MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 14 DECEMBER 1986

used as on the record cards. In addition skills once the criteria for success on the to evaluating progress on current early targets have been reached and new teaching priorities, skills that have priority programmes set? And what

different environments other than the original teaching situation? Part 2 of this paper goes on to discuss these important

already been achieved are checked half a term later , using different staff, equipment, and setting conditions, to see whether generalisation has occurred. If so, the initials CAG are inserted (Checked and Generalised). If not, additional experience of the skill is given through holding tasks (this is explained fully in Part 2 of this paper). Figure 5 shows how the evaulation sheet for BEDROOM: Dressing 1.7 in Susan’s individual file would be completed.

To conclude By the application of Assessment,

Programme Planning, Recording, and Evaluation “APRE” (Coupe, 1986) it can be ensured that individual needs are being met. But what about maintaining

about the generalisation of skills to

REFERENCES Brown, L., Branston, M.B., Hamre-

Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., Grunewald, L. A strategy for developing chronological age appropr ia t e and funct ional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. (Draft paper). Wisconsin: Univ. Wisconsin, 1978.

Coupe, J .D. Curriculum intervention model. In Coupe, J.D., Porter, J. (Eds.). The Education of Children with Severe Learning Difficulties: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice. London: Croom Helm, 1986.

DES. Special Educational Needs.

issues.

Report o f the Commit tee o f Enquiry into the Education o f Handicapped Children and Young People (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO, 1978.

Foxen, T.H., McBrien, J.A. Training staff in behavioural methods - EDY in-service course for mental h a n d i c a p p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1981.

Mel land Sch 001 Curr i cu l u m . Manchester: Melland School, 1977. (This document i s under c o n s t a n t e v a l u a t i o n a n d development.)

Melland School. Information for Parents. Manchester: Melland School, 1986.

Integration: a project involving young children with severe learning difficulties and first school children

Barry Carpenter Ann Lewis Julie Moore

SUMMARY 10 children with severe learning difficulties were

involved in an integration project with 10 6 - 7-year-old children from a local first school. The project entailed fortnightly afternoon sessions, generally held at the first school. Each session encompassed some whole group singing and language games, plus art and craft activities. The latter were highly structured and involved pairs of special and mainstream children working on cooperative tasks. The results of the project from the points of view of special and mainstream children, staff, and parents are considered. Implications, particularly those relating to organisation of integration experiences, are discussed.

Over the past decade educational debate in Britain has focused increasingly on meeting a wide range of special educational needs within mainstream classes. The Warnock Report (DES, 1978) has served as a focus for the view that all children should be educated in the least restrictive environment and the 1981 Education Act was an attempt to implement some of the Warnock recommendations.

However, Selfe (1985) has claimed that “since 1978 there has been some back-pedalling in enthusiasm (for integration)”. The apparent decrease in enthusiasm for integration may reflect a shift in the arena of debate away from a vocal minority of enthusiasts, concerned with both special and mainstream schools, and into a wider context of teachers and other educationalists without this particular main interest.

Alongside this the importance of a continuum of special educational provision and the inappropriateness of a segregation-integration dichotomy have been widely recognised. This has led to consideration, within the integration debate, of the optimum forms of partial integration for specific children with particular special educational needs. The view held by the present writers is that, for the group of children with severe learning difficulties involved in this project, a combination of segregated provision and social integration provides the best educational environment at the current time.

Given this stance, questions arise concerning the most effective way of providing this social integration. There is now much research literature, particularly from the United States, detailing the results of a range of integration projects. As has been noted elsewhere (Cave and Maddison, 1978;

BARRY CARPENTER is Head of Blythe School, Packington Lane, Coleshill, Birmingham (Warwickshire LEA), ANN LEWIS is Lecturer in Education at the University of Warwick, Westwood, Coventry, and JULIE MOORE is Head of Polesworth Nethersole’s First School, High StreR, Polesworth, Tamworth, Warwickshire.

