This study is focused on the role of schools in child safeguarding - specifically how teachers accessibilise a state-mandated child safeguarding education programme (CSEP), for children with special educational needs (SEN). Research across Europe and beyond indicates that children with SEN are more likely to be victims of child abuse (Putnam, 2003; Davies and Jones, 2013), with some evidence indicating that the likelihood is three-to-four times that of their typically-developing peers (Sullivan and Knutson, 2000). This increased susceptibility amplifies the significance of CSEPs in supporting and protecting their overall wellbeing (Miller and Raymond, 2008). In Ireland, the Stay Safe programme (MacIntyre and Lawlor, 2016) is rendered as the mandatory CSEP for all primary schools (Government of Ireland, 2023). This incorporates special schools which presents many challenges given the standard nature of the programme and questions over the extent to which it can be adapted, given the national policy mandate (Morrissey, 2021).

Like CSEPs across the continent, Stay Safe incorporates key areas that have been deemed essential in developing personal safety and abuse prevention skills in children (Brasard and Fiorvanti, 2015). These areas inform the Stay Safe conceptual framework which is based around five key topics and which underpins this research study:

1. Feeling Safe and Unsafe

2. Friendship and Bullying

3. Touches

4. Secrets and Telling

5. Strangers

It is advised that topics be taught in their ‘entirety…consecutively, beginning with Topic 1 and working through to Topic 5…in one block’ (MacIntyre and Lawlor 2016, p.7). Each topic is developmentally structured over four age-levels, with each level aimed at what the neurotypical child is assumed to be able to cognitively assimilate at that age:

1. Level 1 (5-6 year olds)

2. Level 2 (7-8 year olds)

3. Level 3 (9-10 year olds)

4. Level 4 (11-12 year olds)

The rigidity of this structure presents challenges for children with SEN, as many of these children may not have the cognition required to access the key messages of the core programme, at the different levels. The objective of this research is to probe how teachers deal with this reality at a practical level, for each of the five topics. The main research question is: 

• What approaches do teachers in special schools use to accessibilise the CSEP under examination, to ensure applicability for children with SEN?

To define and categorise the approaches used for each topic, Shawer’s (2010) theoretical framework for curriculum enactment is relied upon. This framework is based on the notion that teachers can adopt three approaches to curriculum enactment:

• The curriculum transmission approach, which is typically understood as implementing the curriculum with fidelity, in adherence with what is laid out in the official written document, in order to achieve a set of desired outcomes;

• The curriculum development or ‘adaptation’ approach, which ‘enfranchises teachers to shape the curriculum according to their contexts’ (Shawer, 2010, p. 174);

• The curriculum making approach, which involves teachers rejecting the official curriculum and enacting a completely different curriculum that is more-or-less self-designed. 

Although rooted in Ireland, this paper will interest scholars in other European jurisdictions in both the health and wellbeing domain and the special education domain, given the  widespread use of CSEPs in many jurisdictions across the continent (Topping and Barron, 2009; Walsh et al., 2018) and the dearth of data on their enactment with children with SEN. That the CSEP under examination in this study, is state-mandated, regardless of child ability, adds to the novelty of this paper and speaks to a trend emerging across Europe of teachers being subjected to greater regulation in curriculum enactment (see for example, Priestley et al., 2021) - even in the health and wellbeing sphere.

