Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:43:08.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Issues in the Education of Children with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Barry Carpenter
Barry Carpenter*
Affiliation:
Solihull, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of late, considerable attention has been paid to the educational provision of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties (P.M.L.D.), (Evans & Ware, 1987; Hogg & Sebba, 1986). Why has the spotlight suddenly fallen to this group of children? Improved postnatal care, high standards of medical care generally, and a wider range of life-sustaining medication has increased the longevity of brain-damaged children, and more are able to enter the education system. In addition, the demise of hospitals for people with a mental handicap has meant a cessation of educational provision for children with mental handicap within these settings. As the concept of normalization permeates the health and social services departments, more “care in the community” projects arise, and children not living at home with their parents are given places in community-based residential facilities (Wolfehsberger, 1972).

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , January 1990 , pp. 20 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainscow, M., & Tweedle, D. (1979). Preventing classroom failure: An objective approach. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.J. (1983). Structuring a curriculum for profoundly mentally handicapped children. Jordan College of Education.Google Scholar
Billinge, R. (1988). The objectives model of curriculum development: a creaking bandwagon. Mental Handicap 16 (1), 28–29.Google Scholar
Blythe School. Working with Makaton at Blythe School. Surrey, M.V.D.P. Brudenell, P. (1986). The other side of a profound handicap. Basinstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carpenter, B. (1984). Curriculum development using the S.A.M.: A practitioner’s viewpoint. Mental Handicap 12, 58–59.Google Scholar
Carpenter, B. (1987). Curriculum planning for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Early Child Development and Care 28 (2), 149–162.Google Scholar
Coupe, J., & Parter, J. (Eds) (1985). The education of children with severe learning difficulties. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cunningham, C. & Davis, M. (1983). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, P. & Ware, J. (1987). Special case provision: The education of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Windsor: N.F.E.R. Nelson.Google Scholar
Gardner, J., Murphy, J. & Crawford, N. (1983). The skills analysis model. Kidderminster: B.T.M.H.Google Scholar
Garrett, J., & Dyke, B. (1988). Microelectronics and pupils with special educational needs: Support material for the inservice training of teachers. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Hewett, D., & Nind, J. (1987). Developing an interactive curriculum for pupils with severe and complex learning difficulties: A classroom process. Herperbury Hospital School.Google Scholar
Hogg, J., & Sebba, J. (1986). Profound retardation and multiple impairement, Vol. II: Education and therapy. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Jowett, S., Hegarty, S., & Moses, D. (1988). Joining forces: A study of links between special and ordinary school. Windsor. N.F.E.R. Nelson.Google Scholar
Longhorn, F. (1988, in press). Planning a sensory curriculum for very special people. London: Souvenir Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, C. (1988). Review of curriculum content and methods for severely handicapped students. Australasian Journal of Special Education 11, 32–38.Google Scholar
Musselwhite, C.R., & St. Louis, D.W. (1982). Communication programming for the severely handicapped. California: College Hill Press.Google Scholar
Ouvry, C. (1986). Integrating pupils with profound and multiple handicaps. Mental Handicap 14, 137–160.Google Scholar
Ouvry, C. (1987). Educating children with profound handicaps. Kidderminster: B.T.M.H. publications.Google Scholar
Sherborne, V. (1979). The significance of early movement experiences in the development of severely retarded children. In Upton, G. (Ed.) Physical and creative activities for the mentally handicapped. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, M. Cousins, S., Parsons, F., & Carpenter, B. (1985). Symbols for Makaton. Surrey. E.A.R.O./M.D.V.P.Google Scholar
White, O.R. (1980). Adaptive performance objectives: Form versus Functions. In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B. & Brown, L. (Eds). Methods for instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute for Mental Retardation.Google Scholar