Can Neuroscience Inform Our Understanding of SEND?

ADHD is thought to affect 3% to 9% of school aged children and young people (NICE, 2008) which is a significant number of children and yet it continues to remain an area that causes great difficulty and disagreement when seeking to understand this condition. Discussion still persists as to whether ADHD is hereditary, due to neglectful parenting or poor nutrition.

Cooper (2008) asks us to take a biopsychosocial perspective and that in doing so much can be learned that can help us understand ADHD better. Cooper tells us that “ADHD is widely argued to be the product of a complex interaction between biological and social-environmental factors.” Understanding gained through this perspective he asserts that educational environments will be far better to assist rather than exacerbate the impact of ADHD on the learning child because our knowledge will then give us what we need to enable this change to happen.

For Cooper, a refusal to incorporate neuroscientific evidence in to the causes of ADHD is irresponsible and that it is outdated to reject biological causes due to anxieties of the potential repeat of the Eungenics seen in the early 19th Century.

Outdated? Maybe not. Headlines such as “The disturbingly accurate brain science that identifies potential criminals while they’re still toddlers” (accessed 19th December 2016) are used at will. Fortunately, ‘Neuroskeptic’ in Discover Magazine (accessed 20th December 2016) provided a speedy response stating that this has little to do with Neuroscience at all and that “it may as well be called ‘behavioural health’ instead of ‘brain health’ which highlights beautifully the challenges that remain between the natural and social sciences. But it is worth noting that using ‘neuroscience’ as the above article did, is never far away it dances alongside the eugenics that we fear, just a little more sophisticatedly.

It is Cooper’s compassion, hope and optimism that draws me in as he has great belief in knowledge bringing about real change in education, having very much identified that the education system as it stands, is not fit for purpose in the 21st Century. I feel an affinity with him. Using a biopsychosocial perspective of ADHD allows for the complex interplay between our genetic predispositions and the environmental experiences within it, into which we are born. As such it is a gentle move away from ‘blame’ and that can only be a good thing for bewildered parents up and down the country attempting to deal with something that is incredibly challenging.

Cooper takes a na?ve view in my opinion of cause and effect; knowledge equals change. In fact, our ample knowledge in many areas in relation to how children experience education has created little change.

Neuroscience and neuroimaging have been used extensively to look at the effects of poor attachment, poor experiences of caregiving for the child and also neglect. Schore has researched this area for many years and he also looks at gender differences as a response to the fact that boys are a higher ratio of children diagnosed with ADHD. He noticed maturational differences between male and female brains expressed immediately after birth and also that “male newborns are less responsive to auditory and social stimuli and less able to maintain eye contact than female newborns” (2016.) This has potentially interesting insights to offer and build upon.

Bhasker and Danermark (2006) take a critical realist standpoint in relation to the way by which we can understand disability research which offers yet another layer, arguing that it is maximally inclusive and is not limited by the partiality of other positions. The paper demonstrates the various approaches and the limitations of them when trying to understanding disability; for example, understanding disability, they argue, can conclude by the researcher a division in society that leads to someone being defined as more disadvantaged or oppressed, yet does not attempt to tell us how or why.

They are able to develop a view that states that a laminated approach is necessary. It is through a multiplicited and complex view of reality that enables a more complete view of social reality and the nature of knowledge.

Critical realism is a metatheory that understands the ontology (the object of knowledge) and the epistemology (the conditions of knowledge) that act as guidelines when attempting to bring together the natural and social sciences in research. This is really the crux of how we now move forward in my view and developing a shared language within that is crucial.

Neuroscience can undoubtedly inform our understanding of SEND, but more importantly is whether it can alter the experience of life, the quality of life for that child. Can what we glean from brain scanning and imaging alter our education system, reduce prejudice in society and enhance the outcomes for the child? As it stands, a child with SEND is more likely to have mental health problems, end up in prison, live in poverty and be bullied than a child who does not have SEND (O’Brien, 2016.) Can neuroscience alter those statistics or merely inform us? The optimist in me would like to believe that yes, yes it can.

References

Aldridge D. (2016) David Aldridge introduces critical realism as part of the ‘researching education, childhood and language’ MA module: Reality and truth in education (Oxford, UK: The University of Brookes, [accessed] 14th December, 2016).

Bjaskar R. & Danermark B. 2006, Metatheory, Interdisciplinarity and Disability Research: A Critical Realist Perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research Vol. 8, (4), pp278 – 297

Cooper P. 2008, Like Alligators Bobbing for Poodles? A Critical Discussion of Education, ADHD and the Biopsychosocial Perspective Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 42, (3-4), pp457 – 474

Goswami U. 2004, Neuroscience, Education and Special Education, British Journal of Special Education Vol 31, (4), pp175 – 183

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Diagnosis and management of ADHD in children, young people and adults. CG72. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Neuroskeptic (2016) Discover Magazine https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/12/19/neuroscience-potential-criminals/#.WFjvavmLSUk (accessed online 20th December 2016)

Norwich B. & Eaton A. (2015) The new special educational needs (SEN) legislation in England and implications for services for children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 20:2, 117-132.

O’Brien J. (2016) Don’t Send Him In Tomorrow Crown House Publishing Ltd: Wales

Panzer, A. and Viljoen, M. (2005) Supportive neurodevelopmental evidence for ADHD as a developmental disorder Medical Hypotheses (2005) 64, 755–758

Schore. A. (2016) Slides from The Childhood Trauma Conference attended in Melbourne in June 2016

file:///C:/Users/Lisa/OneDrive/Australia%20Conference/Allan%20Schore%20KEYNOTE%20The%20developmental%20neurobiology.pdf

Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years (2015) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf Accessed online 10th December 2016

The disturbingly accurate brain science that identifies potential criminals while they’re still toddlers https://qz.com/866064/neuroscience-study-brain-tests-identify-future-criminals-as-toddlers/ (accessed online 19th December 2016.)