This paper is focused on curriculum for learners with special educational needs (SEN) and reports the results of a mixed methods inquiry on how special schools for learners with intellectual disabilities conceptualise curriculum in Ireland. The global push for inclusive education over the last decade has amplified questions about how curricula should support learners with SEN (Dalton et al., 2019). While universal design for learning (UDL) has gained prominence within the discourse (Novak, 2016; Flood and Banks, 2021, p.1), it is generally accepted that UDL does not entirely remove the need for additionality or adaptation (Nelson, 2021; O’Brien and Fitzgerald, 2023), in particular where learners have complex needs. In this context, curriculum design has been among the most contentious issues in the debate writ large, with renewed scrutiny on contrasting visions for inclusion underlying different approaches to curriculum. At its core, is a fundamental ‘dilemma of difference’ (Minow, 1990, p.19): should learners with SEN be taught using a standard, common curriculum, ensuring they share in the same educational experiences as their peers, or should they be provided with a more customised curriculum that ensures content aligns with their individual needs and abilities, even though this may set them aside from their peers? Teachers must navigate this dilemma carefully, balancing appropriate expectations while avoiding adverse effects - whether by setting unattainable standards or limiting opportunities for growth and participation. Advocating for a common curriculum, Florian (2019) argues that structures categorising learners by ability (or disability) should be avoided, as they may impose unjustified limits (Hart & Drummond, 2014). Conversely, Kauffman and Badar (2014, p.13) argue that offering the same curriculum to learners with complex SEN can be humiliating when expectations are so out of reach that they overshadow potential successes achievable with a more customised approach. Fuchs et al. (2015, p.154) concur, providing evidence that a common curriculum is not ‘synonymous with access’ - even with significant accommodations in teaching and the environment.

Against this backdrop, Norwich (2010) argues for a pragmatic third way, as an alternative to these polarised positions. His Curriculum Aspects model advocates for balancing tensions by systematically embedding flexibility into curriculum design. Curriculum, according to Norwich (2010, 2013), is made up for four key aspects:

• General principles and aims

• Areas of learning (for example subject areas)

• Specific programmes of study

• Teaching practices

Under this construction, commonality occurs along a spectrum with five different design options based on how the four curriculum aspects are varied in particular circumstances. In between the completely common and completely different curriculum, there are three other hybrid curriculum options with degrees of commonality and difference. This spectrum can act as a structural assemblage for teachers who ‘want to have it both ways as far as possible’ (Norwich 2013, 66) – a common curriculum with differentiated aspects. Norwich’s (2010) model formed the theoretical frame for this research. The objective was to probe its practical currency for teachers in classrooms, to establish the extent to which it captures the processes they engage in to accessibilise a common, mainstream curriculum for learners with complex SEN. The core research question was: how do teachers conceptualise curriculum for learners with SEN, and how do they maximise curriculum access to ensure both meaningful learning and active participation?

The paper resonates with the conference theme by offering perspectives on how curriculum design can evolve to foster greater inclusion and how applied research can expand learning potentials, in particular for marginalised groups. This study will help inform future curricular practices in Europe and further afield, with an eye on how creative problem-solving can bring about more equitable experiences for all learners.

This research formed part of a broader explanatory sequential, mixed-methods inquiry into curriculum leadership and curriculum enactment in special education in Ireland. This paper reports on the curriculum enactment dimension. To investigate the fine-grained dimensions of how teachers conceptualised curriculum and optimised its applicability for learners with SEN at the classroom level, a curriculum probe was deployed to illustrate minutiae. The selected probe was the Stay Safe programme - Ireland’s national child safety education programme, implemented in both primary and special schools. The rationale for this choice was its universal requirement for all learners between the ages of 4 and 12, ensuring consistency across contexts. Unlike other programmes in the Irish education system, schools cannot opt out of Stay Safe or replace it with alternatives. This feature allowed for an illustration of how different schools responded to the same curriculum considerations under varying conditions. The research was located entirely in the special school sector and data were collected over two phases: Phase 1 - Quantitative The first research phase consisted of a questionnaire distributed via Qualtrics to the principal of every special school in Ireland (n=133). The purpose of this was to generate descriptive statistics and identify areas that needed further exploration in Phase 2. From the 133 questionnaires disseminated, there were 43 valid responses (32%). Phase 2 – Qualitative The second phase of research 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 Intellectual Disabilities - One school for learners with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities - One school for learners with Severe-Profound Intellectual Disabilities The rationale for this selection was that it gave coverage to the entire spectrum of general intellectual disability special schools, in circumstances where available data in this sphere are paltry. There were four units within each Phase 2 case: - Documentary analysis of the school’s curriculum policy documents - Interview with principal teacher - Interview with a curriculum coordinator - Focus group of three or four teachers Moseholm and Fetters’ (2017) explanatory bidirectional framework for mixed methods research was used to facilitate an ‘iterative approach’ to the combining of quantitative and qualitative data for analysis.

