Classifications of general learning difficulties

The importance of classifying the severity of general LDs is crucial in determining the placement of those children in the appropriate educational establishment. Since the Education Act of 1944, the categorising of children with general LDs in the UK acquired more importance in concentrating on the ability of teaching those children in schools (ordinary and special). The importance of classification in my study is that it serves as a protector against stigmatisation by allowing children to join different types of schools and that it is a way of concentrating on available learning options rather than the disability itself. In order to classify general LDs, I have taken into my account some important issues. First of all, there is no agreement on the definition of general LDs and more definitions are always being developed.

Secondly, UK legislation addressing the issue of LDs includes all children with SEN as having LDs (Warnock, 1978). This means that the child who has sensory disability, ID or motor difficulty, will be considered as having LDs (Norwich & Kelly, 2005).

In an attempt to set up a new conceptual framework for SEN, the Warnock Committee established a wide-ranging umbrella term, ‘learning difficulties’ which could simply include all the difficulties that the child would face. This could be interpreted as an assumption on Warnock’s part that all children attempt to achieve the same targets at school, in terms of independence, enjoyment and understanding (Warnock, 2005).

In actively seeking to introduce inclusion as an official policy, the Warnock Committee placed all children with sensory and intellectual difficulties in one category. When the Code of Practice was issued, all eight areas of SEN were classified into new categories in order to be used in the formulation of statements. Those categories were: difficulties, conditions, impairments and disabilities. General LDs was at the top of the first category with SpLDs, emotional and behavioural difficulties and speech and language difficulties. Impairments were categorised as visual and hearing impairment, medical conditions were categorised alone, while physical disabilities kept the term ‘disability’ (Florian & McLaughlin, 2008).

It appears difficult, then, to classify or categorise general LDs. I intend to blend more than one approach in order to clarify many issues during this process. First of all, I will

41

concentrate on the UK’s categorisation of learning difficulties. The Warnock Report went on to divide children with general LDs into three categories:

(I) Mild LDs: children with mild LDs are considered as the largest proportion of children with LDs (Warnock, 1978). Traditionally, mild LDs refer to those children who used to be described as slow or ‘dull learners’ (Dockrell & McShane, 1992). When Warnock conceptualised SEN in Great Britain, mild LDs were moved from the categories of ‘educable’

and ‘mentally handicapped’, to ‘general learning difficulties’. The Warnock Committee (1978) argued that mild LDs should be placed in ordinary schools within the normal curriculum. With the provision of SEN services, children with mild LDs can successfully follow the normal curriculum as well as their non-LDs peers.

(II) Moderate LDs: in the second part of its classification, the Warnock Report refers to those children who used to be classified as ‘educationally subnormal’. When the report came out, children with moderate LDs were the largest group of children in special schools (Warnock, 1978). As well as a recommendation of further research on these children, the Warnock Committee recommended that they should be taught at ordinary schools with further training for teachers. Dockrell and McShane (1992) argued that most problems become evident when they join the school and their progress started to be compared to that of their peers.

(III) Severe LDs: the Warnock Report used this category to describe those with a ‘mental handicap’ or what they called severally educationally sub-normal. Traditionally, severe LDs is a term utilised to describe children with severe or profound ID. Fundamentally, the strategies needed for teaching these children are decided by means of the task analysis procedure, which analyses the task down to small tasks (Warnock, 1978). The recommendation from Warnock was to focus on continuing to teach children with profound LDs with social skills and vocational training, even beyond the minimum school leaving age.

The Warnock Report commenced with the rejection of 11 categories of disabled children as it appeared in 1944 Education Act (Copeland, 1997) concentrating on functioning rather than psychometric measures and ‘handicap’ itself (Warnock, 1978). One of the main elements excluded was IQ. In its attempt to reconceptualise SEN in Great Britain and push for an inclusion policy, the Warnock Committee focused more on the ability to learn and to be included in ordinary schools with peers. It took into account the fact that all children have the same goals of education but the amount of the required assistance is different (Warnock,

42

1978). In fact, this classification helped in giving those children and their families some realistic educational options (replacement) rather than concentrating on presence or absence of their abilities (Copeland, 1997).

Another classification of learning difficulties was presented by Dockrell & McShane in 1992, concentrating on the cognitive factors. They went on to use the aetiological approach:

the importance of this approach is that it can offer a wide range of similarities and differences across the range of ID, which must be translated into a cognitive profile in order for early intervention or education. The benefit of using this approach is that it can easily be linked to the cognitive approach in order to plan educational alternatives. Dockrell & McShane (1992) indicated that the weak point of this approach is that, as it concentrates on the causes and translates these into a cognitive profile, aetiological variation does not always lead to cognitive variation, despite the different weaknesses and strengthens among different groups.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classified ID using the definition of AAMR in 1977 and 1992. In this classification, severe LDs retain the 1977 definition, and the person has to show delays in at least two of the 10 areas outlined in the definition issued in 1992. Although this classification is simple to follow, it excludes adaptive and cognitive behaviour skills (Biasini et al., 2008).

In addition, one of the most famous classifications of ID is the International Classification of Diseases-Tenth revision (ICD-10). In this classification, ID is a condition resulting from failure of the mind to develop completely. ICD-10 suggests that adaptive behaviour skills should be used to decide the level of ID, as well as cognitive, language, motor and social skills. As a result, ICD-10 classification includes four levels: mild, moderate, severe and profound (Biasini et al., 2008; World Health Organisation, 1993). The importance of this definition was entering cognitive and language abilities alongside social skills. It is also critical that this classification did not stray far from the classification issued by the AAMR, which has taken IQ as a main key variable in the classification.

As has been shown above, many classifications of general LDs have been used in the last three decades, in order to replace older classifications and to prevent stigmatising children with general LDs. Regardless classification system utilised, some important points should be observed. First of all, classification was used widely to determine the educational alternatives for children with general LDs. This goal could not be achieved without cooperation between parents, teachers and professionals. Secondly, new classifications have appeared, but have

43

not affected the idea of providing sensible SEN services for this category and their parents in order to achieve the final aim of independence. Finally, at a practical level, classifications did not work effectively together to support early identification and early intervention. Thus, classifications of children with general LDs helped teachers and professionals in placing the child but did not take into account other variables related to the child’s disability.

Health

Education IQ (ICD-10) IQ (DSM-IV) ICD-10/DSM-IV

50-69 50/55- about 70 Mild mental retardation Moderate learning difficulties

Table 3:2 Health and educational classification of learning difficulties (MacKay, 2009, p.14)

3.5 New developments in LDs field