Current role of special classes

In comparison to the debate regarding the role of the special school, it is more difficult to find evidence of the debate around the current and/or future role of the special class in the literature (Stevens and O’Moore, 2009). Given the opaque nature of the identification of special classes on the ground in Ireland as outlined above, this is perhaps not surprising. In addition, the special class model is often linked with the special school model in the SEN provision debate and special

classes become more or less invisible as attention focuses mainly on the role of the special school.

2.4.2.1 Place in continuum of provision

McDonnell (2003) notes that during the 1970s in Ireland “gaps in provision were particularly evident in new and expanding areas where the perceived needs were met by establishing special classes attached to mainstream schools rather than through special schools” (p.260). The existence of special classes as part of a continuum of provision is not purely an Irish phenomenon. As mentioned previously, there is evidence of use of the special class model throughout Europe (OECD,

2000, 2005). The SERC report (Department of Education, 1993) recommended that the “network of special classes in designated ordinary primary and post-primary schools should be expanded in accordance with identified needs” (p.175). The members of the review committee were particularly concerned with appropriate provision for pupils with serious levels of need in mainstream schools and were of the opinion that provision for these children in mainstream classes “may be

detrimental to the welfare of both the special pupil and of other pupils” (p.174) and therefore special classes for particular groups of children should be established in one school in a particular area. However, the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities (Government of Ireland, 1996) was concerned that the designation of particular mainstream schools to cater for pupils with SEN would create a

situation in which other schools would abdicate their responsibilities to enrol pupils with SEN.

Stevens (2007) found that in 1989, two thirds (66%, n = 1,229) of the school-going population of pupils with mild GLD were enrolled in special classes, with the

remaining third (34%, n = 635) in special schools (1,894 pupils in total). By 2004, he found that 40% of all primary pupils with mild GLD were in special classes, while 13% were enrolled in special schools and the remaining 47% attended primary schools with resource teachers (3,890 pupils in total). As was the case with their special school colleagues, 75% of the special class teachers surveyed believed that the establishment of the resource teacher model had had a negative effect on pupil enrolments in special classes for MGLD. Also, considering the continuum of

provision available in Ireland it is worrying that Stevens (2007) found children up to the age of 18 years enrolled in special classes in mainstream primary schools in both 1989 and 2004, “emphasising the availability of adequate post-primary facilities” (p.330).

Stevens and O’Moore (2009) report a further shift in the placement of pupils with mild GLD between 2004 and 2007 which they attribute to the introduction of the GAM. They report that by 2007 only 9% of such pupils were in special schools and 27% in special classes and 64% in mainstream classes. Most recently, 118 classes for pupils with MGLD with fewer than nine pupils have been suppressed.

Studies by Travers (2007) and Stevens and O’ Moore (2009) raise very serious concerns about the level of support being provided to pupils with mild general

learning disabilities under the GAM. In a study of 137 schools, Travers (2007) found that 67% of the learning support/resource teachers reported reduced support for pupils with MGLD since the introduction of the GAM. He also found that the

average caseload of the new learning support/resource teacher was 21 (a

combination of pupils with high incidence SEN and pupils with milder difficulties in literacy and numeracy) compared to a caseload of up to 11 (pupils with assessed SEN) under the previous model for resource teachers. Stevens and O’Moore (2009) report that in 2004, the mean amount of time per day spent by pupils with mild general learning disabilities with a resource teacher was 50 minutes and that 29% of resource teachers felt that this was insufficient. Since the introduction of the GAM this has fallen to 20 minutes. The authors emphasise the import of this change: “This finding is extremely important as it illustrates that the introduction of the GAM has significantly reduced the period of supplementary teaching for MGLD pupils” (p.174)). On the other hand, the increased flexibility with regard to the deployment of the teaching resources allocated to the school for SEN accorded to principals by Circular 02/05 provides the principal with an opportunity to allocate support

teaching in a flexible manner that best meets the needs of the children concerned. Additionally the use of a range of support models such as team teaching, grouping of pupils (as well as one-to-one where necessary), encouraged in Circular 02/05, should provide more effective support for learning. This development needs to be balanced against the reduction in supplementary teaching identified by Stevens and O’Moore.

