The SENCO Survival Guide: The Nuts and Bolts of Everything You Need to Know [3 ed.] 9781032219479, 9781032219455, 9781003270690

Citation preview

The SENCO Survival Guide

The SENCO Survival Guide, Third Edition is an informative, accessible resource containing practical advice to help SENCOs manage their responsibilities and lead their school effectively towards a common goal. The book sets out a whole school approach to inclusion and supports SENCOs in mainstream or special schools at every key stage. This fully revised new edition features: • a focus on high quality teaching, with ideas for classroom practice to include and engage all children and young people • an introduction to SEN support and education, health and care plans, based on the Code of Practice graduated response • strategies to break the cycle of SEND low achievement and guidance on how to create a SEND-​friendly environment • advice on the role of the modern SENCO, including assessment, provision mapping, preparing for OFSTED, disability discrimination and equality • advice on training, managing and deploying teaching assistants effectively • strategies to improve ‘pupil voice’ and independence • ways in which the enhanced role of parents can be harnessed in order to achieve maximum success for learners with SEND 16 • conclusions from the author’s new ‘field research’ in mainstream, special and Post-​ settings. This resource gives SENCOs the confidence, skills and knowledge to promote maximum achievement for learners with SEND and will help them develop and shape their schools’ policies and practices. It will also be of use to other members of staff looking for practical strategies to raise the attainment of pupils with SEN and disabilities. Sylvia Edwards is a former teacher in mainstream and special schools, ex-​manager of a Special Educational Need Support Service, and writer of 17 books on education and SEND: now an independent SEND consultant based in the UK.

nasen is a professional membership association that supports all those who work with or care for children and young people with special and additional educational needs. Members include SENCOs, school leaders, governors/trustees, teachers, teaching assistants, support workers, other educationalists, students and families. nasen supports its members through policy documents, peer-​reviewed academic journals, its membership magazine nasen Connect, publications, professional development courses, regional networks and newsletters. Its website contains more current information such as responses to government consultations. nasen’s published documents are held in very high regard both in the UK and internationally. For a full list of titles see: www.routle​dge.com/​nasen-​spotli​ght/​book-​ser​ies/​FULNAS​EN Ot​her titles published in association with the National Association for Special Educational Needs (nasen): The SENCO Survival Guide: The Nuts and Bolts of Everything You Need to Know, 3ed Sylvia Edwards 2023/pb: 978-1-032-21947-9 Cultural Inclusion for Young People with SEND: Practical Strategies for Meaningful Inclusion in Arts and Culture Paul Morrow 2023/pb: 978-0-367-64123-8 Providing Relationships and Sex Education for Special Learners Paul Bray 2021/pb: 978-1-138-48747-5 Inclusion: A Principled Guide for School Leaders Nicola Crossley and Des Hewitt 2021/pb: 978-0-367-34528-0 Leading on Inclusion: The Role of the SENCO Mhairi Beaton, Geraldene Codina and Julie Wharton 2021/pb: 978-0-367-42050-5 The Governance Handbook for SEND and Inclusion: Schools that Work for All Learners Adam Boddison 2020/pb: 978-0-367-37003-9 The School Handbook for Dual and Multiple Exceptionality Denise Yates and Adam Boddison 2020/pb: 978-0-367-36958-3 Creating Multi-sensory Environments: Practical Ideas for Teaching and Learning, Revised Edition Christopher Davies 2020/pb: 978-0-415-57330-6 Dyslexia and Inclusion: Classroom Approaches for Assessment, Teaching and Learning Gavin Reid 2019/pb: 978-1-138-48749-9

The SENCO Survival Guide The Nuts and Bolts of Everything You Need to Know Third Edition

Sylvia Edwards

Designed cover image: © Getty images Third edition published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Sylvia Edwards The right of Sylvia Edwards to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2010 Second edition published by Routledge 2016 British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Edwards, Sylvia, author. Title: The SENCO survival guide : the nuts and bolts of everything you need to know / Sylvia Edwards. Description: Third Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: NASEN spotlight; 46 | Second edition: 2016. Identifiers: LCCN 2022031625 (print) | LCCN 2022031626 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032219455 (Hardback) | ISBN 9781032219479 (Paperback) | ISBN 9781003270690 (eBook) Subjects: LCSH: Learning disabilities–Great Britain. | Students with disabilities–Education–Great Britain. Classification: LCC LC4706.G7 E39 2023 (print) | LCC LC4706.G7 (ebook) | DDC 371.90941–dc23/eng/20220921 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022031625 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022031626 ISBN: 9781032219455 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032219479 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003270690 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003270690 Typeset in Helvetica by Newgen Publishing UK

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

vii 1

PART 1 IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS OF LEARNERS WITH SEND

3

 1 Rethinking SEND and learning difficulties

5

 2 SEN Code of Practice

15

 3 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

19

PART 2 PROVIDING FOR THE NEEDS OF LEARNERS WITH SEND

27

 4 Inclusion: access, challenges, barriers

29

 5 High quality teaching

35

 6 SEN Support: a graduated approach

43

 7 Education, health and care plans

57

 8 Multi-​agency working

63

 9 The SENCO role

67

10 A whole-​school approach

79

11 Developing personalised SEND-​friendly learning environments

87

PART 3 EVALUATING PROGRESS FOR LEARNERS WITH SEND

99

12 Good progress or underachievement?

101

13 Developing pupil voice and independence

111

vi Contents

14 Parents as equal partners

117

15 Walking the (SENCO) job

123



Conclusion: and SEND Review

145

Bibliography

151

Index

155

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to colleagues in mainstream and special schools, and in SEND services, alongside whom I have developed my ideas, knowledge and experience over many years of teaching and training staff. I wish to thank SENCOs who have shared their thoughts and concerns, also pupils at every key stage, whose learning difficulties and experiences have shaped my thoughts on how best to help all learners with SEND to achieve success. Throughout my teaching I have also supported many parents, whose views have helped to influence my opinions on the vital role that all parents play in education. For this third edition, I especially wish to thank the SENCOs, teachers and TAs in primary and secondary, the Advanced Practitioners for SEND and Advanced Practitioner for Quality Improvement in FE, and the parents of pupils in special schools –​all of whom have enabled me to add vital ‘field research’ to this updated version. I could not have achieved this without them. Lastly, I wish to thank Jon Breward of Garridge Creative Services Limited for his assistance in preparing this book for print. Any misrepresentations or inaccuracies are my responsibility.

Introduction

Why a third edition? Education is constantly changing, and schools are again faced with challenges in policy/​practice for learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Much has changed since my first edition in 2011, and the second in 2016: not least a pandemic that has disrupted the education of all children, particularly those with SEND, who will take far longer, and find it more problematic, to catch up. The English education system is still not achieving the best outcomes for children and young people with SEND. So, the current review is welcomed. I sincerely hope that the updated content of this book inspires fresh reflection, and acts as a guide/​mentor for all Special Educational Need Co-​ordinators (SENCOs) –​supporting their quest for the best provision that leads to success for all learners with SEND.

Who is this book written for? The book supports SENCOs in mainstream and special schools and settings, as well as practitioners in post-​16, who feel they need to know more about SEND policy and practice, in order to respond confidently to the huge challenges of setting up and managing a whole-​ school support system that meets the diverse needs of their particular staff and learners. The achievement gap between SEND and non-​SEND is still too wide! Learners with SEND can achieve more. For SENCOs who see their personal success measured through the achievements of pupils who are harder to teach and struggle to learn … this book is for you.

What does this book do? The book aims to promote maximum achievement for learners with SEND across every Key Stage, for which the strategic role of SENCO is pivotal. The book connects key ideas and developments that impact significantly on the SENCO role, supports SENCOs in developing the personal and professional qualities and leadership skills that shape their particular school’s ethos, culture, policy and practice, conforming to the updated qualification for SEN Co-​ordination. The book invites reflection on changing policy and practice in light of the SEND Code of Practice and recent developments, helping SENCOs to reflect critically on how their school needs to improve: enhancing confidence to work with other key players to develop both cultural and systemic change, and creative solutions that will raise achievement for all learners with SEND.

Core questions The book seeks to stimulate debate: • • • • •

How does society’s perception of SEND need to change? How does the Code influence SEND policy and practice? How does the Equality Act support pupils with disabilities? Which whole-​school models for SEND teaching/​learning achieve best results? Why is personalised learning essential for some pupils?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-1

2 Introduction

• • • • • • •

Which particular SEND learners are underachieving? How can the achievement gap be narrowed? Which models of assessment work best? How do all staff roles/​responsibilities impact on SEND achievement? How is inclusive High Quality Teaching for all achieved? How can enhanced involvement of parents/​pupils improve SEND outcomes? Following the pandemic –​what policies/​ practices might address the damage and help learners with SEND to catch up?

Both pupil and parent power are set to transform the balance of school/​family relationships. While schools are necessarily different due to size, learner populations, staffing, social/​ethnic mix and geographical locations, there is no reason why educational outcomes should not reflect similar levels of success for all SEND learners.

Structure of this book The book reflects the Code of Practice ‘assess-​plan-​do-​review’: • Part 1 –​identifying needs of learners with SEND (assess). • Part 2 –​making appropriate provision (plan and do). • Part 3 –​evaluating progress and including parents and pupils (review).

Each chapter: • • • •

identifies a theme, with key ideas and principles that underpin policy. explores/​interrogates relevant issues. offers suggestions for best practice. offers advice to support effective SENCO performance.

This third edition retains discussion of overall SEND philosophy and principles for good practice that have stood the test of time –​and upon which post-​Covid policy and practice rest. This updated version explores how these key principles might be applied at every stage of the SEND journey –​including post-​16, as that final corridor towards secure and satisfying employment. This third edition also offers my own thought-​provoking ‘field research’, as a fresh dimension to the overall work. Visits to schools and colleges have led me to question what (and how) pupils with SEND are being taught and the changes to our education system that must be made now, as part of the SEND Review, if we are to finally address that long tail of SEND underachievement. Inclusion for ALL is still a goal to pursue. Finally, the conclusion speculates on much-​needed changes to the SEND system on the horizon, following the Government’s consultation paper (DfE 2022). No book offers all the answers. This guide offers solutions to the questions that schools are grappling with and places SENCOs firmly in the driving seat towards SEND success. The book provides SENCOs with the information and confidence to become movers and shakers for change because experience has shown that whatever is happening in education today –​ tomorrow will always be different.

Part 1

Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

1 Rethinking SEND and learning difficulties

Ever since the realisation that children with SEN are NOT ‘ineducable’, their schooling has been problematic. The debate on how best to enable diverse groups of children with learning difficulties to achieve success continues. This chapter considers: • • • • •

SEND as a philosophical and social construct. how perceptions of SEND have changed. how learning difficulties relate to SEND. types of SEND and what’s in a label. raising attainment for learners with SEND.

Towards a philosophy for SEND Decades ago, pupils with SEND were mainly placed in special schools and, until Warnock (1978) initiated the term ‘Special Educational Needs’, separated from normality by that insulting phrase ‘educationally sub-​normal’. My thoughts and beliefs about SEND have changed a great deal over time. Like many colleagues, I placed too much attention on the word ‘special’ –​focusing more on weaknesses than strengths. We can look at ‘Special Educational Needs and Disabilities’ as a philosophical construct, invented by educationalists to deal with the practicalities of educating children who need something ‘additional to or different from’ the majority. Humans do not fall into two distinct camps –​ ‘normal’ or ‘not’. Our differences are indistinct. We are all imperfect. People with SEND are not necessarily different, special or exceptional, from the norm. These sentiments underpin inclusion. Educational policy emerges from the philosophy of what makes us all human. As a society, once we start to think along a continuum of need, without artificial barriers and distinctions, we can think more creatively about people as individuals. Meeting the needs of children with SEND is not always about money. Time spent chasing funding (for example, an Education, Health and Care Plan) could be better invested in ensuring that SEN Support operates more effectively. The SEN Support part of the system invites schools to think about SEND challenges in non-​ financial ways; people, communication, flexibility and consistency of approach. A well-​thought-​ out SEND policy, towards which all involved have contributed, gets people thinking along the same lines, towards common outcomes. As a philosophy, well-​being must come first. Children must feel that they are achieving –​never failing. Learning must be about co-​operation –​not competition. It’s about motivation and confidence, knowing that success comes from a ‘trial and error’ approach. Given that the Code of Practice applies to the age of 25, choice and decision-​making skills are crucial in enabling young people with learning difficulties to lead independent, or semi-​independent, adult lives. Addressing the needs of people with SEND is also about ‘wholeness’; indulging in activities that are creative, such as art and music, as well as those connected with reading, writing and maths. It’s about balance and enabling children with SEND to grow up able to apply their skills and knowledge to real-​life challenges. SEND philosophy must also be about removing ‘dis’ from disability and ‘un’ from unable. Watching the Paralympic Games, I was in awe of what those athletes accomplished –​with missing limbs and impaired senses. Though schools must be realistic to avoid failure, high and open-​ended aspirations are keys to success. For too long, the term has carried negative connotations. My philosophy for SEND seeks to replace negative connotations with positive –​to

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-3

6  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

set the learning bar as high as is reasonably possible for every learner. From a starting point of what SEND means as a philosophy –​effective policy and practice follow, enabling every child to succeed.

Reviewing outdated perceptions of SEND There has never been a better time to reconsider SEND, especially following the pandemic. Outdated perceptions have encouraged schools and parents to think that children with SEND: • • • •

are slow learners who cannot achieve average expectation. belong in special schools. cannot access mainstream national curriculum. should be taught by SEN specialists.

Rarely in the days of integration, when more children began to attend mainstream, did teachers adapt teaching. If a child could not ‘fit in’, it was special school –​with a feeling of failure for many. Such negative perceptions have also smothered high aspirations: effectively ‘writing off’ the life chances of many children with SEND who could have achieved more. Thankfully, educational thinking has progressed. The movement towards inclusion has led to significant change: • • • • • • • • • • •

The majority of SEND learners attend mainstream. More flexible classroom practice –​with broader teaching/​learning responsibilities. Every teacher is a teacher of SEND –​with fresh implications for policy and training. The school workforce –​increased numbers and changed roles for Teaching Assistants. Recognition that pupils with SEND can succeed with appropriate support. Recognition that challenging behaviour is often linked to learning difficulty. Recognition that only those with most severe/​complex difficulties need special schooling. Increased role of parents in education. Pupil voice –​self-​responsibility and involvement of SEND learners in their support plan. Acceptance that the education of SEND learners is on an equal footing. Recognition that well-​being must always come first, that children who are stressed, unhappy or lack confidence, cannot learn until their problems are addressed.

The phrase ‘for all’ carries expectation that (almost) every child can access the national curriculum; that all aspects must be made accessible. A huge responsibility for teachers! With regard to well-​being, the outcomes in Table 1.1, that emerged from ‘Every Child Matters’ (DfES 2003a), followed by ‘The Children’s Plan’ (DCSF 2007), apply even more so today, following post-​pandemic anxieties. The Plan set out a strategy for children and families to be at the heart of national and school policy-​making, recognising that well-​being will always underpin successful learning. Table 1.1  Every Child Matters: improving outcomes for learners with SEND Being healthy: Improving health for children and young people Staying safe: Improved safeguarding strategies in schools Enjoying and achieving: Making learning work for all –​as fun, successful and productive Making a positive contribution: Improved engagement/​participation in society Achieving economic well-​being: Being employed, living as independently as possible

Some of these outcomes are still a long way from being achieved.

Rethinking SEND and learning difficulties  7 

Special educational needs and learning difficulties How does a ‘learning difficulty’ connect with ‘special educational need’? The Code of Practice (DFE/​DH 2015) states that children have a special educational need if they have a ‘significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority’, which raises questions: • How ‘significantly greater’ must the difficulty be before it equates to SEN? • What proportion of children comprise the majority? • At which point does the learning difficulty/​SEN also become a disability (Chapter 3)? Which children have SEN? Who decides? The Code offers no hard-​and-​fast rules, which is why SENCOs need to fully understand why some children’s learning falls behind. Does fallback always suggest SEN –​or temporary setback, such as a well-​being or family problem? Assessment can be fraught with difficulty. The traditional acceptance that about 20% of pupils have SEN is open to challenge. Covid has further muddied the waters. Many who have fallen behind may not necessarily have SEN –​yet because schooling has been disrupted, those who have may be unidentified. Data on SEND (DfE 2021) suggests that around 15.8% of pupils are identified with SEN, slightly higher since 2014 reforms, though lower than the traditional 20%. About three quarters of these (12.2%) are at SEN Support, while 3.7% have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) –​ higher than the traditional 2% previously allocated statements. More pupils in mainstream now have EHCPs, the biggest increases being in Key Stages 2 and 3. Are more children falling into difficulties during later schooling? Could intervention in Key Stage 1 alleviate some of these?

Types of SEN Table 1.2  Some categories of SEN SLCN: Speech, Language, Communication difficulties –​and/​or DLD: Developmental Language Disorder SEMH: Social, Emotional, Mental Health MLD: Moderate Learning Difficulties ASC: Autistic Spectrum Condition ADHD: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Specific Learning Difficulties: Dyslexia or Dyspraxia Other difficulties and disability

Physical Disability Severe Learning Difficulties Hearing Impairment Visual Impairment Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties Multi-​sensory impairment

On SEN Support in mainstream, SLCN is assessed as most common, with SEMH second, while ASC is most common for EHCPs (DfE 2021). Since the merging of School Action (in-​school assessment and support only) and School Action Plus (external specialist intervention) into the single category of SEN Support, the dilemma for staff, including SENCOs, has been how to judge the level of additional support any child needs. In addition, children may have more than one type, making it difficult to identify multi-​faceted difficulties. Less dominant areas of need may end up smothered beneath main difficulties, unprovided for. Examples: • • • •

Jonathan has some MLD with SLCN. Tom has ADHD, with ASC. Jack has SEMH –​with SLCN and MLD. Elise has PD and VI.

The problems are compounded for learners whose first language is not English, although inadequate English per se is not a SEN. The problem is how first to identify each facet of a child’s difficulties that forms a barrier to learning –​then address each one.

8  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

Descriptions of SEN types The types of SEN in Table 1.2 are labels, often for life –​shadowing a child through school, college and into adulthood. It is easy for schools, education/​health specialists, police, society and employers, to see the label –​but not the abilities/​characteristics of the person. Consider the following difficulties: 1. Speech, language, communication needs (SLCN) may include: • • • • •

poor articulation of speech sounds. inadequate vocabulary that impedes reading development. difficulties in processing receptive language –​not understanding the speech of others. poor use of syntactic/​grammatical rules of speech –​that limit writing. inability to match language to different people and social contexts.

A further complexity is whether difficulty is caused by delay, in which case a child may catch up with lots of interactive speaking and listening, or by a disorder that requires the support of an external Speech and Language Therapist. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is a more severe form of SLCN: disorder rather than delay, requiring diagnosis by a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT), followed by specialist intervention. Strategies to address DLD may be universal, as advice for staff on inclusive class teaching, and/​or targeted more specifically towards individual speech and language barriers. 2. Social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) Challenging behaviour can present huge problems for teachers. Examples: • • • • • •

Alan throws his book across the classroom. Evie nips the arm of the child next to her. Jayden upsets others by calling them names. Bobbie refuses to do his homework. Daisy shouts at the teacher. Carl hits other children.

There are many reasons why some children do not conform. Not all of the children who behave in these ways have SEMH, but identifying those who do is fraught with difficulty. Social areas also play their part –​leafy suburb or inner city? Does what a school expects conflict with behaviour allowed at home? Is the problem one of frustration because a particular SEN has not been identified? Does Alan throw his book because he struggles to write; Dyslexia or Dyspraxia (handwriting perhaps) having not been addressed? Does Daisy shout because she does not know how to communicate effectively? Children with significant SLCN may become frustrated because they do not understand what is going on in class. I believe that once SENCOs and class teachers delve thoroughly into the reasons why children behave as they do, many challenging behaviour problems can be dealt with without a diagnosis of SEND. The majority of children can conform within a strong, consistent whole-​school policy for behaviour –​the ‘social’ element of SEMH. But what about the few whose behaviour suggests a deeper problem, for example: • is there an underlying difficulty in learning that has not been identified/​addressed? • is the problem one of emotional well-​being –​lack of confidence or self-​esteem? • do behaviours indicate a deep-​seated mental health issue, requiring specialist intervention? There is little doubt that behaviour difficulties cause huge problems and interrupt the learning of other children. Time spent by staff, observing and talking with children about their problems to uncover the real reasons behind disruptive behaviour, is time well spent. SEMH could be reduced. 3. Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD). Children with MLD have a generalised, cognitive difficulty: they may forget what to do, get confused, struggle to finish tasks, or work may not be up to standard. Their pace of learning is often slower than the majority. Memory is often poor. Education has often labelled children with MLD as ‘slow learners’ but their ‘slowness’ should

Rethinking SEND and learning difficulties  9 

never imply a lack of eventual achievement. At the mild end of the MLD continuum, pupils can achieve average expectations, but may always need additional help to catch up and keep up with more able peers. 4. Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC). Such learners struggle mainly with social interaction and communication. Their behaviours may appear odd and different. Many children with ASC prefer to work alone. Learners with ASC struggle to conform to the rules/​routines of school, often overlapping with SEMH. The condition lies along a broad spectrum –​with children able to function at different levels. Learners with high functioning ASC may demonstrate extraordinary skills –​proving that whatever the behaviours, we must never underestimate potential. 5. Specific Learning Difficulties: include Dyslexia (words), Dysgraphia (writing), Dyspraxia (movement) and Dyscalculia (numbers). A pupil with Dyslexia may struggle only with literacy. One with Dyscalculia has difficulties only in maths. A child with Dyspraxia may struggle with fine or gross motor co-​ordination, such as handwriting or catching and throwing balls. While specific learning difficulties are referred to in the Code as ‘cognitive’, this must never imply low levels of general intelligence. Children with specific learning difficulties have the potential to be high achievers. 6. Physical Difficulties. The needs of learners with physical difficulties are often obvious, and so too should be the practical solutions that enable achievement. It’s about access and the removal of learning barriers. A child with a physical difficulty may need an adapted desk and chair, or technological device, for example. Physical difficulties alone must never prevent a child from reaching average or above expectations. 7. Severe Learning Difficulties. Pupils with SLD are further along the continuum of generalised cognitive difficulties than those with MLD. A child with SLD is more likely to have other difficulties, such as SLCN, yet most can be taught to use language and communicate well. While most pupils with SLD lag behind average and learn more slowly, with a greater need for practice and consolidation, many access the national curriculum with appropriate support. 8. HI and VI. Learners with no other SEN but sensory should achieve at least average with access to learning in place. Depending on the severity of the impairment, such learners may need enlarged fonts, the use of teacher radio aids, or other adaptations that enable normal learning. 9. Profound/​multi-​sensory learning difficulties. This category of SEN includes children with multiple areas of learning difficulty, whose progress is measured in the smallest steps, designed for learners who are mainly pre-​national curriculum (engagement in Chapter 7). The majority of these learners attend special schools because their need for specialised equipment, and more extensive teacher knowledge of SEND, are not often accommodated in mainstream. Profound multiple/​multi-​sensory overlap with many other categories of learning difficulty. The first three categories (SLCN, SEMH, MLD) are those experienced by most mainstream teachers, emphasising the need for all staff to be well-​trained in adapting teaching/​learning methods. MLD, SLD and profound multiple/​multi-​sensory lie along a continuum of cognitive learning difficulties, associated with general intelligence that may mask children’s capabilities at its higher end. The fine line between MLD and SLD should never limit expectations for those who can access the curriculum. One such group is people with Down’s Syndrome, recognised as a specific group, with a Bill to ensure their needs are met. The Bill encourages all public bodies, including schools, to: • avoid making assumptions about DS, without first assessing individual potential. • recognise the huge range of abilities amongst individuals with DS. • set higher expectations. Supporters of this Bill point to poorly written EHCPs, exclusionary school practice, lack of employment opportunities and widespread stigmatisation. Yet, these same problems also exist for many others with SEND. The Bill places duties on Local Authorities to assess likely social care needs, plan provision accordingly and for connected purposes –​having ‘due regard’. While this Bill draws attention to the specific needs of people with Down’s Syndrome, does it also need to expand on what is already subject to ‘due regard’, through the Children and Families Act 2014, The Equality Act and the Code? Might this Bill help fly the flag for the whole SEND population? Legislation to support children and young people, including those with DS, already exists. So should the priority be to ensure existing law –​clarifying that needs, not diagnosis in the form of labels, determines additional support –​is followed.

