RSS Feed for the unit Involving the family in supporting pupils' literacy learning

Introduction

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

This unit examines the importance of the relationship between the family and literacy. You will examine how families and schools work together to establish the links that underpin childhood literacy development and the ways in which educational institutions respond to the diversity of needs amongst students.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Learning outcomes

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

After studying this unit you should have:

an enhanced understanding of models for involving parents and carers in children's literacy acquisition.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

1 The family and literacy

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

It is important that we acknowledge the relationship between family and literacy in our teaching practices and in the school context. We would now like to examine two issues related to this theme. First we focus on how families and schools can work together to establish home–school links to support the learning of students who experience difficulties in literacy development in ways which take account of:

a diversity of family and cultural backgrounds;
broad notions of what constitutes literacy;
a clear understanding of the models of reading reflected in different approaches.

We then look at ways in which educational institutions can respond to the diversity of needs of students from a wide range of family and cultural backgrounds in order to take an inclusive approach to meeting the needs of all students, in particular those who experience difficulties in literacy development.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

2 Involving parents and carers in students' literacy learning

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Activity 1

Before you begin to read this section reflect on the following questions:

How do you feel parents and carers might or should be involved in supporting their children's literacy development once those children have entered the formal education system?
What experiences have you had of involving parents in programmes designed to support the literacy development of students who experience difficulties and what significant issues were raised by those experiences?
How, in your view, do the partnership arrangements that currently exist between parents/carers and your school have the potential to constrain or facilitate the literacy development of those students who experience difficulties?

In a wide-ranging review of the literature on parent–professional partnerships, Dale (1996) identified five common partnership arrangements between schools and parents/carers:

The expert model represents the traditional way of working. It is like the doctor–patient relationship. The professional uses his or her expertise to make judgements and take control of what needs to be done. The involvement of the parent is not of primary importance and is limited to providing information.
In the transplant model, parents are seen as an untapped resource for helping in the teaching of the child. The role of professionals is to share their expertise – in other words, to transplant their skills to the parents to help the parents to become teachers, like the Portage programme. The professional still has the ultimate responsibility for decision making.
The consumer model involves more of a partnership between parents and professionals. In this model, there is a shift of power from the professional to the parent. This model uses ideas from the marketplace. The parent and the child with a disability are seen as consumers of services. They are acknowledged as having expertise about the child's needs. As consumers they have control over decision making because they draw on their expertise in deciding what services they need and want for their child. Many recent educational reforms in industrialised western countries have incorporated this model of parent–professional partnership. A clear example of it is in countries where legislation gives parents the right to choose which school their child attends.
A more recent model of parent–professional partnership is the empowerment model. Here the right of the parent to choose as a consumer is combined with a professional recognition of the family as a social system. As a social system, the family is made up of interdependent relationships which have an important effect on how a family is able to cope and the type of support they will need. Research suggests that parents rely as much or more on informal networks of support – neighbours, other family members, friends, their church, than on the formal network that exists between the professional and the parent. Under the empowerment model the job of the professional is to help empower the family to meet its own needs rather than to make judgements and decisions about those needs.
The final model is the negotiating model. The idea of this model is that both the parent and the professional have separate and valuable contributions to offer and that negotiating about these differences in perspective is the key to developing partnerships that lead to the best decisions for children. This model proposes how parents and professionals might negotiate to reach a decision.

(Dale, 1996, Chapter 1; summarised in The Open University, 2001b, pp. 96–7)

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

3 Identifying theoretical models of parent–school partnerships

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Activity 2

Which, if any, of the five models of parent–professional partnerships identified by Dale above is reflected in the way in which your school works with parents?

Read Wragg et al.'s (1998) summary below of the manner in which parents were involved in the reading development of their children in the schools surveyed during the Leverhulme Primary Improvement Project. Identify ways in which it reflects the same issues of power and assumptions of expert knowledge identified by Dale.

Involving parents and carers in children's reading
When schools were asked what new initiatives they were taking, or hoped to introduce in the future, the greater involvement of parents was the most frequently cited. This may be the result of the belief expressed by many teachers in interview that learning begins in the home. Sending home books, spellings, reading and writing assignments that were to be monitored by parents and entered in the home/school diary were regular occurrences in almost all the schools studied. No school expressed disregard for parents, and this was hardly surprising, given the pressure applied through school inspections and in the mass media to involve them in their children's learning. Most children in the 5 to 7 age group read to someone at home, and at least half of older primary pupils do so as well; home/school diaries are countersigned by many parents; spellings are checked; the general attitude of teachers towards parents is, in the main, extremely positive. On the surface, therefore, all appears to be well: schools do engage parents, and this is regarded ipso facto as a good thing.
[However], beneath the surface, the processes were not quite as unproblematic as might appear. The difficulties sometimes arose when parents tried to act in a manner regarded as professional, rather than amateur. In several schools the influence was largely in one direction, from school to home. When parents expressed reservations about what was happening, teachers saw it as their duty to explain what the school was trying to achieve, to persuade them about the rightness of existing practice, rather than change it: ‘Some of these parents really don't understand what we're trying to do and how we go about it’, as one teacher put it.
A common clash of ideologies occurred over hearing children read, for some parents the only method of teaching reading they remembered from their own school days. Another was about the different interpretations of what constituted ‘reading’, since some parents found it difficult to accept that looking at a picture book could constitute ‘reading’ as they understood the term. There were a number of exceptions to the ‘one-way persuasion’ solution to comment or dissent, like the school that received complaints from parents about children not being heard reading and so instituted a guaranteed weekly reading interview.
Many parents interviewed expressed ignorance about the methods used to teach reading, even in schools that had held parents’ evenings. Their responses often began with ‘I assume …’, or ‘I presume …’, rather than with some degree of certainty. Yet successful evenings involving parents were very much appreciated, explaining, for example, how children might recognise, at quite an early stage, longer and more complex-looking words, such as ‘elephant’, a revelation which one parent described as an ‘eye opener’.
Some parents seemed eager to play a more professional role, rather than the well-intentioned amateur role that teachers expected. Teachers tended to stress that reading at home was for ‘fun’ and ‘enjoyment’, avoiding any suggestion of drudgery, coercion, or indeed systematic teaching. Parents too were anxious to prevent reading at home becoming a chore, but several did want to be able to work more positively with their children, sounding out words, actually ‘teaching’ reading, rather than just hearing it. In a number of families there was tension and frustration when parents tried to push children on, expecting performance beyond what the child was achieving, or employed methods and approaches that were in contrast to what the child did at school. This frustration was summed up by [a] 6 year old boy … who said: ‘I think I'm a good reader at school. I'm not a good reader at home. … I can't read my books at home.’ What he meant was that his parents were asking him to read books that were beyond his level of competence. Not surprisingly, at that early age, he gauged his ability relative to the texts he was reading, rather than to other sources of reference.
Parent helpers in the classroom also performed a modest role. Few were given any instruction on what to do, unlike classroom assistants. As a result, classroom assistants often heard reading in a systematic way, did group reading, or carried out some carefully planned and structured activities, whereas parents usually operated in an informal, unstructured and ad hoc manner. Even in Birmingham, where most schools made parents a central part of their agenda for improvement, there were schools where the head too readily assumed that certain parents might not even be literate in their mother tongue, compared with schools in similar areas that had higher expectations from them.
What was also noticeable was the prominent role played by mothers, compared with fathers … [It] was more likely that mothers would hear their child read at home, complete the home/school diary, or help out in the classroom. It was extremely rare to see any kind of volunteer male presence in classrooms, especially in infant schools. Given the relatively poor performance of boys in reading in the early years and beyond, this raises the question of the need for more male role models …
The generally positive reaction of schools to the involvement of parents is a strong foundation stone on which to build, but there should be no doubt about the gaps, misunderstandings and lack of knowledge that exist, even in schools as effective generally as the ones studied in this research. Despite the efforts on their behalf, many parents still know little about how reading is taught, or about the specifics of what they can do to help at home, beyond exuding goodwill. Relatively few fathers become closely involved in their children's reading or are available to help in the classroom. Unwittingly perhaps, some schools may patronise their children's parents by glossing over their concerns, assuming that they are capable of very little beyond the most rudimentary, or, in the case of ethnic minorities, assuming too readily that they may not be equipped to help. In the many schools with a positive attitude, there are still steps that can be taken to strengthen the role of parents, even if this challenges some of the traditional assumptions about the limited role that parents can play in their children's education.
(Wragg et al, 1998, pp. 269–70)