152 @ 1986 British Institute of Mental Handicap

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 14 DECEMBER 1986

Hegarty, Pocklington, and Lucas, 1981) much of this research is methodologically weak and has yielded inconclusive findings. Several recent and more reliable studies, however, have identified common characteristics in successful programmes designed to promote such integration. These features are:

0 the benefits of structured, as opposed to free play or other unstructured, activities (Voeltz, 1982; Fenrick and Peterson, 1984);

0 the value of cooperative activities contrasted with competitive or parallel activities (Rynders, Johnson, Johnson, and Schmidt, 1980; Madden and Slavin, 1983; Johnson, Johnson, and Maryama, 1983);

0 the fact that young mainstream children showed considerable skill in regulating the complexity of t he i r social i n t e rac t ion according to the developmental level of the child with severe learning difficulties with whom they were interacting (Strain, 1983; Siegal, Cunningham, and Van der Spuy, 1985).

This paper attempts to synthesise three different perspectives on an integration project. The purpose is: firstly, to provide a framework for one approach to integration; and secondly, to give a fuller view of an integration project than usual. Too often accounts of integration are presented from only one viewpoint. These tend to be so glowing, successful, and apparently free from difficulties that practitioners who perceive limitations to integration in their own schools feel that it is not a realistic goal.

The schools involved The special school involved is an all-age school taking

pupils, from two to 19 years, who have a range of severe learning difficulties. The children come from rural and semi- rural areas within a 15 mile radius of the school.

The first school involved takes children of four to eight years. It is located in a semi-rural area and draws on a number of small, tight-knit communities. Its catchment area encompasses families from all socio-economic groups, with no one group predominating.

Aims of the project Both schools had clearly defined aims and objectives for

the children participating in the project. These were discussed and clarified by the head teachers with their own staff and with one another before the project began.

Aims of the special school:

0 for young children with severe learning difficulties to have opportunities for interaction with their mainstream peers in the hope that this will lead to a more responsible citizenship in adult life for all the children involved;

0 to develop a range of strategies for the formation of relationships;

0 to increase children’s awareness of each other’s needs, leading to both personal and social development.

Aims of the first school:

0 to provide opportunities for first school children to meet and work with chi ldren who have a multiplicity of handicaps;

0 to give first school children an insight into the needs of children with handicaps;

0 to develop awareness of the difficulties experienced by children with handicaps and to formulate methods by which they can be helped in their social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development;

0 to encourage the development of interaction between the two groups of children through play;

0 to help first school children to accept extremes of emotional behaviour that may be shown by the children with handicaps, to give them insight into a wide variety of emotions, and to help them individually to begin to understand why some behaviour is socially unacceptable;

0 to provide opportunities whereby first school children can help special school children acquire fine and gross motor skills;

0 to allow opportunities for interaction between the two groups of children in areas of communication, language, and creative activities, making use of paint, fabric, clay, paper, wood, and various other creative media.

Clearly there were, from the outset, high levels of agreement and understanding about the aims of the project between the two schools involved.

Organisation The children and relevant staff of the special school visited

the first school in June, 1984. The purpose was to assess the feasibility of developing a longer term social integration programme between the two schools. This visit went extremely well. Groups of children from both schools worked cooperatively on the story of “The Gingerbread Man”, made puppets, and had a song and singing games session in the hall.

As a result of this first visit, the two schools decided to embark on a joint project, to be undertaken on a regular basis throughout the academic year. Children from the special school would visit the first school for one afternoon every two weeks, and work with a group of children of similar age to themselves. The head teachers met again to discuss the content and organisation of the project in readiness for its commencement in the Autumn Term (1984).

In September 1984, the headteacher from the special school went to talk to the first school class about the special school children. What were the feelings and expectations of the mainstream children? How would they react if the special school children did not do as they were told? Had they met any handicapped children before? A videotape, of the special school children in a PE session with other first school children, was shown. This provoked many questions and discussions. A story, Don’t Forger Tom, (Larsen, 1974) was read to the group. This story is about a boy who is mentally

@ 1986 British Institute of Mental Handicap 153

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 14 DECEMBER 1986 - Pure Air

