Author: admin

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

What are the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating technology into the classroom – with a specific focus on non-ICT lessons?

The use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in education has been described as engaging, enabling and transformative (Clark et al. 2009; Prensky, 2010). ICT can improve both personalisation and collaboration, providing tools and experiences that can aid social and independent learning (O’Hara, 2008; Selwyn et al. 2010). Throughout non-ICT subjects, technology can help to create an ‘enabling environment’, founded on communication and interaction (O’Hara, 2008, p.29). ICT can also structure children’s understanding of curriculum content in non-ICT lessons, while helping them to develop knowledge of processes that will be of significant use in their future lives (DfES, 2006).

However, only one in four schools are succeeding in employing ICT to enhance learning across the curriculum, which suggests that there are barriers to the effective use of ICT in non-ICT lessons (BECTA, 2009). While developing practical skills with technology is essential, children will also need to cultivate a reflective, ‘metacognitive awareness’ (Flavell, 1979, p.908) of their own creative and safe engagement with ICT in order to use it effectively in non-ICT lessons (Sharples et al. 2009). This concept has been defined as ‘e-confidence’ and is a key concern for teachers when planning learning experiences involving ICT (QCA/NAACE, 2007).

A framework of possibilities for using ICT throughout the curriculum has been developed by the National College of School Leadership (Blows, 2009). This matrix involves a progressive scale of ‘e-words’, which describe the increasing effectiveness of ICT as a tool to transform learning and develop children’s higher-order thinking skills (Blows, 2009; Bloom, 1956). The ‘ICT and Learning’ matrix can be seen in Fig.1:

Fig.1 ICT and Learning: e-words matrix (Blows, 2009)

By referencing this matrix against other educational theories, it will be argued that embedding technology into non-ICT has the potential to extend and empower learners (Blows, 2009). However, the key point is that ICT needs to be used to support, challenge and ’empower’ learners, rather than simply being ‘exchanged’ for traditional teaching methods in order to meet national agendas (Blows, 2009).

Blows (2009, no page numbers) emphasises the importance of using ICT to ‘enhance’ learning, rather than simply ‘exchange’ it with traditional resources. Furthermore, Prensky (2010) recognises the limitations of using technology just for the sake of it. For example, using an iPAD or SMARTboard as a dynamic, problem-solving device for group work in mathematics or geography would be beneficial to supporting cognitive development (Adey, 1992). However using these technologies as basic presentation tools, or only to display multimedia content would be a less effective use of the resources. Tondeur et al. (2006, p.963) assert that schools concentrate too much on teaching the practical use of ICT programs, rather than using technology to improve learning, collaboration and cognition. ICT is still seen as separate from other subjects and needs to be embedded into non-ICT subjects more organically (Tondeur et al., 2006). However, this should not be at the detriment of traditional skills, for example map reading and measuring in geography.

Conole (2007, p.82) recognises three ‘fundamental shifts’ in education since the beginning of the twenty-first century:

‘from a focus on information to communication, […] from a passive to more interactive engagement, and [….] from a focus on individual learners to more socially situative learning’.

The implication is that technology must be harnessed to ‘extend’ learners, rather than ‘passively’ replacing previous resources (Blows, 2009). By successfully integrating technology into non-ICT subjects, ICT can create collaborative experiences that are both engaging and more effective than was previously possible (O’Hara, 2008). For example, students can use the internet to research and share knowledge, and use creative computer programs in collaboration with other social groups. However, a disadvantage of using ICT is that it can hinder student’s cognitive and problem-solving by providing too much support (O’Hara, 2008). An interactive database in science is beneficial to learning, but should not over-simplify learning as this would be to the detriment of student progression and understanding. In contrast, the new ‘Computing Programmes of Study’ (DfE, 2013) suggest that students need practical skills in computing before ICT can be used to enhance non-ICT subjects. ICT can be advantageous in non-ICT subjects as long as it balances practical application with collaborative and creative learning.

Technology can be employed in non-ICT lessons to support children in creating material for specific purposes and audiences, using various modes of communication (Bearne, 2003). An example of this could be setting up a class blog in Literacy or Art lessons with which pupils could display and discuss their work and learning, using photos and sound files to create their own multimodal blog-site. Richardson (2009, p.27) argues that ‘blogs are a truly constructivist tool for learning’ and can therefore be employed by teachers to engage and structure learning. It has been suggested that while formal writing can be described as independent ‘monologue’, blogging should be regarded as a ‘conversation’ (Selwyn et al. 2010, p.30). ICT allows children’s work to be dynamically shared with parents and family on a regular basis, resulting in the continuation of learning outside of school and improved links to the community. However, while ICT can provide a supportive learning framework or resource, this relies on the teacher to guide children through progressive stages of learning (Wood et al. 1976). The use of ICT in non-ICT lessons relies on the presence and planning of a skilled teacher who recognises how to harness technology to improve learning, rather than just replace, for example, existing literacy practices.

When embedding ICT into non-ICT lessons, the teacher should act as a facilitator and enabler, using technology as a tool to increase learning possibilities for a group of children working at different attainment levels (Prensky, 2010). Technology can enhance learning by connecting the elements of exploration, contribution and completion (Richardson, 2009). An example is the proposal that video games can engage reluctant learners (DfES, 2005). Young pupils may have become disengaged by a ‘digital divide’ between their home use of ICT, and the ICT that they have access to in school. Therefore, using games as a learning resource in Mathematics or Geography could create links between home interests and school classroom cultures (Sutherland-Smith et al. 2003, p.31). Using ICT to connect curriculum areas has the potential to increase social participation in schools and reengage disenfranchised learners (Clark et al. 2009).

An example of this concept is the video game Wild Earth: African Safari on Nintendo Wii; in which the player is a photojournalist touring the Serengeti National Park, taking photos of indigenous animals. This game could be used to actively demonstrate a different part of the world to young learners, which would be impossible without ICT. Children could subsequently create paintings, drama or simply discuss what they have seen to improve collaboration and cognition (Hong et al. 2009). ICT can therefore enhance cultural understanding and critical thinking in non-ICT subjects (Hague and Payton, 2010). However, the teacher’s selection of game, or other ICT resource, must be relevant to the learning experience and support the achievement of learning objectives, so that technology is not simply replacing traditional resources (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2010). Structured by their interactions with ICT, children can develop communication skills that will prepare them for the future. However, it could be argued that ICT is never a substitute for real experiences. It should instead be viewed as a tool for improving non ICT-lessons.

This example demonstrates that ICT offers teachers a set of ‘virtual tools’ that can enhance learning in non-ICT lessons (Simpson and Toyn, 2012, p.1). However, students will need to be taught how to use these tools effectively so that they can employ them in non-ICT subjects. ICT in other subjects requires additional training and instruction, which may detract from general teaching and learning time (Simpson and Toyn, 2012). Using technology in non-ICT lessons is all about balance, with the teacher needing to balance ICT with traditional and transitional learning skills in order to support progression.

ICT can enhance (Blows, 2009) learning experiences in non-ICT lessons by structuring the development of skills and understanding. However, Prensky (2010, p.72) proposes that there is a difference between a learning experience being relevant to children and being ‘real’. Rather than providing passing allusions to children’s interests, teachers must use ICT to find ways to help children connect with ‘real’ issues. ICT must be employed in ‘authentic and purposeful contexts’ (Loveless, 2003, p.102) to empower learners (Blows, 2009) so that they can achieve a greater understanding of a topic in non-ICT lessons.

An example is using video-conferencing technology to create links between the classroom and other areas, and broaden the landscape for learning. A teacher could set up a conversation with a school in a different location, with a contrasting community but similar issues. Classes could ask each other questions and describe their school and community environments. This would support the development of speaking and listening skills, alongside ‘personal [and] social development’ (DfCSF, 2008, p.13). By linking learning to other places and communities, ICT can create a wider ‘community of practice’ in non-ICT lessons, where young children recognise that education and learning are not isolated to their school location (Wenger, 1999, p.4).

Technology can therefore have a positive and transformative effect (Wheeler and Winter, 2005) by allowing children to develop personal reflection during purposeful social participation (Richardson, 2009). However, young people need to recognise how to utilise technology to support their ongoing learning. Hague and Payton (2010, p.8) argue that ‘education systems need to help young people to understand and benefit from their engagement with digital technology and digital cultures’. ICT supports and extends (Blows, 2009) both independent and social progression, but young people need to recognise how to use technology as a tool to expand their learning in non-ICT lessons.

An appraisal of advantages and disadvantages of using ICT in non-ICT lessons needs to investigate potential problems and highlight areas of concern. Critics argue that early computer use can affect young children’s vision and physical development, leading to a possible deficit in the advancement of their motor skills (AfC, 2000). Furthermore, technology can often fail to work, which could disrupt lessons and demotivate learners in non-ICT lessons (O’Hara, 2008). Practitioners also need to be knowledgeable enough to successfully integrate ICTs into teaching and learning, and this is reliant on available budgets for high quality training (O’Hara, 2008). A lack of expertise can be a ‘limiting factor’ that can negate the potential of ICT to improve learning across the curriculum (Beetham, 2007, p.32). Similarly, students may have different skill-levels with ICT, so the teacher needs to incorporate this into lesson planning in the same way that they would differentiate by ability in core subjects (Hague and Payton, 2010).

Perhaps the most debated area of concern of using ICT across the curriculum is that of ‘e-safety’ (Sharples et al. 2009). The integration of ICT into non-ICT lessons must be supported by a comprehensive school e-safety policy (Byron, 2008). The supposed ‘moral panic’ (Bennett et al. 2008, p.775) associated with children’s use of ICT, particularly the internet, can create pedagogical difficulties for teachers. A balance must be achieved between encouraging pupils to participate in creative, collaborative activities in non-ICT subjects, while also protecting them from risk (Sharples et al. 2009). Prensky (2009) asserts that adults should not simply instruct young learners about the risks associated with using ICT. Children must also develop ‘digital wisdom’ in order to understand safe practice and an awareness of their identity as users of technology (Prensky, 2009, p.11). The topic of e-safety shows that incorporating technology into non-ICT lessons has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages that need to be diligently managed by the school, the teachers, and by the students themselves.

The use of technology in non-ICT lessons can engage learners and enhance learning experiences (Wheeler and Winter, 2005). However, the integration of ICT into classroom practice requires balance so that it does not detract from physical and social development (AfC, 2000). ICT can be embedded into learning activities to improve collaborative learning (DfES, 2006), yet it also supports the personalisation of activity and assessment. Activities involving ICT should negotiate a balance between creativity and safety, in order to adhere to the school’s e-safety policy (Sharples et al. 2009). Children need to develop practical skills in ICT, alongside a social and cognitive awareness that will help them to succeed in a technology-driven society.

An essential part of using ICT in non-ICT lessons is that young children are gradually encouraged to recognise the difference between information and knowledge (Nutt, 2010). ICT provides new means to investigate and retrieve information (BECTA, 2009) and empowers learners (Blows, 2009) with new modes of communication (Bearne, 2003). However, these benefits would prove irrelevant without the transformation of information and digital discourse into knowledge and understanding. Technology can have huge advantages for learning in non-ICT lessons, while the disadvantages and barriers can be managed by educators. However, ultimately, it is not what ICTs children are using across the curriculum, but what they are using them for that really matters for the future.

References

Adey, P. (1992) ‘The CASE results: implications for science teaching’. International Journal of Science Education. 14 (2) pp.137-146.

AfC (2000) ‘Fool’s Gold: a critical look at computers in childhood’. [Online]. Available at: http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold (Accessed: 6th Oct 2015).

Bearne, E. (2003) ‘Rethinking literacy: communication, representation and text’. Reading, Literacy and Language. 37 (3) pp.98-103.

BECTA (2009) ‘Becta’s Contribution to the Rose Review’. [Online]. Available at: https://clc2.uniservity.com/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=20115174&ResourceId=2892751 (Accessed: 7th Oct 2015).

Beetham, H. (2007) ‘An Approach to Learning Activity Design’, in Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (eds.) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.26-40.

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L. (2008) ‘The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence’. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39 (5) pp.775-786.

Bloom, B.S. (1956) ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals’, in Bloom, B.S. (ed.) Taxonomy of Education Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay, pp.201-207.

Blows, M. (2009) ‘E-words for ICT and classroom creativity’. National College of School Leadership. [Online]. Available at: http://future.ncsl.org.uk/ShowResource.aspx?ID=812 (Accessed: 7th Oct 2015).

Byron, T. (2008) Safer Children in a Digital World: the Report of the Byron Review. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.

Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A. and Oliver, M. (2009) ‘Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 25 (1) pp.56-69.

Conole, G. (2007) ‘Describing learning activities – tools and resources to guide practice, in Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (eds.) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.81-91.

DfCSF (2008) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Nottingham: DfCSF Publications.

DfE (2013) ‘Computing programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2’. DfE. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf (Accessed: 6th Oct 2015).

DfES (2005) Harnessing Technology: Transforming Learning and Children’s Services. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

DfES (2006) 2020 Vision: Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Flavell, J. (1979) ‘Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry’. American Psychologist. 34 (10) pp.906-911.

Hague, C. and Payton, S. (2010) Digital Literacy Across the Curriculum. Bristol: Futurelab.

Hong, J-C., Cheng, C-L., Hwang, M-Y., Lee, C-K. and Chang, H-Y. (2009) ‘Assessing the educational values of digital games’. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 25 (5) pp.423-437.

Learning and Teaching Scotland (2010) ‘About Game Based Learning: what children learn’. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/usingglowandict/gamesbasedlearning/about/understanding.asp (Accessed: 6th Oct 2015).

Loveless, A. (2003) Role of ICT. 2nd edn. London: Continuum.

Nutt, J. (2010) ‘Professional Educators and the evolving role of ICT in schools: Perspective Report’. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/our_research/evidence_for_schools/school_improvement/the_role_of_ict_in_schools.aspx (Accessed: 7th Oct 2015).

O’Hara, M. (2008) ‘Young children, learning and ICT: a case study in the UK maintained sector’. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 17 (1) pp.29-40.