10  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

Implications? Might more children with DS attend mainstream, as those who do, apparently make better progress than their peers in special schools? Society must also recognise the difference between cognitive and socially placed barriers in schools and public places. Once the social and physical barriers are removed, many learners with SEND can achieve average levels, by means of well-​constructed, appropriate and individualised support planning. While cognitive limitations are not so easily removed, all brains can be stimulated through multi-​sensory approaches. I believe ALL barriers to learning can be minimised using more creative endeavours!

Behind SEND labels –​normality and strengths So, what is the purpose behind SEND diagnosis? To provide the most appropriate intervention? Respond to parental pressure? Or is it easier to address learning difficulties with SEND labels attached? Do labels reflect particular specialists? A paediatrician may diagnose ASC, while a speech and language therapist may identify a semantic, pragmatic language disorder. A behaviour specialist may suggest strategies to address unwanted behaviours, while the underlying causes, perhaps involving emotional well-​being, may not be addressed. A diagnosis can act as a smokescreen, separating schools, parents and external specialists from the individuals behind their SEND label. I have taught children with a range of disabilities who need to be understood and helped to achieve personal potential. They do not want to be placed in a communal box. Autism is one example of a misunderstood area of disability. People with ASC can be highly intelligent. Their lack of social/​communication skills should not preclude them from workplace roles, yet few employers adapt: a pity because many adults with high-​functioning autism have strengths that benefit society. A survey by the National Autistic Society (NAS 2016) reported: • 16% of autistic adults in full-​time work. • 32% of autistic people in some kind of paid work, compared with 47% of disabled people, and 80% of non-​disabled. • over three quarters say they want to work. • 40% of autistic people say they have never worked. The word ‘autistic’ may appear derogatory, referring to people who do not fit society’s ideas of ‘normal’. The book, The Pattern Seekers (Baron-​Cohen) argues that autistic people have been crucial to culture and creativity since civilisation began; without them, inventions, from the wheel to digital technology, may not have happened. Baron-​Cohen, who runs the Autism Research Centre, asserts that society is missing out on autistic strengths. He asserts also that about 25% of children don’t fit in with how schools teach. Baron-​Cohen invites society to see either ‘systemisers’ or ‘empathisers’. The former recognise patterns, have good memories, or pay more attention to detail. The latter are better at social relationships, communication and imagining the thoughts and intentions of others (empathy). Could many children with ASC be systemisers? Baron-​Cohen asserts that ‘systemisers’ may not learn best from traditional teacher communication: needing to explore patterns and find conclusions. A problem-​solving approach to learning? The book is controversial, but with a message –​we must never underestimate the capabilities of people with SEND. As a former teacher of children with SEND, the system of placing children in boxes outside ‘normality’ bothers me. What is normal? Is it having average intelligence? Is it doing things that the majority do? Individual differences must be celebrated. People who are different may have strengths that are difficult to identify. Children who do not easily ‘fit in’ must not be allowed to fail because education cannot adapt. What matters is that all children are enabled to find an outlet for their unique abilities and ways of thinking, for the sake of their mental health. Normality is for everyone! We all fit in! Research shows that a huge proportion of adults with SEND, who could be gainfully employed –​ are not. Their range of talents, including those of autistic people, is being sadly wasted. The situation raises important questions for school leadership teams: • Are all pupils with SEND given the support they need to achieve full potential –​ready for adult life and work?

Rethinking SEND and learning difficulties  11 

• Are all teachers and TAs thoroughly trained to understand the learning needs of children with SEND –​especially those that are most common? So, should we be looking more towards children’s strengths, rather than continually focusing on weaknesses? As well as assessment pointing out what children cannot do, should we also search for what they can, and in many cases excel at? An example: Nathan has been diagnosed with MLD and ADHD. He has an EHCP. While Nathan struggles to achieve average for reading, writing and maths, he excels in technology and music, and recently has started to play in a teenage rock band. Knowing what he is good at, and celebrating these as strengths, helps to balance out the conflicting awareness of his weaknesses, boosting self-​esteem.

Raising SEND attainment So, how can schools boost SEND achievement, while recognising that some pupils progress only in small steps? Should the process of observing/​assessing begin earlier, well before any application for an EHCP (apart from the obvious needs of an exceptional few)? Some Local Authority case studies illustrate the point of early intervention: • While recognising SEND population disparity across schools, Sunderland uses moderation to promote consistency. • Leeds, amongst other strategies, operates a robust graduated approach to its quality SEND practice. LA staff work closely with SENCOs, tailoring plans to individual needs. • Warrington LA focuses on early intervention, a commitment to inclusion and a graduated response: effective teacher training having resulted in fewer requests for statutory assessment. This LA also operates an outreach support system, whereby teachers from special schools work alongside those in mainstream (a job I used to do across Lancashire schools). In addition, the SEND strategy is co-​produced by parents, carers and school leaders. Unsurprisingly, levels of parental involvement and satisfaction appear high. So, do we have a useful shortlist of factors that benefit SEND: effective teacher training, consistency between schools, early intervention, inclusion, graduated response (within the range of SEN Support), outreach from special schools, close collaboration between SENCOs and LAs, and the close involvement of parents/​carers? Might these highly probable determiners of success make a positive difference to SEND attainment? Table 1.3 shows the percentages of pupils with SEND who achieved Level 4 or above in 2009 –​the average expectation for 11-​year-​olds, at the time. Many years on, the attainment gap between SEND and non-​SEND is still unacceptable. The Ofsted 2010 review reiterated problems of low expectations and complacency, resulting in widespread weaknesses in the quality of SEND teaching and learning. Table 1.3  Key Stage 2 pupils with SEND achieving Level 4 or above in 2009 SPLD 24%

MLD 11%

SLD 2%

PMLD 1%

BESD (now SEMH) 36%

HI 42%

VI 53%

PD 34%

MSI 30%

ASD (now ASC) 30%

SLCN 19%

Other 29%

This data shows a system that has failed many children in the past –​and still does. Did schools not have the resources to meet the inclusion challenge? The data may mask other, more positive SEND achievements, but what might we deduce? Along that continuum of general cognitive difficulties, might some of the other 89% of MLD pupils have reached average, given higher expectations? What prevented the other 81% of learners with SLCN from achieving? And why did only about a third of pupils with SEMH, as well as those with ASC, succeed? Can we really expect only about half of learners with sensory difficulties (HI, VI) to achieve average? Why were their barriers not removed? The 2009 data illuminated the huge attainment gap. A report for 2013/​ 14 (Ofsted 2014) suggested that while there were improvements, this gap has remained too wide. Primary schools have improved faster than secondary. The 2014 phonic screening for six-​year-​olds concluded

12  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

that while results for reading and writing were 90% and 86% respectively –​only 79% of those children achieved Level 4 average, some five years later. While recognising that phonics is not the sole determinant of literacy success, we should still question that long tail of underachievement. An article in The Times (Thompson 2015) suggested that the 40-​year-​old experiment to integrate some children with SEND into mainstream had caused much suffering; that some children had been regarded as difficult or lazy, or been bullied. But society and schools were simply not there yet in 2015. Clearly, it has taken too many years for teachers to learn lessons from the children they have struggled to integrate. On the other hand, where would these children be now if they had remained in special school unnecessarily? Stigmatised? Unfulfilled? In 2022 the gap is still too wide, compounded by effects of the pandemic, and schools are struggling to interpret a teacher-​based assessment system. How easy is it for teachers to judge attainments using the Interim Teacher Assessment Framework (ITAF)? How far do these levels allow accurate judgements for the range of pupils with SEND? Do the first two need to be broken down, to facilitate detailed and accurate small-​step planning for some pupils? In some schools, this is being done. Three ITAF levels: • Working towards expected standard. • At expected standard. • At greater depth than expected standard. SATS (cancelled 2021) restarted 2022. Meanwhile, the dilemma for teachers and SENCOs is how to pinpoint precisely where the capabilities of a child with SEND lie in relation to the objectives that accompany each of these three broad statements. A recent report (Ofsted 2021) for England reflects on the reforms of the last 10 years, as well as the experiences of SEND pupils during the pandemic, which has exacerbated previous long-​ standing problems. In 2009, Lamb (DCSF 2009b) called for a radical overhaul of SEND; to include greater ambition and cited the culture of low expectation –​that is still evident. The report also cites a key principle embedded in the Children and Families Act 2014 (DfE 2014a); that families must play a more central role in SEND planning (co-​production). This latest Ofsted report (2021) states also that many reforms from the revised ‘SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years’ (DfE/​DH 2015) are still not successfully implemented. Aside from low ambition, some children are being identified inaccurately, for example, a child with SLCN, identified as MLD. How can a specific learning difficulty be identified as a generalised cognitive one? The report also points to underachievement being wrongly labelled as SEND. It is unfortunate that many SEND services have been reduced or ceased during recent lockdowns. The Inspectors asked some pupils with SEND what they wanted to achieve. Responses included: • successful relationships and friendships. • independence and choice. • opportunities to work. Should these three aims, linked more to personal well-​being and confidence than to ITAF skills, be included on the SENCO list of determiners for success? Further data from this 2021 report (as at 2019–​20) offers food for thought: • • • • • • • • •

91% of pupils on SEN Support attend mainstream school. Of those with an EHCP, 49% are in mainstream, and 44% in special school. An increase in Pupil Referral Units for children with an EHCP, from 13.4% to 16.4%. More boys than girls identified as SEND: 73.1% with an EHCP are male, while 64.6% on SEN Support are also male. At 2020, the most common type of EHCP was for Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC). Also at 2020, the most common area of SEN Support is SLCN. A disproportionate number of ‘disadvantaged’ children are identified as SEND. Percentages of pupils receiving free school meals (FSM) has increased: non-​SEND from 12.1 to 14.9, SEN Support from 26.3 to 29.9, and EHCP from 31.6 to 34.6. Identification of SEND depends more on the school than on individual need.

Rethinking SEND and learning difficulties  13 

Dyson (2015) recognised three areas where SEND had become problematic: the greater numbers of boys being identified as SEND, family income/​disadvantage and ethnicity and culture. Dyson concluded that too many children were being identified on a social, rather than an individual, basis. What further questions does this data raise? Does the fourth bullet, with Dyson’s research, suggest that schools should observe the particular needs of boys more closely? Why are more SEND pupils being admitted to PRUs? Should schools look more closely at their SEND spread –​ is SLCN the most common? And of those with an EHCP, is ASC the most common? If so, should schools focus their particular policy and staff training on these areas? How could the link between SEND and disadvantage be reduced? How could schools ensure individual needs as the major factor in labelling any child with SEND? So far, this section has raised many questions, with few answers, but with the pandemic behind us, it is time for Government and schools to make more determined efforts to reduce the gap between SEND and non-​SEND. Can we now rise to the challenge and enable all children to succeed? This chapter has raised a number of issues, namely: • accurate identification: drilling down to uncover individual needs and unique learner characteristics. • high aspirations: clearly more pupils with SEND can achieve expected levels. • effective staff training, perhaps with outreach from special schools. • consistency/​moderation between schools with similar intakes. • a more graduated response that does not seek to identify SEN until other strategies have been explored. • early identification for those children who definitely do have SEN. • the male issue: why should more boys have SEN? • disadvantage: why should poverty be linked to a diagnosis of SEN? • inclusion: more effective differentiation. • more effective involvement of parents/​carers: co-​production of plans. • placing well-​being and self-​esteem at the heart of teaching and learning. Modern society needs to challenge many false assumptions upon which philosophy for SEND has been based. The report ‘Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES 2003b) still applies; summarising a common aim that, ‘our education system must not write off any child through low expectations’, and reminding us that, ‘children learn better when they are excited and engaged… through excellent teaching, which challenges them…’ It’s all about needs, so would dispensing with SEN labels allow schools to see below the surface and explore more fully what children CAN do? Which children can do better, and how can SENCOs work with other staff to make it happen?

Summary This chapter has explored the concept of SEND as the foundation for success. SEND achievement relies on all staff fully understanding the meaning of the term. Effective teaching and learning for all stems from a sound, healthy philosophy. Changed perceptions invite all schools to search beyond mere labels, in an effort to raise attainment for EVERY individual learner with SEND.

2 SEN Code of Practice

This chapter: • introduces the SEN Code of Practice as the document to which all schools and public bodies must ‘have regard’. • examines the relationship between categories of SEN and broader areas of need, as defined in the Code. • explores the Code’s requirement for a graduated response to meeting all needs. • considers the value of flexible, personalised approaches for learners who need them.

What is the SEN Code of Practice? The SEN Code of Practice (DfE/​DH 2015) sets out duties for Local Authorities, schools and education professionals to identify, assess and make provision for children and young people. Having regard to the Code remains the foundation of the SEND system, reflects the Children and Families Act (DfE 2014a) and underpins what schools and professional bodies must do. This Code: applies to young people with SEND up to age 25. links SEN with disability –​as SEND. places renewed focus on high aspirations and improved outcomes. stresses multi-​agency working: between education, health and social care services. offers guidance on the graduated approach to managing SEND –​combining high quality teaching with SEN Support and interventions. • stresses the importance of pupil voice and independence. • emphasises the crucial role of parents/​carers as ‘co-​producers’. • emphasises successful transition into adulthood for all those with SEND. • • • • •

The implications are for a more rigorous approach to managing the SEND system. The Code states that pupils: • have SEN… if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made. • have a disability that prevents them from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools. Such provision is described as education or training that is ‘additional to, or different from’ that made generally available. Ofsted look closely at how schools’ policies and practices reflect this updated Code. The Government’s SEND consultation green paper (DfE 2022) recognises that there is still some way to go, for the bullet points listed above to be fully achieved: notably lack of multi-​ agency working, parental ‘co-​production’ and transition into adulthood. Following this consultation, it is highly likely the Code’s legislation will be further tightened to ensure that its key messages and requirements are understood and adhered to consistently by all LAs, schools and settings. The SEND Review consultation is discussed more fully in the conclusion, together with my ‘field research’ responses.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-4

16  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

From SEN labels to broad areas of need The Code emphasises individuality: to avoid placing pupils into categories without due consideration of each person’s unique range of needs. Reflecting on SEN as needs invites schools to delve deeply into what makes each pupil with learning difficulties ‘tick’ –​to avoid placing children into labelled boxes. Such a focus also invites teachers to look closely at the learning environment, in order to match classroom activities more closely to the needs of individuals with SEND. The 2015 Code continues to identify four broad areas of need that loosely relate to SEN categories: summarised in Table 2.1. Table 2.1  Broad areas of need and likely SEN types BROAD AREAS OF NEED

TYPES OF SEN MOST LIKELY TO APPLY

Communication and interaction

ASC (ASD), SLCN, SEMH, SLD, PMLD

Cognition and learning

PMLD, SLD, MLD (generalised learning difficulties) SpLD (specific learning difficulties)

Social, emotional and mental health

SEMH, ASC, SLCN

Sensory and/​or physical

HI, VI, PD, PMLD

Categories of SEND overlap into each broad area. Medical needs add further complexity. Cognition and learning can subsume four types –​generalised or specific. The broad area of ‘communication and interaction’ can include five; while ‘social, emotional and mental health’ also crosses over. Identifying four broad areas avoids ‘SEN boxes’ and focuses learning more on individual needs. The difference between categories of SEN and broad areas of need invites SENCOs and class teachers to consider together: • what should high quality teaching (HQT) look like to observers, and feel like for children with SEND experiencing it? • how can SEN Support cater effectively for children whose type of SEN matches more than one broad area of need?

The Code’s Graduated Response The 2015 Code, having merged previous School Action and School Action Plus, still requires graduated levels of response for all children requiring SEN Support.

Targeted classroom intervention The Code stresses that the first response to children who fall behind is high quality teaching targeted at areas of weakness. Short-​term strategies need to be tried first, perhaps to deal with temporary blips caused by such factors as bullying or bereavement that can cause progress to falter. Difficulties with spoken language caused by social disadvantage or ethnicity do not necessarily qualify as SEN. Sensitive solutions to problems often rule out SEN. The onus is on teachers and TAs to observe and monitor children who become a cause for concern, who may be withdrawn, are behaving differently, or whose attendance becomes erratic. Parents must be involved in this initial problem-​solving, and concerns need to be taken seriously until the possibility of SEN can be either eliminated or confirmed.

Moving to SEN Support Where progress remains slower than expected, despite targeted problem-​solving, evidence needs to be gathered from: • samples of work –​writing, spelling, maths. • reading records and notes.

SEN Code of Practice  17 

• teacher’s records. • TA notes/​observations. • observations of parents. Such evidence might be compared with average expectations to clarify the achievement gap. Parents must also be involved in evidence-​gathering. If it is decided jointly to place a child on SEN Support, parents must be clear about what this means for their child. Placing any child onto SEN Support is not a step to be taken lightly. Not only does this signify a move onto the SEND system, under the protection of the Code of Practice, it risks assigning to that child a label, possibly for life. So, it is worth ensuring that children placed on SEN Support are on the register for good reasons –​that their learning difficulties could not have been addressed differently.

Flexibility, challenge and personalisation The Code’s graduated response represents the stages that children progress through on the way to having their needs fully met (expanded in later chapters). As part of the graduated response, we have considered how SEN categories relate to four broad areas of need. The Code’s graduated response applies to every child in the SEND system. The needs stated on an EHCP represent a total description of what a child receives –​from HQT, SEN Support and LA top-​up. That long-​standing achievement gap between SEND and non-​SEND proves that systems alone are not enough, being neither flexible, nor uniquely personal. They may ignore key elements of personality and characteristics that mark the difference between failure and success. The diverse characteristics of children with SEND may be quirky, alternative and ‘out of the box’, but may hold the key to unlock success. So how might personalisation work? Learning for most pupils combines explicit with implicit experiences, especially within self-​help and social contexts. Social learning is implicitly absorbed from environmental experiences. For some children with SEND, such learning may need to be explicit. For example, most learners know to wait in a lunch queue by watching others, but a child with autism may need to be taught explicitly. Similarly, to ‘work without an adult for 10 minutes’ is not something most children need as a target, but one with ADHD may. These types of targets can make a huge difference to the achievements of learners with SEND, referred to as ‘additional to and different from’ (ATDF) what is normally delivered. Table 2.2 offers examples of how targets might be generated from diverse needs. From my experience, many personal plans have neglected ATDF needs such as self-​help, independence and social skills, yet these highly personalised areas can act as barriers. ATDF targets demand flexibility. In order to gain and keep learners’ motivation, such pupils need to know that schools are willing to bend in their direction part of the time. Two-​way flexibility is a crucial part of what separates previous integration from present-​day inclusion. The Code reassures schools that high quality teaching, sufficiently differentiated and personalised, works effectively for the majority, with only a tiny few needing significantly different ATDF approaches. Table 2.2  Linking SEN and broad areas of need with ATDF approaches Type of SEN

Broad area of need

Examples of ATDF targets

ASC

Communication and interaction

To wait in the lunch queue To relate personal news to peer To put up hand and wait for adult response

ADHD

Communication and interaction Social, emotional and mental health

To focus on task independently for 5 minutes To do 10 sums without help

DYSLEXIA

Specific cognitive learning difficulties

To select appropriate writing scaffold To build spellings from known syllables To recognise own spelling needs

SEMH

Social, emotional and mental health

To manage anger through agreed strategies To use ‘time out’ appropriately (continued)

18  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

Table 2.2  Cont. Type of SEN

Broad area of need

Examples of ATDF targets

SLD

Severe cognitive learning difficulties

To move around classrooms independently To write a simple sentence from a model To ask for help when needed

SLCN

Communication and interaction

To describe objects using words of size and colour To ask questions in class

ATDF targets often complement and support the more detailed ‘how’ of personal plans. The third element of this section is about challenge. Consider three levels: • Historical: Too easy. The pupil achieves all targets but has learned nothing new. Historical targets represent ‘stand-​still’. Easy targets may be appropriate as a temporary measure to nurture a learner’s confidence, prior to raising the bar gradually. • Challenging: Just right. Enough challenge for the learner to reach up and touch success with a reasonable amount of independence, showing steady progression. • Idealistic: Too high for the learner to reach without support from adults. Idealistic targets nurture self-​perceived failure and can impact negatively on personal plans if a child must continually repeat them. Getting challenges ‘just right’ comes from knowing each learner’s needs thoroughly. The graduated response may be thought of as ‘mild, moderate or severe’. At the milder end of the continuum, SEN Support may be targeted help in class only. Others may need small group intervention. Towards the severe end, individual interventions may be added, with support from external specialists. Some pupils will be assessed for an EHCP. The notion of ‘fewer and fewer’, illustrated in Figure 2.1, works from the bottom up, the major focus being on HQT that benefits as many learners as possible –​so that fewer need SEN Support –​fewer still need an EHCP, or personalised ATDF targets. Personalised A T DF EHC P complex EHC P severe SE N S u p p o rt - moderate/severe SE N S u p p o rt - mild/moderate HQ T - Targeting mild areas of weakness High quality classroom teaching: differentiated, fully inclusive for all

Figure 2.1  The ideal shape of SEN intervention.

