Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes Department of Education and Skills IRELAND OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes COUNTRY BACKGROUND REPORT FOR IRELAND March 2012 This report was prepared by the Department of Education and Skills, Ireland, as an input to the OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes. The document was prepared in response to guidelines the OECD provided to all countries. The opinions express are not necessarily those of the OECD or its Member countries. Further information about the OECD Review is available at www.oecd.org/edu/evaluationpolicy. ii CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ........................................................................... v ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT .................................................................. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... vii THE SCHOOL SYSTEM............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) ............................................... 1 1.2 Primary education ............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Secondary education .......................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Ownership and types of secondary schools .................................................. 4 1.3 Division of Responsibilities................................................................................ 5 THE FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ........................ 8 2.1 The current approach ........................................................................................ 8 2.1.1 System evaluation.......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 School evaluation .......................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Teacher appraisal ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Student assessment ...................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 School Autonomy and Accountability with the Framework ........................ 10 2.1.5 The distribution of responsibilities within the framework .......................... 10 2.2 Context .............................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Initiatives and Implementation ....................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Recent initiatives in student assessment ..................................................... 13 2.3.2 Recent initiatives in teacher assessment ..................................................... 14 2.3.3 Recent initiatives in school evaluation and system evaluation ................... 15 2.3.4 The involvement of stakeholders ................................................................. 15 2.3.5 Implementing evaluation and assessment strategies .................................. 16 2.3.6 Policy priorities in the area of evaluation and assessment ........................ 16 2.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 16 SYSTEM EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 18 3.1 Current practices ............................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Overall framework for system evaluation ................................................... 18 3.1.2 Evaluation framework at primary and secondary levels ........................... 19 3.1.3 Procedures used in system evaluation ........................................................ 20 3.1.4 Inspectorate evaluations ............................................................................. 20 3.1.5 National assessments .................................................................................. 21 3.1.6 The State Examinations Commission .......................................................... 22 3.1.7 External studies ........................................................................................... 22 3.1.8 Indicators .................................................................................................... 22 3.1.9 Competencies to evaluate the school system and to use evaluation results 23 3.1.10 Using system evaluation results ................................................................ 23 3.1.11 Dissemination of evaluation results .......................................................... 24 3.2 Implementation of system evaluation............................................................. 25 3.2.1 Impact of system evaluation ........................................................................ 25 3.2.2 Impact of system evaluation on improving standards................................. 26 3.3 Policy initiatives ............................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 Longitudinal studies .................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 Collection of aggregated school data ......................................................... 28 3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 28 SCHOOL EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 29 4.1 Current practices ............................................................................................... 29 4.1.1 Overall framework for school evaluation ................................................... 29 iii 4.1.2 School evaluation procedures ..................................................................... 30 4.1.3 Competencies to assess schools and to use assessment results .................. 33 4.1.4 Using school evaluation results .................................................................. 35 4.2 Implementation of school evaluation ............................................................. 36 4.2.1 Self evaluation ............................................................................................. 36 4.2.2 External evaluation ..................................................................................... 36 4.3 Policy initiatives ................................................................................................ 