Rethinking Special Needs in Mainstream Schools

Towards the Year 2000

Alan Dyson, Charles Gains

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138592674
• eBook ISBN: 9780429953262
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 1993. This book critically analyses the state of provision for special needs, exploring the problems faced by practitioners and suggesting that the area is fraught with such tensions that a radical reconceptualization is necessary. It considers how the field may be rethought and developed over the next decade and presents examples of innovatory practice which point the way forward to future provision and which are illustrative of the themes raised throughout the book.

CHAPTER 1

Using Soft Systems Methodology to Re-think Special Needs

Norah Frederickson

Many of the contributors to this book suggest that there is a need to re-think special educational needs. This chapter addresses the practical issue of how we should go about this rethink. It is first of all argued that, however we go about it, our approach should be systematic and explicit. The second part of the chapter introduces one approach – Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) – which appears particularly suited to conducting an action-orientated rethink of special needs in mainstream schools. The final section outlines ways in which SSM has been used by groups and individuals in schools and Local Education Authorities to reflect on practice and effect improvement.

Special needs: a complex mess?

It may appear unnecessary to dwell on the assertion that any rethink of special needs should be conducted in a systematic and explicit manner. It might be accepted as obvious and uncontroversial in this era of accountability. However it is not the way in which change has typically been designed and managed in educational contexts. Indeed words such as ‘designed’ and ‘managed’ are part of a new vocabulary which appears to fit uneasily with talk of ‘philosophy’ and ‘good primary practice’. Dyson’s (1990) comments about the ‘whole school approach’ to special educational needs could as easily have been directed at any number of educational practices brought to the fore by the pendular swings of fashion, ‘the approach as a whole seems to have found its way into educational practice without any sort of rigorous evaluation and there is little or nothing in the literature about how it has been or might be evaluated.’

There are, of course, well developed and highly respected methods for conducting rigorous evaluation, within the scientific tradition, and it is perhaps not surprising that authors engaged in debate on special needs have urged the use of empirical data and experimental trials, ‘from which one could make generalizations according to the canons of scientific research’ (Kauffman 1989). However, schools have little in common with well controlled laboratories and repeatable experiments, in human science contexts, are difficult to achieve as Checkland and Scholes (1990) point out. Nonetheless, there has been extensive application of scientifically based ideas to the field of special needs by the various professionals involved whose activities are well described by Schon (1983) in his critique of the ‘technical rationality’ view of professional activity: ‘professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique’. This is well illustrated by the prominence of scientifically based problem solving approaches in educational psychology over the past decade (Cameron and Stratford 1987, Frederickson, Webster and Wright 1991). While acknowledging the existence of ‘high, hard ground where practitioners can make effective use of research-based theory and technique’, he argues that practitioners may more often find themselves in a swamp where many of the problems of greatest human concern exist as, ‘confusing “messes” incapable of technical solution.’ Soft Systems Methodology has been developed as an organized way of tackling messy situations in the real world. It provides an intellectual framework based on systems thinking which allows a practitioner, operating in an action research mode, to make sense both of the situation and of their involvement in it. In education and social science generally the label ‘action research’ is applied to much wallowing around in real world messes. Checkland and Scholes (1990) lament that discussions of action research, ‘on the whole unfortunately neglect the crucial importance of declaring the intellectual framework’ as ‘it is with reference to the declared framework that “lessons” can be defined.’ (p. 16).

A major contributing factor to the ‘messiness’ of many problematic situations and issues in education is substantive differences in the perceptions and intentions of those involved. In these cases it is not possible to embark on a classical problem solving approach because it is not possible to agree on a definition of the problem or achieve consensus on the objectives of any change. In these situations there is a need for an explicit approach which can represent the range of views held without requiring that they be reconciled in order for progress to be made. This is likely to be particularly important in the field of special needs as the current US debate over the Regular Education Initiative (REI) illustrates. There is a number of illuminating parallels between the REI debate and the ‘Dyson Debate’ (Dyson 1990, Butt 1991) on the future role of the special needs co-ordinator in UK schools, however, the following brief discussion will focus on those aspects which illustrate the need for an approach which can accommodate a range of conflicting views.

The Regular Education Initiative is an umbrella term for a set of proposals for radical restructuring of special and general education in the US. At its core is the, not unfamiliar, view that education for pupils with special needs will be best served by the improvement of education for all pupils. It is further elaborated by Kauffman (1989), one of its main opponents, as requiring that:

Students of every description are fully integrated into regular classes, no student is given a special designation (label), costs are lowered by the elimination of special budget and administrative categories, the focus becomes excellence for all, and federal regulations are withdrawn in favour of local control (p.256).

Proponents of the Regular Education Initiative (McLeskey, Skiba & Wilcox, 1990) are critical of the current fragmented approach to pupils with special needs and are concerned about the stigmatization of pupils on ‘pull out’ (withdrawal) programmes. They argue, along similar lines to Booth (1986), that values rather than data should determine social policy. ‘Data can be used to evaluate progress towards the goals established by values, but data cannot alter the value itself (McLeskey, Skiba & Wilcox, 1990, p.322). They therefore point to the right of all children, under Public Law 94–142, to a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment as central.