2.4.2.2 Facilitation of inclusion in mainstream schools

Warnock (1978) saw the role of the special class playing a part in the ‘integration’ of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools (DfES, 2004). However, there is some evidence to show that children in special classes can actually be quite marginalised within the mainstream setting, both by the attitudes and actions of teachers in the mainstream classes that the children with SEN may attend on a part-time basis and also by the other children in the mainstream class who may not be willing to

associate with the children in the special class (Angelides and Michailidou, 2007). These issues were not reflected in research carried out by Breathnach (2005) who interviewed past pupils of one special class for MGLD. The past-pupils, now grown up, were very positive regarding their experience in the special class and felt they had received support was appropriate to their needs. Indeed, they rejected the suggestion that enrolment in a mainstream class with support from a learning support teacher would have met their needs.

Dunne (1993) reports on the findings of a survey of 77 special class teachers of pupils with borderline MGLD and MGLD. She found that approximately 50 per cent of the special class teachers felt that the principal and class teachers were

supportive of the pupils in the special class attending some lessons in the mainstream classroom. Dunne (1993) identifies large class sizes as being a possible reason for resistance, with teachers perhaps viewing the pupils with SEN as adding to an already high workload. Feerick (1996) conducted a study in 1993 ascertaining the attitudes of pupils in mainstream classes towards their special class peers. She found that the children in the special class were perceived to be generally the same as their regular class peers. Children did not commit

themselves to a particular stereotype of the children in the special class (although they did have a fairly positive stereotype of themselves) and she found no evidence to suggest that regular class children held either a very strong positive or negative attitude toward children in the special class. However, it should be acknowledged that both of the studies cited above are now fifteen years old and it is possible that the findings may not be relevant in today’s context.

The importance of the integration of pupils from the special class into the

mainstream class is also highlighted in policy documents. Circular 9/99 (DES, 1999) states that the children in special classes have been counted on the ordinary roll for the purpose of promoting the integration of pupils from the special class into the mainstream class. The post-primary guidelines (DES, 2007) state that pupils in the special class “should be taught separately in the special class setting only when it is in their interests and at points in their timetable when they are unable to participate beneficially in lessons in mainstream classes” (p.53). In reviewing Irish studies undertaken into special class integration between 1970 and 1993, Stevens (2007) concludes that integration is primarily of a social nature with little structured

curricular interaction. His own research corroborated this finding and highlighted the fact that joint special class / mainstream class activities fell from 70% in 1989 to 47% in 2004 with only 6% of shared activities in the core elements of the

curriculum. Stevens (2007) raises the possibility that the introduction of the resource teacher model of provision may actually reduce efforts of teachers to integrate children in the special class into mainstream class activities.

2.4.2.3 Curriculum

As is the case in special schools, there is no ‘special’ curriculum for special classes in mainstream primary schools. The primary curriculum (NCCA, 1999) and the curriculum guidelines for teacher of pupils with general learning disabilities (NCCA, 2002, 2007) are the basis of curriculum planning and implementation in special classes. Stevens (2007) found that 84% of the special class teachers he surveyed

used the curriculum guidelines (NCCA, 2002, 2007) with 87% of those teachers using Individual Education Plans (IEPs) to plan for children with MGLD.

At post-primary level, the Department of Education (1986) circulated curriculum guidelines for pupils in special classes for MGLD in mainstream, post-primary schools. The guidelines outlined the assessment procedures for access to the special class as well as staffing and timetabling issues, with specific reference to the integration of special class pupils into mainstream classes for some subjects where possible. The guidelines further recommended that pupils in the special class for MGLD should have access to the following subjects – Irish, English, maths, social and environmental studies, PE, music and two practical subjects. The guidelines go on to outline the aspects of each of these subjects that should be covered. The rationale for issuing curriculum guidelines for special classes in post- primary is not explicitly clear, although the reference to transition issues from primary to post-primary school and the differences between the two types of

schooling is made in the document and it could be that these perceived differences necessitated specific guidelines for the post-primary sector. The fact that curriculum guidelines were devised for the teachers of special classes in post-primary schools indicates that the establishment of these classes was taken seriously and that potential difficulties regarding transition and curriculum were thought about, identified and addressed to some degree. The guidelines from 1986 have since been superseded by the curriculum guidelines from the NCCA (2002, 2007) and by the inclusion guidelines (DES, 2007).

