004) Supporting Inclusion in the Early Years. 1st edn. Berkshire: Open University Press
Beveridge…
Gulliford, R. Upton, G (1992) Special Educational Needs. 1st edn. London: Routledge