Support for Learning

Historical overview of Special Educational Needs

In England the history of formal provision for children in schools who experience what are now referred to as Special Educational Needs (SEN) can be traced back to 1844 with the passing of an act of parliament. This established ‘school districts’ (the precursors of what were to become known as ‘local education authorities’). This contributed towards removing the almost complete control of the landed class (landowners, farmers, merchants and so on) over formal educational provision in the country. During this period it should be noted that ‘schooling’ was typically viewed as a means of social control (Morris, 1983), aimed at producing well‐behaved, biddable and productive members of society.

Such attitudes, based on the notion that certain groups within the population presented a threat to stability and social order, were not only directed towards the poorest children within society. Children with ‘learning or social difficulties’ were also viewed by many as needing to be controlled securely, and more often than not, isolated from others. Such attitudes prevailed until a series of reports were published in the mid‐19th century, examining the perceived academic abilities of this group of children (Heward & Lloyd‐Smith, 1990). Two of the most influential reports were the Newcastle Commission (1861) (Hodkinson, 2016) and the Egerton Commission (1899) (Copeland, 1995; Mills Daniel, 1997). These bodies heralded the beginnings of an acknowledgement that formal education policy needed to respond to differences amongst learners.

About fifty years later, the Butler Act (National Archives, 1944) created a structure for the post‐World War II education system in England. Amongst other things it established ten categories of so‐called “handicap”: blind, partially sighted, deaf, partially hearing, delicate, physically handicapped, epileptic, maladjusted, children with speech defects and educationally subnormal (moderate). Subsequently these groups were significantly profiled within the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970.

The Warnock Report, arguably the defining piece of SEN legislation in England during the 20^th century, was published in 1978. This was the cornerstone of subsequent legislation (the 1981 Education Act), which advocated that children with disabilities should be educated alongside (or ‘integrated with’) their non‐disabled peers in mainstream settings. The Report made reference to three types of integration: locational, social and functional. Functional integration was seen as the most important, yet challenging, form of integration, as it was closer to what came to be known as ‘inclusive education’ (Britton, 1978) Whilst it allowed children with SEN to undertake activities alongside their non‐disabled peers, it also involved a great deal of planning by teachers and other educational professionals – thus heralding major tensions regarding work‐loads and resourcing amongst professional educators, which were to be a feature of late 20^th century school arrangements in England. Nevertheless, inclusive approaches to schooling became an increasingly important policy dimension in providing a suitable education for these children (Rose, 2002). This subsequently had a direct impact upon the Education Acts of 1988 and 1993. After the latter legislation, schools were required to implement an ‘SEN Code of Practice’. As a result, a single member of staff was to be appointed to ensure the smooth transition of children with learning difficulties and disabilities through their educational career – the ‘special educational needs coordinator (SENCo).

These policy shifts meant that children with a ‘statement of special needs’ (a process established following the 1981 legislation and which provided a formal, inter‐disciplinary assessment, resulting in a legally‐binding set of arrangements for the child) were not only entitled to specialist provision; they also had a right to be included in mainstream schools (although with the proviso that such actions were not regarded as detrimental to the learning of others (Warnock & Norwich, 2010). However, despite the admirable aims of the 1978 Warnock Report, there remained an on‐going debate regarding the benefits of inclusion and the mechanisms that informed it (Feiler & Gibson, 1999). In 2005, for instance, Baroness Warnock's personal views on the educational inclusion of children with SEN and disabilities changed considerably, describing the introduction of statements of special need as ‘disastrous’ and ‘the greatest obstacle to good provision’ (Shaw, 2003).

A further consequence of the policy shift towards a comprehensively applied approach to inclusive education has been the consistent call for the closure of special schools in many parts of England. As a direct result, children with SEN were transferred to often highly competitive mainstream environments, where they were ‘measured’ largely by the same assessment procedures that were devised for their non‐disabled peers. They were often seen as negatively impacting on a school's performance in so‐called ‘league tables’, which have been used to compare the performance of schools since the early 1990s (Goldstein & Spielgelhalter, 1996; Goldstein & Thomas, 1996). The approach was also highly resource‐intensive, requiring large teams of support staff (Tomlinson, 2012) at a time when education financing was under close audit. Despite Warnock's change of opinion (Shaw, 2005), recent government policy in England has brought a number of policy changes which have had a direct impact upon the way in which children with SEN are taught within mainstream schools.

The Equality Act (2010) led to the publication of a new SEN Code of Practice (2014) which superseded its predecessor from 2001. From a positive perspective, the ‘new’ Code extended the age range of children and young people covered by its guidance from 0‐18 to 0‐25, thus promoting increased communication and collaboration between education, health and social care services. However, on the negative side, prior to 2014, children with SEN attending a mainstream school were funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Following the introduction of the new SEN reforms, the amount of money that schools were able to access via this funding stream was significantly reduced (Gray et al, 2012), with a consequent threat to the resources available to meet the educational needs of those with SENs.

