BILD Code of Practice for Trainers in the Use of Physical Interventions: Learning Disability ‐ Autism ‐ Pupils with special educational needs

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-42
Author(s):  
Peter Baker

SOME EXAMPLES OF TARGETS IN THE CURRICULUM Input Targets The school meets statutory requirements in the delivery and assessment of the curriculum: (Quotes from Ofsted, 1995, are from the Guidance on Inspection — page numbers are quoted from the version for secondary schools but are also in the versions for primary and special schools) • The curriculum meets statutory requirements to teach the subjects of the National Curriculum, religious education and sex education, where these apply (p. 78). • The governing body is monitoring pupil progress. • The curriculum displays breadth — all pupils come into contact with all areas of learning. • The curriculum displays balance — each area of learning is given appropriate attention. • The curriculum is relevant to the needs of all pupils. • The curriculum displays different kinds of provision for each pupil. • The curriculum displays progression for all pupils. • The curriculum displays continuity for all pupils. • The curriculum promotes pupils’ intellectual, physical and personal development and prepares pupils for the next stage of education, training or employment (ibid). • The curriculum provides equality of access and opportunity for pupils to learn and to make progress (ibid). • The curriculum meets the requirements of all pupils on the school’s Code of Practice special educational needs register (ibid). • The curriculum is planned effectively (ibid). • The curriculum is enriched by extra-curricular provision, including sport (ibid). • The curriculum includes, for pupils of secondary age, careers education and impartial guidance, drawing on the careers service (ibid). • There are effective systems for assessing pupils’ attainment (ibid). • Assessment information is used to inform curriculum planning (ibid).

2002 ◽  
pp. 62-62

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Hall-Mills

In the United States, the Response to Intervention framework provides tiered levels of support in general education (kindergarten through grade 12) to improve student outcomes and may relate to special education determinations. While broadly applied to eligibility determinations for children with specific learning disability, the Response to Intervention model also presents an interesting consideration for children with language impairment. The requirement of the Response to Intervention framework in education policy may have a significant impact on the identification and eligibility processes for children with special educational needs. The aim of the present study was to explore whether this policy implementation altered the prevalence of students with disabilities ages 3–21 years who were determined to be eligible for special education under the categories of specific learning disability and language impairment. Longitudinal data was examined to determine whether significant changes occurred in the prevalence rates in a state that mandated implementation of Response to Intervention policy. The results revealed that significant changes occurred in the prevalence rates from pre-to post implementation of Response to Intervention policy; language impairment prevalence increased and specific learning disability prevalence decreased. Prevalence changes have maintained over multiple subsequent school years. The findings have important implications for policy and practices focused on the identification of these common disabilities throughout the school years.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document