THE NEW MANGAR BOOSTER and

Pick up - Put Down - Pull along THE NEW MANGAR BOOSTER-TROLLEY

I L J 0 FROM HWS€ TO CAR 0 FROM BED TO BATH 0 FROM FLOOR TO CHAIR

Ideal for use at school, at Home, in the Community ------------------------------------- I WOULO LIKE A FREE BROCHURE0 A FREE OEMONSTRATIONO %

NAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADDRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manger Aids Ltd., Give a Personal Service Mangar Aids Ltd., Units 1 Et 2, Presteigne Industrial Estate, Tel: (0544) 267674. Presteigne, Powys, Wales. .

handicapped and how he begins school. It explains in simple language why Tom’s brain is different from other children’s and why he is slower to do things. Makaton and the use of signing with special school children was also discussed in principle, and the children asked to be shown a few signs which they imitated.

Creative activities were selected as the focus for the integration sessions. I t was felt that this area of the curriculum would readily adapt to the needs of both groups of children and it was agreed to pool the resources needed for each session. The class teachers from the two schools were to be responsible for alternate sessions and they liaised closely together, mainly by telephone, throughout the year. At this stage many possible problems were envisaged. For example, it was thought that one major difficulty would be classroom displays (in the first school classrooms) which might suffer damage. Another point to be considered was the open plan nature of the first school. Would the special school children wander around, or would they remain in the area? These fears proved to be groundless. Displays did not suffer and, apart from normal curiosity, the special school children remained in their area.

The special school is about nine miles from the first school. However, as it runs a mini-bus, transport did not present a problem. Deciding which first school children were going to participate in the project caused a great deal of discussion. Eventually, 10 six - seven-year-old children were selected subjectively by the headteacher and the class teacher, based on their knowledge and understanding of the children concerned. They took care to select children who were able to

communicate with and relate to other children, who were stable and confident, and who were unlikely to find it stressful or difficult to work with the special school children. The class teacher remained with the 10 children during integration sessions and her classroom auxiliary was usually also able to stay with them. The head teacher taught the remaining 22 children from the first school class in the resource room (the only spare room available).

10 special school children, aged from five to eight years, were selected to be paired with the first school pupils. Their teacher and the classroom assistant accompanied them to the first school, and the deputy head provided additional teaching support. Seven of the children had Down’s syndrome, the cause of the severe handicap of the other three was unknown.

The format for each session was the same, whether it was being led by a first school, or a special school, teacher. The teacher spent 5 - 10 minutes outlining the afternoon’s activities. Children were then allocated partners and directed to an activity. During the central 15-45 minutes the children often moved around a number of activities and worked with several different children. Finally, all the children and staff came together for 10 - 15 minutes to show and discuss what they had made and to join in singing games. Makaton signs were often used by all the children during this part of the session.

Results Observational data of interaction between the two groups

of children during the school year showed four distinct stages.

0 The first stage was characterised by first school children’s high levels of interaction with adults from the special school. The novelty of having many adults in the classroom was so stimulating that initially they forgot about the presence of the special school children.

0 The second stage involved high to moderate levels of solitary activity, often involving first school children staring at the special school children.

0 The third stage began in the second term of the project when most first school children tried to communicate with special school children using gesture. Communication related to personal needs and task-oriented help, with first school children showing how to wash hands, use a paintbrush, and where to sit for singing games.

0 The final stage emerged during the third term, when both groups of children tried to communicate verbally with one another. Many occasions were noted when the special school children’s attempts to speak to the first school children were eventually understood and acted upon.

The first school children thus changed considerably in the ways in which they worked with the special school children during the year and demonstrated an increasing sensitivity to, and understanding of, the needs of the children with severe learning difficulties. One boy, for example, who had initially been rather reticent with the special school children was, by the end of the year, defending their behaviour, on one occasion patiently explaining to a visitor, “He can do it really”.

154 0 1986 British Institute of Mental Handicap

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 14 DECEMBER 1986

The children with severe learning difficulties also seemed to derive great benefit from the project and became increasingly communicative with the first school children. The special school staff reported that they practised techniques they had seen in the first school when back at their own school. Apart from such immediate benefits it was hoped that this early groundwork would enable the children to participate later in integration projects with middle and comprehensive schools, and to live competently in an integrated adult society.

