Remedial Education - A Review 1994 - Irish National Teachers [PDF]

An INTO Publication Price £3.00

Remedial Education A Re.vie.w

LN.T.O. Serving Education

Irish National Teachers· Organization 35, Parnell Square Dublin 1

Cumann Muinteoiri Eireann 35 Cearn6g Pharnell Baile Atha Cliath 1

Telephone: 01- 8722-533

GutMn: 01-8722-533

General Secretary Senator Joe OToole

ArdRUnai An Seanad6ir Joe OToole

CONTENTS ~()Jr~1V\T()lrcJl ••..•••••••••.••••••••.••••••••..•••••••••.••••••••••. ••••••••...••••••.•••• ~

Part I - Remedial Education 1.

Introduction .................................................................................... 1

2. The Development of the Remedial Service in Ireland ............. 4 3.

The Identification of ChildreninNeed of Remedial Intervention 8

4. The Selection of Pupils for Remedial Intervention ................. 11 5. The Self Concepts of Children with Learning Difficulties .... 16 6. Specific Learning Difficulties 6.1. General .............................................................................. 19 6.2. Dyslexia............................................................................. 19 6.3. Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome ...................................... 21 6.4. Spelling ............................................................................. 23 6.5. Numeracy ......................................................................... 25 7. Approaches to Remediation 7.1. General .............................................................................. 27 7.2. Reading Recovery ............................................................ 29 7.3. Peer Tutoring .................................................................... 30 7.4. Letterland ......................................................................... 31 7.5. Success for All .................................................................. 32 7.6. The Somerset Talking Computer Project...................... 33 7.7. The Role of Parents in Remediation: A Case for Paired Reading ....................................................................................... 34 8. A Whole School Approach to Remedial Education 8.1. The Role of the Remedial Teacher ................................. 39 8.2. Collective Responsibility in Remedial Education ....... 40

1

Part II - Results of the Survey on Remedial Teaching in National Schools 1. Introduction .................................................................................. 42 2. Remedial Service ......................................................................... 42 3.

Appointment Procedures for Remedial Teachers 3.1. Deployment Policy .......................................................... 43 3.2. Opportunity for All Teachers ......................................... 46

4.

Preservice and Inservice Education .......................................... 47

5.

Selection of Pupils for Remedial Teaching 5.1. Policy ................................................................................. 49 5.2. Screening........................................................................... 51 5.3. Tests ................................................................................... 51

6.

School Policy 6.1. General .............................................................................. 52 6.2. Intervention ...................................................................... 52 6.3. Prioritizing........................................................................ 53 6.4. Curricular Areas .............................................................. 54

7.

Structure of Intervention 7.1. WithdrawaL ...................................................................... 54 7.2. Size of Groups .................................................................. 56 7.3. Number of Children Withdrawn Per Week ................ 57 7.4. Class Organisation ......... :................................................ 57 7.5. Support Teaching ............................................................. 58

8.

Number of Pupils 8.1. Mean Attendance ............................................................ 61 8.2. Percentage of Pupils Attending Remedial Classes ..... 61 8.3. Continuous Attendance .................................................. 63 8.4. Consultation with Parents .............................................. 64

9.

Liaison between Remedial and Class Teachers 9.1. Consultation ..................................................................... 65 9.2. Advice ............................................................................... 66

11

10. Organisation 10.1. Timetabling....................................................................... 66 10.2. Planillng and Record Keeping ....................................... 67 10.3. Record Keeping ............................................................... 69 11. Resources 11.1. Funding ............................................................................. 70 11.2. Equipment and Materials ............................................... 71 11.3. Accommodation .............................................................. 72 12. Role of the Remedial Teacher 12.1. Perception of Role ........................................................... 74 12.2. Teaching Weak Pupils ..................................................... 75 12.3. Title of Teacher ................................................................. 75 12.4. Catering for Children with Special Needs ................... 76 12.5. Remedial -v- Resource Teacher ..................................... 76 12.6. Job Satisfaction ................................................................. 77 12.7. Other Duties ..................................................................... 78 13. Effectiveness of the Remedial Programme .............................. 80

Part III - Conclusion and Recommendations ...................81 Appendix A:

The Development of Remedial Education Provision in Britain and the U.S.A. ............. 97

Appendix B:

Inservice Courses in Remedial Education 102

AppendixC:

A Description of Irish Screening Tests ...... 105

AppendixD:

Profile of Schools and Respondents in INTO Survey on Remedial Education (1994) ...... 107

AppendixE:

Additional Information on the INTO Survey on Remedial Education (1994) ...... 111

AppendixF:

Additional Information on the INTO Survey on Remedial Education (1994) ...... 123

AppendixG:

Dep. ment of Education Statistics on Remedial Education ............................... 135

AppendixH:

Paired Reading ............................................. 137

Bibliography .......................................................................... 138 111

FOREWORD t seems a long time since the 1950s when the INTO found it necessary to . organise a nationwide series of seminars and meetings to convince the Department of Education and education partners of the need for remedial education in our primary schools.

I

That successful initiative led to the provision of remedial teachers since the early 1960s. It is difficult now to believe that, in those early days, some school authorities resisted the appointment of remedial teachers to their staffs on the grounds that it might reflect poorly on either pupils or teachers. The Government has recently given a most welcome commitment that all schools would have access to the remedial teaching service. Consequently, the number of remedial teachers in primary education continues to expand. It is timely, therefore, that remedial provision in Irish schools be examined

and evaluated in the context of developments in the primary education system in general. This Report is intended to initiate that process. The INTO has always stressed the importance of engaging in continuous debate on educational matters. Issues pertaining to the debate on remedial education, are discussed in Part I of the Report. Such issues include the processes of identifying and selecting pupils in need of remedial intervention, the nature of learning difficulties and the role of all teachers in devising a whole school approach to remedial education. Brief descriptions of intervention strategies, such as the Reading and Recovery programme, are also included. A random sample of remedial and class teachers were surveyed in May 1994, in order to ascertain their views on the evolving remedial service. The results of the survey are presented in Part II of the report. New challenges lie ahead in developing remedial education in Ireland. Primary teachers must embrace these challenges and ensure that we, as professionals, lead, guide and monitor the future development of the service. This report, as a definitive study on remedial education, is a further contribution from the INTO to the ongoing discourse on educational issues.

v

The Organization wishes to record its appreciation to all those responsible for the production of the Report. The Education Committee Members were involved in the compilation of the material for the Report. Our thanks must also go to the remedial teachers and to the class teachers who gave of their hme to fill in the questionnaire on remedial teaching and return it for analysis. The report would not have been completed without their support. Ms. Ruth Warren was responsible for the typesetting and layout of the final document. Ms. Mary Conroy (M.Ed.), was commissioned to contribute to Part I of the report. Her contribution is greatly appreciated. Deirbhile Nic Craith coordinated and directed the production of the report and was responsible for the preparation of the contents, designing the questionnaire, analysing the results and editing the material. Mr. John Carr, Assistant General Secretary, has the responsibility of guiding the development of INTO education policy. His input and guiding influence ensures that the concerns and views of teachers are represented in our publications.

Senator Joe O'Toole, General Secretary. November 1994.

vi

PART I REMEDIAL EDUCA TION 1.

INTRODUCTION

'l'he introduction and development of strategies to counteract learning J.. difficulties has been a feature of educational policy in Ireland since the 1960s. The formal provision of remedial education in this country, within the national school system coincided with the genesis of a more child centred philosophy of education. At first, the service developed slowly and tentatively, but the format of provision as it expanded in the late seventies and early eighties tended to reflect contemporary trends in education. In the early 1960s little attempt was made to identify the underlying causes of learning difficulties but the systematic development of basic reading skills was given priority. However, over the next two decades with the steadily increasing provision of full time trained teachers and the advent of a child centred curriculum, in a society which embraced the ideal of educational opportunity, the remedial service was made more aware of children who were not performing to their full potential. With the recent publication of the Green Paper, Education for a Changing World (Rialtas na hEireann, 1992), and the prospect of major legislation in Education, the 1990s promise to be times of even greater educational change. A shift towards the operation of market and consumer forces in education, an increasing emphasis on individual needs and the optimisation of the learning process for all pupils implies that, in an international context of new ideas and aspirations, remedial education has now to respond to a growing number of demands. According to findings from the OECD Report (1991):

"Today the typical job in an advanced industrialised society demands a level ofJunctionalliteracy and an ability to be analytical that far exceeds the demands of many jobs even ten and twenty years ago. This places a premium on the very quality of instruction offered in the schools". One prerequisite of this imminent change must lie in a clearer definition 1

of remedial education and its aims. As with many educational terms attempts to define 'remedial education" are fraught with difficulty. Many educationalists over the years have commented on the imprecise nature of this term and at present there seems to be as many definitions as there are practitioners (Gains, 1980). The problem is further compounded by the fact that remedial education is often used interchangeably with "special education" and "compensatory education". The term remedial has medical connotations and implies providing a cure for an educational illness. Semantically, it suggests an activity which rectifies a deficiency or corrects some disability or disease (Conroy, 1993). It is as though the remedial practitioner is called in only after failure or breakdown in learning has occurred and thus operates within narrow parameters of the original problem. A diagnosis of the child's disability is conducted and a programme planned which will hopefully provide a cure and an eventual return to the regular class. The medical analogy inherent in this model implies that the child has something wrong with him/her that is curable. Collins (1972), in an article entitled "The Remedial Education Hoax", attributes the blame for the child's failure on the school system and asks the pertinent question, "What sort of institution is it that makes children "ill" so it can treat them?" In his estimation, remedial education is a "propping, patching and shoring up of the old school regime", and claims that the true priority should be on prevention rather than on curative procedures. The National Association for Remedial Education (1977) in its guidelines produced a broad based definition which appealed to most interested parties. In a policy document entitled Guidelines No. 1 (1977), the following definition of remedial education appeared:

"Remedial education is a part of education which is concerned with the prevention, investigation and treatment of learning difficulties from whatever source they may emanate and which hinder the normal development of the student". This definition acknowledged the traditional elements of remedial work but proposed a policy of deliberate intervention at source, preferably early in a child's career. The introduction of the word prevention opened up a new dimension and resurrected old debates on the efficacy of withdrawal methods for brief, sporadic attacks on specific learning difficulties. 2

"From whatever source they emanate", indicates a concern with the affective and social development of the child and paved the way for a greater acknowledgement of the high correlation between learning disabilities and social and emotional disturbance. However, this acknowledgement has yet to filter through our educational system to a much greater degree and significantly alter our training methods. It would appear, therefore, that boundary lines of remedial education

have been drawn very wide. Across the whole spectrum of remedial activity a great deal has happened and is continuing to happen. The publication of the Report of the Special Education Review Committee in 1993, is a further step in the process of developing the service. What lies ahead for remedial education in the next decade is a difficult question to answer. Prevailing economic factors coupled with ·international trends and ideas will tend to dictate the course of events to some extent. However, the high calibre of our teaching profession and the range of organisational bodies involved in education will no doubt provide a formidable forum for an exchange of ideas and for the promotion of change and innovation.

3

2.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REMEDIAL SERVICE IN IRELAND

Since the establishment of the National School System in the early nineteenth century and during the first half of the twentieth century learning failure was attributed to poor teaching, poor organisation and dullness on the part of the child. It was not until 1956, that provision was made in the Rules for National Schools for the establishment of special classes to cater for "partially deaf, partially sighted and backward children, subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe". Also, in the 1950s the Department of Education sanctioned the appointment of remedial teachers to Child Guidance Clinics. As the number of children seeking this type of help increased, the need for the appointment of remedial teachers to schools was highlighted. As the economy expanded in the1960s, more money became available for education. A report on investment in Education was published in 1966, and the State defended the cost of remedial help on the basis that school failure was seen as a waste of resources. The first ex-quota remedial teacher was appointed to teach small groups in an Irish primary school in 1963. The Department of Education organised its first inservice courses to train primary teachers in remedial teaching methods in 1967, by which time there were 17 ex-quota teachers appointed. It was not until the early 1970s, however, that their numerical strength

became significant. In 1971, when the then "New Curriculum", was introduced in schools, one of its central aims was to respond to the individual needs of all children. As schools began to develop programmes of instruction to achieve this aim, the needs of pupils, who did not seem to be benefiting fully from their experience at school, were highlighted. The demand for remedial teachers grew and during the 1970s and early 1980s the number expanded to about 800. Throughout the mid and late 1980s the appointment rate declined greatly and eventually ceased. The service did not expand again until 1990.

4

,

YEARS

NUMBER OF REMEDIAL TEACHERS IN THE SYSTEM

1967/68 1975/76 1987/88 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95

17 300 800 867 947 947 1032 1133

The appointment of teachers to specialise in remedial work has constituted the main additional resource for dealing with underachievement in primary schools. During the last thirty years the remedial service has built up to its present number of 1, 133 teachers who provide a remedial service to 2,061 (approx) national schools, which have a total enrollment of 425,583 pupils. This represents 83% of the total primary population. However, approximately 36% of all primary schools, serving almost 17% of the total primary enrollment, still do not have access to the services of a remedial teacher (Department of Education 1994). Almost all of the schools are small schools, (1-6 teachers) and the great majority of them are situated in rural areas. The appointment of an additional 100 remedial teachers in September 1994 has helped to alleviate this situation. From the outset the criteria used for sanctioning remedial posts favoured larger primary schools and ignored the needs of smaller schools. Thirty years after the introduction of the remedial service the fact that so few of the smaller primary schools have a remedial service leaves the Department of Education open to a charge of blatant discrimination against those needs of pupils in rural schools. On the basis of a projected 38 pupils per remedial teacher for 10% of the 84,296 pupils in the 1,149 schools denied the service some 220 additional posts would be required. The 'Warnock Report' (HMSO 1978) concluded that on the basis of evidence from a number of surveys in England that "at anyone time about one pupil in six is likely to require some form of special education provision. "This includes all pupils with special education needs including the 1.2% who are enrolled in special schools or classes. The Special Education Review Committee (1993 Report) estimate that an average of 11-12% of pupils (three boys for every two girls) are receiving remedial education in schools where it is available. 5

The necessity for remedial provision is now recognised and the Government gave a commitment that all schools should have access to the services of a remedial teacher. However, access to a remedial service does not guarantee adequate provision according to need. The Report of the Special Education Review Committee (1993) proposes that an operational figure of 10% of each age-cohort of children be adopted for purposes of provision of additional remedial posts. This is regarded as a conservative estimate of the level of need, and is proposed for the purposes of an initial target for the provision of a remedial service to all schools. In the view of the INTO this is a gross underestimation of the total number of pupils requiring remedial assistance. In 1972, Mac Gleannain suggested that "fifty pupils is the maximum number that can be profitably treated by one remedial teacher", but more recent opinion would put the ceiling at a much lower level. Similarly, Shiel and Clark (1983) reported that the average number of their Irish sample was forty seven. (This compared rather unfavourably with an average of thirty three pupils in their sample of American remedial teachers). An INTO report published in 1984, found that the average number of pupils on the remedial teacher's personal roll at that time, was forty six. It is believed that with less than thirty five children on a remedial teacher's personal roll the teacher can provide tuition for these children on a more frequent basis and in smaller groups. This would facilitate greater individualisation of instruction and allow more time for dealing with specific learning problems. A view has also been expressed in the Review Body Report (p. 81), that assessment of a schools' remedial needs should include consideration of the number of pupils with special educational needs who may be affected by a significant disability; such assessment taking account of the degree to which other forms of teaching support are available to them. Educational provision for pupils with specific learning difficulties at primary level is made in three ways i.e. ordinary mainstream, supported mainstream and special schools. Ordinary mainstream comprises enrolment in the ordinary class with such additional support the class teacher may be in a position to provide. Supported mainstream comprises enrolment in an ordinary class with such additional support as the remedial teacher in addition to the class teacher may provide. In addition, 6

::

a small number of part time remedial schemes are funded by the Department of Education in some Child and Family Centres throughout the country for pupils for whom remedial teaching is not available in their own schools. Special school provision comprises enrolment for pupils in the 8-12 years of age range for a maximum period of two years in a special national school for pupils with specific learning difficulties. There are three such schools with a total of twenty teachers, catering for about 200 pupils with specific learning difficulties. The schools are located in Sunday's Well, Cork, Monkstown, Co. Dublin and Baggot Street, Dublin. The appointment ratio in special schools for pupils with specific learning disabilities in 12:1. (Report of the Special Education Review Committee, 1993) The Review Committee recommends that the 10th percentile on standardised tests, or its equivalent, should be the inclusion threshold for the purposes of expanding the remedial teaching service. The recommended caseload is 40 pupils, or 30 ordinary pupil equivalents. Pupils with remedial needs would be weighted at 0.75, i.e. a caseload of 40 pupils, while pupils with special needs would be weighted between 2 and 5 depending on the nature of the disability. Recognising that teachers working in clusters of schools spend some of their time travelling, the Review Committee recommends that the suggested caseload of forty pupils be reduced by 2 for each school which is additional to the base school, subject to a maximum reduction of eight pupils. However, it must be argued that a caseload of 38 pupils per teacher is excessive in situations where teachers are serving a cluster of more than two schools. In order to provide a service to the maximum numbers of schools, remedial teachers are often requested to work with large clusters of schools, (up to ten schools in one case) where the regularity and continuity of the service provided must be open to question. By allocating the remedial teachers over a wide geographical area covering a large number of schools, the Department of Education can claim to offer a comprehensive remedial service to schools. (See Appendix A for information on the Development of the Remedial Service in Britain and in the USA)

7

3.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF REMEDIAL INTERVENTION

Educational thinking has changed somewhat over the past two decades in relation to the identification of pupils with learning difficulties. Remedial education has traditionally concerned itself with the underachievement of children in the basic skills areas, usually with children of low ability as measured by IQ tests. This deficit model i.e. comparing pupils' test results with their achievement, evolved over the years as a type of 'rule of thumb' method of selection but current thinking in educational spheres tend to reject it on the basis that tests are but crude measurement instruments. Sampson (1975) declared that IQ testing is not a measure of capacity at all, but that it is a measure of achievement. Today there is a growing awareness amongst psychologists and educationalists alike of the need to develop forms of assessment alternative to the standardised psychological tests. Basic to these alternative approaches is the concept of criterion referenced measurement according to which the individual's ability to attain a specific goal is the point of interest and not how he/she compares with other individuals in reaching that goal. An approach that aims to reject norm-referenced functioning in favour of examining individual learning strengths and weaknesses, in juxtaposition with the requirements of school based learning and the possible contribution of schools towards children's development, is one which embodies the twin aspirations of optirnising potential as well as preventing problems. The National Association of Remedial Education (1979) endeavoured to incorporate the preventive aspiration into its general aims by defining remedial education "as that part of education concerned with the prevention, investigation and treatment of learning difficulties." As failure operates on a cumulative basis it is imperative that early detection and prevention of learning difficulties should be a priority in every school's assessment procedure.

