Provision for students with learning difficulties in general colleges of further education – have we been going round in circles?

In this article, Anne-Marie Wright, lecturer at the University of Chester, considers the current situation for students with severe learn i n g difficulties in general colleges of further education. She presents findings from a critical review of the literature and a small-scale preliminary investigation which set out to explore the idea that, despite radical changes to the special school sector and to the structure and organisation of further education, provision in colleges of further education for these students is poorly focused. Students with severe learning difficulties experience provision that is, at best, circuitous and repetitive and that, at worst, leads individuals back into dependence, unemployment and social segregation. Using the outcomes of her own interviews and the scrutiny of inspection reports, Anne-Marie Wright provides a searching critique of current practice and an interesting set of recommendations for ways in which the situation could be radically reviewed and improved.     

Leadership and inclusion: a special school perspective

In July 2002, the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) held a 'Leading Edge' seminar focused on the contribution that leaders in special schools can make to the development of Inclusive policies and practices. The day gave colleagues working in specialist contexts an opportunity to share examples and experiences of current initiatives and to speculate about future trends and developments in inclusive education. In this article, Robin Attfield and Chris Williams, Assistant Directors in Programmes and Research respectively at the NCSL, explore the context in which the seminar took place and some of the themes and issues that emerged from discussion on the day. At the end of their paper, they summarise the key messages that the special school leaders who attended the seminar wished to communicate to a wider audience and articulate a further role for leaders in special schools in the development of inclusion.     

Expert systems: aspects of and limitations to the codifiability of knowledge

The creation of expert systems is one way in which knowledge is codified. In creating an expert system, in general there are three aspects to the codification process: creating a model of the knowledge to be codified; creating the language in which to express the model; and writing messages representing the knowledge in that language. These aspects have different relative importance in different contexts. Referring to four case studies, the paper argues further that codification through creating expert systems is not uniformly successful and part of the variation has to do with the nature of the knowledge, or intellectual process or activity being codified, and the difficulty in creating the model. Activities with fixed goals and linear processes lend themselves very well to this form of codification. Processes of categorization and analogy, such as fault detection and repair, are partially successful, tending more often to create systems for experts. Processes involving balancing conflicting goals have, to date, tended to be unsuccessfully codified. These process types involve knowledge or understanding at deeper and deeper levels of abstraction of the overall processes and overarching goals. The more abstract and less concrete the knowledge involved in the task, the more difficult it is to codify it.     

Neurocognitive predictors of reading outcomes for children with reading disabilities

This study reports on several specific neurocognitive process predictors of reading outcomes for a sample of 278 children with reading disabilities. Three categories of response (i.e., poor, average, and good) were formed via growth curve models of six reading outcomes. Two nested discriminant function analyses were conducted to evaluate the predictive capability of the following models: (a) an intervention and phonological processing model that included intervention group, phonological awareness, and rapid naming and (b) an additive cognitive neuropsychological model that included measures of memory, visual processes, and cognitive or intellectual functioning. Over and above the substantial explanatory power of the base model, the additive model improved classification of poor and good responders. Several of the cognitive and neuropsychological variables predicted degree of reading outcomes, even after controlling for type of intervention, phonological awareness, and rapid naming.     

Gender differences in the effects of exposure to intimate partner violence on adolescent violence and drug use

Objective

This study investigated the long-term effects of exposure to intimate partner violence in the home on adolescent violence and drug use and gender differences in these relationships. Although the general relationship between exposure to IPV and negative outcomes for youth has been demonstrated in past research, gender differences in the effects of IPV on adolescents have been rarely assessed using longitudinal data.

Methods

Longitudinal data was obtained from 1,315 adolescents and their primary caregivers participating in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). The sample was 51% female and ethnically diverse (45% Hispanic, 37% African-American, and 14% Caucasian). Two waves of data were assessed to examine the effects of exposure to IPV, reported by caregivers when their children were aged 12 and 15, on violence and drug use, reported by adolescents 3 years later. Multivariate statistical models were employed to control for a range of child, parent, family, and neighborhood risk factors.

Results

Exposure to IPV did not significantly predict subsequent violence among males or females in multivariate analyses. IPV exposure was significantly related to the frequency of drug use for females but did not predict drug use among males. This gender difference was not statistically significant, however, which suggests more similarities than differences in the relationship between exposure to IPV and subsequent violence and drug use.

Conclusions

This study supports prior research indicating that exposure to IPV can negatively impact adolescent development, but it suggests that these effects may be more likely to influence some outcomes (e.g., drug use) than others (e.g., interpersonal violence). The findings also emphasize the need for additional research examining the overall impact of IPV on adolescent problem behaviors and gender differences in these relationships, including longitudinal studies and investigations that control for a range of other important predictors. A better understanding of these relationships can help inform intervention efforts aimed at ensuring that adolescents living in violent households receive timely and appropriate services to help prevent the occurrence of future problem behaviors.