Governors of both schools were kept informed of the project and expressed strong approval. For the special school the project is only one of many integration projects being operated at all stages of mainstream education. Similarly, for the first school, this project is one of a range of activities which bring diverse groups of children into the school including, for example, children from ethnic minorities.

Parents were also very positive about the scheme. Parents of special school children stressed that they very much approved of this type of integration exercise, but were against a greater degree of integration as they felt that their children’s academic needs could not be fully met in ordinary schools. Parents of first school children reported that their children talked a great deal at home about the “special” children and looked forward to project days. No adverse comments were received. Some parents, whose children were not involved, expressed a desire for their children to participate at a future date.

Staff from both schools were enthusiastic about the project. The first school staff had an opportunity to work with children with severe learning difficulties with whom they had not previously had any contact. Gradually an acceptance of the special school children permeated throughout the first school and was not confined to the class involved in the project. The children were accepted as part of normal school routine and were not regarded as different or special in any way. The staff from the special school benefited from regular contact with the mainstream children and staff by extending their knowledge and experience of teaching non-handicapped 6 - 7-year-olds.

The project had an ongoing in-service spin-off which was far greater than had been originally envisaged. For example, the first school class teacher said that the project had increased her confidence about suitable methods and approaches to use with the least able children in her own class.

Implications Contact between school staff

Regular meetings of the staff from the two schools were difficult to arrange due to the distance between the two schools and the need to find mutually convenient times to meet. Meetings that were held proved useful, for example:

0 at one meeting, a couple of months into the project, it was agreed that integration of the two groups of children could best be facilitated by arranging activities in which they could work cooperatively in small mixed groups or pairs;

0 at another meeting problems encountered by special school staff whilst working in the mainstream environment were examined. As a result of this it was found that the host teacher had also experienced problems initially, in methods of approach and

management of children with severe learning difficulties. The frank exchange of views and ideas that then occurred helped to weld the staff from both schools into a viable team.

As discussions between the staff of the two schools was so helpful it was decided to set up an alternative form of contact to offset the problems of being unable to meet regularly. Subsequently, telephone contact was made between the host teacher and the special school teacher whenever the latter was due to lead a session. This enabled the host teacher to: obtain materials in readiness for a session which she had not planned; contribute to the session by preparing the first school children; and have ready any other appropriate visual aids or other items which had not been specified by the special school teacher. Benefits of alternating leadership of sessions

benefits : Alternating the leadership of the sessions had several

0

0

0

0

the children from both schools regarded all teachers as equal partners and made task-related enquiries to any of them; the workload was spread evenly, the teacher/ planner leading the main session, and the other teacher leading the “winding up” session when the whole class joined in singing or discussions; staff from both schools developed skills in relating to pupils from another sphere of education; it ensured a balanced approach, so that one week the style might be better suited to children with severe learning difficulties and the next it might favour first school children. (Paradoxically, this occurred through the first school teacher seeking to ensure tha t t he special school chi ldren followed instructions, and through the special school teacher aiming to hold the interest and attention of the first school pupils!)

Role conflicts between staff This issue was raised at the meeting mentioned earlier.

Special school staff naturally felt that, as guests, they should show deference to the host staff, but this jeopardised the formation of a team approach.

The problem was highlighted by the question of management and discipline: if any child (usually one from the special school) misbehaved, who should bring that child back on task?

Initially the first school teacher was unsure of her approach to inappropriate behaviour; having had no previous experience of children with severe learning difficulties. The special school teachers felt unable to use their usual techniques, such as ignoring undesired behaviours, in case these were misinterpreted by the staff and children from the first school. The problem was resolved through discussions, at which it was agreed to keep the first school teacher informed of specific approaches towards special school children’s behaviour, and to invite her to participate in them. The special school staff explained their use of the Makaton vocabulary in developing language and communication skills, and certain behavioural teaching techniques using positive and negative reinforcement. They felt the approaches might seem rather unusual to first school staff and children - for example, the immediate rewarding of

0 1986 British Institute of Mental Handicap 155

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 14 DECEMBER 1986

appropriate behaviour by strong social praise, gestures, and smiles, or the immediate punishment of inappropriate behaviour by strong vocal, gestural, and facial signals. The host teacher, however, saw the logic of these approaches and assured the special school teachers that the techniques would not alarm the first school children. The introduction and conclusion segments of subsequent sessions became opportunities to teach the host staff and children signs from the Makaton vocabulary (Walker, 1978), and a more unified approach towards the behaviour of the special school children was achieved.