A two-phase, explanatory sequential mixed-methods research apparatus was designed to address the research question. Phase 1 was quantitative in nature and consisted of a questionnaire distributed online, via Qualtrics, to the principal of every special school in Ireland. The distribution list was composed of all special schools (n=133) identified on a publicly available database from Ireland's Department of Education, from the 2019-2020 academic year. The purpose of the questionnaire was to generate descriptive statistics and identify areas that needed further exploration in Phase 2. The questionnaire’s valid response rate was 32%. Phase 2 was qualitative in nature, and took the form of a three-site embedded case-study. The principals of all designated special schools were invited to nominate their school for participation via a recruitment notice sent with the questionnaire during Phase 1. When the expressions of interest were collated, three schools were selected on the basis of non-probability, purposive sampling: - One school for learners with Mild General Learning Disabilities; - One school for learners with Moderate General Learning Disabilities; - One school for learners with Severe-Profound (SP) General Learning Disabilities. There were four units within each Phase 2 case: - Documentary analysis of the school’s curricular policy in the area under investigation; - Interview with principal teacher; - Interview with the curriculum coordinator, responsible for leading the mandatory CSEP under examination; - Focus group of three or four teachers. Moseholm and Fetters’ (2017, p.8) explanatory bidirectional framework was used to integrate data from both phases of this research because it facilitated an ‘iterative approach’ to data analysis. Phase 1 findings were analysed first and priori codes developed from this analysis were used to inform Phase 2. The findings from the second phase were then analysed and the emerging themes were used ‘to look for corroborative data from the quantitative dataset’ (Moseholm and Fetters 2017, 8). Greene’s (2007, 188) marble technique was employed for presenting findings because it allowed both phases of research to be reported together, ‘not-layered or offered separately’, so that the research objective could be addressed ‘in one chorus’. Both phases of research were piloted before data-gathering commenced.

The findings of this research illustrate the complexity of teaching a mandatory CSEP to children with SEN. While the overwhelming majority of special schools indicate that they complete the CSEP under investigation, half of those surveyed only use it ‘as a guide’. The results show that teachers engage in extensive adaptation in all five topics - and even at that, the extent to which children can access the key messages is questionable. Teachers prioritise potential child learning over programme fidelity, rejecting key design tenets in order to increase accessibility. That teachers are pressed into making self-determined prioritisations, which may theoretically conflict with the policy position in relation to their obligations to implement the programme, has validated some concerns that meaningful child safeguarding may have become ‘subservient’ to procedural considerations (Morrissey, 2021, p.12). These findings have implications for the design of CSEPs across Europe. CSEPs that are conceptualised from a universal design perspective and promote teacher agency to tailor content to child need and capacity, will be better disposed to address a broader gamut of learners. However, determining the level of tailoring poses a dilemma - namely, too much tailoring could jeopardise the theoretical basis on which a CSEP is founded or at the very least undermine programme fidelity; too little tailoring could render the programme ineffective for some learners with SEN. This study’s unique contribution is that it showcases the potential of progression continua for individual CSEP topics, with a view to changing the approach for enacting CSEPs for learners with learning difficulties. The study will be of interest to teachers, teacher-educators and researchers from across Europe, due to the important insights on and possible directions for addressing a complex area of educational provision for a vulnerable population, in the health and wellbeing domain.

Brassard, M.R. and Fiorvanti, C.M. (2015) ‘School-based child abuse prevention programs’, Psychology in the Schools, 52(1), pp. 40–60. Davies, E. and Jones, A. (2013) ‘Risk factors in child sexual abuse’, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 20(3), pp. 146–150. Government of Ireland (2023) Child Protection Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary Schools. Dublin: Government Publications. Greene, J. (2007) Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc. MacIntyre, D. and Lawlor, M. (2016) The Stay Safe Programme (Revised). Dublin: Child Abuse Prevention Programme. Miller, D. and Raymond, A. (2008) ‘Safeguarding Disabled Children’, in Baginsky, M. (ed.) Safeguarding Children and Schools. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 68–84. Morrissey, B. (2021) ‘A critical policy analysis of Ireland’s Child Protection Procedures for schools: emerging policy considerations’, Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 21(1), pp. 1–16. Moseholm, E. and Fetters, M. (2017) ‘Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies’, Methodological Innovations, 10(2), pp. 1–11. Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. and Soini, T. (2021) Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Putnam, F. (2003) ‘Ten-year research update review: child sexual abuse’, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), pp. 269–278. Sullivan, P. and Knutson, J. (2000) ‘Maltreatment and disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(10), pp. 1257–1273. Shawer, S. (2010) ‘Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), pp. 173–184. Topping, K. and Barron, I. (2009) ‘School-based child sexual abuse prevention programs: a review of effectiveness’, Review of Educational Research, 79(1), pp. 431–463. Walsh, K., Zwi, K., Woolfenden, S. and Shlonsky, A. (2018) ‘School-based education programs for the prevention of child sexual abuse: a Cochrane Systematic Review and meta-analysis’, Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), pp. 33–55.