T he SERC Report (D E S, 1993) recom m ended a continuum o f provision for pupils w ith SEN and this has rem ained governm ent p o lic y to date. The continuum ranges from fu ll tim e placem ent in m ainstream classes with additional supports, to fu ll-tim e placem ent in a special sch ool. W h ile there has been som e criticism o f efforts to facilitate the in clu sion o f pupils w ith SE N in m ainstream schools (M cD onnell, 2 003; Shevlin, K enny & L oxley, 2 0 0 8 ), Stevens and O ’M o o re’s (20 0 9 ) study highlights som e im provem ents, esp e cia lly in terms o f financial investm en t b etw een 1989 and 2 007. H ow ev er, they su g g est that significant problem s ex ist in relation to p olicy, practice, training, supports and data-gathering and these findings ha v e been supported by those o f other studies (e.g ., O ’Gorm an and Drudy, 2010; Shevlin, et ah, 2 008 ). Stevens and O'"Moore suggest that lev e ls o f inclusion have deteriorated over the period sin ce 1989, as special schools have b ecom e increasingly isolated from m ainstream sch ools. T his sense o f isolation w as p rev iou sly highlighted b y M cCarthy and K enny (2 0 0 6 ) in their study o f issues facing special sch ools in Ireland. O ne o f the consequences o f a p o lic y o f inclusion has been a decrease in enrolm ent o f pupils in special sch o ols for pupils w ith M G LD.
3 .4 .1 P r o f ile o f p u p i l s in s p e c ia l s c h o o ls f o r p u p il s w ith M ild G e n e r a l L e a r n in g D is a b ilitie s
T he num ber o f pupils attending special sch o o ls in Ireland decreased from 8 ,57 2 to 6,6 1 9 betw een 1989 and 20 0 8 (Stevens & O’M oore, 2 0 0 9 ). H ow ever, w h ile the overall number o f pup ils attending special sch ools has decreased, there has b een an increase in the number o f pupils aged 12 and over enrolling in special sch oo ls. T his trend has been highlighted b y W are et al. (2 0 0 9 ), w ho found that the age profile o f pupils in special sch ools
for pupils w ith M G L D w as w eighted towards pupils aged 12 and over. Table 3.1 illustrates the age range o f pupils in these schools.
Table 2; A g e r a n g e o f p u p ils in s p e c ia l s c h o o ls f o r p u p ils w ith M G L D
Age band 3+ and under 4-8 9-12 13-15 16-18 19+ and over
Number of pupils 4 200 473 690 634 11
Source: W are et al., 2009, p. 120.
Table 2 illustrates that a total o f 673 pupils betw een the ages o f four and tw e lv e , and 1335 pupils aged 13 and over, w ere attending special sch o o ls for pup ils w ith M G L D at the tim e o f this study. T h ese figures suggest that a large number o f pupils attending special sc h o o ls for pupils w ith M G L D in Ireland transferred from m ainstream sch o o ls b etw een the ages o f nine and fifteen. T h e report also found diversity in the range o f needs o f pup ils attending these schools. O f the 28 sch o o ls that participated in the survey, o n ly 1,828 pupils out o f 2 ,3 3 6 attending w ere reported as having M G LD as their primary disability. T his report provides clear ev id en ce that the m ajority o f pupils w ith M G LD w h o leave m ainstream to transfer to a special sch o ol do so at the upper end o f primary or at the early stages o f their post-prim ary education. W h ile th ese figures do not provide an indication o f the reason for transfer, it w ou ld seem that factors influencing the decision to transfer m a n ifest th em selv es during this period o f p u p ils’ education and this phenom enon is at the heart o f the current study.
The change in p rofile o f pupils attending special sch o o ls has b een observed in other countries where p o lic y advocates the inclusion o f pupils w ith SE N in m ainstream sch oo ls. H ead and Piirie (2 0 0 7 ), for exam ple, in their survey o f the im pact o f a presum ption o f m ainstream ing on special sch o o ls in Scotland, report that respondents from sp ecial sc h o o ls attributed decreased enrolm ent to the im pact o f an inclusion p olicy . Their survey indicates a p erceived increase in the range and com p lexity o f conditions catered for in sp ecial sc h o o ls, sim ilar to
the Irish context, w ith particular reference to autism spectrum disorders and challenging behaviours. There is also statistical evid en ce to suggest that the m ajority o f pupils attending special sch oo ls in Scotland are o f secondary sch ool age. T h ese findings, together w ith the findings o f literature outlined in the previous section on the co m p lex ity o f needs experienced b y pupils w ith M G L D , suggest that a trend has develop ed w hereby older pupils w ith com p lex, or additional, needs are transferring from m ainstream to special sch ools for pupils w ith M G LD. A s previou sly stated, this phenom enon is the subject o f investigation in the current study and literature in relation to the transfer o f pup ils from m ainstream to special sch ools is further discu ssed later in this chapter.
