Issues around what is called 'age-appropriateness' (AA)

I have written about age-appropriateness (AA) before in the newsletter. In the five years since then there has been a sensation that the general ‘landscape’ on this issue has been continuing to positively move on and become more sensible. However, we still frequently get reports from harassed practitioners that their workplace is an age-appropriateness ‘desert’, so I offer some more notes on the topic. These notes will comprise the substance of a forthcoming article.

• I can find little, coverage of this topic in the literature of our field. There is a short reading list at the end.
• The topic is not addressed in the ‘big’ books on SLD, autism and SLD curriculum by the famous people – Carpenter, Hogg, Sebba, Byers etc. This is the case when some of these writers are nonetheless avowed age-appropriateness enthusiasts.
• I can find no reference to AA in the OFSTED protocol. I assume that when inspectors make criticisms on AA grounds, it is a personal preference.
• Likewise the above to the social care inspectorate.
• Age-appropriateness is not an aspect of normalisation philosophy or theorising. Quite the contrary, the original theorists like Nirje were taken aback by efforts to make people with learning disabilities appear normal. Nirje and others insisted that Normalisation was about making normalising experiences available, not about operating a concept of normal.
• In the literature on child development and learning, you cannot find studies that support a theory that treating a child as older than they are, or giving them experiences that are set well ahead of where they are developmentally ‘at’, will actually work to cause development.
• I think there is some anecdotal evidence (literally, things I have heard said, not written) that with people with high ability LDs, it is life-enhancing for them and their self-image if those of us around them to treat them according to their chronological age. This seems logical. However, there are still I believe huge issues for the more able around the developmental experiences, particularly play, that they do not receive or have facilitated. Even the ones we call more able, where are they actually ‘at’ cognitively, psychologically, emotionally?
• The literature you can find has been written by Nind & Hewett mainly – 1 book chapter in an edited book, three large sections in their other books. There is another chapter in the ‘Whose Choice’ book on AA, and these are written in response to Nind & Hewett. They do not fundamentally disagree with the Nind & Hewett standpoint.
• I contend therefore that age-appropriateness is actually a vague notion that has gained some sort of influence and popularity through a sort of ‘PC’ repetition. It has no proper foundation. It is not supported in our literature, it has not been inquired into nor researched, a definition nor a philosophy has never been elaborated in a learned fashion.
• This is not to suggest that every single tiny thing that we do in our practices should be evidence-based and/or supported by research/inquiry. This is a clearly untenable position that disavows staff common-sense and working from general experience. However, the notion of AA has been pervasively influential for so many years (particularly significantly in adult services) with so many far-reaching and fundamental effects on the lives of service users. In this case, it is absolutely imperative, indeed ethically a given, that the practices that arise should be psychologically and philosophically substantiated by literature in refereed publications. This has not been done.
• I have seen all of the worst practices that are rumoured to have occurred in the name of AA. For instance, adult, voting citizens having their personal possessions taken away from them – things they have chosen and bought with their own money. I have never, ever, anywhere seen a policy on AA. In adult services again particularly, it seems necessary to cover everything, all practices with a policy. But not age-appropriateness. I think it is an interesting exercise to demand that an age-appropriateness enthusiast should write such a policy.

When managers talk in favour of age-appropriateness, I feel they do it rather airily, believing they are referring to a well and properly established working concept and unknowing of the reality.

Forster, S (2010) 'Age-appropriateness: Enabler or barrier to a good life for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities?' Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 35(2): 129–131

Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (1996) 'When age-appropriateness isn't appropriate' in Coupe-O'Kane, J & Goldbart, J. (eds) Whose Choice? London: David Fulton.

There are sections on AA in:

1. Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (1994) Access to Communication: Developing the basics of communication with people with severe learning difficulties through Intensive Interaction. London: David Fulton
2. Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (2001) A Practical Guide to Intensive Interaction. Kidderminster: British Institute of Learning Disabilities.
3. Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (2005 2nd edition) Access to Communication: Developing the basics of communication with people with severe learning difficulties through Intensive Interaction. London: David Fulton