Second key finding Access to curriculum

The secon d k e y finding o f this study is that m any o f the pupils w ith M G L D who transferred to special sch ools experienced difficulties accessin g and participating in the curriculum in m ainstream schools. This finding is supported by evid en ce from K e lly and D e v it f s (2 0 1 0 ) study o f the reasons pupils leave m ainstream sch o o ls to enrol in special schools. T he difficu lties experienced b y pupils in m ainstream primary and post-prim ary schools in this area raise a number o f issu es in relation to educational p rovision for pupils w ith M G L D . T h e first o f these relates to differentiation o f the curriculum in m ainstream primary sch o ols and the second relates to the need for curriculum reform at post-prim ary level. D u e to differen ce in the nature o f these issu es in primary and post-prim ary sch ools, they are d iscu ssed separately here.

6 .4 .1 A c c e s s to cu rricu lu m in p r im a r y s c h o o ls

There w as a suggestion from som e teachers in m ainstream primary sch o ols that content overload and large class sizes m ade it very difficu lt for them to differentiate the curriculum for the pupils w h o had transferred to special sch o o ls for pupils w ith M G L D . W hile som e studies do present evidence to suggest that lo w attainers benefit from sm all class s iz e on entry to sch o ol (Blatchford et al., 2003), class siz e is o n ly on e o f a num ber o f factors related to educational outcom es for pupils. Other factors include teacher attitudes to teaching and learning, classroom m anagem ent styles, experience and training (B ennett, 1998). The quality o f teaching is a significant factor in determ ining educational o u tcom es and any benefit o f sm aller cla sses for pupils w ith M GLD can only b e realised w h en factors related to p ed agogy and classroom m anagem ent are addressed. G iven the finding o f the current study w ith regard to difficu lties experienced b y teachers in m eetin g the learning needs o f pupils w ith S E B D and the perception o f a lack o f expertise in this area, it is argued that class s iz e is

not the so le contributing cause o f a lack o f differentiation and individualisation o f curricula for pupils w ith M G LD. S om e teachers in mainstream primary sch ools expressed a v iew that m any o f the pupils w ith M G L D w ho transferred reached a plateau in term s o f their learning as they progressed through the primary school and that there w as very little teachers could do w hen this happened. The explanations provided by teachers reflect tw o different perspectives o f disability, one w h ich locates the cause o f d ifficu lty w ithin the child and the other w hich recogn ises barriers in the environm ent w hich m ay contribute to d ifficu lties experienced in accessin g the curriculum. The suggestion by som e teachers that the nature o f p u p ils’ learning disabilities restricts their ability to access and participate in the curriculum im p lies the persistence o f a d isability-deficit perspective in relation to SE N . T his raises questions w ith regard to categorisation and the influence o f labelling on teachers’ expectation s in relation to these pupils.

Parents o f pupils w h o transferred to the special sch o o ls indicated that d ifficu lties experienced b y pupils a ccessin g the curriculum at primary level could m anifest at a v ery early stage although, for m ost, difficu lties becam e apparent in the m iddle, or senior, stages o f primary schools. W h ile so m e parents referred to the sense o f frustration experienced b y pupils w ho had d ifficu lties accessin g the curriculum, others referred to the im pact o f these difficu lties on the self-esteem o f pupils and som e reported that their children described th em selves as

‘dum b’ or ‘stu pid’ due to their inability to keep up w ith their peers.

M any o f the pupils also referred to their difficulties in primary sch o ols, and for the m ajority o f pupils, the m ain reason given for the transfer to the special sch o o ls w as their learning difficu lties. S om e pupils described them selves as slo w learners w h ile others referred to difficu lties they experienced w ith particular subjects areas, w ith m athem atics b ein g m ost frequently m entioned. T he findings in relation to difficu lties experienced b y teachers in

differentiating the curriculum for pupils with M GLD, su g gests a need for training and support in adapting and differentiating curricula to m eet individual learning needs.

6 .4 .2 A c c e s s to th e cu rricu lu m f o r p u p ils w ith M ild G e n e r a l L e a r n in g D i s a b ilitie s a t p o s t- p r i m a r y le v e l

A t post-prim ary lev el, the findings indicate that the m ajority o f parents, pup ils and teachers in m ainstream and special schools w ho participated in this study, p erceived the curriculum to be in accessib le to the pupils w ho transferred to sp ecial sch oo ls. T h ese findings support the v ie w that the curriculum at post-primary lev el acts as a barrier to the in clu sion o f som e pupils w ith M G L D (N C C A , 2009). W hile on ly a sm all num ber o f pupils in this study attended m ainstream post-primary schools, their experiences h ighlight the failure o f the present system o f educational provision to provide a curriculum fram ew ork w h ich has the flexib ility in structure and assessm ent to facilitate the in clu sion o f all pupils. T his lack o f flexib ility and rigidity in structure o f the curriculum at junior c y c le lev e l in post-prim ary sch ools has been recogn ised as particularly challenging for pup ils w ith G L D (N C C A , 2 0 0 9 ). D ifferences w ere highlighted b y participant groups in relation to curriculum provision in m ainstream post-prim ary and special schools. A n em phasis on life sk ills d evelop m en t and alternative program m es, w hich provide pupils w ith an opportunity for certification, w ere features o f special sch o o l provision perceived b y m any parents and teachers as m ore appropriate to the learning needs o f pupils w ho transferred than the subject-based, academ ically-driven, curriculum in post-primary sch ools. A lternative program m es w ere offered in the special sch o o ls w hich were considered b y m any parents and teachers in special and m ainstream sch oo ls to b e m ore inclusive as pupils could a ccess and participate in th ese at different levels.

