Provision of the Junior Cycle Level Two Learning Programme in post-primary and special schools: Findings from inspections

Chapter 9 - Provision of the Junior Cycle Level Two Learning Programme in post-primary and special schools: findings from inspections (PDF)

The Level Two Learning Programme (L2LP) was introduced as part of the Framework for Junior Cycle, which was phased into all schools from 2014 [1]. This new framework featured revised subjects and short courses, a focus on literacy, numeracy and key skills and new approaches to assessment and reporting. Within this framework, the L2LP was intended to provide an appropriate curriculum for young people with General Learning Disabilities [2]. Traditionally, young people with General Learning Disabilities were enrolled in special schools but are now enrolled increasingly in special classes in post-primary schools or in mainstream classes with additional support provided through the school’s special education teaching allocation. Consequently, the L2LP is offered in special schools and in many post-primary schools.

The Inspectorate regularly evaluates and reports on the implementation of the Junior Cycle in schools. A composite Inspectorate report, What Subject Inspections tell us about Junior Cycle implementation, [3] was published in December 2023. This report found many aspects of effective practice in the subjects evaluated. For example, the quality of teaching and learning was very good or good in almost all of the lessons observed and, in most lessons, students had an opportunity to develop the key skills of Junior Cycle. The report also found areas for improvement, particularly that formative assessment could be used more during teaching and learning and that teachers could help students to take more responsibility for their own learning.

In 2024, the Inspectorate evaluated provision for the Junior Cycle Level Two Learning Programme (L2LP) in thirty schools: twenty-seven post-primary schools and three special schools [4]. Schools were given one day’s notice of the inspection. Each inspection was conducted by one inspector and completed in a day. During the inspection, the inspector:

• met with relevant members of the school leadership team and the school’s special education needs team
• evaluated teaching and learning
• reviewed student support files
• reviewed relevant documents, assessment data, the school’s timetable and individual young people’s timetables
• provided feedback to members of the school leadership team and relevant teachers.

This chapter presents findings from these inspections. The first section explains the structure and unique features of the L2LP and reports on the numbers of young people following the programme in the schools visited. The second section reports on the learning experiences of the young people, with a particular focus on individualised planning, assessment practices, teaching and learning practices and professional collaboration. The final section presents conclusions and recommendations arising from the inspections.

[1] Most Junior Cycle subjects and short courses align with Level 3 of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). The L2LP was designed to align with Level 2 of the NFQ.

[2] A General Learning Disability can range from borderline mild, mild, moderate, to severe/profound. Children with General Learning Disabilities find it more difficult to learn, understand and do things than other children of the same age.

[3] Available at: https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/what-subject-inspections-tell-us-about-junior-cycle-implementation-december-2023.pdf

[4] All three special schools were designated as schools for children with Mild or Moderate General Learning Disabilities

The L2LP is underpinned by the eight key skills of the Framework for Junior Cycle. It focuses on development and learning in literacy, numeracy, language and communication, leisure skills, motor coordination, social and personal development and wellbeing.

The L2LP provides schools with the autonomy to design an individual programme of learning for the young person, based on their identified interests, strengths and needs, as part of the Continuum of Support framework. Learning can take place in a variety of settings, mainstream subject classrooms, special classes, other support settings, the wider school, the local community and at home. Some young people who follow the L2LP also engage with some subjects at Level 3, [5] when it is considered appropriate to their individual strengths and interests.

The L2LP contains five Priority Learning Units (PLUs): Communicating and Literacy, Numeracy, Personal Care, Living in a Community and Preparing for Work. Young people engaging with the L2LP complete all five PLUs as well as two short courses. The short courses can be at either Level 2 or Level 3, designed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) or by the school.

Assessment of L2LP learning is an ongoing process that involves a range of classroom-based formative and summative practices. Over the three years in junior cycle, young people assemble evidence of their learning in a portfolio, in line with the approach to assessment that was originally envisaged in Junior Cycle reform. Students submit this portfolio to their teachers and the students’ work is assessed and reported on. The Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA) documents the achievement of the student in PLUs, as reported by the school. The assessment approaches for the L2LP do not include a final examination.

In 2022, the Minister for Education requested the NCCA to develop follow-on options for young people engaging with the L2LP. This work took place as part of the redevelopment of senior cycle. The Senior Cycle Learning Programmes: Level 1 and Level 2 Programme Statement [6] was developed and published in 2024 as follow on programmes for students who are progressing from Level 1 and Level 2 learning programmes at Junior Cycle. The introduction of Senior Cycle L2 modules in schools began in autumn 2024.