In 2011 a newly established Coalition government in England sought to take action regarding what they perceived to be an out‐dated form of assessment. The ‘statements’ of SEN and Learning Disability Assessments (LDA) were replaced by Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) (Department for Education, 2011). While still maintaining a strong focus on educational attainment, the new document placed a greater emphasis on what, for many young people, is the difficult transition period between adolescence and adulthood.

Societal Attitudes to Disability

Societal attitudes towards disability have changed over recent decades. Evidence suggests that the models of disability have significantly influenced attitudes towards those with disability (Barton, 1986; Rieser, 2004; Cameron, 2014; Hodkinson, 2016). Historically the most deeply rooted (although now out‐dated) model is the so‐called ‘medical’ model of disability. This views disability as a psychological impairment or disease needing medical treatment of some kind. It also focuses on individual pathology and attempts to find ways of preventing, curing, and caring for those with disabilities (Llewellyn & Hogan, 2000). A long‐standing criticism of this model is that it does not incorporate any assessment of the potential for improvement (Marks, 1997). The terminology it utilised, which derived from that adopted by the medical profession, is now regarded as offensive and derogatory, because it implied that disabled people were weak, pathetic and in need of sympathy.

Societal attitudes towards disability have obviously changed considerably. The ‘social model’ has superseded the medical orientation to disability as a means of interpreting policy and provision for those with SENs. In direct contrast to its predecessor, the social model has been effective in promoting the social mobility of individuals with disabilities (Palmer & Harley, 2012; Oliver, 2013; Jones & Wass, 2013), as well as successfully improving their self‐esteem, which in turn allows them to build a collective sense of identity (Shakespeare, 2010; Dunn & Burcaw, 2013).

As with the medical model, however, there are shortcomings to a social approach. It neglects consideration of the impact that impairment can have on the daily lives of those with disabilities. It also assumes that disabled people are oppressed, and is sometimes viewed as highlighting the crude distinction between impairment, disability, and the concept of a utopian barrier‐free society. Writers such as Oliver (cited in Allan, 2012) have also expressed their disappointment that the social model of disability has been ineffective in changing the material circumstances, or promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities. He observed that ‘the social model was developed to counteract the formidable tragedy discourse that surrounds individuals with disabilities and therefore depicts disability as deficit, a tragedy, abnormal and something to be avoided at all costs’ (p.77)

Both the medical and social models of disability are frequently discussed within the disability studies literature (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2013; Barnes & Mercer, 2014). A more recent ‘model’, expressed in terms of ‘capability’, has been the focus of attention. This model was originally formulated to assess people's wellbeing and quality of life (Toboso, 2011) and to provide further insight into how disability is viewed by society. It maintains that impairment and disability are aspects of human diversity, thus shifting the focus away from the specificities of a disabling situation and examining how to establish equality in terms of possibilities and choices (Bakhishi & Trani, 2006). From the foregoing it is thus apparent that, over many years, several models of disability have been proposed to inform or explain the attitudes people have towards disability in England. However, despite a shift in attitudes towards a more positive regard shown to people with disabilities, stigmatisation and labelling still exist. Recent studies report that over a third of people (36%) tend to think of disabled persons as not being as productive as others, and a quarter of disabled people (25%) are reported to have experienced attitudes in which people expected less of them as a direct result of their disability (Aiden & McCarthy, 2014). Moreover, people who are diagnosed with mental health difficulties are also highly likely to encounter negative attitudes (Wright et al, 2011).

Stigmatisation and labelling are closely linked. The relatives of people with disabilities sometimes view labels positively. They are said to assist both parents and educational professionals to cope with and understand their child's condition, as well as to be able to recognise their strengths and weaknesses (Ho, 2004). Another view is that a label can also go some way towards absolving the guilt that a parent experiences when they have a child with a disability. From an educational point of view, a label derived from assessment is often necessary for a child or young person with a disability to receive the support they need when striving to achieve their full potential (Broomhead, 2013).

But although labels may be viewed as necessary for support purposes within education, they can also have an adverse effect. At the current time, there appears to be a ‘one size fits all’ approach within the education system, prompting some teachers and support staff to develop a negative attitude towards children with disabilities (Webster et al., 2010; Boyle et al., 2013; Varcoe & Boyle, 2014). Such attitudes seem to develop through concerns that children with disabilities will have a detrimental effect, not only on the learning of other children, but also on the teacher's own performance as an educator. In turn this can have a negative impact on the way that the overall performance of the school is determined and subsequently made public in ‘league tables’ (Burgess et al., 2014). Furthermore, it is suggested that the negative attitudes of non‐disabled peers towards their class‐mates who have a disability make it difficult for children with disabilities to form meaningful friendships and relationships (Glazzard, 2011).

