Including Children with Visual Impairment in Mainstream Schools

A Practical Guide

Pauline Davis

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781135373115
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First Published in 2003. This book provides guidance to teachers, teaching assistants, service staff, parents and other professionals regarding the inclusion of children with visual impairments in mainstream primary schools. Rich and detailed case studies of inclusion in four schools are used to enable the development of an understanding that is grounded in the contexts and circumstances of real schools. Whilst focus is on children with visual impairments, many of the themes running through the book hold resonance in relation to thinking about the inclusion of other children with special educational needs.

1	Introduction

Including children with visual impairment

Research studies have shown consistently the benefits of increasing access to opportunities for social interaction and learning for children with visual impairment (VI). Teaching children in mainstream schools carries inherent benefits of participation and learning within an environment of non-segregation, thus promoting the child’s educational and social inclusion. However, children with VI also require additional support, e.g. in mobility or tactile awareness, in addition to accessing the main curriculum. Providing for children who are blind or who have low vision in the mainstream sector increases the diversity of needs in the classroom and presents challenges for schools to become more educationally inclusive.

How do teachers and other professionals manage to include effectively a child who is visually impaired in a classroom alongside, perhaps, 30 sighted peers? What is visual impairment and how might the educational needs of this group of children differ from those of children who are fully sighted? What is meant by the term inclusion and how has its meaning changed over the last few years? How can teachers, teaching assistants and other professionals learn to work together in ways that can increase the educational inclusion of the child? This book addresses these questions, and many others, and is intended to be of practical use to a wide range of practitioners who are concerned with developing more inclusive practices in primary schools and classrooms, especially with regard to the inclusion of children with VI.

Including Children with Visual Impairment in Mainstream Schools is aimed at teachers, special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) head teachers in mainstream primary schools, and other professionals involved in the move to inclusive education, e.g. visiting teachers, teaching assistants, sensory service or visual impairment service managers or local education authority (LEA) officers. It should also be useful for parents of children with VI in increasing their awareness of the educational needs of their child. In addition, this book will be of relevance to students on PGCE, continuing education and Masters degree courses in Special or Inclusive Education. It supports primary schools and support services in their quest to develop more educationally inclusive practices - not only for children with VI, but for other children with more specific individual needs. The book is written to be a vehicle for whole-school professional development or for the professional development of the individual teacher. It provides:

• Staff development materials for use by the whole school, in small groups or by individuals.

• Case studies of schools committed to developing inclusive practices for children with VI.

• Evidence from new research that is grounded in the realities of teaching and learning in mainstream schools.

The catalyst for this book is the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) research project Including Children with Visual Impairment in the Mainstream Primary Classroom‘, which is based on case studies of 17 schools in the North-West of England. The first phase of the research involved observation of lessons and interviews with over 80 staff, including head teachers, class teachers, visiting teachers for the visually impaired, teaching assistants and support service managers. During the second phase of the study we worked closely with a small number of schools as they sought to develop more inclusive practices. Real examples from these schools - along with the dilemmas they faced and how these were overcome as the schools worked towards inclusion - provide the mainstay of the book.

In this first chapter, I define the use of the term ‘visual impairment‘, introduce the reader to the research inquiry upon which this book is based, explain some of the reasons why the research was needed and provide details of the policy documentation and relevant legislation. The chapter ends with an outline of the content of the remaining chapters and staff development materials.

Visual impairment

The term ‘visual impairment’ refers to children who are classed as blind or as having low vision. There are various definitions, but the World Health Organisation (WHO) definitions of terms, based on visual acuity scores, are now the most widely accepted. These scores are based on the sight perception of people with ‘perfect’ vision and are written as a fraction. For example, a person with a score of 6/18 implies that he can see when 6 metres from an object what a person with perfect sight would see at 18 metres. Alternatively, a score of 3/60 means that an object at a distance of 3 metres appears in its detail as it would to a person with perfect sight if it were 60 metres away. According to this conception:

• a person scoring between 6/6 and 6/18 is classed as having normal vision;

• a person scoring between 6/18 and 3/60 is classed as having low vision;

• a person scoring less than 3/60 is classed as being blind.

Importantly, the vast majority of people who are classed as blind have some sight, i.e. usually, the term blind does not mean unable to see anything at all. Sometimes a person with no sight facility is referred to as being totally blind.

While this definition is useful in making a distinction between those with more severe and those with more moderate loss of sight - as might be required for purposes of resourcing or for other purposes of special entitlement - there are dangers associated with any forms of classification of people as the very act of placing someone in a group serves to mask diversity.