"Early detection of educational failure is of greatest importance in the development of each child, since once he has begun to falter and is allowed to continue struggling unaided, he is less and less likely to make sound progress ".(Bullock Report, 1975. p.245)

8

"

The identification of children with learning difficulties is by no means a simple process, because the most comprehensive picture of a child's needs is only obtained by employing a combination of techniques rather than a single technique (Mann, 1988). Screening is one procedure recommended by many educationalists (Gulliford, 1976, Schroots, 1976, Wolfendale, 1976) as a method of identifying children who at present, encounter learning difficulties or who may do so in the future. In the light of this interpretation, screening is a preventive procedure leading to workable remedial recommendations. Tansley and Panckhurst (1981), state that the assessment involved should be both functional and prescriptive and, therefore, must be followed by some form of intervention. Testing of children enables the teacher to assess the child's present level of ability through employing both observation techniques and standardised instruments. The aim is to investigate why the child is not learning, to collate and interpret data, formulate a diagnostic hypothesis and then develop an individualised plan of instruction. The diagnosis must be comprehensive and continuous, and be revised and modified as more know ledge of the child is acquired through teaching and as the child changes through the learning process. The significance of a systematic assessment procedure is strongly recommended in the Guidelines on Remedial Education (1988):

"Observation and recording of pupils' progress are not new to teachers but to identify and prevent learning problems at an early stage, a more systematic procedure is required than is commonly used. Therefore, a greater emphasis should be placed on screening and testing at an early stage in the child's education." (Department of Education 1988 p.19) Statistics from the Lynch and O'Sullivan study into Remedial Teaching in Ireland (1982), revealed that the average number of pupils attending remedial classes from first, second and third standards was considerably higher than from senior standards. However, the same study found that the average number attending from infant grades was only marginally higher than the average number attending from fifth and sixth standards. Current educational thinking strongly favours early intervention on the premise that "... the earlier the intervention the less the likelihood of children 9

experiencing failure and the greater the possibility of a reduction in numbers needing attention later on" (INTO 1984). With the current trend of identifying children at the earliest possible juncture, educationalists consider six years of age to be the optimum time for intervention. This would coincide with the average Irish child's second year of schooling. Similarly, the Department of Education, in its published guidelines, advocates positive discrimination in favour of infant and junior classes when catering for children with learning difficulties.

Research suggests that if the remediation of learning problems does not take place in the first few years of a child's school life it is largely ineffective (Kennedy 1986) so it is recommended that intervention should take place in junior schools. It appears that programmes which provide one to one tutoring in junior schools provide a reliable means of abolishing illiteracy among children who are at risk of school failure. In recent years there has also been considerable investigation into what

constitutes the optimum duration of remedial intervention. In the Guidelines on Remedial Education, it states that "it is arguable that if the remedial withdrawal programme in a school is to do anything significant for a pupil with learning problems it should have made its contribution after two or three years". (p.26) Many schools, however, have adopted a policy of discontinuing the withdrawal programme at the end of fourth class in order to give the pupils involved the opportunity to complete their primary education fully rehabilitated in their regular classes. In some schools, a system is in operation whereby, at the commencement of a remedial programme all parties involved i.e. teachers, pupils and parents set a target date for the commencement of long term objectives which is subject to alteration if the need arises.

10

a

4.

THE SELECTION OF PUPILS FOR REMEDIAL INTERVENTION

There are limits to the numbers of pupils and the range of tasks with which the remedial teacher can cope. Schools, therefore, must develop strategies to select pupils for remedial intervention. It is preferable in most instances, if the class teacher, with some minimal extra support from the remedial teacher can undertake the teaching required by pupils of low attainment who are judged to be already performing at the peak of their ability. However, individual school circumstances, such as class size and school policy, must be taken into account in determining the required need for additional support. Remedial education has traditionally concerned itself with the underachievement of children in the areas of literacy and numeracy. Pupils failing to acquire basic skills or underachieving in the areas of basic literacy and/or numeracy skills were referred for individual or small group teaching. The general principle of remediation is that all children who need special help should receive it irrespective of age, ability or location but that ultimately, in selection, remedial teachers must give consideration to the success they can hope to achieve with both the type and quantity of problems with which they must deal. How does one decide which pupils are already performing at the peak of their ability? It is not an easy task, and attempts to solve this problem have lead to much confusion and controversy. One common practice has been to compare reading ages with mental ages. Comparison of mental and reading ages, assumes that if children's reading ages match their mental ages they are reading at their peak (or achieving their potential); if their reading ages are below their mental ages they are underachieving, while those whose reading ages exceed their mental ages are over achieving. The notion that reading and mental ages should match is questionable and is being increasingly rejected by experts in the field. The Report of the Special Education Review Committee, however, endorses this discrepancy (between mental and reading age) model for selection of pupils with severe reading difficulties when it recommends special provision for pupils "who have a marked discrepancy between actual and expected performance", and states that "assessment on a standard intelligence test by a psychologist is necessary to confirm ability in the average range or higher and that actual performance is at a substantially lower level' (p.87).

11

Nevertheless many educationalists continue to feel uncomfortable with the discrepancy concept. Probably the most influential critic of the discrepancy definition is Keith E. Stanovich. In 1988, Stanovich wrote a paper which attempted to explain the differences between the dyslexic and, what he called, the "garden variety poor reader" by developing 'The Phonological- Core Variable - Difference Model". By 1991, however, he was writing that "We are still in need of data

indicating that the cognitive processing of dyslexic and garden variety poor readers, reading at the same level is reliably different, data indicating that these two groups of poor readers have differential educational prognosis and data indicating that they respond differently to certain educational treatment." In 1994, Stanovich would argue that there is strong evidence that: •

using a discrepancy (between LQ. and reading age) definition in the classification of children with reading difficulties is untenable;

•

to a large extent whatever way children with reading difficulties are classified they respond similarly to various educational interventions.

One idea that has a long history in the learning disabilities field is that less- skilled readers who display a discrepancy with a measure of "aptitude" (typically defined as performance on an intelligence test) are different from poor readers who do not display such a discrepancy. It was thought that the reading related cognitive characteristics of these groups were different and that they needed different types of treatment. Nevertheless, recent research and theory has brought these assumptions into question. It appears that children having difficulties in reading who have aptitude/ achievement discrepancies have cognitive profiles that are surprisingly similar to children who have not. There is some Irish research to support this point of view. O'Connells' 1989 study of ninety one children, (72 boys and 29 girls) who attended a school for specific reading difficulties found that, on average, they presented with a mean reading delay of approximately two years before attending the school and that this delay was no greater when they left. Some children, in spite of the intensive fulltime help, made very little progress, a finding supported by the views of Cashdan and Pumfrey (1973) and others that the problems of some disabled readers are very 12

resistant to remedial intervention, regardless of LQ. or type of help received, and that:

".... the position of children of lower ability should be kept in mind. In Tansley and Panckhurst's (1983) review of the literature, it was clearly demonstrated that lower ability children were able to benefit from remedial help of the type offered in this school". Another study (Holland 1989) considered 304 Irish children whose LQ is (a) average or above and (b) dull normal or below in a attempt to identify distinct profiles which would characterise these children. The study indicated that the profile of lower ability reading-disabled children were no different from those of a higher ability group and that their strength and deficits were essentially the same. The author concluded that the results of this study show the need to reappraise the remedial education system, particularly with regard to entry requirements. One serious criticism of the discrepancy concept is that it leads to the delaying of remedial intervention (Clay 1985) because of the necessity to wait until an observable "gap", between potential and attainment has developed. There is strong evidence that children who fall significantly behind in reading after three years at school are unlikely to catch up and that remedial intervention programmes at that stage typically have little or no effect (Kennedy et al, 1986). The discrepancy definition is open to challenges such as: "It may be timely to formulate a concept of reading disability which is

independent of any consideration of I.Q., unless it can be shown to have some predictive value for the nature of treatment or treatment outcome, considerations of I.Q. should be discarded in discussions of reading difficulties". (Shane, McGee, Silva 1988) or "If a term is to be reserved for those children who perform at the lowest end of the continuum we suggest that it be something other than "dyslexic" or "reading disabled" which carry other connotations. Perhaps "very poor readers" would do. (Seidenberg, Bruck, Fornrole, Backman 1986) Another criteria often used to determine which children should receive remedial intervention is to offer remedial teaching to pupils who are slow 13

learners. Brennan (1974) defines slow learners as:

"pupils who do not have above average intellectual ability or severe intellectual retardation or any other primary handicap but who are unable to cope with school work considered normal for their age-group; they communicate using speech and they relate to others in a normal manner though they may exhibit some immaturity or insecurity arising from their experience offailure". The characteristics of slow learners may be classified as "impairment or

delay in intellectual development; impairment in perception, or in visualmotor-perceptual, integration; associated social or cultural disadvantages and personality difficulties or maladjustment ". Brennan estimates that 13% of pupils are slow learners as so defined. Apart from 1.2% of pupils with most severe learning difficulties he would argue that it is the responsibility of the ordinary school to provide for the educational needs of "slow learners" not only because it is impractical to provide for such high percentage in special schools, but because the ordinary school is the best place in which to meet their educational needs. According to Brennan, remedial education is the responsibility of the whole school regardless of whether or not remedial teachers are appointed. Children who have had access to a remedial programmes are often labelled as "slow learners". Early attempts to classify the characteristics of slow learners were heavily influenced by concepts of genetic factors while later attempts emphasised personal and environmental factors. It is significant that in Britain, until 1932, the Board of Education inspector responsible for pupils with special needs was a medical person. It is not surprising therefore, that a medical approach to the definition and classification of educational handicaps was influential, as was the tendency to look for their causes within the pupils rather than in the way he/ she was being taught. Terms such as "educational subnormal" and "slow learner" to label a condition of educational failure are considered to be too narrow and fail to explain the nature and causation of learning difficulty. Concepts of dullness, backwardness and retardation as indicated by ir~elligence tests, standardised attainment or scholastic tests fail to take account of environmental, emotional or social handicaps. Current educational 14

thinking would suggest that educational failure arises from a complex interaction between genetic inheritance and environmental circumstances. The role of the class teacher in the diagnosis of learning difficulties through observation and examination of pupils' responses in learning situations should be emphasised. "This is educational diagnosis in the classroom rather than psychological diagnosis in the clinic". (Brennan 1974). The views of teachers should also be taken into account in addition to the formal assessment of pupils. Whereas assessment for screening purposes is important, tests can only offer reliable information on a pupil's general achievement. It is the consistency of testing and consistency in the use of particular testing materials within schools which is important. Pupils can and do score differently on the various screening tests available. However, the experience of teachers generally shows that it is normally the same group of pupils who achieve at the lowest 10th percentile, regardless of which test is used.

15

5.

THE SELF CONCEPTS OF CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

Educators have become increasingly aware of the significance of a child's self-concept as an influential factor in the learning process. In fact, a plethora of research shows a positive correlation between self esteem and achievement, particularly in relation to self esteem and scholastic achievement. Deci and Chandler (1986) claim that emotional and motivational variables including self-concept are central to some (if not all) learning disabilities either as initial causes or as factors that compound the source of the learning problem. The self-concept is best defined as the sum total of an individual's mental and physical characteristics and his/her evaluations of them. Byrne (1984) . has concluded that the self-concept is a multi-dimensional construct having one general factor and several specific facets, one of which is the academic self concept. Children with learning disabilities tend generally to be aware of their own personal academic inadequacies though the exact nature of them may not always be clearly recognised or conceptualised. In many cases, the pupil adopts a self-concept based upon the assumption of genuine inferiority and permanent substandard capacity. This has a debilitating effect on motivation and performance. With regard to reading retardation, Lawrence (1971) described the effect of failure on a child's self esteem as follows:

"Failure to read is a personal failure. The retarded reader sees himself not only as an inferior reader but also as an inferior person. The result is a child who has come to accept failure as inevitable for him and whose natural curiosity and enthusiasm remains inhibited". In terms of age, it is widely documented that the self concept of low achievers declines over time as failure accumulates (Rosenholtz and Simpson, 1984). Marshall and Weinstein (1984) suggest that self concepts, especially academic self concepts are likely to become even more negative in cases where competitive classroom environments induce frequent teacher led comparisons of performance. Findings from many studies indicate that the majority of learning disabled 16

pupils do not have dysfunctionally low general self-concepts if they are able to compensate for poor academic performance in non academic and extra curricular activities (Poplin, 1984). An important dimension of remedial education is the therapeutic aspect of

this activity. Sampson (1975) cites evidence which indicates that early remedial teaching had its origins in the mental health movement and was available in clinics as a form of therapy. In the therapeutic context of remedial provision a warm and sympathetic

environment is created and methods of teaching employed which differ from those previously used and in which failure has been experienced. An increasing recognition of the close correlation between learning failure

and emotional! social disturbance implies that these interacting elements cannot always be treated apart. In many instances, the remedial teacher may have to adopt the role of counsellor, thus further enhancing the therapeutic dimension of the role. This was acknowledged by the Department of Education in its published guidelines (1988) when it was stated that some of the activities the remedial teacher may be involved with include:

"Treating children with behaviour problems or those with low self esteem. Behaviour problems can sometimes be the result of frustration over lack of progress and that it may be that, in individual cases, it is in this context that they are best remedied. This does not mean, however, that all disruptive children become the responsibility of the remedial teacher". (p. 31) Probably, the most important prerequisite and concomitant of functionally effective remediation programmes is the reduction of the inhibiting anxiety and frustration experienced by the learning disabled child which blocks any constructive effort on their part. The most successful and effective teachers are those who can build on instructional sequences which lead towards the ultimate criterion level performance in very small incremental steps. The pupils involved must perceive some improvement, however small, particularly in the early stages. There is a growing awareness that the withdtf\wal procedure, the conventional approach to remedial intervention, may serve to perpetuate 17

the problems it proposes to eliminate and that being extracted from the class is potentially a potent source of social stigma. The labelling process which is inherent in extraction can lead via a downward spiral of self doubt to the child fulfiling the expectations which other children and even some teachers may have of him/her. Thus, the concept of in-class support is strongly encouraged by current educational policy. However, a recent study on pupil's perceptions of remedial intervention, undertaken in Clywd in 1989, (Payne, 1991) indicates that when given a straight choice between in class support teaching and withdrawal procedures most pupils choose the latter. Nevertheless, the affective dimension of the child's life and its influence on academic performance implies greater scrutiny of current educational practices. Teachers need to take greater cognisance of the learning . environment they promote, remembering some of Carl Roger'S advice,

"Those learnings which are threatening to the self are more easily perceived and assimilated when external threats are at a minimum and . .... when the threat to self is low experience can be perceived in differentiated fashion and learning can proceed".

18

6.

SPECIFIC LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

6.1.

General

Specific Learning Difficulty (SLD) is an umbrella term used to describe disorders in one or more of the processes involved in understanding and/ or using written language. It may be a difficulty in reading, writing, spelling or arithmetic. Recently, however, the basic assumptions of the concept of "Specific Reading Disability" (also known as dyslexia) as it is used in both research investigation and in educational practice are being questioned. Andrew Ellis (1985), for instance, asks "Is it worth studying dyslexia"? and states "No

one, it seems, has ever shown that the initial laborious screening is necessary in the sense that it produces a population of individuals whose reading characteristics are different from the great mass of poor readers".

6.2.