Prensky, M. (2009). ‘H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom’. Innovate 5 (3) pp.1-9. [Online]. Available at: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705 (Accessed: 6 Oct 2015).

Prensky, M. (2010) Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. London: SAGE.

QCA/NAACE (2007) ‘E-Learning: What is it, why it is important and how it will develop?’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.shambles.net/elearning/publications/elearning_naace_aug07.pdf (Accessed: 6th Oct 2015).

Richardson, W. (2009) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

Selwyn, N., Potter, J. and Cranmer, S. (2010) Primary Schools and ICT: Learning from Pupil Perspectives. London: Continuum.

Sharples, M., Graber, R., Harrison, C. and Logan, K. (2009) ‘E-Safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11-16’. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning. 25 (1) pp.70-84.

Simpson, D. and Toyn, M. (2012) Primary ICT Across the Curriculum. 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

Sutherland-Smith, W., Snyder, I., and Angus, L. (2003) ‘The Digital Divide: differences in computer use between home and school in low socio-economic households’. Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 3 (1-2) pp.5-19.

Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J. and Valcke, M. (2006) ‘Curricula and the use of ICT in Education: Two Worlds Apart?’ British Journal of Educational Technology. 38 (6) pp.962-976.

Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wheeler, S. and Winter, A. (2005) ‘ICT – Winning Hearts and Minds’, in Wheeler, S. (ed.) Transforming Primary ICT. Exeter: Learning Matters, pp.7-25.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. and Ross, G. (1976) ‘The role of tutoring in problem solving’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 17 (2) pp.89-100.

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

What are the challenges to the inclusion of children with those difficulties and how can they be overcome?

Introduction

The DSM-V (APA, 2013) has recently revised the diagnosis of learning disability into a single category, specific learning disabilities (SLD), in order to emphasise the fact that children tend to experience general difficulties in academic abilities and that such difficulties are inter-related. SLD in DSM-V are classified under neurodevelopmental disorders and it is stated that a diagnosis is dependent on impairment in the child’s learning using specific academic skills such as reading, writing or arithmetic, which then disrupt further academic learning (Tannock, 2014). Typically, children are recognised as having a difficulty in certain areas of learning when they begin formal education, the difficulties can occur in different cultural groups and without interventions can persist into adulthood (Tannock, 2014). One area of difficulty experienced by children is dyslexia which occurs predominately in the domain of reading in the English language. Dyslexia mainly involves a problem when learning the correspondence between letters and sounds (Rose 2009; Snowling, 2013). Therefore the aspect of SLD to be focused on in the following essay will be dyslexia, the challenges encountered with this impairment and ways in which the challenges may be addressed.

Specific Learning Disabilities

The diagnostic criteria for SLD in the DSM-V, involves firstly an overall diagnosis of SLD and secondly the identification of specifiers. The specifiers identify the key characterisation of the disorder in the three academic domains of reading, writing and arithmetic. The diagnosis also involves a child demonstrating one of six symptoms over a 6 month period, which is persistent despite receiving any intervention strategies. Furthermore, the child’s abilities in the academic domain are below those of other children of the same age and cause disruption in academic and everyday activities (APA, 2013). In order to be diagnosed with SLD other conditions, for example, other neurological conditions or psychological issues must be excluded (APA, 2013). The key difference for a diagnosis of a learning disorder is the change from specific subtypes (reading disorder, mathematics disorder and written expressive disorder) in DSM-IV to one overarching condition (SLD) in DSM-V. One component of SLD is dyslexia, although terms such as dyslexia or dyscalculia are no longer used in the same way as they were previously in DSM-IV (Tannock, 2014).

Inclusive Education

Warnock, Norwich and Terzi (2010) define inclusive education as providing each child with an opportunity to be educated in a mainstream school. One of the central principles of inclusive education is that each child’s needs are assessed and there is flexibility to respond to their differences and individual requirements. In the UK, the aim is to educate all children with different needs in mainstream schools, including those children with SLD. The rationale behind this philosophy is that segregating children with special educational needs (SEN) from their typically developing peers does not prepare them for adult life when they will be expected to integrate into society (Fisher, Roach, and Frey, 2002). Furthermore, inclusive education aims to develop tolerance and understanding towards others and promote social cohesion (O’Gorman and Drudy, 2011). Children with SEN are defined as having ‘a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children his age’ (Department for Education and Science, DfES, 1981, p.1). Each child should be assessed by professionals to determine the level of support required which is detailed in a statement of needs (DfES, 1981).

Inclusive education should include ‘children of all backgrounds irrespective of gender, religion, class, ethnicity or any other characteristic’, thereby including children with diverse types of SEN (O’Gorman and Drudy, 2011, p.4). However, one challenge faced by all children with SEN is that they are not a homogenous group and some children do not thrive in an inclusive environment and may instead experience less stress and anxiety in a specialist school environment (Cigman, 2007). As suggested by Lewis and Norwich (2005), inclusive education is not just assimilating children with SENs into a mainstream schools; instead, the emphasis should be on ‘developing an education system in which equity is striven for and diversity is welcome’ (Lewis and Norwich, 2005, p.xi).

Dyslexia

There are a number of definitions of dyslexia, all of which include a similar theme of difficulties in reading ‘accurately and with fluency’ (Hulme and Snowling, 2009, p.37). According to Rose (2009), dyslexia is a continuum of disorders ranging from mild to severe and is not related to the IQ of an individual. Rose also supports the DSM-V perspective of SLD not being separate categories but being inter-related with other impairments in motor co-ordination, attention, working memory and organisational skills. Dyslexia, as mentioned previously is characterised by an inability to recognise a relationship between sounds, letters and words, which is known as phonological awareness (Hulme and Snowling, 2009). It is important to distinguish between children who are poor readers, as they can also demonstrate difficulties in phonological awareness. Poor readers may have difficulties because of poor pre-school literacy or perhaps if they are from families where English is not the first language used. However, children with dyslexia additionally show a core difficulty of word decoding which affects spelling and oral language skills (Snowling, 2013).

Challenges facing children with SLD and Dyslexia

There are a number of challenges that face children with SLD and although they are not a homogenous group, the issues they face can be common to all children who have SEN. First, not all children are happy in an inclusive mainstream school. Kavale and Forness (2000) report that historically, children with SEN were taught in specialist schools which had small classes and specialist teachers. There was also more differentiation between different types of SEN and therefore a more heterogeneous and individual approach to the children who had certain needs. However, it has also been argued by Kavale and Forness (2000) that there is limited evidence that specialised education is any different to inclusive education in mainstream schools in developing the academic or social skills of SEN pupils. Kerins (2014) found that many children in Ireland with mild-learning disabilities were leaving mainstream schools and transferring to specialised schools. A similar finding of children with SEN leaving mainstream schools for specialist schools is reported by Kelly, Devitt, O’Keeffe and Donovan (2014).

A further challenge that can affect many pupils with SEN is bullying by non-disabled peers, which occurred within mainstream schools and also among children in special schools, who were bullied outside of the school environment (Lewis and Norwich, 2005). The findings in Lewis and Norwich’s (2005) study are supported by Frederickson (2010), who found that children with SEN were typically not accepted, frequently rejected and tended to be the victims of bullying more often than typically developing children. In order to overcome the challenge of bullying, Frederickson (2010) found that positive and supportive peer relationships developed if the impairment was severe and obvious; often learning disorders are not obvious, particularly if they are mild SLD. It was also found that older peers were more accepting if they understood the nature of the special needs, although schools were found to be reluctant to discuss pupil’s SEN as they were concerned about labelling. Frederickson (2010) argues that positive relationships can develop between pupils with SEN and typically developing pupils if the school promotes respect and emphasises caring relationships. Norwich and Kelly (2004) investigated the views of children aged between 10 and 14 who had statements for moderate learning difficulties. It was found that the majority of mainstream children preferred to receive support away from other children, which may have been related to the very high rate of bullying reported by the children.

In examining the more specific challenges faced by children with dyslexia, these include the failure of adults, such as parents and teachers, to detect and recognise the signs that indicate the child is failing in their ability to read (Snowling, 2013). If interventions are not implemented early, the child may become frustrated and unmotivated at school, developing a low self-esteem (Snowling, 2013). There will usually be a number of difficulties in many areas of their academic life and education that can continue into adulthood. A study undertaken by Nugent (2007) examined the parental perspectives of the education of their children with dyslexia in three different educational environments in Ireland – namely, special schools, separate specialist units within schools and resources in mainstream schools. The results of the postal questionnaire indicated that parents had positive perceptions of all three areas of provision. However, there was greater support by the parents for the specialist services in special schools and units than the provision in mainstream schools.

Addressing the Challenges

The importance of early identification can be addressed by assessing pre-school children’s language skills, and early recognition of letters and the sounds of different letters (Snowling 2013). There also appears to be a genetic component to dyslexia as it is often seen in different members of the same family (Nash, Hulme, Gooch and Snowling, 2013). In their study, Nash et al. explored the literacy skills of preschool children at family risk from dyslexia in comparison to a group of typically developing children of the same age and a third group of children with other language deficits. Both groups of children at risk from language impairment showed phonological deficits and, there was an overlap for both language conditions, further supporting the more generalised classification of SLD found in the DSM-V.

Screening pre-school children is expensive and therefore it is important that teachers are able to identify when a child is failing to respond to effective teaching methods – particularly in relation to the progress of children who are the same age (Snowling, 2013). The type of teaching methods include provision for children who may be slow learners and who are provided with the opportunity to catch-up with their peers. However, Rose (2009) argues that intervention strategies that are used with poor readers or slow learners do not provide evidence of improvement in the reading ability of children with dyslexia. If a child fails to achieve a certain level with early intervention strategies they can receive additional individual support. This can be monitored as children are assessed at regular intervals during their formal education (Snowling, 2013). Rose (2009) argues that intervention strategies for children with dyslexia must be highly structured, systematic and implemented regularly so there is that constant reinforcement and the generalisation of reading skills. O’Gorman and Drudy (2011) report that the positive attitudes of teachers towards children with SEN is an important factor in the success of their education. Attitudes of teachers towards pupils with SEN tend to reflect the severity of the disorder and the role of the special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCo) is highly relevant to the successful inclusion of children with SEN in UK mainstream schools.

Conclusion

Children with learning disabilities do not tend to experience one specific learning disability. The DSM-V (APA, 2013) reflects this perspective by categorising learning difficulties as one group (SLD), which appears to be necessary because impairments often overlap and children can experience difficulties in more than one area. Snowling (2013) and Rose (2009) support the DSM-V perspective that dyslexia is a multi-faceted disorder. There are a number of challenges for children with dyslexia. If the condition is not diagnosed early when the child is young and which enables interventions to be implemented, this can have a negative effect for the future of the child. Children can experience a lack of motivation and low self -esteem which can affect their educational achievement and also have a negative affect when they are adults. Snowling (2013) therefore stresses the importance of early detection and early intervention strategies for children at risk from dyslexia, particularly if there is a family history (Nash et al. 2013).

In general, children with SLD can experiencing bullying (Lewis and Norwich, 2005; Frederickson 2010) and it has been found recently that many children with SEN have left mainstream schools in preference for specialist schools (Kelly et al. 2014; Kerins, 2014). These findings may also be related to the bullying of SEN pupils by their typically developing peers. Not all children thrive in inclusive mainstream schools, although the principles of inclusive education are to help a child achieve their full potential during their formal education and also to facilitate tolerance and an inclusive community.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Cigman, R. (2007). Included or Excluded? The Challenge of the Mainstream for some SEN Children. Oxford: Routledge.

Department for Education and Science, DfES (1981). Education Act. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, DfES

Fisher, D., Roach, V., and Frey, N. (2002). Examining the general programmatic benefits of inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(1), 63-78.

Frederickson, N.L. (2010). Bullying or befriending? Children’s responses to classmates with special needs. British Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 4-12.

Hulme, C. and Snowling, M. (2009). Developmental Disorders of Language Learning and Cognition, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kavale, K.A. and Forness, S.R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality. Remedial & Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.

Kelly, A., Devitt, C., O’Keeffe and Donovan, A.M. (2014). Challenges in implementing inclusive education in Ireland: Principle’s views of the reasons students aged 12+ are seeking enrolment to special schools. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(1), 68-81

Kerins, P. (2014). Dilemmas of difference and educational provision for pupils with mild general learning disabilities in the Republic of Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(1), 47-58.

Lewis, A. and Norwich, B. (Eds) (2005). Special Teaching for Special children? Pedagogies for Inclusion. Berkshire: Open University Press

Nash, H.M., Hulme, C., Gooch, D. and Snowling, M.J. (2013). Preschool language profiles of children at family risk of dyslexia: continuities with specific language impairment. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(9), 958-968

Norwich, B. and Kelly, N. (2004). Pupil’s views on inclusion: moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 43-65.

Nugent, M. (2007). Comparing inclusive and segregated settings for children with dyslexia – parental perspectives from Ireland. Support for Learning, 22(2), 52-59

O’Gorman, E. and Drudy, S. (2011). Professional development for teachers working in special education/inclusion in mainstream schools: the views of teachers and other stakeholders. A Research Report part-funded by the National Council for Special Education, Special Education Research Initiative, Dublin. National Council for Special Education.

Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and Teaching Children with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. London, Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).

Snowling, M.J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: a contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Education, 13(1), 7-14

Tannock, R. (2014). DSM-5 changes in diagnostic criteria for specific learning disabilities: What are the implications? International Dyslexia Association Retrieved on 3/10/2015 from: http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/sites/default/files/IDA_DSM-5%20Changes.pdf

Warnock, M., Norwich, B. and Tersi, L. (2010). Special Educational Needs: A New Look. Second Edition Continuum International Publishing Group: London

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Today there are new options for a child to get education. Gone were the days that all children are taught in a four-walled classroom. As years go by, new realizations and discoveries crop up with regards to the dissemination of knowledge. Educational techniques, methods, and strategies have been discovered after experimentations, observations, and studies made by professionals in this field.

With the advanced curriculum, new inventions and innovations to education, there is a need for an alternate way to get these across to children. In addition, the society today has evolved into producing some hindrances for a normal education; hence, parents are afraid to send their kids to a normal school. However, there are still advantages to normal schooling, meaning getting instruction for a classroom.

