MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

Letters Objectives model of curriculum development

We read with interest the article by Roger Billinge, The objectives model of curriculum development: a creaking bandwagon (Vol. 16; No. 1; March 1988). Whilst we applaud Billinge’s obvious conviction as a special educator, there are certain facts attributed to the Skills Analysis Model (SAM) which we feel require clarification.

It is true to say that SAM has suffered from “wide abuses”. Conversely, it has been the source of some dynamic and inspiring curriculum development in schoolslestablishments for people with severe learning difficulties. Billinge mercilessly attacks some of the key foundations upon which special educational practice has been built over the last decade (DES, 1975; Warnock, 1978; Wilson, 1981). At a time when special education is being asked to diversify into mainstream education and enthusiastically embrace the concepts of “integration” and “normalisation”, those foundations are of fundamental importance.

That is not to suggest complacency. Curriculum is a process, not a product. We should constantly be searching for better methods of delivery. Many teachers now employ active and interactive methods within their classrooms, but their knowledge of defining individual student goals, and their experience of implementing skills teaching at the one-to-one level, has brought them to a point of expertise where they can effectively teach a group of five or six students whilst retaining what the individual target for each child is within that group context.

Like Billinge, we would also argue that there is no teaching without learning. SAM makes no pretence about being concerned with “ideas, attitudes and values”; these are part of the whole curriculum. SAM has to do with “skills”, and the mastery of those skills. To criticise SAM for concerning itself solely with skills teaching is not a criticism; for that is what SAM is about! We found it positively reinforcing to be included in the same company as Mittler, Jeffree, McConkey, Hewson, Kiernan . . .

Teachers operating the core elements of their curriculum through a skills- based model would challenge Billinge in his claim that it underestimates teachers’ abilities. Rather, it draws upon all of their strengths; it is a demanding exercise to plan, prepare, implement, and evaluate along the lines advocated by SAM.

Similarly, SAM offers an optimum learning environment for the acquisition of new skills by people with severe learning difficulties. The author seems to have missed the point that once a SAM curriculum has been developed in a school, each pupil’s learning route through it will be different, and should be chosen on the basis of the individual’s current needs, interests, and skills levels.

SAM enables special educators to make a clear and realistic appraisal of student learning need: so clear, in fact, that in the present climate of self- advocacy it is possible for students to negotiate, with understanding, the content and structure of their individual programme plan.

Parents have found, through clearly written skills-based curricula, a basis for genuine sharing and cooperation with teachers in planning their child’s programme. Targets, if unambiguously written, can be shared in the home as well as the educational establishment. A SAM generated approach to curriculum planning produces a “consumer friendly” curriculum. Parents feel able to contribute, negotiate, and debate in territory that has traditionally been the teachers’ domain. Are we prepared to forfeit that? Try telling the parents of a student with profound and multiple learning difficulties that you are “developing his mind, emotional and social maturity, moral development, autonomy, insight, and a critical spirit.”

Finally, Billinge suggests that it is “time for SAM to mature”. Every curriculum should be subject to constant re-appraisal and monitoring. This applies equally to texts advocating curriculum development; they, too, must up-date and integrate the ever- changing educational climate into their fundamental message.

The authors of this letter have for the past four years been developing a staff training package to accompany SAM.

The current trend towards Grist- funded, whole school in-service training and staff development indicates that staff teams must address curriculum planning through corporate decision- making. SAM is endeavouring to make an appropriate response: SAM has matured.

BARRY CARPENTER’ Headteacher, Blythe School, Coleshill, Warwickshire, JILL GARDNER, Senior Educational Psychologist, Wolverhampton, GREN K N I G H T , Senior Educat ional Psychologist , Wolverhampton, JANINE MURPHY, Headteacher, Mary Elliot School, Walsall.

REFERENCES DES. Pamphlet 60: Educating the

mentally handicapped child. London: DES, 1975.

DES. Special educational n d s : Report of the Commirtet of Enquiry into the Education of Handiccappcd Children and Young People (The Wernock Report). London: HMSO, 1978.

Gardner, J . M., Murphy, J . W., Crawford, N. B. The Skills Analysis Model: an effective curriculum for children with severe learning difficufries. Kidderminster: BIMH Publications, 1983.

Wilson,M. D. TheCum’culunin S p e d Schools. London: Schools Council, 1981.

I thank Barry Carpenter and his colleagues for their applause and would respond by genuinely reciprocating. I commented on SAM, not a close relation.

Limitations of time prevent me from responding to the specific points raised. Indeed, to do so maybe unhelpful, as my intention was largely to stimulate wider debate. Further, I guess that in practice there are more points of agreement between us than disagreement.