Until comparatively recently there has been an assumption that the homes of poor working-class and ethnic minority-culture families are less good literacy-learning environments than those of dominant culture, middle-class families. A number of studies carried out in the 1970s and 1980s suggested that achievement on standardised tests of reading is strongly related to social class. For example, the National Child Development Study (Davie, Butler and Goldstein, 1972) followed all the children born in one week in 1958 through from birth. Tests of reading attainment were carried out when they were 7 years old. These tests showed relatively poor achievement among 30 per cent of the children. A number of home factors were found to correlate with poor achievement, among which was social class. Children whose fathers were semi-skilled manual workers were more than twice as likely to be poor readers as those children whose fathers held professional or technical posts. Hannon and McNally's (1986) study found a 27-point difference in mean reading test scores between middle-class and working-class 7-year-olds. Research by Wells (1985), Adams (1994) and McCormick and Mason (1986), among others, suggests a number of factors that might predispose to this apparent difference in reading achievement: the number of books to which children had access at home, the number of stories read to children by parents, and the overall number of reading interactions between parent and child.

The assumptions that we make about family life are very important in conceptualising ways in which those families might support the literacy development of their children. For example, the work on ‘family literacy’ in recent years has represented an interesting diversity of views on the ability of some families to support their children's literacy development where those families have little tradition of literacy.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

4 Family literacy

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Reading activity 1

Please visit the Taylor and Francis Ltd website to read ‘Rhetoric and research in family literacy’ by Peter Hannon, British Educational Research Journal, Volume 26, Issue 1 January 2000 , pp. 121–138.

The Hannon article discusses the rhetoric surrounding ‘restricted’ family literacy programmes, that is programmes which insist that parents or carers must participate in initiatives designed to raise the level of their literacy level simultaneously with that of their children.

Reflect on the extent to which you agree with the author's views on:

reasons for the ‘uneasiness’ of the relationship between ‘restricted’ family literacy programmes and family literacy research;
factors which predispose to parental willingness to participate in literacy programmes for themselves or for their offspring.

Hannon points out that ‘restricted’ family literacy programmes are premised on the ‘literacy-deficient’ notion of some families. Programmes that ignore preexisting literacy in families are prescriptive and interventionist and may not recognise possibilities for drawing on existing patterns of family literacy to inform children's learning. In addition, the assumption of a necessarily reciprocal relationship between low levels of parental literacy and the poor literacy development of their offspring is not fully supported by research findings. One of the problematic areas in the evaluation of restricted literacy programmes is that there is insufficient evidence that programmes which involve both parents/carers and children in literacy development achieve greater and longer lasting effects than ‘stand-alone’ programmes. Hannon argues that, rather than targeting a few families for restricted literacy programmes, it may be more profitable to provide universal, literacy-rich, early childhood education. This should seek to identify children's difficulties and develop appropriate interventions at an early stage, involve parents in their children's literacy development and offer opportunities for parents and carers to enhance their own literacy if they wish to.

Hannon identified a number of issues crucial to the discussion of parental willingness to participate in literacy programmes which all those intending to implement such initiatives might do well to address:

how families are invited to participate;
the substance of what they have to do;
the extent to which the programme can respond to family circumstances – for example, home-based programmes have achieved higher mean take-up and retention rates than centre-based programmes.

There are a number of inherent difficulties in the deficit perspective on some pupils’ families for those conceptualising appropriate ways in which to support the improvement of children's literacy:

the school is absolved from responsibility for addressing the literacy difficulties of those students from ‘literacy-deficient’ families;
the families themselves cannot be viewed as a source of positive support for the student's developing literacy until and unless their deficiency in literacy in addressed.

Despite these rather negative views on the ability of families with little history of literacy to support their children's literacy development, Blackledge (2000) cites a number of studies which refute the deficiency model of poor working-class and ethnic minority-culture families. For example, Anderson and Stokes (1984) found in studies of African-American, Mexican-American and Anglo-American families wide-ranging language learning unrelated to school studies. Delgado-Gaitan (1990) found regular use of texts in Spanish and English in poor Mexican-American families. Auerbach (1989) and Ada (1988) found that poor minority-culture immigrant families often value and support their children's literacy development as one key to social mobility.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

5 Supporting the literacy acquisition of travellers' children

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Reading activity 2

Click 'View document' to open the reading Partnership approaches: New futures for Travellers by Elizabeth Jordan (PDF, 0.1 MB, 11 pages).

View document

As you read ‘Partnership approaches: new futures for travellers’, by Elizabeth Jordan, reflect on the issues Jordan raises that relate to literacy acquisition and family background. In what ways are the issues she raises relevant to your own working situation? What strategies might you use to address the concerns she raises?

In the past studies have shown that parents from every social class are often very keen to help their children with reading at home (Newson and Newson, 1977). In the UK, as Wragg et al. (1998) note:

The deterministic view that home background was the only important factor affecting children's attainment had been replaced in the 1970s by a belief that schools could make a difference. The Plowden Report (1967) on primary education devoted a whole chapter to the role that could be played by parents. Young and McGeeney (1968) experimented in London schools by involving parents in attending school functions, hearing their children read, and various other forms of participation. They found some improvements in reading performance compared with control schools where there was no such participation. Many studies of parents simply record the implementation of specific projects, while others report the teachers’ and parents’ attitudes to such studies. A few studies have been conducted on parents coming into school to help, but the majority are on parents helping at home.
(Wragg et al., 1996, p. 33)

Hewison and Tizard's (1980) study of the reading attainment of 7-year-old working-class children in Dagenham showed that many working-class children do become competent readers. None of the parents had been encouraged by the school to hear their children read but half regularly did this. Following this study a number of research studies were set up to investigate the hypothesis that parental support at home for school-related literacy had a significant effect on improvement of children's reading.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

6 Collaboration between teachers and parents

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Reading activity 3

Click 'View document' to open the reading Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children's reading by J. Tizard, W. N. Schofield and Jenny Hewison (PDF, 0.1 MB, 19 pages).

View document

As you read ‘Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children's reading’, by Tizard, Schofield and Hewison, reflect on the following questions:

Which approach to children's reading is reflected in this piece of research?
What would you identify as the most significant factors that contributed to the success of this project?
How far would a project of this sort be appropriate in your own school context? What would you have to do to support such a project in your school?

The Haringey Project (Hewison and Tizard, 1980) is an example of an initiative which combines a whole-book approach with an assumption that parents are the first educators of their children and, as such, should be in control of any parent-child home-based reading project. Reflecting on what she felt was the crucial factor in the success of the Haringey Project Hewison (1988) speculates that it may have been the motivational context of the home itself in which the opportunity for extra reading practice occurred.

Building on the apparent success of the Haringey Project a number of replications were carried out. Among these the Belfield Project (Hannon, 1987) was conducted over five years in a school in a largely white, working-class social priority area in the north of England. In terms of gains in standardised reading tests the results indicated only a slight positive impact on performance in reading. Almost all parents, however, reported that they welcomed the chance of involvement in their children's reading development. One explanation for the relative success of the Haringey Project in comparison with Belfield was that a home-reading programme has a greater impact on minority language families who can be excluded by schools.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Next Steps

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

After completing this unit you may wish to study another OpenLearn Study Unit or find out more about this topic. Here are some suggestions:

If you wish to study formally at The Open University, you may wish to explore the courses we offer in this curriculum area:

Difficulties in literacy development (E801)

or find out about studying and developing your skills with The Open University

or you might like to:

Post a message to the unit forum, to share your thoughts about the unit or talk to other OpenLearners
Review or add to your Learning Journal
Rate this unit

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

References

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Adams, M. J. (1994) Beginning to Read: thinking and learning about print, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Ada, F. (1988) ‘The Pajaro Valley experience: working with Spanish-speaking parents to develop children’s reading and writing skills in the home through the use of children’s literature’, in Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Cummins, J. (eds) Minority Education: from shame to struggle, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

Anderson, A. B. and Stokes, S. J. (1984) ‘Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy’, in Gelman, H., Oberg, A. and Smith, F. (eds) Awakening to Literacy, London, Heinemann.

Auerbach, E. R. (1989) ‘Towards a socio-cultural approach to family literacy’, Harvard Educational Review, 59, pp. 165–81.

Blackledge, A. (2000) Literacy, Power and Social Justice, Stoke on Trent, Trentham.

Dale, N. (1996) Working with Families of Children with Special Needs: partnership and practice, London, Routledge.

Davie, C. E., Butler, N. and Goldstein, H. (1972) From Birth to Seven: a report of the National Child Development Study, London, Longman/National Children’s Bureau.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990) Literacy for Empowerment, London, Falmer.

Hannon, P. (1987) ‘A study of the effects of parental involvement in the teaching of reading on children’s reading test performance’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 16, pp. 28–37.

Hewison, J. (1988) ‘The long-term effectiveness of parental involvement in reading. A follow-up to the Haringey Reading Project’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, pp. 184–90.

Hewison, J. and Tizard, J. (1980) ‘Parental involvement and reading attainment’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, pp. 209–15.

Mccormick, C. E. and Mason, J. M. (1986) ‘Intervention procedures for increasing preschool children’s interest in and knowledge about reading’, in Teale, W. and Sulzby, E. (eds) Emergent Literacy: writing and reading, Norwood, NJ, Ablex.

Wells, G. (1985) Language Development in the Pre-School Years, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Wragg, E. C., Wragg, C. M., Haynes, G. S. and Chamberlain, R. P. (1998) Improving Literacy in the Primary School, London, Routledge.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Acknowledgements

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Study Guide Acknowledgements

The extracts taken from this Study Guide are from a course (Difficulties in Literacy Development) which was jointly developed by the Open University and the University of Edinburgh. Permission granted from University of Edinburgh to use extracts from Study Guide. Copyright in Study Guide: The Open University and The University of Edinburgh. First published 2002. Second edition 2006.

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this unit:

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary (see terms and conditions) and is used under licence.

Appendix D: Rose, J (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading, Final Report, March, Department for Education and Skills/HMSO (accessed at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ rosereview/ finalreport). Crown copyright material is produced under Class Licence Number C01W0000065 with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.

Reader Acknowledgements

The chapters included in Open Learn are from: ‘Addressing Difficulties in Literacy Development – Responses at Family, School, Pupil and Teacher Levels (eds) Janice Wearmouth, Janet Soler and Gavin Read. Published by Routledge and Falmer 2002. Copyright © Compilation, original and editorial matter, The Open University.

This Reader constitutes part of a course jointly developed by The Open University and the University of Edinburgh. The Open University course is E801 Addressing Difficulties in Literacy Development (E801). The University of Edinburgh’s course is the Postgraduate Certificate in Difficulites in Literacy Development.

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this unit:

The content acknowledged below is Proprietary (see terms and conditions) and is used under licence.

Chapter 3 Tizard, J., Schofield, W.N. and Hewison, J. (1982) ‘Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children’s reading’, in ‘Addressing Difficulties in Literacy Development – Responses at Family, School, Pupil and Teacher Levels (2002) (eds) Janice Wearmouth, Janet Soler and Gavin Read, published by Routledge Falmer 2002. Originally published in Journal of Educational Psychology, 52 pp.1-5. Reproduced by permission of the British Journal of Educational Psychology © The British Psychological Society

Unit Image

Teachsummer: flickr.com [accessed 03/09/2007]

Don't miss out

1. Join the 200,000 students currently studying with The Open University

2. Enjoyed this? Browse all our free course materials in the LearningSpace

3. Find out more about this topic on OpenLearn

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Introduction

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

In this unit you will find a discussion of the national curriculam framework in Scotland. This is discussed in terms of the literacy curricula, and compared to the framework set up in England and Wales.

This comparison reveals differing emphases on a number of themes. For example, individual child-centred approaches are evident in the Scottish Curriculum Guideline developments. However, a uniform approach to all children is privileged in the whole-class approaches in the English National Literacy Strategy (NLS).

This unit is an adapted extract from Difficulties in literacy development (E801).

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Learning outcomes

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

On completion of this unit, you should:

have an understanding of the literacy policy and subsequent curriculum guidelines existing in Scotland, in relation to literacy in schools;
be able to compare the Scottish model with frameworks in place to teach literacy in England and Wales;
have an understanding of the legal framework governing special educational needs in Scotland;
understand how the law relating to special needs in Scotland affects educational provision in schools;
understand the responsibilities of schools to meet legal requirements.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

1.1 Introduction

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

In this unit you will find a discussion of the national curricula framework in Scotland. This is discussed in terms of the literacy curricula, and compared to the framework set up in England and Wales.

The curriculum guidelines in Scotland

As you read this unit you might like to reflect particularly on the following themes which a number of commentators have noted in relation to literacy policy in the Scottish context:

child-centredness versus the need for conformity in response to concerns voiced over falling standards;
the demands for focus and conformity from prescribed guidelines versus flexibility afforded to teachers and LEAs;
reductionist skills-based approaches versus whole-language meaning- based approaches.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

1.2 Challenges to child-centredness: the curriculum and assessment 5–14 programme

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

In Scotland, the Scottish Curriculum and Assessment 5–14 Programme is an essential part of the initiative that has been promoted by HM Inspectorate as upholding and maintaining the standard of pupils' achievements in Scottish schools. A Scottish Education Department (SED) consultative paper enjoined the inspectorate to ‘pay particular attention in their inspection of schools to the extent to which schools and education authorities have had regard to the national curricular policies’ (SED, 1987, p. 7).

Adams (1999, p. 349) notes ‘two linked but distinctive origins’ of the Scottish Curriculum and Assessment 5–14 Programme. The first was the same political circumstances operating on central government as in England and Wales (see below). When the consultative paper (SED, 1987) was introduced, it was described as:

a shift in policy-making style in Scotland from debate followed by consensus to consultation followed by imposition.
(Rodger in Hartley and Rodger, 1990, p. 1; quoted in Adams, 1999, p. 349)

The other origin of the 5–14 programme was:

the professional imperatives which have led to the curriculum for the primary and early secondary stages being more explicitly formulated than in the previous forty years.
(Adams, 1999, p. 349)

Adams (1999) traces these imperatives back to the Scottish Education Department's policy document The Primary School in Scotland (SED, 1965), commonly known as ‘The [Primary] Memorandum’. This policy document set out principles of primary education which:

started with the needs and was responsive to the interests of the child, was appropriate to age, aptitude and ability and which saw pupils as active in their own learning.
(Adams, 1999, pp. 349–50)

Adams comments that The Memorandum emphasised discussion and consultation, did not prescribe teaching methods or subject material, privileging variety over conformity. Through its very lack of prescription:

It challenged teachers, and perhaps more significantly headteachers, to reconceptualise their approaches to the education of primary school age children. This is in stark contrast to the prescription of the present centralised arrangements.
(Adams, 1999, p. 350)

Provision of guidance to schools on the curriculum was left to the education authorities. However, a report (SED, 1971) on progress made in advice given to teachers on implementing The Memorandum by education authorities, colleges of education and headteachers, suggested wide variability in the quality and impact of that advice. There appeared to be evidence that ‘few headteachers [had] done anything to formulate a policy for the planned implementation of the approaches suggested by the Primary Memorandum’ (SED, 1971, p. 16; quoted in Adams, 1999, p. 350).

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

1.3 Concern over falling standards: a policy for the ‘90s

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

There followed a number of reports from the Scottish Education Office to schools offering guidance in developing particular aspects of the curriculum. These culminated in a consultative paper Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland: a policy for the ‘90s (SED, 1987) which identified apparent poor practice in school curricular policy-making, lack of continuity in the school curriculum, lack of challenge for students in Years 6 and 7 of primary schools, lack of consistency in the practice of assessment of students' achievement, and poor communication with parents (Adams, 1999, p. 352). The resultant detailed guidelines on the aims, objectives and content of each curriculum area for students aged from 5 to 14 years aimed at curriculum continuity and coherence in student assessment at national and school level.

However, these guidelines were presented as sets of instructions without any overt rationale or philosophy. This is particularly problematic if we consider the differences between the philosophies underpinning curricula in the primary and secondary sectors. The lack of rationale underlying time allocations in the guidelines has increased the overall lack of coherence between the primary and secondary sectors. An example of this is the way in which the notion of balance and breadth of the curriculum at primary level set against the existing structured timetable of the early years of secondary schooling has been expressed in Structure and Balance of the Curriculum 5–14 (SOEID, 1993) simply in terms of percentages of time recommended for each curriculum area.

Balance of the allocation of time in 5–14

	Primary	Secondary 1 and 2
Mathematics	15%	10%
Language	15%	20%
Religious and Moral Education	10%	5%
Expressive Arts	15%
Environmental Studies	25%
Scientific Studies and Applications		10%
Technological Studies and Applications		10%
Social and Environmental Studies		10%
Creative and Aesthetic Activities		10%
Physical Education		5%
Flexibility	20%	20%

(Adams, 1999, p. 353)

Despite these centrally prescribed guidelines there is evidence that already, as a result of the early intervention initiative, some education authorities have chosen to be more flexible and have emphasised early literacy acquisition and offered schools in their areas guidance which differs from the SOEID guidelines.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

1.4 Flexibility versus conformity: English lanuage 5–14 (Soeid, 1991)

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Although 15 per cent of the primary timetable is allocated to the teaching and learning of the English language, as Ellis and Friel (1999, p. 360) note, ‘many schools allocate a proportion of the 20 per cent flexibility factor to English Language’. There are four overall attainment outcomes – listening, talking, reading and writing – while, in each outcome, ‘strands’ outline the specific aspects of learning and assume progression through a series of attainment targets as shown below. The Guidelines also include an emphasis on ‘diversity of language and culture; knowledge about language, and Scottish culture’ (Ellis and Friel, 1999, p. 360).

Attainment outcomes

Reading	Writing	Talking	Listening
Reading for information	Functional writing	Conveying information, instructions and directions	Listening for information, instructions and directions
Reading for enjoyment	Imaginative writing	Talking in groups	Listening in groups
Reading to reflect the writer's ideas and craft	Personal writing	Talking about experiences, feelings and opinions	Listening in order to respond to texts
Awareness of genre	Handwriting and presentation	Talking about texts	Awareness of genre
Reading aloud	Spelling, punctuation and structure	Audience awareness	Knowledge about language
Knowledge of language	Knowledge about language	Knowledge about language

(Ellis and Friel, 1999, p. 360)

Implementation of the Guidelines and standards of attainment are monitored by Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI) through inspection reports of individual schools. Parents and teachers opposed national tests for all children in Years 4 and 7 in primary schools when they were introduced in 1991. The programme was changed following the withdrawal by parents of two-thirds of the students who were eligible for the test trials (Ellis and Friel, 1999, p. 361). Currently, all children take national tests in reading and writing when, in the opinion of their own teacher, they are ready to be tested at the next level of attainment. Reading tests are administered and marked by the teachers and chosen from a given bank of items by the teacher who administers and marks them. Writing tests are designed to reflect classroom practice and marked against national criteria.

Ellis and Friel summarise the current situation in Scottish primary schools as follows:

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Reading and writing

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Currently, over 97 per cent of primary schools use a commercial reading scheme and most have programmes for teaching phonics. Beginning readers commonly take words and reading books home to practise. Many schools use class and group novel studies to extend, or in the upper primary stages, to replace the reading scheme. Schools also supplement reading schemes with a variety of reading activities structured around the 5–14 strands.

Reading schemes are used in attainment groups, but whole class activities include reading stories, discussing big books and some phonics teaching. Many classrooms have book corners, although the quality and use of these varies. Reading for Information is taught through language schemes and topic work and, according to the AAP and FIMI reports, is weaker than other areas ...

Much writing is taught as a whole class activity in which children work individually. Functional writing is often derived from topic work and is discussed in terms of formats: letters; instructions; posters; reports, etc. This means that teaching tends to focus on layout rather than genre. In imaginative writing, many see the teacher's role as ‘helping the children get ideas’ by creating a context, often through class discussion. Stories are commonly written into jotters and marked by the teacher. Desk-top publishing is becoming popular but it is comparatively rare for children to write extended stories or to choose their own writing topics. The purpose and teaching focus of personal writing often remains vague.

In infant classes, it is becoming less common for PI classes to all copy one child's news from the board, but many schools still separate the composing and transcribing processes. Teachers often transcribe until the child is proficient in forming letters. This approach has recently been criticised for not encouraging emergent understandings of print and for ignoring the children's understanding that writing should be about ideas that are personally important to the author. Early writing tasks tend to be ‘news writing’ and vary in the degree to which they promote real purpose and meaningful choice.

Despite recent advocation of process approaches (SCRE, 1995), the role of the teacher and nature of the teaching input in writing continues to be problematic. Although the AAP reports increased use of planning pages, there is little evidence that children are being introduced to a variety of rehearsal, planning and drafting strategies, or that these help individual children develop their own ‘voice’ in writing. Teacher awareness of how to sequence and structure lessons, making judicious use of collaborative work, overnight thinking time, and non-writing activities to support the writing process remains low.

National testing was heavily inserviced and focused attention on the written product rather than the process, the child, or on writing to learn. Issues such as the children's sense of authorship and ownership; their knowledge of the craft techniques used for different genres; their understanding of reading–writing links and of writing to learn remain largely unaddressed ...

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Talking and listening

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

The emphasis on talking and listening in English Language 5–14 was greeted with genuine surprise in schools, despite policy documents since 1965 advocating the importance of planned contexts for talk and of accepting and developing the language children bring to school. Improved standards in talking and listening, measured by AAP surveys and a selection of HMI school reports, came when teachers corrected the mismatch between their practice and the balance required by the Guidelines.

Now most schools have policies for talking and listening and often timetable the use of audio-visual materials and listening laboratories. Most infant classes have a ‘news’ or ‘circle’ time and implement the listening and group discussion activities of reading schemes. Some schools use published schemes on oracy, others plan it into topic work, using assemblies and class presentations as opportunities for children to address a larger audience. Burns Day celebrations and local festivals promote poetry recital, Scots language and choral speaking.

Group discussion, particularly skills of listening to and including others, remains problematic. The current framework of the Guidelines splits oracy into talking and listening which deflects attention from the relationship between talking, listening and learning. A deeper understanding of collaborative group-work and of how to adapt task structures to develop specific types of learning would ensure more effective use of group tasks. Without this understanding, teachers' perception of what is important in the language curriculum may be unduly influenced by the exclusion of talking and listening from national testing and future AAP reports.

