Understanding educational support

University Degree Education and Teaching

Understanding Educational Support

Warnock Report

Two reports written in the late 70’s challenged the concept of remedial education and with it the ‘Child-Deficit Model’. The first of these was the report of the Warnock Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People in May 1978 (DES, 1978). It is considered by many as a seminal report in the area of special needs education replacing the former statutory categories of handicap with the concept of special educational needs. The other report heralding a shift in thinking about special educational needs was the HMI Report on Pupils with Learning Difficulties (HMSO, 1978).

Special educational needs as defined in the Warnock Report encompassed a wider concept than previously which only included handicapped children to also include children with emotional and behavioural disorders. The underlying thinking of this new term was that children may suffer from multiple disabilities, however, it is not the disability itself but rather the educational need that determines the educational provision required. The report further acknowledges the negative effect labels can have and also recommended the end to distinction between handicapped and non-handicapped. Although recommending an end to labelling children as handicapped, the authors of the report unfortunately continue to refer to these children as handicapped. Nevertheless, the report recommended that the nature of assessment should concentrate on the support children need rather than categorising children into different disability levels.

The report recommended five stages of assessment with increasing involvement of professional specialist expertise. If an educational need had been assessed, the educational help should be provided to children below the age of two. It was additionally recommended that nursery provision should be increased in generally with the immediate effect that more children with special educational needs could be integrated; hence the importance of early intervention was stressed. Provision for recorded children should also be extended beyond the age of 16.

The report acknowledges the central role of the parents, not only as being the first educators of their child but also being instrumental in assessing and completing the educational programme suitable for the child.

Finally, the report highlights the need for teacher education and training, although it initially seems to be more concerned with the ability of teachers to assess special educational needs rather than supporting children with special educational needs.

While certain documents praise the Warnock Report with regards to its support of inclusion (defined as special education in mainstream school) Warnock Report ACE Summary (The Advisory Centre for Education, 2001) others are more critical and go as far as suggesting that Inclusion in England has been held back as a result of the Warnock Report (Thomas and Vaughan, 2005); however, Thomas and Vaughan still acknowledge that integration, as inclusion was referred to at that time, was put on the agenda by the Warnock report.

HMI Report on Pupils with Learning Difficulties 1978

The report collated by HM Inspectors focuses on pupils with learning difficulties in primary and secondary schools in Scotland (HMSO, 1978). For this purpose 140 primary and 39 secondary schools were visited over a two-year period. The report provides a brief historical background on the origins and development of remedial education, highlighting that the fault for not progressing within the education system was down to pupils and that this shortcoming can be ‘put right’. Following this introduction, the authors take great care in describing the experience of pupils with learning difficulties in schools outlining the downfalls of remedial education and the lack of time for discussion with teachers about the underlying problems which were very rarely addressed. The authors stressed on numerous occasions the problem of remedial education as: falling behind class work, being absent from classes pupils actually enjoy and failure to monitor progress effectively and provide a progressive structure. The authors however, stress the good work carried out by remedial teachers. The transition stage from primary to secondary school was considered to be very important for these children as they find it more difficult to come to terms with new experiences. For the very first time, it was indicated that the curriculum, the language used in the specialised subject and the task allocated in schools can cause its own learning difficulties; a move therefore from remedial to an appropriate curriculum. An important point stressed in the report is that the responsibility for pupils with learning difficulties needs to be seen as a whole-school responsibility. Every class teacher is responsible for pupils in his/her class and to ensure that the language used makes the curriculum accessible to all. The authors also promote the use of discussion as a teaching tool as this encourages pupils to talk through the learning process and clarify any misunderstandings at a level they understand.

Education (Scotland) Act 1981 and minor changes

The philosophy of both reports were encapsulated in the Education (Scotland) Act 1981: minimising the distinction between pupils with needs and other pupils, replacing the system that focused on handicap rather than educational need and to increase parental participation. It additionally required local authorities to introduce a Record of Needs outlining a child’s special educational needs and the provision allocated with a view of providing an adequate and appropriate curriculum. The law also enlisted a need to review future needs, appointment of a Named Person and the right to appeal for parents.

