mainstreaming pupils with a visual impairment in ...

This article was downloaded by: [Colette Gray] On: 14 June 2012, At: 13:27 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special Needs Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

A qualitatively different experience: mainstreaming pupils with a visual impairment in Northern Ireland Colette Gray

a

a

Stranmillis University College: A College of the Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DY, Northern Ireland Available online: 02 Apr 2009

To cite this article: Colette Gray (2009): A qualitatively different experience: mainstreaming pupils with a visual impairment in Northern Ireland, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24:2, 169-182 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250902793644

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Special Needs Education Vol. 24, No. 2, May 2009, 169–182

A qualitatively different experience: mainstreaming pupils with a visual impairment in Northern Ireland Colette Gray* Stranmillis University College: A College of the Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5DY, Northern Ireland

Downloaded by [Colette Gray] at 13:27 14 June 2012

European 10.1080/08856250902793644 REJS_A_379534.sgm 0885-6257 Original Taylor 202009 24 [email protected] ColetteGray 00000May and & Article Francis Journal (print)/1469-591X Francis 2009 ofLtd Special Needs (online) Education

This paper reports the experiences of special education needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) on the inclusion of pupils with a visual impairment (VI) in mainstream schools in Northern Ireland. A mixed method approach (postal questionnaire survey (n=113) and interviews (n=6)) was utilised to triangulate the findings. The results indicate an inverse relationship between school years and pupil numbers, with negligible numbers of pupils with a VI reported in higher level examination classes. They also reveal that, for health and safety reasons and due to problems in accessing text books, some schools discourage pupils with a VI from studying subjects such as technology and design, physical education and mathematics. While pupils with a VI are thought to enjoy the social aspects of school life (e.g., peer friendships), less is known about their ability to access a number of areas within the school, including lunchtime clubs and the dinner hall. These findings raise questions about the qualitative nature of the educational experience afforded pupils with a VI. Keywords: inclusion; visual impairment; special educational needs coordinators; inverse relationships; career prospects

Introduction Despite the plethora of studies addressing inclusive education and teachers’ experiences of a range of disorders including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and movement difficulties (Adams and Lloyd 2007; Ainscow 2000; McGregor and Campbell 2001; Thomas 1997; Stafford 2000; Stevens and Quittner 1998), considerably less is known about the inclusion of children and young people with a visual impairment (VI) in mainstream education settings. A low incidence disorder, in the last decade the prevalence of VI, particularly in children under the age of five, increased more than four-fold (Russell and Stobbes 1999). Of the 24,000 children and young people aged between 0 and 16 years registered with a VI in the UK, approximately 57% attend mainstream primary and 47% mainstream secondary schools (Keil and Clunies-Ross 2003). While most manage with some assistance from a classroom assistant, approximately 6% require support from a peripatetic qualified teacher for the VI (QTVI) (Keil and Clunies-Ross 2003). Typically a QTVI operates as a facilitator. Liaising with special education needs co-ordinators (SENCOs), class teachers and parents, they ensure pupils experience a smooth transition between schools by offering

*Email: [email protected] ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/08856250902793644 http://www.informaworld.com

170

C. Gray

advice on the equipment and materials needed to accommodate the pupil’s needs (Gray forthcoming). Visual impairment A heterogeneous group, children with a VI differ in terms of the onset, cause, type and severity of their VI, and the impact it has on their educational experience (Chen 2001). While at least 60 terms have been used to describe VI including ‘visually challenged’, ‘visually handicapped’ and ‘visually disabled’ (Dauxerre 2003), in educational contexts the terms ‘partially sighted’, ‘low vision’, ‘legally blind’, and ‘totally blind’ are used to describe pupils with a VI (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities 2004). As indicated in the following definitions, each of these terms provides some sense of the pupil’s educational needs:


●

●

●

●

‘partially sighted’ indicates some type of visual problem has resulted in a need for special education; ‘low vision’ generally refers to a severe visual impairment, not necessarily limited to distance vision. Low vision applies to all pupils with sight who are unable to read the newspaper at a normal viewing distance, even with the aid of eyeglasses or contact lenses. They use a combination of vision and other senses to learn, although they may require adaptations in lighting or the size of print, and, sometimes, braille; ‘legally blind’ indicates that pupil has less than 20/200 vision in the better eye or a very limited field of vision (20 degrees at its widest point); and ‘totally blind’ pupils learn via braille or other non-visual media.