(Ellis and Friel, 1999, pp. 362–3)

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

1.5 Reductionist skill-based approach versus whole-language: English language 5–14

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Ellis and Friel identify a number of concerns in relation to the 5–14 Guidelines for English:

English Language 5–14 presented a welcome return to a focus on the content of language teaching. However, unless sympathetically interpreted, it presents a skills-based and reductionist model of language which does not capture and promote the rich model that underpins best practice in Scottish schools. Although language as a vehicle for learning is recognised in the rationale of the Guidelines, this is rarely exemplified in the strands, targets and programmes of study. In practice, the Guidelines promote the view that language is used to communicate and transmit knowledge but only rarely and incidentally to explore and re-frame ideas to create new understandings.
If the Guidelines were used merely to audit and highlight gaps in teachers' planning this would not be a serious problem. However, teachers are invited to use the 5–14 strands and targets as a basis for planning their teaching programmes. Thus, while the 5–14 framework undoubtedly supports weaker teachers, it can divert average teachers from developing more complex models and simply frustrate the best.
The pressure for accountability created in the wake of the Guidelines ensured that talking and listening was taken seriously and aspects of attainment have improved. However, it may also have led to an over-emphasis on forward planning and on schemes and worksheets to ensure coverage. This could encourage fragmentation of the curriculum and limit the opportunities for children (and teachers) to follow their interests and devote time to understanding things in depth. It is an approach which sits uneasily with the notion of a flexible curriculum in which teaching input is adapted to meet the children's needs and produce language work that is intellectually and emotionally satisfying. In reading, where teachers were already working to reasonably sophisticated models, this is less of a problem than in writing, where it militates against a shift in the teaching focus from the product to the writer.
The early intervention projects may encourage headteachers to see that promoting effective language teaching is a cornerstone of quality management and leadership. This would help to create a climate in which good management is seen as helping teachers acquire the knowledge to use the Guidelines appropriately and creatively rather than mechanistically. Staff development initiatives of the future may be driven by this need to develop a rich and broad understanding of language, teaching and learning.
(Ellis and Friel, 1999, pp. 363–4)

Ellis and Friel report on initiatives currently being taken to address particular concerns:

AAP and FIMI reports indicate that reading standards have remained stable over the past ten years and the debate about teaching reading is less politicised than in England. However, the proportion of children leaving school with unsatisfactory reading competence has not declined and the variable success rates of schools with apparently similar catchment areas hints at hidden under-achievement. In 1997, education authorities were given SOEID funding for 3-year early intervention projects. These should prompt healthy debate on literacy; baseline assessment; pedagogical knowledge; staff development and policy into practice. Most authorities appear to be targeting schools in social priority areas, which may limit the range of issues addressed and the projects' ability to promote wide reflection and change ...
Traditionally, nurseries have not been associated with, and were frequently discouraged from, literacy teaching. Research showing the link between pre-school knowledge of literacy and school success has caused a re-examination of this policy and recent advice (SOEID, 1997) promotes knowledge of print, stories, phonological awareness and home–school links.
(Ellis and Friel, 1999, pp. 362–3)

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

2 Comparison of flexibility in the national curricula in England, Wales and Scotland

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

In order to compare the two curricula we need to consider the issue of flexibility. The flexibility of interpretation of literacy frameworks and guidelines by teachers, schools and local education authorities appears to us to be the clearest identifiable difference between these literacy curricula.

Adams has compared the process of development of national curriculum guidance across the UK:

The 5–14 Programme applies only in Scotland while the National Curriculum is the statutory guidance on the curriculum in England, Wales and N. Ireland. There have been marked similarities in the process of production of the national curriculum guidance in Scotland and England. In both cases subject based working groups were set up. In Scotland each Review and Development Group (RDG) produced its ‘ideal’ curriculum, the sum of which is a vastly complex map of the primary curriculum, while in England syllabus overload resulted from curriculum decisions made by isolated working groups using the strategy of include everything and cross-reference among curricular areas. Other similarities include the confidentiality of the working groups (lack of public access to minutes and working papers), tight time scales, tokenistic consultation and rapid introduction to schools.
Despite these similarities, the English National Curriculum has been a more centralised development than 5–14. A fundamental difference has been in the overt political influence that has been exerted on the development in England arising from Conservative policies and the active involvement in curriculum policy of various political figures from Sir Keith Joseph through to Kenneth Baker. However, the lack of clear and consistent approaches to the content and assessment of the National Curriculum between 1988 and 1993 led to the review carried out by Sir Ron Dearing and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) which resulted in the so-called ‘slimmed down’ National Curriculum which was to be implemented from August 1995.
(Adams, 1999, pp. 353–4)

Adams goes on to identify key differences in the English and Scottish national curricula:

The 1995 English National Curriculum differs principally from the Scottish 5–14 Curriculum and Assessment Programme in its separation of the primary stages from the secondary through presentation of curriculum at Key Stages 1 and 2 (5–7 years and 7–11 years) for primary and Key Stages 3 and 4 (11–14 years and 14–16 years) for secondary. While 5–14 occupies the longest timespan in the Scottish curriculum made up of 5–14 years (P1–S2), which includes attainment targets grouped at five levels of progression A–E, followed by Standard Grade (S3/S4) and Higher Still (S4–S6), there is no overall perception of the Scottish curriculum as a seamless garment from P1 to S4. Differences also exist in the curriculum coverage at each of the stages. The 5–14 Programme covers all of the areas of the curriculum and does not prescribe a core curriculum, while the English National Curriculum labels English, mathematics and science as core subjects with technology, history, geography, art, music and PE as foundation subjects at Key Stages 1 and 2 and, with the addition of a modern language, as foundation at Key Stage 3. There are similarities in terminology in both structures but differences in interpretation of the terms used is set out in [the table] below.
Definitions of terms used in the National Curriculum (England and Wales) and the Curriculum and Assessment 5–14 Programme (Scotland)
Definitions of terms used in the National Curriculum (England and Wales) and the Curriclum and Assessment Programme (Scotland)
Terms used National Curriculum (England and Wales) 5–74 Programme (Scotland)
key stage
Key Stage 1: 5–7 years

Key Stage 2: 7–11 years

Key Stage 3: 11–14 years

Key Stage 4: 14–16 years
not used in 5–14
attainment outcome not used in the National Curriculum broad competencies in each curriculum area
strands not used in the National Curriculum key constituents of an attainment outcome
attainment target expected standards of pupil performance specific learning goals
levels eight level descriptors (not in art, music, PE) five level descriptors (all curricular areas)
programmes of study what pupils should be taught advice on appropriate forms of learning and teaching
The nature of the ‘programmes of study’ in the two educational systems is of particular interest. The English National Curriculum is prescriptive in what is to be taught at each Key Stage while the Scottish 5–14 Programme expects schools to use the information and advice contained in the 5–14 guidelines to review existing school programmes and to develop appropriate responses.
(Adams, 1999, p. 354)

Terms used	National Curriculum (England and Wales)	5–74 Programme (Scotland)
key stage	Key Stage 1: 5–7 years Key Stage 2: 7–11 years Key Stage 3: 11–14 years Key Stage 4: 14–16 years	not used in 5–14
attainment outcome	not used in the National Curriculum	broad competencies in each curriculum area
strands	not used in the National Curriculum	key constituents of an attainment outcome
attainment target	expected standards of pupil performance	specific learning goals
levels	eight level descriptors (not in art, music, PE)	five level descriptors (all curricular areas)
programmes of study	what pupils should be taught	advice on appropriate forms of learning and teaching

Norwich notes that much of the initial criticism of the English and Welsh National Curriculum centred on issues of rigidity arising from ‘not taking sufficient account of the diversity of individual learner resources and attainments in the initial considerations for designing a National Curriculum’ (Norwich, 1990, p. 160). To what extent does your national curricular framework hinder or facilitate your own or your school's approach to supporting the literacy development of individual students?

Activity 1: A comparison of the literacy curricula in England and Scotland

Listen to the two audio clips below. These deal with the literacy curricula in England (speaker: Judith Jones) and Scotland (speaker: Ian Fraser). As you listen, note your reflections on the following:

To what extent do these two commentaries highlight the differences in flexibility between the two literacy curricula?
What do you feel are the consequences for practising teachers of the degree of flexibility afforded to them in these two frameworks?

Make a note of any other issues related to meeting the needs of students who experience difficulties in literacy development that are highlighted in the commentaries in your Learing Journal.

Interactive content appears here. Please visit the website to use it.

Download

Clip 1: Judith Jones

View document

Transcript

Interactive content appears here. Please visit the website to use it.

Download

Clip 2: Ian Fraser

View document

Transcript

You may find it useful to keep the notes you make during this activity for use in future assignments and/or for your development work in your own school.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

3.1 Introduction

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Activity 2: Meeting legal requirements in Scotland

The following PDF document contains pages from Section 11 of the Open University publication ‘The Legal Framework’, which was written for the OU Masters Programme in Education.

View document

Legislative Framework

Read through the extract which deals with additional support needs in Scotland, and note down your responses to the following questions:

Why, in terms of the legal definition of ‘special educational need’, might a child in one school have a record of needs while in another a child with similar needs might not?
What is meant by ‘legal entitlement’? What is it that children with special educational needs are entitled to?

As we noted above in the context of England and Wales, decisions should be based on individual need, not on externally imposed criteria. Circular 4/96 (SOEID, 1996) comments that, in general terms, students have a ‘learning difficulty’ if they require additional arrangements to be made for them in order to have full access to the school curriculum. Therefore, whether a child needs a record or not could vary considerably, depending on the level of resources in each school and the deployment of those resources. Children only need a record if their learning needs cannot be met in the resources generally available to their school.

Children with special educational needs in Scotland are legally entitled to have those needs identified, assessed and then met with appropriate provision guaranteed by their local education authority.

As we noted above, many parents will continue to find the language of official forms very difficult. It may be that the school could refer a parent to the local parents' support services. These services have the advantage of being easy to access. However, it is unclear as yet just how independent they will be and they are likely to vary. As in the rest of the UK, teachers in schools in Scotland will need to develop their own knowledge of independent services, in order to give parents help in finding outside agencies who can advise them.

Activity 3: Understanding schools' responsibilities in Scotland

The following PDF document contains pages from Section 11 of the Open University publication ‘The Legal Framework’, which was written for the OU Masters Programme in Education.

View document

Special needs provision

Read through the extract and note down also your responses to the following questions:

How aware are you of the proportion of your school's budget that is allocated to overcoming difficulties in learning and/or difficulties in literacy development?
How far do the contents of the records of needs in your school reflect what is expected?
How far do you feel that your school's practice in drawing up a record of needs reflects ‘good practice’ as summarised by SEED (2001, pp. 3–4)?
To what extent do you agree with Mackay and McLarty's (1999) views about the likely direction of developments in the area of special educational provision for students in Scotland?

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

3.2 Comparisons between Scotland, and England and Wales

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Mackay and McLarty (1999) note a number of differences between the system of supporting the learning needs of students identified as experiencing ‘special’ difficulties in learning, and that operating in England and Wales:

The differences between the education systems of Scotland and England and Wales have been relatively slight in respect of pupils with SEN, but some are worth noting.
In 1970, England and Wales were four years ahead of Scotland in ensuring that all children were entitled to education. The 1970 Act also entitled pupils with disabilities to integrated education whenever possible. This does not apply in Scotland. The Record of Needs is the ‘Statement’ in England and Wales, and uses less paper than the Record. However, the time needed to complete Records and Statements is a problem on both sides of the border.
The mandatory nature of the National Curriculum in England and Wales has worried many special educationists (though an important exception was made for deaf–blind pupils). Officially, the current 5–14 Scottish curriculum is not mandatory, but its adoption is close to universal in education authority schools, and there is pressure at central and local level to ensure that all pupils are ‘doing 5–14’. Earlier, concern was expressed about the ‘elaborated curriculum’ that has emerged from 5–14 for pupils with the most severe disabilities. Both educational systems can do better than persist with current curriculum models, because they have done better in the past.
In 1994, the English and Welsh system adopted the Code of Practice, a set of required standards (authors' note: which have the status of ‘advisory’ only) for services for those with SEN. Scotland has no Code, though EPSEN fulfils a similar function. The critical difference between EPSEN and the Code is the ... nature of the latter because of its roots in the English and Welsh Education Act, 1993. It will be interesting to assess the extent to which practices in the two systems diverge ...
(Mackay and McLarty, 1999, pp. 802–3)

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

4 Useful addresses

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Advisory Centre for Education Ltd (ACE)

Tel: 0808 800 5793 (2–5pm, Monday to Friday)

1C Aberdeen Studios, 22 Highbury Grove, London N5 2DQ.

Website: www.ace-ed.org.uk/

An independent advice centre for parents, offering information on state education in England and Wales for 5 –16 year olds. Produces a Special Education Handbook.