[5] Level 3 Junior Cycle offers 21 subjects that are broadly aligned with Level 3 of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). Students following Level 3 Junior Cycle have an option of subjects only, or a combination of subjects and short courses.

[6] Available at: https://curriculumonline.ie/senior-cycle/level-1-and-level-2-learning-programmes/

Number of young people following the L2LP

In order to gather information on the uptake of the programme and placement on the programme, inspectors looked at the numbers of children and young people accessing the L2LP in each of the schools visited.

Special schools

There were 134 young people following the L2LP in the three special schools visited. This constituted almost all the young people following the Junior Cycle in these schools [7].

Mainstream schools

There were 9,039 young people following the Junior Cycle programme in the twenty-seven post-primary schools visited. Of these, 132 (1.5%) were following the L2LP. This is broadly in line with expectations of the number of young people who should be engaging with the L2LP [8].

Of the 132 young people following the L2LP in the post-primary schools, seventy-three (55.3%) were enrolled in a special class and fifty-nine (44.7%) were enrolled in the mainstream classes. Across all schools, there were smaller numbers following the L2LP in first year, with a gradual increase in numbers in second year and again in third year:

[7] The other young people in the special schools followed the Level One Learning Programme.

[8] The National Council for Special Education’s Information Booklet for Parents of Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs (2019) states that “[only 2% of people would be expected to have an IQ score of less than 70. On standardised tests of intelligence, categories of general learning disability are defined as: Mild GLD: IQ score of between 50 and 70 on a standardised intelligence test. Moderate GLD: IQ score of between 35 and 49 on a standardised intelligence test.” (pp. 7-8)

The higher numbers in second year and in third year reflect practice whereby the decision to place a young person on the L2LP is typically made at a point during first or second year, taking account of the young person’s experience of Level 3 subjects. This reflects a considered approach to placing young people on the L2LP and is in line with good practice.

In considering the quality of teaching, learning and assessment practices, inspectors evaluated the quality of:

• individualised planning to support the L2LP
• learning experiences of young people following the L2LP
• assessment and monitoring of progress of young people following the L2LP
• professional collaboration to support the L2LP

Individualised planning

Individualised planning for young people following the L2LP was very good in 30% of post-primary schools, good in 37%, and required improvement in 33% of the schools. Planning was very good in one-third of the special schools, good in a third and required improvement in the remaining third.

All thirty schools were engaged in some individualised planning. Planning was inconsistent in two-thirds of the thirty schools (67%). Typically, planning was very good in some respects but required improvement in others. For example, one school had developed a very good system to ensure all learning outcomes of the PLUs would be addressed but planning was not sufficiently driven by the strengths, needs and interests of the young person. Outcomes within lessons were limited as a result. In another school, planning was very good for those enrolled in the special class but required improvement for those enrolled in mainstream classes.

Overall, the quality of individualised planning was better for young people enrolled in special classes than it was for young people enrolled in mainstream classes only. In many schools, the special class teacher took central responsibility for coordinating the plans, matching planned learning with individual targets, interests and strengths. For some young people enrolled in mainstream only, there was insufficient clarity as to whose responsibility it was to ensure appropriate planning was in place. There was a need to assign responsibility for coordinating individualised planning for each young person following the L2LP to a specific teacher.

In the nine schools where practice was most effective, individualised planning was aligned with the individual targets, interests and strengths of the young people. In these schools, planning also included input from young people and their parents. These planning approaches allowed teachers to provide meaningful learning activities to the young people and assessment records demonstrated that the young people were making incremental progress in key skills.

In the ten schools where planning required improvement, targets were vague and driven insufficiently by consideration of young peoples’ interests, strengths and needs. For example, in one school, young people only accessed PLUs in support lessons or in the special class and there was no planned integration of learning outcomes into mainstream lessons. In a small number of schools, the learning outcomes of the PLUs were simply used as checklists for marking off areas to be covered in their lessons. In these schools, there was a need for teachers to plan more carefully so that learning activities are meaningful to the young person, and they experience success in their learning in both mainstream and support settings.