To accommodate the physical, social and educational needs of these pupils, under disability legislation (Disability Discrimination Act 1995; Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001; Special Educational Needs and Disability Order (Northern Ireland) (SENDO) 2005), schools are required to make reasonable adjustments so that pupils with a VI are able to move around the school as independently as possible and to access the educational curriculum (Keil and Clunies-Ross 2003; Scottish Sensory Centre 2006). Adjustments at the school level, may include using ground floor classrooms and hand rails. In the classroom, adjustments may involve placing the pupil at the front of the class, using large bold print, coloured print or tape recording lessons (Department of Education (DE) 2001). Teachers can further support and accommodate the needs of pupils with a VI by using narrative explanations to support visual texts and encouraging pupils to use their visual aids; for example, magnifiers (DE 2001). Of equal importance, social inclusion offers pupils the opportunity to participate fully in all class activities such as laying out equipment, fetching and handing out materials, and running errands for teachers. It also ensures that pupils have opportunities to mix freely with sighted peers during break-times and in the school canteen, supports their participation as fully as possible in physical activities including physical education (PE) and sports and in all aspects of school life (Kef 1999). Among the many benefits of social inclusion in the school context documented for children and young people with a VI are improved self-esteem, independence and a sense of personal control. Moreover, improved well-being, better adaptation to VI, a wider personal network of friends and the greater use of coping strategies to deal with stressful incidents are also reported (Kef 1999; Buysee 1997; Van der Poel 1993).


European Journal of Special Needs Education

171

Inclusion: a hot topic Mirroring international and UK policy, Northern Ireland (NI) has a strong tradition of inclusive education (for reviews see, among others, Abbott (2007), Meijer (2003) and Mooij and Smeets (2006)). In contrast to most European countries where, on average, 2% of children with special needs are educated in mainstream schools (Mooij and Smeets 2006), in NI the figure rose from 16% in 2006 to 17% in 2007 (Department of Education for Northern Ireland 2007). In recognition of the demands inclusion places on mainstream classroom teachers, local and central government documentation consistently identifies the need for specialist teacher training, specialist resource materials and additional classroom support (SENDA 2001; SENO 2005; UK Government strategy for Special Needs 2004–2008). Yet, evidence from national and international research suggests that these initiatives have yet to be realised (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Bunch and Finnegan 2000; Cook et al. 2000; Forlin, Hattie, and Douglas 1996; Lipsett 2007). For example, from a meta-analysis of 28 studies published between 1958 and 1995 in the USA, Canada and Australia, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) note that two-thirds of the teachers surveyed (n=1056) supported inclusive policies, but only a third felt they had the training, time and resources available for the implementation of inclusion. Similar results were reported in a UK poll of mainstream teachers and head teachers conducted by the MacLeod (2005). The poll results indicate that 63% of teachers received no training in special educational needs (SENs), 37% received some training but 23% of that number received only one day’s training (BBC News 24, 14 October 2005). A short-fall in resources was also reported, with almost half of the respondents (48%) describing their school as ‘under-resourced’. Other barriers to the effective management of inclusive classrooms were a lack of confidence on the part of teachers in managing special needs and the lack of planning time available (Horne and Timmons 2007; Avramidis and Norwich 2002). In contrast to international research, less is known about the situation in NI.

The present study In light of this evidence and the paucity of research on the topic, the present study sought to explore the perceptions and experiences of SENCOs on the inclusion of pupils with a VI in mainstream primary (PS) and post-primary schools (PP) in NI. It takes as its foci: the adaptations made by schools to support children with a VI; the integration of children with a VI into school life; and the provision of information and training opportunities for school staff.

Methods To address these aims, two methods of data collection were used with a view to triangulating any inferences drawn. The first involved a questionnaire survey in relation to the adaptations made by schools to support children with a VI, the integration of children with a VI into school life and the provision of information and training opportunities available to staff in mainstream schools. In terms of content, the constructs addressed in the survey were informed by previous qualitative research on inclusive education for children with a VI (Davis and Hopwood 2002a, 2002b) and advice from QTVIs. The adequacy of the questionnaire instrument was subject to a

172

C. Gray

pilot test employing all nine QTVIs employed in NI as the sample group. Their comments were used to refine and inform the final version of the questionnaire. Questionnaire survey The questionnaire began with a series of demographic questions designed to gather information on the incidence of visual impairment in schools, the nature of their disorder, co-existing disorders and their educational level categorised by key stage (PS: KS1, KS2, PP: KS3, KS4 and post-16). The main part of the survey comprised 17 questions, some with sub-sections, each designed to seek information on three key areas: ● ●


●

Adaptations made by schools to support children with a VI; the integration of children with a VI into school life; and provision of information and training opportunities for school staff.