Home schooling ideas came at a time when the need for reforms and alternatives rose to cater to children who cannot attend a regular school for some reason. Related to distance learning, home schooling has proved to be effective for some and detrimental for knowledge acquisition for some kids. As methodologies are used for this new kind of learning, special skills for home teachers – parents – are needed to fulfil the role of the absent teacher. Home schooling is the new trend in education that is known to be beneficial to students.

Home schooling can categorically be the same as distance learning where both processes of acquiring knowledge entails the student to be situated in their homes, not in a school setting or classroom. In distance learning per se, students may be based in a library, outside the home, or any other places aside from the school or classroom. Otherwise known as home education or home learning, this system is defined as the education of children in the home by parents. History tells us that before the law on compulsory school attendance was mandated, the majority of early education happened within the family. Those who can afford to send their kids to a special school or hire private tutors or governesses experience how other people are teaching it. However, as years progressed up to the present most of the children are sent to school and get a formal education in either a public school or private educational institutions.

In developed and developing countries, home schooling is now an option for parents who do not want to send their children to school but would want them to be educated using a different way away from schools. Parents have their own personal reasons for deciding such. It could be dissatisfaction with school instructions, avoiding the chances of their kids to be bullied or hurt in school that makes parents lead their kids away from schools.

Another reason for non-attendance in school for some children is the distance of the school from their homes as in the case of some rural and mountainous areas. Correspondence schools, distance learning institutes, or umbrella schools may provide instruction in home schooling. The education board should legally approve a set of curriculum.

As aforementioned in the previous page, parent and guardians decide to educate their children home based style for many reasons rather than those already mentioned.

Parents believe children are better educated at home

For religious reasons, parents do not want to mix their children with different beliefs

Some schools have low standard environment or it is not conducive for learning,

Parents don’t want their children to be exposed to the influential (bad) characters of other people: classmates and teachers

Child has special need or disability thus curtailing or making it difficult for him to move about.

Home Schooling

Aside from those mentioned possible reasons, there are still other reasons that are beyond the control of parents or children like the location of the school and the availability of transportation.

There are a lot of misconceptions around home schooling. First, parents think that they have to be professionals like having a Ph.D. to be able to teach their children in a home school setting. There is really no mandated requirement for parents to have a formal education to be able to assist children in home schooling. However, parents or guardians must show their all-out support and willingness to go through the rigors and challenges of home schooling.

Basically, the social impact of home schooling seems to be used by the government education system to stop kids from leaving school. We all know that monetary budget will be lost to them. However, to give some benefits to the doubt, traditional classroom education still brings home some desired effects for the children. On the other hand, not all kids and parents would want home schooling for some reasons aside from academic. Financial status is a significant element to consider as well.

In the end, it is still the decision of the family, particularly the parents and the school-age child whether home schooling is a better alternative. Communication is still the best tool since parents must not force home schooling to their kids. Once pushed down their throats, children would rebel and not perform well.

Taking time to persuade and talk to children would be necessary. Listening to children’s woes and ideas would show them how much you value their education. Still, getting an education is what this is all about. No matter what kind of instruction and the manner of how it is administered, educational instruction must be present. The important thing is the willingness of the children to learn by means that would benefit them, the family, and the society as a whole.

References

Field, M., & Field, C. M. (2007). Home schooling 101: the essential handbook. Nashville, Tenn: B&H Publishing Group.

Mr. And Mrs. Mark Field are self-professed experts on home schooling after all their four children finished school that way. This book is a compilation of the basic information that parents should learn about home schooling. Furthermore, this book shares personal experiences of the couple in the home schooling system that they are recommending to parents.

Guterson, D. (1992). Family matters: why home schooling makes sense. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Guterson discusses the philosophy of home schooling and schooling rather than “how to home school”. Despite the fall back and shortcomings of home schooling, many Americans are now starting to see the benefits of this system. He provides an insightto the realities of home schooling.

Mur, C. (2003). Home schooling. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press.

http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/general/atissue.htm

Home schooling has become the newest trend in instruction. Some critics have found this type of instruction can prove detrimental to the normal education of children. Mur attempts to provide a discussion on the pros and cons of home schooling.

Rivero, L. (2008). The homeschooling option: how to decide when it’s right for your family. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rivero makes interesting insights into the world of homeschooling by identifying options for families. Homeschooling, according to the author, must be a major decision for families since it is the future of the children that are at stake. Making children help in the decision making for home schooling is essential.

Williams, M. E. (2000). Education: opposing viewpoints. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press.

http://groups.google.ca/group/axylecodgacyregiuludi/web/opposing-viewpoints-on-homeschooling

Williams facilitates a discussion on the issues and concerns with regards the prevalence of home schooling, not only in the US but globally. The writer brings the the realities of home schooling as advantages and disadvantages of this education system are presented. Moreover, Williams identifies some ideas that have made home instruction popular today.

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Describe how a being a homosexual young girl with gender identity issues can generate prejudice and inequality in schools, and their effects on students’ personal and social educational experience.

Atkinson and De Palma (2010) are among the researchers who realise that there is increasing concern about homophobia in schools. This concern extends to young children in primary school. Recognising the link between homophobic and transphobic bullying, Ofsted were prompted in April 2014 to reissue their guidance on tackling the issue in primary schools (Ofsted, 2014). While Moffat (2014) lacks research evidence to back his assertion that children as young as five need to learn about homosexual and trans-people, he convincingly identifies the need for early intervention as the key to addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in primary schools.

Being a homosexual pupil generates prejudice and inequality in schools through homophobic bullying directly against them, and this bullying is rife in primary schools. An illuminating, though worrying, study by Stonewall (2009) found that 44 percent of primary school teachers stated that children in their schools experienced homophobic bullying, name-calling or harassment. Citing a study by Rivers (2000), the teacher’s union NASUWT highlights a variety of examples of abusive homophobic prejudice experienced by lesbian and gay pupils in school, including from name-calling to physical and sexual assault. The NASUWT point to research by the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) which shows that school children can also experience gender variance, thus making them potential targets for transphobic bullying. In the Stonewall study (2009), a significant 17 percent of teachers report that ‘girls who act like boys’ are bullied. Both Stonewall and the NASUWT understand that transphobic bullying is additional to, and different from, homophobic bullying: young homosexual girls with gender identity issues suffer the two-fold risk of transphobic as well as homophobic bullying. Such bullying is likely to cause low self-esteem and the risk of self-harm and suicidal contemplation (DCSF 2007). It is unclear how this learning support will fit in the emerging revised national framework for PSHE, nor how homosexual students with gender identity issues will be included in the pupil voice which the PSHE Association (2014) rightly asserts is needed in shaping schools’ PSHE curriculum.

Homophobic and transphobic prejudice and inequality also become powerfully generated within schools as institutions. One way this happens in primary schools is through the prejudiced and unequal treatment of homosexual and gender dysphoric pupils producing a culture of negativity around being ‘gay’. In the Stonewall study (2009), three quarters of the teachers reported pupils saying ‘that’s so gay’ or ‘you’re so gay’. One of the teachers sums up the negative culture: ‘At primary level to call another child gay is currently a term of abuse’. Another way is through staff and parents abusing their power to treat homosexuality and / or gender difference with prejudice and inequality: the NASUWT stress that homophobic bullying can be perpetrated by any member of the school community. The process of institutionalised prejudice and inequality gathers momentum when fuelled by the school community’s preconceptions of ‘normal’ behaviour. The view from one of the teachers in the Stonewall study (2009) is striking:

‘People seem to be very definite in their ideas of what a ‘proper’ boy or a ‘proper’ girl should do or be interested in. It takes very little deviation from these so called norms for a person to be singled out and picked on.’

Within the school community, the family, itself an institution, is a prime agent in the generation and ‘norming’ of institutionalised prejudice and inequality. We know from researchers such as Crompton (2006) that the family plays a key role in reproducing social class and class inequalities. Family behaviour develops habitus within children unconsciously from a young age (Dumais, 2002). Bourdieu (1974) explains the experiential cycle whereby the family habitus fundamentally structures experiences in school, and the school acts as a conservative force for inequality. School staff and parents, as well as pupils, are all influenced by their families while they perpetrate, and perpetuate, prejudice and inequality in primary schools. In this oppressive environment, it is likely that the reinforcement of ‘positive social norms’ recommended for primary school PSHE (PSHE Association, 2014) will exclude or further repress young homosexual girls with gender identity issues.

Atkinson and De Palma (2010) argue that educational policy and practice need to recognise and understand the Institutional heteronormativity which lies behind individual cases of homophobia in schools. In schools with a heteronormative power structure, heterosexuality and clear male / female gender identities and roles are the only accepted norms. In her useful summary of subjectivation and performative discourse in relation to power in schools, Youdell (2011) summarises how Foucault would see this kind of repressive power as originating from the state (Foucault, 1991, cited in Youdell, 2011). This power leads to institutions, including schools, regulating their populations and subjecting them to the state’s ‘normative criteria for judgment’ (ibid). The young homosexual girl may well be subjected to the school’s prejudicial ‘norms’, and even end up subscribing to them as a mask in order to derive identity and recognition. The name-calling she suffers is potentially as destructive to her own, real identity as it is to her emotions, since in this subjection, as Youdell (2011) goes on to explain through Althusser:

We are ‘called’, and as we turn to the call we accept it, allowing ourselves to be recognized in its terms, in order to be recognized at all. In this acceptance and recognition we become a subject within the terms of the call (Althusser, 1971, cited in Youdell, 2011).

Youdell (2011) takes the subjectivation process further, showing through Butler how subjection is itself a power which makes and dominates us as named categories of subject (Butler, 1997, cited in Youdell, 2010). For Butler these categories are ‘performatives’: ‘that discursive practice that enacts or produces that which it names.’ (Butler 1993, cited by Youdell, 2011). The named category of ‘gay’ produces or generates a culture of prejudice in the school around ‘being gay’, and can be blamed for doing so: since performatives can be seen as culpable in the process of subjectivation (Youdell, 2011).

In conclusion, it seems that it is not so much the young girl’s homosexuality and gender issues which generate prejudice and inequality. Rather it is the unequal power dynamic within the state and its educational institutions, fed by prejudicial family and class norms, which give rise to unfair treatment by the whole school ‘community’ towards children who are different.

References:

Atkinson, E., De Palma, R. (2010). The Nature of Institutional Heteronormativity in Primary Schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (8): 1669-1776

Bourdieu, P. (1974). ‘The School as a Conservative Force: Scholastic and Cultural Inequalities.’ In Eccleston, J., ed, In Contemporary Research in Sociology of Education, pp 32-46 Methuen, London.

Crompton, R. (2006). Class and family. Sociological Review, 54 (4): 658-677

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2007). Homophobic Bullying. Safe to Learn : Embedding Anti Bullying Work in Schools. HMSO.

Dumais, S. (2002). Cultural capital, gender and school success: The Role of Habitus. Sociology of Education 75(1) : 44-68

Moffat, A. 2014. CHIPS Challenging Homophobia In Primary Schools Available from: http://www.ellybarnes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CHIPS-Volume-5-Oct-2014.pdf [28 December 2014]

NASUWT. Tackling homophobic bullying. NASUWT, Birmingham.

Ofsted (2014). Exploring the school’s actions to prevent and tackle homophobic and transphobic bullying. Available from: www.ellybarnes.com/primary [28 December 2014]

PSHE Association (2014). How should I Teach and How? Available from : https://www.pshe-association.org.uk/content.aspx?CategoryID=1004

Rivers, I. (2000). Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning, 15(1) 13-18

Stonewall (2009). The Teachers’ Report : Homophobic bullying in Britain’s schools. Available from : www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/the_teachers_report_1.pdf [28 December 2014]

Youdell, D. (2011). School Trouble. Identity, Power and Politics in Education. Routledge, Oxon.

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to discuss effective pedagogies in education young people in the urban environment. By pedagogies I mean those methodologies concerned with teaching and encouraging learning. I will be looking at the dominant pedagogies in place in Britain and in the USA. I will also discuss the particular significance of these in the urban environment, and how inner-city school’s needs may differ from those of more rural schools.

It is worth noting here how we may define certain areas as being ‘urban.’ Britain is, on the whole, an urban country. But in their book Urban Schooling, Leslie Bash and colleagues write that beyond using common sense definitions of ‘towns’ ‘cities’ or ‘villages,’ an urban area might be identified as one where the population is high in proportion to the geographical area, and the housing dense. Urban areas are spaces of advanced economic activity, and also are defined by government/administrative/legal criteria. (Bash et al:1985:2)

But besides stating the type of geographical area concerned, the terms ‘urban’ and ‘urban schooling’ also imply a number of social concerns. Urban neighbourhoods have come to be understood, certainly as ones which have a high proportion of ethnic minorities, often as ones where poverty and disadvantage can be found, and ones where tension and inequalities are rife. It can be seen, therefore, that a link has been made in popular public understanding, between neighbourhoods in which there are many Black/Asian/Hispanic residents, and neighbourhoods where there is poverty, disadvantage and tension.

Bash et al write that urban schools reflect inequalities and tensions, because in the city the density of population and of numerous different communities make clearly visible these issues. (Bash et al:1985:49-50) Their definition of urban schools takes it as inevitable that they would be seen in this way. Walker, on the other hand, challenges the term:

The definitional looseness with which the term urban education is used conjures up images of dysfunctional educational and social institutions, acute levels of poverty, and high degrees of underachievement. The fact that some urban communities do exhibit these characteristics does not mean that education in all urban contexts must take place within dysfunctional institutions or be characterized by high levels of underachievement. (Walker:2003:5)

For the purposes of this essay, I consider it important that I discuss effective pedegogies for educating ethnic-minority children in Britain, and for educating those from working class backgrounds, and also that I discuss the issue of schools which are deemed to be ‘failing.’ However, I do not wish to assume that all of these factors occur in conjunction with one another. Further, as stated urban areas are ones in which numerous communities exist alongside one another. Urban schools provide education for a large number of white and middle class children, and also a good number of extremely bright ones – and so any pedagogical design should hesitate to accept the typical stereotype of children who attend urban schools as being none-white, and/or poor, and/or unintelligent. It is my view that the failing of past and current pedagogies have often been that they fail to acknowledge diversity. And so I will argue that effective pedagogies would be ones which use the diversity of children within a school to lead the design of a curriculum, rather than to try and force one set curriculum in spite of the students’ diversity.