The Code aims to make schools more effective in enabling ALL children to succeed. Every school is somewhere along the journey that began with integration failure –​but is evolving into inclusion success.

Summary This chapter has emphasised the SEN Code of Practice as the basis of a consistent approach to meeting all additional needs and closing the attainment gap. The Code reminds us that SEND is all about needs at individual levels, and the graduated response recognises the challenge of huge diversity in today’s classrooms. The section on personalisation reminds readers that needs also reflect the individual behind any SEND label.

3 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

The relationship between SEN and disability has been problematic, partly because the distinction between ‘disabled’ and ‘non-​disabled’ remains unclear. This chapter: • • • • •

explores implications of the Equality Act. clarifies the term ‘disability’. considers links between SEN and disability. offers examples of reasonable adjustments for disability. provides advice on accessibility planning.

The Equality Act The Equality Act (DfE 2014b) contains advice for school leaders, staff, governors and SENCOs, in meeting the needs of disabled pupils (who may also have SEN). The Act sets out legal obligations for schools and colleges in terms of admission, educational provision and exclusions. They: • • • • • •

must not, directly or indirectly, discriminate against disabled pupils. must make reasonable adjustments to include disabled pupils in activities. should take anticipatory action to prevent disadvantage. must promote equality of opportunity. must make reasonable adjustments to procedures/​practices. must publish arrangements for increased access for disabled pupils, in terms of curriculum, physical environment and information.

To comply with the Act, duties are two-​fold: • General: to promote equality as part of everyday activities. • Specific: to publish accessibility plans that explain how general duties are achieved. The Act does not justify failure to put reasonable adjustments in place. LAs and schools must provide auxiliary aids and services as reasonable adjustments, where these are not provided by EHCPs. The Act carries an assumption that auxiliary aids must be provided by one of the services involved in a child’s EHCP. These are ‘things’ or ‘persons’ which help disabled learners achieve; for example, hearing loops, adapted computer keyboards or special software. Items for everyday living, such as hearing aids, are not classed as auxiliary aids because they are not part of any ‘reasonable adjustment’ to help pupils achieve. A key test is ‘reasonableness’. Yet the Act does not set out precisely what is reasonable. The Act offers protection for disabled people against being treated less favourably and encourages institutions to treat disabled people more favourably where appropriate, as the reasonable adjustments that will place disabled pupils on an equal footing with non-​disabled. Schools are expected to make reasonable changes to their practices so that disabled pupils can benefit from what is on offer to the same extent as non-​disabled. This implies that, in order to treat pupils equally, some may need to be treated differently. Phrases such as ‘equal footing’ and ‘to the same extent’ may help SENCOs to think outside the box, to find opportunities for all pupils to learn as equally as is reasonably possible. Table 3.1 applies general duties to aspects of school life.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-5

20  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

Table 3.1  General duties and school life GENERAL DUTIES

ASPECTS OF SCHOOL LIFE

Promote equality of opportunity Eliminate unlawful discrimination Eliminate harassment of disabled people Promote positive attitudes to disability Encourage participation for disabled pupils Take steps to meet the needs of disabled pupils even where this requires more favourable treatment

Access to lessons Bullying in school or playground (DfE 2014f) School trips Administration of medicines Exclusions Admissions Lunchtime supervision and lunch clubs Before or after-​school activities and clubs

This does not mean that all learners must be enabled to achieve the same outcomes, within the same timescales. Equal treatment through reasonable adjustment means enabling all learners to achieve personal best. This is how Ofsted and other stakeholders will view schools’ efforts; which is why it is important to know what each child’s personal best is, to judge success against the reasonable adjustments made. The Act distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination refers to general duties not to discriminate. Schools can easily overlook discrimination that is indirect, for example, changing a practice that applies to all, which ends up having an inadvertent, adverse effect on the disabled. Schools must guard against doing anything that places disabled pupils at a disadvantage. Aiming High for disabled children highlighted a major transformation (DCSF/​DH 2008), based on the vision that families with disabled children should have support to live as ordinarily as possible, with three priorities: • Access and empowerment. • Responsive services, offering timely support. • Improving quality and capacity. The Equality Act seeks to move all institutions towards this vision.

How is disability defined? The Act describes disability as a physical or mental impairment which has a long-​term and substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-​to-​day activities. Key phrases: • Long-​term –​a year or more. • Substantial –​more than minor or trivial. • Adverse effect on daily activities. ‘Disability’ can include physical or sensory impairments and learning difficulties linked to SEN. While physical or sensory disabilities are often straightforward to assess, there is no distinct cut-​off point for mental impairment. The distinction between disabled and non-​disabled can be one of degree. The Act also specifies some health conditions, such as asthma, cancer, diabetes or epilepsy, as likely disabilities. Some parents and learners feel uncomfortable with the label of disability, while others see it as a means of getting needs met within the protection of the Act. Schools should never identify a child as disabled without agreement from parents. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations offer information (DfE 2014g).

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)  21 

Links between disability and SEN There is significant overlap between pupils who may be covered by the Equality Act and those who have SEN as defined in the Code. Disability does not depend on official diagnosis in the way that SEN often does. What is ‘substantial’, or how much of an ‘adverse effect’ a condition has, is not so defined. Not all children who have SEN are disabled and not all children who are disabled have SEN. Some learners have both. Table 3.2 suggests possible examples of overlap. Table 3.2  Possible overlap between SEN and disability SEN only

SEN with disability

Disability only

Mild dyslexia Mild learning difficulties Mild behaviour difficulties Language delay

Significant dyspraxia Severe dyslexia Severe autism Severe learning difficulties Visual impairment ADHD

Asthma Physical difficulty Short stature Diabetes

If SEN is a question of degree, so too is disability; which brings us back to mild, moderate or severe. A child may have a heart condition and be on medication, but learning is not affected. A child may break a leg, rendering them temporarily disabled, but learning is not affected. A pupil may be unable to write by hand and need a computer, but learning is unaffected. The questions are whether: • a disability affects learning, requiring special educational provision under the Code. • a disability meets the three criteria (substantial, adverse effect, long-​term), thus requiring reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Table 3.3 further exemplifies possible overlap between disability and SEN, in terms of the Code. No rules govern schools’ graduated responses, as each child is different. Table 3.3  Disability and the Code’s graduated response SEN –​Code response

Disability?

Examples of difficulties

Targeted classroom differentiation

Highly unlikely

Slight reading delay Mild difficulties with numeracy Difficulties focusing on tasks

SEN Support without external specialist

Still unlikely, but may develop

Mild learning or behaviour difficulties

SEN Support with external specialist

Far more likely

Diagnosed ADHD, SEMH, Hearing impairment, moderate dyspraxia, SLCN

EHCP

Almost certainly

Severe learning difficulties Profound and multiple learning difficulties Severe autism

The links between SEN Code responses and disability, as mild, moderate or severe, are tentative. If in doubt, while never labelling a child as disabled without parental agreement, a school would do well to make reasonable adjustments anyway as part of their inclusion arrangements. Table 3.4 offers some case studies to help SENCOs think their way through these links between disability and the Code. Questions for SENCOs: • How is SEN and disability recorded? • How are learning expectations and aspirations influenced by a perceived disability? • How does the relationship between SEN and disability guide additional intervention?

22  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

Table 3.4  Case studies linking SEN with disability Michael, Year 9, has an EHCP for SLD. He has limited vocabulary and struggles to communicate verbally. Learning is severely delayed. Michael also has medical problems that affect his school day. He is disabled because his difficulties are substantial, long-​term and have an adverse effect on his daily living. Jeremy, Year 4, has severe autism. He struggles with language and communication and cannot work within a group. He receives SEN Support, with an external specialist. He has no health or social care issues, but his SEN difficulties meet the three disability criteria. Seema, Year 2, receives SEN Support, but without an external specialist. She is mildly delayed in most areas of learning but is expected to catch up. She is not regarded as disabled. Elise, Year 10, is a wheelchair user, having fallen from a tree at the age of 11. She has achieved above-​average learning expectations prior to, and since, her accident and wishes to study law. She has no learning difficulties that require a Code response. Her disability requires only reasonable adjustments to enable full access to the curriculum. Nathan, Year 4, has an EHCP. He has ADHD, moderate learning difficulties and physical difficulties. He walks with a limp but cannot run or play physical games. He requires special dentistry and attends the hospital for leg operations. Nathan receives the SEN Code response plus reasonable adjustments for disability. Isobel, Year 6, has mild vocabulary and language difficulties. She received speech and language therapy earlier in her schooling but is now discharged. She receives SEN Support, without any external specialist, and has made good progress. She is not regarded as disabled.

Reasonable adjustments Reasonable adjustments are not that different from SEN responses. The purpose of both is to place pupils on an equal footing, or as near as possible, with peers who need neither. Depending on circumstances, the strategies in Table 3.5 could represent Code responses, reasonable adjustments, or both. Schools can be reassured that they are highly likely to be covering both legislative areas: the Code and Equality Act. Table 3.5  SEN response or reasonable adjustment? ACCESS: Removing barriers to learning opportunities: • Simplifying instructions and explanations. • More time for pupils to complete work. • Moving a child to the front of the class. • Pre-​teaching ‘tricky’ words, enabling a child to access a reading book. • A personal mat for a child who struggles to sit and listen ‘on the carpet’. • Visual timetable for a pupil with autism. • Social stories for pupil with autism. • Showing pupils with poor memories how to take notes effectively. • Providing scaffolds and models for writing. DIVERSITY: Accommodating different learning styles: • Allowing pupils with writing difficulties to demonstrate learning by other means. • Visual/​kinaesthetic teaching approaches for pupils who find auditory learning difficult. • Being flexible with discipline policies for pupils who struggle to conform. CHALLENGE: Making learning objectives and activities appropriate for each learner: • Backtracking through literacy or numeracy frameworks. • Making challenges deliberately and temporarily easy to promote independence. SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS: • Homework written out by TA for pupil who cannot copy it down. • Computer for child with significant writing difficulties. • Individual workstation for pupils with autism. • Group or individual work with a TA.

Behavioural difficulties come under the Equality Act if they relate to an underlying impairment and might be regarded as SEN if severe. Consider the following: • A child’s parents have split up, causing emotional trauma and disruptive behaviour. • A pupil throws his book across the classroom during a tantrum.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)  23 

• A young person hits a teacher or a peer. • A child refuses to write. The child who refuses to write could have dyslexia. The child whose parents have split up may be only affected temporarily. Each individual circumstance affects the decision: SEN, disability or both? Exclusions for children with SEN/​disabilities are problematic. Only in exceptional circumstances should any pupil with an EHCP be excluded. Schools should also avoid excluding a child with SEND but without an EHCP. Schools could seek advice from a behaviour specialist long before behaviour escalates to the point of possible exclusion. Where exclusion is imminent, questions might include: is the pupil covered by the Equality Act? is the exclusion linked to the pupil’s disability? If yes, try to avoid it. would a pupil who is not disabled be excluded for the same behaviour? has everything possible been done, through SEN Support or by reasonable adjustments, to address the behaviour? • does the exclusion show less favourable treatment? • • • •

If reasonable adjustments have been made, and explicit training given to the pupil on how to conform, yet the behaviour has been continued, exclusion may be justified. Difficulties arise in cases of severe ADHD, autism and other behavioural disorders. The document, ‘Mental Health and Behaviour in Schools’ (DfE 2015a) offers support.

Accessibility planning The Equality Act requires schools and post-​16 institutions to examine the impact of all policies on disabled pupils/​students; for example, PE, bullying, SEN, behaviour, after-​school clubs and safeguarding. The plan should involve all staff, learners with SEN and/​or disabilities, parents, disabled people in the community, where appropriate, and be reviewed annually by Governors. Areas to consider: • Improving the physical environment –​adaptations for access, justifiable reasons why areas cannot be made accessible, or future intentions to make them more accessible. • How information is made available to meet disabled needs: brochures, emails. • How disabled learners are given complete access to the learning curriculum. The Accessibility Plan may have targets, strategies and outcomes with short, medium or longer-​ term timeframes. The key question –​in which of these areas does our school need to improve? Where a school may not have relevant expertise to answer this key question, a specialist may need to be consulted. There should be encouragement for disabled pupils to raise access issues with the school; they too are specialists of a kind, and such involvement does much to encourage independence. The process may happen in stages: an audit of disability needs (learners, staff and parents) –​ involve different groups in writing the plan –​implement and report on its impact –​adapt the plan accordingly. Involved groups might include: • learners across the age and disability spectrum. • staff with disabilities. • parents with learning or physical difficulties, who might review the information sent out, timing of reviews, how well reasonable adjustments work for their child, homework or policies that affect disabled pupils. • external specialists covering the range of difficulties. • community organisations that support a range of disabilities.

24  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

An approach that reassures people that disability does not equate to incapability could be the starting point. Once people are reassured that the intention is to improve the achievement of children with disabilities by placing them on an equal footing, contributors will feel less threatened. The plan needs to be handled with sensitivity and transparency, focusing on needs –​not labels. Learners might be approached via the School Council, PHSE, or discussions on diversity and difference. Involving all pupils in policies that affect the disabled could form part of English lessons. Talking about disability helps to normalise it by shifting outdated attitudes; further promoting high expectations for disabled learners. Staff might be approached through staff meetings or questionnaires. Parental involvement may stem from information collected on admission, or from parents’ meetings. The accessibility plan also impacts on pupils who are carers. Reasonable adjustments might include understanding lateness due to caring responsibilities, more relaxed homework arrangements or information in more accessible form. To deal with the data that emerges, schools might: • • • • •

sort into categories of disability. analyse issues and draw conclusions based on which suggestions have relevant substance. consider which changes require a fresh look at funding –​or merely creative thinking. consider which can be achieved immediately or require time. consider which can be achieved internally or need specialist intervention.

Involving a range of people in the accessibility plan could have other positive spin-​offs; pupils without disabilities might be encouraged, through understanding, to show greater sensitivity, bullying might be reduced and the whole school could become a more caring community. Involving staff, parents and learners in writing the plan could be a rewarding experience, bringing much enthusiasm into the task of genuine problem-​solving, and supporting citizenship. Some learners may need help to be involved: such as an adult coach for the pupil group, training on how to observe teaching, or on how to report their findings. Table 3.6 offers insights into using pupil case studies to inform accessibility plans. Table 3.6  Case studies to inform accessibility planning Identifying needs: • What needs arise from the case study? • Is the disability also a SEN (as SEND)? • If SEND, at which stage of the graduated response is this pupil? • Has every possible reasonable adjustment been identified? Provision: • What part does targeted differentiation play in addressing this pupil’s needs? • What additional interventions/​reasonable adjustments are provided, and how do these complement the targeted intervention? • What does the EHCP (if applicable) offer for education, health and social care? • How do all three services work together to support outcomes? How compatible and seamless are they? Progression/​achievement: • What is the attainment potential of this learner? • Are expectations/​aspirations high, and shared with relevant staff, parents and pupils? • Is progress in line with attainment potential? Outcomes met? If not, why, and which level of support has not worked effectively? • What else should this pupil have achieved alongside measured attainment? • Has this pupil been motivated to achieve? • What evidence supports the evaluation?

The Equality Act aims towards fairness, in which disabled pupils are offered the same life chances as non-​disabled. Lamb (DCSF 2009b) reported, ‘there is more work to be done in raising awareness… strengthening… of schools’ SEN duties’. Thirteen years on, the journey is far from over.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)  25 

Evaluating the Equality Plan and general duties Ofsted places a limiting judgement on schools’ effectiveness in providing equality of opportunity, and how schools deal with bullying and harassment. ‘Bullying Involving Children with SEN and Disabilities’ contains helpful strategies (DCSF 2008a), and advice on tackling bullying in general is available (DfE 2014f). Table 3.7 offers a checklist for evaluation. Table 3.7  Evaluating the Plan Process • How transparent is the Plan for staff, parents and learners? • When is it due for review? • Who is in charge? Content: Does the plan: • make clear the school’s vision and values? • show how a range of people have been involved in drafting it? • identify disabled groups for whom the Plan needs to be actioned, and who is responsible? • contain equality objectives that reflect identified needs or underachievement, e.g., to reduce exclusions of ethnic minority groups, raise results in English for boys or narrow the achievement gap for particular disability types? • state how the school will assess its impact on disability-​related policies and practices –​bullying, behaviour, exclusion? • identify priorities for action in terms of equality of opportunity? • promote positive attitudes towards disability? • encourage full participation of disabled pupils in school life? • reflect high quality inclusive principles? • involve relevant external specialists in staff training? Evaluation: Are there arrangements to: • monitor the participation of disabled pupils in activities? • record achievements of disabled learners? • take immediate action where underachievement is observed? • act on incidents that do not comply with the vision/​ethos of the Plan? • include disabled people in its ongoing development, with regular feedback?

The Plan should also anticipate future admissions. Because a school may not currently have a child with physical difficulties, does not mean it never will. Schools must be ready to meet all needs, by taking a strategic and wider view of disability. While this may appear daunting for SENCOs, responsibilities do not sit on only one shoulder. Both disability and SEN require a whole-​school response. The Accessibility Plan could form part of the whole-​school development plan. Unfortunately, it seems that Accessibility Plans are not living up to expectations. The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE 2020) reports that many are not working satisfactorily. Parents with disabled children report, amongst other shortcomings, that: • plans do not contain enough information. • parents are not involved enough in writing them. • they feel let down. The report states that some parents feel more inclined to choose special schooling for their disabled child. So, do mainstream schools need to do more to make pupils with disabilities feel welcome? For pupils with SEND, it is highly likely that where the school delivers a highly effective Code response, it conforms to the Equality Act. Improved outcomes do not always need additional funding. Nor do responses to needs always require additional adults. Responses to challenges start with: • • • • • • •

being flexible with applied policies and practices. thinking outside the box to find solutions. removing barriers and striving for success. involving SEND learners in personal problem-​solving. teaching all learners to be independent. high aspirations that separate disability from incapability. an ‘I can’ approach.

26  Identifying the needs of learners with SEND

Involving disabled people in responding to their challenges enables greater insight for all. I once volunteered to assist a visually impaired young man doing an OU Degree, spending a week at Warwick University, as his ‘accessibility’ adult. As I guided him around the campus, took his lecture notes and so on, I learned many things: that he could not judge the fullness of his cup when pouring coffee. Nor could he judge the depth of a kerb. I had to tell him as we approached so that he would not over-​balance. During that interesting week, I felt privileged to gain a tiny insight into that person’s disability challenges. Gaining insight into disability is the way forward for schools and society.

Summary This chapter has explored essential links between SEN and disability, with circumstances in which a child’s SEN may become ‘SEND’, or vice versa. Overlap between the Code’s graduated response and ‘reasonable adjustments’ required by the Equality Act have implications for all schools and settings, including post-​16. This chapter has also offered guidance on accessibility planning to ensure that the needs of every disabled learner are fully addressed.

Part 2

Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

4 Inclusion Access, challenges, barriers

Part 1 has explored learners with SEND, in terms of who they are and how best to identify needs through the Code of Practice and/​or the Equality Act. Part 2 explores provision, starting with inclusion as the foundation for success. This chapter: • • • •

introduces four key factors that underpin successful inclusion for all. analyses distinctions between integration and present-​day inclusion. considers what ‘inclusion’ looks like as policy and practice. further considers personalisation as an essential element of inclusion.

What is inclusion? Education has moved far from original attempts to place children with SEND in mainstream, based on the naive assumption that merely being there would enable success. Experience has proved otherwise. Where are schools now on this journey towards the kind of inclusion that benefits every child in mainstream –​given the still-​lingering attainment gap between SEND and non-​SEND? Inclusion is about rights. How far is the right to be educated in mainstream matched by the equal right to be educated in a school that best meets needs? Mainstream is not always compatible. Special schools will always be needed for pupils with the most severe SEND. One positive outcome of inclusion is that almost all children with MLD are now educated in mainstream, but has mainstream culture and curriculum enabled all these children to achieve their potential? The attainment gap suggests not. SENCOs are at the forefront of this achievement dilemma. They lead the journey and take much of the responsibility. Having been a SENCO, I understand the complexities and responsibilities. With regard to their school’s inclusion, SENCOs might consider: • • • • •

how far are we along the inclusion journey? what implications are there for policies/​practices? what are the characteristics of inclusion? Does our school match up? what does inclusion look like in our classrooms? what should inclusion look like for learners and parents –​does our school represent a satisfying picture?

Inclusion, as a social construct, could involve four Ps: • • • •

Place –​special or mainstream. Policy –​from Government, down to LAs and schools. Practice –​as inclusive teaching and learning. Personalisation –​all pupils benefiting from their experiences and opportunities.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-7

30  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Inclusion as a sense of place Table 4.1 identifies differences between integration and inclusion, illustrating why place alone could never enable pupils with SEND to succeed in mainstream. Table 4.1  From integration to inclusion INTEGRATION

INCLUSION

Pupils expected to fit in with the existing culture and curriculum of mainstream

Culture and curriculum adapted to meet all needs

Pupils with SEND were the responsibility of specialists

All teachers, of every age group or subject, are teachers of SEND

Withdrawal from classroom participation was a common feature of curriculum delivery

High quality classroom teaching for all is the ultimate aim

Areas of a child’s life that impacted negatively on achievement were not the responsibility of educationalists

Well-​being is at the forefront of learning, with education, health and social care professionals working together

Parents were neither expected, nor supported, to influence educational outcomes for their children

Parent partnership is recognised as the essential key to achievement for learners with SEND

Pupils were not involved, or expected to take responsibility for their own learning

Pupils are at the centre of learning, influencing the style and content of teaching. Self-​responsibility is a major goal for SEND learners

Labels, low expectations and stereotypical judgements stifled achievement and aspiration for learners with SEND

Enlightenment –​high aspirations and expectations guide individual success

Less emphasis on individuality –​SEN often regarded as a homogenous group

Personalisation and individuality recognised as key factors in the high achievement of SEND learners

During the 1980s, my role was to support the changed intake of pupils with SEN into mainstream schools; one, an ex-​grammar. Many staff were overwhelmed by what they regarded as children who should not be there –​and not knowing how to teach pupils below ‘grammar school’ standard. So, changing culture had to happen first before changes in policy and curricular practice could be attempted; a reminder that place represents a sense of belonging for all learners.

