Moderate learning difficulties: Advanced training materials for teachers

History, classification and terminology of MLD

About this unit
Learning objectives

This unit explores the background and history of moderate learning difficulties (MLD) in order to give you an understanding of the complexities of identifying and supporting pupils with such difficulties.

The unit covers:

The history of MLD.
Medical and social models of disability.
Definitions of MLD, and what they mean for educational provision.

This timeline should help prompt you during Task 1, as you complete the writing frame based on your reading of Moderate learning difficulties and the future of inclusion. Slide over any year or period for a brief summary of notable points.

Task 1: the history of MLD

1880s
The Cross Commission on Elementary Education (1888) handed the issue of the 'feeble-minded’ over to the Egerton Commission (1889), which was initially set up in 1886 to examine provision for ‘the blind, deaf and dumb’.
1898
The Departmental Committee on Defective and Epileptic Children drew a dividing line – ‘the ability to earn a living’ – between ‘the dull or weak-minded man’ and ‘the imbecile’.
1913
The Board of Education’s annual report found that there were considerable variations across the country in how children were identified as ‘backward’, and the Board’s Chief Medical Officer defined five groups across the spectrum of children, from the ‘mentally normal’ to ‘the idiot’.
1921
Educational psychologist Cyril Burt published his book, Mental and scholastic tests, making a distinction between the psychological concept of low intelligence and the administrative category of what he called ‘mental deficiency’.
1929
Established in 1924 and including Burt amongst others, the Wood Committee examined questions relating to ‘mental deficiency among children of school age’, and reported on this in 1929.
1936-37
In 1937, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) produced a pamphlet on the implications of the increased school leaving age, which was introduced in the 20s, for ‘retarded’ pupils. In the preceding year, the Chief Medical Officer’s annual report made reference to the number of LEAs taking ‘retarded’ pupils into account in their reorganisation plans.
1944
The 1944 Education Act’s seismic reform brought with it a change in terminology, with ‘defect’ being replaced by ‘handicapped’. Provision for the handicapped was introduced into LEAs’ development plans for primary and secondary education; it had previously been an entirely separate category. Those with less serious disabilities could be taught in mainstream schools, while those with more serious impairments would go to special schools.
1978
The Warnock Report formally introduced the term ‘moderate learning difficulties (MLD)’. This replaced the hitherto-used formal term, ‘educationally sub-normal to a moderate degree ESN(M)’, which was introduced in 1945. However, the report also recommended abandoning categories and focusing on children’s individual educational needs.
1981
The 1981 Education Act provided the foundation for the current system of identification and categorisation, and expanded on the SEN concept as a whole.
1994
The first SEN Code of Practice, followed by a revised version in 2001, acknowledged the Warnock Report’s recommendations on individual provision to a certain degree. However, it concurrently also used inconsistent, general categories within its pages.

1880s
1898
1913
1921
1929
1936-37
1944
1978
1981
1994

Medical/individual model

In the context of education, this model asserts that a pupil’s level of ability is the main determining cause of low attainment.

It looks at learning difficulties as a ‘within-child’ issue; so a child struggling to keep up with their peers in school might be deemed ‘slow’, without considering the wider context of their environment.

In more general terms, this model places the onus on how a disability impairs an individual and makes them ‘different’ from the rest of society, rather than looking at surrounding factors that define this.

It is the physical impairment (or in the case of identifying MLD, learning difficulty) that makes the person disabled, rather than the limitations of the world in which they live.

This mind map looks at some of the variable issues surrounding the identification of MLD; select individual areas for further information.

Issues of identification

Differences in approach
Governments and organisations such as the WHO have approached the complexities of categorising MLD in different ways, generally revolving around three areas:
- Cognitive abilities testing
- Observing behaviour to supplement such testing
- Taking account of disadvantages and social issues
Close
- Cut-offs
  Identifying MLD in pupils often involves cognitive abilities testing, such as IQ tests, and/or comparing pupils’ attainment to their peers to determine the cut-off points at which MLD is identified.
  Close
- Behaviour
  Taking account of a pupil’s behaviour – for example self-esteem and social living skills – can help to form a fuller understanding of them. This can inform the process of identification, making up for any shortcomings of just using cognitive ability cut-off points.
  Close
- Disadvantage
  This area takes account of how factors such as culture, family, linguistic or socio-economic circumstances may disadvantage a pupil and cause educational difficulties.
  Close
Challenges
Identification of MLD is a multi-layered challenge for specialist teachers. For example, effective identification is important to:
- Record accurate information in the School Census.
- Ensure that pupils’ educational provision is suitable for their needs.
However, identification can be made difficult by challenges such as:
- The complexity of the definition of MLD.
- The process of referral for statutory assessment.
- The varying approaches to defining and identifying MLD taken by different (LEAs).
Close
Dilemmas
The variables and potential ambiguity linked to the definition of MLD present dilemmas in terms of:
- Whether or not to identify.
- What kind of provision should be made.
- Where a pupil’s provision should be made (i.e., in a mainstream or special school, or if they require withdrawal to work in a smaller group).
Close
- Risk
  Both misidentification and ignoring a pupil’s difficulties can result in an inappropriate or insufficient education for the child. There can also be a stigma attached to identification, and a social impact upon a pupil who is not taught with their non-MLD peers. As such, there is always an element of risk when making your decision.
  Close

Cookies on this website

Advanced training materials for autism; dyslexia; speech, language and communication; emotional, social and behavioural difficulties; moderate learning difficulties

History, classification and terminology of MLD

History, classification and terminology of MLD

Task 1: the history of MLD

Comparing models of disability

Medical/individual model

Social model

False opposition

Issues of identification

Unit PDF and downloads

Problems viewing video?