Values into Practice in Special Education

Geoff Lindsay

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134095018
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The questions of values within special education are addressed in this work. The need for this derives from the changes in legislation and practice in the UK and abroad, including the development of inclusive education systems. The values underlying these and other developments are examined.

Part 1

Values in the Wider Community

Chapter 1

Values and Special Education

Geoff Lindsay and David Thompson

The world of special education is diverse, comprising those professionals, families and administrators who find themselves working together to meet children’s needs. Behind them is another world – the world of central government, civil servants, and the great British Public who give the political will to the system. These worlds interact over long periods of time, sometimes with consensus, but on other occasions different participants are in conflict. Everyone’s intention is to support the children, but how do we weigh the costs and benefits of the changes that occur in the lives of the children themselves, their families and the others with whom they interact? How do we balance concern for the child with special needs against the needs of other children in a class, school or wider community? How do we reconcile differential levels of provision?

These judgements are influenced by the main interests and values of those concerned, with overlaps but also distinctions within and between groups. For example, the parents will share many similar values to those held by parents of children without special needs; parents as a whole will also differ in their values as a result of their various religious and secular moral beliefs. An individual teacher’s views will show similar characteristics compared with those of other teachers, and there will also be overlap with parents’ views. But a teacher has different experiences and responsibilities and hence may have different priorities when judging particular issues.

Educational values have been defined as values to which we appeal in judging the worth of actions, programmes and products which are, or claim to be, conducive to the education of the child (Ormell 1980). In other words, they are principles or beliefs held by individuals, either by themselves or by group membership, which are used as criteria for making judgements on preferred courses of action. Some authors use the word ‘value’ as a verb: individuals value certain actions or principles they see as important, and having a high priority on time and resources (Barrow 1975; Holmes and Lindley 1991).

Although we tend to separate ‘facts’ from ‘values’, in reality such a distinction is problematic. Certain approaches to research emphasise the former and stress the need for objectivity, but there is criticism of this notion of ‘value-free’ science (Lindsay 1995a). For example, while certain evidence may indeed be objective, the decision to choose those particular data, those subjects, and even undertake the study in question rather than another, are all influenced by value judgements. The decisions to undertake research into provision for children with special educational needs (SEN), how much to allocate, and which programmes to support are influenced both by factual and value considerations. The same applies to the dissemination, or not, of the outcomes of such research, with some government agencies, for example, refusing to guarantee a proper freedom to researchers they contract to publish their findings.

Similarly, decisions regarding provision as a whole in a school or local education authority (LEA), and those with respect to individual children, are influenced both by the facts and by value judgements. Indeed, the latter can influence how ‘facts’ are presented, which to include, to emphasise or to leave out. Hence the values held by the participants can heavily influence the factual description of the situation. Knowledge of their own values, where they arise from and how they relate to their personal identity can therefore be important in enabling them to work with others to achieve an effective decision which genuinely meets the best interests of the child.

What is the current situation here in the UK in the late 1990s? What values are embedded in the ways of describing children’s difficulties, and to what extent are these legacies from the past? What values determine legislation, and the procedures and rights derived therefrom? Indeed, what values do we hold for children with special educational needs?

Do we value children with special educational needs?

There has been a major programme of legislation whose aim has been to improve the system of education for children with special educational needs – see Chapter 2. Together with other legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, the statutory framework now appears to provide much greater safeguards. Consequently, the answer to the question posed above appears to be obvious: we must value children with SEN otherwise why would we go to the trouble to legislate for their well-being? But is this so? A closer examination reveals a more complex scenario, for at the same time other legislation was being introduced.

League tables

One of the Conservative government’s avowed aims was to improve standards in schools (see Chapter 2). However, we must ask – standards of what, and for what? The publication of the first set of primary league tables of Key Stage 2 results provides an interesting reflection. These results received widespread coverage in the media, and were promoted by the Secretary of State, Gillian Shephard, as providing useful information. However, critics have argued that the raw data do not allow a fair analysis of the contribution of schools serving disadvantaged areas, or those with many children with SEN. Proponents of the ‘value added’ approach to school measurement recommend that the data be re-analysed taking such factors into account. Where this has occurred, schools and LEAs have been found to change their relative positions on the table, sometimes alarmingly. This practice is sound in principle, although the technical problems are usually under-estimated (e.g. Lindsay 1995a). Note also that the purpose is to remove children with SEN to allow a ‘fair’ judgement of the school. Furthermore, many lauded the achievements of the small group of schools which achieved 100 per cent of their children achieving Level 4.

But here we see some major conflicts. Take a school which would have achieved 100 per cent if its five pupils with severe and complex difficulties had been excluded from the calculation. But suppose that these children had made equally impressive achievements in their own terms. How will this be captured if they are excluded? What does this indicate for the value we place on their achievements, to treat them here as irritants in the analysis? And should we praise schools with 100 per cent results anyway, if this indicates they are not inclusive of children with SEN?

Selection

Parents, in theory, now have the right to choose, but evidence is accruing that it is schools which select, but not all schools. Rather, some schools, those which are popular and over-subscribed may select to become even more homogeneous, and it is proposed that this previously secondary phenomenon be encouraged in primary schools. How many schools will actively seek children with special educational needs? Even parents of apparently able children are having a rough ride if Frances Beckett is representative (Guardian Education, 18 March 1997). In her article ‘Battered and bruised we held our breath …’ she concludes: ‘It is a most remarkable example of Orwellian Doublespeak that this misery has been imposed on families in the name of parental choice.’ (p.3).

Do systems such as these indicate valuing of children as a whole and, more particularly, those with SEN? Or, rather, is it not the case that these children are seen as irritants, variables to be used to modify data, or ‘unfortunate’ casualties of a system designed to ensure that those who are most favoured receive the best?

Effects of social policies on health

Consider also what the data on children’s health indicate for the values we hold about their welfare. In many respects this has been a success story. Infant mortality rates have dropped considerably since the nineteenth century, across all countries in the developed world. Within the UK they have reduced across all regions and all social classes. However, as Spencer (1996) shows, there remain differentials in infant mortality between regions and class. Also, these differentials can be demonstrated for childhood illnesses and other child health issues. For example, if we compare rates of occurrence for children in the Registrar General’s Social Class V (lowest) with Social Class (highest), we find that they are:

• twice as likely to die after infancy

• seven times as likely to die in road traffic accidents

• eight times as likely to die in a fire

• and children in the most deprived ten per cent of local authority electoral wards were 15 times as likely to die from a head injury as children in the least deprived 10 per cent (Spencer 1996).

Furthermore, the same pattern of inequality can be shown for low birth weight, failure to thrive, incidence of cerebral palsy, respiratory infections, otitis media (middle ear infections with temporary, but often sustained, hearing loss) and many other illnesses, as well as behaviour problems, and poorer educational outcomes. In addition, Spencer argues that child poverty in the USA and UK has recently risen dramatically. In the UK, for example, the rate has changed from 9% around 1980 to 31% in 1992.

There have now been many studies which have demonstrated significant health inequalities relative to social class and degrees of poverty, and Spencer’s is an excellent summary of this field. The conclusions to be drawn are that governments, not only in the UK, have not placed high priority on children in general, let alone those children who have disabilities or special educational needs. The dominant philosophy in the UK and USA during the 1980s and early 1990s has been that of ‘personal responsibility’. In the case of health, the focus has been away from general, pervasive influences amply shown to affect health outcomes, and instead to concentrate on individual responsibility for health: cutting down smoking; not engaging in unsafe sex; maintaining a healthy weight; etc. Now, all of these are important, and personal responsibility is a key element, but an historical analysis of health promotion indicates that the most powerful impact has been made by public health measures (e.g. water purity, improved housing, mass immunisation) rather than individual actions. Spencer (1996) argues: ‘Neo-liberal, monetarist economic and social policies pursued in developed countries such as the UK and the USA in recent years have been responsible for increasing child poverty and exacerbating its health consequences.’ (p.207)

Models of disability and special needs

Traditionally children with learning, physical and sensory difficulties were conceptualised within a model which focused on their own hypothetical deficiencies. This has often been called the ‘deficiency’, ‘within child’ or ‘medical’ model. Indeed, these terms often appear to be used interchangeably, although there are subtle distinctions.

Deficiency

The child’s abilities in one domain (e.g. cognition) are considered to be below a particular level and the actual level is considered to be lower than that required for satisfactory development. Note that there are two aspects of this approach. The first is essentially a measurement issue: what is the cut-off point? The second is functional: deficiency in music alone is not considered a major problem, deficiency in reading or general cognitive ability is.

