eBook - ePub
Implementing the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties
Richard Rose, Ann Fergusson, Caroline Coles, Richard Byers, David Banes, Richard Rose, Ann Fergusson, Caroline Coles, Richard Byers, David Banes
This is a test
Share book
- 176 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Implementing the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties
Richard Rose, Ann Fergusson, Caroline Coles, Richard Byers, David Banes, Richard Rose, Ann Fergusson, Caroline Coles, Richard Byers, David Banes
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
First published in 1994, Implementing the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties explores practical ways of addressing the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. It draws upon the experience of classroom teachers in developing their practice within and beyond the National Curriculum. It provides examples of ways in which pupil's personal and social development may be fostered through pupil self-advocacy, pupil participation, pupil directed learning and group work. This book is an essential read for teachers and educationists.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoās features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youāll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weāve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Implementing the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Implementing the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties by Richard Rose, Ann Fergusson, Caroline Coles, Richard Byers, David Banes, Richard Rose, Ann Fergusson, Caroline Coles, Richard Byers, David Banes in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Education & Education Curricula. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
Chapter One
Schools Should Decide ā¦
Redefining the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties (Sebba, Byers and Rose, 1993) set out to describe a process of curriculum development which had at least three distinct features:
- ā¢ the need to retain and revitalise those aspects of traditional curricula still seen as priorities in schools for pupils with learning difficulties;
- ā¢ the task of developing means of access into and assimilating the demands of the National Curriculum;
- ā¢ the drive to continue to push forward, alongside colleagues in mainstream schools, into territory concerned with pupilsā personal and social development and specifically towards such targets as pupil autonomy, pupil self responsibility, pupil consultation and advocacy.
This introductory chapter reviews some of the work which has ensured meaningful routes into the National Curriculum and given schools a means of integrating new programmes of study with traditional curricular priorities. It also examines some of the recent developments in education and proposes that it is time for school communities to reclaim control over the processes of curriculum development, curriculum management and curriculum implementation. This chapter argues in favour of local ownership of those fundamental principles which underpin and guide the work of school communities in promoting pupilsā personal and social development.
Entitlement
In the Acknowledgements at the beginning of Redefining the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties the authors stated an intention of the book as being āto motivate teachers and others to question, reflect, and ultimately move their practices forward to the benefit of the pupils with whom they work.ā In many respects it was a safe assumption that this would, in fact, happen. What was perhaps less predictable at the time when Redefining the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties was published, was the intensity of the debate which is currently evident throughout the education system with regards to the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties.
Staff in schools for pupils with learning difficulties are well used to coping with challenge, difficulty, disappointment and innovation. Indeed, teaching in many schools for pupils with learning difficulties was itself, prior to the Education Reform Act of 1988, a discipline in its infancy. Staff had grown used to assimilating and accommodating new ideas and to operating in a climate of constant improvisation. Indeed, this sense of adaptability lay at the heart of one of the proudest claims of staff in schools for pupils with learning difficulties when receiving pupils who were said to have failed, or at least to have experienced a lack of success, in grappling with the curriculum and work habits insisted upon in mainstream schools. Staff receiving those pupils into schools for pupils with learning difficulties prior to 1988 claimed that they did not operate a curriculum or a set of behavioural codes into which pupils must fit or be rejected. On the contrary, such staff perceived their task as being to devise a curriculum and a code of conduct which would meet the needs of each individual pupil in their charge even if this meant creating a new programme for each and every pupil.
This philosophy of needs driven, individualised education underpinned much of the work of schools for pupils with learning difficulties throughout most of the 1970s and 1980s. The system came to be criticised for its narrowness, but it always maintained a firm claim on relevance. There was a sense that it was good to be different ā that schools for pupils with learning difficulties were able to be more true to the spirit of pupil-centred education largely because they were not hidebound by all the restrictions of an imposed curriculum and system of assessment and examination. The rhetoric stated that schools for pupils with learning difficulties operated in a realm of purity and altruism where the benefit of the pupil was the sole guiding influence. It does not need to be said that this claim was naive and patently untrue in many instances, but it did serve as part of the ethical foundation for the work of many members of staff in schools for pupils with learning difficulties and it did engender in those staff a powerful sense of ownership of the curriculum, of methodology and of the spirit and ethos which underpinned the functioning of school communities.
