Fases 4 y 5 Evaluación de riesgos y determinación de las acciones de mejora

General and special teachers alike drew attention to curriculum issues. There was a general consensus that inclusion involved using the same curriculum with some support, as specified in the national policy, “accessing the general curriculum with extra support” (S2GT3 and S1ST1). However, just over half of the general teachers and just under half of the special needs teachers considered the curriculum to be a barrier to some extent. Opinions about the curriculum varied, with the majority of general teachers feeling that the existing curriculum was broadly appropriate but required modification for pupils with learning difficulties and others saying that it was not so suitable. In general, the SEN teachers considered it needed to change or be greatly adapted while the general teachers were more likely to consider it suitable for all pupils. According to general teachers in school 3, the current curriculum “does not help teachers to develop the abilities and skills of [special needs] pupils” (S3GT3), “It does not deal with the needs of SEN or LD pupils” (S3GT4) and “It does not help pupils” (S3GT5). The special needs teacher in school 3 agreed: “It is very difficult.

Learning difficulties pupils cannot understand it very well” (S3ST1). Although school 3 had a learning difficulties programme for stages 1, 2 and 3, there was no support available for the final three stages. Two general teachers stated that the number of subjects taught should be reduced (S3GT2 and S5GT1) and one commented that if the number of subjects was not reduced, “teachers should be given freedom to teach it or not or choose any subject they like” (S5GT1). Those who disagreed emphasized the time taken to master so many subjects, two highlighting its failure to help pupils develop thinking skills. “It does not help pupils to think” (S2GT4). Suggested improvements included reducing the number of subjects and “making them close to the pupil's environment and helping teachers to explore their pupils’ interests” (S2GT2). Two general teachers felt that the curriculum could be changed through teaching “by modern electronic education aids […] developing the abilities of pupils by using computers" (S2GT4). Two expressed the view that schools should be free to set their own curriculum: "The curriculum should be changed depending on the school, staff, pupils and learning aids in the school" (S3GT1) and "I suggest every school proposed different plans such as a general plan for all pupils and a special plan for SEN or LD pupils because each school knows what their pupils need. All those plans should be different because every school has different needs for their pupils regardless of whether they have SEN or not” (S3GT4).

More starkly, one teacher stated "The curriculum needs to change" (S4GT3). For pupils with severe learning difficulties in particular, it was felt a separate curriculum should be drawn up (S1ST3). "From my view, the curriculum is suitable, kind of, but MoE should modify it" (S5GT2). Some schools had taken matters into their own hands by creating a book to assist pupils with learning difficulties to access parts of

the curriculum. A number of teachers wanted more freedom to set their own curriculum: “Give teachers freedom to choose any subject they want or when they see a subject is necessary for their pupils” (S2ST1), “to choose any subject that would be useful for our SLD pupils" (S1ST4) and “Develop the curriculum” (S2GT4). Teachers working with children with severe learning difficulties felt particularly strongly about the need to establish a curriculum to suit the pupils’ needs. One school had done so: “We have created new books for our SLD pupils [in reading and mathematics] and when we gave them out we noticed that our pupils understand our books and do well with them. We used our special financial allocation to do that” (S1ST3). Changes to the curriculum “should contain subjects related to their everyday life, also relate to how they deal with life problems” (S1ST5). The need to develop materials to support pupils with SEN in accessing the curriculum was also highlighted by both education supervisors. Others wanted improved opportunities for social interaction and broadening horizons, as in “Increase […] weekly social activities” (S5ST2) and “Permission for educational trips outside the school” (S1ST3). Overall, the special teachers concurred with the general teachers on these points, although a higher proportion of the special teachers felt that the curriculum required modification or major change, perhaps because 6 of them were specialists in working with children with severe learning difficulties. Restrictions on educational visits are largely related to the requirements for women travelling outside the house to be accompanied by male members of their family, combined with the role of the teacher as moral guardian of his or her pupils.

Although over half of all teachers thought the general curriculum was suitable with adaptations and appropriate support from special needs teachers, key issues included

insufficient use of ICT, the need for teachers to have more freedom to choose subjects and for schools to have more local control over the curriculum. The general curriculum was less suitable for pupils with SLD as demonstrated by schools creating their own workbooks for these children. Closer links between the curriculum and real life were needed for all children with special needs to enable them to enhance skills for everyday life and social interactions.