5. Conclusion
1.3. Experiencing support
opportunities to socialize with other children. Research abounds with reference to the poor socialisation skills of children with LD (Fujiki et al., 2001, Kavale & Forness, 1996, Settle & Milich, 1999). Yet when the work load and homework load was as heavy as it was at remedial school, none of the informants saw this as punitive – “we were all doing all this work together” so there was not that sense of deprivation that came in the mainstream.
Gerber and Reiff (1991) stress that experiencing success at school is important for later adjustment and success. I argue that special school placement allows for the experience of success. Inclusion has the child placed in a group where he is compared (unfavourably) to others, by both peers and the teacher. This results in him being treated as “less than” or Other”, especially in classrooms where teachers are not well equipped or adequately trained to deal with children who are different (Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 2000:24). For my informants this was the beginning of a realisation that in that environment they were no longer “Other” but the same as others, it was the beginning of acceptance and building of self- esteem. Without exception they all reported those were the best years, the best teachers, the most positive experiences of their schooling. Those were the only teachers they reported remembering or referred to by name, and those were the years most highly rated on a scale of 1-10 as they reflected back: for 2 of the participants this reflection happened in their final year of school, some 8-10 years after the remedial school experience, yet they still recalled this most favourably, and their favourite teachers still came from this time.
the informants felt – either excluded or included; either Other or Alike). In the discussion which follows I highlight the informants’ experiences with teachers – the good, the bad and the ugly. I also discuss “teaching” both as it refers to what happens in the classroom, as done by a teacher, and as it refers to the extra-curricular support that each informant found so necessary. It is the latter form of teaching that raises interesting questions about how well children with LD are actually served in the current education system.
Only one of the participants did not spend a period of time in a remedial unit or remedial school. However she received remedial support on an on- going basis for three years. Three informants attended a remedial school for two to three years, two in the junior primary phase and one in the senior primary phase. The other informant spent three years in a remedial unit in a mainstream school, where he repeated a grade. All returned to mainstream schools, three to private school and one to a state (government) school.
Bear et al (1998) found that children judge their academic performance on teacher feedback. All informants had both positive and negative experiences with teachers. Initial experiences were of punitive teachers who did not understand their difficulties or who lacked the patience to provide support. Recall M.’s experience of being “punished” for her slow work rate by having to stay in class at break, something that was associated only with “the naughty children.” She too in her recounting or her early experiences never names the teacher, but only refers to her by using the feminine pronouns “her” and “she.” This was also noted in both A. and H.’s reports. This is not merely a matter of forgetting a name over time as both H. and M. remembered names of other teachers from the same period, but teachers who were in the remedial school and therefore not associated with the emotional trauma of their early school failure. B.’s experience of strict teachers in mainstream suggests a perception of teachers who were inflexible, rule-bound and not understanding. In every reference to mainstream teachers, whether before his remedial placement or after his return to mainstream, his experience is of stricter teachers.
Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000) suggest teachers in mainstream are ill- equipped to deal with learners with LD. All informants link their early difficulties to a teacher’s inability to teach them:
H. They didn’t teach me anything there
A. I never really got how to read
Every one of the informants sought support from both peers and parents, and in each case preferred this to seeking support from teachers (see section 1.3.2.Peers and parents below). This reluctance to seek help from the teacher is unexpected, particularly from S., as she reported experiencing positive support form teachers through the primary school. Recall S. was the only informant who stayed in a mainstream school and received remedial support after school hours, rather than spending time in a remedial unit or school. She accredits the additional support received then to better teacher involvement in the learners’ lives: they knew who was in remedial whereas in high school: they don’t actually notice. She also suggests workload of teachers is a factor which allows teachers in the primary school to spend more time with individual learners:
S.: Well in primary school most of the teachers knew who was in remedial and who had a problem and they would help you along – in high school they don’t really help you along –they don’t actually notice and stuff – if you don’t understand you must just ask – you
……can’t really go and just ask … you don’t really do as much work in primary school so they could see if you understood it and they would help you…
It is also an indictment on A.’s teachers that he prefers working at home, even if it means excessive amounts of homework, because he feels this is where his best support lies: