Curricula for Teaching Children and Young People with Severe or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties

Practical strategies for educational professionals

Peter Imray, Viv Hinchcliffe

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134679515
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Curricula for Teaching Children and Young People with Severe or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties offers a range of compelling arguments for a distinct and separate pedagogical approach to the learning needs of the most educationally challenging pupils. This book, written in accessible, common sense and non-academic language, provides an easy-to-follow alternative curriculum specifically designed to enhance and enrich the learning of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Chapter by chapter, guidelines and support are offered in key curriculum areas, some of which include:

• Cognition
• Language, Literacy and Communication
• Mathematical
• Physical
• Sensory
• Creative
• Care
• Play
• Problem solving.

This highly practical resource is essential reading for any educational professional, parents, school governors, teachers, teaching assistants, therapists and indeed anyone involved with maximising the educational opportunities of those with profound learning difficulties.

Part I

Pedagogical questions

Chapter 1

Setting the scene

This book is an attempt to argue a case that has been bubbling around in the UK for a considerable time, but many of the arguments are by no means confined solely to the UK, since they affect all children, young people and adults wherever they are in the world, with severe learning difficulties (SLD) and profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD).

Working towards a definition of SLD

The definitions of these two descriptive learning conditions are particularly UK based and need explaining. Such explanations could take up a book in themselves if we were to do the subject full justice, though (like the rest of the book) we will try to be brief and to the point. The UK definition is largely based on observation of broadly definable (group) characteristics that practitioners understand as defining SLD. These characteristics have been noted by Imray (2005) as being difficulties with communication, understanding abstract concepts, concentration, and moving things from the short-term memory to the long. Lacey (2009) has noted that this group of learners typically have inefficient and slow informationprocessing speeds, little general knowledge, poor strategies for thinking and learning, and difficulties with generalisation and problem solving. These difficulties may well be compounded by considerably higher than usual incidence of sensory, motor and health difficulties (Porter, 2005b); an additional Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC) diagnosis (Jordan, 2001; De Bildt et al., 2005); and the considerably higher than average chance of having attendant challenging behaviours (Emerson, 1995; Harris, 1995; Male, 1996; Allen et al., 2006). Interestingly, Carpenter (2010) has noted an increasing complexity of learning difficulties since the turn of the twentieth-first century, an observation also noted by a recent UK Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Review, which reported special school headteachers’ comments on this issue (Ofsted, 2006).

While it may be that, as Fujiura (2003) has suggested, definitional problems have rendered any search for a true number of persons with developmental disabilities a largely futile exercise, we can at least bring some common notions to bear and have some common understanding as to what is meant by PMLD and SLD throughout this book. Outside of the UK, and especially in the USA, defining children, young people and adults as having a severe learning difficulty or disability has tended to be done within IQ terms and using different terminology. The 1973 revision of the American Association of Mental Retardation (AAMR) definition of mental retardation reduced the IQ diagnostic criteria from 85 to 70 (Grossman, 1973) with current US definitions remaining essentially unchanged to date (Schalock et al., 2007). The USA has only recently given up the term mental retardation¹ and it would appear that the UK definition of SLD equates broadly to this (Porter, 2005b; Stoneman, 2009) or more accurately, the new terminologies of severe intellectual disabilities, significant cognitive disabilities or low-incidence intellectual disabilities, which Browder et al. (2009) consider to form a maximum of one per cent of the general population. This percentage would more or less equate to the number of school-aged children classified as having a severe learning or profound and multiple learning difficulty in the UK, whether in mainstream or special schools. Emerson et al. (2010) note that there is no definitive record of the number of children of school age in the UK, as the presence of learning difficulties is not recorded in the decennial census of the UK population. Emerson et al. estimate, however, that over 200,000 children in England have a primary SEN associated with learning difficulty. Of these, four out of five have a moderate learning difficulty, and one in twenty have PMLD. The American terms ‘learning disabilities’ or ‘high-incidence disabilities’, seem to relate broadly to a UK definition of ‘moderate learning difficulties’ (Tartaglia et al., 2009).