Before I go on to discuss methods of teaching and educating which are at work today, I would like to outline some history of state-provided schooling.

In 1870, Forster’s Education Act made school compulsory in Britain, for all children between the ages of 5 and 13. Although it was a legal requirement that all children attend, though, schooling was not provided free of charge. Evidently, poor families were disadvantaged by this, and although the Act ensured that children were educated after a fashion, it did little to narrow the gap between the calibre of educations received by rich and poor.

Since the 17th Century, the church had been the only provider of formal education for poor children. Church-schooling had been pioneered in London, where the population was densest and so the need for education was highly visible. At this time, critics of the move to educate the poor argued that schooling was wasted on the working class. Children from poor families, the critics said, must get used to hard work and having to pay their own way. Even champions of schooling for poor children, seemed to be preoccupied with its advantages for the upper classes. Rather than being concerned with giving poor children a more equal chance in life, education was seen as a way of maintaining social control over the poor, and to ensure that poor children adhered to the desired social norms. (Bash et al:1985:14)

Parliamentary enquiries in the mid 1800s, indicated that the poor did want their children to be educated, and that as Britain’s cities grew and grew, the churches simply could not cope with the number of children to be schooled. And so, as the result of Acts like Forster’s, the government did become more active in ensuring all young people went to school. However, in Bash et al’s opinions, the system of schooling, by which the type of schools attended and the amount of education received depended on what the parents could afford, only perpetuated a culture in which working class children and middle/upper class children were poles apart. The authors state that, in their view, the British schools of the 1900s simply taught:

The urban working class child to accept his or her position in life.

2. A belief that urban schools for the working class were generally bad schools, with unintelligent children and uncaring parents.
3. A curriculum that discouraged independence of thought, encouraged nationalism (and by implication racism) and confirmed gender stereotypes. (Bash et al:1985:16)

The field of Urban Studies saw developments in both the USA, across Europe and in Britain during the 1960’s, and this was tied closely to the rise in urban education. The book Education and the City, edited by Gerald Grace, brings together essays from both Britain and the US, based on a number of cities including London and New York.
In 1975, urban sociologist Ray Pahl wrote that in all societies, metropolitan cities can be seen as an arena in which various social and cultural conflicts are played out. These conflicts appear in terms of economic and political factors, as well as in social and cultural interactions. Gerald Grace follows this argument in stating that metropolitan education is a crucial area of discussion, as urban schools are a space in which these conflicts have become clearly visible. Working class inner city schools make visible a wide range of cultural and pedagogic conflicts and contradictions. (Grace:1984:39)

In inner London in 1980’s, around 40% of school pupils were from ethnic minorities, and one in ten pupils’ first language was not English. The HMI report on Educational Provision in the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) stated that

Significant parts of the area suffer from urban decay and some have changing populations. The ILEA is faced with a combination of problems to an extent probably unmatched elsewhere in England and Wales. (Morrell:1984:196)

Pedagogic writing has tended to be in a framework of deficit theory; the idea that urban education is deficient in various areas that might be expected of good education. (Grace:1984:39)

It would become apparent that judgements about whether a particular curriculum or a particular pedagogic approach was ‘working’ would be linked to conflicting socio-political ends and not simply to some consensual version of an educational or individual norm. (Grace:1984:40)

EDUCATION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC

When George W. Bush came to the US government, he introduced the No Child Left Behind Act, which he declared to be the cornerstone of my Administration. Speaking when the Act was passed, in January 2001, the President said,

These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America. (George W. Bush, Jan 2001)

The Act is based on four ‘pillars,’ these being:

Stronger accountability for results

More freedom for states and communities

Proven education methods

More choices for parents.

The NCLB website states, that:

Under No Child Left Behind , states are working to close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. (www.ed.gov/nclb)

Stronger Accountability for Results

Annual report cards are issued charting school’s progress; these reports are distributed freely to parents and communities. Schools whose achievements fall below standards set by the state, are required to provide extra after-school tuition, summer schools and so on, to improve student’s education. If no improvement is made in the school’s results after five years, dramatic changes are made to the way the school is run. The website does not explain what is meant by these dramatic changes.

Further, although these extra lessons are available to any pupils who wish them, the families of the pupil are required to pay for them. Only students from low income families, and in schools which have been under-performing for over three years consecutively, can gain government funding for these privileges.

More Freedom for States and Communities

The outlines given focus on flexibility in terms of allowing an individual school’s local district and state, to decide how money is spent. They may decide whether it would be more valuable to the school to hire more staff, or to provide further training for existing staff, for instance. There is no mention of increasing freedom for schools to decide on the curriculum for their pupils.

Proven Education Methods

Rigorous scientific research is used to prove certain pedagogies as effective. Children are tested annually to national standards, to ensure their ongoing effective education. But the website does not outline what these proven methods are. And, I would hesitate to assume that there are certain methods that will be effective for all young people in all communities, particularly in a society as diverse as the United States, in which one state will have an identity and culture very distinct from another.

More choices for Parents

In schools which fail to meet state standards for at least two consecutive years, parents may transfer their child to another public school within the district. This is also the case when a child has been the victim of violent crime inside school. Transport to the new school is provided by Title 1 funds.
Parents with children in failing schools would be allowed to transfer their child to a better-performing public or charter school immediately after a school is identified as failing. (www.ed.gov/nclb)

For one thing, the key phrase here is identified as failing. If a school’s performance is measured by pedagogies standardised by the entire state, if not the nation, this leaves no room for an individual parent or family to decide that a school is failing their particular child, whether or not it is meeting state requirements. Further, the statement contradicts ones made earlier, which say that in fact a child cannot be transferred until the school has been failing for at least two years. In two years of formative education in a failing school, the damage may have already been done.

Extra tuition must come from providers approved and registered by the state. What the website fails to conceal in its descriptions of these ‘advantages’ is that a parent’s ability to transfer their child to another school is considered to be a privilege rather than a basic right. And by restricting when a child can be transferred, and which providers may give children extra tuition, the government is increasing its control over education and maintaining parent’s lack of choice.

Walker has written that:

Scrutiny of recent federal and state policies, for example the school choice movement, privatization initiatives, and the federal No Child Left Behind Legislation clearly reveals a trend towards affixing the blame for educational problems on the schools themselves. ( Walker:2003:12)

In this view, she echoes the way that Bash et al described the education systems of early 20th Century Britain, and suggests that very little has changed! I believe that what is most central to these policies, is the assumption that there is one system of effective pedagogy, and one appropriate curriculum, which is correct and desirable for the entire nation. Any schools, and by extension any individual students, who find that these methods are not the most effective for them, are simply deemed to be failures.

I find similar assumptions at work on this side of the Atlantic. Tony Blair’s Labour campaign in the 1997 general education focused on ‘education, education, education’ as the key priority for the new government. The system of OFSTED inspections entails four-yearly inspections of every school in the UK, grading them on certain standards set for the entire country. Government-trained and regulated inspectors observe lessons delivered by every member of staff, and carry out audits on records kept within the school. Its aims, therefore, are to standardise the calibre of teachers in every classroom in the UK, and to increase accountability for a school’s systems of planning and administration.

In the case of a school failing its inspection, it is placed on a ‘warning’ list. The school’s management is advised on the areas in which the school is deemed to be failing. A further inspection is then made, a year later, to ensure that systems have been put in place to improve the school’s management, the teaching methods of individual members of staff, or whatever changes have been desired.

If the school continues to make no improvement, OFSTED has the power to remove members of school management, and ultimately to close schools down.

It has long been the case that a school’s achievements are judged largely on the number of passes gained in external examinations. I agree with Frances Morrell when she argues that, whilst no doubt exam grades are one valuable way in which pupil’s achievements can be objectively recognised, at the same time there are numerous other aspects of pupil’s development which cannot be tested by exam papers, and which should not be ignored. She writes that inspectors have often found that urban schools such as those in Inner London, stimulate qualities of creativity, of artistic expression, of articulateness, of initiative, co-operation and social concern among their pupils.

FORMING EFFECTIVE EDUCATION

Whilst pedagogical design for educating young people should, in theory, have individual young people themselves at its helm, I have found that education systems both past and present seem to focus more on social control and on reducing individual deviation from set social norm. The young people engaged in learning, and the methods by which they learn most effectively, seem to be secondary considerations compared to results tables and proven methods of gaining those results overall. Actual, individual young people have been lost in the midst of educational policy.

In the UK, Connexions is highly individualistic in that it offers individual students personal interviews, and schemes of consultation which take place outside of the school’s normal curriculum, and which aim to help the student find the most effective path for their own development. However, the scheme has focused almost entirely on students who are judged to be ‘underachieving,’ or in some way ‘disaffected.’ It is the resort turned to when something appears to have gone wrong. This assumes that there is one norm which all young people in school should aspire to, and that any students who do not ascribe to this are ‘underachieving.’ Rather than celebrating individuality, its systems seem to discourage it and to seek ways of minimising it; and getting the individual student back onto a more acceptable path of work or study.

Some questions that might be asked in designing ways of educating young people are,

How are young people’s identities influenced by their experiences of school?

How can young people’s own life experiences and situations be used to stimulate discussion and learning? And, similarly,

How might young people’s styles of learning, their motivations and perspectives be used to influence pedagogy?

Frances Morrell writes that education

has to proceed in the face of such social and economic disadvantage among its pupils, and in addition to this, a sensitive and flexible response has to be made to a whole range of cultural and ethnic traditions which characterise a varied and cosmopolitan school population. (Morrell:1984:196)

She argues that the practise of evaluating schools’ progress and planning their reform without taking into account their social and economic contexts, is flawed both factually and ideologically; it is clearly not only unscholarly but deliberately misleading. (Morrell:1984:196)

For her, positive discrimination is essential; schools should receive resources depending on their level of socio-economic disadvantage. She also champions parental involvement at all levels of schooling, including meetings in which school staff consult parents for their opinions, and regular newsletters to be distributed to parents. (Morrell:1984:201) She believes that greater involvement of the Manual Trade Unions in education would be greatly beneficial. As working class children may find themselves less close to the ethos of the school than their middle-class classmates, and perhaps less able to identify well with the teachers educating them, many can find that they gain a sense of lower worth that they carry with them throughout life. As they expect school to have little rewards for them, so they come to expect similar in their working lives. Morrell believes that the Trade Unions, who since their inception have worked to make the rights of working class people a visible priority, may be able to give many students a greater sense of belonging, and higher expectations of their own futures. (Morrell:1984:204)

Further, she encourages the employment of more specialist-language teachers; ones who can teach children in their own first languages; at the same time, the number of teachers of English as a second language should be increased as it is without doubt vital that all pupils do learn to be fluent in English.

Similarly, Bash et al believe that national curriculum has not reflected British society today, and has distorted history and society to a Eurocentric bias. They consider it crucial for young people to be offered options to learn Bengali, for example, or Punjabi, instead of French or German – especially if this is more useful in the community in which the student lives. They also echo Morrell in saying that children should be educated in their own first languages. To teach a child in a language they speak only secondarily is to immediately render them disadvantaged. (Bash et al:1984:101-102)

But still more essentially, in my view, pedagogy should be altered to celebrate and utilise the diversity of students in a school, rather than to battle it and try to enforce standardisation. Bash et al write that in this situation, pedagogy would need to recognise the validity of the pupils’ own experiences and use these for work, discussion and explanation. (Bash et al:1984:101)

Methods of educating young people must be open and flexible, and be prepared to change according to changes in culture and the influx of individual students in a school. To suggest that all schools and their curriculum should be standardised to one way of teaching, is in my view flawed. Ultimately, even if a curriculum is designed with good intentions, if it is conceived and delivered in a set way, it will only replace one form of domination by another. (Bash et al:1984:101)

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Challenges and Approaches
Introduction

In the modern age it is seen to be increasingly important that schools adopt inclusive education policies which support children, no matter what their individual needs (Department for Education and Skills: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999), in being able to attend their local school (Dash, 2006). Undoubtedly, there is still a good deal to be done to implement fully inclusive policies (Office for Standards in Education [Ofsted], 2004), although practitioners and educational establishments are much more aware of their responsibilities with regard to children who have special needs. The catalyst for this was the Every Child Matters initiative which emphasised the need for children to be taught skills which enabled them to remain healthy and safe, to be able to enjoy and achieve, to make an active, positive contribution and to be able to work towards being financially stable in their future lives (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2004a). This documentation, which culminated with the Children’s Act of 2004, built upon the work of the Warnock Report (1978) and the subsequent Education Acts of 1981 and 1996. These documents provided specific definitions of what it was to have ‘special needs’ and allocated responsibilities to specific bodies within local authorities for the first time. It became apparent that it was essential to provide children, and indeed families, with the skills necessary for them to be able to succeed (Knowles, 2009) which involved the removal of any/all barriers to learning (Booth et al., 2000) through the provision of integrated services (DfES, 2004b). Critical to children being able to participate fully and to experience a degree of success (Mittler, 2000), is practitioners’ of awareness of their approaches towards teaching children and the creation of positive learning environments (Corbett, 2001) which will facilitate equal opportunities for all in their classroom (Department for Education and Skills (DfES): Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1999; Disability Discrimination Act, 2001; Disability Act, 2001).

Although a good deal of progress has been made, there are still indications are that more needs to be done to facilitate the needs of individual children through personalising the curriculum for those who have special needs, particularly in the areas of literacy and key skills (Ofsted, 2004). Although it is acknowledged that all children, inclusive of those with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), must be afforded the opportunity to attend mainstream schools (Ainscow, 1997), there is a lack of recognition of the difficulties that practitioners face with regard to catering for the diverse needs of all children with whom they are faced in the classroom. This essay aims to highlight the needs and challenges of catering for those with ASD and discuss some of the strategies and approaches that are available for practitioners’ use in the classroom environment.