Learning experiences

Subject lessons in post-primary schools

Subject lessons in post-primary schools refer to lessons in a specific subject provided by the subject teacher to a specific class, for example a second-year geography lesson. Learning experiences for young people following the L2LP in subject lessons were very good in 35% of lessons and good in 35% of lessons. Learning experiences in the remaining 30% of lessons required improvement.

In the very good lessons, young people were included meaningfully with their peers and their teachers planned the learning tasks and activities carefully. In an example of very good practice:

… young people following L2LP were fully included in lessons, as equal members of the class group and were purposefully engaged in well-planned activities that were aligned with the learning outcomes of the Level 2 PLUs and with the learning outcomes of the Level 3 subject.

Other features of very good practice included young people collaborating successfully with their peers, talking about the learning, working things out together and learning from each other.

Some teachers made very good use of samples of students’ work to promote discussion about different approaches and ideas. They also used the work to show the students how they could improve and succeed in their learning. Some teachers also used digital technologies very effectively to support learning, mostly by providing helpful visual representations and to allow the young person to access and monitor a record of their overall progress across PLUs. These teaching approaches were very effective.

In some schools, well-organised team teaching led to successful learning outcomes. For example, in one lesson, team teaching was used to provide very effective support to young people preparing for a classroom-based assessment (CBA) presentation. It provided the students following L2LP with good opportunities to collaborate and learn from the progress of their peers and allowed time and space for students to make individual progress with their own tasks.

Learning experiences in the nine schools where improvement was required often involved the young people working alone on a different set of tasks and activities from the other students for most of their time. In these classes, teachers sometimes prepared a separate lesson for the young person following the L2LP and had not considered how their learning could be included with that of their peers. This meant that the students following the L2LP were in the same class but not included in the class group.

In other lessons requiring improvement, additional supports, such as appropriate scaffolding and concrete resources that the young people required to engage successfully with the learning activities, were not provided. There were also lessons where the learning activities were not aligned with any PLU outcomes or targets and there were missed opportunities to focus on and develop key skills, or to capture learning in key skills, as a result.

Support lessons and special classes in post-primary schools

Support lessons in a post-primary school are lessons provided by a teacher timetabled to provide special education teaching. These lessons are provided to young people in a one-to-one, small group format or in a special class setting.

Learning experiences were very good in 60% of the support lessons in post-primary schools. They were good in 30% of lessons. They required improvement in 10% of lessons.

In almost all of the support lessons, teachers aligned the learning activities to the learning outcomes of the PLUs or short courses effectively. Where practice was particularly successful, the teacher ensured that the planned work specifically addressed the student’s individual learning targets. This careful planning gave rise to focused work that promoted incremental learning and allowed the young person to experience success.

Interactions in support lessons were very positive and affirming. Highly effective approaches included purposeful and meaningful use of concrete materials, strong connections with familiar, real-life situations and helpful links with local facilities.

In support lessons, many young people expressed a strong sense of pride in their work. It was evident that the L2LP was a positive curricular option, and teachers were using the programme to provide meaningful learning experiences and a sense of ownership of learning.

Inspectors observed some very effective use of digital technologies by teachers and young people in support lessons. For example, in one lesson students used virtual representations of their locality to observe and comment on local services and land use in their town. They used their observations and discussions to arrive at an understanding of the differences between their town and a nearby city. In another lesson, video recordings of the young people carrying out tasks were used to promote discussion, reflection, further learning and affirmation of what had been achieved.

In the lessons that required improvement, there was a need for a greater focus on skill development and alignment with learning outcomes of the PLUs. At times, teachers’ expectations were low and students experienced insufficient challenge. In some lessons, more use of concrete materials was needed, or clearer instructions and, at times, there were missed opportunities for teachers and young people to use digital technologies to support learning.

Opportunities for young people to learn with their peers

In forty-three (73%) of the fifty-nine post-primary schools, young people who were enrolled in mainstream classes accessed most of their L2LP in mainstream lessons, learning alongside their peers. These young people accessed the remainder of the programme in support settings, either in small groups or one-to-one.

Of the seventy-three young people enrolled in special classes:

• thirty-six (49%) spent at least half of their time in mainstream classes, learning alongside their peers.
• twenty-four (33%) spent up to half of their time in mainstream lessons.
• thirteen (18%) spent no time in mainstream lessons.

Overall, these are positive findings, indicating that schools have sought to provide opportunities for young people following the L2LP to experience their learning alongside their same-aged peers.

In all of the post-primary schools, the timetabling for delivery of the L2LP for young people enrolled in special classes was largely in response to the needs of the individual young person rather than the need to timetable for a group. This individual timetabling, based on the strengths, needs and interests of the individual, is good inclusive practice.

Special schools

The quality of the lessons observed in special schools varied widely, with practice ranging from excellent to requiring improvement.

In one example of excellent practice in a special school, the young people worked in small groups to construct a large clock; they discussed where the different parts should go and what their placement would mean. They went on to use their clock to display certain times that were meaningful to them in their daily lives. They talked, helped each other and used the language of time as they worked. Very careful planning and targeted questioning also gave rise to visible progress on individually set targets, which had been identified by the teacher and related to students’ individual strengths and needs. Once they completed the activity, the young people were keen to take on an optional challenge and some went on to interpret parts of a weekly timetable successfully, identifying the times of some of their lessons for the following week.

Where learning experiences in special schools required improvement, there was an over-reliance on the use of worksheets and written tasks and there was a need for the provision of more meaningful learning activities for young people. These lessons required more purposeful and active learning activities, related to real-life experiences. There was also a need for teachers to focus more on addressing individual targets within lessons and to provide greater opportunities for young people to work together and use the language of the subject.

The Junior Cycle emphasises the importance of valuing, acknowledging and affirming the full range of young people’s learning experiences and progress during the three years of the programme. Assessment at Junior Cycle is intended to be an integral part of planning, teaching and learning. This requires a varied approach involving the use of a range of formative and summative approaches that reflect the strengths, interests and needs of the young person, capture their progress and focus on the next steps for further learning. In this way, assessment outcomes should inform all individualised planning.

An important finding of the inspections was the inconsistency in the assessment and monitoring of progress within schools. There were some good assessment practices in most schools, but this was not always consistent across all PLUs, subjects or lessons. A further weakness was that assessment was mainly conducted by the special education teacher and did not involve assessments carried out by the mainstream teachers. Overall, assessment and monitoring were more effective for young people enrolled in the special class and was less effective within mainstream lessons.

In all schools, there was some recorded evidence of young people’s learning on the L2LP. This evidence included written, visual, photographic or video materials. In almost all schools, there were portfolios containing students’ work aligned with the learning outcomes of the PLUs. Some teachers annotated young people’s work with clear feedback on how they could improve their learning. Where practice was very good, all teachers working with the young person had a clearly defined role in gathering and sharing evidence of learning in records that demonstrated incremental progress and provided information that could inform next steps in learning.

In an example of very good practice, specific teachers had responsibility for certain outcomes and tracked progress using a colour-coded system, with different colours indicating progress towards mastery. In another example, a young person had a weekly meeting with the special education teacher during which they reviewed work, discussed progress and planned for areas that needed more work.

In eight of the schools (26%), there were very good systems in place to support assessment and monitoring across all lessons. In one highly effective example, where each teacher completed a section in the young person’s portfolio, the system involved the use of a moderation slip that was completed by both the teacher and the young person. The slip gave all details of the PLU and the learning outcome, a description of the success criteria and what the piece showed, specifics of the prompt levels required, the feedback given and the agreed next steps.

In 44% of the post-primary schools, there was insufficient recorded evidence of learning or monitoring of students’ progress. For example, in some schools, teachers simply ticked the learning outcomes that had been addressed in their lessons but there was no meaningful assessment of progress. In other schools, evidence in portfolios included mostly worksheets, providing little opportunity for meaningful assessment of progress or reflection on achievement.

Collaboration about placement on the L2LP

Collaborative decision making about young people’s learning programmes involves all teachers concerned with the young person’s learning, relevant educational professionals such as educational psychologists, the parents and the young person themselves. Collaborative decision making is important as it ensures decisions that about placement on the L2LP are informed by a broad range of perspectives on the young person’s interests, strengths and needs.

In twenty-three of the twenty-seven post-primary schools (85%), there was written evidence that the decision to provide a young person with the L2LP was made collaboratively, involving at least two parties (teachers/parents/management/outside professionals) and the young people themselves. In the remaining four schools (15%), there was no evidence of collaborative decision making.

In the three special schools, it was reported that decisions regarding the learning programme were made by at least two parties, including school management, students, parents, teachers and other professionals, but there was no recorded documented evidence of collaborative decision making.