Inclusion as whole-​school policy For inclusion to mean ‘success for all’, every member of staff, including non-​teaching, must subscribe. The spirit of inclusion that leads to culture change filters down from management, as policy and practice inform and reflect each other. Key indicators: • A mission statement that expresses unconditional acceptance of all learners whose needs can realistically be met in mainstream. • Policies that embody the mission statement. • Local mainstream and special schools working together: outreach support and dual placement or training for mainstream staff. • Every aspect of the curriculum promotes participation and achievement for all. • All staff on the same wavelength regarding inclusion and striving to achieve it. • Diversity and difference embraced as a school’s strength. • Use of combined budgets reflecting inclusive principles. Ofsted (2009b) identified key features of 12 ‘outstanding’ secondary schools, noting that even in challenging circumstances, these schools were highly inclusive. For every student, the school had high regard for: • educational progress –​seeking the best outcomes. • personal development –​the importance of independence and self-​responsibility. • well-​being –​recognising that positive emotions underpin effective learning.

Inclusion: access, challenges, barriers  31 

Other common features contributed to success: • • • • • • • •

Proving constantly that disadvantage need not limit achievement. Putting students first. Strong values and high expectations. Fulfilment of individual potential through outstanding teaching, rich opportunities and well-​ targeted support. Carefully implemented strategies for removing barriers. A high degree of internal consistency. Striving towards further improvement. Outstanding and well-​distributed leadership.

What is well-​distributed leadership? Is this management that permeates all levels of policy and practice? Is it effective delegation that stretches into classrooms? Do leaders ‘walk the job’ and use observations to improve policy? SENCOs, being part of the management team, are in a good position to ‘walk their job’ for SEND learners. Whole-​school inclusion challenges staff to identify vulnerable groups, some of whom may have SEND, for example, pupils who: • • • • • • • • •

have English as their second language. have learning difficulties that require SEN provision. have disabilities that require reasonable adjustments. need help to develop social and emotional skills. are looked after by the LA. are from travelling communities. are financially disadvantaged. are young carers. are particularly gifted and talented.

The schools rated ‘outstanding’ paid much attention to well-​being, inviting questions: How can sociological factors be compensated for? And how can schools eliminate disadvantage as a justifiable reason for poor attainment? Ofsted (2014) reported that in 13 LAs, learners had a less than 50% chance of attending a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ secondary school. What might be deduced? Is the proportion of ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ secondaries in these authorities less than 50%? Which of the above factors are missing? To be ‘outstanding’, practice must reflect the highest expectations of staff and the highest aspirations of all learners, including the most able, disabled, and those with SEN. Schools must be consistent, with all staff marching towards agreed inclusion goals. ‘Achievement for All’ (AfA 2009) was based around whole-​school inclusion. The original project involved ten LAs, pupils in Years 1,5,7,10, including those with SEND. Supported by Lamb (DCSF 2009b) the project involved conversations with parents/​carers to share achievement aspirations, and challenged schools to: • build structured, aspirational parental conversations into staff roles. • make these conversations compatible with reviews. AfA invited schools to consider the following issues for whole-​school inclusion: VISION: • To what extent is there a shared vision of high expectations/​aspirations for all –​spread amongst all staff? • How do pupils and parents support this vision? COMMITMENT: • How extensive is whole-​school commitment towards this challenge? • How relentlessly is progress for pupils with SEND assessed/​monitored? • How well is the culture of inclusion embedded?

32  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

COLLABORATION: • How do external specialists affect SEND outcomes? Evidence? • How do parents collaborate in their child’s learning and school policy? • How do SEND pupils engage in policy-​making that affects them? COMMUNICATION: • How effectively do staff share ideas and expertise? • What safeguarding systems are in place for vulnerable children? • What opportunities are there for aspirational conversations with parents and pupils? • How are SEND (and other) pupils involved in decision-​making? AfA as a charity no longer operates, but the above questions continue to apply as schools search for the success that stems from –​aspiration, access and achievement. So, is ‘aspiration’ the essential starting point from which policy and practice follow? SENCOs play a huge part in helping to place vulnerable pupils on an equal footing. The job has expanded beyond previous recognition and involves collaboration with managers of other vulnerable groups. The inclusion policy must clarify which staff work together to reflect it in practice.

Inclusion in practice ‘Leading on Inclusion’ (DfES 2005a) identified three criteria as touchstones for debate: presence, participation and achievement. Table 4.2, adapted from small-​step assessment, considers how these might be identified in mainstream classrooms. Table 4.2  Recognising presence, participation and achievement PRESENCE: Pupils are present but may only encounter things. They may show awareness of what is happening but respond only in a basic manner. There is no significant learning from the experience and no change for the pupil as a result of being in the lesson. PARTICIPATION: Pupils are not only present, but use skills of listening, speaking and working in groups. They engage and may feel involved by striving to join in, even if learning is minimal. Some small change has taken place, but with little usable understanding of the ideas and concepts. GAINING SKILLS AND UNDERSTANDING TOWARDS ACHIEVEMENT: Pupils understand what the lesson is about and are fully included. They gain skills and knowledge to transfer into other areas of learning –​social skills, literacy and numeracy. Achievement from the content of the lesson is clearly demonstrated. Change has taken place.

These criteria reflect use of the ‘engagement model’ (expanded in Chapter 7) now used to assess achievement of pupils with significant learning difficulties. Pupils can be present in classrooms without any learning outcome –​but if no bridge connects participation with achievement, what is the point? These criteria suggest there should be recognisable change from classroom experience. Consider: 1. a Year 8 student with SLD is supported in Maths by a TA who tries to interpret the teacher’s explanation of algebraic equations –​without success. The challenge is too high. This pupil does not interact with peers. His ‘group’ consists of himself and the TA. No change –​no learning. 2. a child with visual impairment needs materials in enlarged font, but in some lessons, this is not provided, so the child cannot participate. 3. a pupil with autism sits outside the classroom. Occasionally, a TA checks that he is copying spellings correctly –​with no focus on learning, and no participation. 4. objectives in science are to observe/​report chemical changes. Some pupils with SEND observe the changes but cannot report them in writing, so they draw them, or describe to a TA. There is some recognisable change from this lesson. 5. as part of a WW2 topic, groups debate whether or not life in Nazi Germany was better or worse than before Hitler. Despite valiant efforts by the TA, one pupil does not understand the language, cannot join in –​and recalls nothing. No change! No learning! Much frustration!

Inclusion: access, challenges, barriers  33 

Schools need to question whether inclusion means pupils should be in class lessons 100%, even if challenges are unreachable. Not all lessons can be made accessible. If presence, participation and achievement are sound criteria by which to judge effective inclusion –​what needs to happen? If occasionally, lessons are seen as a waste of time for certain pupils, is participation in something else a better option? All pupils need opportunities to demonstrate what they CAN do –​rather than what they cannot. Does presence alone also encourage pupils to accept misunderstandings as normal, rather than being encouraged to recognise and deal with confusions –​limiting independence? Inclusion at class level is a major challenge: multi-​tasking at its extreme. Chapter 5 explores further the flexible relationship between inclusion and HQT.

Inclusion as personal experience Chapter 2 briefly explored personalisation as individual quirks of character. For many pupils, is personalisation icing on the cake –​the sweetener? Personalisation invites teachers to get to know a minority of pupil’s needs in more insightful ways. For the ‘disadvantaged’, including pupils with SEND, might personalisation also reflect ‘wrap-​around care’? Personalisation may also represent the value of lesson experiences, for example: • • • •

the feel-​good factor. a swell of pride as a child runs out after a good lesson. a brief chat has helped to lift a child’s mood –​avoiding confrontation. a pupil has received a special reward for good work.

Strategies for SEND support are often highly personalised. Social stories for pupils with autism may have a common structure, yet each story is individual. Personalisation involves a two-​way channel of communication. No longer do teachers teach –​ and pupils learn –​in one direction. Learners teach educators about themselves to further inform teaching strategies that support their learning. This two-​way personalisation cycle holds the key to narrowing that elusive achievement gap. Is inclusion basically a choice between mainstream and special schooling? Webster et al (2021) queried whether pupils with SEND do better or worse if included in a mainstream school, and whether non-​SEND pupils do better or worse when peers with SEND are included. Studies suggest that mainstream inclusion has many positives: • • • • •

Social outcomes and peer acceptance. Fewer behavioural issues. More community participation. Greater independence. Some academic gains –​greater in primary than secondary.

Are some of these gains, especially social, due to pupils with SEND being with non-​SEND peers, learning from positive modelling and interaction? Could they emanate from greater peer acceptance and social engagement? The research also suggests that inclusion benefits pupils with SEND through participation in school and community groups and promotes independence. A report on how education has changed since Warnock (Lindsay et al 2020), documents changes 40 years on, that remain relevant and indicate the future for pupils with SEND. The report stresses that some of Warnock’s principles are not yet embedded, namely: • parents as genuine partners in education. • multi-​disciplinary assessment. • diagnosis/​terminology (from ESN to learning difficulties) that has still not brought about the accuracy needed for precise intervention. • early intervention. • individual needs versus SEND labelling.

34  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Why is it taking so long for the changes to take effect, and result in more positive outcomes for learners with SEND? What are we still failing to see, understand and get to grips with? Do these research findings point to outdated beliefs and expectations? Or has more positive philosophy still not filtered down through policy into practice? Does it demonstrate lack of skills and experience amongst mainstream teachers? If so, is HQT now the focus area for research?

Summary This chapter has explored factors that facilitate successful inclusion –​place, policy, practice and personalisation –​as starting points for debate. How do ‘presence, participation and achievement’ fit with ‘learning objectives, styles and access’? Are these concepts helpful for schools searching for that elusive judgement of ‘outstanding’? The answers are contextual. What works for one school may not work as well for another. Inclusion is not about creating templates. Teaching must never be unrealistically simplified as a ‘painting by numbers’ approach, leaving little scope for that inspirational uniqueness each teacher brings to the collective endeavour. Hopefully these ideas will inspire the kind of debate that will take schools closer to their inclusion quest. Inclusion has come a long way with place and policy –​but has further to go with practice and personalisation.

5 High quality teaching

This chapter: • • • • •

further explores inclusion as high quality teaching (HQT). looks at learning styles as crucial to engagement and attitudes to learning. considers what teachers need for HQT to happen and offers models for reflection. considers the role of technology as part of HQT. examines ‘for all’ as the vital concept underpinning inclusive HQT.

Planning from broad areas of need Organising classrooms around the entire range of needs is awesome –​with teaching a potentially stressful job. Both challenges and solutions depend as much on individual styles of teaching, as on varied styles of learning. Clusters of schools could collaborate to find solutions, mindful that pupil populations differ greatly. Might the Code’s ‘four broad areas’ help to generate solutions? Table 5.1 offers a starting point. ‘Communication and interaction’ difficulties affect mainly language and social structuring. ‘Cognition and learning’ difficulties may require tasks to be backtracked and shown visually (e.g., equivalent fractions: 45/​90 or beyond –​1/​2=​2/​4). ‘Social, emotional, mental health’ needs can ruin the most well-​planned lessons, so strategies expand into every part. Similarly, sensory or physical adaptations may feature throughout. Table 5.1  Planning from broad areas of need Lesson

Communication and Interaction

Cognition and Learning

Social, Emotional Sensory or and Mental Health Physical Needs

Introduction

Adapting language and instructions

Stepped instructions

Behaviour Seating areas strategies, rewards Visual and hearing and sanctions aids

Tasks/​activities

Working alone, in pairs or groups?

Backtracking? Continued Simplifying levels of challenge?

Continued

Resources

More visual for some?

More visual for some?

Continued

Continued

Close

Adapting language

Adapting language

Continued

Continued

How can SEND and non-​SEND needs be accommodated together? High quality teaching (HQT) relies not only on teachers, but also on pupils. Training learners how to be in class is about more than behaviour. It’s about independence; knowing it’s okay to ask questions or say they do not understand: about establishing agreed rules/​routines that work for everyone because they have been ‘co-​produced’ by teachers and pupils, and to some extent, perhaps for pupils with SEND requiring personalised approaches, parents. Of course, teachers are still firmly in charge but classrooms that ran on the strength of discipline alone have gone. Teachers are managers of learning, and their pupils (like adult workers) perform better when their working conditions meet their needs, they know exactly what they are doing and feel part of a communal, productive team. Creating this sense of belonging is far from easy, hence the chapter (11) on developing a SEND-​friendly environment. HQT relies on knowing pupils as far as possible. Planning from

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-8

36  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

the four broad areas of need may generate more detailed discussions between teachers and SENCOs on how to manage their unique learner populations.

Inclusion as high quality teaching ‘Learning and Teaching for Children with SEN in Primary Schools’ (DfES 2004), later applied to social/​emotional contexts (DfES 2005b), explored a three-​part strategy that remains highly relevant. This strategy characterises inclusive teaching because, as each interacts, presence, participation and achievement naturally follow. Are these the key to joined-​up teaching and learning for all? • Learning objectives –​setting appropriate challenges for all. • Learning styles –​responding to different ways of learning. • Access –​overcoming potential barriers. Setting appropriate challenges may involve extensive backtracking from NC objectives: FRACTIONS: • • • • • • •

Understand halves, quarters. Find half, quarter, three quarters of shapes, then of small amounts (half of 8). Understand simple fractions (one fifth, one tenth), then multiple (three fifths). Relate parts to wholes, then to improper fractions. Match equivalent fractions (1/​2 =​2/​4, 4/​8, 6/​12). Match fractions to decimals. Add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions. ADDITION:

• Add numbers to 5, then to 10, then to 20. • Add to 50, then to 100. • Add to 1000s and millions. Between each example might be much tinier steps, depending on needs. Most themes or topics can be backtracked. Even algebra can be simplified to the idea of missing numbers (12 +​? =​16). Backtracking through a common theme often enables pupils with SEND to feel included. It is difficult to simplify topics where conceptual ideas are too complex. How could that history teacher have simplified debate on Nazi Germany (Chapter 4)? Maybe teachers can’t do it every time. Juggling balls is difficult –​more so when they are different weights and sizes! So with learning! Backtracking may enable teachers to set the right challenges for every pupil and maintain sanity while trying to meet all different needs. Backtracking may facilitate: • an inclusive start, with all pupils listening and attending, before moving off at various points to begin work, perhaps with a TA helping to start off each group. • pupils working on differentiated objectives –​in pairs, groups, independently, or with adult support. • more easily prepared resources. • all learners joining in with the final plenary/​conclusion. What about the second strategy –​diversity of learning styles? The main three styles of learning are visual, auditory and kinaesthetic; to which I add a fourth, social. Although most of us learn through all four, children with SEND may have a preferred channel. Some pupils with autism may not learn from working in groups. Some with SLCN struggle to learn through auditory. Visual and kinaesthetic styles are often favoured. All learners need to explore beyond their personal preferences, so mixing these throughout lessons moves teaching further towards inclusion.

High quality teaching  37 

These learning styles merit exploration. Most lessons feature auditory: teachers talk, while pupils listen. Yet some cannot listen for long without switching off. Through a flexible mix, lessons can be livened up –​enabling more and better engagement. The third inclusion strategy is ‘access’; removing barriers that prevent SEND learners from being on that ‘equal footing’. So, what might barriers mean for learners? A barrier could be emotional, and/​or home-​based (Dad in prison, Mum alcoholic). Physical or sensory barriers are often obvious. Most learning difficulties reflect some kind of barrier: for example, SLCN, preventing that essential bridge between teaching and learning from being constructed. Disadvantage is also a barrier: a hungry child cannot focus on learning. How can such barriers be removed or compensated for? Breakfast clubs and free school meals have long been used to alleviate disadvantage. Moving positions in the classroom, or special chairs, help with physical barriers, while tools and specialised technological equipment break down sensory barriers. Schools can do little to deal with home circumstances, except to create a learning environment that soothes emotions, focuses on well-​being and compensates where possible. Table 5.2 offers ideas for addressing learning styles. Table 5.2  Learning styles STORYWRITING: Visual: Draw out story first, provide pictures to show plot and characters Auditory: Sharing ideas, oral story starters, sounds to convey mood and atmosphere Kinaesthetic: Sequencing word cards, acting out scenes, using the computer to write Social: Making up stories in pairs or groups, sharing each other’s stories FRACTIONS: Visual: Colouring fraction parts in shapes, drawing fractions, colouring parts of pictures (1/​2 of 6 cats) Auditory: Mental work to solve fraction problems Kinaesthetic: Matching fraction pieces to form wholes, using counters or objects to share into fraction parts, cutting shapes into fractions Social: Talking about fractions, playing games, such as snap, pairs or happy families (equivalents)

Barriers are often hidden: poor working memory, inadequate vocabulary or being slow to process information, making it difficult for some children to work effectively with others. Table 5.3 offers strategies. Table 5.3  Removing barriers Inadequate vocabulary? -​ Prioritise in lessons -​ Explain technical subject vocabulary -​ Make the thesaurus a word tool -​ Set up talking groups to debate/​problem-​solve -​ Pre-​teach key words for lessons

Slow to process verbal information? -​ Slow down when speaking -​ Stress verbs and other ‘meaning’ words -​ Summarise instructions and explanations -​ Sharpen pupils’ listening skills

Poor working memory? Self-​esteem blocking confidence? -​Teach effective jotting and note-​taking -​Seize on, and use known strengths -​ -​ Play games that stimulate memory Use praise and rewards sensitively -​ -​ Use visual aids to compensate Build confidence through a no-​fail approach -​ -​ Don’t overload memory Make all tasks achievable (challenges?) -​ Allow some pupils to use ‘times tables’ squares in -​ Stress ‘I can’ approach to learning maths Slow to complete work? -​ Allow more time where genuinely needed -​ Use timers to structure working time -​ Reduce volume of writing for some pupils -​ Prompt pupils part way through tasks -​ Make task completion a clear objective

Emotions blocking learning? Try: -​ Mentoring at intervals throughout the day -​ Peer buddying -​ Circle time -​ Counselling -​ Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) if necessary

Can’t work with others? Teach how in small achievable steps: -​ With one friend -​ With a different peer -​ With a younger or older child -​ Change type of task gradually -​ Increase group size gradually

Reluctant to write? -​ Reduce size of task -​ Mark/​correct errors sensitively -​ Put praise before criticism -​ Allow choices where possible -​ Make editing/​crossings out a positive strategy -​ Reduce unnecessary copying -​ Draw storyline first -​ Write in pairs to reduce individual effort -​ Use scaffolds and templates

38  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

There are ways around every problem. In practice, adapting objectives, addressing learning styles and removing access barriers merge. Schools could brainstorm how best to tackle these common problems, helping all teachers to further develop their personal style of whole-​class inclusivity.

Developing inclusive HQT for all Following the pandemic that has shattered the lives of many children, well-​being is at its lowest ebb, making inclusion even more important. As high quality teaching: • how far has the Inclusion Development Plan (IDP) promoted inclusion? • to what extent has the 2020 vision been achieved? • how might technology further enhance HQT? Ofsted (2006) concluded that educational settings made little difference to how well pupils with SEND achieve. What matters is the quality of teaching/​learning. The Inclusion Development Programme (DCSF 2008b) linked inclusive policy with classroom practice, while the Lamb Inquiry (DCSF 2009b) expressed a need for teachers to become better trained in SEN. So, the IDP signified an initiative to reshape teaching by focusing on common SEN types: involving staff at every level, from teaching assistants to managers, recognising that ‘walking the job’ only works when managers know what to look for. The training aimed to ensure teaching: • • • •

is set within a culture of high expectations. focuses on what children learn, rather than activities they do. is based on prior assessment of what learners know, understand and can do. uses teaching approaches that engage all children.

The IDP sought to take inclusion forward: refreshed materials are available at www.idponl​ine.org.uk. Further resources emerged through the Salt Review (2010) that highlighted a lack of trained teachers in complex areas of SEN, supported by the Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Research Project (Carpenter et al 2011). Training materials are still available at www.compl​exne​eds.org.uk. Table 5.4 outlines a model based on knowing what all learners can and cannot do, according to specific lesson content. Key principles: • Each learner’s outcomes are influenced by the lesson’s conceptual demands. • Some pupils with cognitive difficulties progress sideways, with reinforced ‘core’, while others move to ‘development’. • High, open-​ended expectations are balanced against knowing all learners’ capabilities. • Teacher and TA manage learning together. • All learners are trained to work independently for varying periods of time. • Discipline is well established. Table 5.4  Planning for core, development and enrichment LESSON STAGES OF DELIVERY

ADULT INTERACTION

CORE: All learners introduced to core ideas, and engaged in first set of tasks

1. Teacher introduces lesson for all 2. Teacher/​TA manages core activities

DEVELOPMENT: Majority of learners engaged in tasks and activities

3. Teacher begins developmental stage while TA manages pupils at core stage 4. Teacher/​TA manages core and development, assessing and monitoring

ENRICHMENT: A few learners engaged in enriched discussion or activities

5. Teacher introduces enriched activities, while TA manages core/​development 6. Teacher and TA manage all three stages together, flexibly, depending on needs

SUMMARY

Both adults summarise, point out positive achievements and identify areas of weakness

High quality teaching  39 

Without the above principles this model could not work. It is also simplistic: a few pupils may need pre-​core material, with more backtracking. Learners may do different ‘development’ tasks. Enrichment may also differ (those autistic ‘pattern-​seekers’, Chapter 1). Each level may mushroom out –​from pre-​core –​to multi-​development –​to super-​enrichment. The model offers a starting point, bare bones of planning for all –​ready for those crucial personalisation touches. The Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (CLDD) research focused on engagement as the success factor in any lesson (Carpenter et al 2011). The model above may support engagement by relieving some children from having to listen, often without understanding, to over-​long introductions. The model also solves the problem of able learners not being stretched enough. Table 5.5 offers secondary examples. Table 5.5  Building learning from a core base Context and lesson

Core base for all

Development for majority

Enrichment for a few

Comparing England with Malawi in Geography

Pupils look at photos of Malawi. Class discusses same/​different. In pairs, pupils talk and write about what they see. A few pupils need key words, as tools to support writing. Initial introduction shows clear differences between the two countries

Comparison extends to data: Malawi/​England, larger and smaller. While ‘core’ pupils still use picture, others talk in pairs about further differences, using other sources

Comparison is further extended for the few who finish more quickly –​data on geographical areas might be compared with population density

Algebra in maths

All pupils introduced to idea of missing numbers as puzzles, with class discussion on how to work them out. A few children may need counters to visualise the problem and use a smaller range of numbers

Majority move to using letters for missing numbers: x and y. Some pupils may not be ready for abstract application, so work ‘sideways’ with further practice to consolidate the core concept

More advanced algebraic equations for pupils ready to expand

Most lessons that can be stranded –​from simple, to more difficult, to complex –​fit the model in Table 5.4: • Addition: core to 20, development to 100, enrichment beyond. • Fractions: core as halves/​quarters, development as simple fractions, enrichment as multiple fractions. • Sentence work: core as simple, development using connectives, enrichment using clauses. • Phonics: core as CVC (hat, pig), development as CVCC or CCVC (bank, clap, sing), and enrichment as vowel digraphs (foul, beach, haul, spoon). Some lessons involve complex, abstract concepts, built on necessary understanding of simpler ones (discussion of Nazi Germany?). If the underlying concepts are beyond any pupil’s understanding, the barriers may be insurmountable. In some types of lessons, planning by outcome allows all learners to work at their own level, for example: • • • •

working in pairs to describe things by colour, size or shape (early language). writing stories on a topic of their own choice. sorting pictures into categories. open-​ended numeracy –​‘Tell me about number 25’. Responses may range from 20 +​5, 100 -​75 ….to 12.5 x 2, or 10% of 250.