One aspect o f curriculum provision w hich w as perceived b y parents and teachers in special schools as m ost important in ensuring successful p o st-sch oo l o u tcom es for pup ils w ith M GLD w a s w ork-placem ent in the local com m unity. M any parents expressed the hope that pup ils’ em p loym ent opportunities w ou ld b e enhanced b y th ese p lacem ents. T h e im portance o f a vocationally-oriented curriculum for pupils w ith M G L D in determ ining su ccessfu l p o st­ school ou tcom es has been identified in previous studies, includ ing H ornby and K idd (2 0 0 1 ). M any pupils in the special sch ools expressed a preference for subjects w h ich had a practical base, such as w ood w ork and hom e econom ics. H ow ever, there w ere differen ces b etw een mainstream and so m e special sch ools in relation to v iew s on curricular p ro vision for p up ils o f post-prim ary age.

O nly one o f the special schools offered pupils the opportunity to participate in the sam e curriculum as their peers in mainstream schools. The im portance o f providin g pup ils w ith the opportunity to participate in the sam e curriculum as their m ainstream peers w as em phasised b y parents and teachers in this case. W hen asked about their sch o o l, m any o f the pup ils in this case also referred to upcom ing assessm ents and exam inations in relation to the Junior Certificate or LC A program m es. In contrast, none o f the other three sc h o o ls offered these programm es. In accessib ility o f content for all pupils and d ifficu lties w ith assessm en t structures w ere cited as the m ain reasons for not offering the program m es, w ith one principal suggesting that it w as inappropriate to offer a programme that w a s not in c lu siv e o f all pupils. T h ese find ings highlight the need for a curriculum w hich is a c c essib le to all p up ils and w h ich provides them w ith realistic opportunities to achieve p o sitiv e o u tcom es in term s o f certification at post-prim ary level. T he importance o f providing p u p ils w ith the opportunity to access program m es sim ilar to their peers has been identified in a previous study o f pupils v iew s o f their educational provision in a special school for p up ils w ith M G L D in Ireland (M otherw ay, 2 0 0 9 ).

N o rw ich (2 0 0 8 ) describes the curriculum dilem m a as b ein g about the consequences o f having, or not having, a com m on curriculum for all pupils. I f all pupils w ith M G L D are offered the sam e learning experiences as their peers, there is the p o ssib ility that so m e w ill b e denied the learning experiences w h ich are relevant to their needs. I f th ey are not offered the sam e learning experiences, then there are issues o f equity o f provision. T h e find ings o f the current study indicate that w h ile som e special sch o o ls o ffer a curriculum sim ilar to that offered in m ainstream post-prim ary schools, others consider this curriculum inappropriate and w ou ld prefer a m ore vocationally-oriented curriculum to m eet the learning needs o f pupils w ith M G L D w h o transfer to the schools. In order to address the dilem m a w h ich arises betw een offerin g pupils the opportunity to access the sam e curriculum as their peers and m eeting individual learning needs, a balance is required b etw een the vocationally-oriented curriculum offered in special schools and the traditional m ainstream post-prim ary curriculum in a w ay that provides pupils w ith a choice in terms o f h o w this balance is achieved. The N C C A (2 0 0 9 ) recom m ends the developm ent o f a curriculum at the junior c y c le stage o f p ost­ primary w h ich w ou ld a llo w pupils w ith M G LD, w h o experience d ifficu lties a ccessin g the curriculum, to ach ieve a qualification at a level low er than the present Junior C ertificate. T his curriculum fram ework w ou ld incorporate a personalised approach, w ith priority b ein g g iv en to d evelop in g the personal, social and vocational sk ills required for adult liv in g and life lo n g learning (N C C A , 20 0 9 ). Each o f these areas was identified b y principals, teachers and parents in this study as k e y aspects o f the curriculum offered in the sp ecial sch oo ls. In h is d iscu ssion o f the curriculum dilem m a, W edell (2 00 8 ) warns against the d evelo p m en t o f alternative curricula for pupils w ith SE N w h ich he describes as “patch-up” (p. 129) attem pts to m eet p u p ils’ needs. It is important, therefore, that any curriculum reform for pup ils w ith SE N at

junior c y cle takes place w ithin the context o f a broad curriculum fram ework for all pupils in order to avoid the iso lation o f any group o f pupils in m ainstream sch ools.