Teaching Children with Severe Learning Difficulties

A Radical Reappraisal

Sue Wood, Barbara Shears

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429947797
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 1986. The teaching of children with severe learning difficulties had received little coherent critical analysis. Long-held assumptions and implicit beliefs were embedded in curriculum content and teaching methodology, thus creating and maintaining handicapping conditions. This book raises questions about underlying value judgments relating to the status and rights afforded to children with severe learning difficulties and the implications for education and teaching. Possibilities for change are discussed in relation to the curriculum, the content of the educational programme and the teacher-pupil relationship.

Chapter One

THE SAGA OF CURRICULUM INNOVATION

There are now numerous publications which show how to go about choosing core curriculum areas, defining targets and assessing progress for children with severe learning difficulties. Most either explicitly or implicitly suggest a particular content which is thought congruent with a highly structured approach and the general aims of education. Furthermore, a certain teaching methodology (‘precision teaching’) tends to be referred to which explains getting from setting objectives to evaluating progress, i.e. actual learning and teaching (Kiernan et al. 1978; Kiernan 1981; Whelan and Speake 1979; Gardner etal. 1983). Articles about the skills analysis and objectives approach abound in all the relevant journals and magazines, not to mention the large number of American publications available in this country, many of which include complete inventories of skills to be taught and their components (e.g. Bender and Valletutti 1976; Snell 1978). Many schools all over the country have also produced, or are in the process of producing, their own ‘core’ curriculum along the lines sketched above, although few schools have had their work formally published.

We do not mean to suggest that all or even many schools run the same educational programme for children with severe learning difficulties within their classrooms. In our experience schools differ widely in the depth of detail and specification which they have included in curriculum statements and in the way teachers make use of such curriculum statements for the generation of educational programmes for the group of children they are teaching. What we are concerned about are the distinctive trends emerging both in actual teaching practice across the country and in what teachers are being given in terms of recommendations and judgements about what constitutes good teaching for children with severe learning difficulties. It is to these trends that we want to draw attention, as they represent particular aspects of what is now generally considered should make up the curriculum and the educational programme within this part of the special education system. As such, a new orthodoxy has emerged.

Since 1971 when mentally handicapped children officially became ‘educable’, the situation has changed from one in which there was a dearth of curriculum planning and development (Hughes 1975; Cunningham 1974), to one in which curriculum development workshops and information proliferate. Whereas in the early 1970s the curriculum in the then ESN(S) schools seemed to be viewed by teachers very much in terms of activities offered and the timetable (Hughes 1975; Leeming et al. 1979), aims, objectives and targets are now very much the order of the day. Previously, the idea that the educational programme for children with severe learning difficulties would consist of a watered down version of activities and tasks offered to mainstream infants did not necessarily seem too amiss, given the pupils’ ‘mental ages’. Nowadays making the comment that special education means simply getting the same education as usual but until you are much older, tends to denote a particular view of the special education system, rather than a commonly accepted definition of what goes on.

The development of a highly systematic and structured approach to the curriculum based on behavioural objectives and skills analysis, was premised by research evidence suggesting that mental handicap had certain characteristics which necessitated such a programme if progress was going to be made. At the same time, research was being published which showed that behavioural analysis and its concomitant techniques were successful, both in getting rid of ‘problem’ behaviours and in teaching new skills – to even the most profoundly handicapped child or adult (Whaley and Malott 1971; Ashem and Poser 1973; Ramp and Semb 1975; Kiernan and Woodford 1975).

The particular characteristics of mental handicap which the research of the time singled out as most significant, were an inability to learn incidentally or spontaneously as other children do, and non-transference of skills from one area of development to another (Clarke and Clarke 1974). These difficulties are now viewed as the stock in trade of mental handicap and thus as defining characteristics of mentally handicapped children. They have a ‘...relative inability to profit from ordinary unstructured experience, a deficiency in spontaneous learning’, which means that, ‘It is virtually a defining characteristic of the subnormal child that he is unable to learn effectively – failure to learn is the basic psychological characteristic of subnormality’ (Staff of Rectory Paddock School 1981, pp. 19 and 17).

Where attempts are made at the justification of suggested organisation, content and methodology, it is now commonplace to cite such learning difficulties of the mentally handicapped as a basis for the logical and moral necessity, and the efficacy, of highly structured and systematic programmes based on behavioural and skills analysis. For example:

... if we want to teach the child ... we have to... work out logically how the child might accomplish the task. ... We substitute systematic analysis and teaching for simple exposure, which may, with the handicapped child, lead to only very poor learning (C. Kiernan 1981 in the Forward).

