Mild General Learning Disabilities identification and categorization

T he W orld H ealth O rganisation (W HO, 1996) provides a clinical description and set o f diagnostic guidelines for M GLD. It describes M G L D in terms o f a delay in understanding and u se o f language and states that difficulties u sually m anifest th em selves in academ ic school work, w ith m any having particular problem s in reading and writing. T he diagnostic guidelines indicate an approximate IQ range o f 50 to 69 w h ich is sim ilar to that identified in the SERC Report (D E S , 1993). The SERC Report defined M G L D as sig n ifican tly b elo w - average ability in general intellectual functioning and im pairm ent in adaptive behaviour w h ich m anifests its e lf in “delayed conceptual developm ent, slo w sp eech and language developm ent, lim ited ability to abstract and generalise, lim ited attention span and poor retention ability” (1 9 9 3 , p. 118). It is important to note that there are d ifferen ces in term inology used to describe pupils w ith M GLD in Ireland and the U K . W h ile pup ils w ith IQ scores w ithin the range o f 50 to 69 in Ireland are categorised as h avin g M G L D , in the U K , pupils w ith IQ scores w ithin the range o f 55 to 70 are described as h aving m oderate learning difficu lties (M L D ). B ecau se o f sim ilarities in IQ range, com parisons can b e drawn despite differences in term inology. Fletcher-Cam pbell (2 0 0 5 ) cautions against relyin g on IQ scores as the so le identifying criterion, as children w ithin this category have unique individual profiles and m ay ha v e other special educational needs (SE N ).

3 .3 .1 M ild G e n e r a l L e a r n in g D is a b ilitie s a n d a d d itio n a l n e e d s

A ccording to the W H O (1 99 6 ) diagnostic guidelines, associated conditions such as autism , other developm ental disorders, epilepsy, conduct disorders, or p h ysical disabilities are found in varying proportion am ongst those w ith M G L D . M a le (1 9 9 6 ), in a study o f pupil characteristics in special sch ools for pupils with M G L D in England, found that all sch o o ls surveyed considered that at least som e o f their pupils had SE N that w ere additional to

M G L D . The additional needs m ost frequently reported w ere language and com m unication difficu lties (L C D ) and social, em otional and behavioural d ifficu lties (S E B D ). Sim ilarly, N orw ich and K elly (2 0 0 5 ), in a later study o f pupils w ith M G LD in m ainstream and special sch ools in o n e local education authority (LEA ) in England, found that pupils in special sch ools w ere recorded as having m ore additional areas o f difficu lty. 75% o f pupils w ith M G L D and no additional area o f difficulty w ere in m ainstream sch o ols, whereas 71% o f those w ith M G L D and tw o other areas o f difficu lty w ere in special sch ools. A dditional areas o f difficu lty cited included LCD, SE B D , m otor and sensory d ifficu lties. Sim ilarly, in Ireland, a report on the role o f special schools and special cla sses (W are et al., 2 0 0 9 ) found that special sch ools for pupils w ith M GLD w ere catering for a considerable number o f pupils w ith two or m ore d isabilities categorised as lo w incidence. T his finding lends support to the v iew s expressed by teachers in Stevens and O ’M oore's (2 0 0 9 ) longitudinal study o f educational provision for pup ils w ith M G LD in Ireland. T hey found that m ore than h a lf o f teachers in special schools for pup ils w ith M GLD reported that their pupils had SE B D . A lthough there w ere few er reported behavioural difficulties am ongst pupils w ith M G L D in m ainstream sch ools, learning support and resource teachers reported an increase in behavioural difficulties from 2 0 0 4 to 2 0 0 7 . Primary schools for b o y s w ere considered to have the greatest number o f pupils w ith SE B D . W hether these perceptions w ere based on the teachers’ ow n judgem ents, or whether the pupils in question had assessm en ts stating that they had a S E B D ,

is not clear in Steven s and O ’M oore’s study.

