Special Needs Resource Roles: A Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison.

This paper compares selected aspects of the school-based special needs resource teacher role in Northern Ireland and in Ontario, Canada. Particular attention is given to how clearly the role is defined for practitioners within their respective jurisdictions. Practitioners' major objectives in the role are discussed and the way in which both groups of participants spend most of their time is presented. Key factors that may be impacting on the role in both jurisdictions are also identified. The findings discussed here are pan of a larger study comparing the resource role in these two jurisdictions. The major study involved a series of personal interviews with special needs resource teachers in both jurisdictions (n=30), and follow up questionnaires (n=150).

Educational policy makers in both Ontario, Canada and Northern Ireland advocate that special needs students be educated in mainstream classes. Indeed, according to Ainscow (1997), "the idea of inclusive education is gaining ground in many parts of the world" (p.3). Stainback and Stainback (1992) also support the notion of `Schools as Inclusive Communities', while being careful to point out that "appropriate educational experiences and support in integrated settings" (p.29) are key elements in special needs students being successful in the mainstream. The skills and attitudes of regular teachers are also vitally important when it comes to successfully `including' special needs students (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman & Schattman, 1993).

Background

The education systems in both Northern Ireland and Ontario have developed a specific role focused on the support of special needs students in mainstream classrooms. In Ontario, these individuals are known under a variety of titles, most frequently involving some reference to `Resource Teacher'. Although the title may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (e.g. Academic Resource Teacher; Special Education Resource Teacher), the intent of the role is relatively consistent. A model for the resource teacher role emerged in Ontario in the early 1980s in response to legislation dealing with the education of special needs students. The model evolved from much of the resource teacher literature in the United States and was clearly articulated in Ontario by Wilson (1984), in the publication `Opening the Door--A Key to Resource Models'. It became generally accepted in school boards across Ontario as the preferred approach to supporting special needs students in regular classrooms. This new role required the resource teacher to have not only the assessment and programming skills required for working directly with students but also to have skills involving consulting and collaborating with other teachers.

Special Education in Northern Ireland also experienced some major changes in the 1980s following the Warnock Report (1978). The notion of `a whole school approach' to special educational needs gained support in England, and Northern Ireland was able to look to this as a future model. This concept offered an exciting alternative to the more traditional forms of provision found in ordinary schools (Dessent, 1987). The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (DfE, 1994),- implemented in Northern Ireland in 1998- requires that all schools designate a member of staff with responsibility for coordinating special needs within the school. The emergence of the Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO) in England was a key development in addressing the need for support in ordinary schools. In spite of some issues around the lack of clarity, definition, and training (Bines, 1988; Dyson, 1990), the SENCO role became established in Northern Ireland. The SENCO is expected to work closely with teachers as they strive to meet the special needs of students in their classes. The Code sets out the responsibilities of the SENCO, however, Dyson and Gains (1995), stated that the Code imposes "an enormous-perhaps overwhelming burden on co-ordinators" (p. 50), and that the assigned tasks "fail to engage in the full realities of the situation faced by the coordinator" (p.51). For this role, which includes activities such as liaising, advising, and in-service training of staff, the Code does not mandate any specific qualifications or training. This issue may be critical since teachers have not traditionally been trained for these types of tasks. Little (1985) identified a need to know about roles and their impact on any planned improvement. She suggested that resource and support personnel face considerable challenges in terms of trying to preserve the integrity of teachers while devoting fierce attention to their teaching and their classrooms. These individuals must rely on influence since they do not have any authority within their role nor do they have the weight of tradition behind them. Little (1985) also found that many resource and support personnel were hesitant to be experts and lacked the knowledge, skills, and etiquette for the role.

In comparison, Ontario's special education provisions are dealt with through the Ontario Ministry of Education's Regulation 1811 (previously Reg. 305), which outlines the duties and powers of school boards in relation to students with special needs. Although the required procedures are broadly equivalent to the Code of Practice, there is no mandated equivalent to the SENCO role. The resource teacher role previously mentioned is delineated according to individual school board policy rather than by Ministry of Education regulation. It is important to note, however, that it has been normal practice for a number of years in Ontario's school boards to have such a role in place in each school. More importantly, while the role in Ontario is not mandated, specific qualifications and training are required for any teacher holding a special education position such as the resource role (O. Reg. 169). This suggests that Ontario has addressed the issue of preparation for a resource position. Perhaps the difficulties surrounding this type of role are best summed up as follows.

   Teachers who are newly selected in potential leadership roles - mentors,
   teacher advisors, resource teachers and others - understand that the test
   of their worth will be in the classroom. But these emerging leadership
   roles have been ambiguous, particularly with regard to expectations for
   entering teachers' classrooms or becoming involved in any way with another
   teacher's work.

