Removing the barriers to achievement
In the foreword to Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES, 2004) a set of specific educational goals are expressed. Primarily, they target education as a means to integrate individuals into society and to teach them the skills necessary to participate, contribute and achieve their potential.
Removing Barriers to Achievement, (henceforth referred to as RBA) looks at the SEN aspect of an increasingly holistic approach and attempt at ‘joined up services’ (Chapter 4, Action we will take.)
Gradually the Education Acts (e.g. 1981, 1988, 2002), Children Acts (e.g. 1989, 2004) and Government publications have focused on evolving methods of supporting a holistic methodology. For example, RBA is designed to work in conjunction with the Every Child Matters program - the major response to the Victoria Clumbié Inquiry (Laming, 2003). Both depend on a multi-agency approach. RBA qualifies a series of enabling mechanisms and their required modes of operation for SEN, for example the Early Support Pilot Programme (2002). Early intervention is one of these mechanisms. The key areas outlined in this document are: improved support from birth (1.1), improved childcare (1.7), improved early years SEN advice and support (1.8), improved staff recognition and educational strategies (1.13), organised funding (1.16) and reduction of bureaucracy (1.21).
Firstly, some of the basic parameters underlying this document’s strategic approach to early intervention should be mentioned. The echoed tenets of an SEN students ‘spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development’ (Education Reform Act, 1988) have been translated into this increasingly ecological and holistic perspective. Multi -agency partnerships are an ideal compliment to a holistic approach, yet they are useless without efficient formats for communication, common understanding and implementation. Whilst further publications such as the National Service Framework (NSF) for Children (2004) continue to work on the ‘interface’ between social services, healthcare and education, events continue to show how easily lack of continuity and tracking can fail children (e.g. the Askew and Whittaker case).
Analysis of frameworks designed to bridge these gaps, such as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, show where weaknesses lie. In this context Removing Barriers to Achievement, is another stepping-stone for SEN. For example, RBA 1.9 notes that the improved health screening of newborn babies and physical developmental checks help identify problems early.RBA 4.28 stresses the importance of therapy services (speech, language, occupational and physiotherapy) to early intervention.If, for example, the baby shows signs of mild hearing problems, a coordinated and continued approach (early intervention) should allow for the child to gain skills necessary to overcome any issues this raises and not miss out on whatever education they are capable of achieving. With efficient tracking and information transfer between the relevant agencies, families, educational institutions and carers these elements combine to prevent future problems. Socio-economic factors are also taken into consideration (see 3.19 for example) and used to further justify early intervention as a form of parent education as well as child.
As RBA 1.13 states, prevention is better than cure. Research shows that early intervention programs applied at certain stages in a child’s development can act as alleviators and preventatives to learning difficulties. Theorists such as Piaget (1969) and Erikson (1959) examined child cognitive development from environmental and social perspectives and divided child development into stages. Although the strengths and weaknesses of a stage approach merit discussion, for the purpose of this essay, stage analysis provides recognition of those pupils who are failing to meet developmental milestones. Recognition is vital to early intervention and as RBA 1.13 points out, staff must also have the ability to respond and where to go for support.
Stage benchmarks help show the areas where early intervention can help. As Piaget recognises responses to developmental readiness (Krause et al, 2003) as vital for self-esteem, self-belief and self-confidence, RBA recognises early intervention as an essential means of avoiding future social dissociation and failure (chapter 1 introduction). Unassisted, SEN students can show educational gaps (e.g. RBA 3.19 examines how SEN students can struggle with English and easily get left behind their peers). In the RBA context, positive early development of pro-social, cognitive and physical skills are intended at allowing SEN students to benefit from mainstream education. Interestingly, the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project and Early Years Transitions and SEN (EYTSEN) showed early intervention improved cognitive development so much so that SEN scenarios could be avoided when entering school system, (RBA, 1.8).
Although RBA stresses that the support systems remain whether students have statements or not, the stress on teacher education may outline problems with achieving full integration in mainstream education. Indeed, the RBA introduction states that both new and existing teachers worry about their preparedness with relation to integration and need to be given the skills and strategies to manage SEN students successfully. However, having established the benefits of early intervention as a means of enabling SEN students to function in mainstream education, the following looks how the RBA goes about attempting to supporting this.