Autism Spectrum Disorder

The term ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder’ (ASD) was first used in its modern sense in 1943 by Kanner (cited in Wing & Gould, 1979) after he observed the traits professionals associate with ASD in eleven children who were referred to his clinic in Baltimore (Silberman, 2015; Donvan & Zucker, 2016). However, within Britain it was not until 1960 that the term autism was first mentioned in parliament after the passing of the Mental Health Act in 1959.

Although there is now considerable knowledge regarding the aetiology of autism, there is still uncertainty as to its causes. Prior to Kanner's use of the term, early clinical practitioners such as Itard and Bleuler had detailed some of the characteristic behaviours they associated with ‘autism’. Itard, for example, became involved with ‘Victor’, a child characterised as l'enfant sauvage or the ‘Wild Boy of Aveyron’; Itard realised that the Victor was inclined to become fixated on particular objects, and had difficulty expressing himself verbally and interacting with others (Itard, 1962).

The symptom profile is now more commonly known as the ‘triad of impairments’ (Wolff, 2004). The way in which autism is diagnosed has obviously changed in recent years in most countries. When diagnosing ASC, clinical professionals in both the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA) will refer to the symptom profile currently provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) V. Children and adults with this condition certainly display the deficits described within the ‘triad of impairments’; these symptoms however, will affect each child differently. Following the introduction of DSM V, it has now become more difficult for parents within the UK and USA who suspect that their child has this disability, to obtain a clinical diagnosis because the symptom profile has been narrowed considerably. This has meant that it has also become more difficult for parents in both countries to access the support their child may need when trying to achieve their full potential (Kreck, 2014; Lai et al., 2013). Whilst parents of these children may encounter barriers when trying to access the mainstream system the Montessori approach aims to facilitate the successful integration and inclusion of children with ASC by encouraging the exploration of their natural abilities to achieve their full potential (Robinson, 2010)

The Importance of Play, the Montessori ethos and Autism Spectrum Disorder

If a child with ASC attends an educational setting the teaching methods need to be adapted to ensure that the child's needs are met. If parents choose to send their disabled child to a mainstream state‐funded nursery, they may be putting their child at an immediate disadvantage, especially if they have been diagnosed with ASC. This is because the child is unlikely to reach the same educational level as their non‐disabled peers. This could be due to several factors including the severity of the child's condition and/or lack of appropriate training for staff within the setting. This is an important consideration, given that the majority of ASC sufferers are diagnosed with ASC between the ages of three to five (Siegal et al., 1988), although more recent studies have shown that parents tend to notice symptoms as early as 18 months (Tuchman, 2009).

In England, prior to a child's formal education, children under the age of four attend a nursery setting where they acquire basic skills in physical, social and emotional development (Summerbell et al., 2012; Dowling, 2014; Harrinton & Brussoni, 2015). Awareness of the importance of play in early childhood can be traced back to Plato. Hanawalt (1995) believed that adults took responsibility for their children even though there was no church or civil law that expected them to do so. It was also around this time that the community started to play a more significant role in terms of in loco parentis when the child was older.

Philosophers such as Plato, Dewey, Rousseau and Locke wrote extensively about the importance of play in childhood and education (Madhawa Nair et al., 2014) They believed that education should begin early, due to the importance of initial impressions. However, whilst Plato believed that play is important in the early years, he also believed that the type of play young children engaged in should be done freely, and have structure and purpose (Livescu, 2003).

In the 21^st century, there has been a conscious move away from the historical attitudes and theories of play with the re‐emergence of two further narratives: liberal romanticism and psychological cognitive development (Manning, 2005). Whilst it is said that these two narratives do not reflect historical attitudes towards play, it may appear to those outside the early education field that this is not the case (Rogers & Lapping, 2012). Liberal romanticism seems to reflect the medieval views of childhood in that, to this day, play is still associated with innocence as well as being natural and innate. However, there were also those who believed that play was not valuable or indeed a topic for serious debate (Smith, 2012).

Many philosophers during the 18^th century wrote about the importance of play throughout childhood, the most prominent being Rousseau (cited in Cohen, 2006). He believed that children should be able to roam freely through natural environments in order to broaden their imagination. This would then inspire their love for freedom and encourage them to undertake some form of physical exercise to explore the limitations of their body. Whilst Rousseau (cited in Cohen, 2006) sees the benefits of early years education, like his liberal romantic counterparts, he believed that engaging in a formal education system at such a young age potentially took away a child's innocence.

At the present time, authors such as Ginsburg (2007) and Wood (2010) believe that play is of central importance to a child's overall development. Furthermore, Wood (2010) believes that play is an essential part of the curriculum in Early Years settings particularly as it facilitates the development of children's personalities. Furthermore, it also ameliorates social and emotional development through the acquisition of the skills needed within group work and one‐to‐one interaction with their peers. These traits include humour, teasing, jokes, mimicry, riddles and rhymes, singing and chanting. It is also crucial that children learn to deal with disagreements, to cooperate with others, and to understand competition (Tannock, 2008).

In Early Years settings the planning of daily activities should be based on the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (Department for Education, 2014). However, the actual teaching practices that are employed by early years professionals should primarily be based on a mixture of direct instruction and Plato's philosophy of free play (Wood, 2014). Despite the fact that free play is very much part of the EYFS, in recent years international studies have shown that children between the ages of 0‐4 years now spend an increasing amount of time undertaking academic tests (Nicolopoulou, 2010). Many children within this age bracket struggle to achieve what is expected of them, as the tests are developmentally inappropriate. As a consequence, early years professionals have undermined the primary tool utilised by all young children to combat stress, that of freely‐chosen, child centred, intrinsically motivated play.

There are other educational approaches which are more focused on the importance of play, and how they can enhance the learning opportunities of all children including those with disabilities such as ASC. One such method is that of Maria Montessori (cited in O'Donnell, 2007), who advocates a staged approach to learning. Children with ASC need to be encouraged to play, shown how to play and how to expand their play routines which allows them to progress with their overall development (Wall, 2010).

On completing her medical degree, Montessori continued her training at a child psychiatric unit where many of the children had been diagnosed with a variety of learning disabilities. Unlike her more experienced colleagues, after observing these children over a period of time, Montessori realised that they also had the capacity to learn. Montessori (cited in O'Donnell, 2007) began to make her own learning resources for the children to use whilst at the unit. The resources that she designed were so successful, she believed that the children could achieve the same, if not better results, than their non‐disabled counterparts (Montessori, 1967a) as the resources Montessori designed were developmentally appropriate for each “period of growth” (Montessori, 2009: pp. 16–17).

As she predicted, the children performed as well, if not better, than their non‐disabled peers. As a result, Montessori (cited in O'Donnell, 2013) decided to set up her own preschool where the teaching methods were underpinned by the evidence she had gathered during her experiments. She opened the first Casa di Bambini (Children's House) in 1907 within the slums of Rome. From her initial research, Montessori (cited in O'Donnell, 2013) also realised that like their non‐disabled counterparts, children with disabilities were capable of independence. As well as designing and making her own teaching resources, she also constructed the whole classroom environment in such a way that children could realise this independence. This involved furniture that was the right size and weight so that the children could change their environment as they wished. Montessori (cited in O'Donnell, 2013) also designed the more static classroom equipment such as shelving and pegs to hang coats on to further encourage independence (Montessori, 1967b).

Research on Montessori and ASC within the UK is limited. One of the few researchers to examine how the Montessori educational ethos is a more effective way of learning for children with ASC, and more generally with SEN, is Wendy Fidler (2006). In one article, Fidler (2006) explains that autism is a condition that affects each child differently. One of the primary characteristics of all children with this condition is the need for routine. The Montessori educational approach provides this via the traditional teaching and learning methods, specifically the activities the children engage in on a daily basis. Whilst the Montessori teaching and learning methods are beneficial to children with ASC, staff who utilise such methods need to be aware that some of the materials recommended for use by Montessori practitioners, may not be suitable for use with children with this condition. Therefore it may be more appropriate to source a range of alternatives e.g. silk as opposed to nylon, as many children with ASC have hypersensitive skin and therefore cannot tolerate certain materials against their skin.

In terms of the development of language, the materials that are used by Montessori practitioners are ideal for use with children diagnosed with ASC. The practitioner can write an instruction on a command card, read the instruction to the child, and then demonstrate the correct way to complete the task (Fidler, 2004). In so doing, young children with ASC can learn the nuances of social interaction by observing non‐disabled peers who use appropriate actions to demonstrate and express what they understand by the words on the cards. Another advantage of Montessori education for children with ASC, is that all settings have rules which children and staff must adhere to, thus creating the structure and routines that complement children with ASC (Marshall, 2001; Fidler, 2006).

Concluding Comments

The intention of this article has been to examine whether or not the Montessori educational approach could be more appropriate than the National Curriculum (NC) in helping children with ASC, who are following the Early Years Foundation Stage, to learn. Whilst the evidence cited in this article is relatively outdated, it nevertheless suggests that the Montessori educational ethos is a suitable alternative. Indeed, numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of the Montessori approach in supporting children with ASC. The majority of these, however, are international, and therefore not generalisable to the UK. In conclusion, it is clear that further research is needed in order to investigate whether the Montessori educational ethos is a more appropriate educational ideology for children with ASC in the UK.