Presented at ISEC 2000

Special Schools, Intensive Interaction and Inclusion

Melanie Nind - Oxford Brookes University, UK

Contributions from: Steve Cochrane - London Borough of Enfield, UK

Abstract

This paper discusses a borough-wide inclusion initiative at Enfield and the ongoing action research project of the special schools and services.

Much of the discussion and action to date in the area of inclusion has focused on changing mainstream schools to include pupils with moderate learning difficulties or physical disabilities. The London Borough of Enfield has adopted a model of inclusion in which quality, local teaching for pupils with more severe learning difficulties and challenging behaviours is central. The goal of bringing pupils placed 'out-of-borough' back into the local educational community, and with this releasing resources for further inclusion, has been supported by a focus on appropriate teaching and learning for these and all pupils. The initial pedagogic focus has been on Intensive Interaction, an interactive approach emphasising the quality of the teaching process. Here the focus is clearly on learning difficulties as being at the interface of the pupil and the teacher and curriculum. With its emphasis on naturalistic, developmental models, intuitive teaching and critical reflection rather than on 'experts', Intensive Interaction has been a vehicle for discussion and action within and between schools regarding the diversity of pupils they can confidently provide for.

Background and rationale for the project

The Intensive Interaction and Inclusion project that we discuss in this paper is part of the wider inclusion project of one London borough. The borough's approach can be summarised as pursuing some key themes:

Two central strands of focus and activity in the borough develop from these themes and the latter in particular:

Complex needs and Intensive Interaction

The part of the wider project that we discuss here is concerned with pupils with complex needs and the use of Intensive Interaction as the focus for staff development through collaborative enquiry. Intensive Interaction (Nind and Hewett, 1988, 1994) is an interactive approach that emphasises the quality of the teaching and interactive process. The interactive style is modelled on the nurturing style of caregiver-infant interaction and is used with intensity and critical reflection. Practitioners of Intensive Interaction address the interactive fit between the pupils' needs and the accessibility and meaningfulness of the educational experience. They rely on intuitive teaching combined with reflection, in-depth observation and collaborative problem-solving, rather than on the notion of specialist 'experts'.

The initial aim of the Intensive Interaction part of the project was: To increase the diversity of pupils that teachers in special schools feel

a) they can confidently cope with

b) they have appropriate teaching strategies for

c) they have appropriate curricula for.

The vehicle for achieving these aims was:

Intensive Interaction and inclusive thinking

Using the helpful distinctions between traditional and inclusionary approaches that Thomas et al (1998) adapted from Porter (1995) (fig.1), it is apparent that the Intensive Interaction and Inclusion project fits particularly well with the some of the inclusionary dimensions. These are most notably, examining teaching/learning factors, collaborative problem-solving, and developing strategies for teachers.

The aspect of the project that could be regarded as more in keeping with a traditional approach is its focus on what could be said to be a 'technical intervention' - special teaching or therapy - on Intensive Interaction. However, the nature of the 'technical intervention' of Intensive Interaction brings the focus right back round to teachers looking at their practice, examining the quality of their interactions, and reflecting on the match between what their students bring to the learning situation and the teaching and learning experiences they offer.

Fig.1 Traditional and inclusionary approaches (Thomas et al 1998 adapted from Porter 1995)

Intensive Interaction is a teaching approach that is special in the sense of being geared to a specific group of learners who are usually seen as special. It was developed for facilitating the development of fundamental social and communication abilities in students who experience severe and complex learning difficulties. It evolved from a very particular concern with developing an understanding and practice of good teaching for these learners and their particular needs.

However, it is also firmly enmeshed with principles of good teaching for all. It is based on the 'intuitive pedagogy' (Carlson and Bricker, 1982) of caregiver-infant interaction and therefore on good teaching for all at the early developmental levels. It uses the intuitive teaching and learning style that characterizes the playful interactive process between parents and their very young children. It is this, rather than a model that the students with complex needs/ learning difficulties need something fundamentally different, that underpins Intensive Interaction.

There is strong evidence that this interactive style has a positive functional relationship with development, both in young children who are developing normally (e.g. Brazelton, Koslwoski and Main, 1974; Kaye, 1979; Lewis and Coates, 1980; Schaffer, 1977) and in individuals of all ages who are yet to develop early social and communication abilities (e.g. Mahoney and Powell, 1988; Nind, 1996; Yoder, 1990). The latter group, however, are more likely to experience a different interactive style or teaching approach, reflecting differences in the ease of achieving a good interactive match or fit, and assumptions about the need for specialist teaching and different ways of learning.

In Intensive Interaction, the difference in approach for individuals with complex learning difficulties emerges not in the interactive style or teaching approach itself, but in the way that the style is applied. That is, the style is applied with intensity and critical reflection. Therefore the difference is a matter of degree rather than kind (see the discussion in the Tomlinson Report, FEFC, 1996). Diversity is responded to within an all-encompassing framework.