   Little, 1985:91

Role Definition

In each of the jurisdictions, over eighty percent of the respondents agreed that their role was clearly defined within the school. There was, however, a significant difference between the two groups in relation to whether they felt that school principals understood and supported their role. Over ninety percent (93.3%) of the Ontario group agreed that they did. In Northern Ireland over seventy percent agreed (73.6%). Crosstabulations by type of school showed that in Ontario, one hundred percent of the respondents (100%) at the secondary school level agreed regarding the principal's understanding and support. At this level in Northern Ireland, there was just over fifty percent agreement (52%). Generally, the respondents at both elementary and secondary levels in the two jurisdictions reported that teachers in their schools were well informed about the role, the services available, and how to access these services effectively. The secondary school respondents in Northern Ireland were, however, somewhat less confident on these issues. It is difficult to hypothesize why this might occur. The perceived lack of principal support at the secondary level may be key especially if principals do not involve themselves directly with special needs concerns in the school. Berman and McLaughlin (1977) pointed out that the principal's active support for any innovation sends an important message to staff regarding its importance. Fullan (1991), however, cautioned that "the expectation that principals should be leaders in the implementation of changes that they had no hand in developing and may not understand is especially troublesome" (p. 152). In addition, although most of the respondents from both jurisdictions indicated that teachers know how to use resource services, just over twenty percent of the total group felt that the teachers do not actually use these services on a regular basis.

One issue related to role definition that, not unexpectedly, emerged consistently across both jurisdictions was that of being viewed in a `remedial teaching' role. This was reported by many of the Northern Ireland SENCOs at both primary and secondary levels. In Ontario, it appeared to be an issue only at the secondary level. A resource and support service offered to teachers in mainstream classrooms does represent a change from the old remedial practice. Fullan (1982) has consistently argued that successful change takes time and must be accepted by all those involved. Everyone must therefore, understand the shift from a remedial role to a resource role. Without preparation and training, it will be challenging for those whose roles have shifted from the traditional remedial focus towards one of offering support and consultation for colleagues (Laskier, 1985; Bines, 1986). This highlights a need for collaborative planning and staff development within schools to promote and support these special needs initiatives. Principals must also ensure that conditions exist within the school that will allow this to happen. Joyce and Showers (1988) suggested that participants in any new procedure require time and practice to become competent in its use. The development of long range professional development plans that focus on the resource role and the services offered to teachers may alleviate the situation reported by one SENCO who had reverted to her old remedial role because, as a resource teacher, no-one asked for her services.

There also appeared to be some confusion in both jurisdictions when the question of `teacher as client' arose. This may be associated with an overall lack of clarity in the role and the expectations that go along with it. As Dyson and Gains (1995) pointed out, the co-ordinator role should begin with questions of philosophy and values, and then proceed to look at a consensus within the role that avoids conflicting interpretations and expectations. Their findings identified co-ordinators with a very clear sense of their own purpose but that purpose was different for each individual. The findings in this study suggest that the Northern Ireland co-ordinators are very committed to what they believe is their purpose within their own school. Often, however, this purpose remains one of providing remedial teaching. The Ontario resource teachers, who overwhelmingly reported having a clear definition of their role, showed in many of their subsequent responses that it was not necessarily a consistent or uniform definition either.

Major Objectives

In terms of the objectives in the role, there was some similarity between the two jurisdictions. These are presented in Table 1 below.

Table I
Major Objectives in the Role

Rank   N. Ireland                        Ontario

1st    Teach basic skills to small       Adapt curriculum to meet
       groups or individuals             the needs of students

2nd    Support teachers in mainstream    Support teachers in
       classrooms                        mainstream classrooms

3rd    Provide materials and resources   Teach basic skills to small
       for teachers                      groups or individuals

No differences in rankings were noted with respect to the level of school in either context. This is interesting in light of Jordan's (1994) suggestion that secondary schools in Canada have placed less emphasis on the resource role than their counterparts in Great Britain. It may be that the Northern Ireland findings highlight some of the differences between the local context and mainland Britain.