Alliance for Inclusive Education (Allfie)

Tel: 020 7737 6030

336 Brixton Road, London SW9 7AA

Website: www.allfie.org.uk/

British Council of Organizations of Disabled People (BCODP)

Tel: 01332 295551; Minicom: 01332 295581

Litchurch Plaza, Litchurch Lane, Derby DE24 8AA.

Website: www.abcodp.org.uk/

Campaign for State Education (CASE)

Tel: 07932 149942

98 Erlanger Road, London SW14 5TH.

Website: www.campaignforstateeducation.org.uk/

Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE)

Tel: 0117 328 4007

New Redland, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QU.

Website: www.csie.org.uk/

Collects and disseminates information on inclusive education and related issues.

ChildLine

Tel: 0800 1111

Adult enquiries: 0808 800 500

NSPCC, Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH

Website: www.childline.org.uk

Website: www.nspcc.org.uk (Adults)

Runs a free 24 hour helpline for children in distress or danger. Trained volunteer counsellors comfort, advise and protect children and young people who may feel they have nowhere else to turn.

Children’s Legal Centre

Tel: 01206 872466 (Essex) 020 7580 1664 (London)

University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ (Essex)

38 Great Porland Street, London W1W 8QY (London)

Website: www.childrenslegalcentre.com

Runs a free and confidential legal advice and information service, covering all aspects of the law and policy affecting children and young people.

Council for Disabled Children

Tel: 020 7843 1900

8 Wakley Street, London EC1V 7QE.

Website: www.ncb.org.uk/cdc/

Forum for discussion, development and dissemination of policy and practice issues relating to service provision and support for children and young people with disabilities and special educational needs.

Department for children, schools and families (DCSF) (formerly Department for Education and Skills (DfES))

Tel: 0870 000 2288; 0845 6022 260 (publications helpline)

Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BT.

Website: www.dcfs.gov.uk/index.htm

Disability Alliance (DA)

Tel: 020 7247 8776 (Voice and Minicom)

Universal House, 88–94 Wentworth Street, London E1 7SA.

Website: www.disabilityalliance.org/

Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA)

Tel: 0800 0184016 (Advice line) 01394 384711 (IPSEA office)

6 Carlow Mews, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 1EA.

Website: www.ipsea.org.uk/

Offers free and independent advice to parents on LEAs’ legal duties to assess and provide for children with special educational needs in England and Wales.

National Association for Special Educational Needs (NASEN)

Tel: 01827 311500

NASEN House, 4–5 Amber Business Village, Amber Close, Amington, Tamworth B77 4RP.

Website: www.nasen.org.uk/

Leading UK organisation promoting education, training, advancement and development of all those with special and additional support needs.

Network 81

Tel: 0845 077 4055 (Helpline) 0845 077 4056 (Admin)

1–7 Woodfield Terrace, Stansted, Essex CM24 8AJ.

Website: http://network81.org/

National network of parents working towards properly resourced inclusive education for children with special needs.

People First

Tel: 01536 515548

Eskdaill House, Eskdaill Street, Kettering, Northants NN16 8RA

Website: www.peoplefirst.org.uk/ (Central England)

Self-advocacy organisation run by and for people with learning difficulties.

Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED)

Tel: 0845 774 1741; Minicom: 0131 244 1829

Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ.

Website: www.scotland.gov.uk/

Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST)

Tel: 0870 241 2555 (SEN); 0870 606 5750 (discrimination)

Ground floor, Mowden Hall, Staindrop Road, Darlington DL3 9BG.

Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JW.

Unit 32, Ddole Road, Enterprise Park, Llandridnod Wells, Powys LD1 6PF

Website: www.sendist.gov.uk/

All new SEN appeals should be sent to the Darlington office. All claims for disability discrimination should be sent to the London office.

TeacherNet

Website: www.teachernet.gov.uk/

TeacherNet has been developed by the Department for children, schools and families (DCSF) as a resource to support the education profession.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

5 Further information

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

The Scottish Government: Education & Training Curriculum for Excellence

www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/whatiscfe/purposes.asp

Learning and Teaching Scotland Literacy

www.ltscotland.org.uk/literacy/index.asp

Department for children, schools and families: Standards Site

www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Next steps

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

After completing this unit you may wish to study another OpenLearn Study Unit or find out more about this topic. Here are some suggestions:

If you wish to study formally at The Open University, you may wish to explore the courses we offer in this curriculum area:

Or find out about studying and developing your skills with The Open University:

Or you might like to:

Post a message to the unit forum, to share your thoughts about the unit or talk to other OpenLearners
Review or add to your Learning Journal
Rate this unit

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

References

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Adams, F. R. (1999) ‘5–14: Origins, development and implementation’, in Bryce, T. G. K. and Humes, W. M. (1999) (eds) Scottish Education, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Ellis, S. and Friel, G. (1999) ‘English language’, in Bryce, T. G. K. and Humes, W. M. (1999) (eds) Scottish Education, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Hartley, D. and Rodger, A. (1990) Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland: a policy for the 90s, Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.

Mackay, G. and McLarty, M. (1999’ ‘Special educational needs of Scottish children’, in Bryce, T. G. K. and Humes, W. M. (eds) Scottish Education, Edinburgh, Edinburgh Press.

National Council for Educational Technology (NCET) (1995) Access Technology: making the right choice, Coventry, NCET.

Norwich, B. (1990) Special Needs in Ordinary Schools, London, Cassell.

Scottish Education Department (SED) (1965) The Primary School in Scotland, Edinburgh, SED.

Scottish Education Department (SED) (1971) Primary Education, organisation for development, Edinburgh, SED.

Scottish Education Department (SED) (1987) Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland: a policy for the 90s, Edinburgh, SED.

Scottish Executive (2005) Supporting Children's Learning Code of Practice [online] www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/57346/0016754.pdf (accessed 19 November 2008).

Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) (2001) Assessing our Children's Educational Needs: The way forward?, Edinburgh, SEED.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) (1991) English Language 5–14: national guidelines, Edinburgh, HMSO.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) (1996) Children and Young Persons with Special Educational Needs: assessment and recording, Edinburgh, The Scottish Office.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Acknowledgements

The Open University — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:45:44 GMT

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this unit:

Text

Ellis, S. and Friel, G (1999) ‘English Language’ in Bryce, T.G.K and Humes, W.M. (eds) Scottish Education, Edinburgh University Press.

Audio materials

Unit image

Eric Hoefler www.flickr.com/photos/sicheiiyazhi/312442067/ [Details correct as of 25 November 2008]

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Licence