The project in the initial year

Four special schools were involved in the initial year of the project:

Next year a further special school 'for delicate pupils' and some mainstream schools will become involved.

A steering group consisting of the heads of these schools and the associated support services was set up to agree the terms of the project and to discuss ways in which it might operate and be evaluated. A launch brought together staff from three of the special schools together with advisory, educational psychology, parent support and speech and language therapy services. The launch session introduced the rationale and principles of both Intensive Interaction and the project itself. The challenge posed was for the educational community

In the immediate term practitioners were encouraged to reflect on the launch session and think about

Identifying the problem 1: matters of curriculum and matters of intruders

The first burst of action came from the schools for pupils with moderate learning difficulties. These were two very different schools located at either ends of the borough. They were different in the socio-economic mix of their pupils, their culture and their priorities. Yet they identified very similar problems as the starting point for the project.

The first of these, Maple Leaf, presented itself as a school with a caring ethos as its primary source of pride. The headteacher spoke passionately about the warmth of the school atmosphere, the good team spirit amongst its staff, and the growing emphasis on circle time and therapies in the school's approach.

The 'problem' identified by the headteacher as the starting point for discussion and action was the changing nature of the school population. There was a new intake of pupils who were unlike their traditional pupil group, and the head reported that the staff had felt like 'a tidal wave was coming at them'. The graphic image was one of being unable to turn back this tide and of a feeling of helplessness in the face of it. In response the staff had sought to regain their feeling of control and effectiveness by segregating the tidal wave group in a class of their own. Thus, the decision had been made to stream the key stage three group resulting in what they termed an MLD and an 'SLD' group. In this way the 'tidal wave' was being dealt with - but they were very uncertain about the future.

The immediate issue was what to do with this tidal wave class now they were a more homogeneous group. The teachers, it was explained, were skilled at differentiating, but even they could not differentiate to the extent that had been required. The new class of 'SLD pupils' could not access the secondary school style subjects-based curriculum on offer to the traditional pupils and they needed an alternative. The idea of learning the 'specialist technique' of Intensive Interaction and using this was very appealing. This solution perhaps offered the attraction of not interfering with the thinking and activity of the rest of the school, though this was certainly not to be the case!

The secondary issue was the problem of pupils in the year 1 class, with communication difficulties, and again not typical of the school's traditional MLD population. The staff involved wanted to explore whether Intensive Interaction would be an appropriate approach for these individuals.

The second school for pupils with moderate learning difficulties, Green Street, presented itself as a school with academic success as its primary source of pride. The deputy and headteacher spoke of the way the school had been turned around, from one in which the pupils had done 'colouring in' and 'feeding ducks in the park', to one where pupils achieved GCSEs and other qualifications. Neither school could be regarded as a learning organisation with a culture of ongoing study and reflection, but there were more educational books available here and stronger links with higher education.

Like Maple Leaf, the Green Street management team described the challenge in terms of a changing population, with growing numbers of non-traditional pupils who did not fit the academic curriculum on offer. Once again the 'problem pupils' were mostly found in the youngest classes and in the secondary department. Their particular concerns were:

Emerging Themes

The early part of the project with these schools then, revealed some interesting emerging themes. Firstly, the project's focus on 'pupils falling outside of the routine competence and confidence' of teachers clearly reflected a very real agenda in the MLD schools. There was considerable honesty about the lack of confidence and expertise within the schools with which to cope.

Secondly, this resulted in a strong desire for the staff to label the pupils who were challenging them. The language of 'severe learning difficulties', although inaccurate in many ways, was used a lot and seemed to signify that the pupils belonged elsewhere, in a different category of provision, with a separate breed of teachers who did have the specialist skills required. There was a very strong feeling of our pupils and intruder pupils.

Thirdly, there was recognition that the intruders were part of the schools' future, and their needs would have to have to be addressed. The schools were willing to do this is in an add-on basis, but were less ready in the initial stages to re-think their whole curriculum offer and approach. Without support and encouragement to do otherwise the schools were beginning along the route of a two-tier curriculum - creating a special school within a special school.

Planning and action 1: thinking through the problem together

The willingness to share the problem with someone in the role of critical friend enabled the managers and teachers in the MLD schools to see their problem from different perspectives. To them the problem was real and urgent - requiring a pragmatic solution. To the critical friend the problem was an intellectual challenge - requiring reflection and complex problem-solving. Questioning and mirroring of their thinking helped to present the problem in different ways. Was a two-tier system in the curriculum really what was wanted? What were the implications of this for the way the pupils were regarded and valued? What alternatives were there to the two-tier system? Was it really as simple as two kinds of pupil requiring two kinds of curricula? Was it more helpful to think in terms of greater diversity of learning styles and teaching needs? How could the curriculum be structured to provide an all-encompassing framework for a diversity of pupils?