3 .4 .2 E d u c a tio n a l p r o v is io n in m a in stre a m s c h o o ls
N ot all pup ils w ith M G LD attend special sch ools. G iven that there are m ore pupils in this category than a n y other SE N group, the m ajority attend m ainstream primary and p ost- primary sch oo ls. Steven s and O ’ M oore (2009) report that, by 2 0 0 7 , 64% o f pupils w ith M G LD w ere enrolled in m ainstream classes in Ireland, w ith 27% in special classes and just 9% in special sch o ols. Their findings are supported by W are et a l.’s (2 0 0 9 ) survey w h ich found that out o f 3 0 4 primary schools w ith one or m ore special cla sses, 211 w ere designated special cla sses for pup ils w ith M G LD. O nce again there is ev id en ce that these cla sses are catering for a diversity o f needs but not to the sam e extent as the special sch o o ls surveyed. In 2 0 0 9 , the D E S announced its d ecision to reduce the number o f special cla sses for pupils w ith M G LD due to in su fficien t numbers o f pupils to warrant their retention and the introduction, in 2 0 0 5, o f the G A M for pupils with high incidence d isabilities, includ ing M G LD (D E S , 2009). The d ecisio n to reduce the number o f special c la sses received so m e criticism at the tim e (Travers, 2 0 0 9 ) based on the perceived role o f these c la sses as part o f the continuum o f provision recom m ended in the SERC Report (D E S , 1993). There w as also criticism o f the
d ecision to include M G L D as a high-incidence disability (Stevens & O ’M oore, 2 00 9) w hereby support w as to b e allocated from existin g resources in the sch o o ls rather than additional support b ein g provided based on category o f need. This criticism w as based on the v ie w that the largest sector o f the special needs population w as no longer allocated resource hours, no longer required p sychological assessm ent and w as placed w ithin a n ew m odel that did not have guidelines relating sp ecifically to M G LD.
In their study o f the role o f special schools and cla sses in Ireland, W are et al. (20 09 ) found ev id en ce o f support am ongst parents, teachers and principals for the future role o f special classes as part o f a continuum o f provision. Educational and social in clu sion w ere identified as advantages o f special classes as pupils could attend m ainstream sch ools in their local areas and interact w ith their peers in mainstream classes. Concerns w ere also raised about the capacity o f the G A M and resource teacher service to m eet the needs o f pup ils w ith M G LD and W are et al. (2 0 0 9 ) recom m end that both m odels o f provision should be evaluated before any reduction in sp ecial class provision is im plem ented.
3 .4 .3 I s s u e s o f p la c e m e n t in th e c o n te x t o f a p o l i c y o f in c lu sio n
Issues o f placem ent o f pupils w ith M G LD highlight difficu lties in relation to the process o f inclusion, w ith sp ecific reference to in clu siv e practice. Identifying or defining inclusive practice presents w ith difficulties, particularly in an Irish context, due to the lack o f research in this area (Shevlin, K enny & L oxley, 2 0 0 8 ). P o licy and recent legislation has b een based on the right o f pupils w ith SE N to access and participate in m ainstream sch ools. The underlying assum ption that the mainstream school is the desired location in terms o f inclusion has been challenged, particularly in the absence o f em pirical evid en ce to support this claim . For exam p le, W are et al. (2 0 0 9 ) recom m end that, as special sch o o ls are catering
for the needs o f pupils w ith com plex needs, they “should be enabled to continue to do so in the absence o f ev id en ce that Irish mainstream sch o o ls could provide a better education for these students” (p. 182). This raises questions about provision for pupils w h o have M G LD and additional needs in mainstream schools, particularly in relation to the reasons w h y these pupils lea v e m ainstream sch o o ls and transfer to special sch o ols. T his question is addressed in the current study, not o n ly in relation to reasons for transfer, but also in terms o f the perceived d ifferen ces, i f any, in educational provision for pupils w ith M G L D in both settings.
Lindsay’s (2 0 0 7 ) review o f research conducted from 2 0 0 0 to 2 0 0 5 on the effectiv en ess o f inclusion indicated that results w ere on ly m arginally p ositive. G iven the range o f research m ethods, variations in types o f disabilities and age ranges o f pupils in volved in the studies review ed, L indsay identifies a lack o f a firm research base to support the effectiven ess o f inclusion in term s o f outcom es or processes for im plem entation. T h ese findings su ggest that a p o lic y o f in clu sion is values-based rather than evid en ce-based. This has particular relevance to the current study as the theoretical framework is based on the assum ption that values underpinning special education such as equity, ju stic e and participation create tensions, or dilem m as, w h en these values appear to contradict o n e another and this dilem m atic perspective (N orw ich, 1993; 2008a) acts as a len s for analysis o f findings in the current study.
A number o f studies hav e investigated educational provision in m ainstream and special sch o o ls in relation to the inclusion o f pupils w ith SE N from the perspectives o f different stakeholders includ ing pupils, teachers and parents. For exam p le, in their study o f special education provision in Ireland, Shevlin et al., (2 0 0 8 ) found that participants (including ad vocacy groups, principals, teachers and support personnel in primary and special sch o ols)
conceptualised in clu sion m ainly in terms o f social inclusion. B en efits o f in clu sion to pupils in m ainstream sch ools w ere perceived as including increased self-esteem and a greater sense o f belon gin g to the local com m unity. H ow ever, the extent to w h ich pupils w ith M G L D experience this sense o f b elon gin g in mainstream sch o o ls is questionable and a number o f studies h ave addressed the issue o f social inclusion o f pupils with SE N in m ainstream and special sch ools. A m on g these, A llan and B row n’s (2 0 0 1 ) study on special sch ools and inclusion in the U K included pupils from tw o special sch o o ls for pup ils w ith M G L D and o n e sch o ol for pupils w ith severe and com p lex needs. The p u p ils’ accounts o f their special sch oo l experiences su ggested a perception o f inclusion that, not o n ly v iew e d the sch ool as part o f the com m unity to w hich th ey belonged, but also as instrum ental in preparing them for life lo n g inclusion. A llan and B row n argue that a broader definition o f inclusion, as b elo n g in g to a com m unity rather than placem ent in a particular sch o ol setting, is required and caution p o lic y makers against sim p listic claim s that mainstream sch o o ls prom ote social in clu sio n w ithout sp ecifyin g system changes that should take place in order to realise this ideal.
Experiences o f social isolation o f pupils w ith SE N in m ainstream sch o ols have been docum ented. A num ber o f studies across different countries h ave found that children w ith SEN are m ore lik ely to experience social difficu lties and greater lo n elin ess than their peers in m ainstream sch o o ls (e.g ., Cambra & Silvestre, 2003; Pijl, Frostad & Flem , 2 0 0 8 ). There is som e ev id en ce in the literature w hich suggests that h aving a SE N causes social difficu lties for pupils in m ainstream and special schools. C ooney, Jahoda and K nott (2 0 0 6 ) carried out a study o f p erceived stigm a am ongst pupils w ith m ild to m oderate general learning disabilities (G L D ) in m ainstream post-prim ary and special sch o ols in the U K . T h ey found that both groups o f participants reported experiences o f stigm atized treatment outside o f sch o o l, w ith nam e-calling b ein g the m ost frequently reported experience. W h ile pup ils in special sch o o ls
did not report frequent experiences o f this nature in school, ridicule or ex clu sio n b y n o n disabled peers w as the m ost com m on experience reported b y pupils in m ainstream schools. T hese find ings su g gest that special schools help to shelter pupils from stigm atization in school but not outside, w h ile mainstream pupils w ith SE N experience stigm atization in both contexts and to a higher degree in the school setting. T h ese find ings raise questions about the social inclusion o f pupils w ith SEN in mainstream schools.
3 .4 .4 S u m m a ry
The issu e o f placem ent has been identified b y N orw ich (2 0 0 8 a ) as h ighlighting a particular tension, or dilem m a, in special education. T he ten sion ex ists b etw een tw o values, nam ely educational p rovision to m eet individual needs and the in clu sio n o f all pupils in m ainstream sch o o ls. P o licy w hich prom otes inclusion o f all children in the context o f m ainstream p lacem ent is a values-based one. There is evid en ce that special sc h o o ls in Ireland are catering for pupils w ith com plex needs w h ich raises questions about the in clu sion o f pup ils w ith co m p lex learning needs in mainstream sch ools. T he social in clu sion o f pupils w ith SEN in m ainstream sch o o ls is also an issu e w orthy o f further in vestig ation in light o f the evid en ce o f studies w h ich indicate that these pupils are m ore lik e ly to experience social difficu lties than their m ainstream peers. T he extent to w h ich these factors m a y contribute to the transfer o f pupils w ith M GLD from m ainstream to special sc h o o ls is explored in the current study.