Definition of Terms

Autism has been described as a life-long disability which affects development which manifests in children during the first three years of their lives (Ritvo and Freeman, 1977), although for many their condition is not always immediately obvious, leading it to be referred to as a hidden disability (Rosenblatt, 2008). The root of the term is in the Greek autos or self and refers to the tendency for those who have the condition to isolate themselves from others and engage in self-centred thought processes (Volkmar and Klim, 2005). Its use was initiated by Bleuler, a Swiss psychologist, although the first descriptions of the condition were provided by Kanner (1943) and Asperger (1944). It was their opinion that the condition was present from birth, manifesting itself through characteristic problems such as difficulty with “… social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and repetitive behaviors” (Autism Speaks, 2015a, para 1; endorsed by Frith, 2003; Evans et al., 2001) for which Wing (1988) coined the term the Triad of Impairments. It was the work of Wing and Gould (1979) and Wing (1996) which was the foundation of looking at autism as a spectrum of disorders, as a result of children being found to have difficulties across a diverse range of skills including those of social interaction, communication and imagination. The publication of the DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013) saw all autism disorders being merged into”… one umbrella diagnosis of ASD… [whereas] previously, they were recognised as distinct subtypes, including autistic disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) and Asperger syndrome” (Autism Speaks, 2015a, para 1). Worth (2005) also highlights the fact that those with the condition can have an excellent rote memory, an over sensitivity to sensory stimulus, a lack of coordination and difficulties with motor development.

Challenges

One of the many challenges for ASD is its diagnosis, which necessitates the recognition of difficulties in each of the areas listed above. Worth (2005) makes the point that ASD is pervasive (it has an effect on all aspects of an individual’s life), developmental (begins in infancy and affects every area of development) and it is lifelong. Research into the condition (Szatari, 2003) indicates that there are a variety of factors which could influence it, such as specific genes (Foster, 2007; Autism Speaks, 2015a) although it is recognised that there is no one, definitive cause. Since the latter part of the last century there have been increased numbers of individuals who have been diagnosed with ASD but it is a matter of debate as to whether this is the result of a greater breadth within its classification or increased awareness and willingness on the part of medical practitioners to make an early diagnosis (Powell et al., 2000). Another challenge which those with the condition face are the misconceptions about how it can affect their lives. ASD can show itself in different ways – some have learning issues whereas others display talents and gifts which can be utilised (Sicile-Kira, 2013); talents include “… auditory memory, good ‘procedural’ memory (that is, being able to picture how to do things), visual special understanding, and visual motor co-ordination” (Siegel, 2003, p. 78). Autism Speaks (2015a) state that approximate 40% of those on the spectrum have average to above average intellectual ability, whilst others have significant issues which mean that they need to be supervised constantly. Currently, there is no medical test which can be used in order to diagnose autism, although specifically trained medical practitioners are able to conduct behavioural evaluations which are specific to autism. Typically, these are conducted with children below the age of three where children have been identified by parents and Early Years practitioners as lacking in their development. However, some individuals who have ASD are only identified later in life as a result of learning, emotional and/or social issues (Autism Speaks, 2015b).

Identification of the condition will enable practitioners to evaluate an individual’s strengths and weaknesses (Cross, 2004), ideally at as early a stage as possible. Communication is vital to the development of children, which makes the identification of issues critical (Cross, 2004) to their overall well-being. It is important that practitioners gather detailed information about specific individuals as opposed to working with generic information (Brooks et al., 2004) with regard to ASD. Schools are able to utilise standard tests such as the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) to determine children’s general skill levels and verbal ability/performance, providing them with both information and insight into the issues which each child may face (Moore-Brown, 2006;Wittemeyer et al., 2012). In addition, dynamic assessment is a useful tool in order to develop personalised learning packages and approaches which cater for the needs of specific individuals (Moore-Brown et al., 2006; Reid, 2003). These need to be planned and reviewed on a regular basis, involving practitioners, parents and the children themselves in line with the specifications laid down by the government (Department for Education, [DfE] 2012; DfE/Department of Health, 2014).

Approaches

The strategies and approaches that can be employed by educators can target specific characteristics within individuals or follow a range of options in order to address a number of issues in a fixed period, although it must be noted that there is no single accepted way to approach the issue of ASD. Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) is a method which concentrates on pupil behaviour; it can be described as “… the science in which procedures derived from the principles of behaviour are systematically applied to a meaningful degree and to demonstrate experimentally that the procedures employed were responsible for the improvement in that behaviour” (Hudson, 2003 in Ollendick and Schroeder, 2003, p. 36 paraphrasing Baer, Wolff and Risley, 1968). This psychological approach seeks to amend learning behaviour to overcome set behavioural habits (Wolpe, 1985) through observing behaviour (Bailey and Burch, 2002) and applying positive reinforcement (National Autistic Society, 2015). Another method which makes use of behaviourist principles is that of Discrete Trial Training (DTT); it utilises a structured, routine forming approach to teaching and learning which allows learners to learn desired behaviour through following a distinct pattern in order to achieve their goals, even if stages needs to be repeated or there needs to be engagement with further trials in order to consolidate learning (Luiselli et al., 2008). It is important to both of these methods that parents also interact with their children, engaging in similar reinforcement routines at home, so that they are in receipt of consistent messages at the different environments in which they spend their lives.

An interactive approach is also adopted in the ‘Play Approach’, which enhances development through play by focusing upon the improvement of thinking skills and communication using symbols, signs and gestures whilst simultaneously improving their interaction with others in a social situation (Rogers et al., 1986). A key worker is involved in building a relationship with individual children with this approach, which is similar to the way in which adults interact with children whilst utilising Communication Approaches such as the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). This particular system is designed in order to improve learners’ interaction with those around them (Bogdashina, 2005) through using cards rather than language in its initial stages to indicate what it is they wish to say. As they become more confident, they substitute the card for a verbal interaction, thus building up their confidence and competence in using language. Social stories also encourage interaction with those around them, whilst addressing social situations and conventions which learners find difficult (for example, the need to shut the door when they are using the toilet). These stories are designed to describe a situation using where, what and why sentences which provide clues as to the right responses in a given situation, while simultaneously describing the feelings and reactions of the various characters involved in the story, in order that those with ASD can appreciate different perspectives (Plimley and Bowen, 2007). These stories become increasingly complex as children gain in confidence, to the point where they engage with the writing of social stories, which further enhances their communication skills.

Social skills can also be improved as a result of schools adopting a buddy system, which allows pupils to provide help for each other at particular times of the day which can prove problematic, such as before school, break and lunch times, during group work and in PE lessons (DfE, n.d.). Children’s behaviour in these situations and their approaches to others can be directly influenced as a result of their peers and practitioners approaching them in the correct way; for example, using simple language, being encouraging, talking directly with them, using diagrams and pictures to develop communication skills and utilising some form of home/school diary to aid communication between the school and parents/carers (DfE, n.d.). Learners’ ability to act appropriately in social situations is also improved by poor behaviour being challenged, and practitioners learning to identify triggers which are the catalyst for changes in behaviour. Learners also need to be provided with a means through which they are able to control their own behaviour; for example, utilising a coloured card in order to be able to take a ‘timeout’ to calm themselves and through adopting set routines which make ASD children feel comfortable in their environment (DfE, n.d.).

Conclusion

Every person who has ASD is different and the way in which their condition manifests itself is different. This makes providing for their needs problematic for practitioners in the educational environment as a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not provide them with opportunities for a truly inclusive education. It is evident that this creates enormous challenges for everyone involved in their education in a variety of different areas – cognitive development, social development and social interaction are all key elements of children’s learning which must be addressed in a systematic and clear manner for those who are diagnosed as having ASD. This requires dedication and application from both practitioners and parents to ensure that the children’s needs are recognised in the first instance, and subsequently catered for through the careful design and implementation of strategies which will enable them to find a place within the school community and society as a whole. It is important that everyone within the school environment/community is aware of the need to accept diversity in all its forms and that they are exposed to appropriate role models to demonstrate this attitude. This begins in classrooms, where teachers can foster tolerant attitudes towards those who experience difficulties and who are deemed to be ‘different’, and through a consistent application of the interventions that have been agreed with parents/carers and local authorities.

References

Ainscow, M. (1997) ‘Towards Inclusive Schooling.’ British Journal of Special Education 24 (1), pp. 3 – 6

Autism Speaks (2015a) ‘What is Autism?’ Retrieved 2nd September 2015 from https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism

Autism Speaks (2015b) ‘How is Autism Diagnosed?’ Retrieved 2nd September 2015 from https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/diagnosis

Bailey, J. S., Burch, M. R. (2002) Research Methods in Applied Behaviour Analysis. London: Sage

Bogdashina, O. (2005) Communication Issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome – Do We Speak the Same Language? London: Jessica Kingsley

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., Shaw, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education

Brooks, V., Abbott, I., Bills, L. (2004) Preparing to Teach in Secondary Schools: A Student Teachers Guide to Professional Issues in Secondary Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press

Cross, M. (2004) Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Communication Problems: There is Always a Reason. London: Jessica Kingsley

Forster, J. (2007) ‘History of Autism.’ in Bursztyn, A. M. (Ed) The Praeger Handbook of Special Education Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing pp. 6 – 8

Dash, N. (2006) Inclusive Education for Children with Special Needs. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors Ltd

Department for Education (2012) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. London: Department for Education

Department of Education (n.d.) Autistic Spectrum Disorders: A Guide to Classroom Practice. Autism Working Group Retrieved 30th October 2014 from http://www.deni.gov.uk/asd_classroom_practice.pdf

Department for Education/Department of Health (2014) Special educational needs and disability: practice: 0 to 25 years. Statutory guidance for organisations who work with and support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. London: Department for Education/Department of Health

Department for Education and Skills (2004a) Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Schools. London: Department for Education and Skills

Department for Education and Skills (2004b) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners – Putting People at the Heart of Public Services. London: The Stationary Office

Department for Education and Skills (DfES): Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1999) The National Curriculum: Handbook for Primary Teachers in England KS1 and KS2. London: DFES/QCA

Disability Act 2001

Disability Discrimination Act 2001

Education Act 1996

Education Act 1981

Evans, J., Castle, F., Barraclough, S., Jones, G. (2001) Making a Difference: Early Interventions for Children with Autistic Spectrum. Disorders Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research

Frith, U. (1991) ‘Autistic Psychopathy in Childhood.’ in Frith, U (Ed) Autism and Asperger Syndrome Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 1 – 36

Hudson, A. (2003) ‘Applied Behavior Analysis.’ in Ollendick, T. H., Schroeder, C. S. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Clinical Child and Pediatric Psychology New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers pp. 35 – 36

Knowles, G. (2009) Ensuring Every Child Matters: A Critical Approach. London: Sage

Luiselli, J. K., Russo, D. C., Christian, W. P., Wilcynski, S. M. (2008) Effective Practices for Children With Autism: Educational and Behavioural Support Interventions that Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Moore-Brown, B., Huerta, M., Uranga-Hernandez, Y., Pena, E.D. (2006) ‘Using Dynamic Assessment to Evaluate Children with Suspected Learning Difficulties.’ Intervention in School and Clinic 41 (4), pp. 209 – 217

National Autistic Society (2015) ‘Educational Approaches.’ Retrieved 3rd September 2015 from http://www.autism.org.uk/working-with/education/professionals-in-schools/approaches-myworld.aspx

Office for Standards in Education (2004) Special Educational Needs and Disability: Towards Inclusive Schools. London: Office for Standards in Education

Plimley, L., Bowen, M. (2007) Social Skills and Autistic Spectrum Disorders. London: Paul Chapman

Powell, J. E., Edwards, A., Edwards, M., Pandit, B. S., Sungum-Paliwal, S. R., Whitehouse, W. (2000) ‘Changes in the Incidence of Childhood Autism and Other Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Pre-school Children from two Areas of the West Midlands, UK.’ Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 42, pp. 624 – 628

Reid, G. (2003) Dyslexia: A Practitioner’s Handbook (3rd Ed) Chichester: John Wiley and Sons

Ritvo, E. R., Freeman, B. J. (1977) ‘National Society for Autistic Children Definition of the Syndrome of Autism.’ Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2(4), pp. 146 – 148

Rogers, S. J., Herbison, J., Lewis, H., Pantone, J., Reis, K. (1986) ‘An approach for enhancing the symbolic, communicative and interpersonal functioning of young children with autism and severe emotional handicaps.’ Journal of the Division for Early Childhood 10, pp. 135 – 148

Rosenblatt, M. (2008)I Exist: The Message from Adults with Autism in England. London: The National Autistic Society

Siegel, B. (2003) Helping Children With Autism Learn: Treatment Approaches for Parents and Professionals: A Guide to Autistic Learning Disabilities and Finding the Right Method for Your Child’s Learning Style. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Sicile-Kira, C. (2013) Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Complete Guide. London: Random House

Szatmari, P. (2003) ‘The Causes of Autism Spectrum Disorders.’ British Medical Journal 326, pp. 173 – 174

Volkmar, F. R., Klin, A. (2005) ‘Issues in the Classification of Autism and Related Conditions.’ in Volkmar, F. R., Paul, R., Klin, A., Cohen, D. Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders (3rd Ed) New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc pp. 5 – 41

Warnock Report (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report to the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. London: HMSO

Wing, L. (1996) The Autistic Spectrum: A Guide for Parents and Professionals London: Constable

Wing, L. (1988) ‘The Continuum of Autistic Characteristics,’ in Schopler, E; Mesibov, G. B. (Eds) Diagnosis and Assessment in Autism New York: Plenum Press pp. 91 – 110

Wing, L., Gould, J. (1979) ‘Severe Impairments of Social Interaction and associated abnormalities in children: epidemiology and classification’ Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 9, 1, pp. 11 – 29

Wittemeyer, K., Charman, T., Cusack, J., Guldberg, K., Hastings, R., Howlin, P., Macnab, N., Parsons, S., Pellicano, L., Slonims, V. (2011) Educational provision and outcomes for people on the autistic spectrum. London: Autism Educational Trust

Wolpe, J. (1982) The Practice of Behaviour Therapy. (3rd Ed) New York: Pergamon

Worth, S. (2005) Autistic Spectrum Disorders. London: Continuum International Publishing Group

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Briefly outline Behaviourism. How does this theory aid in an understanding of disruptive behaviour, and what are the limitations of this approach?

