Breadth and Level of Curriculum Access

In the introductory chapter we referred to the achievement of curriculum access for pupils with SEN in terms of accessing the full breadth of the curriculum at a level appropriate to their needs.

In general, our findings show that the children in our study were accessing the range of curriculum subjects, indicating the success of inclusive policy in terms of achieving curriculum access for children with SEN in their first years of primary school. Overall, the children were engaging with the curriculum and accomplishing 84 per cent of the tasks set for them. In over half (57 per cent) of the tasks they accomplished, they did so with the support of an adult (almost always an SNA). Most of the time, the tasks these children were set were identical to those given to their peers. Where the tasks set for the children with SEN were identical to those set for their peers without SEN, the children with SEN successfully accomplished them 73 per cent of the time (33 per cent of the time without additional support and additional 40 per cent of the time when supported by an SNA). For two small groups of children, however, those with a hearing impairment and those with moderate GLD, a very different pattern emerged.

Three children with a hearing impairment were the focus of case studies. As is clear from Table 20 in Chapter 5, these children were not accomplishing on the same tasks as their peers despite receiving SNA support. In addition, there was a child with a hearing impairment in one of the classes where another child was being observed. This child’s needs in relation to curriculum access were discussed in some detail by the class teacher during her interview, so information in relation to this child as well as the three case study children is included in this section. No other data was gathered in relation to this child.

In two of the four cases, interviewees said that the child had not been recognised as having a hearing impairment before starting school. In all four cases, the children were reported not to have had appropriate provision in place for some months after starting

school. One child was repeating a year, due to not having been able to hear during the previous year, and repeating a year was being considered for another child. Two children had received cochlear implants during the previous year.

It is an issue of great concern that provision that is essential to enable a child with a hearing impairment to access the curriculum was reported not to have been in place for a significant proportion of the child’s first year in school. Recommendations in regard to early identification and early intervention for children with a hearing impairment in Ireland have recently been made (Marschark, 2009), and, although only a tiny number of children with disability hearing impairment were included in the present study, our findings add to the urgency of those recommendations.

The picture with regard to the two children with moderate GLD is rather different. Although neither of these two children accomplished on any tasks which were the same as their peers, they did accomplish on tasks in the same curriculum area which had been differentiated to meet their needs.

• Research should be carried out into how curriculum access can best be facilitated for children with sensory impairment, and those with moderate and severe/profound GLD.

8.6.1 Access to the range of curriculum subjects

The young pupils we observed (junior infants to second class) were being taught the Irish primary curriculum, and teachers were attempting to differentiate that curriculum to facilitate access for all pupils. The great majority of pupils were being taught all subjects. However, pupils did miss lessons or parts of lessons in the mainstream classroom when they were withdrawn for support or resource teaching. This may not be a cause for concern, especially if being withdrawn gives the pupil access to a specialist teacher, since at least one study has found that pupils with SEN made best progress where schools used a judicious mix of mainstream support and withdrawal (Ofsted, 2006).

A small number of pupils were exempt from Irish. This exemption did enable some pupils to receive targeted teaching in specific areas (such as motor skills) which they needed, without missing parts of other lessons. However, in the Irish lessons we observed, teachers used a range of motivating materials, and pupils with SEN were enabled to access this aspect of the curriculum. Additionally, in the Gaeltacht school and the Gaelscoileanna, pupils with SEN were being taught through the medium of Irish. Internationally there is little evidence in relation to either bilingualism or teaching a second language to pupils with SEN. However, it is clear that pupils who are exempt from Irish do not have access to the breadth of the primary curriculum.

Recommendation 5

A review of the evidence base for the current policy on exemptions from Irish for pupils with SEN and a comparative study with practice in other countries should be conducted.

8.6.2 The additional curriculum

There is general agreement in the literature that children with sensory impairments and those with physical disabilities may need additional curriculum content to facilitate curriculum access (e.g. Douglas et al, 2009). We have already noted in section 8.6.1 that because of the constraints on time within the school day, this may conflict with pupils’ access to the breadth of the primary curriculum. The data we collected in this study show that visiting teachers were supporting class teachers and resource teachers in providing this additional content, and that this support was appreciated. However, we were unable to judge whether the additional curriculum content which pupils received was sufficient to enable them the fullest possible curriculum access. This is potentially an issue of some concern, especially in the light of the recent reports on best practice for pupils with sensory impairments (Douglas et al, 2009; Marschark, 2009).