Towards inclusion: the development of provision for children with special educational needs in Ireland from 1991 to 2004

Abstract

This article traces the development of policy in regard to the provision for children with special educational needs from the report of the Special Education Review Committee in 1993 to the enactment of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act in 2004. It begins with definitions of the terms special educational needs and pupils with special educational needs. The main discussion includes reference to the O'Donoghue Case, the Comprehensive Initiatives scheme of 1998, the Education Act of 1998, the Study of Remedial Education in Irish Primary Schools 1998, the Learning Support Guidelines of 2000, the reports of the task forces on dyslexia and autism, as well as the circulars issued by the Department of Education and Science relevant to special education in that period.

Introduction

With the enactment of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, Ireland is committed to ensuring ‘that the education of people with such needs shall, wherever possible take place in an inclusive environment’ (Government of Ireland, 2004, p. 5). However, in terms of legislative commitment, Ireland is a latecomer to inclusion. While the USA committed itself to promoting inclusion as far back as 1975 in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the UK advocated inclusion in the Education Act of 1981, the approach of the Irish government during this period was a very cautious, pragmatic one which tried to balance economic considerations with educational principles. Accordingly, in the 1980 White Paper on Educational Development the government argued that the issue of integration was a very complex one which could not be fully addressed in a White Paper (Government of Ireland, 1980) and over a decade later they argued that because of demographic and geographical features in Ireland, it was not always possible to provide a high quality service for all children with special needs in an integrated setting (European Commission, 1991). Thus, against the background of Ireland's late arrival to the inclusion movement, this article details the development of education provision for children with special educational needs from the publication of the report of the Special Education Review Committee in 1993 (Government of Ireland, 1993) to its present commitment to inclusion.

Terminology

Definitions and terminology within special education can be quite problematic as ‘different sources use different descriptions and categorisations’ (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006, p. 54). For consistency, the current article adopts the definitions provided in the report of the Special Education Review Committee (Government of Ireland, 1993). This uses the term ‘pupils with special educational needs’ to include:

all those whose disabilities and/or circumstances prevent or hinder them from benefiting adequately from the education which is normally provided for pupils of the same age, or for whom the education which can generally be provided in the ordinary classroom is not sufficiently challenging. (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 18)

Following on from this, ‘special education’ refers to any ‘educational provision which is designed to cater for pupils with special educational needs, and is additional to or different from the provision which is generally made in ordinary classes for pupils of the same age’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 18). This is quite an encompassing understanding of special educational needs and in particular the inclusion of circumstances, as well as disabilities, broadens the definition somewhat. Thus, in considering whether or not a pupil has special educational needs, attention must be given to the particular physical, social, emotional and material circumstances of the pupil. It may also be the case that particular pupils have special educational needs because of their circumstances, and if their circumstances were different then they may not have special educational needs. Equally, the addition of those pupils ‘for whom the education which can generally be provided in the ordinary classroom is not sufficiently challenging’ implies that special educational needs is not exclusively concerned with pupils who experience difficulties with the curriculum. Included also are those pupils at the upper end of the spectrum—pupils who are gifted in one or all school subjects.

Two further terms that require definition are integration and inclusion. The report of the Special Education Review Committee (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 18) defines integration as ‘the participation of pupils with disabilities in school activities with other pupils, to the maximum extent which is consistent with the broader overall interests of both the pupils with disabilities and the other pupils in the class/group’. In considering this definition it is important to note that emphasis is placed both on the interests of the pupils with special educational needs and on those of the other pupils. To a certain extent, therefore, students who are being integrated are often expected to ‘fit in’ with the class in which they are placed (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006). In inclusion, however, no distinction is made between pupils with special educational needs and other pupils; rather, all children are viewed as full-time participants of their school. Booth (1999) defines inclusion in terms of two linked processes: the process of increasing the participation of learners in, and the process of reducing their exclusion from, the curricula, culture and communities of neighbourhood mainstream centres of learning. Thus distinguishing integration from inclusion; integration can be seen as the moving of children with special educational needs from special schools into mainstream education, the onus being on the student to fit in and follow the mainstream curriculum as far as possible. Inclusion likewise physically moves the students from special to mainstream schools, but the curriculum, the ways of learning, the activities and the atmosphere of the mainstream school all expand to embrace and incorporate all that the students bring with them. Mittler (1995) sums up the distinction as follows:

one view is that inclusive education starts with radical school reform, changing the existing system and rethinking the entire curriculum of the school in order to meet the needs of all children. In contrast, integration does not necessarily assume such a radical process of school reform. Children may receive a modified or adapted curriculum but have to fit into existing structures. (p. 36)

Therefore, inclusion rests on the principle that the school changes in order to meet the needs of all the children that it serves.

The report of the Special Education Committee 1993

The approach of the Irish government to special education during the 1970s and 1980s was a very cautious one, which, while recognising the value of integration, was also mindful of the practicalities of segregation. However, in 1991, the Special Education Review Committee was established and charged with reporting and ‘making recommendations on the educational provision for children with special needs’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 15). The final report, published in 1993, was an important document in the development of policy on special education. It began by articulating seven principles, designed to serve as basic guidelines for the future development of special education. These principles recognised the right of children with special educational needs to an appropriate education, and recognised the rights of parents of children with special educational needs to be actively involved in decisions regarding their child's education. They further designated the child and his/her individual needs as the paramount consideration when decisions are being made regarding educational provision, and argued for a continuum of services for children with special educational needs, beginning with full-time placement in ‘ordinary classes with additional support as may be necessary’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 19).

There are a number of important implications in these principles for inclusive practices in primary schools. Initially there is an implication that schools are expected to cater for all children, irrespective of ability, and that the needs of the child are paramount when decisions are being made concerning his or her education. Parents are also afforded a central role in planning for the special educational needs of their children, which effectively broadens the decision-making process regarding appropriate educational provision for children with special educational needs. A continuum of services for children with special educational needs is also advocated and, in explaining this continuum, the report begins the continuum with ‘full time placement in an ordinary class without additional support’, followed by ‘full-time placement in an ordinary class with additional support in class’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 22). Thus, the clear implication here is that placement in ordinary classes, with teaching from the class teacher, is an appropriate form of education for some children with special educational needs. The principle of inclusion is further enhanced by viewing ordinary schools, in the children's own locality, as the first option for providing education to children with special educational needs.

While principles, in themselves, have no direct prerogative for action, nevertheless the report recommended that ‘due account should be taken of the principles in the framing of an Education Act’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 20) and the publication of the report ‘provided the impetus for many of the subsequent advances in remedial and special education provision’ in Ireland (Government of Ireland, 2000).

The O'Donoghue case (1993)

In the same year as the report of the Special Education Review Committee was published, Mr Justice Rory O'Hanlon issued his judgment in favour of Paul O'Donoghue, a 12-year-old quadriplegic. This judgment upheld the right of all children to a free primary education and agreed that the claimant had been deprived of his right to be educated like other children under Article 42 of the Constitution. The judgment also broadened the scope of the term education when Mr Justice O Hanlon stated that education ‘includes giving each child such advice, instruction and teaching as will enable him to make best possible use of his or her inherent or potential capabilities … however limited these capabilities may be’ (Glendenning, 2001, p. 2). Consequently the constitutional definition of education was broadened to include not only teaching and instruction but also support services such as assessment, referral and even treatment. This effectively challenged existing educational provision for children with special educational needs and forced the issue onto the political agenda. In particular, the judgment ‘left the State in no doubt as to its clear legal obligation to provide appropriate education for all children’ (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006).