Similarly, Gardner et al. discussing the need for a model in the education of severely mentally handicapped children and the demise of the nursery-/infant orientated programme of enrichment and experience, state that:

Superficially, the argument for using nursery and infant methods of teaching seemed logical, on the basis that the children had low mental ages. But a 13 year old with a mental age of five years is not a 5 year old, and has very different needs, for example in terms of appropriate social skills training. Moreover, the methods employed in nursery and infant schools are inappropriate for severely mentally handicapped children who do not appear to learn incidentally from their environment, as do children who are not handicapped (Gardner et al. 1983 p. 13).

They go on to outline their ‘Skills Analysis Model’ as exemplary practice.

The scene depicted is one where ‘research’ has elucidated the learning difficulties and deficits of severely mentally handicapped children. An appropriate programme of remediation in the form of highly structured teaching has been outlined, which is claimed to overcome their difficulties and counteract deficits to the extent that this is possible given their permanent nature. This claim about the education of children with severe learning difficulties is now asserted in a very general manner, which takes the nature of mental handicap virtually for granted and therefore portrays educational needs in relation to mental handicap as self evident truths. This is somewhat in contrast to much of the research evidence about the learning difficulties of mentally handicapped children, originally used as the theoretical base of the objectives/skills analysis approach, which tended to concentrate on highly specific aspects of cognition in tightly controlled experimental situations. A leap has been made from this very specific research evidence to generalised claims for the necessity of a particular type of education and teaching. What is important to note is firstly that implicit in the calls for structured teaching is the idea that mentally handicapped childrens’ characteristics require it. Its necessity, and by implication its efficacy, is therefore seen to have a solid base in scientific inquiry. Secondly, this further implies that structured teaching for mentally handicapped children is, by its very own nature, correct. It represents the answer and as such takes on the role of ‘treatment’ – the childrens’ deficits are permanent but they can be made of less consequence by specific forms of education and training. There is no cure, but structured education can alleviate the ‘symptoms’ to some degree.

Curricula, as plans for instruction, along the lines of the objectives/skills analysis approach now exist, or are being produced in schools, as documents specifying aims, objectives, areas of development, organisation, methodology for assessment, teaching and evaluation.

Furthermore, moves towards a highly structured curriculum for children with severe learning difficulties, based on the objectives model and using skills analysis, have been officially endorsed as representing good practice by the Department of Education and Science (DES). Pamphlet 60 (DES 1975) proclaimed the universality of the broad aims of education, and emphasised the need for the curriculum for mentally handicapped children to be practically oriented and concerned with skills which were relevant to the pupils’ needs with regard to developing independence. It also talked about the usefulness of highly structured programmes. The Warnock Report defined the aims of education for all children more precisely as:

... to enlarge a child’s knowledge, experience and imaginative understanding, and thus his awareness of moral values and capacity for enjoyment; and... to enable him to enter the world after formal education is over, as an active participant in society and a responsible contributor to it, capable of achieving as much independence as possible (Warnock 1978 1:4).

The Warnock Report then proceeded to put forward the principle of determining educational needs in relation to the broad aims, thus defining special education in relation to the kind and amount of specialised help required to get a child some way along the path towards their attainment. Warnock also defined the curriculum in terms of the objectives model, in line with the idea that education should be geared towards specific ends generally thought desirable. It further noted the presence of ‘well-defined’ guidelines for each area of the curriculum, and ‘programmes ... planned for individual children with clearly defined short term goals within the general plan’ (Warnock 1978 11:5), as important criteria of high quality and effective special education.

Since the passing of the 1981 Education Act the structured approach based on the objectives model and skills analysis has been further endorsed as specifically suitable for the child with severe learning difficulties. In the first place the assessment procedure for statementing requires any child’s strengths and weaknesses to be described in terms of such categories as cognitive functioning, communication skills, perceptual and motor skills, social skills and interaction (DES Circular 1/83). Secondly, it is suggested that the special educational provision required in response to the special educational needs of the child is specified in terms of aims of provision in general areas of development – physical, motor, cognitive, language and social (Ibid). The areas referred to here represent the categorical distinctions used in the objectives/skills analysis approach to the curriculum. Its usefulness is therefore emphatically endorsed with regard to delineating and remedying special educational needs, as well as the assessing of these needs, thus taking on the aims-objectives guise to educational planning and provision. Thirdly, the DES has actually proposed a definition of the curriculum felt suitable for the special educational needs of children with severe learning difficulties – this is ‘developmental’.

