Contributions from: Zore Jacova (University of Skopje, Macedonia).
Abstract
This paper reports on a series of small scale studies which have identified the attitudes of mainstream subject teachers in secondary schools as a major inhibitor of movement towards full inclusion. The principal arguments developing from these studies are firstly presented; key concerns by subject teachers include lack of in-class support, absence of curriculum resources, and the extent to which it is appropriate to include children with certain kinds of learning difficulties. A small cross-section of teachers were then interviewed in order to establish their views on what would be the ideal, optimum conditions within their subject area to allow a more rapid movement to full inclusion. A report on these responses forms the substance of this paper.
Secondary school subject-teachers and the Code of Practice: some preliminary data
In a recently completed piece of work (Garner, 2000) I made reference to some of the tensions which have begun to manifest themselves in the organisation and provision for SEN in secondary schools since the introduction of the Code of Practice (DfE, 1994).. It has been widely acknowledged that collaboration is central to a Senco's effectiveness (REF). In secondary schools this places great reliance on the co-operation of those colleagues who are subject-teachers and who have traditionally and in the main not seen themselves as key participants in meeting the learning needs of a school's SEN population. Indeed, there are many anecdotal instances of subject-teachers who are diffident or even hostile to having greater involvement with children with learning difficulties, whatever the statutory guidelines specify. Mittler (1993) is categorical about this, observing that whilst '...the slogan that everyone is a teacher of children with special educational needs is true...it is very far from being accepted in practice'. Investigations regarding the views of mainstream subject - or class-teachers have not been widespread in the period following the inception of the Code. This is rather surprising, given the weight of emphasis placed, at Stage 1, on the role of the class-teacher or subject-teacher. What little that has been forthcoming has related to discrete aspects of SEN provision, rather than to the Code of Practice itself (Bearn & Smith, 1998; Allan, 1995).
The responses to SEN by subject teachers in secondary schools have important implications for school effectiveness and individual pupil-progression. Subject-teacher attitudes can impact upon the progress that individual pupils make in a given curriculum area, as well as having an impact on pupil's choice of subject at KS4. It is clear, too, that pupil-teacher relationships are likely to influence a child's overall attitude to education, promoting either inclusion or disengagement, with their attendant consequences. From at least a pragmatic level, too, a demonstrable competence in meeting a wide range of learning needs (including those of SEN pupils) is a core feature of recently published school inspection guidelines (OfSTED, 1999).
With these thoughts in mind it was decided to investigate the views of a small group of subject teachers. The focus of the investigation was both to identify the degree to which non-specialist SEN staff (subject-teachers) in secondary schools were aware of the content of the Code of Practice and the level to which they currently were applying it in their practice. The project also hoped to highlight instances of good-practice, where individual teachers , departments and schools showed a capacity to embed the guidance contained in the Code within the day-to-day subject-teaching of the school.
The Research Approach
The focus of the research in this paper has its origins in work begun in 1999 (Garner, 1999; Digby, Lewis, Taylor & Yates, 1999). In the former, groups of secondary school subject specialists were invited to respond to a questionnaire regarding the inclusion of pupils with EBD in mainstream settings. Although the study reported was not Code-specific it nevertheless provided some evidence that this group of teachers was less conversant with the workings of the Code of Practice than their peers in primary schools. The second study planned to sample 600 teachers in primary and secondary schools in England and Wales. This was to be followed by a series of semi-structured interviews.
The data used here are taken both from the pilot-study stage of the main research and from a subsequent research initiative*. 50 teachers from 8 schools in 4 LEAs (two metropolitan, two county) have participated in the study so far: the schools in which they worked were identified randomly. Permission was requested to (i) distribute a questionnaire to all teachers in the schools selected for the study and to (ii) interview a small group of respondents from each school at a later date. Of total of 441 teachers in the 8 schools, responses were received from 197 (r = 44.6%). From these respondents a sample of questionnaire returns was selected in order that 10 subject teachers in each of mathematics, geography, science, art and technology could form the basis of subsequent analysis; these were, as far as possible, representative of each of the 8 schools in the study.
The data: some initial findings
The extracts provided centre on three aspects of subject-teachers knowledge and application of the Code:
1. The impact of the Code on subject-teacher's day-to-day teaching
The implementation of the Code of Practice saw the 'head of department' responsible for SEN assume the title of 'co-ordinator'; with this came new responsibilities and patterns of work. But the Code also made important recommendations for the role of the subject-teacher; indeed, there is an argument to suggest that the key re-orientation of the Code was to make the subject-teacher the focus of action on behalf of pupils with learning difficulties. This was especially the case in terms of initial identification and subsequent intervention at Stage 1.
Reactions of this small group of subject teachers to this 'new' situation were mixed; there was certainly little evidence that the underlying principle which emphasised that subject- or class-teachers were to be in a vanguard position when it came to intervention. 'We have had to make so many changes in the way we teach our own subject that it is wrong to place another burden on us' (S2) was the comment of one science teacher, whilst a technology teacher maintained that 'Technology is a very different discipline to what it was when I started out as a teacher. It is more complex, scientific and, because of that, I think it has moved away from being the traditional subject for remedial children' (T1).
There was a widespread belief that addititional workloads as a result of the Code had resulted in increased stress and, perversely, a general decline in willingness to work proactively with pupils with learning difficulty. Thus, one teacher reported that 'It has been as story of more responsibility for less reward and more stress and aggravation for less in the way of personal fulfilment. I reckon that I did a lot more for low-ability kids without all the beaurocracy' (G3).
But there were some supportive remarks: 'I think that the changes that have taken place in recent years have been to everybody's benefit. I don't feel threatened that SEN is at or near the top of the agenda now' (A2) and 'We got a lot of support, and still do, so that we know what the Code means' (G4) are comments illustrative of this more positive orientation.
The subject-teachers in this small survey supported a view that the degree to which they were able to fulfil the Code's expectations was very largely based upon the overall ethos, management and organisation of SEN in their school: '...we have a really supportive set of teachers, led by a senior management which don't duck issues. They are really committed to SEN and support everybody, including our SEN team, to get the best possible deal for these pupils' (S4) is a comment in direct contrast with a more negative interpretation 'Everybody is so busy making sure that they get their own job done...you have to sort your own patch out, because it will be your head on the block at the end of the day. I will be rated by my KS4 exam results, not how sympathetic I am about pupils who have low-ability' (T4).
A similar ambivalence was apparent in respect of the level of contact these subject-teachers had with their Sencos. This ranged from high-level and ongoing collaboration -as inferred by one Art teacher: '_________(Senco) gives us a lot of time, and not when we just ask for it. She ensures we get information on a particular problem pupil well in advance and also is keen to help with possible solutions to difficulties' (A1) - to minimal interaction, as in the case of one geography teacher who noted that '...we occasionally get a boy who has an IEP, but to be honest I don't take much notice of it because there is so much else to do. Besides, I don't think that our Senco has enough contact with subject-teachers. She has a very romantic view of these kids I think' (G1).
Whilst it is clearly too early to make substantive, generalised comment on the views of subject-teachers as a whole it is probably fair to tentatively suggest that teachers of non-core subjects, together with those which are more 'affective; in nature hold more amenable views regarding the impact of the Code. Given the recent exposure given to teaching and learning styles in SEN, and the importance of pupil-teacher relationships, further investigations concerning class- or subject-teachers' beliefs regarding SEN in general would seem to be essential for the successful operation of a revised Code of Practice.
 |
 |