Comprehensive initiatives for assessment and delivery of special needs education 1998

In response to the increasing importance of special needs as a political and social issue, the government introduced its ‘Comprehensive Initiatives for Assessment and Delivery of Special Needs Education’ in November 1998. Under these measures children with special educational needs were afforded an automatic entitlement to resources, which included special teaching support in the form of individual access to a resource teacher and child-care support in the form of special needs assistants. The initiative also recognised the distinct educational needs of all children with autistic spectrum disorders, and granted a very favourable pupil/teacher ration to special classes for children with autism (Department of Education and Science, 1998).

This policy was given effect in primary schools in three important circulars; initially Circular 8/99 dealt with the sanctioning of resource teaching hours for children with special educational needs (DES, 1999). This circular was revised and updated by Circular SP.ED 08/02 (DES, 2002a). The third circular (SP.ED 07/02) dealt with the provision of special needs assistants for children with special educational needs (DES, 2002b). This initiative had a profound effect on the provision of resources for special education needs, to the extent that by 2004 there were more than 2,600 resource teachers, 1,500 learning-support teachers and 5,250 special needs assistants in mainstream primary schools (Department of Education and Science, 2004a). It is important to note, however, that this was effectively a resource-based provision, and was not accompanied by any major policy directive on the issue of inclusion in mainstream classes. Thus the automatic provision of resource-teaching hours for a child with special educational needs does not necessarily have any implications for the inclusion of that child in their mainstream class, particularly if the resource teacher operates exclusively by withdrawing the child out of the class for instruction. Similarly, the assignment of a special needs assistant to a child does not automatically mean that the child will be included in the mainstream class. While resources undoubtedly are important in dealing with special educational needs, their provision, in the absence of policy guidelines, does not guarantee an inclusive environment for the children.

The Education Act 1998

During much of the 1990s the drafting of the Education Act (Government of Ireland, 1998) was taking place in the Department of Education. This was to be an important piece of legislation, and its enactment represented a ‘singular landmark in Irish life’, providing, for the first time, a national legislative mandate in education (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006). However, the definition of special educational needs offered by the act, as ‘the educational needs of students who have a disability and the educational needs of exceptionally able students’ (Government of Ireland, 1998, p. 8), represented a much narrower and more restrictive understanding of special educational needs than that offered by the report of the Special Education Review Committee (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 18). The emphasis on disability1 as the locus of special educational needs excluded the particular circumstances of a pupil adversely impacting on his/her education. Equally the phrase ‘exceptionally able students’ is much more restrictive than pupils ‘for whom the education which can generally be provided in the ordinary classroom is not sufficiently challenging’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 18). The net effect of this more restricted definition was to exclude children, particularly those with adverse social, emotional or material circumstances, from the category of children with special educational needs and from the provisions of the act which safeguarded their rights. Notwithstanding this more restricted definition, the act did contain much of relevance to the inclusion of children with special educational needs.

Section six of the Education Act sets out the objectives of the Act and reference is made here to the constitutional rights of all children, including those with disabilities and how the Act intends to enforce and give practical effect to these constitutional rights. The right of parents to send their children to a school of their choice is given emphasis and reference in this section is also made to the need to promote best practice in teaching methods and to support the ongoing skill development of teachers. In particular, section six promotes equality of access to and participation in education for all children. Section nine deals with the functions of the school and included here is the statement that all schools must establish and maintain an admission policy which provides for maximum accessibility to the school. Section fifteen deals with the functions of the Board of Management, requesting it to publish school policy concerning the admission of and participation by students with disabilities or those who have other special educational needs. This section stipulates that schools must ensure that, regardless of the policy, the principle of equality and the right of parents to send their children to the school of their choice is respected. Section twenty-one deals with the school plan and states that the position of equality of access to and participation in the school by students with disabilities or who have other special educational needs should be addressed in the plan. The school plan, as envisaged by the Act, should be a public document available to all ‘stakeholders’ in the school.