Overall, there are common elements in what these resource/co-ordinators see as their major objectives in the role. The issue of teaching basic skills and its high profile in both jurisdictions is worthy of comment. This is a direct student contact activity that is very familiar to all teachers. It is likely an activity which these respondents feel comfortable doing and for which they have all had training and preparation. Indeed, this may support Huefner's (1988) argument that resource teachers, lacking both time and consultative skills, spend most of their time in pullout programs involving direct instruction. This act of `teaching' also has credibility and is easily understood by other teachers - supporting, collaborating and other noncontact activities do not always enjoy the same credibility with all teachers. It also means that the responsibility of teaching the special needs students remains with `someone else' and that regular classroom teachers may abdicate their responsibilities for these students. Furthermore, if resource/coordinator teachers have not been adequately prepared for the changes in their role, they are likely to cling to familiar practices. A number of participants in both jurisdictions reported `feeling guilty' if they were not in the classroom doing something during school time. One participant felt that some teachers were watching to see what he did all day. Responses such as this suggest a need for a common vision of the role - one which is shared by all members of staff and in which each person is an equal stakeholder. It calls for a `whole-school' commitment involving the active leadership of the principal and department heads. This type of resource role requires a partnership between the regular educator and the special educator for both the planning and implementing of appropriate programs for special needs students. The role requires a balance of direct services to students and indirect services provided through consultation and communication with the regular classroom teacher. Although critically important to the role, this balance has been identified as extremely difficult to attain (Haight, 1984; Huefner, 1988). It is also the portion of the role for which teachers have traditionally received the least amount of training and preparation (Brown, 1977; Evans, 1980; McLaughlin & Kelly, 1982). The person in this role is expected to be "an experienced, skilled, and insightful educator who has credibility in the school and who has gained this credibility through teaching competency, leadership, and knowledge" (Harris & Schutz, 1986, p.5). They further suggest that the knowledge and skills required for this type of role are almost impossible to list and that, over time, the role may well become one of consultation and training of regular classroom teachers with less emphasis on direct teaching. It would appear that there is still a considerable focus on direct teaching in both jurisdictions in this study.

Use of Time

Respondents were asked to estimate the amount of time they spent on a given range of practices associated with the special needs resource role. While it is acknowledged that this type of self-reporting may not always present a completely accurate picture, it may highlight some trends in the practices of individuals currently in the role. Over a wide range of practices, few significant differences were noted between the two jurisdictions. The top three practices in terms of use of time are presented in Table II.

Table II
Use of Time

Rank     N. Ireland                Ontario

1st      Teaching remedial         Teaching individuals or
         class(es)                 small groups

2nd      Teaching individuals      Providing in-class support
         or small groups

3rd      Adapting core             Preparing and monitoring
         curriculum                curriculum for individual
                                   students

The only significant difference between the two jurisdictions in their top three choices was with `teaching remedial classes'. Ontario ranked this activity at number eleven. Other practices where significant time differences were noted are outlined below.

In addition to teaching remedial classes, the Northern Ireland co-ordinators reportedly spend significantly more of their time than their Ontario counterparts on the following activities:

* developing materials for special needs students

* explaining student needs to teachers

The Ontario resource teachers reportedly spend significantly more of their time as follows:

* attending meetings with support staff, teachers and parents

* problem solving with teachers

* organizing and planning workshops for teachers

* assisting classroom teachers in planning curriculum modifications

Of interest here is the pattern of responses from Northern Ireland. There was a clear division in the responses relating to remedial teaching. Its number one ranking in terms of how SENCOs spend their time may mask the fact that a number of respondents actually reported spending very little of their time on this activity. Analyses showed that this split cannot be accounted for solely by type of school--primary versus secondary. It suggests some fairly deep-seated ambiguities within the role in Northern Ireland where some SENCOs acknowledge spending more than fifty percent of their time in a remedial capacity while others do little remedial work. This issue was clearly evident in a number of interviews where SENCOs described themselves as `the remedial teacher' and even received communications addressing them as such. Several were very resistant to questions probing any consultative aspects of their role. Others had reduced their remedial work to a minimum and were focused on providing a support service to teachers in their classrooms. Overall, however, the actual practices undertaken in both jurisdictions are similar. It does appear, though, that the Ontario resource teachers maintain a somewhat better balance across the range of activities presented in this study. This may reflect the required training associated with the role in Ontario and the adoption of a common resource model across the province.

Impacting Factors

Overwhelmingly, in both jurisdictions, the factor that impacted most on respondents was `not enough time to do the job effectively'. This appeared to be most frustrating for everyone. It is likely that this finding is closely related to each individual's conceptualization of the role. If it is seen as primarily remedial with the additional requirements such as those laid out in the Code of Practice `added on,' then lack of time will be a major factor. With the growing emphasis on inclusion, a common vision of the role and a consistent implementation of the practices associated with it are imperative. If special needs pupils are to be successful in the mainstream then support must be available to both the pupils and their teachers. It is also worth noting that `unsuitable curriculum' was the second most problematic area identified by both groups. Since both jurisdictions have recently implemented major curriculum changes, it is essential that curriculum writers and politicians consider the needs of all learners especially those for whom learning is challenging when developing and implementing these new initiatives. All education systems must ensure that the curriculum is indeed adaptable and realistically accessible to all students. If the education systems recognize special needs students through their various policies on inclusion and support, then they must also recognize the curriculum needs of these same students.