The question of disciplining a first school child has been virtually unnecessary. If guidance becomes necessary, for instance, if a mainstream child has allowed his special school partner to withdraw from the task in hand, the nearest staff member from either school intervenes. This intervention usually takes the form of pointing out to the first school child that his partner has left him, and trying to make him as responsible as possible for maintaining the cooperative relationship. Selection of fitst school children

10 relatively mature children were chosen to participate in the first year of the project (September 1984 -July 1985) as it was felt that they would be the ones to benefit from working with the special school children. It is now considered that a wider range of first school children would gain from the process and for the second year (September 1985 - July 1986) a complete intellectual and social cross- section of children was chosen.

First school children who did not participate in the project were curious about the activities going on in their classroom and some felt distinctly deprived because they were not involved. It is hoped to make further changes in order to include more children. Number of adults involved

In the early sessions a relatively high number of adults were present, often giving a ratio of one adult to three children. As the year progressed, it became evident that fewer adults were necessary. By the end of the first year it was usual to have only one adult to four or five children which provided more opportunities for child/child interaction rather than childadult interaction. Visits to the special school

It was only possible to arrange one visit of the first school class to the special school in the first year of the project. This visit was very successful and allowed the first school children to gain a deeper insight into the lives of chirdren with severe learning difficulties. They were intrigued by the specialist facilities provided, especially the loft play room. Choice of activity.

The selection of one specific activity for each afternoon session proved difficult. Some activities worked less well because they were slightly too difficult for the special school children, but this is a common problem experienced by teachers in all spheres of education in planning for the children they teach. Other activities were of limited success because the first school children became so engrossed that they forgot about their partners! Sometimes special school children pursued a task when their first school partners had lost interest.

Gradually a bank of activities which require cooperation from both children in a partnership has been built up. Special

school curriculum documents have proved a valuable source for starting points for such activities. It is reassuring for the first school teacher, when selecting activities, to know that these activities have been used successfully in special schools. Thus, art activities involving wax resist, string painting, collage composition, and puppet making have been undertaken.

Concluding comments The head teachers and staff of both schools felt by the end

of the first year that, to a large extent, their initial aims had been met. They decided to continue with the integration project on very similar lines to the original format although certain changes were made in accordance with the implications discussed above.

One aim of the first school which was not met was that first school children would learn to accept extremes of behaviour . This is not to say that no problem behaviours were exhibited, but that they were controlled by the teachers. In the second year it was decided that if a special school child was showing some behaviour difficulty this would be discussed with the first school children, and their help in controlling it would be sought.

There are inherent values for all children in an integration project of this type. Opportunities for interaction are vitally important in the growth and development of all pupils. Schools, whether mainstream or special, have a responsibility to their young people for life in the wider society. This may demand extensive organisation from schools in facilitating opportunities for contact, but this project has shown that such contact can be both beneficial and manageable. There is little place for either special or mainstream schools to remain totally segregated. Each should offer to share resources and expertise for the benefit of all pupils. The project described has gone some way towards achieving this for the children and staff of the two schools involved.

Acknowledgements The cooperation and support of Blythe and Polesworth

Nethersole School staffs is duly acknowledged, especially that of Jeremy Fathers, AM Whyle, Susan Griffiths, Rosemary Privett, Alan Tompkins, Jean Yeomans, and Joan Sketchley. The support and encouragement of parents throughout has been greatly appreciated.

~

REFERENCES Cave, C., Maddison, P. A survey of recent research in special

education. Windsor: NFER, 1978. DES. Special educational needs: Report of the Committee of

Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO, 1978.

1981 Education Act. London: HMSO, 1981. Faught, K. K., Balleweg, B. J., Crow, R. J., Van der Pol, R.

A. An analysis of social behaviours among handicapped and non-handicapped pre-school children. Educ. & Train. of the Ment. Retard., 1983; 18: 3, 210-214.

