Joyce's+page

Hi Chris/Everyone Is the plan for us all to add our essays as they stand, then work on editing them? This wiki all looks very different! I think I can add the essay if that's what I should be doing. Joyce yes please Joyce - if you want to edit out anything please do so but if you are happy for it to be there for others to read that's great. I got a fright when wikispaces had chnged their layout too! chris

Okay - here we go then. I've done as Chris did to Ian's and copied it all out

Summary / Introduction This essay discusses some of the challenges around introducing literacy work into a day centre for adults with learning disabilities. It gives some background information and historical perspectives as well as detailing some of the strengths and weaknesses of the project. The work has now moved on but this essay describes the situation until a specific point in time.

**__Understanding Literacies Assignment Task__**


 * Introduction**

Forest View in Stonehaven is a day care centre for adults with learning disabilities. The aims of the centre include promoting employment and vocational training, leisure and recreation, life skills and providing educational opportunities. The client group come from across Kincardine and Mearns (K&M) and have moderate to severe learning disabilities. Some of the centre users stay at home with family, others in supported accommodation or group homes.

In the UK, learning disability is defined as “ a condition of arrested or incomplete development of the mind that can occur with or without any other physical or mental disorders and is characterized by impairment of skills and overall intelligence in areas such as cognition, language, and motor and social abilities”. (World Health Organization, 2007). This definition comes from the World Health Organization, although they use the term intellectual disabilities.

I am particularly interested in work with this centre because in the late 1990s I was asked to tutor a group at Forest View, but I felt uncomfortable about working with people with learning disabilities and turned down the opportunity. I have since had the chance to work with a number of people who use the centre and I now regret that my inexperience stopped me from getting involved.

Background
In August 2007, in my role as literacy worker for K&M, I was approached by a member of staff from Forest View. Following some recent review meetings she was keen to access some literacy support for a small group of service users. After some discussions it was agreed that the Workers Educational Association (WEA) could provide a tutor for an initial period of 10 weeks. The funding for this came from the Aberdeenshire Literacies Partnership (ALP).

The pilot group was very successful and continued to meet until summer 2008. We then met with a representative from the WEA and LEAD (Linking Education And Disability). Together we were able to suggest some progression options for some of the learners, such as the WEA Reach Out Project and a group set up by LEAD. Other learners were happy with internal provision at Forest View.

It was agreed that we would run a second group from September 2008 until June 2009 for a new group of learners. This time scale was agreed to ensure that the learners had sufficient time to make progress. 
 * Historical perspective**

The concern to ensure that adults with learning disabilities can meet their potential is a relatively recent innovation. 150 years ago the relevant legislation in the UK was the 1845 Lunacy Act, which did not distinguish between learning disability and mental illness. The 1886 Idiots Act did make this distinction, and for the first time allowed local authorities to provide education for those it described as ‘idiots’ and ‘imbeciles’. Local authorities were, however, not compelled to offer this and provision appears to have been mixed. The 1890 Lunacy Act again removed this distinction, and the status quo was again long term institutional care in large asylums.

This attitude was essentially unchallenged for many years, and although policy has gradually changed, the general public do not always appreciate the distinction. I believe that this is the result of many years of people with learning disabilities being variously described as imbeciles, feeble minded, mentally defective, backward, ineducable, subnormal or mentally handicapped. In 1990 the term ‘person with learning disabilities’ was adopted by the Department of Health and is currently the most commonly used term in the UK.

Until the introduction of the Education (Handicapped Children) Act in 1970 many children were defined as ineducable and had no education whatsoever. This means that many adults now aged over 45 may have had few educational opportunities while they were young. Although overall this sounds very negative, there were examples of good practice. For example, at the Royal Albert Institution, Lancaster in 1938, literacy classes were offered to those patients over 16 who wanted to participate. ( Unlocking the Past, 2006) The Medical Superintendent at the time noted more male attendees, because they wanted to learn to read reports of local football matches – surely an early example of the social practice approach.