37 4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 38 TEACHER APPRAISAL .......................................................................................... 40 5.1 Current practices ............................................................................................... 40 5.1.1 Overall framework for teacher appraisal ................................................... 40 5.1.2 Teacher appraisal procedures .................................................................... 41 5.1.3 Competencies to appraise teachers and to use appraisal results ............... 43 5.1.4 Using teacher appraisal results .................................................................. 44 5.2 Implementation of teacher appraisal ............................................................... 45 5.3 Policy initiatives ................................................................................................ 46 5.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 47 STUDENT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 49 6.1 Current practices ............................................................................................ 49 6.1.1 Overall framework for student assessment ................................................. 49 6.1.2 Student assessment procedures ................................................................... 51 6.1.3 Competencies to assess students and to use assessment results ................. 56 6.1.4 Using student assessment results ................................................................ 58 6.2 Implementation of student assessment .......................................................... 59 6.3 Policy initiatives ........................................................................................... 60 6.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 62 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 64 Legislation ............................................................................................................... 71 Websites in relation to primary and secondary schooling ................................. 72 iv LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1.1 Overview of the school system 1 Figure 2.1 Overview of evaluation and assessment framework 8 Figure 4.1 The school development planning model 30 Figure 6.1 A continuum of assessment methods 51 Figure 6.2 Senior Cycle key skills framework 61 Table 1.1 Types of secondary schools and numbers of teachers 2009-2010 4 Table 1.2 Number of secondary school students 2009-2010 4 Table 1.3 Numbers of students in further education programmes 2009-2010 4 Table 3.1 Irish national assessments
Recommended publications
  • ACT Workkeys®: Awarding College Credit Through the National Career Readiness Certificate Appendix
    ACT WorkKeys: ® Awarding College Credit through the ACT National Career Readiness Certificate Thomas Langenfeld, PhD Executive Summary The National Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC) is awarded at four levels of achievement—Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum— based on performance on three of the assessments: Applied Math, Graphic Literacy, and Workplace Documents. The three updated assessments replace the former WorkKeys assessments of Applied Mathematics, Reading for Information, and Locating The ACT WorkKeys assessment system Information. ACT designed the three updated assessments to measures job skills that are valuable for build on the strengths of the former assessments, as well as any occupation - skilled or professional incorporating features of the changing work environment. – at any level and in any industry. In 2019, after reviewing materials, documentation, and test forms, the American Council on Education (ACE) recommended that institutions award in the vocational certificate category to individuals who have earned a Silver NCRC certificate, 1 semester hours in quantitative analysis or introduction to organizational communication. For individuals who have earned a Gold or Platinum certificate in the vocational certificate category, ACT recommended that institutions award 2 semester The ACT National Career Readiness hours in applied mathematics. For individuals attending two- Certificate™ is an industry-recognized, and four-year institutions ACE recommended that institutions award in the lower-division baccalaureate/associate degree portable, evidence-based credential that category, 2 semester hours in quantitative analysis or certifies achievement of foundational introduction to organizational communication. skills essential for workplace success. ACT WorkKeys® assessments incorporate a rigorous process of item development to ensure that all scored items are workplace relevant, fair, and align to well-defined specifications.
    [Show full text]
  • EDUCATION in CHINA a Snapshot This Work Is Published Under the Responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD
    EDUCATION IN CHINA A Snapshot This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Photo credits: Cover: © EQRoy / Shutterstock.com; © iStock.com/iPandastudio; © astudio / Shutterstock.com Inside: © iStock.com/iPandastudio; © li jianbing / Shutterstock.com; © tangxn / Shutterstock.com; © chuyuss / Shutterstock.com; © astudio / Shutterstock.com; © Frame China / Shutterstock.com © OECD 2016 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected]. Education in China A SNAPSHOT Foreword In 2015, three economies in China participated in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, for the first time: Beijing, a municipality, Jiangsu, a province on the eastern coast of the country, and Guangdong, a southern coastal province.
    [Show full text]
  • Matura Examinations in Slovenia Case Study of the Introduction of an External Examinations System for Schools
    Matura Examinations in Slovenia Case Study of the Introduction of an External Examinations System for Schools – Sergij Gabrøœek – George Bethell CIP – Kataloæni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjiænica, Ljubljana 371.274/.276:373.5 GABRØŒEK, Sergij Matura examinations in Slovenia : case study of the introduction of an external examinations system for schools / Sergij Gabrøœek, George Bethell. – Ljubljana : National Examinations Centre, 1996 ISBN 961-6120-49-2 1. Bethell, George 61917696 Matura Examinations in Slovenia Case Study of the Introduction of an External Examinations System for Schools – Sergij Gabrøœek1 – George Bethell 2 1 Dr. Sergij Gabrøœek, Director, National Examinations Centre, Podmiløœakova 25, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 George Bethell, Educational Consultant, 17 Orchard Avenue, Cambridge CB4 2AQ, United Kingdom Contents 7 – Abstract 9 – Background to Slovenia 11 – History of the Development of Matura 21 Description of Matura and Comparison with the School-Based – ‘Final Examination’ 25 – Developing Subject Catalogues for Matura 29 – Development of Question Papers 33 – Preparing for Matura: Trial Examinations 41 – Preparing for Matura: Gaining Support 45 – The National Examinations Centre 53 – Future Activities 57 – Conclusions and Analysis 7 Abstract The place of assessment and certification of learner achievement continues to be of great interest throughout the world. However, in eastern and central Europe there is a particular urgency about the debate as newly independent states review and reform their education systems in the light of changing social and economic conditions. Slovenia is currently in the middle of a development programme which will eventually affect all parts of its education system. In July 1995, a major feature of the programme became reality when the first Matura, or graduation examination, was successfully conducted on a national scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Formingresponsiblecitizens
    FormingResponsibleCitizens Forming Responsible Citizens: Promoting Gender Equality and Preventing Violence in the Mediterranean Region Pedagogical guide of TUNISIA — An overview ELABORATED BY COORDINATED BY LABELLED BY 1 Forming Responsible Citizens Project labelled by the Union for the Mediterranean, coordinated by ideaborn, and financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway and by the Royal Government of the Principality of Monaco. Implemented in partnership with the Tunisian Social Development and Empowerment Center (SDEC), the Moroccan Center for Civic Education (MCCE), the Jordanian Centre for Civic Education (JCCE), the Adyan Foundation of Lebanon and the Lebanese National Commission for UNESCO. Pedagogical guide of TUNISIA — An Overview Elaborated by the Tunisian Social Development and Empowerment Center (SDEC), directed by Mr Amara Benromdhane, in collaboration with Ms Ilhem Mansour, Mr Moncef Khemiri, and Mr Belgacem Hassen Coordination: ideaborn Editing and translation: Beatrice Gelsi, Elisabetta Manzi Design: Optima Publicidad, marketing y comunicación SL, Canary Islands, Spain All correspondence relating to this publication should be addressed to ideaborn Plaça Comercial 2, Entresuelo 2ª 08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Email: [email protected] www.ideaborn.com © ideaborn Printed in 2018 in the Canary Islands, Spain The content of this document is the sole responsibility of ideaborn and its partners and can in no way be considered as reflecting the position of either the Union for the Mediterranean, the
    [Show full text]
  • The ACT Test User Handbook for Educators
    2020l2021 The ACT® Test User Handbook for Educators What’s Inside • Overview of the ACT • Preparing for and Taking the ACT • ACT Reports and Services • Uses of ACT Data www.act.org What’s New for 2020–2021 • Overview of the Full ACT Test (page 1) • US and State Ranks (pages 6–7) • Interest-Major Fit (pages 9–10 and pages 74–75) • Registering for the ACT (page 19) • Choosing a Test Option (page 20) • Special Circumstances (pages 22–23) • ACT Fee Waivers (pages 24–25) • Test Information Release (page 26) • Test Day Requirements (page 26) • ACT Reports and Services (pages 28–32) • Terms and Conditions (pages 33–41) • ACT Privacy Policy (pages 42–43) • Updated Student Report (pages 44–45) • High School Reporting (pages 54–56) • Updated High School Report (pages 57–58) • College Reporting (pages 61–63) • Educational Opportunity Services (pages 69) ACT endorses the Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education and the Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement, which guide the conduct of those involved in educational testing. ACT is committed to ensuring that each of its testing programs upholds the guidelines in each Code. You may locate copies of these Codes through the following organizations: • Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education: American Psychological Association (www.apa.org) • Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement: National Council on Measurement in Education (www.ncme.org) © 2021 by ACT, Inc. All rights reserved. ACT National Curriculum Survey™ and ACT Online Prep™ are trademarks, and ACT®, ACT Aspire®, ACT ASSET®, ACT Compass®, ACT Explore®, ACT Information Manager®, ACT National Curriculum Survey®, and ACT Plan® are registered trademarks of ACT, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedside Neuro-Otological Examination and Interpretation of Commonly