The last question in the survey sought the contact details of respondents willing to participate in interview discussions. To protect the anonymity of the respondents, all identifiers were destroyed. Given the time constraints of the project, of the 15 (13%) who completed this section (PS=8 and PP=7), three PS and three PP schools were selected using the following selection criteria: equal numbers of PS and PP schools were sought and each SENCO should have at least five years experience in their role – thus ensuring they were familiar with legislative change. Findings from the qualitative data are included in the results section to support and extend the quantitative dimensions of the study. Survey sample The postal survey was distributed to schools identified by QTVIs (n=270, 140 PS and 130 PP schools) as having at least one child with a VI. Given the fact that NI is geographically smaller than the English county of Yorkshire and since VI is a low incidence disorder, the list was provided with the proviso that the research would not include questions that might identify individual pupils (e.g. name, ethnicity, single/ two-parent family, sibling numbers) or schools (e.g. management type – controlled, mainly of the Protestant faith, maintained, mainly of the Roman Catholic faith, integrated, all-faith schools; school type – grammar or secondary; and area). Addressed to the school SENCO, each school received a pack containing a cover letter explaining the aims of the research, a questionnaire survey and a stamped, addressed envelope. Follow-up procedures employed to increase the return rate, in the form of a second posting of the survey, yielded a 45% (n=121) total response rate. Preliminary examination of the responses indicated that three surveys were completed by nursery principals and five were incomplete. These surveys were excluded from further analysis. The findings reported here are based on 113 surveys (42%) (PS, n=56; PP, n=57). Interview sample Interviewees each had a minimum of five years experience in the role of SENCO (range 5–9), had at least one child with a VI (range 1–4) and, reflecting the population

European Journal of Special Needs Education

173

who indicated their willingness to be interviewed, all were female. Each interview took place on school premises at a time convenient to the interviewee. Discussions lasted approximately 30 minutes and were tape recorded, transcribed and analysed using the non-statistical package for qualitative data (QSR) 6.


Analysis Data from the school questionnaire were subject to inferential and descriptive analyses using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). A cursory examination of the results revealed some variation in the number of responses made to individual questions, suggesting selectivity on the part of the respondents. While this may be due, at least in part, to the relevance respondents placed on the issues addressed, it may also indicate a lack of knowledge on the part of the respondent. For this reason, findings presented in this section may not always sum to 100%.

Results and discussion The organisation of the results reflects the areas addressed in the survey. Findings in this section begin at the aggregate and school level and, to highlight disparities, differences are examined by school sector (PS vs. PP) and, where numbers allow, year group (KS1–4 and post-16).

Incidence of VI In total, SENCOs reported having 149 pupils (PS, n=70; PP, n=79) with a VI [mean=1; mode=1; range=1–6] in their schools. This number represents 28% of the mainstream school-aged population with a VI in NI (n=407) reported by Department of Education for Northern Ireland (2007). Examination of pupil numbers by year group indicates an almost equal number of pupils in KS1 (n=35) and KS2 (n=34), more in KS3 (n=40) but fewer at higher levels (KS4=22; Post-16=9). The most common visual disorders reported by SENCOs were Nystagmus (92%) – refers to rapid involuntary movements of the eyes that may be from side to side, up and down or rotary – Albanism (39%), Astigmatism (26%), Hypermetropia (21%) – a defect of vision in which a child is able to focus on objects in the distance, but not on close objects – and Cataracts (21%). More than a third of the respondents (38%, n=43; 23 PS; 20 PP) reported that their pupils had a secondary disorder. Those reported included: a learning disability (18%), dyslexia (12%), hearing loss (10%) and dyspraxia (5%). No difference was noted in disorder by school type or year group.

Adaptations made by schools to support children This section explores the measures taken by schools to support children with a VI. Specifically, SENCOs were asked whether adjustments had been made by the school to accommodate children with a VI and what this entailed. Calculated from the 92% who completed this section, the majority (82%) made some adjustments to facilitate pupils with a VI. Examination of the results using a chisquare test of association reveals that a significantly higher percentage of adjustments to the school environment – the example given was the inclusion of hand rails – were

174

C. Gray


Adjustments reported (%)

95 90 85 80 75 70

PS PP

65 Sc. Adjustments

Cl. Adjustments

Teacher Adj.

Type of adjustment

Figure 1.

Adaptations made in PS and PP schools.

reported by PP SENCOs than PS SENCOs (χ2=6.315 (df=1; n=110), p