As mentioned, better health care has enabled early recognition of certain problems. The Early Support Pilot Programme, (2002) seeks to coordinate and allocate resources for early intervention (1.4). It recognises the importance of family involvement and a clear and comprehensible plan of action (Family Support Plan) for the family. However it puts the onus on the knowledge and competence of a key worker. As with Early Years SEN coordinators (SENCO’s), their analytical, communication and coordination skills can define how successful early intervention is.
The next issue is the provision of suitable child care. RBA 1.8 identifies the ‘lasting benefits’ of quality education, especially for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. It outlines the following parameters: better information for families on the location of suitable childcare, more information for parents on how to fund childcare (e.g. Working Families Tax Credit, Home Childcarer Scheme), advising authorities how to find funding for new and existing centres and services (SEN and Disability Strand of the Early Years and Childcare Grant). This leads into the quality requirements for nursery care as enshrined in the Sure Start Programme (1997). The research used here (1.8) shows what benefits a firm foundation at this early stage gives for a students future education. However, increased numbers have brought the capacity of the resources into question and this needs addressing. There is also the challenge of integrating early years education with the resources and experience already available at primary school level (1.11). Whilst in theory this is an excellent move, several practical disparities, as acknowledged in 1.23, make this difficult. For example, a pragmatic approach may look at the wages difference between schools and day care staff. There are also the differences in funding rates not to mention the fundamentally different approaches between day care and school. Clearly, any disincentives need overcoming. RBA provides for development of qualifications for early years childcare workers and provision of resources, guidelines and best practise (1.14). However, the document concentrates on funding for schools. Also, although under constant review, inspection of day-care structures is difficult have problems, with regard to educational assessment, using the same parameters as school systems such as OFSTED. ‘Every teacher should expect to teach children with SEN and we must ensure that they are equipped with the skills to do so effectively’
Removing Barriers to Achievement
Teacher training and professional development should be mentioned for their integration with the continuum of early intervention. RBA talks of inclusive education units in teacher training and funding for professional development. It gives us more detail as to how to practically achieve integration (e.g. 2.8 for materials, models and methods for Inclusive Development Programme, 3.16 for the use of peer groups for pro-social training ) and how to use ICT’s as means of involving parents in SEN student’s individual learning plans. The same tenets apply to teachers and schools as previously stated recognition of needs, ability to respond, skills to cater for all learning styles and the confidence to develop student self-esteem.It is acknowledged that, if space allowed, much more should be said about the teacher’s role in primary level early intervention.
Finally, bureaucracy has perhaps be seen as a disincentive to organisations in undertaking early intervention. This document promotes several means of cutting down the paperwork and the repetition. For example, the Implementation Review Unit to avoid duplication of information and standardised computer based records. The drive to help SEN students achieve continues to encourage this process. In conclusion, however ‘flexible’ an educational curriculum is (RBA 3.31), research such as Piaget’s shows that students need the tools to translate learning into a form of individual understanding. Vygotsky called this ‘scaffolding’ and one image of early intervention is as a system of scaffolds that structure a child’s capacity to learn. Putting socio-political factors aside, the benefits of early intervention frameworks and attempts to structure them so they operate seamlessly, are clear.
Removing Barriers to Achievement recognises that for SEN students to achieve their potential, be that independence or not, they need the opportunity to develop pro-social skills and integrate into society. Whilst this essay has only mentioned in passing the actual ‘toolkits’ and resources available, programmes such as these depend on the reality of using practical methods to achieve success. It is also worth bearing in mind that the more formats for early intervention become available, the greater the resource base for those involved with SEN students. Finally, the right to mainstream education under the 2001 SEN and Disability Act is balanced against parental confidence in a non-statement system. The issues are still complex and numerous, but the essence is simple: successful and effective early intervention has the ability to move students beyond a simple SEN label and towards full integration.
References
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Social Care. Nottingham, UK: DfES Publications
Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health (2003). Together from the Start: practical guidance for professionals working with disabled children (birth to two) and their families (LEA/0184/2002), Nottingham, UK: DfES Publications
Department for Education and Skills (2004). Removing Barriers to Achievement, Nottingham, UK: DfES Publications
Krause, K., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2003) Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. Southbank, Victoria: Thomson
Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Oxford: International Universities Press
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan
Tags: achievement, children, development, primary school, psychology, skills, society, special education