Dyslexia

The concept of dyslexia as a reading syndrome has been subject to much controversy, in both educational and medical spheres for many decades. Even those who do support the concept acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to define and, as a result, no one description is universally accepted. Smith (1978) claims that the term 'dyslexia' is merely a name and not a description. Similarly the International Reading Association believes that the term has lost any real value except as a euphemism for a reading problem. It was also suggested that dyslexia was in effect no more than a name for our ignorance, as people appeared to be defining it by exclusion. "We call this child dyslexic if no other reason can be found for his/her difficulties". In the 1970s, the reaction of the educational establishment to the concept of dyslexia was mainly hostile and in some quarters today continues to be so, although to a lesser extent. One of the uriginal reasons for this hostility seems to have been that the dyslexia concept came from medical specialists who seem to be encroaching on education's territory. Proponents of the educational dimension of dyslexia argue that, because the help that is required is not medical but educational, a description of 19

the child as merely 'dyslexic' gives a misleading picture and should therefore be avoided. According to Miles and Miles (1989) there are reasons for emphasising both the medical and educational aspects of dyslexia. In their view, there is a good argument for calling dyslexia a medical matter in origin but an educational one in its treatment. The condition of dyslexia is an unusual type of reading disorder which is thought to have neurobiological bases which interfere with the individual's ability to recognise words and to interpret what is seen or heard (Cruickshank, 1986). Given that reading is a complex human task requiring an intact and well functioning brain and central nervous system it is not surprising that a dysfunction in that system can impede the process of reading. Hinshelwood and Orton, early pioneers into the study of dyslexia regarded reading problems associated with this condition as essentially visual in nature. Hinshelwood (1917) writes, "The defect in these children is a

highly specialised one, viz. a difficulty in acquiring and storing up in the brain, the visual memories of words and letters". Orton, by analysing children's writing and spelling problems and observing associated phenomena, noted a high degree of left handedness, ambidexterity, writing and reading reversal as well as some mirror reading and mirror writing. He coined the term "strephosymbolia" (twisted symbols) to characterise this condition and postulated that lack of cerebral dominance may have caused these problems. Again, like Hinshelwood, he was thinking of the problem in visuo-spatial terms - that the letters were the wrong way round or in the wrong order in respect of their visual appearance. Certainly, on examination of children's misspellings the letters are seen to be the wrong way round or in reverse order. However, claiming that the problem is a visual one would be a simplistic interpretation of the condition. The fact that the transpositions which are attributed to dyslexia occur in both oral and written language suggest that they cannot simply be due to visual appearance of the work in its written form. Recent research has cast considerable doubt on the value of a predominantly visual approach to the condition of dyslexia. In its place, there has been a shift towards a more language-based approach. Another issue with regard to dyslexia is whether manifestations of this condition constitute a syndrome or cluster of syndromes, which belong together. Underlying the claim that dyslexia is not a "single condition" 20

appears to be the assumption that employing the term "single condition" implies that the phenomena are the outcome of a single cause. Thus, the Tizard Committee considers the issue to be whether there is in reality a syndrome of 'developmental dyslexia' with a specific underlying cause (Tizard 1972, p. 3). Research suggests that groups of poor readers and spellers who demonstrate difficulties at the phonological level can be readily identified. It makes sense therefore, to classify these together on the basis that the typical dyslexia signs are the consequence of this initial phonological weakness. The provision of appropriate training may, in some cases, enable dyslexics to learn to read at a more competent level, and even spelling skills may show an improvement, whereas in other cases, pupils may remain weak at both, or in some cases, weak at spellings only. To those working in the dyslexia field there is an obvious unity despite the wide range of individual differences. Another contentious issue in the whole debate on dyslexia is that if dyslexics constitute an identifiable group then there is the necessity to specify criteria for membership. This becomes problematic with regard to border line cases. Critchley and Critchley (1978) have suggested that there may be minor variants of dyslexia, which they refer to as "formes frustes" and which they suggest are sometimes manifest in the relatives of severely affected persons. Therefore, it is not clear whether there is the possibility of a strict dividing line in this condition or whether one form overlaps with another in such a way that any cut off point is arbitrary. It is also necessary to establish criteria to distinguish not only the reading disabled child from the underachieving reader but for distinguishing dyslexic underachievers from other underachievers. To date, research into this dimension has been scant. There are no definitive figures available for the incidence of dyslexia. However, evidence supplied from the research of Critchley (1970), Tansley and Panckhurst (1981) and on the basis of unpublished data from the survey conducted by Miles and Haslum (1986), a tentative figure of approximately four per cent of the population is suggested.

6.3.

Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome

Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome (SSS) is defined as a perceptual dysfunction that may account for reading and learning difficulties of some students in 21

our schools. According to Irlen (1991), individuals with 555 perceive the world around them in a distorted way as a result of a sensitivity to certain wavelengths of light. Light is the basic component of the perceptual system and reading problems may result from an inability to take in and appropriately use light. Understanding SSS provides new insight into the nature of perceptual based learning and reading problems according to Irlen. SSS is claimed to be a perceptual rather than a visual dysfunction. There is usually no difficulty with the function of the eye, but the difficulty lies with how the individual perceives. In other words, some people have difficulty processing light which distorts their perception. Individuals with 555 are very sensitive to lights e.g. bright sunlight or fluorescent lighting. Some have difficulty with contrasts e.g. black print on a white page, where the background tends to dominate over the print. For others, the print moves or jumps about, and letters run into each other or become blurred. SSS is not a learning difficulty. However, individuals suffering . from SSS are likely to have learning difficulties which can vary from mild to severe. A recently developed treatment for SSS uses colour overlays and lenses to eliminate perceptual distortions which may create obstacles in the learner's path to reading and writing. A pupil with SSS, would be unable to perceive a page of print properly, and would interpret it as 'letters and words running together', or "white spaces forming rivers which run down the page" and words become a black line which are not seen anymore". Continuing to read would hurt their eyes as the page deteriorated in front of them. An experiment carried out in the USA discovered that thirty one individuals out of thirty seven participating in the project had been helped to read by using colour overlays on the page. For each person helped, there was one colour that worked best. Following the experiment, reading glasses with coloured lenses were developed. This method of dealing with learning difficulties is often referred to today as "Reading by the Colours", using Irlen glasses, named after Helen Irlen who discovered SSS and developed the colour treatment. However, much of Irlpn's research remains unpublished and is not therefore, open to scrutiny. Confusion is caused by the term 'scotopic' as Shute (1991) would argue that the syndrome is characterised primarily as a photopic phenomenon. Critics of Irlen's theory would argue that improvement which occurs in reading through the use of coloured lenses, are more likely to be attributable to other factors such as motivational factors, or to the correction of conventional visual problems or the placebo 22

effect. Winter (1986), discovered that children diagnosed as suffering from SSS read equally well with untinted plain lenses, grey lenses or without lenses as they did with Irlen lenses (Shute 1991). Reeves (1988) has criticised much of the literature which claims to support Irlen's findings on SSS, on the basis that in some experiments no control groups were used and, in others, the experimental subjects were in receipt of other treatments in addition to the coloured lenses. The fact that Irlen's screening procedures are not available for scrutiny compounds the difficulties in carrying out research to critically evaluate her findings. Thus the debate continues. 6.4.

Spelling

"Spelling is one curriculum area in which neither creativity nor divergent thinking is encouraged; only one pattern or arrangement of letters can be accepted as correct. Spelling a word is much more difficult than reading a word. Recognising a word in print is a decoding task and in a reading situation there are many clues to aid the reader in word recognition, including context, phonics, structural analysis and configuration. Reproducing a word, however, is an encoding task; and the opportunity to draw upon peripheral clues is greatly reduced" (Learner 1971). Many children who have reading difficulties often have spelling difficulties too. The following are some of the most common methods in teaching spelling.

Visual Perception and Memory of Letters According to Learner (1971), the ability to spell appears to be related to visual sequential memory. The child who is unable to remember or visualise the letters and order of the words will be poor at spelling. A method of teaching the pupil to learn spellings using visual memory is outlined by CRIPPS (1987):

"Look at the word carefully and in such a way that it will be recognised, Cover the word so that it cannot be seen, Write the word form memory, Check what has been written. If the word has not been written correctly, do not alter it, but instead, repeat all these steps again" (Learner, 1987).

A Phonetic/Linguistic Approach There is also some research to indicate that there are predicable spelling 23

patterns and an understanding system of phonological and morphological regularity in English. A linguistic approach to the teaching of spelling capitalises on the underlying regularity that exists between phonological and morphological elements in the oral language and their graphemic representation in orthography. (Learner 1971) Flynn (1987) supports the linguistic aspect of spelling in that he states that most words in English are spelt as they are sound, and that 75% of the

words that a pupil will write will be phonetically spelt. Flynn, outlines seven steps involved in successful spelling: (i) (ii) (ill)

(iv) (v)

(vi) (vii)

Ask: Ask: Ask: Ask: Ask: Ask:

What is the first letter? What is the last letter? What is the first syllable? (sound) What is the last syllable? (sound) How many sounds? Spell the word syllable-by-syllable Confirm (ARTI)

The Multi Sensory Approach to Spelling The multi sensory approach to spelling depends on visual perception in addition to other senses in order to learn a spelling. The approach utilises the visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile modalities. The following steps are suggested by Fitzgerald (1955), as a multi sensory approach

"(a)

Meaning and pronunciation. Have a child look at the word, pronounce it correctly, and use it in a sentence.

(b)

Imagery. Ask the child to "see" the word and then say the word syllable by syllable. Next he spells the word orally. Then he traces the word in the air, or over the word itself with his finger.

(c)

Recall. Ask the child to look at the word and then close his eyes and see the word in his mind's eye. Have him spell the word orally. Ask him to open his eyes to see if he was correct. (If an error is made he should repeat the process). Writing the word. The child writes the word correctly from memory, then checks the spellings against the original to see if it was correct. He

(d)

24

should check the writing too, to make sure every letter is legible. (e)

Mastery. The child covers the word and writes it. If he is correct he should cover the word and write it two more times". (Learner, 1971, p. 199)

The best method for teaching spelling will depend on the strengths and weakness of individual pupils. The decision concerning the most appropriate method or methods to be used should be left to the teacher concerned.

6.5.

Numeracy

Much research has been carried out on learning difficulties in the area of literacy. There is very little information available on the incidence of learning failure in mathematics and numeracy. Children who have difficulties in learning often have difficulties in grasping cognitive skills. Mastery of number concepts appear to be particularly difficult for them. However, until recently, educationalists and psychologists have not p;;tid as much attention to basic counting and number skills as they have to basic literacy skills. There are five basic principals governing the acquisition and application of number and accounting skills according to Gilman and Gallistel (1978). The principles include one to one correspondence, ordering of numbers and sequencing, and the application of these concepts. Children with learning difficulties find the acquisition and application of these principles confusing. Number is used to give many aspects of life a meaning e.g. counting, measuring and coding, and is therefore, like language, a means of communication. For children experiencing difficulty in mathematics, consideration should be given to remedial programmes in basic number skills and counting. Scanlon and Close, (1994) have stated, in their most recent article on a study of remedial mathematics in a Dublin primary school, that it is common to categorise children experiencing learning difficulties in mathematics under three headings i.e. slow learners, learning disabled and socially or emotionally impaired children. The term dyscalculia is also sometimes used to refer to pupils with difficulties in understanding mathematical concepts. Remedial programmes for pupils with learning difficulties in mathematics are designed according to the type of 25

difficulties involved, as research has shown that children learn mathematics in different ways. These programmes vary from Simplified basic mathematics and numeracy skills for slow learners to compensating for deficiencies apparent in underachieving children, to programmes using concrete and manipulative materials for children with conceptual difficulties in mathematics. (Scanlan & Close 1994)

26

7.

ApPROACHES TO REMEDJATION

7.1.

General

Three kinds of approaches to remedial education are recommended to meet the needs of children with learning difficulties. These approaches are adaptive and developmental education, corrective education and remedial education. Adaptive and developmental education is a form of education designed to meet the academic, general and permanent needs of slow learners. The term adaptive implies that programmes must be devised at appropriate levels to meet the permanent requirements of the child over a wide range of activities. The term "developmental" suggests that those needs may change as the child matures. Corrective education, on the other hand, is intended to meet the needs of the child which arise from specific limitations to learning, mainly in the areas of basic literacy and numeracy. It is a form of education which is designed to be interventionist and temporary. Remedial education is intended to meet the needs which arise from learning difficulties resulting from the child's inadequacies or underachievement in basic skills of numeracy and literacy. As in the case of corrective education, remedial intervention is best regarded as a temporary measure, and if successful will facilitate the child in participating in the adaptive or normal curriculum of the school. Traditionally the role of the remedial teacher has been to attempt to remediate the problems of children who are perceived to be performing at a level which is significantly below that of their peers. Remedial education - as distinct from special education - is usually seen as being a short term measure. The aim would be that the children who receive remedial help would overcome their difficulties and return to their classrooms where they would make, at least, average progress without additional h~_y. Remedial education tends to concentrate on reading, writing, spelling and to lesser extent - mathematical computation. In most models of remedial provision children are withdrawn from normal classes and given extra tuition daily in small groups.

27

For some time, however, there has been concern that this model of withdrawing small groups does not achieve the aim of overcoming difficulty through short term intervention. In the USA, children receive remedial services for many years but this remedial help rarely does more than help them avoid falling further behind (Kennedy, Birman, Demaline 1986). Furthermore, there is research to suggest that the provision of remedial reading instruction to at risk children in small groups withdrawn from normal classes is not effective (McGill, Franzen, Allington 1991). Children who are assigned to special education programmes for the learning disabled do not appear to fare any better (Madden, Slavin 1983). There is no research to show that the position in Ireland is different. Jean Whyte (1989) is of the opinion that "The non success of remediation has been a fairly well kept secret in many educational and clinical settings". A study of children in a school for pupils who have been diagnosed as having a specific reading difficulty replicates the American findings: the children studied merely avoided falling further behind (they made two years progress over two years). However, the prevention of pupils falling further behind must be seen as progress, as without intervention programmes, pupils may have fallen further behind. One can conclude, therefore, that many of the pupils in the special reading school made progress in reading at a faster rate than they had in their previous schools, though some pupils made little or no progress. A one to one intervention programme may have facilitated faster progress for those pupils whose difficulties seem to be resistant to conventional remedial intervention. An even more worrying aspect of traditional remedial education approaches is that, it appears that, pupils who do not develop reading skills after a few years at school, (third grade in USA), have little chance of educational success, regardless of the remedial or special education resources invested in them later in their school careers. (Slavin, Madden et a11990). There is, however, evidence that reading failure can be prevented through early intervention (usually during the pupils' second year at school) and a number of programmes have been shown to be effective when they are implemented at that stage. The programme, that appear to be most successful have two things in common, the intervention is at an early stage, and they provide one-to-one tuiti0u. The best known of these programmes is "Reading Recovery". 28

7.2.

Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery arises out of research and development carried out by Marie Clay of the University of Auckland. The project began in New Zealand schools in 1978, and since 1983, has been nationally implemented. It has also been adopted by much of Australia, forty one states in the USA and since 1989, in Surrey, England. Recently, other LEAs in Britain have taken the programme and, at present, two teachers from Northern Ireland are being trained to introduce the programme there. The programme has been effective in reducing the number of children with reading problems in New Zealand schools (Clay 1985, Clay Watson 1982). Reading Recovery aims to select at age 6 the children who have not begun to read and write after one year at school and provide them with intensive instruction for 30 minutes daily and individually. The children in the 'programme make accelerated progress and typically reach average levels of performance after 12-15 weeks. The programme takes the lowest achieving pupils at age six, irrespective of LQ. category of special educational need or level of maturity. In Reading Recovery, children receive individual tuition daily for a duration of thirty minutes, from a specially trained teacher. During each lesson, the teacher and the child sit side by side reading and writing collaboratively. This setting provides many opportunities to support literacy learning. By making class observations of the child's reading and writing behaviour the teacher is able to hypothesise about the strategies the child is using. A typical Reading Recover lesson includes the following components. 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Reading familiar stories Taking a running record of reading text Working with letters Writing a message or story Reading a new book

A child is released from the programme when he/she has a system of strategies which work in such a way that the child is learning from his/~,er own attempts to read. The goal, therefore, is to teach children how to use their knowledge and to see its purpose. When the children have made accelerated gains and caught up with their peers, they are then 29

released from the programme as "successful" readers. Throughout the programme teachers aim to produce independent readers whose reading improves whenever they read." (Clay, 1985) Results gained in New Zealand in 1988, show that for every 100 children in the population at age 6, if the 20 lowest achievers participate in the programme, 19 will reach their average band after a maximum of 20 weeks teaching (average 12-15 weeks). Less than 1% (0.8) required referral for special help. Follow up studies carried out three years later, both in Ohio and New Zealand show that the gains made are maintained in that ex-Reading Recovery pupils were still performing within the average band for their age, at age 9. (Clay, 1986, Pirmell, Deford and Lyons, 1988). A factor in the success of the programme appears to be the intensity of the training received by the Reading Recovery teachers. An evaluation of the programme in Surrey (Wright 1993), found that Reading Recovery is as successful in Surrey as it has been in New Zealand and Ohio and concluded that Reading Recovery had successfully transferred to Surrey.

7.3.

