Education for pupils with profound disabilities: Issues of policy, curriculum, teaching methods, and evaluation

The Education of Australian School Students With the Most Severe Intellectual Disabilities: Where Have We Been and Where Could We Go? A Discussion Primer

“…The pedagogy around IEP design and implementation also improved greatly with an increasing recognition of the need to plan collaboratively (Centre for Developmental Disability Studies, 2004). Although best practices at this time (which emphasised the operant learning of functional skills) were achieving creditable outcomes (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003), a body of criticism emerged arguing that some of this progress was at the expense of essential cognitive skill development (Bray et al, 1988;Jackson, 1993;Sabatino, Miller, & Schmidt, 1981). This criticism particularly applied to the teaching of communication skills, an essential component in any curriculum for students with MSID (Butterfield et al, 1995).…”

“…These three key aspects of educational theory and practice are richly interrelated (Killen, 2005). For students with MSID who need a very student-centred education, the pedagogical demands put on their teachers are often very specific and require considerable special expertise and student knowledge (Bauder & Simmons, 2005;Bray et al, 1988), so discussions about assessment are critical (Browder, Spooner, & Bingham, 2004). Assessment can be summative (to inform initial and final curricula and pedagogical decisions) and formative (to inform ongoing monitoring) (Donnelly, 2005).…”

“…Up until around the mid 20th century the care paradigm prevailed (Bray et al, 1988). It was not until the 1960s when the developmental model of curriculum emerged that instructional techniques became subject to substantial professional scrutiny.…”

“…At the same time, the deinstitutionalisation movement for adults with intellectual disabilities saw a rise in the demand for training in ABA techniques to moderate challenging behaviours. Knowledge about these techniques became more accessible to special educators, many of whom focused their teaching on the development of observable functional skills (Bray et al, 1988). There was, however, less emphasis on the development of students' non-observable cognitive processes, which are now understood to be critical to competent learning, especially around emotional and social development (Nietupski et al, 1997).…”

“…Staffing levels were much lower than today so these students spent frequent periods being physically cared for and long periods passively engaged in recreational activities. As they did not have the skills (or possibly the motivation or alertness) to proactively engage in constructive self-directed recreational activities, meaningful engagement was usually limited to when one-on-one support was available (Bray et al, 1988). Furthermore, the expectations of many staff for the growth and development of these students was limited, so it is not surprising that the majority of their time probably passed in a non-alert state, with boredom or frustration leading to pervasive self-stimulatory and challenging behaviours (Foreman, Arthur-Kelly, Pascoe, & Smyth King, 2004).…”