Achievement by outcome offers adults the chance to observe/​assess where individuals have reached. Despite the IDP and other initiatives, inclusion is still not where it needs to be. The IDP drew attention to the fact that teaching is a highly-​skilled, multi-​task job. Yet how well does society regard teachers as managers of learning –​in charge of potentially high productivity, with high-​ stake economic outcomes for future society? How far is quality inclusion feasible with current

40  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

teacher/​TA and pupil ratios, given the diversity of classroom populations? Such thorny questions need to be posed –​especially following the pandemic.

Technology as part of HQT An article (Sylvester 2021) suggests that technology in the form of artificial intelligence could soon transform classrooms. The author writes, ‘… all students (Year 6) are on iPads, with a personalised programme of lessons created by artificial intelligence. The machine analyses work and tailors learning to each child…’ I read with horror the idea of a machine dictating learning. Isn’t learning a human exchange between teachers and learners? The article describes how one pupil, during a lesson on grammar/​ spelling, presses an emoji to show frustration, following which the teaching is adjusted by the device to go over the material more slowly, and ensure he understands before moving to the next question. Each pupil has a personal ‘dashboard’ with tasks set, by the teacher or device, which tells them their strengths and areas for improvement. This is described by the Head, as ‘hybrid’: intended to help teachers by less marking –​creating more time to help individual learners. As someone whose teaching career has revolved around traditional methods, the potential of this technology leaves me breathless. Century Tech, a member of the Government’s AI Council predicts that all schools will be using such tools within three years. The company’s founder also claims that AI can predict, with 96% accuracy, whether a child is autistic by how they use the mouse or tap on the screen. Awesome! Oak National Academy, the online virtual school, has supported teachers during Covid lockdown with free lessons covering most of the National Curriculum. Will it continue after 2022? How far can on-​line learning develop? Sylvester further reports that in Estonia, most exams are online, and pupils use virtual reality glasses to ‘visit’ the Arctic Circle in geography, or the Pyramids in history. Can these augmented reality glasses, which overlay information or images onto the real world, take pupils anywhere? Fascinating from the SEND perspective, is wearable technology that monitors a pupil’s mood or stress level. Is technology also about to support learners’ well-​being? But there are risks! Could more on-​line education become a ‘digital divide’ for the disadvantaged? Could reduced social interaction exacerbate the current crisis with mental health? On the other hand, could such technology, by personalising learning and reducing teacher workload, improve achievement for SEND and disadvantaged learners, thus narrowing that attainment gap? Could AI also stimulate fresh thinking about what education means, moving away from the accumulation of knowledge, more towards problem-​solving? Is AI a way forward for that reported 25%, referred to by Baron-​Cohen as not fitting with how schools teach? Yet, technology is only part of the solution. Yes, it can engage children more effectively, and monitor learning, but can never replace high quality teaching by skilled, enthusiastic teachers. Stephen Hawking reportedly said that AI would be either the best or the worst thing for humanity. Teaching will always need the human factor!

A vision for all The 2020 vision (DfES 2006a) was one in which all children and young people were intended to achieve higher. This report expressed the need for high quality, challenging teaching that engages every pupil, referring to ‘challenge, engagement and ownership’ for all. Is this where educationalists should now focus attention? Would teachers now benefit from using their skills and knowledge about SEND, gained from IDP resources, to strive towards more seamless inclusion? If so: • how do schools challenge all learners together? • how can teachers engage them all? • how can all learners be encouraged to take ownership?

High quality teaching  41 

Engagement has become a key focus for pupils with more significant learning difficulties (further explored in chapter on EHCPs). This shift in emphasis, from teachers onto learners, can only happen if schools state these goals as part of their overall vision and move forward as whole organisations towards reshaping classroom teaching. Where might this vision now be if Covid had not interfered with the education of all young people?

Barriers and benefits of ‘for all’ Learners’ needs affect classroom dynamics through cause and consequence. Placing a pupil with behavioural difficulties with the wrong peer group, or not ensuring that members of a group ‘gel’, could wreck a brilliantly planned lesson. How might learners perceive the ‘for all’ challenge? If some pupils are allowed to write less, could this affect the engagement of those who are made to write more? If some children are allowed extra time, could this cause resentment? Every learner must understand the ‘for all’ concept. Furthermore, equality of opportunity may mean children with SEND being taught differently. How might this affect engagement? Have all children been helped to understand why some receive extra in the form of tools, or time with additional adults? Referring to SEN types and the four broad areas, what works for SEN often works for all. For example, ‘memory’ training for children with SEND may benefit others. What about the vision towards pupil ownership? Assuming all learners have become challenged and engaged, how can they be encouraged to take self-​responsibility? Joseph, Year 10, has an EHCP. When I ask him what he has learned, responses are ‘don’t know’ or ‘can’t remember’. Joseph has not grasped that he is partly in charge of his GCSE pursuits. Many young people, with and without SEND, are conditioned to receive, rather than search actively for learning. The roots of self-​ownership should be planted in primary school. Self-​ownership and independence are crucial to closing the achievement gap. The ‘for all’ concept depends on learners working as independently as possible so that teachers can do as the Code requires: assess, plan, do, review. Chapter 13 explores pupil voice and independence. A quote from the poet Yeats: ‘Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire’. So, let’s light fires! With reference to the original ‘Achievement for All’ questions (Chapter 4), could these now inspire a new, post-​2020 vision, taking forward the original aims of aspiration, access and achievement, and requiring: • assessment, tracking and intervention. • structured conversations with parents –​as part of the ‘for all’ approach. • provision for wider outcomes –​attendance, bullying, building positive relationships and participation in school life. Blanchford (2015) described AfA as ‘common-​sensing’ the Code. It is worth deep-​diving into learner data to search out implications for high quality classroom teaching for all. The Learners First School Partnership (wwwle​arne​rsfi​rst.net) was formed in 2012 as a supportive network of school leaders (linked to AfA). The partnership aimed to address underperformance so that: • there are no underperforming cohorts. • all pupils make at least ‘good’ progress. • all teachers deliver at least ‘good’ teaching. The Partnership was built on a model of collaboration, operating with ‘teaching schools’ assigned to train/​support others, with a focus on leadership, linked with HQT. Might this mutually supportive approach now hold the key to success for all?

42  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Summary This chapter has expanded on the concept of inclusion by outlining strategies to develop HQT, involving whole-​school leadership. Success depends on thrusts of managerial energy radiating throughout educational settings. SENCOs are part of that energy –​involved in the collective chain of inclusive effort. For all learners to make ‘good’ progress, teachers need more than training. They need time, open minds and confidence to be involved in their own HQT research. When classroom doors are thrown open –​fresh ideas can blow in. SENCOs have a foot in both camps, policy and practice, in a way that some leaders whose focus may not be entirely on SEND, do not. So, with regard to each school’s personal pursuit of HQT: • how far does policy influence practice? Is the direction of change ‘top down’? • does practice feed policy –​change directed from ‘bottom up’? • does change stem from a healthy atmosphere of trust, flowing in both directions? Answers to these questions dictate how SENCOs ‘walk their job’. For teachers to fully engage in ‘for all’, they need support and encouragement, way beyond judgement. ‘Good progress’ for all learners needs ‘good teaching’ from all teachers –​but teachers, like learners, need rewards for their efforts. Following integration, a new inclusive vision has emerged. From that initial focus on ‘placement’, with numerous examples of failure, this new vision should represent success. The word ‘all’, in the context of HQT has dominated this chapter. A key question: How many children cannot progress? Zero! Such aspirational thinking summarises inclusive, classroom teaching.

6 SEN Support A graduated approach

The last two chapters have focused on whole-​school inclusion, led by high quality teaching (HQT) that enables achievement for all. How might additional interventions complement the inclusive picture? HQT provides the foundation for well-​being, participation and achievement. The more effective HQT is, the less need for additional interventions. So, for pupils with milder difficulties, might more effective HQT result in less SEN Support? Maybe. Yet, the diversity of inclusive schooling implies: • pupils learn at varying rates regardless of teachers’ pedagogical excellence. • some pupils, especially with cognitive difficulties, need continual reinforcement. HQT is the first, crucial step, though not the complete package. This chapter focuses on: • how the Code’s graduated response, as a three-​part model, complements HQT. • interventions for SEN Support, based on the four broad areas of need. • personal plans and passports as strategies for achievement.

Building SEN Support in waves The three-​wave model still offers a basic framework, building onto that first step of high quality teaching for all (DfE 2011a). Given that HQT is more the responsibility of class teachers, while SEN Support, as ‘additional to and different from’ is more the responsibility of SENCOs, how can both responses offer a combined learning package? Table 6.1 summarises a three-​part model. Table 6.1  SEN Support as waves WAVE 1: High quality, inclusive WAVE 2: Building on HQT, teaching for every learner interventions for some pupils that enable them to keep up, or work towards age-​related expectations

WAVE 3: HQT, plus interventions that are more personalised and intensive for the minority, including pupils with an EHCP

The ‘waves’ model offers a means of planning for children who need SEN Support –​and is still used. Whatever we call it, this three-​part model characterises how SEN Support can build onto HQT in workable ways. The model invites schools to consider how this fits with types of SEN, and those four broad areas –​and how class teachers and SENCOs ensure seamless delivery through collaboration. For example: • • • •

responsibilities –​where do these overlap? use of funding. deployment of additional adults. quality assurance and evaluation of all staff.

Tables 6.2 to 6.5 offer examples of the three-​part model, linked to the four broad areas, and possible SEN types. But only by knowing all learners inside out, from ‘deep diving’, can the right decisions be made. Success depends largely on staff ‘togetherness’. The complete package, like ocean waves, must flow easily between and around each part –​negotiating turbulence.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-9

44  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 6.2  Three-​part package –​communication and interaction difficulties Possible SEN/​ disability?

1. High quality teaching

2. Targeted intervention 3. Highly personalised, towards age-​related more individual success intervention

SLCN SLD MLD ASC SEMH ADHD

-​

 language rich, with much time for talk -​  language modelled by adults -​   delivery differentiated -​  instructions repeated by pupils

-​

 planned activities to address difficulties and improve language skills -​  activities to teach social skills -​  support in all areas of the curriculum -​  external speech and language support may be needed

 advice and/​or support from agencies –​EP, SLT or autism support service -​  individual, person-​ centred targets -​  more structured, planned activities -​  SENCO/​class teacher meet more regularly? -​   Social stories?

-​

Table 6.3  Three-​part package –​cognition and learning difficulties Possible SEN/​ disability?

1. High quality teaching 2. Targeted intervention 3. Highly personalised

SLD MLD ASC SEMH

-​

-​

-​

-​

-​

-​

  visual timetable   paired reading -​   number squares -​   visual aids -​  objectives backtracked

  homework club   booster phonics -​  focus on multi-​sensory learning -​   daily reading practice

 TA individual support  self-​help support -​  individual help for literacy and numeracy -​  individual resources

Table 6.4  Three-​part package –​social, emotional and mental health Possible SEN/​disability? 1. High quality teaching

2. Targeted intervention 3. Highly personalised

ASC SEMH

-​

 discipline/​ behaviour policy -​  sanction/​reward system -​  PHSE focus on social skills -​  co-​operative problem-​solving -​  visual timetable -​

 personal behaviour support plans -​   use of ‘time-​out’ -​  anger-​management training -​  more directed social skills focus -​  anti-​bullying focus -​  model social skills -​   help with transition

 mentor to talk over difficult situations -​  EP advice and training -​  areas of curriculum adapted -​  TA support -​   individual work station -​

Table 6.5  Three-​part package –​sensory and/​or physical needs Possible SEN/​disability? 1. High quality teaching 2. Targeted intervention 3. Highly personalised HI VI PD ASC PMLD

 pencil grips  writing slope -​  footrest -​  simple classroom modifications, including PE -​  extra time for tasks -​  leave lessons early to avoid rushing

 tactile/​sensory objects  work on scissor skills -​  support from external specialists -​   small-​step approach -​  raise peer group awareness of pupils with these problems -​  use of computer for writing

-​

-​

-​

-​

 individual approach to facilitate access -​  focus on health and safety issues

-​

These tables illustrate some challenges faced by class teachers and SENCOs: • • • • •

How does the three-​part approach relate to SEND as mild, moderate or severe? How do pupils with multiple, co-​existing types of SEND fit the model? What features characterise each part? Group or individual support? Use of external specialists? How are SEN support interventions reinforced/​practised as part of HQT? How do EHCPs permeate throughout the whole package?

SEN support: a graduated approach  45 

How do schools link their SEN types to broad areas of need? Knowing all learners is the key to unlocking potential. The difference between what happens as HQT –​adaptation, reinforcement or compensation in class –​and additional interventions that develop skills/​knowledge out of class –​influences funding. How is the notional budget justified to parents, leader colleagues and governors? The criteria for placing pupils at a particular level of SEN Support and justifying this in relation to the Code and Equality Act, needs to be policy. Criteria is rarely black and white –​SEND presents grey areas. The EHCP may be easier, being a LA decision, yet this third level includes pupils with and without an EHCP. Criteria for moving pupils between the three areas must be flexible enough to take account of temporary difficulties. Smoothly blended three-​part provision is more likely to result in maximum achievement for all, because: • • • •

additional support is of little use without in-​class practice/​reinforcement. HQT alone cannot result in maximum achievement for all. most basic learning is hierarchical, built brick by brick from a range of experiences. pupils with SEND need learning as a whole package –​not disjointed bits.

The three-​part package works best when staff, parents and, where possible, pupils, know which parts fit where and how they join up.

High quality teaching –​or intervention? How do SENCOs/​class teachers decide on what is part of HQT –​or SEN Support? ‘Additional to and different from’ (ATDF) activities may include: • • • • • •

ten minutes daily with TA on spellings. early literacy for Year 1 children delayed with phonics. a computer-​based programme –​such as Word Wasp. a daily ‘mentoring’ chat with Head of Year, for behaviour. paired reading/​writing for a learner in Year 2, with a pupil in Year 6. TA support on GCSE exam practice.

Where does each intervention sit within the whole package? SENCOs might question: • • • • • • •

is the ATDF a particular support strategy? does it require additional staffing? how expensive? does support focus on skills for a few (social, self-​help?) or on whole class? does the strategy focus on academic learning or other skills (music or art as therapy)? is it enabling access to HQT? does it support children with temporary problems/​delays, expected to catch up –​or learners who will always need intervention?

SENCOs will have different responses, but within this grey area, what matters is that decisions are justified.

Interventions for SEN Support Structured interventions aim to secure learning for children who need more than HQT. The original ‘Every Child’ programmes (ECaR, DfES 2006b: ECaW, DCSF, 2009e: ECaT, DCSF 2008c) formed part of the National Strategies that aimed for all children to be on track with literacy and

46  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

maths by the end of Key Stage 2. Some LAs have continued to operate these in some form, e.g., Brighton/​Hove LA achieved significant reading improvements for their lowest attaining children from this 1–​1 intervention. Evaluation of Worcestershire’s ECaT (Worcestershire Health NHS Trust 2013) concluded that confidence and knowledge amongst early years practitioners more than doubled, with practitioners better able to identify signs of SLCN. A report on early reading (Rose 2006) concluded that interventions should: • • • •

not replace systematic teaching of phonics and reading strategies as HQT. be based on accurate assessment of phonic development. be early enough to prevent embedded literacy failure. have entry/​exit criteria.

The Rose review also called for whole-​school approaches to literacy. Evaluation of National Strategy interventions (Ofsted 2009a) revealed greater improvements at primary than secondary. No intervention has been successful in every school studied. Quality of management was a greater factor in intervention success. A key message for SENCOs? Structured interventions require consistency and precision. Lack of connection between intervention and in-​class lessons results in disjointed learning. The report alluded also to TAs lack of understanding/​knowledge on literacy development. Personalised, more flexible interventions are available for children who: • need individual support. • progress in smaller steps. • receive some structured intervention for literacy/​numeracy –​but need individual support in other areas (communication, behaviour?). These personalised interventions for children with more significant difficulties included: • Reading Recovery: individual version of ECaR. • catch-​up literacy: a 1–​1 programme, for ages 6–​14, potentially doubling normal reading progress –​teaching word recognition, phonics and comprehension skills. A study of Reading Recovery, in London schools, concluded that the lowest achievers in Year 1 had made four times the normal rate of progress throughout the year (Burroughs-​Lange and Douetil 2006), and been enabled to access Year 2 reading more effectively than their non-​RR peers. Most packages work well with one-​to-​one, so are such gains the result of additional staffing –​ or the structured nature of the programmes? Reading interventions need trained adults. As a literacy specialist, I believe that catching up with reading or writing cannot simply involve a ‘practice makes perfect’ approach. The skills involved are complex, and difficulties are caused by barriers that need to be surmounted first –​before progress can be made. Both technology and the pandemic have had a huge impact on literacy and numeracy, with a need for all pupils to catch up. Structured interventions include: Word Wasp (Word Articulation Spelling Pronunciation): meeting reading/​ spelling • Hornet/​ needs of moderate to low ability, including dyslexia –​based on ‘listen, hear, speak, watch’ approach –​tying spelling to speech. • Precision Teaching: identifying (precisely) which words need to be worked on, and teaching reading/​spelling in slow steps, plus using taught words in sentences. Kagan techniques (Dr. Spencer Kagan) focus on the positive effects of co-​operative learning: carefully matched pupils work in teams (often four), towards the same learning goal. This structured, yet socially-​based approach requires positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation and simultaneous interaction. The Kagan techniques could work for intervention in or out of the classroom.

SEN support: a graduated approach  47 

Evaluations of interventions (Brooks 2007, 2013, 2016) suggest that: • • • •

ordinary teaching alone does not enable ‘catch-​up’ for pupils with difficulties. schemes for literacy should be highly structured. comprehension improves when directly targeted. technological approaches work best when targeted.

All three reports drew similar conclusions. A suggestion is that teachers may overestimate dyslexia. Brooks suggested two tests to improve accuracy of teacher’s judgements: • Sound isolation –​measuring phoneme awareness. • Either rapid naming of colours (verbal processing speed) or letter knowledge. The difference between early reading difficulties and dyslexia remains important for SENCOs and class teachers jointly managing SEN Support. Brooks drew attention to the sparsity of interventions for KS3, with ‘Grammar for Writing’ as having potential. A wealth of KS3 grammar resources is now available. Literacy demands increase rapidly beyond primary, so as many children as possible must leave KS2 ‘literacy-​secure’. Brooks (2016) probes further into literacy schemes: • • • •

32 for improving reading and spelling from 5–​11. 16 for KS3. 5 for writing composition –​from age 5 to 14. 15 for children with SpLD.

‘That Reading Thing’ (Brooks 2016) reaches similar conclusions: ordinary teaching alone cannot enable ‘catch up’ –​and that phonics teaching must be accompanied by graphic representation and practice in reading for meaning, so that regular and irregular patterns can be grasped. My own experience (Edwards 1999) supports this view. Phonics is one of three developmental strands of reading that children integrate through sustained practice: • Accurate decoding of letter sounds (phonemes), first blended as single-​syllable words (p-​a-​n, b-​l-​i-​n-​k) –​then gradually ‘chunked’ into longer words (pan-​dem-​ic). • Instant knowledge of irregular ‘tricky’ words (said, they, could), learned whole, that connect meaningful words/​phrases into sentences. • Using context to make sense of the whole text at different comprehension levels. From regular practice, once reading gets under way, most children come to memorise thousands of common words: gradually enabling comprehension to lead –​and phonics to take a back seat. Brooks also makes the point that, throughout this process, TAs are of vital importance, as skilled intervention administrators. Reading recovery remains a valid method of enabling delayed pupils to catch up, a trusted one-​to-​one, with a trained teacher, working intensively on word analysis strategies that involve phonics and processing skills that enable understanding: expensive, yet effective. Reciprocal Reading for Comprehension can go far beyond the basic skills of decoding. IDL (Ascentis) is a literacy intervention, using a speaking computer, based on a multi-​sensory system designed originally for pupils with dyslexia, but suitable for broader intervention. This resource has proved an asset to improving literacy at primary and secondary: endorsed by the British Dyslexia Association (BDA), and National Literacy Trust. An unlimited licence allows the resource to be used by as many pupils as necessary (also for IDL Numeracy). Research on what works for children with mathematical difficulties suggests that no two learners are the same –​emphasising individual approaches (Dowker 2009). As with literacy, maths teaching alone will not enable children with significant delays to catch up. Interventions focusing on ‘components with which individual children have difficulties’ are more effective than those that assume similar difficulties.

48  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Focusing interventions on four broad areas A report (Carroll et al 2017, DfE), focusing SEN support on the Code’s four broad areas, explored interesting points: one being the crucial difference between intrinsic (wanting to do) and extrinsic (doing for external reward/​acknowledgement) engagement. Unsurprisingly, intrinsic tasks were more associated with improved progress than extrinsic. Tasks are more intrinsic when they: • • • •

are challenging, yet achievable –​promoting inner satisfaction. have intrinsic value (e.g. to be useful in later life). allow learners to exercise choice. encourage a ‘growth’ mindset.

How might such intrinsic/​extrinsic considerations be applied to targeted interventions planned through the four broad areas?