The Beattie Report, Implementing Inclusiveness Realising Potential, in 1999 recommended that ** Social Work Departments should work with other agencies to give more priority to the learning needs of young people with learning disabilities. (The Scottish Executive, 1999). ** More recently the ALNIS report in 2001 included as one of its recommendations “that specialist information and advice should be provided to support inclusion and effective provision for all learners”. (The Scottish Executive, 2001). This gives a clear indication of the higher priority now given to providing appropriate educational opportunities for this group, and recognizes the importance of joint working. 
 * Coming up to date **
 * Thursday Group**

Once funding and staffing had been agreed for this group, generally known as the Thursday Group, I felt it was important that the tutor got to know the learners as well as possible right from the beginning, and so invited him to attend our initial meeting. At this point individual learning plans (ILPs) would usually have been completed, but the standard Aberdeenshire ILP was not appropriate because of the level of the learners’ disability. We therefore improvised and gained as much information as was possible at this meeting. This was made much easier by the presence of the support worker who had made the initial contact. She had been released from her usual duties to work with the group, had some background knowledge about each of the learners, and was also able to communicate directly with one learner using Makaton, a form of sign language, as he had very little speech.

Teething Troubles
It quickly became obvious that asking questions would not always be the best way to get information from the six group members. They were eager to please, and tended to answer yes to everything. We therefore set some simple tasks, such as asking the group to write their names, then moving on to addresses. We then used the clock in the room to discuss the time, asking when lunch would be ready, and what time favourite television programmes started. Finally we talked about shopping – making a list and handling money. In each area abilities varied, and it was clear that each learner had strengths in different areas.

Once our initial meeting was completed, it was agreed that the group would work on:

· reading and writing as related to shopping trips, because all group members were involved in some shopping · time, particularly bus timetables, for those who could travel independently · practical money handling – being able to hand over the correct amount when making a purchase.

Taking account of the wide range of abilities within the group we decided to split them into two groups of three learners, each meeting for around 45 minutes. This also took account of emotional needs and the concentration span of the learners. We planned to review this decision regularly to ensure that the groupings were still appropriate, and we did subsequently make changes to the groups.


 * Activities**

The tutor was initially very concerned that he had no experience of working with a group of this nature. However, he quickly got to know the learners, and worked hard to prepare suitable material for them. One of the exercises he developed involved photographs of signs around Forest View and Stonehaven town centre and harbour area. The learners seemed to particularly appreciate this activity because they had seen the signs while out and about and recognised them. This led to a discussion about safety and warning signs. The group also spent some time “playing shops”, using the types of items that the learners were likely to be buying by themselves. In this activity the group members each took turns to be sellers and buyers, which they seemed to enjoy. This gave them the chance to check each other’s counting and support one another.

One of the other topics we covered with the more able learners was form filling. In her article //Signatures and the lettered world//, Jane Mace talks about the power of a signature, as an important civil right. (Mace, J. 2001) From our discussions with these learners we realised that they were often being asked to sign forms which someone else had completed for them. We wanted to enable these learners to take some control of their lives, and begin to understand the power of their signatures. This meets one of the seven principles behind the Review of Services for People with a Learning Disability, which was that p eople with learning disabilities should be helped and supported to do everything they are able to. (The Scottish Executive, 2000).


 * Social Practice Model**

I think that, on the surface, the work done in the group is a good example of the social practice model of literacy learning. The examples the learners were working with were ones they came across in their everyday lives and were relevant to them. However, with the benefit of what I have learned during the course, I now see that most of the work that we have covered involved functional literacy skills. There should ideally be opportunities for us to work beyond short-term needs, and introduce literacies in a way which could enrich the lives of the group members. One of the ways in which this could be done is by utilising the Internet.

A study in 2003 investigated the use of web based learning among a similar client group, and discovered that by carefully working to learners’ own interests, motivation levels were increased. (Johnson, R. and Hegarty, J., 2003). The study did highlight some difficulties around staffing, as clients benefited most from one to one support. This would probably be a difficulty in terms of implementation. There is currently no Internet access within Forest View, but this type of learning could take place in the local library. 
 * Comparisons with other countries**

The work which we have undertaken at Forest View is in stark contrast to the situation in other parts of the world. In 2007 the World Health Organization commissioned a worldwide report detailing services for people with intellectual disabilities. (World Health Organization, 2007). This report indicates that the provision for children with intellectual disabilities is fairly consistent across the world, with countries across all regions having policies in place for their education. However, the situation for adults is considerably more varied, with only 21% of low-income countries providing literacy programmes compared with 71% of high-income countries. To a large extent educational programmes across the world are provided by Non Governmental Organizations and to a lesser extent by International Aid Agencies.

