What is SEBD and Disability - Essay Example

?Including children with SEBD and disabilities is a demanding and difficult endeavour as it is contingent on an array of structural, practical and ideological factors. Critically evaluate the possibilities and challenges of including this group of pupils/students. The account should be informed both by literature and your own experience in relation to your chosen area of investigation. What is SEBD and Disability? SEBD is the acronym for social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. It generally refers to a state where the emotional and behavioural responses of an individual differ significantly from responses that are generally accepted as being appropriate in terms of age, cultural norms, values and ethnic affiliation. Problems with such responses are known to adversely affect an individual’s performance in the areas of academic progress, self care, work adjustment, social relationships and classroom behaviour. (PLSS, 2011) To put things into perspective, the BBC estimated in a research that the world market for drugs used for the treatment of emotional, behavioural and mental problems in children and adolescents will increase to some eleven billion British pounds by the year 2010. The greatest rise has been seen in drug requirements for individuals with learning and conduct disorders which account for some four and a half billion pounds. (BBC, 2005) SEBD significantly affect the acquisition of skills and learning required for an individual to become a responsible member of society. Adult adjustment is also negatively affected as social, vocational and academic skills are not gained at the desired pace. Although SEBD can present learning difficulties but such a state need not be permanent and can be resolved through the right course of action. Most people with SEBD display accompanying symptoms that are visibly identifiable. Individuals may act out, become phobia ridden, show symptoms of withdrawal, become passive and depressed or aggressive and may even exhibit tendencies to inflict injuries to themselves. Moreover, such tendencies could well easily lead to substance abuse, crime, anxiety, depression, self harm and in the worst case scenario to suicide. (Wetherimer, 2000) Young people and children with SEBD have a tendency to disrupt playgrounds and classrooms. This often leads to the exclusion of such individuals. Moreover, attitudes directed to such individuals by the social groups are often negative. (Watson, 2001) Among children with SEBD, emotional and conduct disorder are the most common problems. Generally males are more likely to suffer from SEBD than females. In terms of exclusion, the ONS reports that almost one third of all children with conduct disorders had been excluded from regular schooling once. Moreover, around a quarter of children with conduct disorders had been excluded from school more than one time. This problem is not merely restricted to children’s behaviour at a specific age alone. Instead the consequences of SEBD go beyond the infant years. A report delineates that individuals with SEBD who find employment are often at a 75% risk of losing their employment because of inappropriate behaviour as well as exclusion from support during training and in the workplace. A host of factors encourage the growth of SEBD but social factors can be seen at the fore front. An estimate by the Department for Education and Skills places the amount of school going children suffering from SEBD between 10% and 20% such that the SEBD significantly affects the ability of children to develop socially and emotionally. (Department for Education, 2011) On the other hand disability can be considered to be any set of problems centred on growth vulnerabilities that undermine an active role of the individual in society. Disabled children have some form of physical or mental impairment that has substantial and long term adverse effects on the abilities of the child to deal with daily activities. Such problems can assume complex shapes such as low IQ levels (generally considered below 60), diabetes, physical underdevelopment etc. Such children should be provided a complete chance to interact and learn along normal children so that these special children can bear as much of their own weight in society as possible. (Byers, 1998) However, SEBD and the accompanying exclusion are not permanent features of an individual’s life. Instead these debilitating problems can be overtaken in the classroom with the right practices. Tackling the Situation using SEN SEN refers to special education needs that emanate due to SEBD, disability or other such problems suffered by a child. Typically a child has special educational needs if they display learning difficulties which call for specialised educational provisions to be made for them. This definition of SEN is purported by The Education Act 1996. It is pertinent here to define what learning difficulties are more specifically. A child is seen to possess a learning difficulty if the child (Rose et al., 1994): displays far more difficulty in learning than the majority of children who are their age; displays a disability that prevents or hinders the child from utilising educational facilities within the geographical proximity of the local education authority. SEN has been implemented for a sizable amount of time to grasp in large part how it can be used effectively in exclusive educational environments. However, there has been a movement towards implementing SEN with normal education in such a way that it is mainstreamed. This ensures that children undergoing SEN in mainstream classrooms will gain greater exposure to society which will help them to deal with practical problems better later in life. However, teaching normal children and children with SEBD and disabilities in the same educational framework presents unique challenges in itself. What is being aimed at is the inclusion of all kinds of children within the same educational framework in an effort to promote a more broad based education. (Sebba et al., 1993) Not only will such an education benefit the children at a disadvantage but it will also encourage children at an advantage to become more tolerant of these children through regular interaction with them. A host of various perspectives is discussed below in order to clarify the kinds of problems in such working arrangements as well as their solutions. SEBD, SEN and the Current Situation Effective teaching techniques for children displaying SEN share much the same characteristics as those displayed by effective learning for all kinds of children. However, as schools become more and more diversified, teachers need to respond to a larger spectrum of needs displayed by each kind of children. Moreover, the school environment needs to be modified accordingly to accommodate children with SEBD and disability. This presents unique challenges such as creating ramps for children on wheel chairs, introducing new kinds of computing devices etc. which need to be looked into in detail. (TTRB, 2009) There has been a large amount of work done on SEBD and SEN in recent years in comparison to previous decades. The Warnock Report of 1978 can be seen as the first major step towards SEN followed closely by the Education Act’s integration in 1981. The Elton Report was released in 1989 and a Code of Practice was generated in 1994. However, these acts were largely ineffective in dealing with SEN needs but this was changed in large part by the Meeting SEN Action Programme launched in 1998 that laid the real foundations for inclusive schooling practices. This was followed closely by the 2001 Inclusive Schooling move and was bolstered by the SENDA in 2003 that clearly demarcated many issues that were previously in debate. This was followed by the Every Child Matters act in 2004 and The Children’s Plan in 2007 as well as the Steer Report on learning behaviour in 2009. This clearly indicates that a lot of work is being directed at reforming the current apparatus for SEBD and SEN. The overall direction of this framework is headed for inclusive education that tends to mix up various child groups for a better exposure experience. (Garner, 2009) Based on the developments above, at this point in time SENDA has been implemented nationwide as well as the SEN Code of Practice. However, there is still a sizable gap in dedicated initial training which leaves teachers in the lurch to figure out problems for themselves. There is optional post qualification training but such training ought to be made mandatory for professionals in this field even in partial fulfilment. Within the mainstream statement there are “School Action” and “Action Plus” programmes while special schools are following statement alone. An estimate puts around 8.1 million children at a disadvantage in learning due to SEBD or disabilities. Out of these children, around 2,23,000 (3% of the total) are dealt with Statement alone while 1.3 million children (17% of the total) are being placed in the “School Action” and the “Action Plus” programmes. In 2007 alone there were 62% increased new “Statements” in mainstream schools. Moreover, the SEBD population was approximated between 17 and 20% of the entire population spectrum. (Garner, 2009) However, this does not indicate that all such children would need attention immediately as mentioned previously that children with SEBD that affects educational functionality are dealt with first. Challenges posed by Current Practices Some of the major challenges faced by inclusion and mainstreaming are discussed below. Though every attempt has been made to be as exhaustive as possible but some omissions are still possible. Defining Inclusion One of the greatest problems associated with inclusive educational atmospheres is how to define inclusion. There are multiple definitions to inclusion and as a consequence there is a lack of clarity on the issue. Varying methods are used to define inclusion for example in certain circumstances inclusion is taken to imply the inclusion of children with SEBD alone while in other places inclusion implies inclusion of children with SEBD and disabilities. Other than these major distinctions, there are problems when finer details are looked into. For example, there are problems in defining disability in medical terms for someone who is paralyzed and someone who is dyslexic. In order to support inclusion some schools offer pervasive medical care as well but most schools fail to deliver such services. The definitions for inclusion in these educational institutions differ significantly. (Dockrell & Messer, 1999) On another note there is as yet no pervasive evidence to support the efficacy of inclusion in classrooms. Quite a few educational establishments were previously viewing inclusion as a philosophical treatise alone. However, recent legislation such as SENDA has begun to spur things in the right direction by forcing educational institutions to adopt SEBD and disabled children friendly policies. These policies have begun to take effect but like all major policy implementations, the pace of implementation varies widely from region to region and even school to school. Consequently, there are concerns that the relevant policies are being applied in differing manners around England. (Caldwell, 2007) This means that inclusion policies in one region of England may differ widely from those in another region of England although both regions would still be headed in the same direction as per policy matters. If a child covered by inclusion in one region was to migrate to another region, he or she may not find adequate inclusion coverage in the newer region. This in turn would directly affect the learning prospects of the SEBD or disabled child in question. Based on these concerns, it is pertinent to note that policy implementation should be more rapid all across England. Finer details should be left for implementation later but major concerns such as admission criteria, amount of care offered, kinds of