Children and pupils have diverse learning needs, but the system fulfils the needs of only some of them

Similar to other countries, learners in Slovakia are entitled to receive support in education based on the special educational needs concept (SEN). The Learning Makes Sense findings indicate the limitations of this concept, arising both from its ideological background and its application in practice. A deficit-based SEN definition that ascribes cause to a child's disadvantages or disabilities, or to the family, diverts attention from the barriers children might face from schools and the education system. Due to this rather rigid categorisation of children by their disadvantages or disabilities, individual differences children have in their learning needs are disregarded. At the same time, children who do not match the current SEN categories are ineligible for support and a customised approach. Another problem is the increasing proportion of children and pupils designated as SEN. At primary schools, almost one in five pupils are granted SEN status of some kind, while in certain districts this holds for a third or even a half of all pupils. Based on the Learning Makes Sense findings, an increasing proportion of SEN designations can be related to a more precise diagnostic process, the demands placed on children, and the current system of school financing. Providing a higher financial contribution per pupil with SEN can indirectly support  excessive diagnosing of children and thus contribute to an increasing number of SEN designated children. Since receiving support is conditional upon “diagnosis”, preventive measures are rather limited. Also, it can contribute to a high proportion of certain groups (e.g. Roma children or children from orphanages) among children with a diagnosed physical disability. The fact that the mild mental disability diagnosis applies to almost one in five children living in excluded Roma communities might offer an example. Having a mild mental disability diagnosis de facto excludes these children from education, because most of them attend primary education separated from their peers and their further options to continue at secondary schools are limited. The current system results in a lack of personal and financial resources at advisory and prevention centres. Due to this, these centres’ main focus is on establishing a diagnosis rather than providing the efficient support which is crucial for the child's further education.

Analysis of the qualitative and quantitative Learning Makes Sense data is examined in more detail in the next sections:

Limitations of the SEN concept

The concept of special educational needs has several limitations

Read more (available only in Slovak)

Increase in the proportion of children who need support

Increase in the proportion of children/pupils who need support in education

Read more (available only in Slovak)

Unequal distribution of SEN designated children

Children and pupils who need support are distributed unequally at schools

Read more (available only in Slovak)

Issues related to the mild mental disability diagnosis

Establishing the diagnosis of mild mental disability excludes a group of pupils from  mainstream education

Read more (available only in Slovak)

SEN related to establishing a diagnosis, not support

Identifying special educational needs is often related mostly to establishing a diagnosis, rather than facilitating efficient support

Read more (available only in Slovak)

Conclusions

Education should be a quality public service enabling all people to lead a decent and meaningful life, regardless of their health or social conditions. Such an objective can be fulfilled only if the school can address the diverse learning needs children have, and provide them with the quality and customised support that would enable them to experience success both there and also later in their lives. The way education policy defines who is eligible for educational support, and under what conditions, is vital for establishing this support. The Learning Makes Sense findings indicate that current definitions of special educational needs does entitle all children in need of support to be eligible for it, but to some extent it limits application of preventive measures. At the same time, it impacts on the efficiency of supporting measures, because instead of adapting the education process to children’s needs, it rather results in negative labelling of children and their frequent exclusion from mainstream classes and schools. In a situation where almost a fifth of primary school pupils have been granted  SEN status and a significant group of children are ineligible for  additional support despite  needing it (as they are not included in a particular category), we should ask whether it wouldn’t make more sense to change the education system as such, so that all children could develop to their maximum potential, instead of investing in “special” support for SEN designated children.