A curriculum covering selected and sharply focused educational, social and other experiences with precisely defined objectives and designed to encourage a measure of personal autonomy. Children needing such a curriculum may be described as having severe learning difficulties (DES 1984a p.2 para 3).

This categorically ratifies the new orthodoxy in the approach to the curriculum and educational programme planning for children with severe learning difficulties.

THE NEW ORTHODOXY

In terms of the curriculum for children with severe learning difficulties the new orthodoxy consists of the following major elements.

The Purpose of Education

The purpose of education as defined by broad, long term aims, is the same for all children, namely, personal development including awareness of moral values and development of the level of competence to participate in and contribute to life in society, achieving as much independence as possible. The aims are taken to refer to end products, that is, what might be achieved by the end of a course in education. The special educational needs of children with severe learning difficulties may dictate, ‘WHAT they have to be taught and ... HOW ... but the point of their education is the same’ (Warnock 1978 1:10). Its quality is to be seen in relation to ‘the extent to which it leads a pupil towards the twin goals which we have described’ (Warnock 1978 1:6). Personal autonomy, the concept used by Pamphlet 60 (DES 1975) and by the DES in their latest documentation 1975) and by the DES in their latest documentation with reference to the aims of the developmental curriculum, is conflated with ‘independence’ and seen in a pragmatic way as what a person should be able to do at the end of a course of compulsory education. Autonomy, then, is seen as something which comes along with independence and independence hinges upon being competent in looking after oneself, participating and contributing to society in an acceptable manner, i.e. in a way which conforms to norms of behaviour, convention and law. Gunzberg describes this aptly:

In the case of the mentally handicapped child, the primary educational goal should be modest but realistic: to assist in the maximum development of his social potential and to enable him to function later on in his particular adult community as unobtrusively and as competently as possible. This means that he must become socially acceptable and be able to contribute, if he can, to his own support, so that he is, at least, less dependent on his immediate environment (Gunzberg 1974b p. 628).

In the style of the 1980s, the purpose of education for children with severe learning difficulties tends to be translated either into aims which emphasise as much independence as possible and consequently the possibility of living within the community, or aims which emphasise becoming more normal. For example, Gardner et al. suggest the general educational aim to be: ‘To teach the children in the school skills which will be necessary for independent living in the community’ (Gardner et al. 1983 p.27). The Staff of Rectory Paddock School suggest: ‘The aim of helping pupils to achieve more normal standards of performance so far as possible’ (Staff of Rectory Paddock School 1981 p. 9), and Kiernan suggests, ‘Objectives should bring the child as near to normal behaviour as possible’ (Kiernan 1981 p. 3).

The Delineation of ‘Education’

What constitutes education is defined in areas of development, e.g. cognitive, physical, motor, self-help, social and leisure. Terms are understood differently in different publications, and in different schools, but such areas of development, analogous to parts of the body’s functions and particular aspects of development from childhood to maturity, are specified as if they were subject headings. They form a conceptual framework in which to represent groups of skills and behaviours which relate to the aims of education and which come to constitute the content of the educational programme in a hierarchical, skill-building manner.

A typical example is the Copewell Curriculum (Whelan, Speake and Strickland 1984). This is divided into four main sectors – self-help, social academic, interpersonal and vocational. Each area is then broken down into various components. To take ‘Interpersonal’ as a case in hand, the Copewell curriculum suggests that skills in this area are covered by the headings – bodily awareness, personal knowledge, social interaction and social responsibility. Under each heading there appears a list of target behaviours which tend to be presented as if they represent both a developmental and hierarchical sequence; that is, as if particular targets have to be achieved before others can be achieved, and single or groups of targets have to be mastered before the young person can go on to do something else which has some kind of link with them. An example of this is demonstrated clearly in the component ‘Bodily Awareness’ –

16.1	Knowledge of body parts (male) Can name and locate different parts of the male body.
16.2	Knowledge of body parts (female) Can name and locate different parts of the female body.
16.3	Knowledge of body measurements and clothing sizes (male). Can state his body measurements and related clothing sizes.
16.4	Knowledge of body measurements and clothing sizes (female). Can state her body measurements and related clothing sizes.
16.5	Sexual Knowledge Knows own sex and understands the basic differences between men and women and function of sexual organs.

(Whelan, Speake and Strickland 1984, p. 95).

Whether intentional or not, the presentation of targets in this manner is suggestive of a particular sequence for teaching and acquisition. Furthermore, the placing of a particular set of targets before ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. The Saga of Curriculum Innovation
• 2. Learning to be Independent?
• 3. Teaching – Relations and Processes of Imposition
• 4. Breaking the Mould
• 5. A New Deal?
• Bibliography
• General Index
• Author Index