As a study has shown the legislation has not yet achieved its mission of reduciing the difference between disabled and non-disabled and to appreciate pupils as individuals (Dyer and Thompson, SCRE 1988).

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989

This is a preview of the whole essay

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989

The convention on the right of the child ratified in 1989 by the General Assembly was part of a wider move towards greater equality and inclusiveness. In 1991 the UK adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which emphasis as in Article 28 the right of all children to receive education based on equal opportunity and in Article 23 the right of disabled children to effective education. The Salamanca Statement in 1994 strengthened this position by recommending that all countries should introduce inclusive education for disabled children.

EPSEN Report by SOEID 1994

The EPSEN report (SOEID, 1994) stresses on how schools and agencies associated with the children should identify and provide for children with special educational needs. Special educational needs is seen as barriers to learning or difficulties in learning and in the report a working definition of special educational needs is given which includes the curriculum and the delivery of the curriculum as a potential source for special educational needs. It recommends 10 distinctive features for the effective provision for special educational needs starting from children under five and continuing to further education colleges. The document, unlike in England the statuary code, it is not a legal document. It further includes:

Five roles of a support for learning teacher
Needs model changed into Support for Learning
Meeting the needs of these children is pivotal.

Manual of Good Practice 1998

Many of the local authorities had adopted good practice on the basis of the EPSEN report and the Manual of Good Practice (SOEID, 1998) was published to share these good examples in the three areas of working together, providing an appropriate curriculum and involving young people in the decision-making process. The manual uses the approach for identifying good practice from the document of ‘How good is your school?” (HMIE, 2002) which focuses on “How are we doing?”, “How do we know?” and “What are you going to do now?”

Standards in Scotland’s Schools Act 2000

The Standards in Scotland’s Schools Act was introduced to give all children the right to education and makes it a requirement for local authorities to provide mainstream education. Education should be viewed as a more holistic approach rather than focusing on academic attainment. This reflects the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, there are exceptional circumstances in which young people may not be fully included in a mainstream school; these are: mainstream schooling is not suited to the pupil’s ability level, other pupils’ learning would be disrupted and unreasonable high cost is involved in fulfilling mainstreaming. The Act also introduced new rights for children and parents to be more involved in the decision process of the educational provision. The five national priorities give the strategic direction for the school improvement framework as outlined in the Act.

Education (Disability Strategy & Pupils’ Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002

With this act it has become a legal requirement for all educational establishments to meet the needs of young disabled persons effectively. The main emphasis is on effective access, communication and support. With effective access it not only includes the physical access to the school buildings but to improve access to the curriculum which constitutes a more challenging task for schools. The school in addition has the duty to provide school information in a range of suitable formats such as audiotapes, large print and Braille.

Moving forward! Additional Support for Learning, SEED 2003

This is a visionary document outlining the changes to strengthen the current arrangements for identifying and meeting the needs of children within education. The report (SEED, 2003) discusses the proposed changes in the evolving framework of support for learning and links them to the five national priorities for education. The introduction of the document starts with the underlying principles on which all support for learning should be based: highlighting the need for a child-centred education which takes an holistic approach, requesting that allocation of resources demonstrates the importance of inclusion and that views of parents need to be respected. The remainder of the document lays out the vision of support for learning within the context of the five national priorities; these were a result of a consultation exercise by the Scottish Parliament in December 2000. In this report the term special educational needs was criticised as having negative connotations, which represents a radical change in thinking (Hamill and Clark, 2005). The concept of additional support needs was suggested and it was called for a new legal framework encompassing this new concept.

Count us in report, HMIE 2003

The “Count us in” report by the HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE, 2003) represents the findings of HMIE of effective practice of inclusion in Scottish schools. In the first chapter the complexity of inclusion in schools and how professionals need to be flexible and innovative to make inclusion work is discussed. Chapter two provides a short overview of legislation and policies regarding inclusion. Chapter three, four and five identify the characteristics of inclusive schools, highlighting indicators of successful schools and advocates key approaches to inclusive schooling. These include the following features: an ethos of achievement for all pupils, to value a broad range of talents and abilities, to promote success and self-esteem by removing barriers to learning, to counter discrimination and but finally to promote an understanding of diversity.