Opponents of the Regular Education Initiative (Kauffman, 1989) criticize its proponents for naïvety on two accounts. They first of all argue that a mainstream classroom may not be the least restrictive environment for all children, and indeed that the objective of providing appropriate education should take precedence over that relating to the setting in which it is provided. Secondly they demonstrate that the Regular Education Initiative can be perceived as being underpinned by a quite different set of values from those espoused by its proponents. Hence Kauffman (1989) argues:

The belief systems represented by the REI are a peculiar case in which conservative ideology (focus on excellence, federal disengagement) and liberal rhetoric (non-labelling, integration) are combined to support the diminution or dissolution of a support system for handicapped students.

The critique of Kauffman’s paper by Goetz & Sailor (1990) in which they paraphrase him thus, ‘REI is a Regan – Bush plot to cut the costs of special education’ (p.335) will sound familiar in the context of UK debates on integration and in-class support strategies.

Kauffman characterizes proponents and opponents of the Regular Education Initiative as espousing an opposing set of assumptions or beliefs:

Proponents hold that:	While opponents believe that:
Pupils are more alike than different. The same basic principles apply to learning of all, so no special teaching is needed by any.	Some pupils are very different from most and special educational approaches are required to meet their needs.
Good teachers can teach all pupils, using the same basic techniques but making some adjustments for individual differences.	Not all teachers are equipped to teach all pupils, special expertise is required to teach pupils with special needs who are particularly difficult to teach.
All pupils can be provided with a high quality education without identifying some as different and targeting funding separately.	Pupils with specials needs must be clearly identified to ensure that they receive appropriate services.
All pupils can be taught and managed effectively in the mainstream classroom, segregation of pupils with special needs in any way is ethically unacceptable.	Education outside the mainstream classroom is sometimes required for part of the school day to: (a) provide more intensive individualized instruction, (b) provide instruction in skills already mastered or not needed by most pupils, (c) ensure the appropriate education of the other pupils.

Attention has also been drawn to the impact of these different sets of beliefs on the UK debate on the future role of special needs co-ordinators. Dyson (1990) argues that the ‘whole school approach’ is founded on assumptions, ‘that special needs children learn in much the same way as all other children, and that the so-called expertise of special needs teachers can in fact be spread amongst subject and class teachers’ (p. 118).

The above discussion demonstrates that the field of special educational needs is characterized by a diversity of approaches, underpinned by conflicting beliefs and riven by disagreement about fundamental issues – such as how special educational needs should be defined. It would appear to be well characterized as one of Schon’s (1983) ‘confusing messes’ and, in its rethinking, to require an approach which can bring systematic, logical analysis to bear without oversimplifying the real complexities of the situations studied or underestimating the impact of human perceptions and interests in effecting or resisting change.

Soft Systems Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is an approach which can be used to guide intervention in the kinds of ill-structured, real world problem situations common in the field of special needs. Checkland, who is Professor of Systems and Information at the University of Lancaster, developed the methodology through a programme of over 100 action research consultancies in commercial and service environments, including health and social service contexts (Checkland 1981, Checkland and Scholes 1990). Soft Systems Methodology adopts a positive approach which is sensitive to context. It does not focus on the problem but on the situation in which there is perceived to be a problem, or an opportunity for improvement. The initial task is not to converge on a definition of a problem to solve, but to build up the richest possible picture of the situation in question, drawing on the disparate perceptions of those involved.

The essential nature of SSM is summarized in Figure 1. In overview, it consists of some stages where you engage in finding out about and developing a representation of reality, some stages where you develop a model of a system which might be relevant to changing/improving reality and, finally, some stages where you draw comparisons between your model and your representation of reality in order to generate improvement suggestions/recommendations for action.

Figure 1

For descriptive purposes SSM consists of the seven stages which are represented diagrammatically in Figure 2.

In Stages 1 and 2 you would be involved in finding out about a particular problem situation, collecting information and identifying important themes and issues. You may collect information by a number of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Using Soft Systems Methodology to Rethink Special Needs
• 2 Special Needs and Standard Provision
• 3 Turning the Kaleidoscope: Working with Teachers Concerned About Special Educational Needs
• 4 Flexible Learning
• 5 The Youth Village
• 6 Rethinking the Role of the Special Needs Co-Ordinator: Devolving the Remedial Department
• 7 Rethinking the Role of the Special Needs Co-Ordinator: The Quality Assurer
• 8 Rethinking the Role of the Special Needs Co-Ordinator: The Institutional Developer
• 9 Changing the School by Reflectively Re-Defining the Role of the Special Needs Co-Ordinator
• 10 Gritty, Sensible and Utilitarian – the Only Model? Special Educational Needs, Initial Teacher Training and Professional Development
• 11 How will the ‘Self-Managing School’ Manage?
• 12 Raising standards: Sticking to First Principles
• 13 Effective Thinking or Effective Policy?
• 14 Special Needs and Effective Learning: Towards a Collaborative Model for the Year 2000
• Index