Fenrick, N. J., Peterson, T. K. Developing positive changes in attitude towards moderately/severely handicapped. Educ. & Train. of the Ment. Retard., 1984; 19: 2,83-90.

Hegarty, S., Pocklington, K., Lucas, D. Educating pupils with special needs in the ordinary school. Windsor: NFERNelson, 198 1.

Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R . T. , Maryama, G. Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among

~~

156 @ 1986 British Institute of Mental Handicap

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 14 DECEMBER 1986

heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: a theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Rev. Educ. R e . , 1983; S3:1, 5-54.

Larsen, H. Doa’t Forget Tom. London: A & C Black, 1974. Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E. Effects of cooperative learning

on the social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. J. Spec. Educ., 1983; 17:2, 171- 182.

Rynders, J., Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., Schmidt, B. Producing positive interaction among Down syndrome and non-handicapped teenagers through cooperative goal

Selfe, L. Integration and the 1981 Act - a conflict of interests? Educ. Psychol. in Practice, 1985; 1:1, 14-18.

StrUctuting. Am. J. M a t . M c . , 1980; 853, 268-273.

Siegal, L. S., Cunningham, C. E., Van d u Spuy, H. 1. J. Interactions of language delayed and normal prc-school boyswith their peen. J. ChiMP5yd01. &~yChi8t. , 1985;

Strain, P. S. Identifation of social skill cumculum targets for severely handicapped children in mainstream pre-

Voeltz, L. M. Effects of structured interactions with severely

26:1, 77-83.

schools. Appl. RB. Mat. Retard., 1983; 44, 369-382.

handicapped peers on children’s attitudes. Am. I; Meni. Defic., 1982; 86:4, 380-390.

Walker, M. The Makaton Vocabulary. In Tebbs, T. (Ed.). Ways and Means. Basingstoke: Globe Education for Somerset Education Authority, 1978.

Integrating pupils with profound and multiple handicaps

in a school for children with severe learning difficulties

Carol Ouvry

SUMMARY A system of integration employed at Paddock school is

described which shows that pupils with profound and multiple handicaps can be integrated successfully in regular classes within the school in preparation for their adult life.

Introduction Integration is now in the forefront of many people’s minds.

To many parents, educationists, and others who are interested in the education system integration principally refers to the placing of children with special educational needs of varying degrees, who would formerly have been educated in special schools, in mainstream schools, together with additional resources to ensure that they benefit from the placement. There is one group of children, those with profound and multiple handicaps, who may suffer a double segregation: not only do they attend schools for children with severe learning difficulties, but they are often isolated in a special class or unit within those schools.

Although the criteria for placement in a special class varies from school to school, the number of children with profound or multiple handicaps attending a school for children with severe learning difficulties is likely to be at least 25 per cent of the total and most of these children are likely to be educated in special classes. In many schools the issue of integration has become a priority because of an increasing proportion of pupils with profound or multiple handicaps, and consequent pressure on space and staffing in the special classes. At Paddock School this situation resulted in a more coherent

and dynamic approach to integration of these pupils into the regular classes.

Paddock school is the largest school for children with severe learning difficulties in the Inner London Education Authority area. Although operating as a single school, the junior and senior buildings are some four miles apart. The department for pupils with profound and multiple handicaps is at the senior school, a comparatively new, single storey building with suitable facilities for this group. Children are placed in a special class in the department if they are unable to participate in and benefit from the regular curriculum and classroom activities. The pressure on places in the special classes became acute when all the children in out-borough residential placements were brought back into the borough, and within the catchment area of the school. As a result, integration with the regular classes, which has always been a feature of the school, developed from a somewhat ad hoc arrangement which dealt with contingencies as they arose, to a definite policy which involves all the pupils with profound and multiple handicaps.

Although the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) and the 1981 Education Act refer to all children with special educational needs, whether these be temporary or permanent and

CAROL OUVRY was, at the time of writing, an Advisory Teacher for Profoundly and Multiply Handicapped Pupils in the Inner London Education Authority, on secondment from Paddock School, ILEA.

@ 1986 British Institute of Mental Handicap 157