Peer Tutoring

Tutoring is essentially a learning environment involving two people - a tutor and a tutee. Cross Age tutoring usually involves an older tutor tutoring a younger tutee, and peer tutoring involves two people of the same age (McDonald, 1987). Peer-tutoring or Cross-Age Tutoring, as a technique in enhancing reading performance is receiving considerable attention from authorities in reading instruction. There is much research evidence to suggest that this approach is effective and suitable for application to remedial teaching. Topping and Whitely (1991) emphasise the need for detailed planning of the programme, careful selection and matching of children, a wide choice of reading material, the appropriate training of tutor and tutee and the careful monitoring and evaluation of the whole process. The most successful tutoring programmes involved qualified teachers centrally in their application. Thompson who devised the Reader-Leader Scheme recommends the targeting of Year 2 and Year 3 children using Year 6 pupils as tutors. Children are tested early in the first term to assess their suitability for this scheme. Those with a reading age of less than seven years are not considered eligible. 30

The scheme offers supervised reading practice on a regular basis for these children meeting three times weekly for a duration of three fifteen minute sessions. To operate this technique effectively, the reader must undertake all the reading and the leader only comes to the rescue if a work is not known after the following stages are exhausted. (a) (b)

Looking for clues in the text or picture on the page. and/or Using a phonic approach to build up the sounding of a word.

Before the reader proceeds to the next page he/ she must know all the words on the page. On completion of the book, questions are posed to ensure comprehension of the text. When the book has been completed to the satisfaction of both the leader and the class teacher the latter moves the reader onto the next book in the scheme. At the conclusion of each session the leader marks on the reading card the page the child has read. Thompson (1992), claims that the key to the scheme's success may be found in the relationship between reader and leader. The tolerant leader creates a non-threatening teaching environment where mistakes seem to be of lesser significance than when working with a class teacher. As a result, children feel at ease and are more inclined to have a "stab" at an unfamiliar word.

7.4.

Letterland

Letterland is a phonics scheme designed to enable young children understand the spelling structure of words. As they stand, the letters of the alphabet offer no reliable cue to their sound in words and the correspondence of letter to sound is not consistent. Therefore, young readers are faced with grave difficulties. In the Letterland system, such problems are overcome when teachers and children pretend that within words they can find a secret invisible place called "Letterland" where the abstract letter shapes assume body shapes and spring to life as people and anim"L5.

The Letterland characters explain their own behaviour in story form i.e. why they sometimes make one sound in words and, at other times, quite a different sound. In this way, learning about words becomes a process of listening to stories rather than memorising rules. When Letterland 31

characters 'meet' in words, children allegedly have no apparent trouble with inconsistent letter behaviour. This is because it is explained as the interaction between two consistent personalities. The Letterland scheme operates from the premise that by working from known information about characters the children can then decipher unknown words, thus extending their understanding of letter functions. An integral part of the Letterland programme is the pictogram. The children acquire their first graphic experience of letters by imitating them. It is believed that by becoming pictographers children identify the letters, learn to form their letters correctly and to avoid reversal and other confusions. They also become more attentive and observant of words through this multisensory approach. The Letterland scheme is a commercially produced British scheme, which has been widely used in Britain for a number of years but recently it has been gaining recognition in Irish schools as an effective method of teaching the initial stages of reading and for a wider usage in the remedial teaching of reading. Adaption to suit the Irish context is required to enable the programme to work more effectively in Irish schools. 7.5.

Success for All

The 'Success for All' programme is peculiar to the USA. The designers of the programme were impressed with the results of programmes like Reading Recovery, but felt that such programmes did not cater adequately for pupils whose problems include poor attendance, behavioural problems or family problems (Slav in, Madden et. al. 1990). A Programme was designed to bring every child in an inner city primary school to third grade with adequate reading, maths and language skills. The main elements of the programme are: • a

• • o

•

tutors who work one-to-one with the pupils; a reading programme which uses the pupils in the classroom; preschool and kindergarten programmes which emphasise language development, readiness and self concept; assessments every eight weeks; a family support team comprised of two social workers and a home school liaison teacher; and a facilitator who works with the teachers.

32

An evaluation of the first year of the programme indicates that the programme is progressing satisfactorily and suggests that the problems of inner city schools are not intractable. Pupils in the pilot school (Abbottston, Baltimore City - a primary school of 440 pupils, 76% of whom qualify for free lunches) performed substantially better than matched control pupils in reading and special education referrals were substantially reduced. However, the long term effects of the programme have yet to be determined to see if early success does, in fact, eliminate or greatly reduce the need for continuing remedial or special education provision. 7.6.

The Somerset Talking Computer Project

A number of projects have attempted to integrate new technology into the teaching of reading and one in particular has been generating a great deal of interest. Somerset Local Education Authority in Britain has recently developed a research project which seems to indicate that computers can be used successfully in the teaching of children with reading and spelling difficulties. The project team, which included an educational psychologist Mr. Martin Miles and a special needs advisory teacher Mr. Mike Bolton, set out to develop a teaching strategy to investigate the potential of a speaking word processor: • • •

to assist children with literacy difficulties to increase their reading skills, to develop spelling skills; and to extend their auditory short term memory with corresponding increases in writing skills, concentration, self esteem, motivation and keyboard familiarisation skills.

The project team have been testing 50 children in the 7-11 age group in Somerset schools. The children were given tuition for 20 minutes a day over 4 weeks and the following is a synopsis of the results: Reading ages increases of up to 37 months were recorded, the average increase being 10.6; Spelling ages increases up to 12 months; Short Term Auditory Memory increases up to 107 months, the average being 16.9.

33

Follow up testing at 10 weeks and 6 months indicate that progress has been maintained, even after the withdrawal of the speaking word processor. The project is continuing to validate the results and to fine tune the programme.

7.7.

The Role of Parents in Remediation - A Case for Paired Reading

Educational Sociological Research, such as that of Douglas (1964), Flood, Halsey and Martin (1956), and the Plowden Report (1967), commissioned study on educational influences, have shown that the school is by no means the sole educator of the child, or by any means the major influence on the child's life. Of vital importance is the influence of the home. A number of Government reports in England have drawn attention to the potential of collaboration between professionals and parents, to enhance children's development and learning (Plowden (1967), Bullock (1975), Taylor (1977), Wamock (1978)). The above reports covered many aspects of collaboration between teachers and parents in the educational field. Exploration in the dimension and potential of home-school links has continued with parental involvement in reading being the largest growth area (Smith 1987). Many educators, therefore, believe that parents must be involved in the education of their children and research has shown that the majority of parents are very willing to become involved. (Topping and Wolfendale, 1985). Research conducted by Hewison (1982) suggests that parents are, generally, actively interested in their children's development and in their educational progress. Even the minority of parents with which teachers find contact difficult, often turn out to have well founded reasons for not responding to the school's overtures. Social class or disadvantage does not seem to affect the willingness of parents to help with their children's reading (Weinberger 1986). Research has shown that in disadvantaged areas, parents can sustain a high level of involvement in hearing their children's reading, over a long period. Topping and Wolfendale (1985) suggest that parental involvement in children's reading can have many benefits for the child. Parental involvement can assist with the: 34

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

acquisition of reading skills; familiarity with and enjoyment of reading; fostering of learning skills and the application of enquiry and search strategies in the home; preparation for adult competence in the area of reading; and sharing of problems in reading and boosting the confidence of individual children.

A popular misconception with regard to the teaching of reading has been that success or failure in the learning of reading skills could be entirely attributed to factors within the school. Two basic desires of children are to like and to be liked by their parents. Children can dismiss as insignificant a teacher who figures in their lives for a year or two, but not so, the responses of a parent. Aspects of the home environment, which Greaney (1985) found to be more closely related to reading skills than others were verbal interaction between parent and child; parental interest in reading; parental reading and access to reading materials. Hewison and Tizard (1980) found that the factor which emerged as most independent, as well as, most strongly related to reading performance, was whether or not the mother reported that she regularly heard the child read. All other things being equal, children who regularly read to their parents at home, were considerably better readers than those who did not. Tizard, et aI., (1982) suggests that children who receive extra help in reading in the school setting, make less obvious progress than children who receive extra help in a home setting. Involving parents in the teaching (and remediation) of reading, therefore, can have very positive effects on the child's reading and might well be considered to be an essential part of any reading or of any remediation programme. The main problem, which has been identified with parental involvement in helping children to read at home, has been that sometimes unsuitable types of intervention have been employed. Some parents may pounce on error words and over depend on phonic analysis and synthesis. The correction procedures, when misused, can be time consuming and even catastrophic, prodl'cing despair and tension in both child and parent.

35

What is needed then, is a structured scheme to eliminate these problems and foster the development of reading skills both at home and in the school. The paired reading approach would appear, by findings from all available research, to be such a scheme.

Paired Reading Paired reading was introduced in the mid 1970s as a remedial reading procedure suitable for a wide spectrum of reading disabilities. It is an approach whose application requires minimal specialised instruction and supervision. Dr. Roger Morgan, who pioneered the Paired Reading approach proposed to develop a flexible reading technique that was attractive and useful to tutors and learners alike and that would ultimately lead to enhanced .reading performance. In his book, "Helping Children Read" (1986), Morgan outlines the steps involved in this technique and explains the rationale behind it. Tuition is normally undertaken, by individual parent/ child pairs at home, using a book of the child's choice, appropriate to his/her level of interest and chronological age, rather than being restricted to his/her reading age. Tuition sessions are initiated with the parent and the child reading aloud simultaneously, the parent providing a continuous prompt or model for the child's reading. When the child achieves a Significant level of confidence to embark on reading a few words or even a passage independently, he/she signals this by knocking on the table. The parent responds by praising the child, then stops reading with the child and the latter continues reading alone. When the child is reading alone correctly the parent reinforces the correct reading with frequent praise or feedback using positive comments suitable for the individual child. When the child encounters some difficulty or makes an error during independent reading the parent allows approximately four seconds for further attempts. If the child proves unable to resolve the problem within this time limit, the parent supplies the correct word, the child repeats it with the parent and simultaneous reading is resumed. Morgan describes this technique as being ar.alogous to a car with two gears - the "together" gear being the simultaneous mode and the "alone" 36

gear, the independent mode. The reading starts off in "together" gear and the child controls the changeover to "alone" gear by signalling to the parent. The parent controls the change back to "together" gear by joining in again whenever the child encounters a problem. Two areas of confusion have accompanied the increasing popularity of paired reading. The first of these has been a confusing tendency for the term "paired reading" to be generalised as a description of "any parents and children working together" approach to reading rather than as the title of a reading technique with specific and clearly delineated rules. The second confusion resides in the fact that specific books produced by publishers of children's reading materials purport to be specially designed for paired reading work. According to Morgan and Gavin (1988) evaluators of the technique, one of its most significant attributes is that one does not require any special books when engaging in paired reading. Any written material the child wishes to read can be used, including texts other than books such as labels, instructions on toys, or even games, comics and cereal packets. Numerous reports both in Ireland and Great Britain have indicated that paired reading is a very positive and effective method in improving both the accuracy and comprehension of children with reading difficulties in the regular school (Jungitz, 1984; Pitchford and Taylor, 1983; Topping et aI., 1984, Topping 1987, Grant, 1992 and McMahon, 1992). In the McMahon Study (1992) a Paired Reading Project was conducted

over a sixteen week period during the 1990 -1991 school year in a boys' school in a small town in rural Ireland. Findings from research indicated that the project proved to be successful in dramatically improving the reading ages of a majority of the children involved. The paired reading method also proved quite successful in enhancing children's attitudes to reading and in increasing the volume of participants' reading. Evidence from the results of another Irish Paired Reading Project, conducted in Dublin in 1989 (Grant 1992) indicates the ease of usage of the technique by parents in the home, with minimum professional training and supervision and its efficacy in yielding a good return in improved performance within a short period.

37

According to Smith (1978) two basic prerequisites for learning to read are

"the availability of interesting material that makes sense to the learners and an understanding adult as a guide". To date, most reports and evaluations of the paired reading method claim that the approach is an attractive and effective one which leads to enhanced reading performance. (See Appendix H)

38

8.

A WHOLE SCHOOL ApPROACH TO REMEDIAL EDUCATION

8.1.

Role of the Remedial Teacher

Remedial teachers were appointed, originally, to supplement the efforts of the class teacher by providing more intensive tuition to pupils whose attainments in basic literacy and or numeracy skills are very significantly below expectation. Traditionally, teachers with responsibility for remedial education were seen as an appendage to the remainder of the teaching staff. Many teachers working in a remedial teaching capacity experienced feelings of isolation due to what was considered a marginal role, characterised by a lack of precise aims and objectives and, in most cases, physical separation from the mainstream of education. However, the past three decades have witnessed significant changes in both the status and role of the remedial teacher. The Tizard Report (D.ES. 1973) and the Bullock Report (D.ES 1975) have emphasised the important role of the remedial specialist and this served to highlight the extent to which remedial education has a unique and essential contribution to make to primary and secondary education. In addition, it is now becoming more prevalent to talk of integration of pupils with special needs who might previously have been catered for in special education. The Report of the Review Committee on Special Education (1993) refers to the implications of the new trend and its potential impact on the remedial field. "The general

international trend to integrate children with special needs into mainstream schools will increase the need for additional remedial teachers. We recommend the coordination of the roles of remedial teacher, resource/special class teacher, and visiting teacher. This approach will obviate unnecessary duplication of services and confusion as to the role of the different teachers involved"(p.62). In 1982, findings from the Lynch and O'Sullivan survey indicated that ninety six per cent of the remedial teachers surveyed advised class teachers regarding the difficulties of pupils attending remedial instruction. Twenty eight per cent advised the staff on reading policy and materials. In 1988, the Department of Education, in its published guidelines on remedial education, envisaged the role of the remedial teacher broadening its horizons and moving towards the area of consultancy and resource personnel. 39

"This approach to the work implies that the remedial teacher in future may spend more time, than is the case at present, working with colleagues and with parents. He/she might do this by providing advice and help on plans of work, on teaching methods and materials on the specific learning difficulties of individual children, and by involving class teachers in the screening and diagnostic programme". (p. 30) 8.2.

Collective Responsibility in Remedial Education

The Bullock Report (1975) in common with the Wamock Report (1978) called for greater teacher vigilance in identifying children's learning needs and promoted the idea of collective responsibility for identifying and acting upon the findings of assessment. As McNicholas (1978) advocated, "Remedial specialists should not be left to plough lonely furrows where the ground has been unprepared and after care is lacking". According to the NARE Guidelines on the Role of the Remedial Teacher (1979) educationalists must view remedial education as both a horizontal and vertical concept and that, as children carry their problems across the curriculum, long term benefits can only be achieved within the context of genuine team effort and cooperation. With this ever expanding concept of the learning disabled child professionals can no longer be regarded as separately - functioning entities but rather as members of a team working in close harmony towards the achievement of agreed goals. Thus, a whole school policy is now being strongly advocated in which the remedial teacher is the chief agent of the prevention task force. Already the situation exists in many schools, which have remedial teachers, where the remedial teacher is looked upon as a resource person and is often called upon to assist other teachers in designing special programmes of work for individual pupils or outlining some effective remedial methodology. What is called for, therefore, is an expansion of existing structures. For a whole school policy on remedial education to become operable structures and liaison mechanisms need to be made explicit. All school personnel need to be committed and each designated certain responsibilities. 40

This was envisaged in the Guidelines on Remedial Education issued by the Department of Eduction in 1988.

"An effective remedial programme is a team effort in which the principal, the remedial and class teachers work with each other, with parents and with other professionals towards the agreement of specific aims. Such cooperation must be deliberately and specifically planned and the responsibilities of each involved be clearly delineated and agreed ". (p. 9) A framework for such a policy is contained in Wolfendale (1988) wherein she identifies the key elements involved as staff responsibilities, systems of assessment, record keeping, review and reporting, liaison with parents, school boards of management and other agencies, as well as the area of staff development. Wolfendale strongly recommends the adoption of a whole school policy on the premise that collective responsibility would bring consistency, coherence and security to all concerned.

41

PART H RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ON REMEDIAL TEACHING IN NA TIONAL SCHOOLS 1.

INTRODUCTION

r-r'he INTO Survey on Remedial Teaching carried out in 1994, involved 1. the issuing of a comprehensive questionnaire on remedial education to remedial teachers, and a shorter questionnaire on remedial education to class teachers. Both surveys were carried out concurrently. A total of 557 questionnaires were distributed to staff representatives, who were requested to pass the remedial teachers' questionnaire to the remedial teacher, and the class teachers' questionnaire to a class teacher. A total of 269 questionnaires were presented for analysis by remedial teachers, which represented a return rate of 48%. As many remedial teachers who were shared between schools would have received the questionnaire more than once, the true return rate would be estimated at closer to 64%. A total of 382 questionnaires were presented for analysis by class teachers, a return rate of 69%. The main results of the Survey are analysed in this part of the Report. However, additional information is presented in Appendices D, E and F.

2.

REMEDIAL SERVICE

Half of the schools (50.4%) participating in the survey were sharing a remedial teacher, 42.4% of schools had one full time remedial teacher, and a further 6.9% stated that they had more than one remedial teacher. The majority of schools sharing the services of a remedial teacher operated in clusters of two (45%), three (26%) or four (21%) schools. There were, however, two teachers working with clusters of seven schools, one with a cluster of eight schools, and one with a cluster of nine schools. When asked whether or not there should be a limit to the number of schools in a cluster, 99% of remedial teachers stated that there should be a limit, with clusters of two schools considered the most appropriate number.

42

TABLE 1

What should be the maximum number of schools in a cluster? MAXIMUM IN CLUSTER

PERCENTAGE OF TEACHERS

2% 56% 32%

1 2

3 4 5 6

7%

1% 2%

3.

ApPOINTMENT PROCEDURES FOR REMEDIAL TEACHERS

3.1.

Deployment Policy

The deployment of an assistant teacher to the post of remedial teacher is a matter for the principal teacher of the school subject to the authority of the Board of Management. In the remedial teachers' survey it emerged that in 25% of cases the position was advertised within the school and teachers were invited to apply if interested. In 28% of cases, teachers were deployed as remedial teachers because they expressed an interest, without formally applying for the position. 21% of teachers were requested by their principals to accept the position of remedial teacher. In situations where no members of staff expresses an interest in being deployed as a remedial teacher, the position is normally advertised in the press as a vacancy for an assistant teacher with remedial teaching duties. 26% of respondents became remedial teachers through such a process. 92% of remedial teachers were satisfied with the appointment procedure in their schools. In schools which share a remedial teacher, the deployment of a teacher to

remedial duties is the responsibility of the principal of the base school nominated by the Department of Education. Respondents were asked whether or not their schools had a policy on how long teachers should be deployed as remedial teachers. A surprising 89% of teachers stated that their schools had no such policy. 43

TABLE 2

Does your school have a policy on the deployment of teachers to remedial?

No

YES

All Remedial Teachers All Class Teachers Single Schools Cluster of Schools Small Schools Medium Schools Large Schools

11% 10% 14% 7% 7% 12% 13%

89% 90% 86% 93% 92% 88% 87%

Of those schools which did have a policy concerning the duration for which a teacher should be deployed as a remedial teacher, the most common period of time was 4-5 years. However, when teachers were requested to state whether or not they favoured a policy where teachers would be deployed to remedial teaching duties for a specific period of time, more than half of both remedial and class teachers agreed, that there should be such a policy. Of those who agreed, periods of 4-5 years was the recommended duration of deployment to remedial teaching duties. Those who had less than 5 years experience as a remedial teacher, and younger teachers, both class and remedial teachers, were much more likely to favour such a policy than more experienced teachers. Remedial teachers in large schools (39%) and teachers who had more than 11 years experience as remedial teachers (35%) were least likely to favour such a policy. However, class teachers in large schools were much more in favour (74%).

44

TABLE 3

Do you think there should be a specific period of deployment to remedial teaching duties?

All Teachers

RT. 53%

CT. 54%

No RT. CT. 47% 46%

Single Schools Cluster of schools

48% 56%

63% 51%

52% 44%

37% 49%

Small schools Medium schools Large schools

52% 57% 39%

46% 61% 74%

48% 43% 61%

54% 39% 26%

Less than 5 yrs as Remedial Teacher 5-10 years as Remedial Teacher 11+ years as Remedial Teacher

61% 52% 35%

YES

39% 48% 65%

R. T. - Response of Remedial Teachers

CT. - Response of Class Teachers

TABLE 4

Remedial teachers were asked to give their opinion on how often the deployment of a teacher to remedial teaching duties should be reviewed.

FREQUENCY OF REVIEW

Every year Every 2/3 years Every 4/5 years

% 3% 29% 68%

It is quite clear, therefore, that a small majority of teachers recommend the deployment of teachers to remedial duties for specified periods of time, and for those who do, the majority favour periods of 4/5 years. Class 45

teachers are also of a similar view. Such a policy facilitates continuity while allowing all members of a staff or all teachers in a cluster of schools the opportunity to be deployed as a remedial teacher at some time in their career. 3.2.

An Opportunity for all Teachers

The majority of remedial teachers (63%) and of class teachers (68%) believe that every teacher in a school or in a cluster of schools, should have the opportunity of being deployed as a remedial teacher. Male teachers (78%) were more likely than their female counterparts (60%) to favour such a policy. Teachers who were deployed as remedial teachers for more than 11 years were least likely to favour such a policy (34%). (See Appendix F) . Over half (51%) (136 teachers) of the respondents had been deployed as remedial teachers for less than 5 years, and 24% (63 teachers) were remedial teachers for 11 years or more. The vast majority (90%) of class teachers had never been deployed as a remedial teacher, though only 39% stated that they would like the opportunity of being deployed as a remedial teacher. Class teachers in inner city schools (71%) and class teachers in single schools (58%) were more likely than their colleagues in rural schools, or in schools which shared the services of a remedial teacher, to express a desire to be deployed as a remedial teacher. (See Appendix E, Table 5, for additional information) It is current Department of Education policy that teachers who hold posts

of responsibility, e.g. Principals, Vice Principals, A Post holders and B Post holders, should not be deployed as remedial teachers, when shared between schools. The majority of respondents (69%) did not hold posts of responsibility. However, four remedial teachers were principal teachers, twenty four remedial teachers were Vice Principal teachers, six were A post holders, and forty six remedial teachers were B Post holders. TABLE 6 POSTS OF RESPONSIBILITY

Principal Vice Principal A Post Holders B Post Holders Non Post Holders

No. OF TEACHERS

4 24 6 46 181 46

%

2% 9% 2% 18% 69%

4.

PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE EDUCATION

All primary school teachers are considered qualified to give remedial instruction. Inservice courses in remedial education are generally offered to teachers when deployed as remedial teachers. Information on the current provision of inservice is outlined in Appendix B. Respondents were requested to state whether or not preservice education prepared them adequately for remedial teaching duties. The majority of teachers stated that their preservice education did not adequately prepare them for their duties in remedial. Young teachers, who were teaching for less then 5 years, were the exception, as 75% of them considered that their preservice education prepared them very well or adequately for remedial work. However, the numbers involved do not make this finding statistically significant.

TABLE 7 (A)

How well did preservice education prepare you for remedial teaching?

Very Well (12%)

I

Poorly (53%)

~

Adequately (35%)

See Appendix E, Table 7 (Bl for additional information. The figures in the above table are disquieting given that all teachers are considered qualified to teach children with remedial needs. Teachers who 47

qualified more than 5 years ago and less than 20 years ago, are most likely to state that their preservice education poorly prepared them for remedial work. There was no significant difference between male and female teachers. The majority of remedial teachers (83%) stated that they had attended inservice courses in remedial education.

TABLES

Have you attended inservice courses in Remedial Education? YES

NO

All RemedialTeachers

83%

17%

Male Teachers Female Teachers Teaching < 5 years Teaching 5--10 years Teaching 11-20 years

88% 82% 73% 94% 95%

12% 18% 27% 6% 5%

Teaching in Inner City Teaching in Rural Areas Teaching in Suburban Areas Teaching in Urban Areas

86% 75% 86% 88%

14% 25% 14% 12%

The above table shows that teachers in rural areas are not as likely as their counterparts in urban areas to have attended an inservice course in remedial education. Access to remedial courses in rural areas must, therefore, be further improved. Teachers who were deployed as remedial teachers for less than five years were also less likely to have attended an inservice course in remedial education. One would expect, however, that all teac' . rs should have had an opportunity to attend inservice courses within the first two years of being deployed as a remedial teacher.

48

Respondents were requested to state where they had attended inservice courses. The course in st. Patrick's College, Drumcondra was the most popular, in that it was attended by 30% of the teachers. (Refer to Appendix E, Table 9 for additional information) The majority of teachers (94%) expressed satisfaction with their courses. The structure of the courses varied from day release, to summer courses, to Saturdays, the most common being on Saturdays. 84% of teachers were satisfied with the structure of the courses. However, when requested to state their preference, day release courses and block release courses were preferred by teachers. Saturdays and vacations were not popular with the teachers, despite being the most common inservice structures available at present. (See Appendix D, Table 10)

An overwhelming majority of the remedial teachers (99%) and class teachers (91%) considered inservice courses in remedial education necessary for remedial teachers (See Appendix F). The majority of class teachers (81%) also stated that they would be interested in inservice courses on the management and remediation of learning difficulties.Class teachers with over 21 years experience (68%) were less likely than their younger colleagues to be interested in attending such courses. (See Appendix E, Table 11)

5.

SELECTION OF PUPILS FOR REMEDIAL TEACHING

5.1.

Policy

It is expected that schools should have a policy on selecting pupils for

remedial teaching, as some criteria must be used to select pupils for remedial intervention. 15% of respondents stated that no such policy was in existence. However, when respondents were asked who decided which children warranted remedial intervention, it was clear that, in the majority of cases, remedial teachers decided in consultation with class teachers.

49

TABLE 12

Who decides which pupils receive Remedial intervention? REMEDIAL TEACHERS

CLASS TEACHERS

REsPONSE

REsPONSE

Remedial teacher in consultation with class teacher Class teacher's decision Remedial teacher decision

89% 10% 1%

79% 15% 6%

In order to ascertain how teachers divided their time between classes

within schools, or in cases where they were working in clusters, how the teachers divided their time between schools, respondents were requested to state how they divided their working time. Selecting pupils for remedial assistance may often give rise to controversy in schools and between schools. If the majority of the weakest children are concentrated in one school in a cluster, or in one class in a school, would the other schools or classes feel deprived of their share of the remedial teacher's time in cases where the remedial teacher concentrated on the lowest achieving pupils regardless of location. Alternatively, if the remedial teacher divided her or his time equally between schools, are the pupils most in need of help receiving it? The majority of teachers, not surprisingly, stated that they selected the lowest achievers across the whole school population.

TABLE 13

Selecting Pupils The lowest percentile of achievers across the whole school population Dividing time equally between schools Dividing time equally between classes within schools Dividing time equally between the same class levels within schools

50

84% 5% 5% 5%

95% of remedial teachers agreed with the selection process used in their schools, as did 90% of class teachers. 5.2.

Screening

Children are usually screened in order to decide whether or not they require remedial assistance. In the majority of cases, the screening procedure is carried out by the remedial teacher. However, when asked who should carry out the initial screening of children, the majority of respondents stated that it should be carried out jointly by the remedial teacher and the class teacher.

TABLE 14

WHO SCREENS THE CHILDREN?

WHO SHOULD SCREEN

57% 33% 0% 10%

16% 22% 1% 61%

Remedial teacher Class teacher Principal teacher Remedial and class teacher

5.3.

THE CHILDREN?

Tests

As expected, respondents used Irish tests quite extensively for screening purposes in their schools. A description of Irish screening tests is presented in Appendix C. Respondents were not asked about non Irish tests in use. The following table illustrates the percentage of teachers using each of the Irish tests.

TABLE 15

Irish Tests in Use Micra T SigrnaT Marino Reading Test Rain (Navan) Drurncondra Tests

97% 85% 81% 71%

47% 51

The popularity of the Drumcondra Test appears to have declined whereas the Marino Reading Test is still extensively used by teachers for screening purposes. In the present survey, it emerged that 72% of remedial teachers believe that, in the majority of cases, pupils' need for remedial education usually arises from poor motivation and/ or a lack of encouragement from the home, while only 55% of class teachers believe this to be the case. Most class teachers (72%), however, believe that the majority of children attending remedial classes usually have specific learning difficulties, while only 52% of remedial teachers believe this to be the case. (See Appendix F)

6.

SCHOOL POLICY

6.1.

General

The findings of this survey indicate that many schools have policies concerning the prioritization of certain classes and when remedial intervention should begin. 65% of class teachers also stated that their schools had a policy on remedial education.

6.2.

Intervention

61% of remedial teachers stated that certain classes are prioritised and 82% of remedial teachers stated that their school has a policy on when remedial intervention should begin.

Teachers were requested to state when remedial intervention generally begins and also to state when they thought it should begin. TABLE

16 WHEN INTERVENTION BEGINS

R.T. 3% Junior Infants Senior Infants 40% First Class 45% Second Class 9% Third Class 3%

CT. 9% 3. . . 43% 11% 3%

WHEN INTERVENTION SHOULD BEGIN

R.T. 10% 58% 27% 3% 1%

,Q

KT. - Views of the Remedial Teachers C.T. - Views of Class Teachers

52

CT. 17% 48% 29% 5% 1%

It is clear that both remedial and class teachers believe that intervention

should start earlier, and that positive discrimination should be exercised in favour of junior classes.

TABLE 17 (A)

When does intervention begin? (Column D). Views of Remedial Teachers. When should intervention begin? (Column S)

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

o

SOS Junior Senior

6.3.

o 1st

S

o

SOS

2nd

3rd

Prioritising

Almost two thirds of schools surveyed (61%) have a policy on prioritising certain class groups for remedial intervention. However, a greater majority of remedial teachers (91%) supported the concept of prioritising certain classes for remedial education. (See Appendix E, table 18) Teachers were requested to state their level of agreement or disagreement with the statement that junior classes should be prioritised in the delivery of a remedial education service. 84% of remedial teachers and 63% of class teachers agreed that remedial education should be concentrated primarily in the junior section of the school. (See Appendix F) 53

6.4.

Curricular Areas

The vast majority of schools offer remedial services in English. However, over half the schools offer remedial services in Mathematics and a small number of schools offer remedial services in Irish.

TABLE 19

English

Irish

Mathematics

The above statistics, however, do not reflect the proportion of time allocated in each school to the various subject areas.

7.

STRUCTURE OF INTERVENTION

7.1.

Withdrawal

The majority of remedial teachers withdraw children from their classes for additional help in remediation. The frequency of withdrawal is illustrated in the table below. It is quite evident that !emedial teachers in the large schools and in single schools are more likely to withdraw pupils for remedial intervention on a daily basis. 54

TABLE 20

All Remedial T

49%

3 TIMES A WEEK 46%

Small Medium Large

9% 58% 72%

Single Cluster

DAILY

2-

WEEKLY

LESS THAN WEEKLY

4%

1%

77% 40% 24%

11% 2% 2%

3% 0% 2%

77% 19%

18% 75%

2% 5%

2% 1%

Disadvantaged 81% Non Disadvantaged 40%

16% 55%

5%

4% 1%

It is evident from the above tables that teachers working in small schools

in particular, cannot access children on a daily basis. Small schools suffer most if there are five or more schools in the cluster. It would appear therefore, that pupils in small schools, where teachers are working in large clusters, are at a disadvantage. Research indicates that consistency and regularity of remedial intervention is of great significance in the level of effectiveness of the service. The lack of continuity in dealing with children created a difficulty for over half the remedial teachers (53%).

55

7.2.

Size of Groups

Remedial teachers were asked what size of groups they dealt with when they withdraw children for remedial intervention. Given the success of individual attention for children with remedial needs, as shown by research, it is surprising that only 4% of teachers withdraw children on an individual basis. This, of course, could be related to the fact that remedial teachers are expected to cope with large numbers of children each week.

TABLE 21 (A)

Size ofGroups All teachers

4%

1-3 7%

Small Medium Large

6% 4% 2%

11% 6% 4%

10% 25% 32%

Single Cluster

2% 6%

5% 9%

32% 11%

INDIVIDUALLY

4-6 22%

LARGER

MIxED

1%

66%

1% 4%

73% 64% 57%

2%

59% 73%

Although the majority of teachers withdraw children in groups of mixed sizes, groups of between 4 and 6 children were the most common sized groups. Remedial teachers working in clusters of schools are more likely than teachers in single schools, to deal with children individually or in small groups of 1-3 children. However, the difference is not statistically significant. (See Appendix E, Table 21 (B) for further details)

56

7.3

Number of Children withdrawn per week

TABLE 22 (A)

Number of Children withdrawn per week No. OF CHILDREN

1-24

25-40

61-100

101+

Small Medium Large

3% 4% 6%

76% 82% 87%

19% 10% 0%

2% 3% 6%

Single Cluster

2% 7%

89% 80%

3% 11%

5% 2%

% OF ScHOOlS

(See Appendix E, Table 22 (B), for further information) Most schools appear to withdraw between 25 - 40 children per week. However, it is unacceptable that 19% of small schools and 11% of schools in clusters withdraw between 61 and 100 pupils per week. It is also surprising that 6% of large schools and 5% of single schools withdraw more than 100 pupils per week for remedial teaching. S. Mac Gleannain (1972), stated that the maximum number of pupils any remedial teacher should cater for is 50. The Review Body (1993) recommended a caseload of 40 pupils or 30 ordinary pupil equivalents. Current educational thinking would favour an even smaller number. Slightly fewer than half of the remedial teachers (46%) stated that the number of children requiring remedial intervention created a serious difficulty for them. A further 36% of remedial teachers stated that the numbers requiring remedial intervention presented some difficulties for them. 7.4.

Class Organisation

Class teachers were requested to state whether or not they tried to ensure that the children attending remedial classes do not miss the same curricular area each time they attend remedial. 73% of teachers stated that they do try to ensure that children are not always deprived of the same curriculum areas when attending remedial classes. Pupils were most likely to be absent from class when the following subject areas were being taught. 57

TABLE 23

Curricular areas most frequently missed by pupils attending remedial classes.