Summary

Wasley (1991) suggested that teachers in leadership positions have the potential to "improve the quality of educational experience students receive while simultaneously working to retain and stretch top-quality people in the teaching profession" (p.5). It would seem that individuals such as resource or co-ordinator teachers who have undertaken special needs leadership roles within their schools have this potential. If it is to be realized then we must look closely at their practices, their understanding of their roles, and their working responsibilities. Unless the underlying assumptions of the special needs resource role are clearly understood, real change that will benefit students is unlikely to take place. Dyson (1990) contended that the special needs resource role is fraught with problems and many sources of potential conflict. It would seem that, in both Northern Ireland and Ontario, some problems do exist within the role. Although the actual practices are similar in both jurisdictions, it would appear that, particularly in Northern Ireland, a common framework or vision of what the role should look like in total is somewhat lacking. It seems that many of the resource people have a number of the `pieces' of the role but do not have the `big picture'. As Fullan (1991) stated when describing issues surrounding change, "It is essential to understand both the small and the big pictures" (p. xi). These co-ordinators and resource teachers also need to know about their roles. Little (1985) suggested that they need to see themselves in the role and be able to recognize the challenges involved. These go beyond the technical skills required to do the job and include the socialization skills which accompany the role. The conceptualization of the role within an adequately balanced but flexible model requires clarity and definition - the big picture needs to be clear. The resource role is not merely a list of tasks to be performed, it requires a vision of how the potential of special needs students can be maximized within a regular classroom. The practitioners involved need to have a clear picture of where they fit within the whole school community and how the services they provide can affect both students and teachers alike. The nature of support for special needs students in regular classes is critical if our schools are to be `inclusive communities'.

References

Ainscow, M. (1997). Towards Inclusive Schooling, British. Journal of Special Education, 24 (1), 3-6.

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change : Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Bines, H. (1986). Redefining Remedial Education. London: Croom Helm.

Bines, H. (1988). Equality, community and individualism: The development and implementation of the whole school approach to special needs. In E. Barton (ed.), The Politics of Special Education Needs. London: Falmer Press.

Brown, V. (1977). Yes, but ... Journal of Special Education, 11 (2), 171-177.

Department for Education (1994). Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. London: DfE.

Dessent, T. (1987). Making the Ordinary School Special. London: Falmer Press.

Dyson, A. (1990). Effective learning consultancy: a future role for special needs coordinators? Support for Learning, 5 (3), 116-127.

Dyson, A. & Gains, C. (1995). The role of the special needs co-ordinator: Poisoned chalice or crock of gold? Support for Learning, 10 (2), 50-62.

Evans, S. (1980). The consultant role of the resource teacher. Exceptional Children, 46 (5), 402-403.

Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto: OISE Press.

Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Giangreco, M.F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S. & Schattman, R. (1993). I've counted Jon: Transformational experiences of teachers educating children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.

Haight, S J.,. (1984). Special education teacher consultant: Idealism versus realism. Exceptional Children, 50 (6), 507-515.

Harris, W.J. & Schutz, P.N.B. (1986). The special education resource program. Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press Inc.

Huefner, D.S. (1988). The consulting teacher model: risks and opportunities. Exceptional Children, 54 (5), 403-414.

Jordan, A. (1994).Skills in collaborative classroom consultation. London: Routledge.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.

Laskier, M. (1985). The changing role of the remedial teacher. In C.J. Smith (ed.), New Directions in Remedial Education. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Little, J.W. (1985) Expanded rewards and opportunities in the teaching profession and in schools. In L. Newton, M. Fullan & J. Macdonald (eds.), Rethinking Teacher Education. Toronto: OISE Press.

McLoughlin, J. & Kelly, D. (1982). Issues facing the resource teacher. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5 (1), 58-64.

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training: Regulation 169.

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training: Regulation 181 (previously Reg. 305).

Stainback, S. & Stainback,W. (1992). Schools as Inclusive Communities. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (eds.), Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education: Divergent Perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Warnock Report (1978). Special educational needs report of the Committee of Enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people. London: HMSO.

Wasley, P.A. (1991). Teachers who Lead: The rhetoric of Reform and the Realities of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wilson, A.K. (1984). Opening the door: The key to resource models. Toronto: OPSTF.

Eileen C. Winter, Nipissing University, Ontario, Canada. Rosemary Kilpatrick, Queen's University, Belfast, N. Ireland.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eileen C. Winter, Nipissing University, 100 College Drive, Box 5002, North Bay, ON P1B 8L7