It was this sense of ownership which the Education Reform Act of 1988, with its introduction of the National Curriculum and its associated testing and assessment procedures, most significantly challenged. At a stroke, schools for pupils with learning difficulties were apparently required to conform to the very kind of curriculum and assessment straitjacket which had ensured failure for so many pupils in mainstream schools in the past. Indeed, judging by the initial reactions of many mainstream colleagues, this was to be a more constricting system of restraint than anything which had gone before. The legislation seemed to herald the loss of freedom - not a freedom to do as one pleased, but a freedom to do the best for oneās pupils - a freedom which enabled staff in schools for pupils with learning difficulties to provide the most appropriate educational experience for each and every one of their clients. Somewhere close to the heart of this sense of freedom and ownership came the notion that pupilsā personal and social development and a grounding in practical living skills were more relevant to pupilsā real needs than any subject based curriculum.
It came as no surprise, therefore, when concerns were expressed in the early days following the introduction of the National Curriculum that the needs of pupils with learning difficulties had been largely ignored. Furthermore, the provision of advice for its introduction was in short supply and was the source of some confusion (Wedell, 1988; Norwich, 1989; Ware, 1990). Indeed, the early documentation reflected an Education Reform Act which had been ill conceived, badly constructed, and which, through its speedy introduction, provided general bewilderment for those charged with its implementation. As Brahm Norwich (1989) stated:
There must be many, who like me, are watching the gradual implementation of the Education Reform Act with increasing bewilderment and wondering how it will work. How will the principle that there should be maximum participation in the National Curriculum by all children, and minimal use of the statutory exceptions, be reconciled with the practical realities of operating a new curricular framework ? (p. 94)
Understandably, the outcry from teachers of pupils with learning difficulties was considerable. The Actās statement of entitlement had to a large extent been overlooked by those charged with a responsibility to structure the National Curriculum. Wider concerns were expressed about the intentions of an Education Act which appeared to be driven by political motivation rather than establishing its roots within sound educational theory. This was a feeling further enhanced by what appeared to be an inability to address with any understanding the issues of assessment and testing when related to pupils with learning difficulties. As Peter Mittler stated in his Foreword to Entitlement for All in Practice (Fagg, Aherne, Skelton and Thornber, 1990):
In their preoccupation with raising standards and in winning public confidence, children with special educational needs could easily be forgotten or marginalised. Where children with severe learning difficulties are concerned there are real fears that exclusion from the National Curriculum could be tantamount to exclusion from the education service, (p. 11)
The majority of teachers have come to regard entitlement as a key issue in addressing the needs of all pupils within the framework of the National Curriculum. The debate goes far beyond finding means of accessing the National Curriculum for all pupils, though this in itself is a matter which continues to warrant our closest attention. Issues which must be confronted centre upon the whole curriculum, and ensuring that the education provided for pupils with learning difficulties continues to recognise individuality and to address needs beyond those identified within the core and other foundation subjects structure. A legitimate argument has been advanced which fears that recent legislation will dilute the curriculum offered to pupils with learning difficulties, detracting from the essential elements developed by staff in schools over a number of years (Staff of Tye Green School, 1991; Ware, 1990). At the extreme end of this argument is the notion than pupils with learning difficulties, and in particular those with severe learning difficulties, should be removed entirely from the National Curriculum. Others (Pease and Chapman, 1992) have suggested that we should begin by disapplying pupils with learning difficulties from the National Curriculum, and then considering a form of opting-in to those aspects which may be considered appropriate for some pupils. To follow this line, we would argue, would be to set a dangerous precedent. The Education Reform Act was, in fact, the first educational legislation which attempted to embrace all pupils, maintaining the right of every pupil to a broad, balanced, relevant, and well differentiated curriculum. As argued by Mittler (above) exclusion of any group of pupils from this right would provide an early step on the path to exclusion from the broader education system.
Within the area of special education, the National Curriculum has certainly been a catalyst for controversy and debate. Opinions on the content of the curriculum and the response which teachers of pupils with learning difficulties should make to the National Curriculum have been diverse and have promoted much discussion. What cannot be questioned is the motivation of those teachers who have been at the forefront of this debate to provide a better and more effective education for the pupils in their charge.
Access
One of the, presumably unintended, side effects of the Education Reform Act of 1988 was to engender in staff in schools for pupils with learning difficulties a palpable sense of having been de-skilled, dis-enfranchised and dis-empowered. This in some instances led to alienation, withdrawal, suspicion and hostility - a surprising set of responses to legislation which, as we have established, set out to emphasise access and entitlement, and hence inclusion, for all pupils within the same curriculm. Part of this reaction can be attributed to subject phobia - a phenomenon shared by many mainstream colleagues faced with the prospect of being required to teach science, technology or a modern foreign language, for example, when these subjects existed only as distant and hazy personal memories of oneās own school career.