2.4.2.4 Special classes in post-primary schools

The exact number of special classes in Irish mainstream post-primary schools is not clear. The SERC Report (Department of Education, 1993) estimated that there were 48 special classes for pupils with mild GLD in post-primary schools. In a survey conducted by Association for Higher Education Access and Disability (AHEAD) in 2003, it is reported that 63 of the 373 post-primary schools surveyed had ‘special education units’ (SEUs) and that the students in those units were the only ones in the study sample taking the JCSP programme. AHEAD (2003) also found that 4% of the schools surveyed had formulated written school plans for students with disabilities; interestingly this percentage rose to 13% in the case of schools with SEUs. However, this survey reported one year before the passing of the EPSEN Act (Government of Ireland, 2004) and therefore the situation may have changed since then. Pringle (2008) conducted a study focusing on school

that the availability of programmes such as the JCSP in post-primary schools was an important factor in ensuring that pupils who had attended a special class at primary level went on to achieve in post-primary school.

Most special classes are designated for students with mild or moderate GLD and there is a rising number of classes for pupils with ASD in recent times; usually these classes have a resource teacher designated to teach the class, but there may be variations of this model in different schools (DES, 2007). The existence of a special class/unit may reassure parents and the students themselves (Maras and Aveling, 2006). However, where the special class becomes interchangeable with learning support or behaviour units, the effectiveness is diluted. “Such spaces are most effective if they are available specifically for students with statements of special educational needs; available as and when they are needed (including break times); and are not associated with punishment” (Maras and Aveling, 2006, p.201).

Markussen (2004) was critical of special classes and indeed the withdrawal model of support in the senior cycle of Norwegian secondary schools. He found that neither special classes nor individual tuition helped the students with SEN, as a group, to achieve better than they would have done otherwise. He concludes that “special education as practiced in the upper secondary school today contributes to maintain, and partly reinforce, the difference” (p.45).

The nature of post-primary schooling differs considerably from the primary system (Naughton, 2003). Children have to adjust from having one teacher to many

different teachers and subjects (Smyth, McCoy and Darmody, 2004). The focus on examinations at post-primary has a profound impact on the nature of assessment, not just in third and sixth year but in all years (Naughton, 2003). The balance

between meeting the needs of all of the pupils in relation to the examination system and meeting the needs of pupils with SEN is a difficult one in the post-primary system. The learning difficulties experienced by some children are often

exacerbated by the system and it can be difficult to define success for children “who will never totally catch up with their peers in a society which sees examination results as the main indicator of success” (Lovey, 2002, p.56). There have been a number of innovations in relation to post-primary programmes in the last 15 years such as the introduction of the JCSP, foundation levels of assessment in the core subjects of English, Irish and Maths in junior cycle and the LCA in senior cycle which have made the post-primary curriculum more accessible to a number of students. However, not all schools offer all of these programmes. Also, there appears to be a drop-off in the numbers of pupils with SEN progressing to from

junior to senior cycle, (AHEAD, 2003; Farrell, 2004) although the reason for this is not clear. The trend to stream children into particular classes on the basis of ability appears to be changing, especially in relation to the first year cohort where the majority of schools are reported to be using mixed-ability classes (Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland [ASTI], 2005; Church of Ireland College of

Education [CICE], 2005a; DES, 2007) and Smyth, McCoy and Darmody (2004) found that the streaming of first-year pupils on the basis of entrance exams had a deleterious effect on the self-esteem of those in the lower stream.

Again, the manner in which the special class model interfaces with the structures in post-primary schools is not clear. Nor is it possible to define the role of the special class in terms of the current trend to ensure mixed ability teaching at least in junior cycle.