1.  Cognition and Learning (CL) In 2016, 50% of secondary and 37.5% of primary learners on SEN Support had MLD or SpLD identified as a major need, affecting: • thinking and reasoning. • attention and concentration. • short-​term and working memory. Attention and executive function The report (Carroll et al) outlines many useful strategies: e.g., ‘self-​monitoring’ devices that positively change habits: either auditory (beep when daydreaming) or, as ‘tactile-​cued’, vibrate at intervals. Such devices have been found to increase on-​task behaviour in secondary. The report stresses the importance of ‘executive function’ (EF): individual capacity to plan, organise, make efficient decisions and take action –​lacking in pupils with ‘cognition and learning’ difficulties. Memory is important to EF. Most adults hold up to seven items in mind at once –​learners with CL difficulties may only hold about three. Working memory allows us to sequence activities, and build into complete tasks, something people with CL difficulties struggle with. Strategies include: • reducing environmental overload. • external support –​teaching jotting and note-​taking. • strengthening underlying sub-​systems of the brain. RAPID Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a UK intervention, for inattentive learners. Devices such as headphones also help, by drowning extraneous noise. Training on ‘mindfulness’ improves attention, as do ‘fiddle’ toys. SEND learners are often more affected by background babble than non-​SEND. Reducing environmental overload and using external support strategies could help. Scaffolding tasks, by breaking them into component parts, also reduces sensory overload. Literacy Memory is an issue for pupils with CL difficulties, causing reading to be problematic. Mnemonics is one strategy, used to link actions with sounds. Structured phonics, together with engaging books as practice, plus learning ‘tricky’ words ‘whole’, works effectively as intervention. By age 7/​8, reading for most children evolves from ‘learning to read’ towards ‘reading to learn’. Those with CL difficulties need reinforcement on the former. Similarly with writing: while most KS2 learners write longer texts, using exciting vocabulary, those with CL need help to sustain more complex pieces, involving:

SEN support: a graduated approach  49 

• transcription: letter formation, spelling and punctuation. • language: use of vocabulary and structured argument. • working memory. From KS2, as well as phonological (letter/​sound) approaches to literacy, orthographic approaches (whole words and chunks –​including morphemes), bring good results. Morphemes often confuse, e.g., mist or missed. So, depending on individual assessment, interventions throughout KS2, into KS3, are likely to include vocabulary and morphology, to help with spelling as well as reading, along with aspects of comprehension. For students in secondary and post-​16, literacy tasks need to align with EF, using word processors and graphic organisers to assist goal setting. Graphic organisers often use check boxes to structure writing –​from sentences –​into paragraphs –​into texts. Maths Maths is an area often associated with negative self-​belief. Maloney et al (2015) found that parents who are anxious about maths often transfer anxieties to their children. Maths intervention needs more individualised approaches than literacy. Interventions such as ‘Catch-​up Numeracy’ (Caxton Trust) delivered individually, can show positive results. The hierarchical structure of numeracy, with related mathematical concepts, makes it imperative that intervention is matched to each individual’s precise needs.

2.  Communication and interaction (SLCN) Speech and language remain a key issue, with an estimated two in every class demonstrating problems on entry –​and about 24% of primary, and 9% of secondary pupils, on SEN Support (DfE 2016). Teachers need to distinguish between children with speech sound disorders (producing sounds in words), and difficulties in oral language. Small group intervention is generally effective in improving oral language throughout Reception and KS1. At what stage might speech and language therapy be needed? Traditionally, therapists have worked with children individually, but such intervention is expensive. Children with less severe needs may benefit from a more consultative model: using parents, teachers and TAs. Speech/​language difficulties often change with age, becoming less common at secondary. Students in secondary may need to focus on links between oral and written language, for example, creating narratives for varied curricular purposes, as well as subject-​specific vocabulary. There is evidence that training secondary teachers (and post-​16) in the following is useful: • teaching key subject vocabulary. • presenting instructions explicitly. • helping students use visual planners –​for organising and sequencing knowledge. Some children benefit from explicit work on social/​communication, including those with ASC. Skills such as turn-​taking, eye-​contact, listening, conversation and emotion: in class or out –​ applied to the contexts in which they are used. More personalised interventions on speech and language may be needed for learners with low ‘teacher closeness’ or high levels of conflict. Lego Therapy (LeGoff 2004) is a play-​based intervention, in which children assume different roles as part of interactive play. Video modelling involves children in watching, then imitating, positive behaviours. The Social Use of Language Programme (SULP) involves teaching around stories, group activities and games. A programme for Education and Enrichment of Relational Skills (PEERS: Laugeson et al 2014) aims to improve friendship, and other social skills for pupils with ASC and related problems, delivered by trained teachers, daily 30 minutes, over a few weeks. Other studies include SKILLS (Kasari et al 2016), which targets social skills explicitly –​greetings/​ goodbyes, non-​verbal communication, humour and conversations.

50  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Conversation Club Curriculum (Muller et al 2016) involves teaching explicitly: • how to converse with partners and recall what has been said. • finding topics of mutual interest. • maintaining conversation by follow-​up questions or related comments. Children with ASC may benefit from targeted Social Stories, or Scripts: parts of conversations pre-​scripted for the child to present on cue. Children with less significant issues may benefit simply from peer-​initiated intervention –​operating in a natural, less formal way than that delivered by adults. For non-​ verbal children and students there are Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) devices: a child may use a communication board with pictures to represent words and phrases, although these are more likely to be needed by children with an EHCP. Speech, language and communication (SLCN) underpins all aspects of learning, and: • • • • •

can have life-​long impact if not supported. is crucial to education, social experiences and mental health. is the most common need for SEN Support (second-​most common for EHCPs). may go unrecognised –​with inadequate listening/​speaking falling below the radar. may be identified wrongly as SEMH or MLD.

Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is a sub-​ set, sometimes referred to as Specific Language Impairment (SLI). It is unlikely to be resolved by Reception age and requires diagnosis by Speech and Language Therapists. The DLD Guide (I CAN) written for class teachers and SENCOs, advises on creating DLD-​friendly classrooms at three levels: • Universal –​inclusive HQT, with vocabulary explicitly taught, language adapted to reach every child –​and learners taught to monitor understanding and seek clarification. • Targeted –​differentiated, group intervention and support for social interaction, with a well-​ being focus, as scaffolding: at secondary –​revision techniques and study skills. • Specialist –​direct or indirect support by SLT as part of a child’s personal plan. These levels represent inclusion by design. Teachers may notice: • Poor listening: a child may look ‘blank’, confused, have difficulty following instructions and explanations, responding to questions, or learning technical vocabulary. • Speech: immature or jumbled ways of talking, overuse of non-​specific words (thing), or problems with telling news or stories. A webinar series for staff training (SEND Gateway 2021) includes a DLD presentation, useful for SENCOs and all staff. Every child can be helped to develop the communication skills that enable achievement –​and success.

3.  Social, Emotional and Mental Health Many interventions referred to apply also to pupils and students in this category. Figures (DfE 2016) for learners with SEMH, on SEN Support, represent about 16% in primary, 19% in secondary, and may have increased since the pandemic. HQT for all is surely a major factor in preventing SEMH symptoms/​behaviours from escalating. The report (Carroll et al) mentions a range of available programmes: • Zippy’s Friends –​KS1. • FRIENDS is CBT-​based, tackling emotional resilience and anxiety. • Positive Action: strategies for interactive approaches between teachers and learners, Reception to Secondary. • Circle Time. • Mindfulness techniques are thought to have an effect on mental health.

SEN support: a graduated approach  51 

More targeted strategies may need to address underlying causes of SEMH, as well as behaviours. Many strategies are based on consequences: the Daily Report Card (DRC) or Home-​School Note. Although DRCs improve behaviour, there is little evidence they improve academic achievement, unless accompanied by strategies that work alongside. DRCs are more effective when SENCOs and class teachers collaborate to ensure adherence and consistency. Many ‘communication and interaction’ interventions work also with learners whose difficulties overlap into SEMH, research suggesting the earlier training is delivered, the more effective. For more ‘at risk’ students, Cognitive Behavioural Anger Management (CBAM) is an umbrella term for a range of strategies. The RAPID techniques (for attention difficulties) can be effective with SEMH. Further strategies could include: • Yoga –​known to work effectively on EF, attention and anxiety. • any physical activity may improve cognitive functioning, attention and behaviour. • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy –​computer-​based, has shown benefits in young people from 12 to 25. • Child-​Centred Play Therapy (CCPT), from age 3 to 12, relies on the relationship between child and therapist. Is the overall aim towards a ‘healthy sense of self’ for children and young people whose emotions and behaviours are at risk of leading them down negative pathways?

4.  Sensory and Physical This fourth area includes physical difficulties (PH), visual impairment (VI), hearing impairment (HI) and multi-​sensory impairment (MSI). The report (Carroll et al 2017) includes implications of Dyspraxia and Sensory Processing difficulties in this broad area. Estimated figures for SEN Support in these categories are: PH 2%, HI 1.9%, VI 0.9% and MSI 0.2%. Though low, the figures represent a minority for whom the impact can have a debilitating effect on well-​being. The major issue is access: e.g., ramps for wheelchairs, writing slopes, stand/​sit stations, spring-​ loaded scissors and pencil grips. Access may include modifying tasks, teaching specific strategies, changing the learning environment –​while trying to understand each individual’s needs. Most adaptations require advice and/​or intervention of a trained specialist. The Dyspraxia Foundation offers guidance on co-​ordination difficulties, beyond specific diagnoses of dyspraxia. Assistive technology can potentially transform daily activities for people with physical or processing difficulties. Touch-​typing is shown to improve legibility and motivation –​with ergonomic keyboards, predictive text, speech to text, and mind-​mapping software. Motor difficulties can co-​occur (e.g., in ADHD, language impairment and ASC). Best practice is thought to be functional, self-​chosen goals. The CO-​OP model operates from learners choosing skill-​based tasks, developing cognitive strategies, followed by generalisation and transfer into a range of contexts. PE skills include controlled jumping, balancing, trampolining, while coaching in table tennis can also have positive effects. For sensory processing, NHS Occupational Therapy Guidelines are available. Supports such as: ‘chewellery’, diffuser necklaces, textured materials and ear plugs are all thought to reduce sensory reactivity. There is no ‘one size fits all’ and more research is needed. It is important to consider well-​being alongside the impairment. VI learners may need Braille or enlarged font. RNIB Guidance is divided by age, NC subject, and includes FE. Some strategies appear obvious –​e.g., to gain attention by saying the child’s name first. Most children with VI need trained specialists, who can advise on assistive technology. Learners with HI are also at risk of developing speech, language and communication difficulties. The National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) provides information. Many HI learners perceive speech well in quiet environments, but most classrooms have background noise. Training in good listening techniques benefits all, while such noise diffusers as carpets, or fabric wall displays, also help. The picture for students with HI in post-​16 is not good, with many students dropping out. This sector needs much research and attention. What are the basics? A well-​lit room, with maximum opportunities for lip-​reading, hearing loops or similar equipment and seating HI learners at the front, all help.

52  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

The right interventions for HI lead to improvements in oral and written language skills, but there are research gaps. Towards adolescence, learners often fall behind. The Nuffield Foundation (2009) describes the benefits of morphological approaches to literacy, as they depend less on phonology, than regular phonics. Given that figures (DfE 2016) for SEN Support average 12% in primary, 10% secondary; and in mainstream FE around 19% of 16–​19 year-​olds and 16% of 19–​24 year-​olds self-​declare a learning difficulty or disability, getting intervention right for individuals is crucial. Is the main message, for class teachers and SENCOs together, to get HQT as inclusive as possible –​for as many learners as possible –​to prevent some minor interventions, and/​or support those more intensive? Whole-​school attention to what happens in every classroom is the first key to unlock overall achievement. SEN in mainstream (EEF 2021) has five basic HQT recommendations: 1. Create a positive, supportive learning environment for all, without exception, with positive relationships, engagement and a focus on well-​being. 2. Build a holistic understanding of all pupils’ needs, using assessment that stems from teachers’ empowerment and trust –​plus regular, purposeful input from specialists, as well as parents and pupils. 3. In class, use a mix of flexible grouping, cognitive and meta-​cognitive strategies, explicit instruction, technology and scaffolding. 4. Complement HQT with balanced group/​individual interventions –​universal, or well-​targeted for individuals. 5. Train and deploy TAs in the best possible ways. My conclusions are that structured interventions, such as those above, benefit most –​but not all. It is easy to place a child on a pre-​designed programme for a TA to simply follow. It is less easy, yet worthwhile, to ensure that some TAs are sufficiently trained to: • design/​run intervention based on known learners’ needs. • break down literacy/​numeracy barriers for individuals and address them. • reflect intervention back to HQT. Children’s reading habits have changed, so in what form should intervention be? Linked to ECaR, National Literacy Trust and Save the Children, ‘Read on, Get on’ (Douglas J, Lawton K 2016) aims to get children reading again. The report stresses the importance of technology as a complementary tool, rather than a challenge to traditional print. A review of young people’s reading (Clark et al 2020) reveals a gloomy picture of reading enjoyment continuing to decline. As of 2019, only 25.8% of pupils say that they read daily (lowest since 2005). Reading appears to decline with age: • Half as many 11–​14 year-​olds –​than aged 5–​8. • More girls than boys say they enjoy reading. • Only a quarter say they read daily in their free time, with 3 in 10 a few times per week, 1 in 7 rarely, and 1 in 13 never. The report suggests that print formats dominate reading. Are children more engaged with ebooks, text messages, blogs and stuff published on social networks –​as opposed to fiction, non-​fiction or poetry (no surprise)? The challenge is how to use technology, alongside books, to improve reading standards. The report also implies that reading is more extrinsic than intrinsic –​linked more to getting a good job. Unsurprisingly, enjoyment is also linked to reading skill. Based on assessment using Star Reading, those who chose to read scored more highly than those who did not, with: • of those who enjoyed: 6.1% below expected standard, 63.8% at, and 30.1% above. • of those who did not: 15.1% below expected, 76.8% at, and only 8.1% above. What is to be done? Can the ‘Read On –​Get On’ strategy turn around this dire reading situation? Literacy is still the major tool for acquiring worthwhile employment, leading to satisfying

SEN support: a graduated approach  53 

adulthood. So, any reading intervention must be chosen with care –​with the focus on enjoyment as far as possible. Individuality is crucial. Whether designed as ‘catch-​up’ or ‘close-​up’ of the achievement gap, success depends on knowing all needs accurately.

Getting intervention together Interventions are only effective when combined with personal plans. The timing, with entry/​exit criteria, needs to roughly match review dates. While an intervention may only feature priority needs, the Plan normally includes any learning difficulty with an identified target –​spread across HQT and SEN Support. Not all interventions target pupils with SEN. If applied early enough, additional literacy/​ numeracy support could prevent some learners being inappropriately assigned a SEN label. Some learners may only need intervention long enough to unblock a problem: • • • •

A bereaved child needing emotional support. A learner whose reading is delayed because of absence. A child whose spoken language is delayed. A pupil whose confidence needs boosting to place him back on track.

These types of problems need intervention, but not necessarily for SEN or disability. The problem lies in identifying which children: • • • •

only need one or two terms of intervention –​to catch up and keep up. need intervention that depends on the topic taught –​flexible. need ongoing intervention to maintain average achievement. will always need intervention to achieve –​even if below average.

Only for children with the most severe difficulties should intervention become a lifestyle –​needs-​ led rather than resource-​led. Not all interventions need additional funding. The dilemma for teachers and for SENCOs is to decide when an intervention is no longer needed and HQT alone can meet a particular child’s needs. SENCOs also need to recognise where, within the flow of interventions, reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act feature. Many adjustments only require creative thinking, for example: • • • • •

allowing a wheelchair user to leave lessons early to avoid crowd problems. enlarged font. allowing a parent to support an anxious child in class until he feels confident. separate work stations. adapted seating arrangements.

Should interventions be changed regularly to maintain motivation? I think so. Table 6.6 offers a checklist for evaluation. Table 6.6  Setting up and evaluating interventions SETTING UP: • What is the intervention goal? Expected progress? • Does it match the child’s needs? • Where is it within the three-​part model (HQT, targeted, individualised)? • If taken out, is the likely gain worth more than missing the class lesson? • Where does the intervention sit with the Code and Equality Act? • Is the intervention part of a personal plan? If so, do targets/​strategies match? • Is an assigned adult in charge –​and are relevant staff aware? • Do parents know about, and support the intervention? • Does the pupil know what the intervention is for? • Arrangements for monitoring progress? Evidence? Timescale? (continued)

54  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 6.6  Cont. EVALUATION: • Have goals been achieved, and expected progress made? • If not, can reasons be justified? • Is evidence consistent, from relevant curricular areas? • Is the pupil using skills gained from intervention, across the curriculum? • Can the gain be maintained? Should the intervention be ceased? Changed? Continued? If ceased, how can longer-​term sustainability be measured?

The questions in Table 6.6 reflect the need for schools to get as much value for money out of intervention as possible –​value being in children having achieved gains. A key outcome is whether skills gained are reinforced through other learning. How successful has an intervention been if: • gains on a spelling programme are not reflected in independent writing? • a pupil’s instant knowledge of times tables does not speed up problem-​solving? • a learner’s improved social skills are not applied to group-​based work? The true test is for learners to transfer skills from interventions into wider contexts. A further dilemma is whether withdrawal benefits learning more than joining in a class lesson. Intervention often balances gains against losses. Given that inclusion is measured by criteria of –​presence, participation and achievement –​is inclusion compromised by removing a child from class? Yet, if that child is gaining nothing, does withdrawn intervention therefore support inclusion? Common sense?

The personal plan The Code no longer specifies Individual Education Plans; schools determine their own approach. The Plan needs to record accurately whatever provision a child receives through SEN Support, or from an EHCP. The Plan needs to be SMART, reviewed termly –​and is uniquely personal. What purpose does a personal plan have? Table 6.7 questions ‘smartness’. Table 6.7  SMART targets on personal plans SPECIFIC: Achievements, as targets, must be clear, precise and understood by child and parents MEASURABLE: How do we know when the child has achieved them? Can targets be tested or observed to measure progress from ‘before to after’ interventions? ACHIEVABLE: Do targets represent reasonable levels of achievement for the child; neither too high nor too low, but realistic enough to inspire confidence and motivation? RELEVANT: Do targets reflect the child’s priorities as barriers to achievement? Are they the most important skills to be focused on during this timescale? TIMED: The agreed review date for when the targets are expected to be achieved.

Both parents and learners should be fully involved. I have seen countless personal plans that have not been understood by either parent or child, with neither involved in ensuring success. Parents and child must be involved in drawing up the Plan and working collaboratively throughout its timescale. So how can personal plans be improved? My observations, from having trained many schools on SEN, have been that: • some targets have been neither specific nor measurable: ‘to improve reading, understand addition’, or ‘work with others’. To ‘read aloud stories with reading age of 6.0 independently’, or ‘add two numbers to total of 20, or ‘discuss… for 10 minutes with one peer’ makes targets more precise. • challenges have been too easy or hard. If too easy, learning is minimal; if too hard, a child is set up to fail.

SEN support: a graduated approach  55 

• social, communication and self-​help types of targets have often been neglected. Yet these may be stepping stones towards academic achievement. If social targets act as barriers, it makes sense to prioritise them. At the ‘mild’ stage of SEN Support, common needs may be accommodated on a group plan (GP), making intervention easier to manage (with confidentiality borne in mind). A GP is only suitable for children whose needs are common to others in the group. A child could have a group as well as a personal plan, balancing common and individual needs.

Pupil passports These have been around for a while, having taken over from IEPs in some schools, either complementing personal plans –​or instead of. The passport aims to: • be more child-​centred. • state what teachers/​TAs will do. • state what each learner will do. How does a passport differ from a personal plan? Is one difference being that it places emphasis on what learners will do as well as adults, supporting independence? Does it also focus on the meta-​cognitive approaches that enable adults to probe further inside learners, especially those described as ‘harder to teach’? The passports, on one side of A4, usually contain: • • • • • •

a photo. personal information a student wants teachers/​TAs to know. areas of learning the student finds problematic. what the student will do independently to support learning. additional support needed –​from school intervention and/​or external specialists. any access arrangements.

The passport may include targets –​being effectively a personal plan that is more pupil-​centred. Could passports involve parents more effectively than traditional plans which have focused only on (SMART) targets/​goals; so often misunderstood by parents and pupils? Pupil passports are intended to feature in-​depth discussions about learning needs and aspirations. They also connect with the ethos of personalisation, involving relevant staff in getting to know pupils, not just as learners –​but as individuals with unique characteristics. While passports may be more extensively used at secondary, their potential value lies in personal ownership. Not only should students write their own passport, encouraging them to think about themselves as individuals, with adult support, they can carry it to show teachers and TAs. Which learners with SEND need this type of document? Mainly students with more complex needs, likely to have an EHCP, for whom personalised strategies may apply. Table 6.8 illustrates a possible ‘About Me’ section. Table 6.8  Pupil passport ‘About Me’ What’s important to me? -​ Being alone sometimes -​ Playing outside climbing trees -​ Knowing when things are going to change

PHOTO OF YOUNG PERSON

What my friends say about me: -​ I’m a loyal friend -​ I am loving and affectionate -​ I am nice to be with

My likes and dislikes: -​ I hate falling out with my sister -​ I don’t like strong smells -​ I don’t like loud noises -​ I like playing Minecraft and Roblox on my tablet

I learn best by: Looking at pictures and stuff -​ Knowing I’ve done something good spurs me on -​ Taking things slowly -​

What I am good and not good at: -​ I am okay at maths -​ I’m not good at writing -​ I read okay but need help to understand -​ I often forget what I’m doing

56  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Beneath such personalised information, the Plan might have the usual targets/​ strategies. Examples: • • • •

Attention: I will focus on a task for at least 10 minutes. Social/​communication skills: I will discuss a topic with two peers. Confidence/​self-​esteem: I will attempt one new task each week. Language, literacy and numeracy, where applicable.

What can we glean from the ‘About Me’ section? Might this person have ASC, SLCN or SEMH –​ or elements of all three? The passport does not attempt to place any learner into a communal box –​it’s about individuality. Personalisation equates to independence. Table 6.9 links possible targets and strategies to the imagined learner above. Table 6.9  Targets, outcomes, aspirations Goal/​targets for Term

Outcomes for Year

Long-​term Aspirations

Maintain attention on times table activity for 15 minutes.

Maintain attention on any maths task for 30 minutes.

Attention, memory and focus

Read words with vowel digraphs ………?

Read longer words by combining two or three syllables

Achieve functional literacy skills

Count in ‘same coin’ groups (eg 10s or 5s) up to £1

Count in ‘mixed coin’ groups up to £5

Achieve functional maths skills: using money and measurement

Work with one friend on task Help a younger child to read

Work with up to four different friends

Friendship and independence

Strategies for the goals/​targets above would need to be stated –​making clear the ‘how, who, when’, as well as arrangements for reviews. To support ‘functional maths’ this person might shop with Mum and Dad and practise using coins. For literacy, the strategies might state a particular reading scheme or set of books, or computer-​based phonic intervention. A fully inclusive passport would feature home/​school as reflective environments that help the young person achieve the aspirational independence that is important to successful adulthood. Whether a child has a group plan, personal plan or passport, progress needs to be reviewed termly. What constitutes good (or not) progress for individuals is explored in Chapter 12. The Ombudsman has called for wider powers to cover how schools provide for all SEND –​not just EHCPs (Ombudsman 2021). The LGSCO has found fault with over 77% of complaints it investigated about education and children’s services, and that parents have no redress. There is confusion, and parents often seek an EHCP because, in their view, SEN support is not working. So, could powers to investigate at SEN support level improve the system, and reduce parental pressure to seek an EHCP? The seamless interaction between HQT, interventions for SEN support and Personal Plans or Passports, may appear more complex than it actually is. Once staff get their heads around the ideas and understand their duties under the Code and Equality Act, blending each idea into a combined flow happens naturally. Can combining these parts into one whole narrow the achievement gap? I think so, especially where staff have the confidence to share errors as well as successes in the interests of creative research. The model may also need a sprinkling of personalisation for a small minority, to add that magic touch.