Informed parental consent about placement

As placement on the L2LP has implications for progression pathways after Junior Cycle, it is good practice for schools to receive written parental consent before finalising a young person’s placement on the L2LP. In nineteen of the twenty-seven post-primary schools (70%), there was written evidence of parental consent for their child to engage in the L2LP. In one example of very good practice, parents had been given detailed written information about the L2LP, how it operates and on the progression pathways beyond Junior Cycle for the young person. All schools should provide this important information to all parents of young people considering engagement with the L2LP.

Collaboration between teachers to support teaching and learning

The quality of collaboration between teachers was very good in 19% of post-primary schools, good in 37% and required improvement in 44%. Practice in special schools ranged from very good in one school to requiring improvement in another, with one school at a good standard.

Ten schools had specific systems in place for special education teachers or coordinators to support subject teachers to implement the L2LP programme. Very good practice included special education teachers presenting at staff meetings, holding drop-in clinics or Question and Answer sessions, holding regular targeted meetings with subject teachers and regularly supporting teachers through providing templates, resources and suggested strategies. In discussions, the senior management team in one school commented that ‘the special education team are trying to make it as accessible as possible for teachers… Every teacher needed support in getting to the point we are at now’. Three post-primary schools described the challenges of getting buy-in from subject teachers. Two of these reported gradual improvements to engagement and one school reported ongoing resistance.

In schools where practice was very good, the school leaders had assigned clearly defined roles and responsibilities to individual teachers or to a small team for planning and monitoring the implementation of L2LP. For example, in one school, the teacher with responsibility for the coordination of special education provision held short monthly meetings with teachers delivering the L2LP. At these meetings, each young person’s progress was reviewed and areas needing more focus were identified and agreed. Digital platforms were used frequently to support effective collaborative planning, the sharing of resources and the ongoing gathering of evidence of learning.

Inconsistent practice in teacher collaboration within schools was common. Pockets of effective collaboration were evident in the majority of schools. Typically, very good collaboration was noted where teachers were working together to develop student support plans, to team-teach lessons or to assess young people’s learning. However, in most schools, this was not consistent across all subjects.

In schools where collaboration between teachers required improvement, teacher collaboration was informal and lacked structure, and learning experiences and outcomes were not informed sufficiently by collaboration between teachers of the young people following the L2LP. In these schools, there was a need to implement agreed whole-school systems to support teacher collaboration and to prioritise student-centred planning.

Collaboration with parents to support learning

All schools reported meeting with parents at least once a year. For young people enrolled in special classes in post-primary schools, communication with parents was more routine and regular than it was for young people enrolled in mainstream only. Typically, teachers used phone calls, emails and text messages to communicate with parents and the communication centred generally on matters relating to attendance and levels of wellbeing.

There were some very effective structures in place to support collaboration with parents. In schools where collaboration with parents was particularly effective, parents were fully involved in multi-disciplinary meetings, which aimed to support the young person’s participation and learning. Other examples of effective practice included the use of the journal as a two-way communication tool, informing home and school about progress in learning, and young people and the teacher completing a daily reflection sheet and sharing it with the home, alongside a digital record of learning activities.

In a small number of schools, photos of young people engaging in learning activities were shared with home regularly to facilitate further discussion, affirmation and reinforcement of the learning. In another particularly effective example, regular contact with the home brought about routine practising of money-management skills both during school time and in the community with family members. Another example of very effective collaboration with home involved parents in a celebration of the young person’s work. A young person following L2LP had made a short video on an area of high interest and, following that, a small group had planned a screening of the video and invited parents to a ceremony where the video was shown.

In two post-primary schools, there was a need for improvement in the quality of engagement with parents. In these schools, there was limited evidence of communications with home, limited reporting on progress in learning, or no evidence of attempts to collaborate with parents on any aspect of learning.

Conclusions

Provision of the L2LP is still evolving, with systems for whole-school support, learner experiences and planning, assessment and monitoring developing from year to year. There were aspects of very good practice across some areas, most particularly in facilitating young people following the L2LP to engage in challenging learning activities alongside their peers. The inspections also identified areas that required improvement to ensure meaningful inclusion and high-quality learning experiences and outcomes for young people following the L2LP.