Within child

The focus of causation of the difficulties is clearly within the child. This may be based on physical evidence (e.g. profound hearing loss, cerebral palsy), an hypothesis based on functioning (e.g. low levels of reading ability), or on difficulties in abilities considered to be pre-requisite for skill development (e.g. the child is not reading because he or she is considered to have poorly developed perceptual or phonological skills). External factors (e.g. quality of teaching) are not considered as a direct causation.

Medical model

This term is often used in a confusing manner, confounding different notions of a medical model. In the present context, the implication is that the causation is physical (e.g. constitutional, genetic, result of an accident). It is thus very similar to the ‘within child’ model. However, confusion often exists as the term ‘medical model’ is also used to describe practice where medical personnel are dominant and ‘in charge’. Even if there is a multi-disciplinary team the medical member (e.g. paediatrician in a paediatric assessment team, psychiatrist in a child guidance team) may be ultimately responsible, and their conceptual framework may dominate.

Since the 1970s in particular alternative models have been in vogue. The two main approaches are the ‘needs’ and ‘social’ models.

Needs model

The Warnock Report (DES 1978) introduced into official government discourse the term special educational needs. This promoted a focus on the needs of the child rather than the origin or causation of the difficulties. However, inherent in this, and indeed to a large extent as a result of earlier debate within the educational psychology literature (e.g. Gillham 1978), is the concept of interaction. A child’s learning difficulties must be seen as a result of an interaction of various factors including their own strengths and weaknesses which may be the result of constitutional or experiential factors, and the influence of the environment, in particular the school and family.

Needs are specified relative to the child’s present status and the future goals determined by key people – parents, professionals, the children themselves. In this model, needs can be of two kinds: future status and means to achieve this. For example, a child with very poor writing skills (whether the result of athetoid cerebal palsy, limited sight vocabulary or inefficient teaching) may be considered to ‘need’ to achieve a particular level of competence, relative to age-related expectation. But the term may also refer to what is necessary in order to achieve this goal: the child may ‘need’ a particular writing programme or a piece of IT equipment.

Social model

The preceding models have largely been determined by professionals and applied to children (and adults) with disabilities or special needs. With increasing power as their numbers and influence swell, alternative models have been proposed by the people previously the subject of such definition. Barnes (1996) describes this socio-political approach thus:

a growing number of academics, many of whom are disabled people themselves, have re-conceptualised disability as a complex and sophisticated form of social oppression… or institutional discrimination on a par with sexism, hetrosexism and racism… theoretical analysis has shifted from individuals and their impairment to disabling environments and hostile social attitudes. (Barnes 1996, p.1)

Which model of special educational needs?

The previous discussion has explored the limitations of the traditional, individual model of SEN. In this, the focus of attention is on the child or adult who has an impairment. We have argued that this approach has two major forms of limitation. First, it does not reflect a true functional analysis of the situation. To give a simple example, a child with a mild to moderate hearing loss may function very differently in two classrooms.

Sarah has a 50dB hearing loss, with some fluctuations: her hearing is worse when she has one of her frequent colds/ear infections. Ms Smith knows of her hearing problems, having discussed her with the peripatetic teacher of the hearing impaired, whom she meets each month to check progress. Ms Smith ensures that before any instruction is given to the class, she has Sarah’s attention by gaining eye contact and giving an agreed signal before asking the class to listen. She always addresses the class near and facing Sarah, and checks that Sarah has understood afterwards. When teaching the class, Ms Smith operates the same system but prepares Sarah and checks her understanding by brief pre- and post-input sessions with her.

Now think of a classroom where the teacher ‘treats Sarah like all the others’, talks to the class as she walks around the room, engages Sarah in her turn for individual or small group work as any other child. In both settings Sarah has an impairment, but her degree of disablement is different. Both teachers may have the same attitude to Sarah, both believing they are treating her appropriately and valuing her equally. Yet the effects may be very different.

Hence, as this example indicates, an analysis of children’s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword Klaus Wedell
• Notes on Authors
• Part 1 Values in The Wider Community
• Part 2 Values in Schools
• Part 3 Values in Relationships
• References
• Index