Nevertheless, there is a difference of emphasis between SAM and my ideal model of curriculum planning! This is illustrated, in part, in Carpenter et al.3 challenge: “Try telling the parents . . . that you are developing his mind, emotional and social maturity, moral development, autonomy, insight, and a critical spirit”. Assuming that they are not implying that these things should not be developed in students with profound and multiple learning difficulties, it follows that it is the difficulty of communicating such

@ 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap 127

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 16 SEPTEMBER 1988

concepts to parents which is so challenging.

Why is it, then, that my colleagues and I choose to tell (sic) parents such things all the time? Essentially, we enter into such discussions because we believe that f u l f i i g the right of every person to an education beyond the instrumental is the task with which we are charged. Being able to communicate how, why, where, and what is an essential part of the process; not something to be tacked on at best, or avoided at worst.

There is a potential conflict of interest in a process which purports to develop “independent living” by making behaviour more predic tab le . Developing autonomy and educating a person, of whatever ability, has to be a process which ultimately a i m s to make behavioural outcomes less predictable. This end is not well served by narrow prespecification, or by focusing on skills.

There is a danger in debates such as this for points of view to become polarised. I hope that readers will avoid this tendency. If my article leads to such polarity by overstating a case, I hope this reply serves to redress the balance. If any readers would like to follow up the issues in a couple of contemporary articles (this debate is not new!) I would suggest Hewett and Nind (1988) who are exploring an alternative model in practice, and Whitaker (1988) who is looking towards an alternative model in

Purposeful curricula do not have to be behaviourist . ROGER BILLINGE, Head Teacher, Lancastrian School, Elizabeth Slinger Road, West Didsbury, Manchester M20 8XA.

theory.

New honours degree course

Readers might like to know that Norwich City College of Further and Higher Education has recently been validated by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) to offer a

completely new honours degree course for health, social service, education, and voluntary workers in the community, working with people with disabilities, dependencies, and special educational needs.

BSc (Hons) Care and Education in the Community commences in September 1988 and has been developed in response to the changing need for professionals to meet the demands of consumers of services and to work in mult i - disciplinary teams. This exciting and challenging new part-time programme will allow candidates to be credited for prior academic study and will also take account of the different working patterns of the course members.

Anyone who wishes to find out more about the course can do so by writing to me. ANNE MURDOCH, Course Leader, Norwich City College of Further and Higher Education, Ipswich Road, Norwich, Norfolk NR2 2LJ

Heart of the matter: BBC 2, 6.6.88

I started to watch this programme with interest and anticipation but turned it off in frustration. The programme was about people with an intellectual disability living in the community.

The programme was, I believe, a good idea. Programmes well researched and informed on the realities of community care are desperately needed, and in part this was achieved. Neighbours of the citizens with an intellectual disability had. the opportunity to express their views; and here I must admire one for being so honest even if I did totally disagree with the attitude. Professionals spoke conveying their theories. Joan Bakewell, interviewer, added her opinions.

However, the programme was about people with an intellectual disability living in ordinary homes (for some reason called group homes) but not one was interviewed. Why did we listen to everyone else’s theories and comments and not those of the people themselves? People with an intellectual disability, if asked and encouraged, can and will speak for themselves. Yes, some may struggle to verbalise thoughts and feelings clearly but their confidence and ability to do so will never develop if we do not provide opportunities and

encouragement. I have not yet met anyone who cannot convey personal feelings in one form or another.

People with an intellectual disability are first and foremost people with ability. They are more like the rest of us than they are different. Their basic needs are the same: to be seen first of all as people, and to be afforded the same rights and dignity as any other citizens. This the programme failed to portray. Some people will, and do, need help to take advantage of the freedom and opportunities in our society. Others are a l ready well s e t t l e d i n the i r communities. Why not interview them, and ask them how they live side by side with their neighbours?

I am al l in favour of good programmes, but it is important to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to express personal views. Professionals involved in making programmes should take and make full use of the opportunities to demonstrate their commitment and belief in equity for all people regardless of disability; and should never allow themselves to fall into the trap of speaking on behalf of others.

Ironically, what this programme did, sadly, was to c o n f i i that the social and physical environments are a greater issue to many people in our society than the abilities and disabilities of individuals. This was evident from the expectations others had of people with intellectual disabilities and what, as a result, people do a n d say based on these misconceptions.

MARION J. HURLEY, Flat 3 , l l Frederick Place, Clifton BS8 1AS

Joan Bakewell, Presenter, ‘Heart of the Matter’, replies: The views of the three people with mental handicaps at the centre of the story about neighbours were not sought for two reasons. First, none of them had the speaking skills required for answering questions; and second, because of their disability, none of them was ever aware of the protest that was made about their living next door.

Please mention Mental Handicap when answering advertisements.

128 0 1988 British Institute of Mental Handicap