Assessment in special schools: national early assessment procedures and pupils attending special schools in England

An implicit assumption that fostering inclusion means having shared systems encompassing the needs of all children is evident in many aspects of policy development over the past decade. Reflecting this, the implementation of ‘baseline assessment’ schemes (i.e. testing at around age 5 years) is a statutory requirement on all state-maintained special and mainstream schools in England since 1998. Our argument is that the enthusiasm for commonality has obscured the need to question the value and validity of baseline assessment schemes for children with special educational needs (and possibly some others such as children having English as an additional language). We illustrate this position with reference to data from our recent study on baseline assessment in England. The study encompassed survey data from a national sample of 982 schools, of which 107 were special schools. Between them, these special schools used 42 different baseline assessment schemes. Comparisons between our mainstream and special school respondents indicated that there were similarities in the nature and perceived value of the schemes used. However, special schools were less satisfied with their schemes. We suggest that a reappraisal of the nature and purpose of baseline assessment for pupils with special educational needs warrants greater critical debate. Without this, there is a danger that a stress on commonality, veiling an inclusion orthodoxy, will ultimately be counterproductive.     

How can pre-service primary teachers' perspectives contribute to a pedagogy that problematises the ‘practical’ in teacher education?

This study examined pre-service primary teachers' perspectives on teaching and learning experiences within college-based courses in ‘practical’ subject areas within a teacher education programme. Following three individual lectures (one each in art, music and physical education), pre-service teachers (n=11) participated in focus group interviews sharing their perspectives on the teaching and learning experiences. These data were analysed thematically and supported by teacher educators' (n=3) planning and reflection documentation. Although the problematic nature of the ‘practical’ suggests appeal and peril of the ‘practical’, the important nature of negotiating the ‘practical’ to enhance student learning is apparent. Students emphasised the value of practical engagement and expressed a strong preference for working in groups to create a safe learning environment to develop confidence and competence. These insights suggest key aspects of a pedagogy of teacher education in these ‘practical’ areas. The importance of being aware of and, in some cases, challenging student perspectives on how they learn best in these curricular areas is discussed.     

Post-qualitative research

This article maintains that all research involves crossing (i.e., researching across difference) and then explores how scholars have approached issues of cross-group feminist research. The article is divided into three major sections. The first section explores issues of women?s diversity and their meaning for cross-group feminist research. The second investigates concerns raised with regard to contradictions inherent in this type of research. The third section reviews and discusses a number of strategies feminist and other scholars of qualitative research have used to address problematic issues and contradictions involved in cross-group research.     

PARALLELS OF PROGRESS IN RELIGION AND EDUCATION∗

The careful distinctions in this article assist in clarifying the tasks of educators     

Right is Wrong: an examination of the effect of right justification on reading

Previous attempts to examine the effects of different types of text format on reading have focused on the improvement of reading. The present study investigated the effect of using a text format that might be predicted to disrupt reading. In this study 56 individuals were presented with reading material presented in right-justified format and in'ragged'uneven line format. Subjects performed significantly worse on right-justified material. Subjects who were classified as good readers on the basis of a pretest were more affected than poor readers. It is suggested that this may result from differences in the reading style of good and poor readers.