ALL ScHOOLS

Irish English Social & Environmental Studies Religion Mathematics Music Physical Education Arts and Crafts

38%

26% 11% 10%

9% 2% 2% 2%

More than a third of the pupils attending remedial are deprived of Irish classes most frequently. As only 6% of schools offer remedial programmes in Irish, there are many pupils who are being denied full access to the Irish curriculum. This statistic is more worrying given that 27% of class teachers have no policy to ensure that their pupils are not always absent during the same subject periods when attending remedial classes. Remedial English is offered by 99% of schools and a quarter of the pupils attending the remedial programme are absent from class during their English periods. The remedial programmes should be complementary to the class programme rather than be seen as a substitute for participation in the regular class programme. Class teachers must be encouraged, therefore, to ensure that pupils are not always absent during the same subject periods, while attending the remedial class. 7.5.

Support Teaching

The w··'tdrawal of children from their regular classroom to receive remedial assistance is still the most popular organisational structure used by remedial teachers in their remedial programmes. According to the remedial teachers surveyed, only 5% of remedial teachers would often work with class teachers in the classroom, and 66% of remedial teachers never work with the teacher in the classroom. This result is surprising

58

given that the guidelines on Remedial Education issued by the Department would encourage remedial teachers to devote some of their time to working with teachers in the classroom. Remedial teachers were more likely than class teachers to state that they sometimes worked with teachers in the classroom. Class teachers were more likely to state that remedial teachers never worked with them in the classroom. There was no significant difference between the responses of teachers in the various types of schools, or between the responses of the most and the least experienced teachers. TABLE 24

Do remedial teachers work with teachers in the classroom? REMEDIAL TEACHER RESPONSE

Often Sometimes Never

CLASS TEACHER RESPONSE

5%

2%

29%

16%

66%

82%

In order to ascertain whether or not remedial teachers were involved in

support teaching, which was defined as assisting class teachers with group work in classrooms, they were asked to state whether or not they engaged in this activity. TABLE 25 (A)

Support Teaching Yes (26.5%)

No (73.5%)

-----

~

Results from this survey indicate that support teaching is not a common activity amongst remedial teachers with only one in four teachers 59

involved in group work in classrooms. There was no significant difference between the responses of teachers who were very experienced and teachers who were teaching less than ten years. Teachers engaged in remedial teaching for less than five years were less likely than others to engage in support teaching. (22% in comparison to 31% of teachers who are serving as remedial teachers for more than 11 years.) (See Appendix E, Table 25 (B) for additional information) Those teachers who did engage in support teaching were asked to indicate what proportion of their time was spent on the activity. The majority spend less than 10% of their time on assisting with groups in classrooms.

TABLE

26

Time Spent on Support Teaching

5 -10% of time 11- 20% of time 21 - 30% of time 31- 50% of time

66% 19% 9% 6%

However, 50% of remedial teachers agreed that they should work with class teachers in the classroom, and 44% of class teachers agreed that remedial teachers should spend part of their time working with them in the class situation.

60

8.

NUMBER OF PUPILS

8.1.

Mean Attendance

According to the remedial teachers, the average number of children from each class level attending remedial intervention is as follows:

TABLE 27

Junior Infants Senior Infants First Class Second Class Third Class Fourth Class Fifth Class Sixth Class Special Class

Boys

STANDARD

GIRLS

STANDARD

MEAN

DEVIATION

MEAN

DEVIATION

1.68 5.16 6.80 6.73 5.86 5.17 4.88 4.08 2.07

2.14 3.84 3.70 4.01 3.30 2.93 2.69 2.49 2.55

1.50 3.80 4.77 4.80 4.64 4.16 3.77 3.92 5.75

2.09 2.81 4.00 3.49 3.45 3.14 2.64 5.55 14.51

Recent research on remedial education indicates that there are more boys than girls in receipt of remedial education. The results in this survey concur with previous findings, in that the mean number of boys attending remedial classes is higher than the mean number of girls, except in the case of children attending the special classes. However, due to the fact that many respondents did not adequately answer the question on the total number of pupils enrolled in each class level in all schools in the cluster, it is not possible to ascertain the percentage of each class level attending remedial classes. 8.2.

Percentage of Pupils Attending

Remedial teachers were requested to state what percentage of the school's pupils were attending remedial classes, and to compare that to the percentage they thought should be receiving remedial intervention. It is evident from the following table that between 9-17% of pupils are attending remedial classes in over half (57%) of the schools and between 61

(18%-26%) attend remedial classes in almost a quarter of the schools (23%). Remedial teachers are usually allocated to schools on the basis of 10% of the schools' pupils needing remedial intervention. However, remedial teachers perceive a need greater than this. (See Appendix E, Table 28 (B))

What percentage of the school's pupils is currently receiving remedial education? (Column A) What percentage of the schools' pupils do you think should be receiving remedial education? (Column 5) TABLE

28(A)

Percentage of Pupils Attending Remedial Classes. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0%

A 5 1%-8%

A 5 A 5 A 5 9%-17% 18%-26% 27%-40%

A 5 41%+

In only 2% of cases, were a third (27%-40%) of the schools' pupils attending remedial classes, however, 9% of the respondents stated that they believe this number should be attending remedial classes. A further 3% of remedial teachers believe that almost half of the schools' pupils should be attending remedial classes. This response leads one to ask whether or not there is confusion surrounding thr. role of the remedial teacher. 62

According to the 41% of the class teachers, between 9% and 17% of their pupils attended remedial classes. A little over 28% of the teachers stated that between 18-26% of the pupils in their class attended remedial classes. Only 2% stated that more than 40% of pupils attended remedial instruction. (See Appendix E, Table 28 (B»

TABLE 29

Number of Pupils Attending Remedial Classes according to Class Teachers. 45% 'r 40% r 35% 30% 'r 25% "r 20% "r 15% 10% "r 5% 0%

+ + , 1%·8%

8.3.

9%·17%

18%·26%

27%·40%

41 %+

Continuous Attendance

One would expect pupils receiving remedial education to return to full time class teaching after a period, and that it would only be the exceptional child who would continue to receive remedial education throughout their years in primary school. It is generally expected that children can be remediated in an average of three years. In about 50% of schools, more than half the pupils receiving remedial

instruction receive continuous intervention throughout their school years. Less than 10% of pupils receive continuous remedial education in a quarter of the schools. It is rather disquieting that in half the schools, 63

between 48% and 100% of pupils in receipt of remedial education receive continuous intervention throughout their school years. (See Appendix E, Table 30). This is probably due to the lack of resources for remedial education and the large numbers teachers are expected to cope with.

8.4.

Consultation with Parents

It is considered normal practice to consult with parents before children are allocated to remedial classes, as recommended in the guidelines published by the Department of Education. It is considered rare for parents to refuse to allow their children to attend remedial classes.

TABLE 31 (A)

Do you seek parental consent before allocating pupils to remedial classes? YES

Remedial Teachers 87% Class Teachers 83%

No

13% 17%

TABLE 32 (A)

Is parental consent forthcoming? ALWAYS

Remedial Teachers 84% Class Teachers 84%

NOT ALWAYS

16% 16%

(See Appendix E, Tables 31, 32 for further details)

64

9.

LIAISON BETWEEN REMEDIAL AND CLASS TEACHERS

9.1.

Consultation

Remedial teachers do, however, consult with class teachers, though not as regularly as one may have thought. The class teachers were more likely than the remedial teachers to state that they consulted with the remedial teacher on a daily basis. TABLE

33

ALL ScHOOLS

Daily Weekly Less Often Never

SINGLE SCHOOLS

CLUSTERS

RT.

eT.

RT.

eT.

RT.

eT.

3% 38% 58% 1%

11% 41% 45% 3%

5% 34% 60% 1%

10% 36% 54% 0%

2% 41% 56% 1%

12% 44% 42% 3%

RT. - Response of Remedial Teachers eT. - Response of Class Teachers

It would have been expected that remedial teachers working in single

schools should have had more of an opportunity to consult with class teachers, concerning their pupils, more often than teachers who are working in clusters of schools. However, this does not appear to be the case. Very few remedial teachers consult with class teachers on a daily basis, but teachers in clusters of schools consult on a weekly basis more frequently than teachers in single schools. The difference, however, is not statistically significant. Three quarters of the remedial teachers (78%) stated that the lack of time to consult with the class teachers created a difficulty for them. However, the lack of understanding by staff of the role of the remedial teacher only created a serious problem for 12% of remedial teachers. Half of the respondents (52%) had no such problem.

65

9.2.

Advice

Class teachers were asked to state whether or not they usually accepted the advice of the remedial teacher concerning the pupils in their class. The vast majority of class teachers (94%) did accept the remedial teacher's advice. Class teachers in clusters of schools (95%) were slightly more likely than class teachers in single schools (85%) to accept the remedial teacher's advice. However, only slightly more than half the class teachers (53%), worked on remedial programmes with their own pupils between sessions with the remedial teacher. Class teachers in clusters of schools (93%) were much more likely than their colleagues in single schools (37%) to work on remedial programmes with their own pupils between sessions with the remedial teacher, allowing for continuity in circumstances where the remedial teacher is not present on a daily basis in the school. On a more . positive note, however, the vast majority of class teachers (96%) see an improvement in their pupils' work, having attended remedial classes. One must conclude therefore, that remedial teachers are considered effective by their colleagues in the delivery of a remedial teaching service to our schools.

10.

ORGANISATION

10.1.

Timetabling

Remedial teachers deal with a large number of children with varying degrees of learning difficulties during the course of their week. Timetables and schedules are, therefore, an integral part of the remedial teacher's work. Two thirds of teachers operate a fixed timetable (67%), the remaining third operating a flexible timetable (33%). The majority of teachers (85%) also have a fixed time unit for each of their periods of instruction. The remaining 15% operate with a variety of time units. The following table illustrates the time units in operation by teachers who operate fixed units of time. The most pop..Jar unit of time, is a period of 25-30 minutes, which is used by 59% of teachers who operate fixed periods. 10% of teachers operate in long term units of 50-60 minutes.

66

TABLE 34

UNITS OF TIME

10 minutes 15 - 20 minutes 25 - 30 minutes 35 - 45 minutes 50 - 60 minutes

10.2.

30% 8% 59% 29% 1%

Planning and Record Keeping

Remedial teachers, along with their other teaching colleagues are expected to engage in planning their work and in keeping records of pupils' progress, in addition to meeting with parents and class teachers. Teachers were asked to state whether or not they made provision for these activities in their formal timetable.

67

TABLE 35

PREPARATION

MEETING

MEETING

KEEPING

PARENTS

TEACHERS

RECORDS

All Rem. Teachers 54%

53%

30%

62%

37% 51% 61%

42% 47% 53%

16% 27% 31%

51% 62% 48%

Disadvantage 53% Non Disadvantage 48%

48% 44%

26% 22%

59% 54%

Single Schools Clusters

57% 39%

52% 42%

28% 18%

62% 51%

Teaching < 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years

44% 56% 47% 47%

11% 42% 50% 48%

0% 19% 18% 31%

56% 50% 61% 55%

< 5 years as RT 5 - 10 years as RT 11 + years as RT

49% 54% 42%

42% 48% 54%

19% 28% 27%

62% 58% 45%

Small Schools Medium Schools Large Schools

Slightly over half the remedial teachers allocate specific time in their timetables to prepare and to meet parents. As it would be assumed that all remedial teachers prepare and plan their programme, the remainder of the remedial teachers must engage in these activities outside school hours. Allocating time for meeting teachers was not considered a priority by the teachers as only 30% allocated time for this activity. Teachers with less than five years experience were least likely to allocate time to meet their colleagues. Teachers in small schools ffi,-.i teachers working in clusters of schools were least likely to allocate time in their timetables for preparation and for meeting parents. Teachers who were deployed as remedial teachers for more than 11 years were less likely than their colleagues to allocate time for keeping records.

68

10.3.

Record Keeping

Although not all teachers allocate specific periods in their timetable for record keeping, it is evident from the following table that teachers did actually keep records.

TABLE 36 (A)

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% . 10% + 5% + 0% Daily

Weekly

• • Monthly Annually Never

Daily records were kept by 42% of remedial teachers, weekly records by 26% of teachers and monthly records by 23%. There was only one teacher who admitted to not keeping records. Teachers teaching in smaller schools (56%)were more likely than teachers working in medium (34%) or large schools (40%) to keep daily records as were teachers working in clusters of schools (46%) in comparison to teachers in single schools (38%). Younger teachers were also more likely to keep daily records (62.5%). However, the number of teachers in this particular category is very small and may therefore, present an unreliable picture. (See Appendix E, Table 36 (B))

69

11.

RESOURCES

11.1.

Funding

A majority (58%) of teachers stated that they did not receive adequate funding to enable them to carry out their work as a remedial teacher effectively.

TABLE 37

Do you receive adequate funding? 42%

No 58%

43% Disadvantage Non Disadvantage 32%

57% 68%

Single Clusters

45% 71%

YES

.All Teachers

55% 29%

It is not surprising that a much higher percentage of teachers working in

clusters of schools (71%) stated that they did not receive adequate funding for their remedial work. Teachers working in clusters of schools receive the same grant for the purchase of remedial equipment and material as do their colleagues in single schools. The initial grant for remedial teachers is £250, which is followed by an annual grant of £125 per teacher. More than half the teachers (56%) stated that the inadequate level of Departmental grants created a serious difficulty for them.

70

TABLE 38 Do you receive the full grant from your Board of Management? YES

No

All Teachers 96% Disadvantage 94% Non disadvantage 98%

4% 6% 2%

Single Clusters

5% 3%

95% 97%

It is clear that in the vast majority of cases (98%) remedial teachers are

receiving the allocated grant from their Boards of Management. The majority of the teachers (75%) also stated that they had no difficulty with the level of support offered to them by the Departmental Inspector. An overwhelming majority of both remedial and class teachers (94%) agreed that remedial teachers should have access to a Departmental Inspector with particular expertise in remedial education.

11.2

Equipment and Materials

It is rather disquieting, however, that almost one third of remedial

teachers have very little of the necessary equipment and materials in order to carry out their remedial work, in spite of receiving a grant from the Department for this purpose. Only 12% of teachers can state satisfactorily that they have all the necessary equipment and materials they require. Do you have all necessary equipment and materials? TABLE 39 ALL

MOST

LmLE

12%

58%

30%

Disadvantage 14% Non Disadvantage 7%

56% 53%

30% 40%

Single Clusters

61% 55%

20% 40%

All Teachers

19% 5%

71

It is not surprising that only 5% of teachers working in clusters of schools

stated that they had all equipment and materials necessary to carry out their duties. Teachers working in clusters of schools have often stated that the remedial grant should be increased in direct proportion to the number of schools in the cluster. Remedial teachers consider it inappropriate to have to transport remedial equipment and material from school to school. It is also generally recommended that class teachers should have access to remedial materials to complement the remedial teacher's work. It is unacceptable that almost a third of the schools (30%) have little of the

equipment and materials they need to provide an effective service. The lack of resources in classrooms created a major difficulty for over one third (37%) of the remedial teachers, while another 40% stated that the lack of resources created some difficulty for them. Two thirds of the remedial . teachers (64%) stated that the lack of resources for remedial work created a difficulty for them. While teachers were not requested to state what equipment they had available to them, they were requested to state whether or not they considered computers to be of value to them in remedial work. It was surprising that 22% of remedial teachers and 24% of class teachers had no opinion on the matter. 67% of remedial teachers and 65% of class teachers considered computers to be of value to them in teaching children with learning difficulties. (See Appendix F)

11.3.

Accommodation

Most new school buildings in urban areas are built with an extra classroom for remedial teaching. However, the majority of primary schools do not have purpose built remedial rooms. Teachers are provided with adequate accommodation in 82% of the schools while 18% of schools do not provide adequate accommodation. Large schools and inner city schools were most likely to make adequate provision for remedial accommodation.

72

TABLE 40

Adequate Accommodation

All Teachers

82%

No 18%

Small Schools Medium Schools Large Schools Inner City Schools Rural Schools Suburban Schools Urban Schools

84% 88% 96% 94% 86% 85% 89%

16% 12% 4% 6% 14% 15% 12%

96% Disadvantage Non Disadvantage 85%

4% 15%

YES

The following table illustrates the kind of accommodation provided for teachers in their various schools in which they are expected to carry out their remedial teaching duties. TABLE 41

Where do you carry out remedial duties? %OFSCHooLS

Remedial Room Staffroom Library Classroom Cloakroom Corridor

61% 12% 11% 10% 5% 2%

No. OF ScHOOLS (291) (59) (51) (48) (25) (9)

It is heartening that the majority of schools have remedial rooms available

in which the teachers can work, however, this is still less than two thirds of the ,chools in the sample. Only 15% of the remedial teachers stated that they had a serious difficulty with accommodation, while 60% stated that they had no difficulty. 73

It is very unsatisfactory, however, that teachers are working in libraries, cloakrooms and corridors. Twenty five schools offer cloakrooms for the remedial teachers while nine schools can only offer a mere corridor. Working in such conditions is most unacceptable to teachers.

12.

ROLE OF THE REMEDIAL TEACHER

12.1.

Perception of Role

There are differences of opinion as to what the role of the remedial teacher should be. These differences are based on one's concept of what 'remedial' means, and what one's experience of remedial teaching is. The remedial teachers were requested to state in order of priority, what they considered their primary functions to be. A quarter (25%) of class teachers perceive the role of the remedial teacher to be as a consultant to the class teacher on the management of learning difficulties, while only one sixth (16%) of remedial teachers perceive this to be the role. Almost half of the remedial teachers (48%) and only a third (36%) of the class teachers perceive the role of the remedial teacher as assisting children who have fallen behind. Howevei~ 40% of class teachers and 38% of remedial teachers perceive the role of the remedial teacher to be that of a teacher of weak pupils. TABLE 42

(A)

1 Consultant to the class teacher on the management of learning difficulties

RT.

eT.