There are many different eye conditions and sight can be affected in many different ways. For example, a person classed as blind might have peripheral vision, another person might also be classed as blind but have tunnel vision, while yet another might find that his/her ability to see very much depends on the level of light available. For some people, too much light might lead to blindness, for others too little light may result in reduced vision. Some eye conditions might be more or less stable over time, others are degenerative. Near or distance vision might be affected. These are just a few examples -there are many more ways in which sight can vary.

The term functional vision serves a useful purpose. In contrast to the WHO definition, which is deficit in construction (i.e. focusing on what a person cannot see), functional vision refers in a positive way to available sight (i.e. focusing on what a person can see) and so opens possibilities of discussion of how sight can be used. The conception of functional vision also allows for a diversity of eye conditions and syndromes. In the context of school, a specialist teacher will acquire an in-depth understanding of a child’s unique functional vision and how it might change over time. The specialist will work to optimise the sight available to the child by teaching him/her how to make best use of functional vision. This information will then be passed on to the class teacher and others who need to know it in order to help the child.

There are various other ways of classifying people with VI. Mason and McCall (1997) use the generic term ‘visual impairment’ to describe a continuum of sight loss. They state that ‘the term blind is used to describe children who rely predominantly on tactile methods in their learning e.g. Braille, while the term low vision is used with reference to children who are taught through methods which rely on sight’ (Mason and McCall 1997:2). This classification seems most appropriate in a context of education and is adopted where a distinction seems necessary.

Background to the research

There are an estimated 23,000 children with VI in the UK - including those with low vision and those who have additional disabilities - of which 9,000 are in primary school (Clunies-Ross and Franklin 1997). Fifty-three per cent of children with VI attended a local mainstream school in 1988 and this figure rose to 59 per cent in 1995 (Walker et al. 1992; Clunies-Ross and Franklin 1997). Although the proportion of children with VI in mainstream schools in the year 2002 is at the time of writing unknown, given the impetus for inclusive education, children with VI are likely to continue entering mainstream education in growing numbers. However, while normative findings such as this are useful in providing information on national trends, they can be misleading at a local level because of the great variability in the proportions of children in mainstream education (and the nature of that provision) between local education authorities (LEAs): in some authorities provision in the mainstream is now close to 100 per cent. However, interpretation of available statistics is not straightforward as simple percentages can mask realities, for instance by some parents choosing for their children to be educated in special provision in a neighbouring authority.

It is also useful to make a distinction between children with VI but no other additional difficulties and a larger group who have VI in combination with a range of additional difficulties (e.g. Walker et al. 1992 cited in Arter et al. 1999). Children with VI and additional difficulties are more likely (at the time of writing) to be educated in special schools or be attached to a resource unit (a special unit within a mainstream school) than children with no additional difficulties. Usually, the decision as to where a child will be educated is taken after a period of negotiation between the parents and education authority staff, e.g. the head of service for the visually impaired or sensory impaired. Parents have considerable rights in choosing the type of provision for their child. However, in many cases it is the ability of parents to exercise their rights that is instrumental in school selection, thus empowering those parents who are better informed, the most vocal and with the best communication skills.

The New Code of Practice on Special Educational Needs (DfES 2001) has a clear expectation that pupils with special educational needs (SEN) will be included in mainstream schools. The government believes that when parents want a mainstream place for their child the education service should do everything possible to try to provide it. This applies to children with VI with no additional difficulty as well as children with VI with additional difficulties. Certainly, there is no reason (unless parents insist) why a child with VI and no additional difficulties should not be in the mainstream classroom, even if s/he is totally blind. Furthermore, many children with VI and additional difficulties are also very well catered for in mainstream schools.

West and Sammons (1996) have examined some of the particular strategies and adaptations made in schools in order to meet special educational needs. However, their research does not specifically address visual impairment (blind and low vision). Recent research gives guidelines for the provision of children with special needs in mainstream schools. For example, Mittler (1996) and Venables (1998) link good practice with staff development, and Mortimer (1996) provides strategies for facilitating the teaching of young children. Sebba and Sachdev (1997) offer a thorough review of inclusive policies and address issues that impact on inclusive education including legislation, school organisation and classroom practice. These authors, however, do not focus on the particulars of practice relating to teaching children with VI in mainstream primary schools.

Guidelines have been written for practitioners concerning: services for visually impaired children (Hegarty et al. 1981; Dawkins 1991), and many authorities have up-to-date in-house information for schools available); teaching approaches (Best 1992) and practical advice for the mainstream teacher (Arter et al. 1999; Chapman and Stone 1998; Mason and McCall 1997; Torres and Corn 1990). Factors that impact on the quality of education that a child with VI receives include the physical environment of the school, social and cognitive factors, for example, whether or not the built environment is easy to navigate and free from obstacles, or whether the child’s lighting needs are met in the context of a busy classroom.

Research in the field of educational inclusion has tended to focus on all the children in a classroom or in a school, rather than on a particular group of children. In this respect our approach was somewhat unusual as, in the schools we visited, we focused on a particular child, rather than on all the children in the class. It is through studying the inclusion of particular groups of children that the gap between policy rhetoric and practice reality can be lessened, as cognitively it becomes easier to understand the complexities of the special need under examination, while still maintaining a mainstream focus. This is especially true for children classed as having low incidence special educational needs such as VI. As McCall (1999) has argued, because of their low frequency, disabilities such as VI have a tendency to be overlooked in grand designs.

There are a number of important reasons why the education of children with VI requires particular attention. First, visual impairment is an umbrella term for a wide variety of conditions, with the detailed practicalities for inclusion depending very much on the particular condition of a child. Specialist diagnosis and expert advice are essential to ensure that the specific visual needs of a child can be met. Secondly, children with VI often have complex needs which call for accommodation by the class teacher to ensure that they are afforded their full entitlement to the curriculum (Arter et al. 1999). For example, children with VI can quickly become visually fatigued when concentrating on school work for sustained periods of time and so may require regular periods of rest for their eyes. Current research also indicates that reading through Braille imposes significant cognitive demands for blind children compared with their sighted peers who read through print (Greaney et al. 1999). Thirdly, children with severe VI are likely to require additional support in developing social and life skills. For instance, Webster and Roe (1998) have highlighted the importance of social encounters to promote visually impaired children’s cognitive, linguistic and social development. In addition, because policies and practices for educating children with VI are known to vary widely across LEAs, and because VI is a low incidence need, there are particular implications regarding the professional development of mainstream class teachers and teaching assistants.

In Britain, children classed as visually impaired who are in mainstream education should receive support from an outside service (part of the LEA) that is responsible for meeting the specific needs of the children. The visiting teacher (often, but not always, a qualified teacher of the visually impaired) is employed by the service and is usually responsible for supporting a caseload of children who are based in a number of schools. The visiting teacher often works in an advisory capacity and, in the case of children with a severe VI, is a main provider of an additional curriculum that is devised to facilitate the child’s access to the main curriculum and to promote social inclusion among peers. This includes specialist teaching of Braille, mobility skills, tactile skills, keyboard skills and life skills. In addition to the time spent with a visiting teacher, the child with VI is likely to have a teaching assistant; for children who are classed as being blind, this support is likely to be full time. Teaching assistants usually provide support within the main classroom, whereas visiting teachers, because of their qualifications, have more flexibility in their work and may choose to withdraw the child for some periods from the main classroom - perhaps to a quiet area or to a special unit or designated room.

The teacher should expect to receive advice and guidance from the support service on how best to use the pupil’s functional vision. This could mean removing reflective surfaces in the classroom, or for children with low vision providing clear, large print handouts. In most cases, teachers are encouraged to provide increased access to the curriculum via non-visual means such as through sound and touch. Teachers can expect to be provided with detailed information about the child’s visual condition and ensuing educational implications. The support service responsible for VI should offer detailed guidance on appropriate teaching strategies, and use and adaptation of equipment and resources. We found that in most cases written guidance about the needs of an individual child was provided.

In order to ensure that the educational and sight needs of a child are met, it is crucial that guidance to teachers is of the highest standard. This requires the translation of a full medical diagnosis into guidance on the educational needs of a child. For example, a child may need to have his/her desk raised and perhaps at an angle of 20 per cent; alternatively, for some children, enlarging a worksheet is ineffective in helping them to see bett...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• The author
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Towards an understanding of inclusion
• 3. Case study: Pilkingston Primary School (with Vicky Hopwood)
• 4. Case study: St Elisabeth School (with Vicky Hopwood)
• 5. Case study: St Edward’s CE Primary School (with Vicky Hopwood)
• 6. Case study: Willow Vale School (with Vicky Hopwood)
• 7. Working in partnership
• 8. Developing inclusive practices
• 9. Towards the development of better practice
• Useful addresses
• Bibliography
• Index