Grand Challenge: Priorities for Research in Special Educational Needs

In this paper, I propose some priority areas for research in the field of special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities and some additional challenges regarding conceptualization of SEN.As the term "special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)" is now used in England, that term will also be used as appropriate, particularly with reference to the system rather than children and young people. cOnceptUaliZatiOn OF SenConceptualization of SEN is itself a major challenge, with respect to research and also practices.In the past, children with SEN were viewed primarily with respect to disability.Governments either created separate systems or excluded children with a disability from the education available to typically developing children, either deliberately or by default.For example, it was not until the early 1970s that children with severe or profound learning difficulties, including all those with Down syndrome, were eligible for education in England.Lack of financial resources and expertise was, and continues to be, a major challenge in many countries.Recognition of the rights of all children, however, has led to both a substantial development of positive policies, with substantial funding in some countries, and the necessary development of support through training teachers and others.This has spawned a substantial policy-related research agenda for SEN.Research has been shaped by changing conceptualizations of SEN.Over time, a substantial body of work has focused on specific categories of children and young people with respect to diagnostic categories, for example, deafness, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, and mental handicap.Some terms such as mentally handicapped, idiot, imbecile, and educationally subnormal have become unacceptable, considered offensive and demeaning.Other categories, however, have become the foci of substantial research programs, for example, autism spectrum disorders (ASD), dyslexia, attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and specific language impairment (SLI).Diagnosis of these "conditions" has been a key factor in researchers' selection of samples; furthermore, categories have been fundamental to initiatives to identify and make appropriate provision for children and young people that are identified as being exceptional (Norwich, 2014).The use of diagnostic categories has benefits for research by specification of samples on key characteristics.But there are also limitations.First, in reality, many children do not just have one type of SEN but, rather, they often have two or even several (Rutter et al., 1970).Research must therefore consider comorbidity and also gender, age, home language if different from that of the school, and ethnicity, as these are associated variables.For example, there is increasing evidence of the overlap in characteristics of children with language impairment and those with ASD (Dockrell et al., 2015).Second, there is concern about the validity and usefulness of many categories, for example, see the recent examination of the usefulness of the diagnostic category SLI (Bishop, 2014;Reilly et al., 2014).Third, whereas there are strong associations between some types of SEN and certain genetic, chromosomal, perinatal injury, or illness (e.g., rubella) factors, there is now also substantial evidence