2 R.T. eT.

16%

32%

18% 17%

42% 51%

1 RT. eT.

2 RT. eT.

3 RT. eT.

3 RT. eT.

Teacher of Pupils who had fallen behind

48%

51%

32% 27%

9% 22%

Teachers of Weak Pupils

1 RT. eT. 38% 47%

2 RT. eT. 24% 41%

3 RT. eT. 19% 11%

R.T. - Remedial Teachers' Response C. T. - Class Teachers' Response 74

The greatest percentage of remedial teachers (48%) stated that the most important role of the teacher was that of assisting children who had fallen behind. Male remedial teachers (73%) were also more likely than their female counterparts (52%) to state this as the most important function of remedial teachers. (See Appendix E, Table 42 (B) for further details) 12.2.

Teaching Weak Pupils

If one accepts that the goal of remedial teaching is that of bridging the gap between a child's ability and a child's performance level, one must question whether or not remedial teachers should cater for weak children who are functioning to the best of their ability. However, 90% of remedial teachers stated that they cater for weak children who, in their opinion, are functioning to the best of their ability and over a third 38% of remedial teachers stated this to be their primary function. If these pupils are functioning to the best of their ability, one must question the purpose of their attendance at remedial? The mean percentage of pupils in this category is 37%. However, there was no clear consensus of opinion amongst either remedial or class teachers on whether or not weak children, who are achieving to the best of their ability, should attend the remedial teacher. 44% of remedial teachers and 38% of class teachers agreed that they should not. 52% of remedial teachers and 56% of class teachers stated that they should. (See Appendix F). There is a difficulty, of course, in determining when and if a pupil is achieving to his or her potential.

12.3.

Title of Teacher

The teacher engaged in remedial work is most often called the remedial teacher. However, other terms are also used

TABLE 43

TITLES

Remedial Teacher 71% Reading Teacher 13% Resource Teacher 8% Support Teacher 2% Other 5% 75

12.4.

Catering for Children with Special Needs

In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards the integration of

children with disabilities into mainstream schools and classes. Appropriate support services are rarely provided for these children. While there is an increasing number of resource teachers being appointed to cater for these children, it is often the case that remedial teachers are requested to cater for pupils with special needs in the absence of resource teachers. Remedial teachers cater for children with special needs to the extent illustrated in the following table.

TABLE 44

What categories of special needs children do you cater for? Emotionally Disturbed Mildly Mentally Handicapped Traveller Children Hearing Impaired Physically Handicapped Children with Down's Syndrome Visually Impaired Moderately Mentally Handicapped Gifted Children

40% 34% 26% 18% 15% 8% 8% 7% 6%

Remedial teachers were divided in their views on whether or not they should, as remedial teachers, cater for children with special needs, other than remedial needs. 42% of remedial teachers stated that they consider dealing with children with special needs as part of their role, but the majority (58%) disagreed. 12.5.

Remedial -v- Resource Teacher

When asked whether the title of 'remedial teacher' should be changed to 'remedial/resource teacher', and that their role should include dealing with all children with special needs in mainstream education, 45% of

76

remedial teachers and 62% of class teachers agreed, while 42% of remedial teachers and 22% of class teachers disagreed. There is no strong clear consensus of opinion emerging amongst remedial teachers, therefore, on this aspect of the role of the remedial teacher. Remedial teachers who were deployed as remedial teachers for more than 11 years were least likely to support the proposal, as 55% of them were opposed to this statement. Class teachers, however, are more positively disposed towards the proposal that remedial teachers should cater for pupils with special needs and act as resource / remedial teachers in the school than their counterparts who are deployed as remedial teachers. This view probably reflects the frustration felt by class teachers who have pupils with special needs integrated into their classes without a proper support service. (See Appendix F) 12.6.

Job Satisfaction

The majority of remedial teachers rated their job satisfaction as remedial teachers positively. Only 2 remedial teachers, both males, stated that they were very dissatisfied with their job as remedial teacher, and 22 teachers stated that they were dissatisfied. Respondents were not requested to give reasons for their response. Remedial teachers in large schools, and remedial teachers who had more than 21 years' teaching experience were more likely than their colleagues to give a satisfactory rating. Male teachers were slightly more dissatisfied in their job than their female colleagues. Teachers in small schools (17%) and in clusters of schools (22%) were less likely than their colleagues to rate their job satisfaction as very satisfactory. The adequacy of the accommodation available to the remedial teachers did not unduly affect the job satisfaction ratings. Teachers who had no difficulty with their accommodation were slightly more satisfied (97%) than their colleagues who had serious difficulty with their accommodation. (83%)

77

that the only way to get money for special needs was to get a statement which means less spending on the ones without a statement. I would like to go back to the situation in which only two per cent of children have statements, with money allocated to the other eighteen per cent. Unless we do that, a lot of children will slip through the net". The concentration of provision on small numbers of children led to disquiet about the fact that many children with reading problems were not having their needs met. This concern has prompted many LEAs to introduce the Reading Recovery Programme. It is ironic that the Reading Recovery teachers are, basically, doing what the remedial teachers were doing before statementing and the reorientation of the remedial services. A.2.

Remedial Education Provision in the United States

Remedial reading programmes were implemented in some American state schools as early as 1920. However, provision for children with specific reading difficulties was concentrated more in private clinics and research centres. Remedial reading teachers were not appointed until the post World War IT years, when reading standards in schools were subjected to close scrutiny. In general, these teachers worked with small groups of children who were evincing difficulties in the area of basic literacy skills. Up until the early 1960s, the American remedial teachers operated in a primarily, instructional role, withdrawing children in small groups for remediation. However, during the mid 1960s a number of educators called for a different role for the remedial specialists i.e. that of reading consultant to the class teacher. In the United States, at present, although there are individually coherent programmes, there is no such thing as a typical remediation programme,

at least in the sense of a single organisational plan or prototypical approach to instruction (Carter, 1984). Rather what are in existence primarily are funding patterns to support remediatiOl :ld, in some cases, legislation or policy mandates to provide the same. The main organisational pattern for provision of remediation is that of small group withdrawal from the regular classroom environment. In elementary schools remedial instruction is rarely provided in groups 99

larger than eight children. (Birman et aI., 1987; Stonehill and Anderson, 1982). Most remediation is offered at a site separate from the regular classroom, but usually in the same building (Birman et aI., 1987). With regard to students served in full time special education classes, the groups catered for are generally between ten and twelve pupils, but once again, a separate classroom in the regular school building is the preferred location. Recent research has indicated that lower teacher/pupil ratios are important in the remediation of learning difficulties. Carter (1984) found that, in "Chapter I" programmes, lower teacher pupil ratios were more frequently associated with successful outcomes. Similarly, funding from research into the efficacy of the Reading Recovery Programme (Clay 1985, Pinnell 1989) indicate that one-to-one instruction has been proven to be particularly effective. 1n addition, there has recently been a shift away from the traditional withdrawal approach towards in-class remedial intervention. This move is associated with the evolving role of the specialist teacher towards a more collaborative, consultative model. Another characteristic of current remedial provision in the United States is that it is provided, in most cases, by a highly qualified teacher who has earned more graduate credits and who is now more likely to hold a specialised teaching licence. (Allington, 1980; Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982). These specialised licences seem most frequently to be either a "reading teacher/specialist", or "special education/learning disability teacher" licence earned primarily through graduate professional training. A further trait of remedial programmes is the prevailing tendency not to embark on them until the student has had considerable experience of schooling. There are several possible contributors to this situation. There still exists among educational and psychological circles considerable adherence to the concept of "reading readiness", which promotes the idea that some children are not maturationally ready to commence learning to read at kindergart~- level or in first grade. From a "readiness viewpoint, the solution to learning difficulties is to wait until the child is actually reading before embarking on reading instruction. Thus, no remediation is supposedly required, though retention is often recommended to allow the "gift of time" (Smith and Shepard, 1988). Unfortunately, research evidence consistently indicates that practices emanating from views such as 100

retention or transition room placement rarely service the children well (Shepard and Smith, 1986). Recently, however, a trend towards earlier intervention has become evident. This is probably due to reports of the success of early intervention programmes, namely, The Hi/Scope Project (Schweinhart, Weikart & Lamer, 1986) and the Reading Recovery Programme (Clay, 1985, Pinnell, 1989); and to an increasing emergent literacy view of early reading (Teale and Salzby, 1987). In addition, substantial increases in funding have been made available for the early identification of handicapped children in the preschool system. The segregation of remedial and special programmes from the mainstream education programme is yet another characteristic of current intervention efforts. Remediation endeavours typically proceed separately from the regular class instruction, regardless of the categorical programme (Allington, Stuetzel, Shake and Lamarche, 1986; McGill-Franzen & Allington 1990). Winfield (1986) found that classroom teachers tended to abdicate responsibility for the learning of children serviced by categorical programmes, most often shifting accountability to the specialist teacher and expressing i) a lack of expertise, or 2) a conviction that such children cannot be expected to acquire reading proficiency. In addition, classroom teachers and specialist teachers share little knowledge of each others instructional activities (Johnston, Allington & Afferbach, 1985). Nevertheless, reading remediation is provided to millions of children in the United States under an array of categorical programmes, including Chapter 1, special education, migrant education, bilingual education and other non categorical efforts.

101

APPENDIX B CURRENT PROVISION OF INSERVICE COURSES FOR REMEDIAL TEACHERS

The school year 1994-95 has seen a development in the provision of inservice courses for remedial teachers. A number of new courses have been established with a new format, and other courses have ceased being organised. Department of Education Inservice courses in remedial education, are currently organised by the Department of Education in conjunction with Mary Immaculate College of Education, University College Cork and the Church of Ireland College of Education. These courses are open to both primary and post primary teachers. The courses, which are in operation for the first time during the 1994-95 school year, are open to remedial teachers only. The aim of the programmes will be to provide substantial theoretical and practical training for teachers in all aspects of remedial education provision. The course consists of core modules on learning difficulties, classroom management, communication skills, school planning, testing, the role of parents and self esteem. Teachers are released from their teaching duties for block periods of time each term for a one year period, amounting to 120 hours in total. Another 80 hours is allocated for guided practical experience. Each course will cater for approximately thirty teachers.

OTHER COURSES

University College Dublin The Education Department in UCD organises a one year full time diploma course in remedial educatior University College Galway The Education Departmen~ in UCG organises a two year part time diploma course in the management and remediation of learning 102

difficulties. The course takes place on Friday evenings and on Saturday mornings. A certificate is awarded after one year and a diploma is awarded on completion of the two year programme. Mary Immaculate College of EducationiSt. Angela's College in Sligo A part time course in 'Coping with Learning Difficulties in the Classroom', which is open to all primary teachers is organised by Mary Immaculate College of Education on Saturdays over a one year period. A similar course is held in St. Angela's College in Sligo over a two year period. A second course in Sligo is also available, entitled, the "New Extended Remedial Course for Primary Teachers" and is over a two year period on a part time basis. The courses are part funded by the Department of Education. St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra In addition to organising a full time course in special education, St. Patrick's College offers a part time course on a day release basis to remedial teachers from within a catchment area of circa 50 miles. The course is of one year's duration and is funded by the Department of Education.

SHORT COURSES

The Department of Education, the Teachers' Centres, the Association of Remedial Teachers in Ireland (ARTI) and the INTO organise a wide range of short inservice courses on the management and remediation of learning difficulties. Marino Institute of Education, The Child Guidance Centre, Orwell Road and Cope Foundation in Cork no longer organise courses in the management and remediation of learning difficulties for remedial teachers.

103

REMEDIAL AFFILIATIONS

The Association of Remedial Teachers of Ireland (ARTI) draws its members from remedial teachers both in first and second level schools, as well as others professionally involved in remedial education. It developed from the Association of Post-Primary Remedial Teachers, inaugurated in 1971, and which held its first annual seminar in 1975. In 1977, it published the first issue of its journal, "Remedial Teaching". The name of the journal has been changed to "Learn" since 1981, and this is now published on an annual basis. The ARTI organises conferences, seminars, meetings and workshops for its members. Branches of the association are located in Dublin, Sligo, Galway, Mayo, Waterford and Cork. The Reading Association of Ireland (R.AJ) was founded in 1975, and caters for all aspects of reading but its seminars and conferences tend to focus on reading in the primary school. It held its first annual Conference in September 1976, and in July 1982, hosted the Ninth World Reading Congress in St. Patrick's College, Dublin.

104

APPENDIX C A

DISCRIPTION OF IRISH SCREENING TESTS

Micra T The Mary Immaculate College Reading Attainment tests have been designed for use in primary schools in Ireland and span all classes from Senior Infants to 6th class. There are three levels of tests with each test having an alternative form. This is a group test but it can be individually administered should this be necessary. The flexible scoring systems allow results to be expressed in terms of reading ages, standard scores, percentiles and/or sten scores. A colour screening test is necessary where a teacher suspects a child to have difficulty distinguishing colour. It is a written test with the teacher giving verbal instructions. Marino Test This test is a quick, easy to administer test, involving the recognition of a list of graded words. The test is administered individually and will yield a reading age.

Rain Test Developed by the Reading Association of Ireland, Navan, this test provides teachers with information on how the reading performances of children in their class compare with those of children nationally. It is an individual test, involving the reading of a series of sentences graded in terms of difficulty. The results give the tester a percentile ranking, allowing him to compare the results as already stated.

SigmaT The Sigma T tests are a series of mathematical attainment tests which have been developed especially for the Irish primary school. The five levels of the series are intended for use in primary school classes from first class through to sixth class. The tests have been carefully constructed to ensure broad and balanced coverage of mathemarcal content across all levels, and provide accurate and reliable information regarding the 105

mathematical performance of pupils. The national norms associated with the test provide a comparative frame of reference by which the performance of children in any part of Ireland can be objectively measured and evaluated.

The Drumcondra Primary Reading Test The Drumcondra Primary Reading Test (DPRT) is a new test of English reading which is currently under development at the Educational Research Centre, St. Patrick's College. The DPRT is a group administered test of silent reading designed for use in primary schools (in 3rd to 6th classes inclusive). There are four levels of the test (Levels 3, 4, 5 and 6) which correspond to the class levels. There are two versions of the test (Form A and Form B) at each level. Two aspects of English reading i.e. vocabulary and comprehension are assessed at all levels of the DPRT. An important feature of the DPRT is that there is some overlap across adjacent levels within each form, to allow for the development of a reading scale that is sensitive to improvement in reading across levels of the test. In developing the DPRT, the Educational Research Centre attempted to

incorporate current understanding of the reading comprehension process and the most recent trends in test development, while also maintaining the most successful features of more traditional tests such as the Drumcondra English Attainment Test. Hence, while the new DPRT assess vocabulary knowledge in the traditional manner, comprehension is assessed using longer, more naturalistic texts, and comprehension questions have been generated along the lines of recently developed procedures for text mapping.

106

APPENDIX D 1.

PROFILE OF SCHOOLS IN REMEDIAL TEACHERS' SURVEY

1.1

Size ofSclwol Small Medium Large Total

1.2.

1.32.

Structure of Sclwol Junior Senior Vertical Total

1.6.

59.7% 30.8% 9.5%

27 65 425 517

5.2% 12.6% 82.2%

80 63 372 515

15.5% 12.2% 72.2%

Teaching Medium Gaeltacht Schools All Irish Schools Total

1.5.

PERCENTAGE OF ScHOOLS

Gender Boys Girls Mixed Total

1.4.

No. OF ScHOOLS 308 159 49 516

25 ,2 30

Areas Inner City Rural Suburban Urban Total

17 281 113 96 507

3.4% 55.4% 22.3% 18.9%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged Total

72 428

14.4% 85.6%

500

107

2.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS IN REMEDIAL TEACHERS' SURVEY

Total Number of Respondents - 269

2.1.

Male Teachers Female Teachers

No. OF REsPONDENTS 42 224

Permanent Temporary

2.3.

15.7% 83.9%

257 8

95.9% 3%

9 34 96 127

3.4% 12.8% 36.1% 47.7%

136 66 63

51.1% 24.8% 23.7%

Teaching Experience < 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years

2.4.

%OF REsPONDENTS

Experience as a Remedial Teacher < 5 years 5-10 years 11+ years

108

3.

PROFILE OF SCHOOLS IN CLASS TEACHERS' SURVEY

Total Number of Respondents - 382 3.1.

Size of School Small (1-7 teachers) Medium (8-16 teachers) Large (17+ teacher) Missing

3.2.

No. OF REsPONDENTS 192 140 44

6

Structure of School Junior Schools Senior Schools Vertical Schools Missing

3.3.

73 51 250 8

19% 13% 65% 3%

19 2 16

5% 10% 84%

138 31 73 9 122

36% 8% 19% 2% 32%

School Catchment Area Working class Lower Middle Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Mixed

3.6.

6% 16% 76% 2%

Teaching Medium Teaching though Irish - in a Gaelscoil - in the Gaeltacht

3.5.

