De los órganos de dirección y su funcionamiento

This chapter explored in depth the domain of SLD, drawing evidence from the international and Greek context. The issues that attracted my research interest and were discussed in depth, constitute essential and controversial aspects of the SLD body of international research.

Specifically, the examination of the SLD nature and the classification of children who have SLD into further subgroups indicated the multiplicity of this SEN area and highlighted the different grounds and criteria (e.g. medical or psycholinguistic) upon which these subgroups are developed, raising concerns about the stability of these subgroups over time. Although the description of the Greek system in terms of the identification policies and assessment of SEN provided a useful overview of the existing framework, the lack of Greek standardised assessment measures for the identification of SLD by the authorised diagnostic services (i.e. KEDDY or health centres) constitute an essential limitation of the Greek system and raise enquiries regarding the integrity of the SLD diagnosis.

In addition, the description of the SLD educational provision in the UK and Greek system in this chapter indicated the educational policies and the range of services and resources offered in both contexts. However, despite the fact that inclusive provision for SEN pupils has a significant role in the related Greek legislative framework, the review of the existing Greek policies indicated the weaknesses of the applied curriculum to meet the individualised needs of the SLD pupils, and the absence of policies focusing on the teaching of these pupils.

Apart from the above points this chapter also examined the intimate and complex relationship of speech, language and literacy skills, and the possible implications of SLD for literacy, while it highlighted the long term literacy and

academic outcomes for pupils who have SLD and associated literacy problems. Nevertheless, the scarcity of Greek studies focusing on this essential issue made it difficult to have an overview of the possible implications of SLD for the literacy skills of Greek pupils and their academic attainments. Although, the association between SLD, bilingualism and SES was explored in this chapter, the limited number of Greek studies in the context of SLD and bilingualism and the lack of Greek evidence regarding the influence of SES on children’s SLD did not allow us to identify the association between these aspects. In addition, although the influence of SLD on children’s self-esteem, social participation and peer acceptance was also discussed, it was not possible to explore the impact of SLD on children’s social competence within the Greek framework, due to the absence of related Greek studies.

Taking into consideration the above gaps which derived from the review of the SLD domain in the Greek educational context, and specifically the complexity that surrounds the SLD identification by the Greek system (the absence of educational policies that focus on the teaching of SLD pupils, the lack of evidence regarding the influence of SLD on pupils’ academic attainments, and the scarcity of findings about the impact of SLD on pupils’ social participation and peer acceptance), the aim of this study was to shed more light in these crucial issues.

So, in order to address these key points the study was organised in two phases: Phase 1 comprised a systematic survey with the aim of identifying the pupils whose speech and language skills raised concerns to their teachers and at a second stage to examine further their language functioning.

In Phase 2 the study aimed to identify, through the purposeful selection of case studies pupils, the provision offered in mainstream and inclusion classrooms. The purposeful selection of case studies pupils involved not only children who were formally diagnosed with SLD (by the KEDDY or health service) or informally diagnosed with SLD (based on teachers’ professional experience/personal judgement). The comparison SEN subgroups who were also involved, and specifically the pupils with General Learning Difficulties and

Specific Writing difficulties, made it possible to identify whether or not there were any differentiations in the educational provision offered to them.

Specifically, in this phase, in terms of the provision offered, the study aimed to answer the following research questions (RQs):

1. How did the case study pupils come to be identified as having SLD, General Learning Difficulties and Specific Writing difficulties?

2. Are there any differences between pupils having SLD, General Learning Difficulties and Specific Writing difficulties in terms of the support, and the teaching and learning practices provided to them at different years?

3. Are there any differences in the academic (i.e. speech/language and literacy) attainments of the case study pupils identified with SLD, General Learning Difficulties and Specific Writing difficulties?

4. To what extent do case study pupils’ social participation and peer acceptance relate to the difficulties they have?

The following chapter examines the methodological framework of the study and provides detailed information about Phase 1 and Phase 2, the participants and methods applied. The procedures followed for the data analysis are also discussed, while the ethical issues applied to both phases of the study are presented and justified.