In other sections the Act addresses the issue of pupil participation in school and attempts to break down any barriers to learning for students with disabilities; it makes provision for support services, including transport, technical aids, adaptation of the physical environment and psychological services; and it provides for psychologists to carry out advisory functions at system level to schools, in developing a special needs policy, and also at the level of the individual child. While the act adopts a restrictive definition of special educational needs and while no individual provision within the Act guarantees a right of access to mainstream schools for children with special educational needs, when all provisions are taken in their totality, it is clear that the Act attempts to address the equality of access issue for pupils with special educational needs.

Study of remedial education in Irish Primary Schools 1998 and learning support guidelines 2000

In November 1996 the Department of Education and Science commissioned a study of remedial education in Irish primary schools, with particular emphasis on the ways in which the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Education Review Committee (Government of Ireland, 1993) were being followed in practice. The study, published in 1998 (Shiel et al., 1998) found that while a consultative model of remedial teaching had been advocated, remedial teachers ‘spend about 85% of each school week working with individuals or small groups who have been withdrawn for remedial work’ (Shiel et al., 1998, p. xi). It further found that almost half of all schools with a remedial teacher did not have a policy document on remedial education, that the links between remedial teachers and parents were not sufficiently strong to support the remedial work and that there was a considerable variation in the links between the classroom and remedial programmes for pupils in receipt of remedial teaching (Shiel et al., 1998, pp. 40–41). On the foot of these conclusions the study recommended a revision of department guidelines on remedial education, which would incorporate a clear statement of aims of remedial education and which would involve ‘the perspectives and experiences of all the education partners’ (Shiel et al., 1998, p. 42).

The ‘Learning Support Guidelines’ (Government of Ireland, 2000) were published in 2000 as a direct response to the findings and recommendations of the Study of Remedial Education in Irish Primary Schools and were designed to reflect many of the changes and developments that had taken place in special education in the preceding years. Specifically, the guidelines attempted to outline best practice and policy in the context of learning-support and provided both explicit and implicit support for the promotion of inclusive practices in special education. Particular emphasis was placed in these guidelines on ‘policies which emphasise the enhancement of classroom-based learning for all pupils’ (Government of Ireland, 2000, p. 9). A key theme running throughout the document is that learning support should be a collaborative process involving class teacher, learning-support teacher, principal and parents. There is a strong emphasis in the guidelines on the development of whole-school policies on learning support and on targeting the identified learning needs of the lowest achieving pupils. Overall, the publication of the learning support guidelines marked a significant stage in the development of government policy towards inclusion.

The report of the task force on dyslexia 2001

In October 2000 the Minister for Education and Science established the task force on dyslexia in order to review and assess current provision for children with dyslexia and to make recommendations for future policy developments, educational provision and support services in the area. Its report, published in 2001, moved away from the traditional understanding of dyslexia as ‘impairments in specific areas such as reading, writing, spelling and arithmetical notation’ (Government of Ireland, 1993, p. 86) to a much broader understanding of dyslexia as a ‘continuum of specific learning difficulties related to the acquisition of basic skills in reading, spelling and/or writing’ (Government of Ireland, 2001a, p. 31). These difficulties included phonological processing, working memory, rapid naming, automaticity of basic skills, organisation, sequencing and motor skills. Equally significant was the recognition that associated learning difficulties ‘occur across the lifespan, and may manifest themselves in different ways at different ages’ (Government of Ireland, 2001a, p. 31). Thus dyslexia was no longer viewed as a unitary disorder, where all affected shared a common set of symptoms and could benefit from the same learning support strategies; rather, it was viewed as a spectrum disorder in which the symptoms vary in severity and in kind from one person to another. Such a conceptualisation called for a dynamic, fluid approach to learning-support, capable of changing in line with the pupil's developing needs. The recommendation of the task force was very much in this vein when it advocated an individualised model of support for children with dyslexia based on the principle of differentiated response. This model was designed to ensure that ‘the level of support provided to a student should match his/her learning needs’ (Government of Ireland, 2001a, p. 78). The principle of inclusion was emphasised through stressing the importance of meeting students’ needs within their own schools and, in the first instance, by their class teacher. The central role of the class teacher in dealing with learning difficulties arising from dyslexia was further heightened both by the recommendation that ‘class teachers should assume major responsibility for the progress and development of each student in their class who has learning difficulties arising from dyslexia (Government of Ireland, 2001a, p. 114) and by the phased process of assessment advocated by the task force (Government of Ireland, 2001a, p. 64). This model of assessment, which echoes the collaborative model of learning support advocated in the learning support guidelines (Government of Ireland, 2000), was viewed as a continuum, with the class teacher and parents being involved at phase one and the class teacher and/or learning support teacher being instrumental at phase two. An assessment by an educational psychologist resulting in a possible diagnosis of dyslexia was only envisaged at phase three of the process.