Perceptions based on teacher judgem ents m ay lack co n sisten cy from o n e context to another in the absence o f criteria on w hich to base these judgem ents. T he identification o f SE B D as an additional need is problem atic in the sense that behaviours perceived as d ifficu lt can vary from school to sch ool (Thom as, 2 0 05 ). The DES (2 0 0 5 a ) categorizes em otional disturbance

“being treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist for such conditions as neurosis, childhood p sych osis, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorder, attention d eficit hyperactivity disorders and conduct disorders that are significantly impairing their socialisation and/or learning in sch ool” (2005a, p. 17). The last part o f this definition is particularly problem atic as “inappropriate or immature personal behaviour”, “poor adaptive behaviour” and “em otional disturbance” are all identified as features o f M G LD in the SERC Report (D E S , 1 993, p. 118). There is som e overlap in terms o f behaviours associated w ith the categories o f SE B D and M G L D , w h ich m ay m ake it difficult to ascertain the extent to w h ich the problem behaviours are characteristic o f one, or both, categories. SEBD has b een identified as an additional need particularly associated with pupils in special sch ools for pupils w ith M G L D (K elly & N orw ich, 2005; M ale, 1996). K elly, Carey and M cCarthy (2 0 0 4 ) found that challenging behaviour presented a significant problem in Irish special sch ools. Their study indicated a prevalence o f 29% o f pupils enrolled in special sch o ols for pupils w ith intellectual disabilities, w ith the m ajority o f those identified being m ale pupils. K e lly et al. develop ed a matrix o f challenging behaviour types in order to categorise the in cidence, prevalence and severity o f particular types o f challenging behaviour w h ich helps ensure co n sisten cy and reliability in term s o f identification across all schools in v o lv ed in that study.

It is evident from the literature addressed thus far that additional n eed s are com m on in relation to pup ils w ith M G LD and this m ay p ose a ch allen ge to teachers in terms o f identification o f the p rofile o f needs, and understanding o f the interrelationship o f different sources o f difficulty. T h ese sources include the interrelationship b etw een social, environm ental and innate factors. This challenge has been highlighted b y Cooper and Jacobs (2 0 1 1 ) in their review o f best practice m odels and outcom es in the education o f pupils w ith

em otional disturbance/behavioural difficulties and they recom m end the adoption o f a b io ­ p sych osocia l fram ework to preserve a balance betw een v alu in g the im portance o f w ithin- child and environm ental factors in relation to SE BD .

3 .3 .2 M ild G e n e r a l L e a r n in g D is a b ilitie s a n d s o c io e c o n o m ic s ta tu s

There is ev id en ce to suggest that one o f the predom inant features o f the M G LD category is that m any pupils com e from fam ilies o f lo w so c io e c o n o m ic status (N orw ich & K elly, 2 0 0 5 ). T his claim has been supported by the findings o f other studies in the U K and U S . M ale (1 9 9 6 ) found evid en ce o f an over-representation o f p up ils from backgrounds o f low so cio eco n o m ic status in her study o f special sch ools for pupils w ith M G L D in the UK . In a com parison o f over-representation in special education in the U S and U K , D y son and K ozleski (2 0 0 8 ) found evid en ce o f over-representation o f A frican-A m erican pupils in certain categories o f special education in the U S , m ost notably M G L D and S E B D . In the U K , reference w a s m ade to the over-representation o f Traveller children and B lack Caribbean children in the sam e categories. It has been suggested that this phenom enon provides evid en ce o f the w a y special education serves to reproduce e x istin g social system s (Thom as & L oxley, 2 0 0 7 ). T his v ie w w as endorsed b y T om linson (1 9 8 2 ), w h o linked M G L D w ith issu es o f social control and dom inance and described special education as a m eans o f perpetuating discrim ination and control o f those w h o do not p ossess the cultural capital necessary to benefit from the education system . T om linson argued that the M G L D category w as nothing m ore than a m echan ism for rem oving troublesom e children from the m ainstream system . T he extent to w h ich pupils from lo w socioeco n o m ic status backgrounds Eire over-represented in Irish special sch ools for pupils w ith M GLD is not clear. S teven s and O ’M oore (20 0 9 ) highlight the fact that special schools do not have designated disadvantaged status. H ow ever, they found that, b y 2 0 0 7 , 69% o f primary sch ools w ith special cla sses for pupils w ith M G L D

w ere classed as disadvantaged. This raises questions about the extent to w h ich pup ils from lo w so cio eco n o m ic status backgrounds are represented in the M G L D category and suggests that further research in this area m ay be warranted.