We explored the feasibility and desirability of slotting an interactive teaching approach into an otherwise unchanged curriculum. We looked at the assumptions behind different ways of working and the way pupils were constructed in each. We talked about the kind of environment in which interactive approaches need to be set. With some exceptions amongst the very young children, the pupils who were outside of the teachers' routine confidence and confidence were not lacking in fundamental communication or social abilities. We therefore moved a long way from the original focus of Intensive Interaction itself. We did, however, address the kinds of thinking we went through as a staff group developing Intensive Interaction and we did return over and over again to the issue of focusing on active learners and learning processes rather than on learning outcomes.

At Maple Leaf our discussions focussed on the support staff needed to develop schemes of work for the full range of their pupils in the secondary department. The schemes could not just focus on subject content if they were to be meaningful. This led us into the realms of what the teachers were actually teaching. Although working within a special school the teachers in the secondary department identified themselves as secondary teachers - they were teachers of subjects. The challenge was in enabling them to also see themselves as teachers of children and as teachers of learning.

Guided by a prevailing concern with the teaching and learning process, and inspired by some excellent resources (Babbage, Byers and Redding, 1999; Hart, 1996; Grove and Peacey, 1999), a whole-school curriculum planning framework was developed by the head of department and consultant for further development by the teaching staff. Figure 2 summarises this framework.

Figure 2

We felt that the framework allowed staff to develop a bank of processes to draw upon in their planning. Rather than thinking about what the pupils would produce they would think about what they would do. In thinking about what pupils would do they would think about what would help them to gain understandings of the subject, what would help them to become better learners, and what processes they would need to rehearse on a regular basis. The schemes and lessons could be planned to achieve a balanced approach, with variations in the balance for the diversity of individuals. For some the subject emphasis might be greater, for others the priority would be learning to learn, but the demarcation between them would not be strong or permanent. This would be based not on assumptions, but on observation and reflection and would allow for differentiation without exclusion, isolation and stigma. It was also hoped that this would lead to more effective planning and teaching and learning experiences for all pupils. The planning framework is currently being tested out in action.

At Green Street school the constraining influence on the secondary phase curriculum was seen to be the qualification requirements rather than the curriculum subject. Thus the concern with outcomes was greater, with consequent understandable reluctance to switch to thinking in terms of learning processes. Problems with a separate qualification for the less able pupils and especially with separate learning experiences for this were recognised but seen as insurmountable in the short term. The impact of this on the rest of the school is currently being discussed.

Meanwhile in the primary department an all-encompassing curriculum framework is being developed. This is based on a jig-saw of curriculum areas: PSHE, language/literacy, mathematical, physical, creative/aesthetic and knowledge of the world, and on models of good early years practice. In this way interactive play can form an integral part of the younger pupils' day.

Identifying the problem 2: teaching and learning matters

The next schools to get involved were Cherry Tree, the school for pupils with communication disorders, and Waterside, the school for pupils with severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties. Initial identification of the problem in the action-research cycle was very different here as the sense of identity in these schools was based on meeting the needs of pupils who were beyond the routine confidence and competence of others. They already used Intensive Interaction and were thus able to see themselves as providing curriculum experiences well matched to the needs of pupils with extreme difficulties. They were still able to identify individual pupils who they found challenging, but this was very much within a context of them coping generally and positively with diverse needs.

Challenges at Cherry Tree and Waterside were identified in terms of how to enhance the quality of interactions and their benefits both for particular pupils and the school population generally. Through collaborative observation and feedback routines we were able to identify some plans of action.

Planning and action 2: enhancing teaching and learning through Intensive Interaction

At Cherry Tree the plans of action involved practitioners in focusing on some matters of sensitive use of the interactive style. This included how to hold own their own behaviour back ready for responsiveness and how to outweigh negative interactions with a vast number of mutually enjoyable ones. We also discussed trying out use of one-to-one teaching rooms for interactive sessions, and allowing more time to rehearse pre-communication abilities before introducing symbols/ sign/ speech.

At Waterside we focused on effective practice with pupils with whom achieving access and engagement was more challenging. We observed each other interacting with the pupils with the most extreme physical disabilities, pupils who were blind/ deaf-blind, pupils who were very passive, and pupils with whom interactions had not been enjoyable. We developed a useful process of the consultant and teachers who were new to the field of SLD and to Intensive Interaction working alongside each other sharing ideas and concerns. Staff have recorded action plans to develop imitation of sounds into turn-taking with 'turnarounds' and to generally use each other as a resource more in collaborative partnerships.

We identified areas where there were tensions between the secondary style subject-based curriculum on offer and quality interactive practice. Some of the staff were concerned at how long it took to get to know the pupils and their learning styles and preferences when they move around the staff throughout the week. This will form the focus of further discussion.

