Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Curriculum trends and practices in two Special Schools
for Children with Learning Difficulties in Ghana

By

 Dr. Mawutor Avoke
Associate Professor
Department of Special Education
University of Education , Winneba, Ghana
Avokemawu@Yahoo.com

&

Samuel Hayford
School of Education
University of Birmingham, UK

Introduction

 T he 1987 educational reforms in Ghana were essentially aimed at empowering children in Ghana to effectively participate in the civic, social and economic life of the country (Aboagye, 1999).  Elsewhere in my work (Avoke in press) I have argued that  in a similar context the educational reforms in Ghana, and its accompanying curriculum changes did not mention children with learning difficulties, and consequently these pupils did not have ‘entitlement’ to the national curriculum on offer.  

The aim of this paper is to examine the content of the curriculum in the two schools. In order to do this we had to establish the existence of a curriculum and then to analyse its nature and content when it was found.  In the main we are attempting to answer the research question: what is the nature of the curriculum in the schools that the pupils attend?

Methodological Orientation

This study adopts a qualitative case study approach to investigating curriculum practices in two special schools for children with learning difficulties in Ghana, and uses document scrutiny, observation and interview as the main methods of inquiry. In all there were a total of twenty teachers involved in this study.

Summary of the finding revealed that:

A ) The curriculum ‘document’ in both schools was difficult to locate and was under review.

B ) Some teachers did not have access to the curriculum ‘document’. Those teachers that had access did not regard it as a relevant document for use in the schools, as it failed in their opinion to reflect the aims and objective of the school.  Interestingly, the two schools did not have clearly defined aims and objectives.

C) There was the concern that the schools curriculum placed too much emphasis on the teaching of ‘academic skills’. Without emphasis on self advocacy, self determination   social and personal skills

D) Teachers were responsible for drawing up their own schemes of work usually without reference or regard to the curriculum document. Teaching content was largely determined by teachers.

Discussions

From the analysis of the existing curriculum trends and practices in these schools, it is evidenced that teachers developed teaching objectives alongside the lines of specific behaviours in a similar way to the Skills Analysis Model used in the 1980s in the United Kingdom. Such a model (based on learning theorist) relies on reinforcement and rewards as critical to the acquisition of skills.    Teachers also made use of checklists which were devised to take into consideration their mental ages and developmental growth while learning experiences   in the two schools were influenced largely by the personal theories of the teachers, resulting in a teacher-initiated approach to teaching.   The influences on the teaching in the two schools, was eclectic and, consequently there was a lack ownership of the existing curriculum ‘document’ which they had little knowledge of any way.

The views of the staff were taken into account, and it was revealed that there was teacher dissatisfaction on the content because it was not enabling pupils to be integrated or included in the community. An analysis of comments from the staff revealed the need for a vocational curriculum which in their opinion would facilitate transition from school into the community. The study also showed that there were rudimentary opportunities for choice and expression of views, but such initiatives lacked a whole school approach

When commenting on trends in the United Kingdom, however, Carpenter and Ashdown (2001) noted that the affirmation of an ‘entitlement’ was only a first step in the implementation of the development of a National Curriculum for all. They also acknowledged the fact that ‘entitlement’ was not necessarily the solution to the learning problems of children with learning difficulties.   This point is supported by Ouvry and Saunders (1996), who emphasised that even though the introduction of the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom changed the focus of curriculum development towards issues of entitlement and access across curriculum subjects for all pupils:

Tilstone, Lacey, Porter, and Robertson (2001) citing Brown   (1996) have also suggested that curriculum content cannot simply be seen as something that is transmitted from teacher to pupil. Instead, engagement with curriculum content should be seen in terms of the extent to which a pupil is:

• experiencing a learning activity;
• aware of at least some of the purposes of an activity;
• participating actively in the activity.

These authors further argue that:

‘An understanding of these different types of engagement and how they overlap enables teaching of curriculum content be matched carefully to the learning needs of individuals’ (p.14).

 In their opinion, before embarking on curriculum planning for individual pupils with learning difficulties, it is important to map their relative strengths and needs. They state that   it is particular useful to try and identify strengths initially it is easy to fall into the trap of listing or focusing on what the pupil cannot do

The Dearing Report recommended that:

‘A slimmer statutory National Curriculum will, by providing time for use at the teacher’s discretion, go a long way towards giving teachers the scope necessary to provide all pupils with a meaningful entitlement to   broad, balanced and relevant curriculum’ (SCAA, 1994, para 6.3).

Guilford (1994) comments similarly that the recognition of individual needs and the degree of personal support which is given by individual teachers; the setting of appropriate expectation  for the learning and the provision of methods of teaching suited to slower  learners, the planned teaching of important concepts and skills; providing motivation by suitable but optimistic expectations  all ensure tangible success.    Holgate (1992   notes that   a curriculum can only achieve creditability    when it serves the needs of the pupils. This author argues that  there is an inherent risk of producing a curriculum which accommodates the idiosyncrasies of staff rather than one which makes appropriate  provision . It is therefore important that   the curriculum needs to be commensurate with   the learners own view of what knowledge is of most worth in their situation, and not one arbitrarily imposed upon them by organizers of the learners (Powers 1981). According to this author teachers must have a view of what is desirable for a pupil to learn and must also be able to alert   and sensitive to feedback from pupils behaviour which indicates whether they are   responding to learning or not, for   if they are not , then they will be unable to internalize their learning.

Conclusion

From the review of literature and from our own research experiences, the focus of any curriculum    should be the learners. Such an understanding has implication for the achievement and progress of learners. It is interesting that in   the two schools studies, the absence of a coherent and agreed upon curriculum was problematic, and this was mainly   some of the reasons for the apparent teacher centred approaches to teaching  as well as the development   of  schemes of work influenced by the teachers’ own philosophy and theory . The consequences of all these was that teachers were not teaching to the differential needs of the pupils

References

Aboagye, J.K. (1999) Some Issues in Curriculum Development. Accra City Publishers.

Avoke, M (in press) Principles Policy and Research in Special Education. Winneba: Department of Special Education.

Carpenter, B. & Ashdown, R. (2001) ‘Enabling access’, in B. Carpenter, K. Ashdown & K. Bovair (eds.) Enabling Access: Effective Teaching and Learning for Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton.

Guilford, R  (1994)   Learning Difficulties, in Ron   Guilford and Graham Upton (eds) Special Educational Needs. London: Routledge.

Holgate,   J. (1992) An Evaluation of learners curriculum in   a special school,in Graham Vulliamy and Rosemary Webb (eds) The practice   of Special Education.London :David Fulton.

Ouvry, C. & Saunders, S. (1996) ‘Pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties’, in B. Carpenter, R. Ashdown & K. Boviar (eds.) Enabling Access: Effective Teaching and Learning for Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton.

Powell, S. & Jordan, R. (1998) Autism and Learning. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Powers, D.J (1981) Curriculum and Method development in   Will Swam (ed) The practice of Special Education. Milton Keyes: Open University

Tilstone, C. & Mclaughlin, M. (2000). ‘Standards and curriculum: the core of educational reform’, in M. Rouse,   & M. Mclaughlin (eds.) Special Education and School Reform in the United States and Britain. London: Routledge .

Tilstone, C., Lacey, P., Porter, J. & Robertson, C. (2001) Pupils with Learning Difficulties in Mainstream Schools. London: David Fulton Publishers.

SCAA (1994) The National Curriculum and its Assessment. London: SCAA

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact