MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 17 MARCH 1989

Letters Objectives model of curriculum development

I take it as a compliment that Billinge (1988) based his article on my chapter Processes in S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n (Goddard, 1983), and much appreciate his acknowledgement of this influence. I am pleased that the article is generating open debate.

However, whilst I was delighted to read that Carpenter etal. (1988) consider that “Curriculum is a process, not a product”, I was alarmed by their contradictory reasoning. For example, in their next sentence they talk about “methods of delivery” (as used in the National Curriculum) and, later, “the individual target for each child” and “their individual programme plan” (reminiscent of the individual education programme which every chi ld in America who has a handicap (Public Law 94-142) is forced to follow, involv ing t h e u s e of s h o r t - t e r m instructional objectives very much within the behaviourist tradition in education). Carpenter et al. also “found it positively reinforcing to be included in the same company as Mittler, Jeffrey, McConkey, Hewson, Kiernan . . .”, writers who have long advocated the behavioural objectives model, though McConkey (1981) has “modified” his views. They thus embrace a product ideology which is at odds with viewing educa t ion a n d c u r r i c u l u m “dev- elopment” as a form of process.

Amongst other things, I could also take t h e m t o task for using tha t derogatory term “normalisation”; but at the moment I shall content myself that the taken-for-granted orthodoxy that behavioural methods are the most suitable way of educating children with special educational needs, especially those deemed as having severe learning difficulties, is being challenged on several fronts (see, for example: Wood and Shears, 1986; even Ainscow and Tweddle, 1988).

My present studies indicate that a growing number of people involved in special education are moving away from the objectivesiskills analysis paradigm and are exploring alternatives that are more appropriate and more educational. Recent work by Wheldall and Glynn

(1988) is of some significance here. They quote Rabelais: “A child is not a vase to be filled, but a fire to be lit”, and now clearly reject a number of established behavioural methods and are pursuing a m o r e c h i l d - c e n t r e d a p p r o a c h t o education. They regard many current c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e s a s b e i n g incompat ib le with educa t ion and d i s s o c i a t e t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h e commonly held view of a “behaviourist” classroom and a behavioural curriculum based on behavioural objectives and behavioural check-lists.

I must add that some of us reached similar conclusions - some time ago. A L A N G O D D A R D , f o r m e r l y Headteacher of a school for children with severe learning difficulties, 32 Clareville Road, Dar l ing ton , Co. Durham DL3 8NG.

REFERENCES Ainscow, M . , T w e d d l e , D . A .

Encouraging Classroom Success. London: David Fulton Publishers, 1988.

Billinge, R. The Objectives model of curriculum development: a creaking bandwagon? Mental Handicap, 1988

Carpenter, B., Gardner, J., Knight, G., Murphy, J . Objectives model of curriculum development. Mental Handicap, 1988; 16:3, 127.

Goddard, A . Processes in special education. in Blenkin, G. M., Kelly, A. V. (Eds.). Theprimary Curriculum in Action. A Process Approach to Educational Practice. London: Harper & Row, 1983.

McConkey, R. Education without understanding? Special Education: Forward Trends, 1981; 8:3, 8-10.

Wheldall, K. Glynn, T. Contingencies in contexts: a behavioural interactionist perspective in education. Educational Psychology, 1988; 8:1 and 8:2, 5-19.

Wood, S. , Shears, B. Teaching Children with Severe Learning Difficulties. A Radical Reappraisal. London: Croom Helm, 1986.

16~1, 26-29.

Quality action groups

We have recently started a three-year project funded by the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust to develop training resources for consumers, staff, and service managers who want to improve

and sustain the quality of their services for people with learning disabilities. The project will produce a resource pack that builds on the ideas contained in the booklet Pursuing quality (IDC, 1986).

The focus of the pack will be the steps involved and the skills required to set up and run “quality action groups”. In q u a l i t y ac t ion ( Q A ) g r o u p s , t h e s takeholders i n t h e service meet regularly to define what the service should be helping its users to achieve, to assess what users are in fact achieving, and to discuss how the service could learn to do its job better.

We would like to hear from readers who are currently involved in a QA group or who want to start one, and who would find such a pack useful. We would also be interested to hear of the experiences of people who have been involved in QA groups already. If you could send us a brief note describing your group (planned or actual) we could then contact you to discuss your experiences, find out what you would like to see included in the pack, and see if you would like to be involved in the project further. PETER RITCHIE, Research Associate, and LINDA WARD, Research Fellow, N o r a h F r y Research C e n t r e , 32 Tyndall’s Park Road, Bristol BS8 1PY.

REFERENCE Independent Development Council.

Pursuing quality: how good are your local services for people with mental handicap. London: IDC, 1986.

Computer programs

I have for some years been involved in the development of computer programs for people with severe or profound handicaps. Currently I am evaluating a two disc set of programs designed to teach the simple discriminations of size, shape, and colour. Each disc enables a trainer to set u p a program that is individual ly tailored to sui t each person’s needs, in terms of being able to choose the most appropriate graphic and sound rewards, duration of session, and so on. Both discs also store a record of the person’s progress.

The first disc, “Discrimination l” , aims to teach people to make a simple response which turns on a graphic display and sound. It is hoped that they will learn only to make the response when there is a blank screen, and not

38 0 1989 British Institute of Mental Handicap

MENTAL HANDICAP VOL. 17 MARCH 1989

when the graphic display is already present. It is considered that, without having learned this discrimination, people may not be able to learn more complex ones.

The second disc, “Discrimination 2”, is designed to teach people to respond only when there is a particular shape, of given size and colour, on the screen, and not when another shape is present. So, for example, people could be taught to respond when there is a blue circle and not when t h e r e i s a red c i rc le , consequently discriminating blue from red.

Although the system is still very much at the evaluation stage, the initial results are promising. It has been used successfully to teach a man with a severe mental handiap to discriminate between a circle, a triangle, and a square.

I feel that a system of programs such as these must evolve by being used. I would, therefore, like to make the existing discs available to any readers who would like to try them, in return for any feedback they could give. The programs will run on a BBC By BBC B+ , or BBC Master computer. The system also requires a “Micrex” Toy Control interface and some form of touch pad to suit the people who are to be taught.

If you would like the system please send two blank formated 5.25 inch discs. I will supply the programs? together with literature on how to use them. S I M O N W H I T A K E R , C l in i ca l Psychologist, Princess Royal CHC, Greenhead Road, Huddersfield H D l 4EW.

Challenging behaviour - challenging the term

I note that, in line with current fashion, Mental Handicap is publishing papers using the term “challenging behaviour”. I am in sympathy with the ideas behind this term. The basis for changing from “problem behaviours” is that “problem” often implies that the difficulty lies with the individual, while “challenge” shifts the focus to the individual envi ronment f i t , and encourages changes in service systems to meet individual need. I have been using the term myself now for some time, when advising or training families and staff.

I do, however, feel uneasy about the term, and recent comments from other staff have helped me clarify why.

“Challenging behaviour” can be understood to imply that an individual is deliberately acting in a provocative way towards us . “ H i s behav iour i s challenging” for example, can give the idea that someone is intentionally taunting us to do something about it. We can therefore end up in a worse situation t h a n when us ing t h e o ld t e r m s “problem” or “difficult” behaviour; in that “challenging behaviour” can imply that not only is it localised in the person, but there is a deliberate intent to annoy.

Before rushing to our thesauruses to look for another term, I would like to question whether we need such a blanket term at all. The term “challenging behaviour” can be applied to many different behaviours, such as aggression, self-injury, stereotyped behaviours, and socially inappropriate behaviours, which can have a variety of functions and different topographical relationships to the environment. Perhaps having a blanket term to cover all of these behaviours encourages us to think in terms of a blanket solution - be it special units, special teams, or special techniques.

What we should really be seeking are individual approaches to meeting people’s needs, whether those needs involve a particular “challenge” to our current service provision or not. Using a more precise description of the type of individual need we are trying to meet may well be better than trying to produce a broad description to cover a wide variety of unrelated behaviours which have many different causes. GRAHAM C O L L I N S , Pr incipal Cl in ica l Psycho log i s t , D i s t r i c t Psychological Services , Cent ra l Nottingham Health Authority, Ransom Hospital, Rainworth, Nr. Mansfield, Notts, NG28 OER.

~ ~

Voting rights of people living in mental handicap hospitals

I am writing on behalf of the Good Practice Group for services for people with mental handicaps, Kidderminster and District. May I , through your journal, draw people’s attention to the Representation of the People Act 1983: Electoral Registration in Mental Illness and Mental Handicap Hospitals?

Whilst we welcome the recognition that people with mental handicaps have a right to vote, we were dismayed to learn that those resident in mental

handicap hospitals on an informal basis are yet again discriminated against. We believe that in insisting that they hold a different address for voting purposes from the one at which they reside, society is once again devaluing them as citizens. The Act purports to be offering them the opportunity to vote, but then places unnecessary obstacles in their path to prevent this. The process, instead of being simplified, becomes more complex and their basic human rights are eroded.

The Good Practice Group is strongly committed to the principle that if hospital (or hostel) has been people’s home for many years and is likely, often through no choice of theirs, to remain so for some time to come, then it is this ‘‘local’’ community whose services they use and contribute to in which they may wish to hold influence by using their vote; not the area they left, perhaps many years before, possibly many miles away, and with which their links may be very tenuous.

We have been taking up this matter with our local Members of Parliament and the former Secretary of State for Health & Social Services. Whilst their response has been for the most part sympathetic and understanding, they indicate that the matter was debated fully in Parliament when the Act was passed and the proposal that people be able to use their hospital address for entry on the Electoral Role if resident on a long-term basis was rejected. Several of the correspondents also suggested that this issue is unlikely to be debated again for some t i2e unless thkre is strong representation to indicate that the situation is unacceptable.

We would ask readers, therefore, to consider this issue. If they believe as we do, that people with mental handicaps should not be discriminated against in this way, we would ask them to contact their own local Members of Parliament to ensure that they realise the extent of feeling on this issue and that action should be taken to change this law.

If you would like further information on this subject, please contact me. PAM HYETT, Deputy Director of Nursing and Hospital Services, Lea Hospital, Stourbridge Road, Bromsgrove, Worcs. B61 OAX .

1 To advertise in I I MentalHandicap 1

please ring I (0562) 824933 for details.

0 1989 British Institute of Mental Handicap 39