Shaping the Education of Slow Learners

W. K. Brennan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429946516
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 1974. This book defines the slow learner, identifies the size of the problem presented by them, and outlines the responsibility of the ordinary school for their education. Then, successfully, characteristics of slow learners are reviewed and re-stated in a way relevant to their education; research on the post-school experience of slow learners is summarized and related to the curriculum; and general curriculum literature is reviewed in presenting a plan for the continuous development of curricula for slow learners, consistent with the modern approach to curriculum development.

I Slow learners: a responsibility of the ordinary school

Who are the slow learners?

This is the description of a typical boy taken from a study of forty backward boys in the first year of their secondary schools (C. Jones, 1970):

He is 11.4 years of age with a mental age of 9.7 and a reading age of 7.4 years. He has established a basic sight vocabulary, has learned the sounds of most letters but has difficulty with consonantal and vowel diagraphs in that order. He has an even chance of being right handed and right eyed but failing this is likely to be right handed and left eyed. He has no major difficulty in form perception though he may show weakness in hand-eye co-ordination, the copying of simple forms and in visual rhythm, the ability to recognize and complete a regular visual pattern. In copying he tends to rotate his paper in order to draw a horizontal line in the vertical plane.

This typical boy lives in a council house; he is the third child in a family of four or five children; he shares a bedroom but has his own bed. He is the son of a semi-skilled or unskilled manual worker and he receives 15–20P to spend each week. There is a one-in-four chance that the boy’s home is disturbed, with parents either separated or divorced.

Generally the boy has good health, but if he has a physical weakness it is likely to be poor eyesight. His school attendance is good and he shows average eagerness to learn in his new school. On the whole he mixes easily with his form mates, though he tends to form special friendships with a few of his own age and in conversation with them uses sentences which are short and simple in structure. In his school behaviour he shows reasonable persistence and independence, but should he have an extreme tendency it will be towards timidity and he may not quite have outgrown tale-telling and attention seeking.

Many teachers of slow learners will be able to put names to this description from the pupils in their classes. It remains, now, for us to look in more detail for the answer to the question: who are the slow learners?

Since its use by Tansley and Gulliford (1960), the term ‘slow learner’ has been increasingly used in reference to pupils who are failing in their school work. It is used in this sense by the Department of Education and Science (1964) to indicate ‘children of any degree of ability who are unable to do work commonly done by children of their age’, and the use of the term is regarded as interchangeable with the term ‘backwardness’. A. A. Williams (1970) accepts the term slow learner but restricts its use to ‘those children who are of limited intelligence’, and he specifically excludes the ‘erratic but underfunctioning child of high potential’ (p. 9). Gulliford (1969) also makes use of the term, but he appears to exclude from it ‘retarded children’, defined by him as ‘of average or good intelligence’, but with a ‘marked discrepancy between their educational achievements and their ability as judged by intelligence tests or their general performance in everyday affairs or non-academic aspects of schooling’ (13). Gulliford also suggests that the slow learner is a pupil in an ordinary school rather than in a special school and in discussion he holds the category ‘slow learner’ distinct from that of ‘educationally subnormal’. In contrast with this, Bell (1970) takes a view more consistent with that of A. A. Williams (1970) and regards ‘slow learner’ as interchangeable with ‘educationally subnormal’, ‘backward’ or ‘less able’. The Plowden Report (DES, 1967a) recommended that the term ‘slow learner’ should be substituted for ‘educationally subnormal’ mainly on the grounds that the latter caused ‘unnecessary distress to parents’, a point also suggested by A. A. Williams (1970) who notes the ‘condemnatory overtones’ attaching to ‘educational subnormality’. P. Williams (1970) comments that ‘Regrettably, any term used to describe our slow responders seems in time to acquire its own odium, and a quarter of a century seems to represent the limit of its useful life’ (p. 472). Nevertheless he accepts the term slow learner in general but is careful to exclude from his discussion the extreme cases of slow learners, those children who are receiving their education in special schools for severely ESN pupils (the former Junior Training Centres) or in hospitals for the subnormal. He regards such pupils as having very acute, special learning problems which justify describing and treating them separately from the rest of the slow learners whose intelligence levels are higher and who are found in special ESN schools and in special classes in the ordinary schools (Williams and Gruber, 1967).