disabilities supported, technology used to support disability etc. should all be implemented at war footing to ensure that the benefit of inclusion is offered to all children across the board. (Groove, 2000) Problems with Categorising Need As mentioned before, there are variations in how inclusion is defined across various regions across Great Britain. Based on these variations, the definition of need differs accordingly too. Defining need for the case of inclusion is far trickier than seems on the surface. This is because each child displays a unique set of problems especially as far as SEBD is concerned. Although major symptoms can easily be recognised, identified and labelled but discerning their rectification based on detailed analysis is far harder. For example, a child displaying SEBD disorders such as over acting, aggression or violent attitudes can easily be labelled as a bully but the contributing factors to becoming a bully are still hard to decipher. Based on this it becomes harder to recognise the needs of the child in question. Moreover, inclusion based learning environments are composed of a large number of pupils (generally greater than 15 to 20 pupils) and as a result the teacher is not able to warrant personal attention to all children. This makes identification of detailed problems all the more hard. (Messer, 1994) Furthermore, the criteria used to classify various brands of problems displayed by children are different in different regions. The lack of a unified assessment criteria means that one child may be assessed and dealt with differently across two neighbouring educational districts. It is often up to the teacher to decide what exactly the child’s specific problem is. Although rough guidelines are available but the lack of mandatory training in the start often hampers teacher’s efforts to discern each child’s exact problems. (Gardner, 1999) Another problem experienced with inclusion based educational systems is the labelling of certain kinds of children in certain manners which is effectively stereotyping. The lack of relevant experience on the part of the teacher means that the teacher is forced to provide any particular judgement that can be mustered based on group discussion or any available form of research. This leads to the development of a stereotypical image of certain children who might not possess the exact same problem. For example, a teacher may classify a child’s aggressive behaviour as a consequence of social pressure as a stereotypical image. However, the child’s aggressive behaviour may be the result of over stimulated hormonal production that would require an altogether different approach to solve the problem. Again it goes without saying that a teacher’s attention is diverted in a large classroom setting which makes it harder yet to classify the exact nature of the SEBD or disability problem. (Hodapp, 1998) Although this problem may exist but there are solutions to support the cause of inclusion. For one thing, the classroom size could be reduced accordingly to facilitate a teacher’s tasks. It would be optimal to introduce class sizes under ten pupils for each teacher as this would make it far easier for the teacher to handle and understand all the children. Moreover, the teacher would be able garner far greater focus on particular individuals in order to understand their specific problems and to deal with their resolution and appropriate problem solving. Alternatively, the teacher could be supported by teaching assistants much like in a university or college setting who would help to manage the children better. One particular advantage of this system is the fact that more than one teacher would be able to analyse the situation of each individual child. This would ensure that more than one critical view is discussed and this would preclude the chances for stereotyping in the case of individual children. This in turn would support greater success of the inclusion system. Involving the Parties For the success of any educational system it is imperative that all involved parties supervise children behaviour both in school and after school. If a child is provided with a positive influence at school and this influence is removed after school, then research proves that the child may not benefit as highly as a child with continuous positive reinforcement. This is only possible if the parents tend to cooperate with the teachers especially for the positive growth and development of children suffering from SEBD and disabilities. The effective learning of special children is deeply rooted in an impact that pervades the boundaries of the school. (Layton & Deeny, 2002) Teachers and parents must work at the same time and in the same direction in providing special children with support and confidence. In case that the parents or the teacher fail to consolidate the position of the special child then it is unreasonable to expect the child to learn and prosper. For example, the teacher may be able to protect the special child from teasing and bullying by other regular children in an inclusive environment. However, the special child may face challenges at home such as teasing and bullying by siblings or children from the local community. Often a sizable number of children with SEBD have backgrounds rooted in trouble at home. This trouble may be rooted in sibling rivalries, parental focus on other children, neglect and violence or sexual abuse. This presents specialised challenges for parents who need to be highly focused in garnering special children. These challenges are all the more stringent for single parent families who may not be able to provide enough attention to children because of a lack of time due to two jobs or due to other social pressures. (Meadows, 1993) On another note, the parent and the teacher need to be on one page when deciding the direction and the methods with which special children need to be taught. The parents need to be made completely aware on how to treat the child in the right manner. Moreover, the