Summary This chapter has explored the three-​part model, as a combined and co-​ordinated strategy for addressing the diverse needs of all learners, with ideas for a range of resources aimed at matching interventions to the precise needs of individuals with SEND. The chapter has also considered how personal plans and pupil passports relate to the three-​part model, through SMART targets that, while matched to individual needs, challenge every pupil to perform to their best.

7 Education, health and care plans

This chapter considers: • key differences between statements and EHCPs that enable the latter to be more effective. • what EHCPs should contain. • how an EHCP charts each learner’s journey –​from small-​step target setting -​through to longer-​term aspirations. • how termly and annual reviews can be effectively co-​ordinated. • The engagement model as an observational tool for measuring the achievement of low attaining pupils with SEND.

Making EHCPs effective When EHCPs replaced statements, the outcomes for children in need of such intensive support should have improved. In light of the difficulties many parents still face in obtaining an EHCP that matches their child’s needs, it is time to reflect on: • the types of SEND that require an EHCP. • how EHCPs can be made to work. • how parents and pupils can be more effectively involved. Table 7.1 highlights differences between statements and EHCPs, adapted from a report by Spivack et al (2014). Table 7.1  Differences between statements and EHCPs Process

Statements

EHCPs

Referral for assessment

Standard information was mainly SEN-​focused

More emphasis on gathering information from across different services

Co-​ordinated assessment

Parents could be involved in written input, but less opportunity to meet SEN caseworkers

More family-​centred, integrated, face-​to-​face discussions with EHCP co-​ordinator

Planning

Parents sent draft to review, often based on set number of hours of adult support

Family-​centred, high aspirations, co-​ produced outcomes, more flexible

Cultural spirit and intention

Mainly fitted into set levels and types of provision

Reduced duplication, less bureaucracy, improved communication with parents and learners, single pathway to age 25, more holistic process, collaborative decision-​making

What is it now about the EHCP process that schools and LAs find equally problematic? The research highlights issues of: • consistency between different agencies. • delivering a family-​centred process –​with parental engagement. • meeting required timeframes.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-10

58  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

• sharing information between agencies and families. • increased paperwork. • providing an integrated, comprehensive service with a personal budget offer. Family-​centred ways of working should have led to quality EHCPs that are more effective than the statements they replaced. The research also points out the need to improve non-​statutory provision (SEN Support), so that fewer children require an EHCP: a challenge for SENCOs. The EHCP process sought to make assessment and provision simpler; a one-​stop-​shop, involving multiple collaboration of professionals into a combined, less stressful experience for parents and learners. Parents now have greater control over EHCP outcomes, and the Code reminds LAs and schools not to apply a blanket policy to particular types of need, prioritising personalisation. For some pupils with severe learning difficulties, needs are so obvious they can be ‘fast-​ tracked’: met with an EHCP from the Early Years Foundation Stage. Similarly with acute changes in medical or social circumstance. Only a tiny minority should emerge with needs that require intervention over and above SEN Support. While anyone can bring a child’s difficulties to the attention of the LA, for that tiny minority whose needs have emerged gradually, the LA needs to be satisfied that the Code’s graduated response has been followed thoroughly, to merit further assessment. Evidence should include: • appropriately targeted, high quality teaching. • intervention at SEN support level –​without the external specialist. • further applied intervention, with the involvement of an external specialist. Such evidence must show that, despite a cumulative process of intervention, the child has still failed to progress, and that the achievement gap between the child and their peers has widened significantly, for example: • almost no progress in academic attainment. • progress is particularly slow, despite intervention above that normally provided. • very poor results from standardised tests. The LA will also require evidence of significant health and/​or social care needs. The Code reminds schools that an EHCP may be needed to ensure support into Further Education. How should schools respond to a new EHCP? Firstly, a meeting should be held to determine how best to translate the EHCP into a practical, personalised intervention that will enable it to be fully effective, attended by: • • • •

all relevant staff: SENCO, teachers and teaching assistants. external specialists. parents/​carers. the child or young person.

Given that the EHCP may combine education, health and social care needs into a single document, it must seek an outcome centred on the unique and precise needs of the learner. Table 7.2 illustrates how such needs might be written into the EHCP. From Year 9, it must also include provision to support adulthood. The Plan is meant to be anticipatory and futuristic, reflecting a vision of success for the young person at its heart. Table 7.2  Education, health and care plans A: Views, interests and aspirations: Aspirations should represent a long-​term vision of the child as an adult. It may be in the form of ‘About Me’ written in 1st or 3rd person. B: Description of SEN: Type of SEN, and the broad areas of need that relate to the SEN. C: Health needs related to SEN and/​or disability: These need to be specific and comprehensive. D: Social care needs related to SEN and/​or disability: Assessment of social care needs that reflect the Working Together to Safeguard Children Act (DfE 2015). E: Outcomes sought for adult life, plus arrangements for setting shorter-​term targets: How will targets set at termly reviews feed into annual –​and build towards outcomes that meet adult aspirations?

Education, health and care plans  59 

Table 7.2  Cont. F: Provision for SEN: Description of what will be provided by the EHCP from the education side: everything that is over and above what is generally provided for all children, from in-​school and LA external agencies. If Year 9, includes preparation for adulthood. G: Health provision: Description of what will be provided to meet health needs. Some therapies can appear under education or health. If Year 9, includes preparation for adulthood. H1: Social care needs under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970: These refer to very significant needs that demand immediate response. H2: Social care needs under the Social care act of 2014: Other social care provision, that links to the SEN, that is reasonably required. I: Name and type of school that child will attend: included in the final plan. This may be one type of school or dual placement between special and mainstream, or Education Otherwise (home schooling). J: Personal budget, if applicable: Details of the budget provided to facilitate the success of the EHCP, must be sufficient to secure the provision specified. K: List of advice and information gathered for the EHCP: Evidence that has contributed to the judgment: who has contributed what, and when?

The choice of school (I) for children with severe levels of SEND has long been an issue for parents. The Code states that no mainstream school can refuse to admit a child with an EHCP unless it is incompatible with the efficient education of others and no reasonable steps can be taken to prevent such incompatibility. The aspirations and needs of the child govern the choice. The first meeting, following allocation of an EHCP, is to decide how it will be addressed. How do education, health and social care professionals find practical solutions, where all three feature in a child’s needs? This is problem-​solving at its most complex, involving everyone who has contributed to the EHCP. On the education side, a priority is to break down adult aspirations and outcomes into short-​ term targets (E) that render the EHCP manageable over time. Opinions will differ, but success depends on how school, parents and learners work together through each operational stage. Parents should be helped to understand how termly targets feed into annual outcomes, and into adult aspirations; which may change as the EHCP progresses. The aspirations shown in Table 7.3 are not that different from those of a person without SEND; although they may take longer to achieve. The needs of a child with an EHCP in Year 3 will change considerably, following about eight annual reviews, and up to 24 termly. Throughout this timescale, schools and parents must continually observe whether aspirations set at the start begin to appear too high, or too low, so that the EHCP can be adapted as necessary, to steer that person successfully into post-​16 support. The EHCP can only be amended with parental agreement. How do long-​term aspirations differ from outcomes? The Code states that outcomes represent the benefit or difference made to an individual as the result of intervention. Outcomes are end results: achieved by each phase or stage, with reference to termly targets. The aspirations, outcomes and targets in Table 7.3 are examples of how all three could combine and support each other. Only parents and schools know learners well enough to judge the lengths of stride each child can make, term by term, year on year, towards those aspirations. Table 7.3  From broad aspirations –​to specific targets ASPIRATIONS

OUTCOMES

TARGETS

To communicate effectively with different people.

Use language to express personal needs. Join in pair/​group activities.

Ask adult for help if stuck. Place objects (in, on, under…) to learn words of position. Use colour, size, shape to describe objects.

To gain information from, and enjoy, reading.

Read all tricky words. Decode regular single-​ syllable words. Develop vocabulary for reading. Understand what has been read.

Recognise first set of tricky words in books. Read single-​syllable words with vowel digraphs (feel, shout, peach). Answer literal questions from what has been read.

To lead independent life, with minimal support.

Deal with personal needs. Gain awareness of danger. Know when help is required.

Deal with toilet needs alone. Cross road to go to shop. Ask adult to explain words not understood. (continued)

60  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 7.3  Cont. ASPIRATIONS

OUTCOMES

TARGETS

To become a responsible citizen and enjoy work.

Work alongside others. Manage time commitments. Respect the routines of school, and work experience.

Perform task with up to 4 peers. Read time to the half hour. Work quietly on task up to 10-​minute time span. Place finished work in allocated tray.

To write basic texts: emails, letters etc.

Spell to a simple level. Write simple sentences with punctuation. Know how different types of texts are set out.

Spell all tricky words. Use templates to produce sentences. Use models to support own writing.

To manage personal finances with minimal support.

Understand numbers to 1000, add subtract, multiply and divide up to thousands. Know all notes and coins. Go shopping. Check own change.

Add numbers up to total of 20. Know coins, up to and including 50p. Spend coins in shop and check change.

Co-​ordinating annual and termly reviews Termly EHCP reviews follow a similar pattern to those for SEN Support, using evidence from relevant staff, external specialists, parents and learners. The Review must revolve around the child and parents. To keep everyone on track, the Code recommends that schools append documents and personal plans from each termly review to the EHCP, to reflect the aspirational journey. The purpose of the Annual Review (six monthly in EYFS) is to assess yearly outcomes on the EHCP. Which have been achieved? Which new outcomes will lead the young person further along the aspirational road? If termly reviews have been effective, they will fit neatly into the annual review, with information already there –​no big surprises. Regular checks on the direction of travel (targets, outcomes, aspirations) will have kept everyone, including parents, well-​focused. The Annual Review must be centred around the young person. An advocate may be required. Transition planning must be built into the EHCP, with the review held early enough for all adults to manage transition effectively. If LA re-​assessment is requested, this follows the same process as initial assessment. Similarly, with amendments. The EHCP may cease if everyone, including parents, feel that it is no longer required. A personal budget can be requested for a young person with an EHCP but this is not an entitlement. If granted, the personal budget should reflect the aspirations and intended outcomes from the EHCP, and be co-​ordinated with its education, health and social care elements. The effectiveness of the personal budget, where applicable, should also form part of annual review. Advice for schools and LAs is available DfE (2014e).

The engagement model Now that children are no longer assessed using ‘P Scales 1-​4’, the Government has published guidance (DFE 2020) as an assessment tool for learners working below NC tests, not engaged in subject-​specific study. This guidance, based on levels of emotional engagement, is useful for learners with PMLD. The developmental areas are: • • • • •

exploration: how pupils build on an initial response. realisation: how pupils react to a new stimulus. anticipation: how pupils predict, expect or associate with a stimulus. persistence: how pupils may investigate a stimulus in different ways. initiation: whether a pupil can sustain attention enough to find out more and interact.

Schools have autonomy over how these levels are implemented. They are intended to measure progress independently, according to a learner’s EHCP profile, and can combine formative

Education, health and care plans  61 

(observing ongoing progress) with summative (reviewing targets on EHCPs) approaches. Schools are required to report on which pupils are assessed using the engagement model, devised to include every learner in the overall practice of ‘assess, plan, do, review’. The model has been adapted from the Complex Learning Disabilities and Difficulties (CLDD) Project (Carpenter 2011), in response to increased numbers of children with CLDD, necessitating new approaches. Children with CLDD often have conditions that co-​exist and overlap, creating a complex profile of needs that many schools are unfamiliar with. Engagement has been shown as a reliable predictor of learning. The Government has expressed concerns about children with CLDD in areas of: • • • • •

mental health and emotional well-​being. training the workforce, including the role of TAs. multi-​disciplinary working. preparation for adulthood. family perspective.

The suggestion is that schools set up ‘well-​being’ teams, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. The original CLDD review includes one example of a student who, at 18 years-​old –​had the expressive language of a 20-​year-​old, living skills of age 11, mathematical understanding of 8, social skills of 7, and emotional maturity of 6, thus presenting problems for teachers in knowing how best to approach this range of needs. Engagement can be multi-​dimensional, according to: • how well pupils engage in developing new concepts, skills or knowledge. • how effective special educational provision is in empowering learners to progress. • how pupils engage across the four broad areas of need. Engagement uses a pupil-​centred approach, values all sources of information provided by those working with children at these levels, and promotes consistency using a common language on which to base decisions. This approach also recognises the complex interaction between pupils’ physical, sensory, communicative and learning disabilities. The use of engagement became statutory in 2021, so class teachers and SENCOs need to agree on: • how/​when to use this model, with which pupils. • how to report evidence of pupil progress: outcomes of EHCPs? As part of Annual Reviews? Within the four areas of need? • how to build on the evidence and plan a personalised curriculum. The areas are not hierarchical, with no expectation to develop progress in all five. Teachers might use the model flexibly by: • • • • •

setting targets across the four areas of need, as on the EHCP. planning teaching strategies for each target. working as multi-​agency teams –​to moderate between schools. observe responses in different contexts and environments. evaluate.

Observing pupils requires skills in understanding tiny-​ step progress, e.g., changes in eye movement, breathing, posture, facial expression or vocalisation. Pupils might use different materials in sensory ways to explore sounds or textures, using finger paints, cereals, silky dough or sand. Videos and photos provide evidence. The process may involve: 1. Starting with the child –​what does each learner like to engage with? 2. Interact, observe, assess –​how do they communicate? Adjustments needed? 3. Involve the family in next steps, discuss learning –​can both school and family tell the same learning story?

62  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

The engagement model could also work with existing planning and assessment systems. In primary schools, CLDD learners may experience at their own level, e.g.: • • • •

class investigation on melting/​freezing –​by reaching out to touch and explore. watching peers getting changed for PE and anticipate. planting cress seeds –​interacting with the activity. mathematical capacity –​pouring water from one container into another.

The engagement model also ties in with frameworks, such as the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (B Squared) with resources to support the model. This model is not about teaching engagement, but using it to assess progress against learning outcomes, either from an EHCP, or curricular area. Engagement relies on accurate observation and is the pre-​requisite for cognition and learning at many levels. The points made above can apply to many children with SEND, not just those with severe cognitive and complex difficulties. The engagement model can be used with learners up to age 25 where appropriate. For those few pupils who need one, the EHCP represents the final stage of a long assessment journey. So, we must ensure that the journey has been worth the effort: that the final document –​ with its stated aspirations, outcomes, targets and strategies –​enables each and every learner to achieve full potential. This can only happen when the EHCP is combined with SEN Support and HQT –​to ensure a smooth, triangulated approach to learning –​built on high, yet realistic, expectations. The Council for Disabled Children (CDC) offers advice on writing good quality EHCPs –​and reminds us that they are ‘living’ documents.

Summary This chapter has explored EHCPs as documents that aim to chart a learner’s entire journey from initial SEND diagnosis, followed by EHCP allocation, term by term, year by year, through schooling leading successfully into post-​16 preparation for adulthood. This chapter has also focused on the EHCP as a ‘living’ document, owned by learners, and revisited continually by involved staff and parents.

8 Multi-​agency working

This chapter considers the valuable role played by external specialists, posing the following questions: • at which point along the ‘graduated response’ to the Code should specialists be involved with individual children? • how else might LA specialists support SEND achievement? • what role does psychology generally play in teaching and learning? • how can joint working between LAs and schools be improved?

External specialist support SENCOs need to know how each service operates and know enough about each child to select the appropriate one: for example, Educational Psychologist, Speech and Language Therapist, Occupational Therapist, or Learning/​Behavioural Support Service. Specialist services operate at different levels: whole school, class or group, individual, or a combination. Table 8.1 offers examples. Table 8.1  External specialist support Specialist involvement

Examples

Individual pupils

Providing assessments/​reports for pupil reviews EHCP assessments for LA Observing a pupil’s behaviour in class Counselling to boost self-​esteem Working alongside pupils in class Talking with parents

Year group or class

Observing the learning environment Problem-​solving at class level Training for staff with a particular year group

Whole school

Improvements to the SEND policy Training for all staff on areas of SEND Whole-​school provision planning

How do SENCOs decide on priorities to use limited funding wisely? The benefits of specialist support often spread beyond immediate purpose. A school improvement service is primarily concerned with whole-​school policy/​practice. A speech and language therapist may focus on the individual, yet benefits may extend into positive strategies for whole-​class communication. A consultant from a learning or behaviour support service may assess individuals, yet recommendations apply more broadly. EPs are consulted on individual behaviour, yet their advice may apply more generally. Personal plans/​passports and reviews for children at this stage have added dimension –​as external assessment/​advice inform next steps. Parental permission must be sought before a child is referred to an external specialist. SENCOs need clear criteria for referral and be able to justify funding used for this purpose to Ofsted, governors and parents. SEMH difficulties often affect the smooth running of classrooms more than any other area. Looking back on my earliest teaching, classroom management was not my strength. How I wished I had studied psychology. During later years, teaching in a special school, then as manager of a learning support service, employed by the LA, I discovered the joys of reaching out to children with difficulties, at a more personal and individualised level than classroom teaching often allows.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-11

64  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

A Channel 4 TV programme (30.9.21) focusing on behaviour, featured children whose disruptive behaviours were affecting the learning of others. The intervention, led by a Behaviour Specialist, sought to prevent exclusion. About 30,000 children in England were excluded from mainstream, some primary, during 2018–​19. Having worked in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), I have observed the rejection that many excluded pupils feel. The primary school featured on the programme has a pastoral unit into which children are sent for temporary periods, and a behaviour mentor. These young children’s behaviours had placed them at risk of exclusion. Specialist advice/​strategies included: • • • •

attempting to form relationships. teachers instructing –​not requesting (avoid ‘please’ at end of sentences). attachment –​10 minutes daily, 1–​1 with class teacher. conversations with pupils about their emotions.

Some important points emerged, namely that rules often represent safety –​how far to go before known consequences kick in. This specialist observed children in their home environment to ensure parental consistency. The aim was to deal with severe disruption individually –​to prevent exclusion, and head off further disruptive behaviours at secondary. All teachers would benefit from basic training in psychology. Teaching is a job that depends for success on working with humans whose emotions are underdeveloped, and whose self-​esteem often needs sensitivity and gentle nurturing.

LAs and schools working together Having taught in both mainstream and special schools, worked on ‘outreach’, and managed a Special Educational Need Support Service, I realise the importance of LAs and schools operating in tandem. In 2021 one LA failed its revisit from Ofsted, in relation to its responsibilities under the Child and Families Act 2014, for these reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Lack of joined-​up strategy for improving provision. Inter-​agency working ineffective –​poor co-​ordination of assessment. Joint commissioning underdeveloped across local areas. Co-​production not embedded –​parents often asked for views after decisions had been made, and views not acted upon. Parents had no active voice. Huge level of parental dissatisfaction. The published Local Offer was difficult to locate, not useful for communicating with parents. EHCPs of variable quality, waiting times too long, and children not seen quickly enough by specialists. Pupils with SEND made weak academic progress compared with nationally. Higher non-​attendance of pupils with SEND, than nationally. Not enough young people with SEND entering employment –​and the proportion of employed adults with learning disabilities below the national average.

What can we learn from these judgements? Lack of joined-​up strategy? Inter-​agency working ineffective? Co-​production not embedded? Many of the issues stem from an absence of collaboration and co-​operative organisation. Likely reasons? Lack of time. Yet, allowing for this, and the fact that Covid has affected all LA provision, there are messages for SENCOs in ensuring that their school’s multi-​agency collaboration is as effective as possible. The pandemic has wrought havoc on families. At no previous time has the issue of well-​being been more urgent. Everyone has a role to play. A survey (DfE 2018) on how children feel revealed interesting points. Children need: • • • •

vigilance –​adults to notice when things trouble them. understanding and action. stability –​stable, trusting relationships with those who support them. respect –​the expectation of being competent.

Multi-agency working  65 

• • • •

information and engagement. explanation –​to be informed of assessment decisions, with reasons. advocacy –​support in expressing their views. protection from all forms of discrimination and bullying.

Do SENCOs need to observe those whose EHCP has a care/​health section? Guidance from the survey stresses ‘early help’ for vulnerable groups: • • • •

Those with SEND, with or without an EHCP. Children who show signs of being drawn into anti-​social, criminal behaviour and gangs. Children who are frequently absent. Those in challenging home circumstances.

The guide requests staff to be vigilant and aware that mental health problems can indicate a child at risk of, or already, suffering abuse or neglect. While trained professionals only should diagnose, teachers are well-​placed to observe signs. A designated teacher, or SENCO, might undertake assessment, provide help, act as advocate and co-​ordinate the delivery of support services. The ‘who does what’ decisions may be on a case-​by-​case basis. Following initial observation, family/​parenting discussions need to follow. Safeguarding partners (school staff and others) need to agree on levels for assessment. It is not necessary to seek consent to share information for purposes of safeguarding, providing there is a lawful basis on which to process information. But it is good practice for staff to inform parent/​carers of information shared with external agencies, in the interests of co-​operative problem-​solving. Within the right context, sharing information supports inter-​agency collaboration. How might the assessment framework shown in Figure 8.1 be balanced between school, family and external agencies? Child’s development needs Health Education Emotional/behavioural development Identity Family and social relationships Social presentation Self-care skills Parenting capacity

Family/environmental factors

Figure 8.1  A framework for assessment.

Do SENCOs need to establish clarity on where their role fits, bearing in mind the potential for overload? How closely do they need to work with other leaders who co-​ordinate with external professionals, especially where SEND and well-​being overlap? For children with EHCPs, each component must be co-​ordinated, to promote overall well-​being and achievement. Schools’ duties with regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, also fall on Governing Bodies. SENCOs and class teachers need to remain alert and keep tabs on children who may fall under this guidance. While the survey on what children want and how they feel was undertaken prior to the pandemic, its implications have become more important since, as society strides towards a new normal.

