Aligning Common Standards for Language for Pupils with Special Educational Needs in the Netherlands

Author(s):

Mieneke Langberg(presenting / submitting)Annette van der Laan(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 09 A, Supporting Teachers in Curriculum Design and Implementation

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-12

11:00-12:30

Room:

D-402

Chair:

Adam Handelzalts

Contribution

The Netherlands is currently moving from a very general set of core objectives to a much more prescribed language curriculum with more emphasis on learning outcomes. Since 2010, schools in the Netherlands are required to implement the national Framework of Reference for Language and Mathematics (Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen, 2009). The Framework of Reference consists of common standards for all pupils at different educational levels. This important reform in Dutch educational law is motivated by the desire to promote data-driven education. The aim is to facilitates the transition from one educational level to the other, by providing a clear and common 'language' for teachers within and across different educational levels.

The Framework of Reference describes three levels of language learning of an increasingly complexity. High expectations are held for all Dutch pupils, included children with special educational needs (SEN). Primary education, including all forms of special education, is both assigned the common basic and advanced level for those pupils with more cognitive capacities. The common basic level of the Framework of Reference, the so-called 'fundamental level', is a minimal level which all students should have achieved leaving (special) primary education. After primary education, pupils continue their education in different educational levels according to their capacities. Cognitive development becomes thus more and more important in special educational needs (SLO, 2008).

Notwithstanding the efforts of schools, there are pupils who do not attain the minimum standards set. This leaves schools with a dilemma for pupils with language development disorders that have an effect in the outcome for (certain aspects of) language learning: at one hand setting high goals and strive for high learning outcomes for all pupils, and at the other hand setting both realistic and attainable goals that meet the needs of an individual pupil.

Teachers feel the need for support in making choices in the curriculum in order to be able to meet the educational needs of these pupils. Parker Boudet et al. (2007) point out the importance of a well-equipped 'data-wise' school-team. School leaders need to create a data-driven environment so that all members on their team can develop what they call 'assessment literacy'. The authors strongly advise this need to be done collaboratively with room for dialogue. To support schools in making such choices, more insight is needed in aligning common standards to individual needs in a data-driven environment. This leads to the central research question for this study: How can a framework of reference for language be specified and embedded in a data-driven environment in order to support schools in the development of education that is both in line with common standards and is at the same time tailored to the special educational needs of individual learners?

Method

This study was carried out by following a cyclic method of three phases: (i) orientation, (ii) curriculum elaboration, and (iii) case study research. In the orientation phase, a literature study and interviews with both teachers and educational experts were conducted. This led in the second phase to the development of three curricular tools :(i) description of the profiles of language development of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) (ii) outline of possible support measures for pupils with SEN, like specific accommodations and assistive technology, and (iii) learning curves visualising the common core goals leading to a specific type of secondary education. Currently, the study is in its third phase that consists of a case study research in primary (n=2) and special primary schools (n=5). A teacher training was developed so that all participating schools would follow the same process in implementing the curricular tools. Data on both the pupils (n=101) and on the training (teams kept a log) are gathered. Outcomes of the study will be used to refine the alignment of the Framework of Reference for pupils with educational needs.

Expected Outcomes

Although the study has not yet completed, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. Cases studies show the curricular tools are found to be effective in stimulating debates on setting relevant and realistic educational goals for pupils with SEN. By focussing on the actual content and stages set in the' learning curves', choices are made based on all type of data of the actual level of language. More detailed insight in the strengths and weaknesses of language development of a pupil with SEN was made explicit and shared with team members. This lead to making relevant choices for aligning individual education plans to the common goals set in the Framework of Reference. Especially teachers who were working in a data-driven environment found the curricular tools useful and were able to make their education more in line with common standards and, at the same time, more tailored to the special educational needs of individual learners. A preliminary conclusion could be that schools first need to create a data-driven environment before they can align the common core standards for pupils with educational needs. Particularly, an environment with room for reflecting on assessment and analysis, to come from data to effective action.

References

Ainscow, M. (2003). Using teacher development to foster inclusive classroom practices. In: t. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad. Developing Inclusive Teacher Education (pp.15-32). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Akker, J. van den (2003). Curriculum Perspectives: an Introduction. In: J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Eds.). Curriculum Landscapes and Trends (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Avramidis, E. Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000): A survey of mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one Local Educational Authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 193-213. Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen. (2009). Een nadere beschouwing. Over de drempels met taal en rekenen. Enschede: Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York & London: Teachers College Press. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning, a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Taylor& Francis. Haug, P. (2003). Qualifying teachers for the school for all.. In: t. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad. Developing Inclusive Teacher Education (pp.99-116). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2009). Het taalonderwijs op taalsterk en taalzwakke scholen: een onderzoek naar de kenmerken van het taalonderwijs op basisscholen met lage en hoge taalresultaten. Inspectie van het Onderwijs, Utrecht. Inspectie van het Onderwijs (2010a). De staat van het onderwijs. Onderwijsverslag 2008/2009. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs. Leeuwen, B. van, A. Thijs & M. Zandbergen (2008). Inclusive education in the Netherlands. Enschede: SLO Ofsted (2004). Special Educational Needs and Disability: Towards inclusive schools. London: Office for Standards in Education Parker Boudett, K., City, E.A., & Murnane, R.J. (2007) Data wise. A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Author Information

Mieneke Langberg (presenting / submitting)

SLO

Enschede

Annette van der Laan (presenting)

SLO

Special needs