    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry: first published as 10.1136/jnnp.2004.054478 on 24 November 2004. Downloaded from BEDSIDE NEURO-OTOLOGICAL EXAMINATION AND INTERPRETATION iv32 OF COMMONLY USED INVESTIGATIONS RDavies J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75(Suppl IV):iv32–iv44. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2004.054478 he assessment of the patient with a neuro-otological problem is not a complex task if approached in a logical manner. It is best addressed by taking a comprehensive history, by a Tphysical examination that is directed towards detecting abnormalities of eye movements and abnormalities of gait, and also towards identifying any associated otological or neurological problems. This examination needs to be mindful of the factors that can compromise the value of the signs elicited, and the range of investigative techniques available. The majority of patients that present with neuro-otological symptoms do not have a space occupying lesion and the over reliance on imaging techniques is likely to miss more common conditions, such as benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), or the failure to compensate following an acute unilateral labyrinthine event. The role of the neuro-otologist is to identify the site of the lesion, gather information that may lead to an aetiological diagnosis, and from there, to formulate a management plan. c BACKGROUND Balance is maintained through the integration at the brainstem level of information from the vestibular end organs, and the visual and proprioceptive sensory modalities. This processing takes place in the vestibular nuclei, with modulating influences from higher centres including the cerebellum, the extrapyramidal system, the cerebral cortex, and the contiguous reticular formation (fig 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Exam Accepted Exam Details ACT ACT (American College Test) Exam
    VALID EXAM AND DIPLOMA FOR APPLICATION A certificate with the status of the diploma and Matura are valid indefinitely as stated below list, Exams that have the status of the University Entrance exam are valid for the two years. 100% of the points are counted for the exams stated in Table 1 and 2. Table 1 Exam Accepted Exam Details For the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at least to have in total (Science), (Mathematics) 27 points out of 36 ACT ACT (American College Test) Exam For the Engineering-Architecture programs minimum 25 points, For the other undergraduate programs minimum 23 points For Associate Degree programs minimum 20 points For the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry “Evidence-Based Reading and Writing” and “Math” for each test to have at least 640 points, SAT 1 SAT 1 For the Engineering-Architecture programs' minimum 560 points, For the other undergraduate programs minimum 480 points For Associate Degree programs minimum of 320 points GCE GCE (A LEVEL EXAM) At least to have A-Level in 3 subject which is related to the at least one (A LEVEL (Application with expected results applied program. EXAM) cannot be accepted.) Table 2 Exam Accepted Exam Details For the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry minimum of 80 points, SAKARYA Sakarya University International For the Engineering-Architecture programs minimum 70 points, YOS Student Exam (SAKARYA YOS) For the other undergraduate programs minimum 60 points, For Associate Degree programs minimum 40 points 80% of the points are counted for the exams stated in Table 3 Table 3 Country Accepted Exam Details The other Universities YOS exam results accepted by Sakarya The exams are to be held by other higher University will be multiplied by 0.8 in placement procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Unified State Plan
    A NEW PLAN FOR ILLINOIS ILLINOIS’ UNIFIED STATE PLAN FOR EXECUTION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Illinois Workforce System ............................................................................................................................ 2 State Agency Partners ................................................................................................................................. 3 Illinois Workforce Innovation Board .......................................................................................................... 11 State Workforce Development Activities ................................................................................................. 19 The Strengths and Weaknesses of Workforce Development Activities ................................................. 20 WIOA Implementation & Coordination ..................................................................................................... 23 Economic and Workforce Development Activities Analysis ................................................................... 30 Emerging Industry Sectors and Occupations .......................................................................................... 40 Employers’ Employment Needs ................................................................................................................ 43 Workforce Analysis ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State of Florida Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act - Unified Plan
    STATE OF FLORIDA WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT UNIFIED PLAN July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2024 DRAFT State of Florida Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act - Unified Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE INDEX ACRONYM GUIDE INTRODUCTION I. WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT STATE PLAN TYPE II. STRATEGIC ELEMENTS (a) Economic, Workforce and Workforce Development Activities Analysis (b) State Strategic Vision and Goals (c) State Strategy III. OPERATIONAL PLANNING ELEMENTS (a) State Strategy Implementation (b) State Operating Systems and Policies IV. COORDINATION WITH STATE PLAN PROGRAMS V. COMMON ASSURANCES VI. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CORE PROGRAMS – ADULT, DISLOCATED WORKER AND YOUTH ACTIVITIES (a) General Requirements (b) Adult and Dislocated Worker Program Requirements (c) Youth Program Requirements (d) Single-area State Requirements (e) Waiver Requests (optional) TITLE I-B ASSURANCES VII. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CORE PROGRAMS – WAGNER-PEYSER ACT PROGRAM (a) Employment Service Professional Staff Development (b) Assistance in Unemployment Compensation Claims Through Career Centers (c) Assistance to Unemployment Insurance Claimants and Other Unemployed Individuals (d) Wagner-Peyser Funds to Support UI Claimants (e) Agricultural Outreach Plan (AOP) VIII. PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CORE PROGRAMS– ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY PROGRAMS (a) Aligning of Content Standards (b) Local Activities (c) Corrections Education and Other Education of Institutionalized Individuals (d) Integrated English Literacy and
    [Show full text]
  • Junior Cycle Reform – Why Context Matters: a Context-Centric Analysis of Curriculum Reform in Lower Irish Secondary Education David King
    Junior Cycle Reform – Why Context Matters: A context-centric analysis of curriculum reform in lower Irish secondary education David King Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education April 2017 The University of Sheffield Faculty of Social Sciences School of Education Abstract This thesis is concerned with curriculum policy enactment in the field of lower secondary education in Ireland. The research illuminates the experiences of teachers and school leaders in three pilot schools who were enacting a new Junior Cycle (JC) curriculum on a trial basis, prior to national roll- out to schools across the country. This reform, recognised by many as the most significant in the history of Irish education, has been marked by slow introduction, fragmentation and high levels of contestation from teacher unions. The initial aim of this research was to generate theory on the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding their enactment of this new curriculum, as described in A Framework for Junior Cycle, released by the Department of Education and Skills (DES, 2012). The research agenda lay within the interpretivist paradigm and followed a grounded theory methodology. The main method employed was both group, and individual, focussed interviews. Ball’s policy cycle (with modifications by Lesley Vidovich) provided a conceptual framework through which to analyse how teachers and leaders in the pilot schools had interpreted The Framework and translated it into practice across different levels of policy enactment. As the study progressed, the nature of what was being generated through the process of theory construction indicated that what was of central concern for participants was matters to do with context.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Educational Needs and Inclusion Policy SEN Department Handbook
    Midleton College Special Educational Needs and Inclusion Policy SEN Department Handbook Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 (i) Mission 3 (ii) Aims and Objectives 4 (iii) Inclusion 4 (iv) Categories of SEN 4 (v) Continuum of Support 5 (vi) SEN Team: Roles and Responsibilities 6 2. SEN in Midleton College 10 (i) Identification of those with SEN 10 (a) Enrolling 1st Year Students 10 (b) Enrolling Students into other Years 10 (c) Enrolled Students 11 (ii) Assessment of Needs 12 (a) Student Support File 13 (b) Personal Pupil Plan 13 (iii) Provision of Resources 14 (a) Transition management 14 (b) Types of Intervention 16 (c) Special Needs Assistants 19 (d) Timetabling 21 (e) Examinations 21 (f) Communication with Teachers 22 (g) Communication with Parents 22 (h) Monitoring and Review 22 (i) Guidelines for Team-teaching and In-class support 22 3. Other Areas 25 (i) Irish Exemptions 25 (ii) RACE Applications 26 (iii) Parental Engagement 31 (iv) Gifted and Talented Students 31 (v) EAL 32 (vi) Trips and Tours 32 (vii) Assistive Technology 32 (viii) Visually Impaired Students 33 (ix) Hearing Impaired Students 34 (x) Students with Physical Disabilities 35 (xi) Education and Disabilities 35 (xii) CPD 36 4. Appendices 37 A Yearly SEN Department Plan 37 B 5 Bridges – Transition Form Primary to Post Primary Program 43 C Belonging + 45 D School Provision Plan Template 46 E School Transfer Review Template 48 1 F Student Support File Template 49 G Roles and Responsibilities 53 H Range of support 54 2 1. Introduction Special Educational Needs (SEN) are defined in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 as “a restriction in the capacity of the person to participate in and benefit from education on account of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or learning disability or any other condition which results in a person learning differently from a person without that condition”.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum and Curriculum Access Issues for Students with Special Educational Needs in Post-Primary Settings an International Review
    Curriculum and curriculum access issues for students with special educational needs in post-primary settings An international review NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH REPORT NO.10 Alison O’Mara1, Benedicte Akre, Tony Munton1, Isaac10 Marrero-Guillamon1, Alison Martin1, Kate Gibson1, Alexis Llewellyn1, Victoria Clift-Matthews1, Paul Conway2 and Chris Cooper1,3 1 Matrix Evidence Ltd, 2 University College Cork, 3 King’s College London Curriculum and curriculum access issues for students with special educational needs in post-primary settings: An international review Alison O’Mara1, Benedicte Akre, Tony Munton1, Isaac Marrero-Guillamon1, Alison Martin1, Kate Gibson1, Alexis Llewellyn1, Victoria Clift-Matthews1, Paul Conway2 and Chris Cooper1,3 1Matrix Evidence Ltd, 2University College Cork, 3King’s College London A report commissioned by the NCSE 2012 The National Council for Special Education has funded this research. Responsibility for the research (including any errors or omissions) remains with the authors. The views and opinions contained in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the NCSE. NCSE RESEARCH REPORTS NO: 10 © NCSE 2012 National Council for Special Education 1–2 Mill Street Trim Co. Meath An Chomhairle Náisiúnta um Oideachas Speisialta 1–2 Sráid an Mhuilinn Baile Átha Troim Co. na Mí T: 046 948 6400 F: 046 948 6404 www.ncse.ie Contents Foreword ...........................................................................................................v Keywords
    [Show full text]