Describing a range of difficulties by using a framework of normative Western intellectual development (IQ tests) is of course fraught with problems, but it is difficult to see how else one may come up with a common and useful definition. There have been other attempts to define SLD in normative terms, especially relating cognitive functioning to conventionally developing children. This has a long and distinguished tradition with Lev Vygotsky classifying children’s cognitive functioning into broad, age-related groupings that we might now associate with PMLD in the zero to two years range, and SLD in the two to seven years range (Rieber and Carlton, 1993). An early American estimate came from Yesseldyke (1987) who proposed that those with SLD were unlikely to progress beyond the level of an average seven or eight year old, while a more recent UK attempt by Imray (2005) suggests they are functioning cognitively below, usually considerably below, that of a conventionally developing six year old².

The latter definition owes a great deal to the UK National Curriculum (NC) that has been in operation in England and Wales since 1988, which starts at Year 1 (five to six years old) and expects averagely performing neuro-typical (NT) children to be working comfortably within Level 1 in at least English and Maths at around six years old. Prior to 2000 all UK schools, statutorily required to indicate where all of their children were working within the NC, could only note with a ‘W’ that children who had not yet reached Level 1 were ‘working towards it’. This naturally led to much complaint that children with SLD and PMLD (about half of whom are educated in separate ‘special’ SLD Schools) were excluded from comparators applicable to the rest of the whole school population. As a result the P scales (QCA, 2001) were brought in (where P stands for pre-Level 1), which gave eight levels from P1 to P8 that could be reached prior to Level 1. These have been subsequently revised (QCA, 2004; QCA, 2009) but remain essentially the same in principle.

The fact remains that the norm for the school population who are currently described as having SLD or PMLD is to be working at or below P8 for the whole of their school lives, that is, in the UK, up to the age of nineteen. There may be a number of pupils and students with SLD who achieve Level 1 of the NC and beyond in some areas, especially those who may have an additional autistic spectrum condition (ASC), but these will often be in areas where rote learning can be applied, as for example with reading and numbers; that is, the skill may have been gained but the understanding may well lag far behind.

Using the P scales as an aid to a definition of severe learning difficulties

It might be useful for UK readers to remind themselves of the upper limits of the P scales, since this also offers the opportunity to introduce the concept to readers from outside the UK. English is sub-divided into reading, writing, speaking and listening. Maths is sub-divided into number, shape, space and measure, using and applying. For the sake of space we have quoted in full only P7 and P8 from ‘reading’ and ‘number’, but they give a more than adequate flavour of the nature of the P scales.

English (Reading)

P7 Pupils show an interest in the activity of reading. They predict elements of a narrative, for example, when the adult stops reading, pupils fill in the missing word. They distinguish between print or symbols and pictures in texts. They understand the conventions of reading, for example, following text left to right, top to bottom and page following page. They know that their name is made up of letters.

P8 Pupils understand that words, symbols and pictures convey meaning. They recognise or read a growing repertoire of familiar words or symbols, including their own names. They recognise at least half the letters of the alphabet by shape, name or sound. They associate sounds with patterns in rhymes, with syllables, and with words or symbols.

(QCA, 2009; p. 11)

Maths (Number)

P7 Pupils join in rote counting to 10, for example, saying or signing number names to 10 in counting activities. They can count at least 5 objects reliably, for example, candles on a cake, bricks in a tower. They recognise numerals from 1 to 5 and understand that each represents a constant number or amount, for example, putting the correct number of objects (1 to 5) into containers marked with the numeral; collecting the correct number of items up to five. Pupils demonstrate an understanding of ‘less’, for example, indicating which bottle has less water in it. In practical situations they respond to ‘add one’ to a number of objects, for example, responding to requests such as add one pencil to the pencils in the pot, add one sweet to the dish.