Behaviourism

Behaviourism was the primary psychological paradigm of the early twentieth century and is characterised by the work of Watson (1913) and Skinner (1976). It is an approach to learning that focuses on observable and quantifiable behaviour and discounts the need to refer to mental processes (Pritchard, 2009). Knowledge is seen as a repertoire of behaviours that are largely passive, mechanical responses to environmental stimuli (Wray, 2010). In order to describe this knowledge, no reference to internal, mental processes are needed, and instead, someone is said to understand something if they possess the appropriate repertoire of behaviours.

Behaviourists believe that the aim of education is to provide learners with the appropriate repertoire of responses to specific stimuli. Information, in the form of the appropriate behaviour for a certain stimulus, is transmitted from the teacher to the learner and learning is described as “the acquisition of a new behaviour or the modification of behaviour as a result of teaching, training or tutoring” (Woollard, 2010, p. 1). Behavioural responses are reinforced through the use of an effective reinforcement schedule which breaks down material into a sequence of small tasks, consistently repeats the material, and provides positive reinforcement to correct responses (Skinner, 1976). As such, teaching methods includes techniques such as learning by rote, ‘skill and drill’, and question and answer tasks that gradually increase in difficulty, as these techniques are able to break down material into smaller pieces and allow for the consistent repetition needed for learning to take place (Wray, 2010). It is also believed that teaching should be carefully planned and systematic, regularly testing learners’ behaviours in order to monitor their progress and provide feedback on their learning (Cox, 2004).

Behaviourism as a method of teaching and learning content has received considerable criticism in recent years and has generally fallen out of favour, not least because of its disregard of what goes on within a learner’s head and its rejection of the importance of the mental processes the learner engages in (Bartlett and Burton, 2012). However, in the field of behaviour management, behaviourism is still an important influence and a number of behaviour management approaches and techniques draw from this field of psychology.

Behaviourist Behaviour Management

From a behaviourist perspective, all behaviour is considered to be a repertoire of responses to a particular stimulus. Appropriate responses can be taught and learnt through the use of an effective reinforcement schedule. Therefore, from this perspective, disruptive behaviour is considered to be an undesirable response to a set of stimuli, and children can be taught more desirable responses through the use of reinforcement. Using this basic theory, behaviourism has had considerable influence on classroom management techniques and the encouragement of appropriate behaviours in the classroom. Using a behaviourist perspective, Merrett and Wheldall (2012, p. 19) recommend using a ‘positive teaching’ approach to establish the context for appropriate classroom behaviour, characterised by the following five basic principles:

It is concerned with the observable, i.e. behaviour;
It is assumed that behaviour is learned;
Learning involves change in behaviour;
Changes in behaviour depend mainly upon consequences;
Behaviours are also governed by the contexts in which they appear.

This approach emphasises how appropriate behaviour can be taught and learned through the use of behaviourist principles. The teacher firstly identifies the behaviours that they consider to be desirable and those that are considered to be disruptive and undesirable and then communicates these rules to the learners. The teacher then rewards the learners who display the desirable behaviour, thus changing behaviour through showing the learners the positive consequences of displaying appropriate behaviour (Pritchard, 2009). Behaviour management approaches such as ‘assertive discipline’ follow a similar pattern. In this case, a series of rules are established, there are rewards for those who follow the rules and consequences for those who do not, and these rewards and consequences are consistently applied (Canter and Canter, 1992). Current government guidelines for the management of behaviour in UK schools also adopt such an approach (DfE, 2011).

Behaviourist principles can also be used to help understand disruptive behaviour once it occurs. From a behaviourist perspective, the understanding of disruptive behaviour does not require any consideration of the learner’s internal mental states or consciousness as it is believed that states such as belief, motivation, and satisfaction can be understood through an examination of the manifested behaviour (Woollard, 2010). Instead, an analysis of disruptive behaviour requires only an examination of the behaviour itself and the context in which the behaviour occurs with no reference to the learner’s mental processes. Behaviour is examined in terms of what comes either before or after the manifested behaviour using a model known as the ABC model, where:

Antecedent: what happens in the context prior to the observable behaviour;
Behaviour: describes what actually happens in observable terms;
Consequences: what happens immediately afterwards

Roffey, 2006, p. 8

It is believed that behaviour can be changed by either changing the antecedence to the behaviour or the consequences of the behaviour. Hastings and Wheldall (1996) numerate a number of advantages of this model of understanding disruptive behaviour. They suggest that it focuses the teacher’s attention on what the child actually does in the B aspect; the behaviour has to be systemically observed and recorded rather than simply labelling the behaviour under the general umbrella term of ‘disruptive’. Furthermore, the teacher’s attention is directed towards events within the classroom that s/he has influence over and thus, can change in order to effect change in the child’s behaviour. Thirdly, it is suggested that the ABC approach emphasises that the child’s behaviour takes place within a particular context and that their behaviour is both influenced by the environment and that their behaviour influences what happens next in the classroom. Finally, this approach provides links between the identification of undesirable behaviour, an explanation for why it occurs, and possible strategies for changing the behaviour.

Any attempt to change behaviour using this model should begin with the questions ‘What triggered the behaviour?’, in other words, the antecedence, and ‘How is this behaviour being reinforced?’, in other words, an examination of the consequences (Welsh Assembly, 2010). Antecedents to disruptive behaviour include both issues that the teachers can affect such as task difficulty, the learner’s engagement with the topic, the classroom seating arrangement, and their relationship with the teacher, as well as issues that the teacher has little control over, for instance the effect of the learner’s home environment on their learning. The ABC model suggests that teachers can use a number of preventative strategies to avoid disruptive behaviour by eliminating the antecedents to the unwanted behaviour, for example, the teacher can enforce rules through positive statements, they can give praise that is behaviour specific or they can change teaching to engage the interest of the learners (Gulliford and Miller, 2015).

However, despite the teacher’s best efforts, it is highly likely that some children may still display disruptive behaviour on occasions. In this case, according to behaviourism, it is important to address the consequences of the behaviour as it may be the case that the undesirable behaviour is being reinforced by the reaction the learner provokes. For example, the child may behave badly in order to gain the teacher’s attention as, for some children, any attention, even negative, is better than no attention. Every time the teacher reacts, they are reinforcing the child’s disruptive behaviour. Alternatively, the child may be behaving badly in order to secure a reaction from their peers, and again, if this reaction is gained, the behaviour is being reinforced (Wray, 2010). Therefore, behaviourism advocates teaching learners new repertoires of behaviour and then reinforcing this good behaviour. Equally important, the undesirable behaviour should not be reinforced. Thus, reinforcement is the key aspect of this stage; however, it should be noted that, according to behaviourism, punishments and sanctions are not a part of the reinforcement schedule (Gulliford and Miller, 2015). Instead, positive reinforcement should be used as it is argued that pleasant experiences are more likely to help learners make the desired connections between specific stimuli and the appropriate response to that stimuli (Wray, 2010). Positive reinforcement can be given in three instances (LaVigna, 2000): a reward can be given when a learner chooses a preferred behaviour, known as differential reinforcement of an alternative response; a reward can be given when the learner chooses not to commit the undesirable behaviour, known as a differential reinforcement of the omission of a response; finally, a reward can be given when the learner displays a lower frequency of unwanted behaviour, known as a differential reinforcement of lower rates of responding. Disruptive and undesirable behaviour should be ignored as much as possible so as not to reinforce the behaviour (Wray, 2010).

Limitations of Behaviourism

While behaviourism continues to exert an influence over behaviour management techniques in today’s schools, it has also been criticised for its limitations. Some of these criticisms derive from the incorrect application of the approach. Martella et al. (2012), for example, suggest that behaviourist approaches to dealing with disruptive behaviour such as assertive discipline are often misused in practice as teachers often neglect the praise components and move straight to the punishments. As such, bad behaviour is being reinforced through the negative attention the learners receive and good behaviour is not being reinforced.

Other criticisms focus on the limitations of the approach itself. One major criticism of behaviourism is that it does not recognise the uniqueness of the individual (Vialle et al., 2005). In the educational context, Weare (2004) suggests that behaviourist approaches to behaviour management do not work equally with all learners, and they particularly do not work for those who may find it difficult to fit in with the behavioural demands of the learning setting because of reasons such as cultural differences, learning difficulties, and their emotional state. Therefore, it is argued that behaviour management should take a more holistic approach and should consider the child’s unique personal situation, their developmental level, cultural and social background and personality and characteristics instead of focusing on rigid norms of ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ behaviour (Kay, 2006). Similarly, the behaviourist approach is also criticised for taking a simplistic approach to behaviour, largely derived from experiments on animals. Learners are considered to be passive recipients who react to various stimuli provided by the trainer, and who have little free will of their own (Wragg, 2001). This view of humans does not take into account the complex nature of human learning, and in focusing on only the observable behaviour, the learner’s cognition and thinking processes are ignored.

Furthermore, it is suggested that behaviour management techniques that focus only on behaviour and do not consider the mental processes of the individual are unable to change the learner’s cognition (Garner, 2009). This is because there is a focus on supressing bad behaviour rather than a focus on teaching learners new responses and changing long-term behaviour problems (Kearney, 2007). As such, it is suggested that behaviourist approaches have little long-term effect and do not teach learners the skills to respond to situations in more appropriate ways.

Finally, behaviourist approaches to behaviour management have been criticised for their focus on rewards and it has been suggested that such a focus can reduce a learner’s intrinsic motivation to complete tasks (Vialle et al., 2005). In other words, the learner learns not to value learning and good behaviour for its own sake, but for the extrinsic rewards they receive for behaving well and completing the tasks the teacher gives them. As such, the learner does not become a self-motivated learner, but is reliant on the approval and direction of the teacher.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the behaviourist approach suggests a basic ABC model for understanding disruptive behaviour through an examination of the antecedents and the consequences of the behaviour within the context in which it occurs. This approach also provides a number of suggestions for strategies for avoiding disruptive behaviour and dealing with it once it occurs. It would seem that behaviourism is a commonly used behaviour management approach; humans tend to use reinforcement in their general behaviour and research has shown that the vast majority of teachers use behaviourist principles in their behaviour management strategies (Wragg, 2001). However, given the limitations of this approach, it would perhaps be useful for teachers to be aware of different approaches to behaviour management so that the needs of each individual student can be met.

References

Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2012). Introduction to Education Studies, 3rd Edition. London: Sage.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1992).AssertiveDiscipline. Santa Monica: LeeCanterAssociates.

Cox, M. (2004). Children’s learning. In Nicholls, G. (Ed.). An Introduction to Teaching, 2nd Edition, pp. 38-56. London: Routledge.

DfE (Department for Education). (2011). Getting the simple things right: Charlie Taylor’s behaviour checklists. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283997/charlie_taylor_checklist.pdf. (Accessed October 1, 2015).

Garner, P. (2009). Special Educational Needs: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

Gulliford, A., & Miller, A. (2015). Managing classroom behaviour: Perspectives from psychology. In Cline, T., Gulliford, A, & Birch, S. (Eds.). Educational Psychology, 2nd Edition, pp. 223-257. London: Routledge.

Hastings, N., & Wheldall, K. (1996). Effective classroom behaviour management. In Croll, P., & Hastings, N. (Eds.). Effective Primary Teaching: Research Based Strategies, pp. 72-86. London: David Fulton.

Kay, J. (2006). Managing Behaviour in the Early Years. London: Continuum.

Kearney, A. (2007). Understanding Applied Behaviour Analysis: An introduction to ABA for parents, teachers, and other professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley.

LaVigna, G. (2000). Alternatives to Punishment. New York: Irvington.

Martella, R.C., Nelson, J.R., Marchand-Martella, N.E., & O’Reilly, M. (2012).Comprehensive Behavior Management: Individualized, classroom, and schoolwide approaches, 2nd Edition. London: Sage.

Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (2012). British teachers and the behavioural approach to teaching. In Wheldall. K. (Ed.). The Behaviourist in the Classroom, pp. 18-49. London: Routledge.

Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of Learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom, 2nd edition. London: David Fulton.

Roffey, S. (2006). Helping with Behaviour. London: Routledge.

Skinner, B.F. (1976) About Behaviourism, New York: Vintage Books.

Vialle, W., Lysaght, P., & Verenikina, I. (2005).Psychology for Educators. London: Cengage Learning.

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-178.

Weare, K. (2004). Developing the Emotionally Literate School. London: Paul Chapman.

Welsh Assembly. (2010). Practical Approaches to Behaviour Management in the Classroom. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.

Woollard, J. (2010).Psychology for the Classroom: Behaviourism. London: Routledge.

Wragg, E.C. (2001). Class Management in the Secondary School. London: Routledge.

Wray, D. (2010). Looking at learning. In Arthur, J., & Cremin, T. (Eds.). Learning to Teach in the Primary School, 2nd Edition, pp. 41-52. London: Routledge.

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Introduction

Reich (2010, p. 1) argues that economic growth leads to increased prosperity in the developed, emerging and developing world. The argument is focused on the negative effects of slow economic growth for the world and the environment. This article provides a unique perspective regarding the impact of growth on environment and approves of economic growth as an indicator of improving environmental and economic conditions of people throughout the globe. This essay provides a critique of the argument made by the writer in support of economic growth.

Critical Review of the Article

The importance of economic growth should be considered in context of the impact of growth on environment. It is observed that economic growth tends to negatively impact the environment during its initial phase but growth leads to positive outcomes over the long-term. The focus of governments is to first improve the economic well being of their citizens and as the economic conditions improve the regulatory authorities direct their attention towards improvement of the environmental conditions. This article correctly suggests that the negative impact of growth on the environment is the result of inadequate and poor implementation of international law regarding the protection of environment (Troy 2011, pp. 1-6).