Whole-school support

Most schools had some good processes and practices in place to support the provision of L2LP. A particularly positive finding was that the provision of the L2LP was not limited to special classes; while fifty-five percent of the young people following the L2LP were enrolled in special classes, the remaining forty-five percent were enrolled in mainstream classes. It was also encouraging that many of the young people following the L2LP were given an opportunity to engage fully with Level 3 subjects when they started in first year. Most schools had also timetabled their provision for the L2LP based on the strengths, needs and interests of the young people following the programme, rather than the need to timetable for a group of young people. This individual timetabling is very good practice.

Collaborative decision making about placement on the programme and ensuring that parents are informed regarding their child’s placement are important areas for development. There is a need to ensure that all parents of young people following the L2LP are fully aware of their child’s participation on the programme and the progression routes available to them following the programme.

Learning experiences

In post-primary schools, young people’s learning experiences were good or better in two-thirds of mainstream lessons and very good in the majority of support lessons. The most effective practice involved young people who were following the L2LP being fully included as equal members of the class group, collaborating with peers, talking about the learning, working things out together and learning from each other. The most effective teaching involved teachers using the individual interests, strengths and needs of the young people to design activities aligned with the learning outcomes of the PLUs. Where this happened, the young people were engaged purposefully in appropriately challenging learning activities that enabled them to experience success in their learning.

However, in some lessons young people worked alone, or they worked only with special needs assistants (SNAs), and they were effectively not included in the class group. In other lessons, the teacher’s planning had not taken account of the learning outcomes of the PLUs or of the young person’s interests, strengths or needs, and there were missed opportunities to focus on and develop key skills.

The quality of learning in the three special schools ranged from excellent to requiring improvement to achieve a good standard. Highly effective practice included lessons that provided active, meaningful learning experiences that were relevant to the lives of the young people and provided appropriate challenge. In lessons that required improvement, there was an over-reliance on written tasks and worksheets and a need for more purposeful and collaborative learning that took account of the young people’s strengths, interests and individual needs.

Planning, assessment and monitoring

Individual planning was effective in two-thirds of schools. Highly effective practice was seen where planning to achieve the learning outcomes was informed by consideration of individual targets, interests and strengths of the young person and included input from young people and their parents. In a third of schools, where planning required improvement, there was limited planned integration of the learning outcomes of the PLUs into mainstream lessons, or planning did not take sufficient account of the young person’s interests, strengths and needs.

The quality of individualised planning was better for young people enrolled in special classes than it was for young people enrolled in mainstream classes only. This was because the special class teacher assumed responsibility for coordinating plans for young people enrolled in the special class. It was not always clear which teacher was responsible for planning for young people enrolled in mainstream classes.

Inconsistency within and between schools was a common feature of assessment and monitoring practices. In some schools, there were effective systems in place that facilitated teachers and young people to collaborate in gathering evidence of learning and monitoring progress. In other schools, there were pockets of collaboration but practice was not consistent across all staff working with the young person.

In twelve of the post-primary schools (44%), there was insufficient gathering of evidence of learning, no portfolios of work collated, or little monitoring of progress by teachers. In some schools, subject teachers simply ticked the learning outcomes they had worked on but there was no meaningful assessment of progress or skills development.

Many schools described ongoing work or recent improvements to their systems of planning, communication and collaboration. In a minority of schools, school leaders had established whole-school approaches and clarity about roles and responsibilities. There was a need for further development of these practices in the majority of schools.

• School leaders should ensure that decisions about the placement of a young person on the L2LP are made collaboratively. Parents, the young person, teachers and professionals involved in the young person’s education should all be involved, and the decision-making process should include consideration of the most appropriate progression routes for the young person.
• Responsibility for coordinating the individualised planning for a young person following the L2LP should be assigned to a specific teacher. The assigned teacher should have a very good knowledge of the young person and a thorough understanding of the structure and potential of the L2LP programme.
• Teachers delivering the L2LP in mainstream schools should prioritise inclusive learning experiences with well-planned opportunities for young people to learn with and from their peers. Learning experiences in mainstream lessons that involve young people working in isolation should be avoided.
• Teachers delivering the L2LP in special schools should prioritise the provision of active meaningful and collaborative learning experiences. Where possible, these activities should be aligned to real-life experiences.
• Assessment approaches for young people following the L2LP should acknowledge and affirm the full range of their learning experiences and progress during lessons and throughout the three years of the programme. Assessment outcomes should be used to monitor progress and to plan for the next stage in the young person’s learning.

______________________________