P8 Pupils join in with rote counting to beyond 10, for example, they say or sign number names in counting activities. They continue to rote count onwards from a given small number, for example, continuing the rote count onwards in a game using dice and moving counters up to 10; continuing to say, sign or indicate the count aloud when an adult begins counting the first two numbers. Pupils recognise differences in quantity, for example, in comparing given sets of objects and saying which has more or less, which is the bigger group or smaller group. They recognise numerals from one to nine and relate them to sets of objects, for example, labeling sets of objects with correct numerals. In practical situations they respond to ‘add one’ to or ‘take one away’ from a number of objects, for example, adding one more to three objects in a box and say, sign or indicate how many are now in the box; at a cake sale saying, signing or indicating how many cakes are left when one is sold. They use ordinal numbers (first, second, third) when describing the position of objects, people or events, for example, indicating who is first in a queue or line; who is first, second and third in a race or competition. Pupils estimate a small number (up to 10) and check by counting, for example, suggesting numbers that can be checked by counting, guessing then counting the number of: pupils in a group; adults in the room; cups needed at break time.

(QCA, 2009; pp. 21/22)

What is interesting here is that the P scales are framed in terms of what pupils and students can do, or more accurately are in the process of learning to do, since they operate on the basis of ‘best fit’. That is, a pupil assigned to the level of P7 has achieved all or most of the descriptors and may also be working within the next level up, P8. This ‘can do’ definition touches on a number of concerns with ‘labeling’ as being essentially detrimental to the child being labeled (Ho, 2004) and pre-dates Terzi’s (2010) call for us to adopt the ‘language of capability’ rather than the language of deficit when describing the nature of special educational needs. While the nature of the ‘identification dilemma’ (Norwich, 2008) is explored more fully in Chapter 2, we can at least reflect that the P scales are entirely based on the language of capability, though they are of course also based entirely on the language of (i) conventional development and (ii) academic, intellectual functioning.

From this perspective it might also be useful to turn to the P scale definitions of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), which along with Maths and English constituted the original P scales written in 1998 by a group of English special school headteachers (Ndaji and Tymms, 2009). PSHE also possibly represents the least academic subject within the UK National Curriculum and therefore might give a more accurate reflection of someone with SLD, who will, by whichever definition one chooses, naturally struggle within an academic framework. Here then, are the P scales 4 to 8 for PSHE and Citizenship.

PSHE and Citizenship

P4 Pupils express their feelings, needs, likes and dislikes using single elements of communication (words, gestures, signs or symbols). They engage in parallel activity with several others. Pupils follow familiar routines and take part in familiar tasks or activities with support from others. They show an understanding of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, and recognise and respond to animated praise or criticism. They begin to respond to the feelings of others, for example, matching their emotions and becoming upset.

P5 Pupils take part in work or play involving two or three others. They maintain interactions and take turns in a small group with some support. Pupils combine two elements of communication to express their feelings, needs and choices. They join in discussions by responding appropriately (vocalising, using gestures, symbols or signing) to simple questions about familiar events or experiences, for example, ‘What does the baby need?’

P6 Pupils respond to others in group situations, playing or working in a small group cooperatively, for example, taking turns appropriately. They carry out routine activities in a familiar context and show an awareness of the results of their own actions. They may show concern for others, for example, through facial expressions, gestures or tone of voice, and sympathy for others in distress and offer comfort.

P7 Pupils communicate feelings and ideas in simple phrases. They move, with support, to new activities which are either directed or self-chosen. They make purposeful relationships with others in group activities and attempt to negotiate with them in a variety of situations, for example, if other pupils wish to use the same piece of equipment. They judge right and wrong on the basis of the consequences of their actions. They show some consideration of the needs and feelings of other people and other living things, for example, offering food to a visitor or watering a classroom plant.

P8 Pupils join in a range of activities in one-to-one situations and in small or large groups. They choose, initiate and follow through new tasks and self-selected activities. They understand the need for rules in games, and show awareness of how to join in different situations. They understand agreed codes of behaviour which help groups of people work together, and they support each ...