The economic growth resulted in widespread damage to the environment in the developed world including the United States, Japan and the Western Europe during its initial phase; however, the introduction of strict environment regulation in these regions has improved the environmental impact of growth. The spread of education across the developed world has also raised awareness regarding the need for environmental protection and businesses have responded to consumer awareness by becoming increasingly concerned about their footprint on the environment. The consumers in developed world are not willing to purchase goods and services from businesses that fail to demonstrate corporate responsibility towards the environment. This does not imply that the negative impact of growth on the environment has reversed but there is substantial effort from the business community to develop processes and technologies that can result in a reduction in the carbon emissions produced by the business in order to support sustainable growth. Therefore, the article rightly suggests that government improve environmental laws after the population has reached a certain minimum standard of living based on economic terms (Yueh 2003, pp. 3-8).

The unprecedented economic growth over the past three decades has resulted in severe consequences for environment due to the carbon footprint of business on the surroundings. The growth of the airline industry has offered several benefits but at the expense of the environment due to the carbon emissions in the air. The airline industry is trying to reduce its carbon footprint but growth does imply increase in the demand for travel and increase in the overall emissions. This implies that, even when businesses aim to be socially responsible, growth continues to have a negative impact on the environment. Therefore, the proposition of the writer regarding the strengthening of the international law would require airlines to reimburse the damages to the environment and this process can be costly. It is also argued that economic growth automatically slows down in response to strict international law for the preservation of the environment (Kniivila 2007, pp. 23-26).

The regulatory authorities have been reluctant to adopt strict environmental legislation as this will lead to a slowdown in economic growth. The efforts to protect the environment are reduced by a slowdown in economic growth if examined in the context of the recent global financial crisis of 2008. This does not imply that the impact of business on the environment was not reduced due to a decline in economic growth over the period. This leads to the suggestion that a decline in the economic growth leads to a reduction in the damage on the environment but at the same time creates pressures that can reduce the efforts by the business community to protect the environment against their activities. It is argued that economic growth should be maintained at sustainable levels and unmonitored economic growth does not lead to benefits to the society. Therefore, the focus of the economies and business frameworks should be diverted to the adoption of growth strategies that create a sustainable environment (IMF 2011, pp. 18-26).

The critical review of the assertions made by the article and the economic literature on growth and sustainable environment lead to the suggestion that economic growth and environment tend to be competing objectives; however, the use of sustainable technologies is a step forward in the direction of reducing the impact of growth on the environment. The governments need to adopt a model of growth that offers sustainability to the environment and as suggested by the article the developed world has the resources and the capability to facilitate the protection of environment by promoting strict international laws and standards regarding the environment (ODI 2008, pp. 12-18).
A slowdown in economic growth is linked to the development of competing element between economic growth and the environment due to the reduced willingness of the middle class to contribute towards the protection of the environment through the payment of taxes. This argument mentioned in the article is conflicting as it is the wealthy capitalist and corporations that are causing damage to the environment and it is the purpose of the regulatory authorities to ensure that the burden of the taxation to support environmental rehabilitation to fall on the capitalists (United Nations 2011, pp. 33-37).

Conclusion

The critical review of the article and the literature regarding growth and environment leads to the suggestion that these are competing objectives and that it is the responsibility of the regulatory authorities to strengthen international law for the preservation of environment. The article argues that growth leads to the enabling of the government and the society to pay for the environmental needs of the country; however, this assertion fails to recognise the competing goals of growth and environment. The objective is to ensure the growth is responsible and regulatory authorities in the developed world should rely on a strong mechanism for ensuring that growth is sustainable.

Bibliography
IMF. (2011) World Economic Outlook: April 2011. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
Kniivila, M., (2007). Industrial development and economic growth: Implications for poverty reduction and income inequality. New York: United Nations.
ODI., (2008). Pro-poor growth and development. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Reich, R., (2010). Why growth is good? Huffingtonpost.com., [internet] 17 Aug. Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-growth-is-good_b_685311.html [cited 23/03/2012]
Troy, M., (2011). Working Paper: New indicators for tracking growth in real time. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
United Nations., (2011). World Economic Situation and Prospects. New York: United Nations.
Yueh, L., (2003). China’s economic growth with WTO accession: Is it sustainable? London: Royal Institute of National Affairs.

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Introduction

Following its election to power in May 2015, the British Conservative Government announced a Spending Review in which it set outs its vision for restructuring the UK economy, with the specific purpose of reducing the public deficit (Muinzer, 2015). A key announcement made in the Spending Review, and currently out for public consultation, is the proposal to make significant cuts to the solar power subsidy scheme which has been in operation for the past five years (Clark, 2015). Debate rages between detractors and supporters of the proposals of the possible economic and environmental impact of the changes. The purpose of this report is to discuss and evaluate the outcomes of the policy changes, should they be enacted from January 2016. The paper proceeds as follows. In order to understand the likely impact of the changes, it is necessary to appreciate the political, environmental and economic context in which the solar power subsidies were first initiated; thus, the opening section of the report provides an overview of, and background to the current policy framework, and a more detailed discussion of the proposed changes. Next, the economic impact of the changes is discussed, followed by an evaluation of the environmental changes. A brief conclusion summarises the paper’s key points.

An overview of the current and proposed policy framework

Support for solar power generation in the UK is comprised of two key subsidy packages – the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme and the Feed in Tariff (FiT) scheme (Kay, 2015). The Renewable Obligations scheme is a broad package of support which places a duty on the country’s licensed electricity suppliers to source a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable sources including biomass, hydroelectric, wind power, tidal power and solar power (photovoltaic cells, also known as solar PV) (Wood and Dow, 2011). The obligation was initially set at 3 per cent, rising to 15.4 per cent in 2015. The current total subsidy that is available to RO generators is estimated at some ?500 million per year up to 2037 (Knowles, 2013).

The Feed in Tariff scheme is in essence a small-scale version of the RO (Kay, 2015). It was launched in 2010 and was aimed at providing subsidies for installations of solar power generation of under 50 kilowatts (kW) at the household and firm level (Cherrington, Goodship, Longfield and Kirwan, 2013). Under the terms of the scheme, firms and householders are rewarded with a payment for every kilowatt hour (kWh) of renewable power that they generate for use on their own premises, and additional payment for unused power that can be exported back to the grid and redistributed for use elsewhere (Allan, Eromenko, Gilmartin, Kockar andMcGregor, 2015). Although, like the RO, the FiT can be used to support the generation of power from a myriad of renewable sources, solar power is the technology that dominates the scheme. According to Kay (2015, p. 38), “Solar PV accounts for 98.8% of the installations under FiT since 2010 and 84.5% of capacity”.

Generally, both schemes have been highly successful, which, paradoxically, analysts highlight as the key driver for the proposed policy changes. Grubb (2014, p. 339), for example, argues that the FiT in particular has become ‘a victim of its own success’: the solar surprise combined unimagined rates of growth with rapid cost reductions”. In 2014, the UK capacity for solar PV increased by some 81 per cent – more than double that of the previous year (Kay, 2015). However, the government has announced that it can no longer afford to subsidise solar power production. In announcing the proposals, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) stated that

“If cost control measures are not implemented or effective in ensuring that expenditure under the scheme is affordable and sustainable, government proposes that the only alternative would be to end generation tariffs for new applicants as soon as legislatively possible, which we expect to be January 2016, while keeping the export tariff as a route to market for the renewable electricity they generate” (cited in Morales, 2015, online).

It is proposed that subsidies to the solar power programme will be reduced by up to 87 per cent from January 2016 (Morales, 2015). The budget for support for assistance on renewable installations is likely to be capped at ?75 million pounds to March 2019, and end thereafter, while subsidies under the FiT programme would fall to 1.63 pence per kWh from the current value of 12.47 pence (Newbery, 2015).

The economic impact of the policy changes

Discussion on the economic impact of the policy changes has been focused on the microeconomic impact (specifically pertaining to the solar power industry itself), and the wider macroeconomic impact. At the microeconomic level, it is argued that the survival of the embryonic, yet burgeoning solar power industry would be under threat if the proposals were to become reality (MacAlister, 2015). Firstly, industry analysts are anxious of a ‘rush’ on the solar power market caused by the establishment of a target date for the cuts to the FiT scheme. Demand for solar installations are likely to surge among those seeking to get cheap installations before subsidies are removed (MacAlister, 2015). For instance, even though the policy proposals have not been confirmed or implemented, industry supplier Energy My Way is now calling on consumers to “get solar panels on your roof before 31 December 2015 to lock in the Solar Feed in Tariff for 20 years” (Eades, 2015, online). Accommodating such enormous demand in such a small amount of time can cause a drop in the quality and performance of installations, which may lead to supplier closures (Eades, 2015).

There is also the possibility of closures arising as a consequence of lowered demand for solar power installations and the job losses that may ensue (Mathieson, 2015). The lowering and removal of subsidies will make solar power less competitive relative to alternative forms of power, including both renewables and fossil fuels (Reid and Wynn, 2015). This will likely spur consumers that are considering switching to renewable energy sources to make the switch to cheaper sources, and will convince others not to make the switch at all. For instance, Mathieson (2015) points out that the current, subsidised cost of solar PV works out at around ?80 per megawatt hour (mWh), which is considerably more expensive than fossil fuels (around ?50 per mWh). Lowering, and eventually removing the subsidies will increase the real, and opportunity costs of solar power relative to fossil fuels which could kill the industry altogether. For this reason, the industry trade body, the Solar Trade Association has called for governmental support for the industry until 2020, after which it believes that it will have the capacity to operate without state support (Solar Trade Association, 2015).

However, some commentators have argued that the lowering, and eventual removal of subsidies will actually encourage greater competition in the wider clean energy sector. Newbery (2015), for example, argues that a mature, efficient clean energy sector must be self-reliant and self-sustaining and should operate without state intervention and support. He argues that a market based scheme, such as the auction scheme which characterizes the carbon market, would encourage suppliers to improve investments in technology, to innovate, to lower costs and to act more competitively. Over time, this would strengthen, rather than weaken the economic performance of the industry, and its contribution to the wider economy.

At the macroeconomic level, it has been suggested that the lowering and eventual removal of subsidies for the solar energy industry will free up public funds that can be better used elsewhere to help the government to achieve its goal of repairing public finances (Kay, 2015). In 2013, the subsidy programme cost the British taxpayer some ?650 million; the equivalent figure in 2014 was ?850 million (Morales, 2015). Under its Levy Control Framework, the government did set a spending cap of ?7.6 billion on subsidy expenditure by 2020-2021, but DECC analysis found that the number of solar farms that have so far been established is so great that the cap is expected to be exceeded by some ?1.5 billion (Clark, 2015). This money, it is argued can be used to help reduce public expenditure, or can be invested elsewhere to boost the economy (Newbery, 2015; Reid and Wynn, 2015). Furthermore, it is argued that the removal of subsidies will spur greater investment in solar power by the private sector, which is a source of more productive capital than public finds (Newbery, 2015). However, commentators have pointed out that these cost savings must be balanced against the possibility of the British government having to pay the European Union (EU) a fine for failing to achieved its legally mandated goal relating to the reduction in carbon emissions. If, as the government itself predicts, 1 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted per year (due to falling demand for solar power microgeneration installations), the government should expect to pay a fine in the region of ?610 million by 2055-2056 (Bennett, 2015).

The environmental impact of the policy changes

The British government produced its own environmental impact assessment report which outlines the likely consequences of the proposed policy changes on take up of small, medium and commercial scale solar power (Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2015). The impact assessment report highlights that the changes will likely result in a lowered capacity for small-scale renewable microgeneration. The availability of subsidies has been directly responsible for the installation of around 3.3 gigawatts of renewable power capacity over the past five years, and 83 per cent of that added capacity has come directly from solar power technology (Morales, 2015). The cutbacks to the feed in tariff payments are expected to lead to a reduction of more than 6.1 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2020-2021, with the largest drop expected to come from the solar sector (Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2015). It is envisaged that around 890,000 fewer households will decide to install solar panels over the five years after the changes come into force.

The likely environmental impact of the proposals has been widely discussed by the green lobby both in the UK, and across Europe more widely. These bodies argue that the developments are likely to have adverse knock on effects for carbon emission levels and the ability of the UK to reach its carbon emissions targets (a lowering of total carbon emissions by 2050 by 80 per cent below 1990 levels) (Bennett, 2015). This is because, as discussed earlier, the reduction and removal of subsidies amounts to an increase in the cost of solar power production relative to alternative methods of energy production, which will disincentivise households and businesses from taking up solar power microgeneration activities, and could lead to a relative increase in the use of fossil fuels (Solar Trade Association, 2015). This could cause an increase in the total level of CO2 emissions coming from within the United Kingdom’s borders. One mid-range estimate is that around 1 million more tonnes of carbon will be emitted every year (Bennett, 2015).

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the policy framework for solar power subsidies is currently out for public consultation. The consultation will end on October 23rd 2015. It is therefore not possible to state with any accuracy what the future political, economic and financial framework for solar power will look like. However, the analysis presented above suggests that the impact of a lowering and eventual removal of subsidies for solar power technology at the both the small-scale and the commercial scales is likely to be substantial. However, the economic impact could be positive or negative. The very existence of the solar industry could be under threat; alternatively, the industry could be encouraged to become more efficient and competitive. The performance of the British economy could be enhanced, but this could be mitigated by the need to compensate the EU for failing to meet carbon reduction targets. The environmental impact could also be devastating if demand for solar power installations and solar PV capacity are reduced.