But there was more to it than that. To feel inadequately prepared in the face of teaching unfamiliar or hazily remembered subjects is a form of de-skilling which can be, has been and is being remedied in various ways all over the country. The introduction of the National Curriculum has provided new opportunities for teachers to reflect upon their existing practices, and to re-examine both the content of the curriculum offered in schools, and the way in which it is delivered. Teachers of pupils with learning difficulties, as ever, have been innovative in their approaches to curriculum change. They have not only addressed the challenges of the National Curriculum, but have also responded to the requirements for breadth, balance and relevance by questioning assumptions made by recent legislation, and by demonstrating, through classroom practice, the value of providing a wider curriculum focus for all pupils. Understandable apprehensions concerning the relevance of the National Curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties have not been ignored. From a common standpoint of wishing to improve the education provided to pupils with learning difficulties, a purposeful variety of approaches and attitudes has developed.
Early in the debate, teachers who were concerned to ensure that pupils with learning difficulties received their full entitlement to access to the National Curriculum, began to demonstrate ways in which the specific subject documents could be used to good effect. This was achieved despite a lack of guidance, or anything more than passing references to the needs of pupils with learning difficulties in the original National Curriculum documentation. In contrast, the work of the Manchester City Council Education Department Teacher Fellows amply demonstrated ways in which the core subject areas could be implemented when working with pupils with learning difficulties. Within a short time of the introduction of each of the core and other foundation subjects, further examples were published of ways in which teachers sought to provide access to the National Curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties (Aherne, Thornber, Fagg and Skelton, 1990a; 1990b; Fagg, Skelton, Aherne and Thornber, 1990; Howe, 1991; Sebba and Clarke, 1991; 1993;Rose, 1992; Mount and Ackerman, 1991;Banes and Sebba, 1991).
Thanks to the pioneering work of authors such as these and the impact it has had upon professional development, there is a new generation of subject specialist teachers out there in schools for pupils with learning difficulties - science teachers who declare themselves, confidently and cheerfully, as ānon-scientistsā and folk teaching technology who will admit blithely that they cannot put up a shelf. Staff are making the National Curriculum their own. They are coming to ideas with minds fresh and free from preconceptions and facing up to challenges enthusiastically. They are sharing their enthusiasm by creating exciting, effective and liberating schemes of work for their pupils. They have achieved this level of confidence and expertise surprisingly swiftly, partly because there has been effective support through publications and in the form of professional development but mainly by dint of their own hard work and resilience at the chalk face.
This is not to imply that the National Curriculum as it stands is in any way perfect, or currently achieves its stated objective of inclusion for all pupils. Clearly the first editions of the National Curriculum were not written with pupils with learning difficulties in mind. This is a fact already recognised at the highest level. While a common complaint heard in staffrooms has been aimed at the number of changes and the different versions of documents which have been presented to schools, it is generally accepted that later versions have taken note of teacher comments, not least with regard to the needs of pupils with learning difficulties. Responsibility for continuing improvement must rest with all who are concerned to improve the education of those pupils. As Sebba and Fergusson (1991) have stated:
If the National Curriculum is not appropriate for these pupils as it stands, then it may be necessary to suggest ways in which it could be revised to meet the needs of all pupils rather than taking pupils out of the system. This is surely implied by an entitlement curriculum and will be a necessary step in ensuring marginalisation is reduced, (p. 212)
To its credit, the National Curriculum Council did begin to address the issues raised by teachers of pupils with learning difficulties. As National Curriculum documents have been reissued they have contained guidance designed to assist in teaching pupils with special needs. The work of the National Curriculum Development Team, based at the University of Cambridge Institute of Education informed and influenced documentation which was published by the National Curriculum Council (NCC, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c) with a specific focus upon pupils with learning difficulties. Opportunities have been given for teachers both individually and collectively to express their views and provide ideas on how the National Curriculum can be applied when working with all pupils with special needs. Professional Officers from the National Curriculum Council and from the Schools Examination and Assessment Council (SEAC) have made efforts to visit schools and groups of teachers and have listened to their views. It is now the responsibility of all teachers to ensure that the pressure brought to bear upon the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council to ensure inclusion of all pupils is maintained upon the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA). Sir Ron Dearing, Chairman of SCAA, has signalled his intention to take note of such pressure. In his interim report on The National Curriculum and its Assessment, Sir Ron (1993b) acknowledges that:
ā¦ teachers have stressed that it is important for pupils with special educational needs to benefit from the breadth of the National Curriculum but they believe that it contains too much content. In the work on slimming down the curriculum, therefore, it will be crucial to take account of the views of such teachers to ensure that their pupils can enjoy full access to the National Curriculum, (p. 33)
Breadth
It has been interesting to note the ways in which the more prescriptive aspects of the legislation and guidance associated with the National Curriculum have been eroded over the years since 1988. There were times when it seemed that the relative proportions of the school week allocated to different subjects on the timetable would be dictated to schools. There have been times when staff in schools have braced themselves for the imposition of an approved selection of styles ...