Code of Practice to support the new framework

The Code of Practice is intended to offer guidance and advice to all those who have a duty under the Act. The final version of the code consists of eight chapters covering a summary of the Additional Support for Learning Act, defining additional support needs and how these needs can be met. Chapter four focuses exclusively on the co-ordinated support plan and chapter five explicitly on transition stages. The remaining chapters focus on working with children and families, resolving disagreements and general provisions.

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004

The new Additional Support for Learning sets out a new, single system for supporting pupil’s learning which makes it a legal duty and not just good practice. It focuses on learning outcomes rather than difficulties, therefore presenting a significant shift in thinking about additional support needs. The concept of additional support needs casts a far wider net. It gives parents and young people new rights and education authorities new duties with mediation services for all.

It replaces the Records of needs with a co-ordinated support plan or additional support plan as applied in some local authorities. A multi-agency approach is advocated with one person responsible for coordination of the various agencies involved.

Pupils with additional support requirements will be given a personal pathway through the curriculum with IEPs (Individualised Educational Programmes). An IEP focuses on communication and language, numeracy and personal and social development with short and long-term targets; these are, however, not legally required.

Providing an appropriate curriculum and effective teaching and learning

I will be concentrating on providing an appropriate curriculum as being a common source of barriers of learning. This was highlighted in several of the documents, starting with PWLD report which was the first to recognise the possibility of the barriers to learning not originating from pupils but from the curriculum on offer. In most of the documents it is highlighted that children should receive an appropriate curriculum – a rather vague description of a very complex area. It was also highlighted in the “Count Us In” report how pivotal the curriculum is in achieving inclusive schooling. I will also be discussing the approaches to learning and teaching as it is through our approach to learning and teaching we convey our fundamental beliefs about learning and teaching. It is in the day-to-day interaction with pupils that we give powerful signals about how much we value an inclusive approach to supporting all learners in a school and having the opportunity to listen to pupils. Hamill and Boyd (2002) have drawn up a list of characteristics an inclusive teacher should show; pupils themselves listed these characteristics.

An introduction to the school

I have been working as a part-time supply teacher in Support for Learning in a state secondary school X since the beginning of September. School X is a non-denominational, coeducational, comprehensive school which caters for pupils aged 11 to 18.

The School X, built in 1974, has accommodation for 1455 pupils and is well known for its excellent record of academic achievement. Fourth and fifth year results are well above the average results obtained within its local authority and compared to the whole of Scotland. The staying on rates beyond fourth year are significantly higher than the average in its local authority and there are only 4.5% of pupils receiving free meal entitlement (scottishschoolsonline, 2006). The Support for Learning has currently 2.4 allocation of learning staff which includes the principal teacher, a 0.9 full-time network teacher, a 0.6 peripatetic teacher working with pupils with hearing impairment and a 0.3 peripatetic teacher working with pupils for whom English is an additional language.

Providing an appropriate curriculum

The learning support unit publishes a statement to all teachers that pupils with additional support needs with a general learning difficulty should receive an appropriate curriculum which should be achieved by curricular demands, expectation and presentation. This corresponds to the approaches outline in the EPSEN Report in which an appropriate curriculum and individualised educational programmes were recommended. To provide an appropriate curriculum the following was recommended in this report: differentiation, individualisation, adaptation, enhancement and elaboration.

For S1 pupils making the move from primary all pupils are in mixed ability classes their reported level of reading and writing in English and Mathematics are transferred to the secondary school. For pupils with additional support needs who had an IEP in primary, this information has also been transferred to secondary school. In their current IEP a general profile about the pupil is given in addition to general recommendations on how to work with these pupils. The IEPs were written by the class teacher in conjunction with the support for learning teacher without any input from pupils themselves. Pupils with general learning difficulties receive additional support from a classroom assistant either general or specific for support for learning or input from a support for learning teacher in English, Mathematics and Science. Since I have been mainly in English classes, I will limit discussion of curricular issues to English. At this stage (S1) in English, all pupils are reading the same novel; hence differentiation is only carried out by outcome. As I have limited experience working in this school, I have only experienced one English teacher at the S1 stage. No differentiated worksheets were available but the subject teacher assumed that all pupils are provided with an appropriate curriculum due to the additional support from a classroom assistants and support for learning teachers.