The whole tenor of the report of the task force on dyslexia was therefore that difficulties associated with dyslexia are fluid, variable and dynamic, and the most effective approach to learning-support needed also to be fluid, variable and dynamic. Thus, the model of learning support that involved the learning-support teacher withdrawing students for small-group or individual instruction and assuming overall responsibility for dealing with the learning difficulties was implicitly seen as inappropriate for students with dyslexia. Rather, an individualised, differentiated model which involved close collaboration between class teacher, learning-support teacher and parents and which concentrated on dealing with the student's difficulties within his/her own classroom wherever practicable was advanced as both an ‘educational imperative and a legal requirement’ (Government of Ireland, 2001a, p. xv).

The report of the task force on autism 2001

The task force on autism, established in October 2000, issued its report in October 2001 (Government of Ireland, 2001b). This report provided the first comprehensive examination of autism and the issues surrounding the education and support for persons with autistic spectrum disorders in Ireland. It offered a detailed analysis of educational interventions at pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary levels, an overview of constitutional and legal issues pertaining to the area, as well as an analysis of the levels and quality of clinical and support services coupled with far-ranging recommendations for future developments. From its outset, the task force on autism embraced a guiding philosophy of ‘rights, equality and participation’, and central to this philosophy was the principle of inclusion, with schools being charged with actively promoting inclusion for students with autistic spectrum disorders and school plans focused on making schools ‘inclusive institutions’ (Government of Ireland, 2001b, p. 10). Also, central to the report was the necessity for a ‘whole-school’ collaborative ethos, and a differentiated, individualised, flexible model of support for students with autistic spectrum disorders (Government of Ireland, 2001b, pp. 354–359). The similarity in approach, in recommendations and even in language between the report on the task force on autism and the report of the task force on dyslexia is striking and reflective of both the growing importance of principles such as inclusion, individualisation and differentiation across the whole spectrum of special educational needs in Ireland and the development of a common language associated with these principles.

Reviewing the system: Circulars 24/03, 09/04, 02/05

During this period also, the Department of Education and Science (DES) was beginning to raise concerns about the provision of human resources to schools under the ‘Comprehensive Initiative’ scheme of November 1998. Specifically there was some disquiet at department level that the very significant levels of resources allocated to schools under the terms of Circulars 8/99 and 8/02 were being somewhat misapplied. As a result of these concerns, the department conducted an audit of levels of supports granted to schools and began consulting with the education partners about revising the guidelines in relation to the provision of learning-support and resource teachers. Initial steps towards these reviewed guidelines came in Circular SP.ED 24/03 (DES, 2003). This circular contains the clearest expression to date of the advantages of inclusion as a means of dealing with special educational needs. It argues that while children with special educational needs may learn at a different pace and in a different way from other children, they do ‘need to belong to a peer group and to mix with children of different abilities in a variety of situations’. Thus the circular claims that an exclusive reliance on withdrawing children for individual tuition is contrary to best practice in teaching and learning and calls on schools to provide support for children within the mainstream class or ‘if necessary’ in small groups. The circular further allows schools a degree of flexibility in the way that they deploy the resource teachers and classroom assistants. Thus, while heretofore resource teachers were assigned to a number of specific pupils within a school and special needs assistants were assigned to one specific child in the school, Circular 24/03 provides schools with the ‘flexibility to deploy resources in the manner that best meets the needs of the pupils in the school’. Finally, Circular 24/03 proposes a staged approach to special educational needs whereby schools would go through a series of stages in dealing with pupils who experience difficulties, and it is only at the third and final stage that the child would be referred for psychological assessment. Close cooperation between parents, class teacher and learning-support teacher was seen as a central component of this staged approach.

Circular 24/03 was followed by Circular SP.ED 09/04 (DES, 2004b) and Circular SP.ED 02/05 (DES, 2005). The aim of the most recent of these circulars (SP.ED 02/05) is ‘to make possible the development of truly inclusive schools’ (DES, 2005, p. 2) and the circular contained guidance on best practice in special education as well as articulating the principles and practice of resource allocation for special education. In terms of allocation of human resources to schools, it introduced a revised system for pupils with special educational needs. Under this system, the overall category of special educational needs was now divided into two—high and low incidence. A weighted system was then introduced whereby all schools were to receive a specific teacher allocation to deal with all high-incidence special educational needs, and all pupils previously catered for by the learning-support teacher. In addition to their allocation under the weighted system, schools were also granted the facility to apply for extra allocations for pupils with low-incidence special educational needs.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004

The Education Act (Government of Ireland, 1998) offered a much more restricted understanding of special educational needs than previously offered by the report of the Special Education Review Committee (Government of Ireland, 1993). The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (Government of Ireland, 2004) further constrained the understanding of special educational needs by focusing exclusively on disability as the determinant of special needs. This act defines special educational needs as ‘a restriction in the capacity of the person to participate in and benefit from education on account of an enduring … disability’ (Government of Ireland 2004, p. 6) and this definition effectively moved Ireland from a broad encompassing understanding of special educational needs to a disability-focused one.

However, the Act does have major implications for the provision of supports for children to whom its provisions apply, as it provides a statutory guarantee of education services for people with special education needs. Furthermore, it deals directly with the issue of inclusion by stipulating that the education of a child with special education needs will take place, as far as possible, in an inclusive environment. In ensuring the effectiveness of inclusive education, the Act details a range of services which must be provided for children with special educational needs; these include assessments, registration of children with special needs, individual education plans, a process of mediation and appeals if needs are not been met and a central role for parents in the education of their children. It further details the process through which an individual educational plan must be devised, implemented and reviewed and affords parents an appeals procedure against various aspects of the Individual Education Plan (IEP). The Act also makes provision for a National Council for Special Educational Needs and for the appointment of locally based special needs organisers. Overall, the Act aims to give children who have special educational needs rights which are, for the first time, enforceable in law and it is an important stage in the evolution of special education provision in Ireland towards inclusive education.

Conclusion

While historically Ireland may have been perceived as ‘lagging behind its European and international counterparts’ in terms of inclusive practices (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006), nevertheless we have now arrived at a situation where there is a legislative commitment to inclusive education. Interestingly, however, in moving towards this commitment we have excluded many children previously classed as having special educational needs from the benefits of a legislative commitment to inclusion. For the children who enjoy the protection of the Education for Persons with Special Education Needs Act (Government of Ireland, 2004), the challenge now exists to translate the commitment contained in it to actual practice. As Travers (2006) notes, however, there are many barriers currently to in-class inclusive methodologies. These barriers include teacher attitudes towards inclusion, inherent system constraints in the education system, pedagogical issues and conceptualisation of roles within the system (Travers, 2006, p. 165). In order to make the legislative commitment a reality it will be necessary to deal effectively with these issues.

Notes

1. Disability is defined in the act as the total or partial loss of a person's bodily or mental functions, including the loss of a part of the person's body or the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness or the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body or a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction or a condition or illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgements or which results in disturbed behaviour (Government of Ireland, 1998, p. 6).