The report also includes some snapshots of the situation on the ground, even in countries which had identified literacy programmes. For example this quote came from Bolivia, “Despite the existence of laws, their implementation is minimal because of the lack of knowledge on this subject and the lack of human and economic resources.” (World Health Organization, 2007). The situation is similar in Greece where, “ in practice, not all legislative initiatives are implemented satisfactorily in order to meet the needs of these people and their families.” (Open Society Institute, 2005).

UK – Better or worse?
When reading reports like these it is tempting to congratulate ourselves on our compassion, and the provision in this country, but I don’t think the situation is quite so clear-cut. The course notes for Understanding Literacies refer to a time before the explosion of the print culture, when it was possible to fulfil the functions of family and community life without literacy skills. (Ackland, A., Bambrough, C. et al. 2006, p.14). I believe that in some other countries people with learning disabilities may still be more able to play a valuable role in their community than they are here. For example, research by the University of London found that in Cyprus, particularly in rural areas, extended family could provide support in finding meaningful employment. ( Corbett, J., Kitteringham, J. et al., 1999). From my conversations with the learners this type of employment is what they actually want, and this makes for an interesting discourse in terms of what we are providing versus what people with learning disabilities actually want. I am also concerned that the Scottish Government’s stated purpose of creating a ** more successful country, through increasing sustainable economic growth, will leave fewer opportunities for those who, through an accident of birth, are less able to contribute economically to the country. (The Scottish Government, 2009). ** 
 * Difficulties and challenges**

When I started the Understanding Literacies course, and was thinking about my assignment, I thought that the Forest View group would be a suitable case study. I felt it showed some good work, but had problems, such as poor evaluation, which I could discuss. As I have done more research for this report I have realised that the weaknesses in the group are deeper than I initially thought.

Support staff
=== In 2007 a research report was funded by Learning Connections to develop and explore how to enhance literacies learning for adults with learning difficulties by engaging with their systems of care and/or support. (The Scottish Government, 2007a). This report made several recommendations, including working with carers and support staff to alert them to the potential benefits which literacies development can have on their clients’ independence and well being. It also suggested that carers and support staff should have literacies awareness established as part of their role ===

Although the initial approach for the Thursday group came from Forest View, and was made following person centred review sessions, I don’t think that all the staff fully appreciated what benefits literacy learning could offer their clients. This reflects the findings of an Australian study, which found that support staff were initially sceptical about the value of literacy learning, but that after undertaking a training programme they had changed their views. (Moni, K., Jobling, A. et al, 2007)

Literacies with Care
When I discussed the group with a representative from LEAD she described a project which she had recently completed in Highland region called //Literacies with Care// which aimed to “ develop collaborative working with the care sector and to create a sustainable approach to literacies provision for service users”. (LEAD Scotland, 2008). I could see how this way of working would benefit the learners by encouraging those who had most day to day contact with them to support their literacy learning. It would help to alleviate the problem of learners making progress one week, but having forgotten it by the following week.

After some discussion with the Forest View management, it was decided that LEAD would approach Aberdeenshire Literacies Partnership to propose that she would run a pilot for this training in the Aberdeenshire area at Forest View. The partnership agreed to this and initial meetings were held during October 2008 with all the Forest View staff. Like their Australian counterparts they were wary – some admitted they were only present because they had been told they had to be. However, following the initial presentations, the mood seemed to improve and there was more enthusiasm. Unfortunately the training has not yet been completed and this enthusiasm may have been wasted. 
 * Making contacts**

Many of the client group only attend Forest View on a part time basis. The remainder of their time can be taken up with: -

· employment, usually supported, in places such as Benholm Mill café, The Breadmaker in Aberdeen or the Forest Crafts shop in Stonehaven

· further education with Aberdeen College, either in Aberdeen or through outreach provision.

· support from social services to enable them to live independently i.e. from the homemaker team. Currently we have no contact with staff from these other agencies, which means that we are only guessing at the literacy needs of the group, or at best are only getting a very one dimensional view. This should not be the case as there has been considerable encouragement from policy makers to encourage a “joined up” approach. For example, following the publication of the ALNIS report in 2001, one of the Phase Two Pathfinder projects was “Challenge and Change”, a project which aimed to “ establish literacy and numeracy programmes which effectively meet the changing needs and aspirations of people with learning disabilities.” (The Scottish Government, 2007b). The first learning point from this project was “Partnership is essential - because so many individuals and agencies impact on and have influence over the lives of people with learning disabilities, it is crucial that we work together, and that we have a shared value base.” This report was published two months after the first approach came from Forest View and I was unaware of it until recently, but I agree entirely with the sentiments. However, in practice we do not have the time to even begin to arrange meaningful discussions with the other groups and individuals who know and support our learners. This has been my experience, but it echoes the experience of the key researcher for the Learning connections report on Effective Learning for Adults with Learning Difficulties. (The Scottish Government, 2007a).

Evaluation
This lack of time is also, at least partly, responsible for the lack of proper evaluation from the group. The tutor and support worker do discuss with the learners at the end of each session what they have done and get feedback, but the response can be very variable. At the end of each term I go along and have a chat, but by this point I do not have a well-established relationship with the learners and have found it almost impossible to get any meaningful evaluation from them directly. The original LEAP form for the group did state that feedback would be sought from key people in the learners’ lives, but I had no idea then how difficult or time consuming this would be. Just to meet the keyworker for each learner would involve several visits to the centre as many staff work part time.  Overall I feel that this group operates as well as it can at present given the constraints of time and money. The group is one of several which I am responsible for in my 18 hours per week, and we do not have funding available to pay the tutor for the extra time to develop the work in the way which would most benefit the learners. I am concerned that in future we may struggle to get funding to provide learning of this nature at all. Although the Aberdeenshire Council Single Outcome Agreement states that “ Improving achievement for all is a strategic priority”, the local indicators for this outcome are purely statistical. (Aberdeenshire Council, 2008). As previously discussed it will be very difficult for me to evidence that the learners have met all the goals in their ILPs when they have finished with the group. However, preparing this report has broadened my knowledge of the issues considerably, and I will be able to use this knowledge to argue strongly that this group of learners deserves our full support.
 * Opportunities **
 * Moving forward we should be able to offer good quality provision. We are fortunate that the support worker who originally contacted me has been so impressed with the work we are doing that she is currently undertaking the PDA ITALL training course. This means that she will be able to continue to work with the group without any financial constraints, provided she gets support from her own line management. I feel this is a very positive and encouraging development. **
 * Conclusion**

Word Count 3252

 * __Bibliography__**

ABERDEENSHIRE COUNCIL, (2008). // Single Outcome Agreement 2008-09 // //Between Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeenshire Community Planning Partnership and Scottish Government// Available: [] [Date Accessed 19/06/2009] ACKLAND, A., BAMBROUGH, C. and ROBERTS, G., (2006). //Understanding Literacies Course Booklet//. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. p 14

JOHNSON, R. and HEGARTY, J., (2003). Websites as educational motivators for adults with learning disability, //British Journal of Educational Technology//, **34** (4), 479 - 486

LEAD SCOTLAND, (2008). //Literacies - with Care// Available: [] [Date Accessed 15/06/2009]

MACE, J., (2001). Signatures and the lettered world. //In//: J. Crowther, M. Hamilton and L. TETT, eds., //Powerful Literacies//. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE). pp 45-55

MONI, K., JOBLING, A. and VAN KRAAYENOORD, C., (2007) ‘They’re a lot cleverer than I thought’: challenging perceptions of disability support staff as they tutor in an adult literacy program, //International Journal of Lifelong Education//, **26** (4), 439-459

OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE, (2005). // Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities: //// Access to Education and Employment: Greece // Available: [] [Date Accessed 10/06/2009]

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE, (1999). //Beattie Report//: //Implementing Inclusiveness Realising Potential.// Available: [] [Date Accessed 07/06/2009]

THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE, (2000). //The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities////. // Available: [] [Date Accessed 09/06/2009]

 THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE, (2001). //Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland.// Available: [] [Date Accessed 07/06/2009]

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, (2007a//). // //Effective Learning for Adults with Learning Difficulties: Research Report.// Available: [] [Date Accessed 14/06/2009]

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, (2007b). //Learning Connections Adult Literacies Phase-Two Pathfinders: Evaluation Framework.// Available: [] [Date Accessed 12/06/2009]

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, (2009). //Our Purpose//. Available: [] [Date Accessed 19/06/2009]

UNLOCKING THE PAST, (2006). //Unlocking the Past: A Royal Albert Hospital Archive// Available: [] [Date Accessed 07/06/2009}

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, (2007). // Atlas: global resources for persons with intellectual disabilities: 2007. // Available: [] [Date Accessed 06/06/2009]