From S2, pupils with an IEP receive additional input from classroom assistants and support for learning teachers in order to cope with the demands of the curriculum. Nevertheless, when National Testing was carried out, pupils in the same class sat National Tests starting from level C up to level F; although all pupils had been doing the same work over the previous few months.

From S3 onwards pupils follow Standard Grade or the Higher Still Programme and due to the continued practice of setting, there are several classes with low attainment levels and the majority of one class has pupils who have an IEP. As these classes often have behavioural problems, the classes have been separated into single female and male classes. If pupils experience continued problems with the curriculum, tutorial groups run by a support for learning teacher are provided for English and Mathematics which provide excellent support for pupils and offer pupils not only additional support in English and Mathematics but also life and communication skills. Pupils with additional communication and language difficulties also have access to the Language Support Base.

Critique of the practice

As highlighted in the ‘Effective Provision for Special Educational Needs’ report (SOEID, 1994) a well thought-out curriculum should be based on the principles of breadth, balance, progression, continuity and coherence. Hamill and Clark (2005) further stress that these principles are implemented by careful differentiation and IEPs.

With regard to current legislation the school fulfils its requirement as the five principles for an appropriate curriculum are open to interpretation and therefore the practice in most schools can be justified in relation to the five principles of differentiation, individualisation, adaptation, enhancement and elaboration.

Based on a common premise that we all have varying degrees of abilities, one might argue that grouping according to ability might be best to serve pupils’ varying needs. The difficulty then exists in identifying a fair means of testing for ability, which in itself is a complex, contentious area, and based on current knowledge would need to take account of multiple intelligences, cultural background and experience. Needs, furthermore, should not only be viewed in terms of academic knowledge but also take into consideration the relevance of the topics taught for pupils, motivation, confidence, skills, understanding and feedback (SCCC, 1996).

Although primary schools provide attainment levels in English and Mathematics, very little apparent use is made of this information. In order to provide progression for all pupils, in particular at the transition stage, subject teacher should use the information to provide differentiated work for pupils as done in primary school; the work should not need to be narrowly categorised as this can send very powerful signals about perceived ability and its detrimental effect on self-esteem and motivation (Hart, 2003) The danger of setting emerged from the study by Jackson (1964) namely, that setting/streaming resulted in a disproportionate number of working-class pupils being set into low ability groups and being taught by teachers with less experience and fewer qualifications. This certainly runs counter to the notion of inclusion. As highlighted by various practitioners, school had certainly the responsibilities in “breaking down the patterns of differential status, power and class’ (Cohen et al., 2003, p. 203). For real inclusion, “the education environment does not have to be built on competitiveness, success for a few, and sorting people into those who achieve and those who do not.” (Nind, 2003, p.3)

Since the school has IEPs for all pupils with additional support needs, the school fulfils its requirements with regards to the existence of IEPs. Unfortunately, however, the IEPs for S1/S2 pupils do not contain any measurable short- and long-term targets and the recommendations made for pupils with general learning difficulties are all very similar; a common misunderstanding made by many educationalists –pupils with the same additional support need are grouped into an almost homogenous group forgetting the individual differences (Farrell, 2001; Phillips and Jenner, 2003).

Effective approaches to learning and teaching

In the EPSEN report the effective approaches to learning and teaching for pupils with additional support needs as being equally relevant to all pupils. These can be roughly divided into three main categories of planning, relationship with pupils and teacher attitude of pupils being capable of learning and assessment. In the category of planning, it is assumed that the teacher constructs tasks with a stimulating and relevant, makes the task achievable, breaks the task into manageable steps and is given the correct level of support.

The school has a detailed policy outlining approaches to effective learning and teaching stressing the similar principles to the effective approaches to learning and teaching as outlined in the EPSEN report.

I will describe my experience of a S2 class in technical drawing as my experience in this school is very limited as I only work 2 days per week and my timetable changed initially weekly so that I not always supported the same pupils has the department has undergone changes in staff. There are several pupils with IEPs in this class and these are supported by one support for learning teacher. As one pupil has not only difficulties with coordination but also considerable difficulty staying on task, I spend most of the time supporting this pupil as the tasks are very difficult for him. In terms of approaches to learning and teaching there is no differences made for pupil with additional support needs by the teacher as supporting pupils with ASN is considered to be the task of the support for learning teacher. All pupils are given whole class instructions, which are very clear and broken down into manageable steps for the majority of pupils.

The reason for the teacher not spending more time with the pupils with the greatest need of support is that the teacher believes that you either have an aptitude for technical drawing or you do not. Another reason might be that the pupil, unless he is given constant support, stops working altogether because it is too difficult and he cannot see the relevance of the task for him.

Once students have finished a particular area of work, they carry out self-assessment making them responsible for judging their own progression. During my time in class with pupil A, he actually never finished a task as a result of not regularly attending and the short time I have been working with him. He also missed a summative assessment. This was marked on scores only without any additional written feedback on how each individual pupil is progressing. Very little verbal feedback is given to individual pupils during a lesson but pupils know, in general, how they are performing.

Critique of the practice

The practice of this teacher, although very skilled in classroom management and explaining the task, does not provide effective learning and teaching for all pupils in the class as outlined in the EPSEN report. The tasks given to pupils could possibly be made more relevant by allowing pupils to choose the designs instead of having to copy standard set tasks, for example the MOT logo. Having ownership of your own work is known to increase motivation and has been highlighted as good practice in learning and teaching in the “Count us in” report. However, the work given to the pupils is not solely decided by the teacher but will be a departmental decision.

The teacher’s attitude that some pupils are just not good at technical drawing identifies the child as the source of learning difficulty rather than the task given. Furthermore, it is difficult to see the teacher as being inclusive, as the teacher’s attitude does not establish a climate in which each individual is appreciated and can prosper as outlined in the features in the “Count us in” report. It also runs counter to transformability, a teaching approach, which is inclusive and challenges the notion of ability labels and results in pupils making very good progress (Hart, 2003).

Conclusion

I would to stress here that due to my only short employment in school X, I have only worked with a very limited number of teachers therefore it is very difficult to make an objective assessment of the provision of additional support needs within an inclusive ethos.

Bibliography

Cohen, L. Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (Eds.). (2003). A guide to teaching practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dyer, S., & Thomson, G. O. B. (1988). Recording Special Educational Needs in Practice. Spotlights. Scottish Council for Research in Education, Newsletter No 9.

Farrell, P. (2001). Special education in the last twenty years: have things really got better?. British Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 3-9.

H. M. Inspectorate of Education. (2002). Count us in: Achieving Inclusion in Scottish Schools. Edinburgh: HMIE.

H. M. Inspectorate of Education. (2002). How good is our school? Self-evaluation using quality indicators. Edinburgh: HMIE.

Hamill, P., & Boyd, B. (2002). Inclusion: Principles into Practice. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Hamill, P., & Clark, K. (2005). Additional Support Needs. Paisley: Hodder Gibson.

Hart, S. (2003). Learning without limits. In M. Nind, K. Sheehy & K. Simmons (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Learners and Learning Contexts (p.219-232). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Jackson, B. (1996). Streaming: An Education System in Miniature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Nind, M., Simmons, K., Sheehy, K., & Rix, J. (2003). Introduction. In M. Nind, K. Sheehy & K. Simmons (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Learners and Learning Contexts (p.3). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Phillips, C. & Jenner, H. (2003). Inclusion at Bangabandhu Primary School. In M. Nind, K. Sheehy & K. Simmons (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Learners and Learning Contexts (p.61-71). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC). (1996). Learning and teaching: making sense of differentiation: CDi staff development package. Dundee: SCCC.

Scottish Education Department. (1978). The education with pupils with learning difficulties in primary and secondary schools in Scotland. Edinburg: HMSO.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. (1998). A manual of good practice in special educational needs. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Scottish Office Education Department. (1994). Effective Provision for Special Educational Needs. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Scottish Office Education Department. (1994). Effective provision for special educational needs. Edinburgh: HMSO.

Scottish Schools Online. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from

The Advisory Centre for Education. (2001). A guide to the Warnock Report – ACE Summary. London: ACE.

Thomas, G., & Vaughan, M. (2005). Inclusive Education readings and reflections. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Understanding educational support