At this point it may be helpful to look somewhat more closely at the term ‘educational subnormality’ which has intruded into the above discussion of the slow learner. Educationally subnormal pupils are defined in Handicapped Pupils and School Health Regulations (Ministry of Education, 1959) as ‘pupils who, by reason of limited ability or other conditions resulting in educational retardation, require some specialized form of education wholly or partly in place of the education normally given in ordinary schools’. There are points about the definition which should be carefully noted by teachers. It is a definition which does not rely exclusively upon the results of intelligence tests but allows for consideration of many other factors which influence educational progress; it does not imply that special education must be given in a special school or on a full-time basis but allows provision within the ordinary school and for part of the curriculum only, where such arrangements meet the needs of the pupils. In the best sense the definition is educational, for it is based upon the response of the pupil in learning situations and it emphasizes the importance of modifying the learning situations to meet the needs of the pupil. Indeed, most educationally subnormal pupils are discovered by their teachers in the schools and put forward for examination by psychologists and school medical officers who should be concerned with eliciting psychological or medical causes for the pupil’s failure to learn, which might be helpful to those who must teach him. Merely to confirm what the school knows - that the pupil is educationally subnormal - is to misuse the opportunity presented by the examination and is usually considered unhelpful by experienced teachers. The fact is that most educationally subnormal pupils in ordinary schools are unlikely to have received any special psychological or medical examination which could have added to their teachers’ knowledge and through that to the quality of their education.

In the sense that either may be used to indicate a pupil who is unable to cope with school work normal for his age, ‘educationally subnormal’ and ‘slow learner’ are interchangeable terms. But both suffer from serious limitations. One limitation is that for full meaning both terms must be seen in the framework of the definitions of other categories of handicapped pupils: blind, partially sighted, deaf, partially hearing, epileptic, maladjusted, physically handicapped, pupils with defective speech and delicate pupils (ibid.). Any of these handicaps may result in a pupil being unable to cope with school work normal for his age, but where such failure is clearly a consequence of the primary handicap, the education of the pupil is usually organized in ways suitable for that handicap. Where the relationship between primary handicap and educational failure is not clear, or where the latter is sufficiently grave to require special education even in the absence of a primary handicap, then decisions about the education of the pupil require considerable, experienced and informed judgment based upon high-quality educational, social, psychological and medical information. Another limitation is that both ‘slow learner’ and ‘educationally subnormal’ are general terms which label a condition of educational failure without either indicating or explaining its nature or causation. The acceptance of either term as a unitary explanation may encourage unjustified generalizations about ‘educationally subnormal children’ or ‘slow-learning children’ which divert attention from the variety and multiplicity of causes operating in cases of school failure, with consequent stereotyping of educational provision and treatment.

There is, in fact, growing dissatisfaction with the definition of educational subnormality, and with the other definitions of handicapping conditions noted above. This is not surprising if it is remembered that the definitions were formulated in the late 1940s and are based upon the thinking of the 1930s. Since that time there has been considerable change in social conditions; development and improvement in the educational system itself; radical changes in our concepts of intellectual development and the nature of intelligence; new knowledge and growing experience about the teaching and learning of backward children. Indeed, the very substitution of the term ‘slow learner’ for ‘educationally subnormal’ is part of the growing criticism of the current definition. We shall return to this in the next chapter, but in order to further the present discussion an attempt must be made to formulate an answer to the question posed above: Who are the slow learners?

Definition of the slow learner

Slow learners are regarded as those pupils who are unable to cope with the school work normal for their age-group but whose failure cannot be explained by the presence of any handicapping condition defined in the ten categories of handicapped children. Should any such condition be present in a pupil who is to be regarded as a slow learner, then it will be in marginal form only and clearly secondary to the learning difficulty which is the primary cause of school failure. Such slow learners will not exhibit severe intellectual retardation which might cause them to be considered as suitable for education in schools for mentally handicapped pupils (the former Junior Training Centres) or in hospitals for the mentally subnormal; nor will they exhibit above-average intellectual ability combined with their learning failure. On the positive side these slow learners will use speech to communicate (albeit at a retarded level) and they will relate to other persons in a normal manner, though they may show some immaturity or insecurity resulting from their experience of failure. As so defined, slow learners overlap from the special (ESN) schools, where they are the most able pupils in the higher ranges of intelligence, to the classes for backward pupils in ordinary schools where they form the majority of those pupils.

The above definition of slow-learning pupils is consistent with the recommendation of the Plowden Committee and takes account of the reservations of many of the writers discussed above. It is still a ‘general’ definition, with all the dangers noted above, and it must be retained at that level in order to discuss the size of the population of slow learners, though later chapters will discuss the different needs which exist within the population.

How many slow learners?

In order to estimate the number of slow learners in the school population it is necessary to establish a standard by which the slow learners may be defined. To do this, educationists have made use of concepts developed by Burt (1937). Burt introduced the term ‘educational age’ related to scores on standardized tests of attainment in school subjects. On such tests a group of ten-year-old pupils have an average educational age of 10, ranging from 9.5 to 10.5: nine-year-old pupils range from 8.5 to 9.5 with an average educational age of 9 years. Burt also defined backward pupils as those who, in the middle of their school careers, are unable to do the work of the class next below that which is normal for their age (ibid., pp. 77–8). Thus, on standardized attainment tests, a backward ten-year-old pupil would have an educational age below 8.5 years: a definition adopted by the Ministry of Education (1937, pp. 9–12). Such a criterion has been referred to as a ‘difference score’ (P. Williams, 1970). A modification of this approach took the form of a ‘percentage difference’, regarding as backward pupils with ‘educational ages’ 20 per cent or more below their chronological ages (Ministry of Education, 1946); the advantage claimed for this procedure being that it facilitated the comparison of the incidence of backwardness in different age-groups. Using this criterion a backward pupil would have an educational age less than 80 per cent of his chronological age. Subsequently tests were developed which made use of ‘deviation quotients’ or ‘standardized scores’. In such tests scores are ‘normally’ distributed around a mean score of 100 with a standard deviation of 15 points. Some 68 per cent of children tested on these standardized attainment tests will score between 85 and 115 points, these scores being regarded as marking off the ‘normal limits’ of the tests (S. Jackson, 1968, pp. 31–8; Vernon, 1960, pp. 105–11). On this criterion backward pupils will have ‘deviation quotients’ or ‘standardized scores’ of 85 or below.

In the above discussion the term ‘backward pupil’ has been used in order to remain consistent with the usage of the authors quoted in the references upon which the discussion is based. A standard has been outlined which marks out the population of slow learners as we defined them. It was also necessary to establish the standard before going on to discuss the results of surveys which have used the different methods of assessing educational retardation, as well as using the additional criterion of intelligence test scores. Intelligence test scores, for the purpose of this discussion, may be regarded as further examples of the ‘deviation quotients’ or ‘standardized scores’ discussed above: a ‘dull’ or ‘intellectually retarded’ pupil being defined by an intelligence test score of 85 or below.

