Procesos y resultados educativos

Since Minister Martin’s ‘automatic entitlement’ speech (DES, 1998) the number of children with SEN being supported by resource and learning support teachers has greatly increased with the emphasis in terms of policy on that model of provision (DES, 2005b) without reference to the special class model. McGee (2004) states

There are special classes, with a track record of excellence over many years, whose continued existence is in question, not because of any policy decision but mostly, it would seem, because the psychologist, who may or may not be knowledgeable about special education and who may not have any measure of the quality of the special class, automatically refers pupils assessed to resource teaching. Some highly effective principals, who would testify strongly to the excellence of their special class, seem strangely disempowered in this situation. They would need to appreciate that the system has not taken any position on the relative merits of these forms of provision … In the circumstance it behoves the principal to be much more pro-active in relation to the assessment process; he/she may find that

dialogue on an issue of principle is warranted or simply that the psychologist needs to be educated on the issue (p.77).

Nugent (2007) found that while parents of pupils with dyslexia expressed satisfaction with regard to all types of SEN services, levels of satisfaction were higher for the more specialist settings. She goes on to say,

While the inclusion movement encourages the closure of special schools and units, parents are telling us that they and their children actually prefer this type of provision (at least for short term placement at primary age). Where such specialist services exist, they are highly rated. One of the important implications of this research is that professionals … if they accept the findings of this research, have a duty of care to advise parents of the

likelihood that they and their children will be happier with specialist services (pp.58–59).

Kidd and Hornby’s (1993) findings echo Nugent’s (2007). They found much higher satisfaction ratings among twenty-nine students and their parents of being

integrated in a unit in a mainstream school than in mainstream classes after transferring from a special school. The evaluation of special class provision for pupils with specific speech and language disorder (DES, 2005a) also recorded a very high rate of satisfaction (94%) among parents with 88% seeing the enrolment as extremely or very beneficial to the academic progress of their child. However, the nature of that academic progress is not clear; indeed, the evaluation found that there was inconsistency across schools in terms of collaboration between staff in assessing progress and that some records of progress were restricted to English and mathematics only. The report recommends that ‘staff members should be able to draw comparisons between a pupil’s progress and the initial assessment on referral to the class’ (p.77). Again, the evaluation report is unclear regarding the effectiveness of special classes for pupils with specific speech and language disorder in terms of educational outcomes. In spite of this the report recommends that the SENOs should investigate the need for provision of special classes in certain areas, suggesting that at least in terms of this group of students, the authors did see a role for the special class into the future. The DES Inspectorate (2006) found that special classes for pupils with ASD were effective in terms of appropriate provision for this group of children but again, it is not clear from the report whether the special class model is any more or less effective than other educational settings in terms of educational outcomes.

In contrast, the special classes for pupils with MGLD, which have been in existence for a number of decades, have not been subject to evaluation by the DES in

February 2009 it was announced that special classes designated for students with mild GLD, which fail to maintain nine pupils in the class, would be suppressed (Stevens and O’Moore, 2009). This suppression has been criticised (INTO, 2009; Flynn and Doyle, 2009; O’Fathartha, 2009 cited in Stevens and O’Moore, 2009) on

the grounds that it will place additional pressure on the mainstream schools, as well as eroding parental choice. Further, there are issues in relation to removing one option from the continuum of provision for one particular group of children with SEN while simultaneously increasing availability of that same option for another group as outlined by Travers (2009).

To close down special classes without first systematically investigating the impact of the recent dramatic changes in provision for pupils with mild general learning disabilities is regrettable, as a very viable flexible option of provision is being lost to many schools and may lead to many pupils not receiving an appropriate education. Ironically, the value of special

classes/units is readily seen for other pupils with special educational needs, for example, for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (Travers, 2009, p.9). Given the lack of evidence on the efficacy, or otherwise, of special class provision in terms of educational outcomes it is hard to discern a basis for decision-making about the future role of special classes. Currently, the future role of the special class within the continuum of provision for all categories of SEN seems to be

defined by something other than educational/learning outcomes when decisions are being made regarding continuation of existence, creation of new classes or

suppression of classes.

It must also be remembered that Nugent’s (2007) research focused on specialist settings that have a time limit for enrolment. While this time limit exists for special classes for pupils with specific learning disabilities and for pupils with specific speech and language disorder (DES Inspectorate, 2005a), this is not the case for all special classes. Perhaps part of the debate around the future of special class provision needs to focus on the time limit aspect of enrolment in a special class for all categories of SEN. Circular 23/77 (Department of Education, 1977) states that “placement in a special class should be looked upon as a serious educational intervention and should be regularly reviewed by the principal and special class teacher. The child should be reassessed if there is a doubt concerning the suitability of his placement” (p.2).