A Little Learning is a Dangerous Thing: Factors Influencing the Increased Identification of Special Educational Needs from the Perspective of Education Policy-makers and School Practitioners

Abstract

This article considers the increased identification of special educational needs in Australia’s largest education system from the perspectives of senior public servants, regional directors, principals, school counsellors, classroom teachers, support class teachers, learning support teachers, and teaching assistants (n = 30). While their perceptions of an increase generally align with the story told by official statistics, participants’ narratives reveal that school-based identification of special educational needs is neither art nor science. This research finds that rather than an objective indication of the number and nature of children with special educational needs, official statistics may be more appropriately viewed as a product of funding eligibility and the assumptions of the adults who teach, refer, and assess children who experience difficulties in school and with learning.

Keywords:

• attitudes towards inclusion
• funding policy
• disability
• inclusive education
• practitioner perspectives
• special educational needs identification
• teacher education and professional learning
• qualitative research

Acknowledgements

This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s “Discovery Projects” funding scheme (DP1093020). The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council. No restrictions have been imposed on free access to, or publication of, the research data. The author(s) have no financial or other conflicts of interest.

Notes

1. Although questions about the Australian government’s controversial national assessment programme (NAPLAN), the associated comparison of school performance on the My School website (www.myschool.gov.au), and changes to the academic curriculum over time were included in the form of interview questions and through other prompts issued, the effect of curriculum, assessment, and reporting on teachers’ expectations of what children can and should be able to do was absent from the discourses employed to explain increases in the number of children needing additional support for learning.

2. These trends are similar to those reported in Alberta, Canada, where a compliance audit of student case files revealed that almost one-half of those in the “severe” range (which was the only range eligible for additional targeted funding) had been identified with an emotional or behavioural disorder and that the majority had multiple diagnoses. In this group, the most frequent secondary diagnoses were ADHD (69.3%), learning disability (16%), mild cognitive disability (12%), and moderate cognitive disability (1.8%) (see Graham & Jahnukainen, 2011).