The findings from this research endorse the real-world relevance of the Norwich (2010) model for conceptualising curriculum for learners with SEN, to take account of varying levels of need. However, the data gathered from teachers illustrate the need for conceptualising an additional ‘Support’ aspect to curriculum design. This new aspect captures the extensive additional supports that teachers and teaching assistants provide to facilitate accessibility for learners with SEN, over-and-above what is laid out in the written document, to bridge the gaps between curriculum intent and practical implementation. The inclusion of ‘Support’ as a distinct aspect increases the number of hybrid curriculum design options from five to six, presenting an expanded and refined model. This enhanced model offers a nuanced approach to balancing the dilemma inherent in curriculum design - between the extremes of a completely common curriculum and a wholly different one. By acknowledging the centrality of support in making curriculum content meaningful and achievable for all learners, the proposed model provides a more comprehensive framework for educators navigating these challenges. This research will interest teachers and researchers in the inclusion and curriculum studies spheres across Europe and beyond. Crucially, the study provides empirical data from special schools, which have been somewhat neglected from a research perspective in recent years, as the drive towards inclusion has resulted in a research focus that has prioritised SEN in mainstream settings (Morrissey, Keating and King, 2024). The paper contributes to the ongoing conversation about curriculum design by providing an actionable framework that addresses the needs of learners with SEN while promoting equity and participation. It offers a pathway forward for education systems striving to balance inclusion, additionality, individualisation, and the realities of classroom practice.

Flood, M. and J. Banks. 2021. “Universal Design for Learning: Is it Gaining Momentum in Irish Education?” Education Sciences 11(341): 1-11. Florian, L. 2019. “On the Necessary Co-Existence of Special and Inclusive Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 23(7–8): 691–704. Fuchs, L., D. Fuchs, D. Compton, J. Wehby, R. Schumacher, R. Gersten and N. Jordan. 2015. “Inclusion Versus Specialized Intervention for Very-Low-Performing Students: What Does Access Mean in an Era of Academic Challenge?” Exceptional Children 81(2): 134-157. Dalton, E., M. Lyner-Cleophas, B. Ferguson, B. and J. McKenzie. 2019. “Inclusion, Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education: South Africa and the United States.” African Journal of Disability 8(0): 1-7. Hart, S. and M. Drummond. 2014. “Learning Without Limits: Constructing a Pedagogy Free from Determinist Beliefs about Ability” in The SAGE Handbook of Special Education: Two Volume Set. 2nd ed., 349-458. London: Sage Publications. Kauffman, J.M. and J. Badar. 2014. “Instruction, Not Inclusion, Should be the Central Issue in Special Education: An Alternative View from the USA.” Journal of International Special Needs Education 17(1): 13–20. Minow, M. 1990. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion and American Law. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Morrissey, B., Keating, S and King, F. 2024. “Enacting a Child Safety Education Programme in Special Education Contexts.” Children and Youth Services Review 163(1): 1-12. Moseholm, E. and M. Fetters. 2017. “Conceptual Models to Guide Integration During Analysis in Convergent Mixed Methods Studies.” Methodological Innovations 10(2): 1–11. Nelson, L. 2021. Design and Deliver: Planning and Teaching Universal Design for Learning, Maryland: Paul Brookes publishing. Norwich, B. 2010. “Dilemmas of Difference, Curriculum and Disability: International Perspectives.” Comparative Education 46(2): 113–135. Norwich, B. 2013. Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education: Living with Uncertainty. Oxon: Routledge. Novak, K. 2016. UDL Now! A Teacher’s Guide to Applying Universal design for Learning in Today’s Classrooms, Massachusetts: CAST. O’Brien, T. and Fitzgerald, J. 2023. “Universal design for learning (UDL): Creating a fairer system for all.” Learn: The Journal of the Irish Learning Support Association 44(0): 36-44.