parent’s compliance must also be measured in some form to ensure that they are dealing with the child in the right manner. For example a SEBD child may need to be dealt firmly with (not physical or verbal means) in order to dissuade certain behavioural characteristics such as throwing tantrums to convince parents for gaining certain things. The teacher may be able to deal with the child effectively but there could be chances that a parent may give in to the child’s attitude if the child poses enough of a problem. This would tend to modify the behaviour of the child such that he would be well behaved in class but stubborn at home. The teacher would be provided the impression that the child is improving but the truth may be far more different. For this reason and others, parents and teachers need to be well synchronised in an inclusive teaching environment much like in an exclusive SEN environment. (Grandin, 2003) The Efficiency versus Equity Debate Certain schools of thought have consistently held that inclusive classrooms cannot be configured for efficiency. The prime line of argument offered is that inclusive classrooms force teachers to play multiple roles all at the same time that force them to be stretched to their limits. It is often argued that the teacher may not be able to perform at peak efficiency levels as the teacher would have to switch roles over and over again. This would promote an inefficient teacher and hence an inefficient classroom. Moreover, others argue that in inclusive environments the teacher’s prime focuses are SEBD and disabled children only while the regular children suffer as the teacher assumes that they may be able to deal with work independently. The lack of evidence to either support or dismiss such an argument means that as yet this is only a line of argument. Until more research becomes available on the issue, the argument can be cited as a challenge to inclusive educational environments but cannot be confirmed. (Elliott, 2000) Another major problem associated is the promotion of “false messages” for adulthood. An inclusive classroom means that children are given the impression that everybody and everyone is equal in the real world too. However, as the children grow up they may find an altogether different picture as some SEBD and disabled children may be rejected by certain career lines for obvious reasons. It is argued that this would promote frustration and estrangement in these children. This would mean that the very precepts that inclusive education is trying to establish will be rejected by it. Conclusion Inclusive learning environments are in the process of being figured out. Developments are taking place that will eventually encourage the creation of inclusive educational environments. While the overall direction is highly clear but various challenges that are faced by inclusive education need to be dealt with in greater detail in order to make inclusive education a universal approach to education. Bibliography BBC, 2005. Are drugs any solution to SEBD? [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http:///www.bbc.co.uk/health/druguseinchildrenwithSEBD" http:///www.bbc.co.uk/health/druguseinchildrenwithSEBD [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Byers, E., 1998. Personal and Social Development. In Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge. Caldwell, P., 2007. You Don't Know What It's Like. 3rd ed. Brighton: Pavilion Publishing. Department for Education, 2011. Home. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.education.gov.uk/" http://www.education.gov.uk/ [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Dockrell, J. & Messer, D., 1999. Children's Language and Communication Difficulties. London: Cassell. Elliott, J., 2000. The psychological assessment of children with learning difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 27(2), pp.59-66. Gardner, H., 1999. Intelligence Reframed. New York: New Books. Garner, P., 2009. Meeting the needs of students with SEBD: some challenges about current practice in England. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.slideshare.net/Behaviour4Learning/thessaloniki-2009" http://www.slideshare.net/Behaviour4Learning/thessaloniki-2009 [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Grandin, T., 2003. Visual Thinking. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html" http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Groove, N., 2000. See What I Mean. Kidderminister: BILD. Hodapp, R., 1998. Development and Disabilities: Intellectual, Sensory and Motor Impairments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Layton, I. & Deeny, K., 2002. Sound Practice: Phonological Awareness in the Classroom. London: David Fulton Publishers. Meadows, S., 1993. The Child as a Thinker. London: Routledge. Messer, D.J., 1994. The development of communication from social interaction to language. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. PLSS, 2011. Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD). [Online] PLSS Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.plss.tv/docs/emotionalBehaviouralDifficulties.pdf" http://www.plss.tv/docs/emotionalBehaviouralDifficulties.pdf [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Rose, R. et al., 1994. Implementing the Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton Publishers. Sebba, J., Byers, R. & Rose, R., 1993. Redefinning the Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London: Routledge. TTRB, 2009. Inclusion, the individual and the environment. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.slideshare.net/ttrb/inclusion-the-individual-and-the-environment-1548693" http://www.slideshare.net/ttrb/inclusion-the-individual-and-the-environment-1548693 [Accessed 15 August 2011]. Watson, J., 2001. Social constructivism in the classroom. Support for Learning, 16(3), pp.140-47. Wetherimer, A., 2000. Everyday Lives; Everyday Choices. London: The Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities. Read More