Further Developments

During the coming school year the project of collaborative work will begin with the school for 'delicate' children and with the early years language centres and mainstream schools. We will be working on a school accreditation framework that will recognise the achievements of schools in their development of interactive and inclusive practice. This will include a greater emphasis on co-ordination within schools such that in-house expertise is shared and collaborative inquiry fostered, perhaps through the adoption of co-ordination roles. There will also be further work on facilitating schools working together to form a more functional and inclusive educational community.

Reflections

Reflection on the themes emerging from the collaborative work of this project illuminates some key points:

• Pupils who fall outside of their traditional population may present a significant challenge to teachers and managers in special schools. Special school identity and experience does not automatically protect them from this, but a curriculum framework that already allows for diversity does.
• A focus on pupils who fall outside of the routine competence and confidence of teachers reflects a real agenda for teachers and allows for an inclusionary approach to moving forward by addressing teaching strategies, curricular issues, and classroom environments.
• The challenge of non-traditional pupils with whom teachers lack confidence may result in a strong desire to label those pupils. This categorisation helps to maintain the distinction between pupils who rightly belong and intruder pupils who really belong in a different category of provision, with a separate breed of teachers who have the 'specialist 'skills required. This categorisation of pupils and teachers presents significant barriers to inclusive thinking and to extending the diversity of pupils with whom teachers' feel competent and confident
• Negative feelings about the challenge of non-traditional pupils, the history of traditional approaches to special education, and a rigid curriculum framework are associated with responding in an 'add-on' basis to the challenge. This can result in a two-tier curriculum - creating a special school within a (special) school. With support for innovative thinking teachers are more likely to re-think their whole curriculum offer and approach the challenge in an inclusive way.
• · There is a strong tendency to locate problems within the pupil rather than within the school/ curriculum. This increases the mystiques and further undermines teachers' confidence. Interactive approaches support a culture of readiness to address difficulties in teaching and the interactive process rather than deficits in pupils.
• Interactive approaches help to focus attention on the match between what the pupil brings and needs and what the learning situation offers. Practitioners with experience of Intensive Interaction looked for answers to the challenge presented by particular pupils in the process of observation, feedback and reflection on the interaction process. They readily accepted it was their responsibility to make the adjustments to enhance the interactive match and they had created a flexible enough framework to do so. They were not immune, however, to valuing the feedback of an 'expert' to that of a colleague - perhaps a legacy of the answer being 'out there' rather than within this school and its skilled and reflective staff.

References

Babbage, R. Byers, R. and Redding, H. (1999) Approaches to teaching and Learning: Including Pupils with Learning Difficulties, London: David Fulton.

Brazelton, T.B., Koslwoski, B. and Main, M. (1974) 'The origins of reciprocity: early mother-infant interaction' in Lewis, M. and Rosenblum, L.A. (eds) The Effect of the Infant on its Caregiver, New York: Wiley.

Carlson, L. and Bricker, D.D. (1982) 'Dyadic and contingent aspects of early communicative intervention', in Bricker, D.D. (ed) Interventions with At-Risk and Handicapped Infants, Baltimore: University Park Press.

Further Education Funding Council (1996) Inclusive Learning (Tomlinson Report), London, FEFC.

Grove N. and Peacey, N. (1999) 'Teaching subjects to pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties: considerations for the new Framework', British Journal of Special Education, 26, 2, 83-86.

Hart, S. (1996) Beyond Special Needs: Enhancing Children's learning Through Innovative Thinking, London: Paul Chapman.

Kaye, K. (1979) 'Thickening the thin data: the maternal role in developing communication and language' in Bullowa, M. (ed) Before Speech, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, M. and Coates, L. (1980) 'Mother-infant interaction and cognitive development at twelve weeks', Infant Behaviour and Development, 3, 95-105.

Mahoney, G. and Powell, A. (1988) 'Modifying parent-child interaction: enhancing the development of handicapped children', Journal of Special Education, 22, 82-96.

Nind, M. (1996) Efficacy of Intensive Interaction, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11, 1, 48-66.

Nind, M. and Hewett, D. (1988) 'Interaction as curriculum: A process method in a school for pupils with severe learning difficulties, British Journal of Special Education, 15, 55-57.

Nind, M. and Hewett, D. (1994) Access to Communication: Developing the Basics of Communication with People with Severe learning Difficulties through Intensive Interaction, London: David Fulton.

Thomas, G. et al (1998) The making of the Inclusive School, London, Routledge.

Schaffer, H.R. (1977) Studies in Mother-Infant Interaction (London: Academic Press).

Yoder, P.J. (1990) 'The theoretical and empirical basis of early amelioration of developmental disabilities', Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 27-42.

Index