References
Allan, G., Eromenko, I., Gilmartin, M., Kockar, I., & McGregor, P. (2015). The economics of distributed energy generation: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 543-556.
Bennett, P. (2015). Uk government proposes ‘hugely damaging’ solar support cuts. Online at http://www.pv-tech.org/news/uk_government_proposes_hugely_damaging_solar_support_cuts
Cherrington, R., Goodship, V., Longfield, A., & Kirwan, K. (2013). The feed-in tariff in the UK: a case study focus on domestic photovoltaic systems. Renewable Energy, 50, 421-426.
Clark, P. (2015). Renewable power subsidies to be cut back. Online at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c2258b4-3045-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html
Department for Energy and Climate Change (2015). Periodic Review of FITs 2015. IA No. DECC0196. London: Department for Energy and Climate Change
Eades, J. (2015). Drastic cuts to Feed-in Tariff. Our Advice? Rush but Don’t Trip http://www.energymyway.co.uk/news/drastic-cuts-to-feed-in-tariff-our-advice-rush-but-dont-trip/
Grubb, M. (2014). Planetary Economics. London: Routledge
Kay, A. (2015). Subsidy-free solar in the UK. Renewable Energy Focus, 16(2), 38-40.
Knowles, M. (2013). UK electricity market: financiers are holding the government over a barrel. Online at http://www.energypost.eu/uk-electricity-market-financiers-holding-government-barrel/
Morales, A. (2015). U.K. to End Small-Scale Renewables Aid in Blow to Solar. Online at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/u-k-proposes-to-end-feed-in-tariffs-for-renewable-energy
MacAlister (2015). Slashing household solar subsidies will kill off industry, government told. Online at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/27/slashing-household-solar-subsides-kill-off-industry-government-feed-in-tariff
Muinzer, T. L. (2015). To PV or Not to PV: An Analysis of the High Court’s Recent Treatment of Solar Energy. Environmental. Law Review, 17(2), 128 – 135
Newbery, D. (2015). Reforming UK energy policy to live within its means. Energy Policy Review Group Working Paper No. 1516. Cambridge University.
Reid, G., & Wynn, G. (2015). The Future of Solar Power in the United Kingdom. Energies, 8(8), 7818-7832.
Solar Trade Association (2015). The Solar Independence Plan for Britain. London: Solar Trade Association
Wood, G., & Dow, S. (2011). What lessons have been learned in reforming the Renewables Obligation? An analysis of internal and external failures in UK renewable energy policy. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2228-2244.

This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies

Introduction

This paper will examine the social welfare and economic implications of the recent 2015 referendum on Greek bailout conditions offered by the ECB and IMF, starting with and examination of the history behind the crisis, the resulting series of financial bailouts along with the conditions imposed and their economic and social welfare ramifications, and the potential irrelevancy of the recent 2015 referendum on the actual outcome of the negotiations.

The Background to the Greek Debt Crisis

The Greek debt crisis essentially started in late 2009, after economic reports about the Greek government’s current deficit and debt levels made clear that the Greek government had deliberately under-reported their current deficit and financial situation in 2008 and 2009, with the deficit at the end of 2009 estimated independently at 12.5% of Greek GDP, twice the amount reported by official Greek governmental figures during that time (Simitis, 2014). These issues were further exacerbated by the revelation that Greek sovereign debt exceeded the 91.4% of Greek GDP previously reported, and actually stood at 126.8% of total Greek GDP due to a number of debts and liabilities within the Greek public sector that had been over-looked during the previous reports issued by the Greek Ministry of Finance (Simitis, 2014). These discrepancies in reporting raised serious concerns over Greece’s ability to accurately report its current financial situation, and the resulting sovereign debt ratio of 128% of GDP raised serious questions over the government’s ability to meet its current financial obligations (Ardagna and Caselli, 2014). The results of the revelations, occurring during the aftermath of the recent global financial crisis, led to a downgrading of Standard and Poor’s credit rating of Greece to BB+, a rating which indicates a significant possibility of default on borrowing (Standard and Poor, 2015). This caused the interest rates of 5 year bonds issued by the Greek government to rise to 5.385% in November 2009, a figure 1.42% higher than the average rate of all other similar Euro-zone government bonds during that time (Simitis, 2014). This also occurred at a time where the Greek government was running a significant structural deficit, with governmental spending at 53.2% of GDP, and public revenue of only 37.8% (Ardagna and Caselli, 2014). In other words, only further borrowing would be able to sustain the current level of Greek public services, borrowing which had just became exponentially more expensive to maintain.

Given the developing crisis in the Eurozone, the European Central Bank (ECB) chose to step in and offer assisted bailouts and loans using funds appropriated from other EU member states and the IMF (Baimbridge and Whyman, 2014). To this end, the Commission, the ECB and the IMF established the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF, 2015). The EFSF issued a bailout loan of ˆ110bn in 2010 to the Greek government, which came with the condition that tight austerity measures be put into place, including a number of cuts across a broad spectrum of public services and a series of tax increases to boost governmental revenue (Ardagna and Caselli, 2014). Similar conditions were given to other recipients of bailout loans from the EFSF, including Ireland and Portugal, who as of 2014 have successfully reduced their national debt levels and current account deficit to that specified by the bailout conditions (Baimbridge and Whyman, 2014). However, the Greek government was hit with a further recession in 2011, with GDP growth contracting by 9.6% in the 4th quarter of 2010, and then a further 10.4% fall in the 1st quarter of 2011 (World Bank, 2015). The continuing economic problems faced by Greece were due to a number of factors, including a severe fall in revenue from both tourism and shipping due to the global economic crisis, two of Greece’s most important industries, and significant discrepancies between total taxes owed and total tax revenue, with total tax income in 2012 being ˆ51.99bn, against the expected ˆ110.79bn as reported by a State Audit Council report (Argitis and Nikolaidi, 2014).

These conditions meant that Greece was unable to continue to meet its financial obligations in 2012 and again faced the possibility of sovereign debt default, requiring another bailout loan to be made by the EFSF of another ˆ130bn, with additional conditions attached that required Greece to cut public spending by a total of ˆ3.3bn by the end of the year, followed by further cuts of ˆ10bn by the end of 2013, and again in 2014 (Ardagna and Caselli, 2014).

The Ramifications of the Imposed Bailout Conditions

The austerity measure conditions that were included as conditions on the two separate bailout loans to the Greek government were met with strong resistance from the Greek populace, and a number of anti-austerity demonstrations and riots occurred throughout the country in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Simitis, 2014). The public reactions to the suggested austerity measures have been suggested to be responsible for the Greek government’s delay in more fully and efficiently implementing the necessary austerity measures and tax collection reforms necessary to close the gap between public spending and revenue (IMF, 2014).

Despite the social and economic issues resulting from the Greek populace’s resistance to the bailout conditions, in 2014 the Greek economy appeared to be on the road to recovery, with improved economic performance and growth across the Eurozone driving recovery in both the tourism and shipping industries, and the achievement of a structural surplus, mainly due to a series of stringent cuts to governmental spending and public services, including the closure of the state-owned broadcasting company ERT (IMF, 2014). These improved economic conditions allowed Greece to once again issue government bonds on the private equities market since the initial bailout had been implemented, allowing the Greek government a much-needed source of finance to cover any future spending gaps, with Greek government-issued 5 year bonds being traded at interest rates of 4.95% in mid-April of 2014, at their lowest rates since the start of the 2009 debt crisis (IMF, 2014).

An early parliamentary election was called in late 2014 after the current parliament was unable to vote in a new President for the 2015-2020 term with a parliamentary majority (Ardagna and Caselli, 2014). The Syriza party, which had been highly vocal in recent years about their lack of support for the austerity conditions imposed on Greece by the IMF and ECB, won a near majority and formed a coalition with a minority right-wing party in order to have the Syriza party leader Alexis Tsipras elected to the Presidential position. Upon gaining office, Mr Tsipras stated his refusal to respect the current bailout conditions imposed by the EFSF, with the intent of renegotiating more favourable terms (Ardagna and Caselli, 2014). The ECB and IMF responded by suspending any and all aid payments to Greece until either the existing deal was upheld or a new mutually-acceptable deal was agreed upon.

The resulting uncertainty caused significant economic and social upheaval within the country; the Athens stock exchange experienced its worst loss in total value in the following week since the 2011 recession, while interest rates of Greek bonds rose sharply in the private market, eventually reaching a peak of 24.19% in early June, severely reducing the newly-established governmental ability to raise finance in the private equities market (Dellas and Tavlas, 2013). The resulting economic uncertainty caused a run on Greek banks, where customers were desperate to withdraw all their cash to protect against the risk of a banking industry collapse, which ironically severely increased the likelihood of such a collapse occurring (Mankiw and Taylor, 2014).

In response to this socio-economic panic, the government issued a series of capital control measures that restricted the current opening hours of Greek banks while only allowing daily withdrawals of ˆ60 from personal accounts either through the bank or ATM (The Economist, 2015a). The government also placed restrictions on foreign transactions and foreign currency trading, to prevent Greek investors from transferring their funds to a currently more stable currency. However, these measures only served to deepen the social welfare issues within the country, as the number of foreign imports dropped dramatically due to the restrictions placed on foreign transactions, including in a number of key areas such as medical equipment, medication, food and farming materials, leading to severe social welfare issues during the negotiation period (The Economist, 2015b).

The 2015 Referendum

After a series of negotiations with the ECB and IMF that failed to reach agreement on the conditions of a new deal, Mr Tsipras, the Greek President, called for a public referendum on the proposed conditions put forward by the ECB and IMF in the latest meetings of June 25th. The announcement was made on June 26th, with the referendum to be held on the 6th of July (The Economist, 2015c). This is an incredibly short length of time to ruminate on a complicated issue, one which could have profound effects for the social, political and economic future of one’s country. The referendum paper itself also does not contain any details on the June 25th proposals, it merely asked whether the respondent is willing to accept them or not in a straightforward Yes or No ballot (The Economist, 2015c). Mr Tsipras, who campaigned for the No vote, listed those proposals during his campaign, including a controversial suggestion to raise taxes on tourism-related income that was later retracted by the ECB on June 26th, the day Mr Tsipras called the referendum (The Economist, 2015c).

Despite the public excitement surrounding the referendum itself, it is clear that the referendum was a tool that would have failed to provide a welfare maximising outcome regardless of the result. As Arrow (1950) notes, it is impossible for a ranked-order voting system with three or more options to provide a welfare-maximising solution that satisfies three criteria of fairness; first, that each individual holds a set of ordinally-ranked preferences that do not change with the introduction of alternative options; that the final outcome should satisfy the majority of voters; and that no one individual has dictatorship power over the vote. While the referendum at first appears to be a ranked order voting system with only two options, which would negate the relevance of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, the options themselves are not clearly defined. The majority No vote of 61.3% (BBC, 2015) merely rejected a specific set of conditions which were already irrelevant and out-dated at the time of the referendum. The results did not indicate whether those voters wish to accept different conditions, or to exit the Eurozone altogether, suggesting that there were more than two reasons for choosing one of the options that voters were inherently unable to express. Thus, those who voted No while expecting it to lead to a Greek exit from the Eurozone or a rejection of all further austerity measures would be ultimately disappointed.

The referendum was also biased in terms of Arrow’s (1950) fairness criteria in one major way; there was indeed one individual with dictatorship power over the vote itself. The referendum results were merely used to gather public opinion on an out-dated bailout condition offer; the results were not legally-binding, and in the event of a Yes vote Mr Tsipras would still be free to return to the negotiating table and attempt to renegotiate further with the ECB and IMF (The Economist, 2015c). The referendum was clearly used as a means for Mr Tsipras to gain leverage during negotiations in the case of a No vote, potentially to imply that Greek voters would support withdrawing from the Eurozone altogether if necessary, though as noted those voters would end up disappointed along with the rest who voted against further austerity measures, as despite the referendum results Mr Tsipras agreed to a further ˆ86bn bailout from the EFSF on the 14th of August, with 4 main conditions to the deal: a structural surplus of 3.5% of GDP to be met by 2018; a series of pension system reforms intended to cut public sector pension spending ( a condition with serious social welfare implications for the elderly and retired); reforms to labour and product markets to increase competitiveness; and a series of banking sector reforms intended to recapitalise the private banking sector (Wearden and Fletcher, 2015).

Conclusion

The 2015 Greek Referendum bailout conditions referendum was never capable of offering a welfare-maximising solution for voters; in fact, it barely offered any social, political or economic solution at all. Voters rejected a set of conditions that had already been altered at the time of the referendum, and were subsequently presented with a new bailout deal containing further harsh austerity measures such as cuts to public pension funding. It is doubtful whether the results of the referendum actually offered Mr Tsipras additional leverage in subsequent negotiations, but it is clear the Referendum results had little impact beyond this meagre measure

References
Ardagna, S and Caselli, F (2014), ‘The Political Economy of the Greek Debt Crisis: A Tale of Two Bailouts’, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp291-323
Argitis, G and Nikolaidi, M (2014), ‘The Financial Fragility and the Crisis of the Greek Government Sector’, International Review of Applied Economics, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp273-291
Arrow, K (1950), ‘A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare’, Journal of Political Economy, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp328-346
Baimbridge, M and Whyman, P (2014), Crisis in the Eurozone: Causes, Dilemmas and Solutions, 1st Ed, London: Palgrave-MacMillan
BBC (2015), Greece debt crisis: Greek voters reject bailout offer [Online], Available; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33403665
Dellas, H and Tavlas, G (2013), ‘The gold standard, the euro, and the origins of the Greek sovereign debt crisis’, CATO Journal, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp491-520
Economist, The (2015a), How Capital Controls Work [Online], Available; http://www.economist.com/node/21656439
Economist, The (2015b), Greece’s Economy Under Banking Controls: When Banks Die [Online], Available; http://www.economist.com/node/21657000
Economist, The (2015c), How Greece’s referendum works [Online], Available; http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/07/economist-explains-2
EFSF (2015), About EFSF [Online], Available; http://www.efsf.europa.eu/about/index.htm
IMF (2014), IMF Country Report No. 14/151: Greece, New York: International Monetary Fund
Mankiw, G and Taylor, M (2014), Macroeconomics, 2nd Ed, London: W H Freeman
Simitis, C (2014), The European Debt Crisis: The Greek Case, 1st Ed, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Standard and Poor (2015), Ratings Criteria [Online], Available; https://www.standardandpoors.com/en_EU/web/guest/ratings/ratings-criteria/-/articles/criteria/governments/filter/all
Wearden, G and Fletcher, N (2015), Eurozone finance ministers agree to third Greek bailout – as it happened [Online], Available; http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/aug/14/greek-bailout-vote-and-eurozone-gdp-growth-figures-live-updates#block-55ce5ef8e4b076bafa06f640
World Bank (2015), World Development Indicators: Greece [Online], Available; http://data.worldbank.org/country/greece