3 .3 .3 The p u r p o s e o f M ild G e n e ra l L e a r n in g D is a b ilitie s a s a c a te g o r y

T he lack o f agreem ent in relation to a clear definition o f M G L D has led som e com m entators to question its future. M ale (1996) su g g ested that a lack o f clarity about what constitutes M G L D could render these schools vulnerable in a clim ate o f increasing in clu sion o f children w ith SE N in m ainstream schools. Q uestions about the validity o f this category have also been raised b y N orw ich and K elly (2 0 0 5 ), w h o id en tify tw o k e y features w h ich im pact on the identification and description o f M G L D . The first is the contentious nature o f the category w h ich stem s from uncertainty about the extent to w h ich this is an intellectual disability, or is attributable to socioeco n o m ic factors. The secon d relates to disagreem ent over w hether it should b e defined in terms o f IQ or difficu lties in learning. N orw ich and K elly m aintain that in order to ju stify a category, it is necessary to sh ow that th o se categorised benefit educationally from additional, or different, provision than that w h ich is provided to those w ho are not categorised. H ow ever, there is no e v id en ce to support the e x iste n c e o f specialist teaching m eth od ologies, or distinctive curricula, w h ich are sp ecific to this category and, N o rw ich and K e lly argue, this raises doubts about the valid ity o f this general category. Sim ilarly, Fletcher-C am pbell (200 5 ) suggests that the lack o f a sp ecific p ed a go gy for M G L D raises questions in relation to the future o f this category. A ccord in g to N orw ich and K elly , the on ly p o ssib le justification could be in term s o f com pensatory additional resource allocation. C ategorization m ay also b e deem ed n ecessary w h ere it determ ines e lig ib ility for legal protection in term s o f entitlem ent to sp ecific types o f educational p rov isio n (H o, 2 0 0 4 ). H ow ever, categorization o f pupils as having a M G L D also raises issu e s o f id en tification o f

difference. W here recognition o f difference m ay lead to stigm atisation, not recogn ising difference m ay result in individual needs being overlooked. The purpose o f categorization o f pupils as having a M G L D requires further analysis w ithin the context o f Irish p o lic y and legislation in the area o f SEN.

3 .3 .4 S u m m a ry

In sum m ary, a review o f the literature in relation to the identification and categorization o f pupils w ith M GLD suggests that pupils w ithin this category often present w ith varied and com p lex needs. Categorization o f pupils w ith M G L D based on IQ m easures has been criticised, as pupils in this category are not a hom ogenous group and the additional needs experienced b y m any pupils are not recognised u sin g this m ethod. In the absence o f evidence to support the need for a specific p ed agogy in relation to pupils w ith M G L D , N orw ich and K e lly (2 0 0 5 ) argue that the only p ossib le ju stification for categorization is w here this is linked to legal entitlem ent or to the distribution o f resources. W hen this is necessary, there is a ten sion or dilem m a in relation to the identification o f differen ce as categorization m ay lead to stigm atization. Q uestions about the purpose o f categorization o f pupils w ith M G L D in an Irish context w ere raised. There is also so m e evid en ce to suggest that pupils w ith M G L D in special schools are m ore lik ely to h a ve additional needs than their m ainstream counterparts and SE B D has been identified as prevalent am ong pupils in this category in special sch ools. Over-representation o f pupils o f lo w so c io e c o n o m ic status has also been identified in this category leading to the su g g estio n that the process o f categorization o n ly serves to perpetuate the social discrim ination experienced b y these pupils. D ifferences in the profile o f pupils w ith M GLD attending m ainstream and special sch o o ls are deem ed to b e central to the focus o f the current study.