One of the difficulties in attempting to estimate the incidence of backwardness in the schools is the lack of figures based upon any national survey. The surveys assembled below have been conducted at different times and in different areas; they have used tests differing in standardization and norms; they have defined backwardness by slightly different criteria; and there are variations in the number of subject tests used to arrive at the educational age or quotient. Nevertheless, in very broad terms, they do mark out the slow learner as described above. Burt (1937) estimated backward pupils to be between 10 per cent and 14 per cent of the school population, based on studies conducted from 1917 onward and mainly in London. Hill (1939) reported studies carried out in Southend-on-Sea which suggested that 10.15 per cent of secondary school pupils were backward to a degree which required more than the provision of education in a ‘C’ stream class. The Ministry of Education (1946) estimated that 10 per cent of the school population would need ‘special educational treatment’, a marked reduction of the 1937 figure of 18–19 per cent (Ministry of Education, 1937, pp. 9–13). A survey of the whole junior school population of Brighton (Hammond, 1948) indicated that at age ten and over, 15.1 per cent of boys and 10 per cent of girls had reading ages of below eight years. Schonell (1949) summarized a number of surveys and concluded that 2–3 per cent of the school population would have intelligence quotients (I.Q.) of between 55 and 70 whilst another 12–14 per cent would fall between 70 and 85 I.Q. According to Schonell’s estimates slow learners would form 14–17 per cent of the school population. To some extent the progress made by pupils through the books of the popular primary reading schemes may be used as an estimate of their progress towards competent reading skill and, when pupils of the same age are considered, it is possible to estimate the numbers of pupils who are failing to make normal progress. Morris (1959, 1966) used this method with pupils in the schools of Kent during 1954. In her study it was considered that pupils who had not mastered Book 1 of their reading scheme by the age of seven were ‘poor and non-readers’: by this measure 19–2 per cent of the pupils were considered to be backward in reading. In 1957 Morris conducted another survey of Kent schools and on the same criterion found 14 per cent of the pupils to be non-readers or poor readers. Similarly, Hammond (1963) repeated her earlier study in Brighton during 1962, finding that amongst pupils of ten years of age or over, 10–5 per cent of the boys and 6–2 per cent of the girls had reading ages below eight years (see also Hammond, 1967). A substantial piece of work was the report of the First Child Development Study, 1958 Cohort (Pringle et al., 1966), which was based upon a study of 11,000 children who had reached the age of seven in 1965: the same pupils reported on in the Plowden Report (vol. 2, App. 10). Assessments in the study were based upon objective tests and teachers’ estimates, with, for reading, progress on reading primers as described in relation to Morris above. The results of this study are summarized and tabulated:

Reading: On the Word Recognition Test 18 per cent were considered ‘poor’ readers (score 15 or below); on teachers’ estimates 26 per cent were rated below average, including 3 per cent who were non-readers; for reading primers 9–8 percent were on Book 1 or below.

Arithmetic: On the Problem Arithmetic Test 43 per cent could be considered ‘poor’ (score 4 or below); on teachers’ estimates 36 per cent showed ‘poor facility ... or ... little if any ability’.

Oral ability: Assessed only on teachers’ ratings, 21 per cent were below average or markedly poor in conversation.

Awareness of the world around: Assessed only on teachers’ estimates, 29 per cent were considered ‘rather limited [in] knowledge ... or ... largely ignorant of the world around’.

Creativity: Assessed only on teachers’ estimates, 33 per cent showed ‘little originality in any ... work’.

Special educational help in ordinary school: ‘Apart from anything which the class teacher may do’, 5 per cent of the pupils were receiving special help. Of those not receiving help, according to head teachers, 8 per cent would benefit from help. Thus at least 13 per cent of the sample appear to need special teaching within the ordinary school.

Special educational treatment in the future: An examination of head teachers’ responses indicated that 7 per cent of the pupils would require ‘some form of special schooling or other special educational help within the next two years’. There is some ambiguity about the replies here when compared with the previous section. The authors consider that this reflects (a) the view of heads that some pupils would respond successfully to the help they were receiving, and (b) that the terminology...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• Series editor’s preface
• Preface
• 1 Slow learners: a responsibility of the ordinary school
• 2 Some characteristics of slow learners
• 3 The characteristics of slow learners reorganized
• 4 The slow learner after school
• 5 Shaping the education of slow learners
• Further reading
• Bibliography