22 63 291 6

Sex of School Boys' Schools Girls' Schools Mixed Schools Missing

3.4.

%oFREsPONDENTS 50% 37% 11% 2%

Number of Remedial Teachers in School 1 full time Remedial Teacher >1 full time Remedial Teacher Shared Remedial Teacher Missing

109

116 1 253 12

30% .3% 66% 3%

3.7.

3.8.

Area of School Inner City Rural Area Suburban Area Urban Areas

No. OF RESPONDENTS

21 186 253 73

5% 49% 66% 19%

82 278

23% 77%

116 72 169

32% 20% 47%

Status Disadvantaged Schools Non disadvantaged Schools

3.9.

%oFRESPONDENTS

Number of years school has Service Less than 5 years 5-10 years More than 10 years

4.

PROFILE OF CLASS TEACHER RESPONDENTS

4.1.

Teaching Experience

No. OF RESPONDENTS

less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 20+ years Missing

4.2.

%oFREsPONDENTS

16 57 158 142 9

4% 15% 41% 37% 2%

33 48 81 93 75 86 84 87 1 2

9% 12% 21% 24% 20% 22% 22% 23% .3% .5%

Classes being taught Junior Infants Senior Infants First Class Second Class Third Class Fourth Class Fifth Class Sixth Class C:"ecial Class Non Teaching Principal

Note: Many teachers teach more than one class level.

110

APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SURVEY RESULTS TABLES

Would you be interested in being deployed as a remedial teacher? YES

No

All Teachers

39%

61%

Teaching < 5 years Teaching 5-10 years Teaching 11-20 years Teaching 20+ years

31% 57% 41% 30%

69% 43% 59% 70%

Inner City Rural Area Suburban Urban

71% 30% 43% 47%

29% 70% 57% 53%

Single Schools Clusters

58% 34%

42% 66%

TABLE 7 (B)

How well did preservice education prepare you for remedial teaching? VERY WELL

ADEQUATELY

POORLY

All Teachers

12%

35%

53%

Male Teachers Female Teachers

7% 12%

43% 34%

50% 54%

Teaching < 5 years Teaching 5-10 years Teaching 11-20 years Teaching 21 + years

50% 6% 8% 13%

25% 29% 32% 39%

25% 65% 60% 48%

111

TABLE 9

Where did you attend your inservice course? St. Patrick's College, Drurncondra University College Galway St. John of God's, Orwell Road Mary Immaculate College of Education, Limerick Cope Foundation, Cork CoIaiste MllUire, Marino St. Angela's College, Sligo Other

30% 18% 15% 12% 9% 8% 3% 6%

TABLE 10

Structure of Inservice Day Release Summer Course Saturdays

44%

Preferred Structures for Inservice Day Release Block Release Saturdays Summer vacation A combination of above

33% 33% 3% 3% 28%

32% 24%

TABLE 11

Would you be interested in attending inservce courses on remedial eduation/ the management and remediation of learning difficulties? All Class Teachers

81%

19%

Teaching < 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years

94% 93% 76% 68%

6% 7% 24% 32%

112

TABLE 17 (B)

When does intervention begin? (Column D). Views of Remedial Teachers. When should intervention begin? (Column S) 2ND

3RD

D S 45%27%

D S 9% 3%

D S 3%1%

46%65% 21%44% 40% 55%

50%15% 29%36% 56%29%

37%15% 10% 7%

13%3% 1%

6%19% 5% 7% 1% 11 % 1%11%

35%50% 37%61% 40%58% 38%47%

24% 6% 57%30% 51 %29% 43%37%

35%25% 1% 0% 5% 2% 13% 3%

0%0% 0%1% 3%0% 5%2%

Disadvantage 1%13% Non Disadvantage 4% 8%

38%53% 38%60%

37%19% 55%31 %

20%11% 2% 0%

4%4% 1%1%

ALL ScHOOLS

JUNIOR

SENIOR

All Schools

D S 3%10%

D S 40%58%

Junior Senior Vertical

4%19% 2% 3% 8%

Inner City Rural Suburban . Urban

1ST

When does intervention begin? (Column D). Views of Class Teachers. When should intervention begin? (Column S) 2ND

3RD

D S 63%29%

D S 11% 5%

D S 3%1%

21%50% 39%34% 35%48%

31%33% 31%26% 49%31%

39% 11%20% 4% 1%

3%4% 2% 2%

Disadvantage 12%22% Non Disadvantage 8%16%

33%42% 34%50%

29%24% 47%30%

20%10% 9% 3%

6%1% 2%

Small Medium Large

10%14% 52%15% 9%18%

30%73% 19%34% 36%49%

50% 9% 19%26% 34%32%

10% 5% 8%20% 7% 1%

1% 1%3% 14%

Inner City Rural Suburban Urban

19%30% 11%17% 3%13% 8%21%

48%45% 32%46% 34%51% 32%49%

19%15% 51%35% 43%27% 30%20%

14%10% 6% 2% 11% 6% 25% 7%

8%2% 4%3%

ALL SCHOOLS

JUNIOR

All Schools

D S 9%17%

D S 33%48%

6%12% 5%15% 10%18%

Junior Senior Vertical

SENIOR

113

1ST

TABLE 18

Do schools have a policy on prioritising certain class groups for remedial education? (Column A). Do remedial teachers agree that certain class levels should be prioritised? (Column B.} Prioritization A YES

B

A

B

YES

No

No

All Schools Junior Senior Vertical

61% 63% 67% 60%

91% 89% 87% 91%

39% 37% 33% 40%

9% 11% 13% 9%

Inner City Rural Suburban Urban

64% 56% 69% 59%

86% 88% 92% 93%

36% 44% 31% 41%

14% 12% 18% 7%

Disadvantage 66% Non Disadvantage 60%

92% 89%

34% 40%

8% 11%

TABLE

21 (B)

Size of Groups INDIVIDUALLY

Disadvantage 3% Non Disadvantage 4%

1- 3

8% 7%

114

4-6

28% 19%

LARGER

2% 1%

MIxED

58% 68%

TABLE 22 (B)

Number of Children withdrawn per week No. OF CHILDREN %oFScHoOLS

1-24

25-40

61-100

3% 4%

88% 86% 78%

4% 7% 16%

Junior Senior Vertical

101+ 8% 3% 2%

TABLE 25 (B)

Support Teaching YES 26.5%

No 73.5%

.Teaching < 5 years 5 -10 years 11-20 years 21 years

22% 29% 25% 27%

78% 71% 75% 73%

< 5 years as an RT 5 - 10 years as an RT 11 + years as an RT

22% 30% 31%

78% 70% 69%

All Teachers

TABLE 28 (B)

Percentage of Pupils Attending What percentage of the school's pupils is currently receiving remedial education? (Column A) What percentage of the schools' pupils do you think should be receiving remedial education? (Column S) 1%-8%

A

S

All Schools 21% 14% Small 21%13% Medium 20%18% 35%18% Large

9%-17%

A

S

58%51% 55%52% 62%46% 56%58%

115

18%-26% 27%-40%

A

S

19%23% 20%22% 16%28% 9%11%

A

S

2% 9% 13% 9% 2% 7% 0%13%

41+%

A

S

1% 1% 0% 0%

3% 4% 1% 0%

TABLE 30

Percentage of Children who receive continuous remedial intervention throughout their schools years.

Small Medium Large Inner City Rural Suburban Urban

1-10% 27% 19% 26% 15% 26% 18% 30%

11-20% 8% 8% 17%

21-45% 12% 14% 14%

4B-J.lX1'lo 53% 59% 43%

8% 16% 4%

8% 15% 14% 9%

77% 51% 52% 57%

Intervention at Junior Infants Senior Infants First Class Second Class Third Class

22% 28% 19% 16%

14% 9%

13% 17% 9%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged

9% 27%

7% 11%

17% 12%

(no.2) 100% 51% 45% 71% 83% 67% 50%

TABLE 31 (B)

Do you seek parental consent before allocating pupils to remedial classes? YES

No

Remedial Teachers Class Teachers

87% 83%

13% 17%

Small Medium Large

93% 85% 85%

7% 15% 15%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged

71% 92%

29% 8%

116

TABLE 32 (B)

Is parental consent forthconting? ALWAYS

NarALWAYS

CT.

R.T. 16% 16% 18%

CT.

Small Medium Large

R.T. 84% 84% 82%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged

83% 84%

85% 84%

17% 16%

15% 16%

TABLE 36 (B)

Record Keeping

All Teachers

DAILY

WEEKLY

42%

26%

MONTHLY

23%

ANNuALLY

8.5%

NEVER

0.5%

(1 teacher)

Small Medium Large

56% 34% 40%

17% 29% 31%

18% 25% 22%

8% 10% 7%

1% 1%

Single Clusters

38% 46%

30% 22%

24% 22%

8% 9%

1%

Teaching1 full time Remedial Teacher Shared Remedial Teacher Missing

109

116 1 253 12

30% .3% 66% 3%

3.7.

3.8.

Area of School Inner City Rural Area Suburban Area Urban Areas

No. OF RESPONDENTS

21 186 253 73

5% 49% 66% 19%

82 278

23% 77%

116 72 169

32% 20% 47%

Status Disadvantaged Schools Non disadvantaged Schools

3.9.

%oFRESPONDENTS

Number of years school has Service Less than 5 years 5-10 years More than 10 years

4.

PROFILE OF CLASS TEACHER RESPONDENTS

4.1.

Teaching Experience

No. OF RESPONDENTS

less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 20+ years Missing

4.2.

%oFREsPONDENTS

16 57 158 142 9

4% 15% 41% 37% 2%

33 48 81 93 75 86 84 87 1 2

9% 12% 21% 24% 20% 22% 22% 23% .3% .5%

Classes being taught Junior Infants Senior Infants First Class Second Class Third Class Fourth Class Fifth Class Sixth Class C:"ecial Class Non Teaching Principal

Note: Many teachers teach more than one class level.

110

APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SURVEY RESULTS TABLES

Would you be interested in being deployed as a remedial teacher? YES

No

All Teachers

39%

61%

Teaching < 5 years Teaching 5-10 years Teaching 11-20 years Teaching 20+ years

31% 57% 41% 30%

69% 43% 59% 70%

Inner City Rural Area Suburban Urban

71% 30% 43% 47%

29% 70% 57% 53%

Single Schools Clusters

58% 34%

42% 66%

TABLE 7 (B)

How well did preservice education prepare you for remedial teaching? VERY WELL

ADEQUATELY

POORLY

All Teachers

12%

35%

53%

Male Teachers Female Teachers

7% 12%

43% 34%

50% 54%

Teaching < 5 years Teaching 5-10 years Teaching 11-20 years Teaching 21 + years

50% 6% 8% 13%

25% 29% 32% 39%

25% 65% 60% 48%

111

TABLE 9

Where did you attend your inservice course? St. Patrick's College, Drurncondra University College Galway St. John of God's, Orwell Road Mary Immaculate College of Education, Limerick Cope Foundation, Cork CoIaiste MllUire, Marino St. Angela's College, Sligo Other

30% 18% 15% 12% 9% 8% 3% 6%

TABLE 10

Structure of Inservice Day Release Summer Course Saturdays

44%

Preferred Structures for Inservice Day Release Block Release Saturdays Summer vacation A combination of above

33% 33% 3% 3% 28%

32% 24%

TABLE 11

Would you be interested in attending inservce courses on remedial eduation/ the management and remediation of learning difficulties? All Class Teachers

81%

19%

Teaching < 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years

94% 93% 76% 68%

6% 7% 24% 32%

112

TABLE 17 (B)

When does intervention begin? (Column D). Views of Remedial Teachers. When should intervention begin? (Column S) 2ND

3RD

D S 45%27%

D S 9% 3%

D S 3%1%

46%65% 21%44% 40% 55%

50%15% 29%36% 56%29%

37%15% 10% 7%

13%3% 1%

6%19% 5% 7% 1% 11 % 1%11%

35%50% 37%61% 40%58% 38%47%

24% 6% 57%30% 51 %29% 43%37%

35%25% 1% 0% 5% 2% 13% 3%

0%0% 0%1% 3%0% 5%2%

Disadvantage 1%13% Non Disadvantage 4% 8%

38%53% 38%60%

37%19% 55%31 %

20%11% 2% 0%

4%4% 1%1%

ALL ScHOOLS

JUNIOR

SENIOR

All Schools

D S 3%10%

D S 40%58%

Junior Senior Vertical

4%19% 2% 3% 8%

Inner City Rural Suburban . Urban

1ST

When does intervention begin? (Column D). Views of Class Teachers. When should intervention begin? (Column S) 2ND

3RD

D S 63%29%

D S 11% 5%

D S 3%1%

21%50% 39%34% 35%48%

31%33% 31%26% 49%31%

39% 11%20% 4% 1%

3%4% 2% 2%

Disadvantage 12%22% Non Disadvantage 8%16%

33%42% 34%50%

29%24% 47%30%

20%10% 9% 3%

6%1% 2%

Small Medium Large

10%14% 52%15% 9%18%

30%73% 19%34% 36%49%

50% 9% 19%26% 34%32%

10% 5% 8%20% 7% 1%

1% 1%3% 14%

Inner City Rural Suburban Urban

19%30% 11%17% 3%13% 8%21%

48%45% 32%46% 34%51% 32%49%

19%15% 51%35% 43%27% 30%20%

14%10% 6% 2% 11% 6% 25% 7%

8%2% 4%3%

ALL SCHOOLS

JUNIOR

All Schools

D S 9%17%

D S 33%48%

6%12% 5%15% 10%18%

Junior Senior Vertical

SENIOR

113

1ST

TABLE 18

Do schools have a policy on prioritising certain class groups for remedial education? (Column A). Do remedial teachers agree that certain class levels should be prioritised? (Column B.} Prioritization A YES

B

A

B

YES

No

No

All Schools Junior Senior Vertical

61% 63% 67% 60%

91% 89% 87% 91%

39% 37% 33% 40%

9% 11% 13% 9%

Inner City Rural Suburban Urban

64% 56% 69% 59%

86% 88% 92% 93%

36% 44% 31% 41%

14% 12% 18% 7%

Disadvantage 66% Non Disadvantage 60%

92% 89%

34% 40%

8% 11%

TABLE

21 (B)

Size of Groups INDIVIDUALLY

Disadvantage 3% Non Disadvantage 4%

1- 3

8% 7%

114

4-6

28% 19%

LARGER

2% 1%

MIxED

58% 68%

TABLE 22 (B)

Number of Children withdrawn per week No. OF CHILDREN %oFScHoOLS

1-24

25-40

61-100

3% 4%

88% 86% 78%

4% 7% 16%

Junior Senior Vertical

101+ 8% 3% 2%

TABLE 25 (B)

Support Teaching YES 26.5%

No 73.5%

.Teaching < 5 years 5 -10 years 11-20 years 21 years

22% 29% 25% 27%

78% 71% 75% 73%

< 5 years as an RT 5 - 10 years as an RT 11 + years as an RT

22% 30% 31%

78% 70% 69%

All Teachers

TABLE 28 (B)

Percentage of Pupils Attending What percentage of the school's pupils is currently receiving remedial education? (Column A) What percentage of the schools' pupils do you think should be receiving remedial education? (Column S) 1%-8%

A

S

All Schools 21% 14% Small 21%13% Medium 20%18% 35%18% Large

9%-17%

A

S

58%51% 55%52% 62%46% 56%58%

115

18%-26% 27%-40%

A

S

19%23% 20%22% 16%28% 9%11%

A

S

2% 9% 13% 9% 2% 7% 0%13%

41+%

A

S

1% 1% 0% 0%

3% 4% 1% 0%

TABLE 30

Percentage of Children who receive continuous remedial intervention throughout their schools years.

Small Medium Large Inner City Rural Suburban Urban

1-10% 27% 19% 26% 15% 26% 18% 30%

11-20% 8% 8% 17%

21-45% 12% 14% 14%

4B-J.lX1'lo 53% 59% 43%

8% 16% 4%

8% 15% 14% 9%

77% 51% 52% 57%

Intervention at Junior Infants Senior Infants First Class Second Class Third Class

22% 28% 19% 16%

14% 9%

13% 17% 9%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged

9% 27%

7% 11%

17% 12%

(no.2) 100% 51% 45% 71% 83% 67% 50%

TABLE 31 (B)

Do you seek parental consent before allocating pupils to remedial classes? YES

No

Remedial Teachers Class Teachers

87% 83%

13% 17%

Small Medium Large

93% 85% 85%

7% 15% 15%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged

71% 92%

29% 8%

116

TABLE 32 (B)

Is parental consent forthconting? ALWAYS

NarALWAYS

CT.

R.T. 16% 16% 18%

CT.

Small Medium Large

R.T. 84% 84% 82%

Disadvantaged Non Disadvantaged

83% 84%

85% 84%

17% 16%

15% 16%

TABLE 36 (B)

Record Keeping

All Teachers

DAILY

WEEKLY

42%

26%

MONTHLY

23%

ANNuALLY

8.5%

NEVER

0.5%

(1 teacher)

Small Medium Large

56% 34% 40%

17% 29% 31%

18% 25% 22%

8% 10% 7%

1% 1%

Single Clusters

38% 46%

30% 22%

24% 22%

8% 9%

1%

Teaching