EP support Do schools use the services of Educational Psychologists enough? Is there a greater need for psychological approaches? Teaching, by its very nature, is psychological. I believe every teacher should have basic psychology included as part of initial training. Getting every child or student to

66  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

listen, engage with the curriculum, respond and reflect, in order to bring about secure learning, is immensely difficult. During my school days, teaching required mainly one-​way information sharing. Discipline was strict –​mainly from fear of consequences. Talk did not feature much. Classrooms were mainly silent, as we copied information or listened. Our teachers had no need for psychology. Children were seen –​though rarely heard. Not so now. Children have a voice –​a strong one. And it is teachers who have to listen and respond to how learning either is, or is not, happening for every pupil. Mainstream classrooms have changed beyond all recognition due to inclusion, mainly since Warnock. But amongst the many positive changes in pedagogy, has enough emphasis been placed on the psychological implications of teaching today’s huge range of learners? I don’t think so. Educational Psychologists could play a more vital role in every school, at different levels, particularly post-​pandemic, when the well-​being of all children, not just the vulnerable, is so urgent: helping staff use psychological approaches that: • enhance HQT for all –​by observing whole classes, groups, or individuals. • reach out to learners who are harder to teach and/​or emotionally distant. • support TAs working either in class or on interventions. As a young, inexperienced teacher, I would have welcomed EP input to help me do a better job of managing my classroom. Today’s teachers have it harder for reasons that include: • the inclusive nature of teaching for diversity. • the two-​way channel of teacher/​learner communication. • rules for disciplinary procedures –​requiring positive, emotion-​based strategies. As Head of a Learning Support Service, many years later, I supported different schools and liaised with EP’s, mainly at the level of individual learning difficulties. Looking back, how much more productive might it have been to engage with those EPs at whole-​school level? Teaching is all about psychology. A key part of the SENCO role is to decide which children on SEN support need the support of external specialists in order to achieve.

Summary This chapter has considered the valuable role of external specialists in SEND achievement, and in ensuring that the Code’s graduated response is properly followed. This chapter has made a case for far greater attention to psychology at whole-​school, class or intervention level, given that teaching and learning is based on effective psychological approaches. More joint working between LAs and schools is the way forward for SEND.

9 The SENCO role

What is today’s SENCO? This chapter considers how the role has changed over time, and offers advice on: • SEND policy-​making: as a whole-​school response to the Code. • the outward-​looking role of the modern SENCO. school audit • planning, developing and evaluating provision maps –​based on a whole-​ of needs. • linking provision mapping with personal plans. • what all SENCOs need in order to do the best possible job –​and succeed.

Managing the Code’s graduated response Managing the SEND graduated response is a key part of the role. Where tasks exceed time, the system must be practical and efficient, with contributions from colleagues, facilitated by effective provision-​planning. The Code lists responsibilities as: • • • • • • • • • • •

managing the operation of SEND policy. co-​ordinating additional provision. liaising on behalf of pupils with SEND (also vulnerable). advising teachers. advising on the delegated budget and other resources. liaising with parents/​carers of pupils with SEND. liaising with Early Years providers, schools, external specialists, health and social care. being a point of contact between school and LA for specialist services. working with others to ensure the school complies with the Equality Act. ensuring SEND records are up-​to-​date. guiding all colleagues.

Tasks such as managing, advising, co-​ordinating, ensuring can only be done by persons with SLT status. The Code states that SENCOs should be members of leadership teams, with allocated time/​resources to perform effectively. Table 9.1 offers a checklist for SENCOs, to support policy-​ making –​in collaboration with colleagues, parents and learners. Table 9.1  Checklist for whole-​school response to the Code 1. Targeted classroom intervention • Once a child falls behind, who is involved in initial, targeted intervention? Class teachers? All subject teachers (secondary)? Teaching assistants? • How are these staff supported –​what role does the SENCO play? • How is this initial response recorded? By whom? Where kept? Who holds copies? 2. SEN Support • What are the criteria for SEN Support? • How are those with disabilities linked to this level? • Where does evidence come from? Who collates it? • How is SEN Support recorded –​SEN type? Broad areas of need? Both? • Does criteria indicate –​a group plan, personal plan or both? How do they complement each other? • How is confidentiality achieved? • How is intervention recorded? (continued)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-12

68  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 9.1  Cont. • How is progress evaluated? What criteria? Who is involved? • How are termly reviews organised and conducted –​timings, procedures? • How are learners and parents prepared? • Following review, which criteria influence either more, same or less, intervention? 3. Involving external specialists (ES) • What criteria initiates ES involvement –​evidence? • How does ES support reflect the LA local offer? • How is this evidence different –​which particular difficulties indicate ES intervention? • How do records (and register) for SEN Support differentiate between children with and without ES support? • Who is responsible for these records? Who has a copy? Confidentiality? • How is progress at ES level evaluated –​who is involved? • How are learners and parents prepared for termly reviews? • How are external specialists involved? Reports? Attendance? • How are these reviews organised/​conducted? Timing? Procedures? • Following reviews –​what criteria influence more intensive support, same, less? 4. EHCP level • What are the criteria for moving towards LA assessment, and/​or dealing with requests for LA assessment from parents? • What is the follow-​up procedure for LA refusal of EHCP? • What is the procedure for a new EHCP? • Records/​storage of EHCPs –​who has copies? • How are aspirations/​outcomes broken down into termly targets? • How is flexibility and personalisation built into the detailed plan arising from an EHCP? • What is involved in intervention at EHCP level? • Which children need regular support from external specialists? For what purpose? • How do we collaborate with health and social care to make the EHCP experience as smooth as possible –​as combined intervention? • When multiple specialists are involved, how is confidentiality maintained? • How are reviews co-​ordinated –​how do termly inform annual? • Where does combined evidence for termly and annual reviews come from? • What role do external specialists play in EHCP reviews? Reports only? Attendance? • How are learners prepared for termly/​annual reviews? What makes them person-​centred? • How are EHCPs updated as needs change? • How are learners’ aspirations kept in clear sight throughout schooling?

So many questions –​inviting slightly different answers. The checklist is intended to kick-​ start whole-​school approaches to Code response. Only when the entire team is heading in the same direction –​inspired, confident and knowing how each individual role supports the whole endeavour –​can SEND success be assured. Combining funding often presents problems, with further questions for SENCOs: What criteria spreads funding fairly and appropriately? How is combined funding spread across each level of Code response? How are pupil benefits evaluated –​to justify funding? How does pupil premium support pupils who also have SEND? How does the whole-​school SEND response reflect the LA local offer? At which point in the graduated response are pupils/​parents involved in drafting personal plans? From which level of Code response do targets become ‘additional to, different from’? How does the overall shape of the SEND register (Figure 2.1) reflect similar types of schools and pupil populations? • At each level of Code response, how are learners and parents prepared for both key stage, and post-​16, transition? • • • • • • • •

SENCOs might consider how answers to these questions can become policy, are communicated to parents and other stakeholders, are reflected in whole-​school practice, and evaluated. The Code lists the main role of the Early Years SENCO as: • • • • •

ensuring practitioners understand responsibilities towards children with SEND. managing and supporting children with SEND. advising and supporting colleagues with day-​to-​day teaching and learning. involving parents. liaising with external specialists where necessary.

The SENCO role  69 

SENCOs are also responsible for reporting to Governors on: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

types of SEND the school provides for. the policy for identifying/​assessing SEND. how the school consults/​involves parents. arrangements for including learners’ views. support arrangements for transition. how HQT meets SEND needs. expertise and training of staff who teach pupils with SEND. how additional provision is evaluated. how pupils with SEND are included in school activities. how the school promotes social/​emotional development, and well-​being. how the school deals with bullying and discrimination. how the school involves external agencies. how the school local offer reflects the LA local offer, and how funding is used fairly.

Ofsted will look at the achievement of all vulnerable groups, including those disadvantaged or looked-​after, that overlap with SEND.

What are provision maps? Without a whole-​school provision map, the SENCO role would be impossible. Such a map clarifies the agreed destination, tracking: • • • • •

all provision over and above HQT. which learners receive it. how budgets are spent. who delivers what –​justifying staff deployment. evidence of legislation (Code) compliance.

It represents the big picture, towards which everyone subscribes: teachers, assistants, external specialists, parents and learners. The Code requires maps to show provision that is ‘additional to and different from’ –​for SEND, vulnerable, and more able pupils. Provision maps can also: • • • • •

inform reviews –​by incorporating personal plans. summarise evidence for learners who need EHCP assessment. lead to school improvement. enable schools to update additional provision simply. support parent/​pupil conversations.

So, if provision maps can do (almost) everything –​it’s worth investing to make them super-​ efficient and effective.

Developing the provision map Guided by the SENCO, all staff who manage/​use additional funding should develop the map, with co-​ordinators sharing data and working strategically to direct resources. The map for individuals must take account of parents’ and pupils’ views on: • type of provision and how it is delivered. • the roles they play to ensure success.

70  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Where are the parameters? Can the map cover everything, including reasonable adjustments, and those personalised approaches that lie ‘outside the box’? Does the provision map cover everything –​or is it supplemented by teaching records, notes on personalised approaches, or personal plans? Provision should be needs-​led, with the capacity to meet all needs, be more personalised and promote parental confidence. If resource-​led, provision is kept firmly within budget but less likely to reflect changing needs, and far less likely to satisfy parents. The task is to find middle ground that represents fairness. Provision planning must be: • • • •

easily manageable for the team responsible for its effectiveness. as personalised as is practicable. confidential for parental discussions. a reliable recording system for both individual data and collective results.

Stage 1 of the process might be an audit of needs across the school, for example: • • • • • •

high numbers of children entering Reception with inadequate language/​social skills. significant numeracy difficulties in Year 1. a group in Year 2 with poor phonics. a group in Year 3 whose attainment has dipped following transition. behaviour problems in Year 5. poor reading comprehension in Year 6.

Secondary problems might include: • • • •

a low attaining group in Year 7 causing concern. Year 9 pupils with significant learning difficulties being bullied. EAL pupils across year groups with inadequate English. pupils with emotional or other ‘well-​being’ needs.

The audit may reveal other needs: low self-​esteem, social/​communication needs arising from disadvantage, or areas where staff training is required. The audit represents an opportunity for a whole school to learn about itself: encouraging staff to break away from outdated approaches to problem-​solving. Provision planning benefits from creative and visionary thinking. How do newly revealed needs match up with provision and interventions already in place? The map is likely to include learners, already receiving: • • • •

SEN support. EHCP top-​up. reasonable adjustments for disability. provision from the pupil premium or other additional funding.

The diverse range of individual needs may highlight key stage or year group patterns, such as the examples above, which help to structure the provision map, with staff training to support it. Given these audit outcomes (individual and patterns), how does a school design a provision map based on its unique circumstances and population of learners? Table 9.2 offers a process. Table 9.2  Stages of putting together a provision map Audit needs: • Whole-​school attainment, Year Group patterns, highlighted problems. • Pupils with needs under the Code of Practice and Equality Act. • Other vulnerable groups. • Other personalised needs. • Parents’ and pupils’ views.

The SENCO role  71 

Table 9.2  Cont. Match with current provision: • Compare audit data with current provision –​where are the gaps? • Decide on criteria and parameters. • Match to funding streams –​ringfenced or not? Needs versus resources? • Cost out each element of provision for pupils or groups –​research what works best. • For each learner, include starting point and achievement outcomes. Organise efficient delivery: • Train staff in consistent approaches to intervention. • Clarify roles/​responsibilities. • Ensure parts link up –​HQT, SEN Support, EHCP. • Involve parents and pupils. • Link with external specialist involvement. Individualise for reviews: • Decide how provision will be individualised and made confidential. • Clarify for staff which other documentation informs/​contributes to the provision plan –​personal plans, notes from parental conversations, HQT records, personalised approaches. Evaluate and update: • Impact on each learner’s progress –​distance travelled? • Value for money of each intervention (as pupil outcomes). • Use reviews to update and refresh map as necessary. • Impact on key stage or Year Group patterns of need –​from audit level to outcome. • What do the outcomes point towards? Further staff training? Change of intervention? More focus on parental involvement? • The whole map –​how well did it work?

The provision map represents all staff travelling in the same direction: the collective journey having a: • starting point –​all learners who need more than HQT for any reason. • route –​a cost-​effective range of time-​limited interventions and support strategies. • destination –​expected outcomes and criteria for success. Provision maps lend structure and organisational togetherness to Code requirements for ‘assess, plan, do, review’, and should be updated annually in light of pupils’ achievement data. The map also informs annual reports for parents and supports Code advice on reporting to parents more frequently on behalf of pupils with ‘harder to reach’ needs.

Provision maps and personal plans Personal plans have often not worked effectively for varied reasons, perhaps: • • • • • •

isolated from other forms of intervention. not understood by pupils or parents. not reinforced through HQT. not practised across the curriculum. not contained SMART targets. too focused on literacy/​numeracy –​neglecting other barriers.

How might personal plans be integrated into whole-​school provision mapping? Review targets are easily aligned with intervention entry/​exit criteria. The provision map includes all additional provision, not just selected targets. The provision map can also involve pupils and parents more extensively through the breadth and depth of an intervention package. Can an individualised provision map be SMART enough to subsume a personal plan? Check: • Specific: yes, through stated outcomes, starting point and distance travelled. • Measurable: through entry/​exit criteria and measuring tools for success.

72  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

• Achievable: the provision map audit has starting points and expected outcomes. • Relevant: the map includes all audited needs. • Timed: interventions are time-​limited. Where schools decide on both maps and personal plans, both documents need to be linked, so that staff know their destination (pupil outcomes), their collective strategies and intervention routes, and how effective provision has been. Progress can only be measured from starting point to destination.

Funding and costing provision maps Combined funding streams offer coherent provision that is streamlined and less conflicting; focused on outcomes rather than separate pots. Additional provision may be resourced from: • the core budget (formerly element 1) for all pupils, as provision for SEN may involve HQT tweaking. • the notional SEN budget (formerly element 2), for the first £6,000 of a pupil’s need. • the high needs top-​up (formerly element 3) from the LA, often via a banding system. • the pupil premium, intended to close the ‘disadvantage’ attainment gap. The Code suggests that the notional budget (not ringfenced) should provide high quality additional support for the whole SEND population. A strategic approach, based on provision mapping data, using all available resources, including pupil premium, is highly likely to produce the best outcomes. The pupil premium seeks to narrow the achievement gap between disadvantaged pupils and others. Strategies include: • • • • • • • •

placing learners in smaller class sizes. more targeted individual support. mentoring of some pupils. home tutoring. support for secondary coursework. teaching parents how to support basic skills. counselling. whole-​school focus on language, literacy or maths.

The pupil premium can address whatever need the provision map reveals. Given that less attention is often paid to developing social, emotional and self-​help skills, should more pupil premium be directed at these neglected areas, as they represent qualitative areas of learning, that lead to quantitative outcomes identified from provision mapping? Dunford (2013) informed us that the disadvantage achievement gap appears to widen significantly from primary into secondary, strengthening the argument for attainment on language, literacy and maths to be as high as possible by the end of Year 6. Cocco (2015) reported that the pupil premium has less effect on disadvantage at secondary. What effect have literacy/​numeracy catch-​up programmes for disadvantaged pupils entering secondary school below expected levels, funded by DfE from 2014, had on secondary attainment? These ranged from small group literacy or numeracy for pupils –​to maths workshops for parents. The effects appear positive. In one school, of the 20% of Year 7 with reading scores below average, over 80% ended up on track to achieve at least grade 5 in English GCSE. In the same school, the impact on maths was equally positive. The National Funding Formula now contains a Low Prior Attainment (LPA) factor, in addition to the post-​Covid catch-​up package. So, the message for SENCOs and other finance managers is that combined funding needs to be: • targeted relentlessly at needs identified by audit. • linked to the national achievement gap. • evaluated as a value for money measure –​through individual pupil progress.

The SENCO role  73 

Structure for provision mapping There can be no single model because schools need to design and own what they create. The collective effort members devote to designing their provision map is a valuable training exercise. From audit to evaluation, a school can end up knowing far more about itself as a teaching/​ learning organisation. Might the map be organised by: • • • • •

priority funding (must, should, could)? Key Stage, Year, or class –​patterns of need? Code graduated response? categories of SEND –​or the four broad areas? vulnerable categories –​each matched to a funding stream?

However organised, the map should allow evaluation through: pupil outcomes, costings, types of interventions –​and value for money. The design might be led by any of the above points, depending on how staff think creatively. Do patterns of need rise to the top? Alternatively, a ‘waves’ mapping may lead if staff feel that the additional support process is not working efficiently. A focus on the Code of Practice graduated response, may help to clarify for parents what their child’s combined intervention is. Or would the ‘four broad areas of need’ help staff focus more on differentiated HQT? If the audit indicates poor performance amongst particular SEND categories (eg. SLCN, SEMH, or ASD?) should this lead the design? Designing the provision map from whole-​school issues highlighted by audit, offers schools a direct link back, to evaluate data like-​for-​like. For example, if improving literacy in Year 3 is a major need, then organising part of the map around this directs evaluation back to the starting point. Provision maps can also incorporate personal plans, as shown in Table 9.3. Details include: Number of weeks, length of session, frequency, timing, who delivers, staff/​pupil ratio, costing –​ and importantly, achievement start/​finish points, with progress made. Table 9.3  Including personal plans on provision maps Name…… DOB…. SEN type/​area of need……… Disability………. Vulnerable group…….. Year group……. Class……… Any personalised need……………………..

HQT targeted differentiation: Speaking/​listening……………………… Reading…………….. Writing…………… Maths…………. Social/​emotional…………

SEN Support (mild/​moderate) Intervention 1………Cost….. Achievement start point……. End……. Progress….. Intervention 2………Cost……End…….Progress……

More intensive/​individualised (severe) EHCP or not? Sections for each intervention, details, costings, start/​end achievement points, progress made

Personal Plan: Autumn 2022 Targets: listed as SMART Strategies: Who? What? When?

Personal plan: Autumn 2022 continued Review date……….. Notes from review meeting……………. Issues and next steps…………

Personal Plan: Spring 2023 Details for new term as above

Personal Plan: Spring 2023 continued Details as above

Personal Plan: Summer 2023 Details for new term as above

Personal Plan: Summer 2023 continued Details as above

End-​of-​year progress summary

Next intervention cycle

The format needs to match how each SENCO thinks, with space for varied interventions. Hopefully, the ideas inspire creative thought. Where different staff deliver the same intervention, consistency is essential. SENCOs could write brief guidelines for delivering each intervention (Table 9.4).

74  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 9.4  Delivering interventions Name and type of provision

ELS? Lexia? Shared writing? Word Wasp?

SEN focus/​area of need Vulnerable group Entry criteria/​starting point

Literacy? Cognition? Behaviour? Social? Looked after? SEMH? Pupils in Year 3 with poor writing skills?

Which part of the graduated response? Key stage or year group?

HQT expansion? SEN Support? Year 4 identified group? Year 2 reading delay? Boys writing in Year 5? Year 7 maths? Which audit issue is this intervention aimed at?

Lead person for support Supported by

Who has key responsibility? SENCO, Head of Maths? EAL Co-​ordinator? Inclusion Co-​ordinator? Behaviour Specialist? EP? SLT?

Start/​end dates, frequency, costing, TA

How many weeks? Daily/​weekly? Funding? Name of TA?

How to deliver

Basic principles for teaching this skill Maintaining interest, motivation, positive feedback How to manage the intervention, link each step, How to observe, summarise pupil outcomes

How to record outcomes

What data? In what format? Given to whom?

Method of evaluation Exit criteria?

Reading test? Oral questions? How pupil behaves in group game? RA gain of 6 months?

Pupils receiving this intervention during this term

Pupils’ names added each term

These are merely ideas to stimulate creative thinking. The records for keeping track of anything ‘additional to and different from’ normal delivery are complex. Any child put forward for EHCP assessment needs every intervention accurately recorded. The design of any provision map reflects how key players think, styles of teaching and management, as well as what a particular audit reveals. It is never a good idea to use the same model as other schools, if their audits, staffing, pupil populations, or ways of organisation are different. A provision map supports each school’s unique shape. While support is available for the technological process (Edukey, Provision Map Writer), SENCOs and other key players have to match the type of map to their pupils’ needs.

Evaluating provision maps Evaluation is best done annually, for each academic year. Key questions: • • • •

How far have pupils progressed? Outcomes met? Interventions fairly spread? Does progress indicate good funding choices? Have outcomes addressed audit issues? What needs to change for the next cycle –​different programmes or strategies?

Who evaluates? Everyone –​leaders, teachers, TAs, external specialists, parents, pupils; and Ofsted. As consumers, parents and pupils form the centre of the feedback that helps design the next map. If specialist advice has featured, their feedback is invaluable: for example, if the audit highlighted issues that required a behaviour specialist, or an EP has been involved in highly personalised interventions. Ofsted needs evidence: • • • •

that all contributors have been involved. of individual’s ‘start/​end’ attainments. that whole-​school issues have been tackled. of funding well spent.

The SENCO role  75 

Contributors bring different perspectives: parents are primarily concerned about their child’s outcomes. Teachers want whole-​class results. TAs are concerned with intervention progress. External specialists seek impact from their specific input. Ofsted are likely to evaluate groups of learners known nationally to be underperforming. The SLT is concerned with the entire outcome, as a collective result. So, SENCOs support the whole-​school perspective by: • • • • •

providing effective SEN Support, or EHCP, responses. reasonable adjustments. vulnerable groups highlighted from the audit. staffing –​has training been adequate? What more needs to be done? Funding –​wisely spent? Fairly allocated?

Which areas of progress need measuring? Interventions for literacy/​maths often have built-​ in success criteria; quantitative, supported by standardised tests, reading ages, or criteria-​ referenced skill comparisons between a pupil’s start/​end points. Interventions to improve well-​being rely more on qualitative evidence: • • • • • •

Reduced absence for a truanting child. Increased parental involvement for a child with behavioural difficulties. Improved interactive play for a bereaved pupil. Elimination of bullying in a targeted year group. Evidence of improved independent learning. Increased motivation from a child who has received daily mentoring.

Is there conflict between what schools desire most –​quantitative outcomes, measured through literacy and maths scores, that show collective results for Ofsted –​and the qualitative outcomes pupils need to get them on board in the first place? Might the qualitative desires of some pupils steer outcomes towards the quantitative desires of whole-​school success? When evaluating, is it worth asking whether the balance between qualitative and quantitative interventions needs adjusting?

What do SENCOs need? Having considered the whole-​school nature of the role: what do SENCOs need to know and understand? The SENCO learning outcomes, set up by the Training and Development Agency (2009), centred around: • • • • • • • • • • •

Code of Practice and Equality Act. engagement, participation, achievements of SEND learners. key policies relating to SEND. working strategically with staff and governors. deploying support staff. working with external specialists. budget management. strategies for improving outcomes for SEND learners. provision mapping. leading and developing colleagues. engaging with parents and carers.

Basic SENCO training still seeks to raise ‘skills, knowledge and understanding’ in areas that will narrow the achievement gap. Lamb (DCSF 2009b) had recommended: • resources for training in ‘higher-​incidence’ areas of SEND. • teachers with specialist skills in SEND working across clusters.

76  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Following a decade of training (ASD, MLD, SEMH, SLCN, and SpLD/​dyslexia), by 2019, the attainment gap was still not significantly narrowed. Training should have covered such areas as: leadership and inclusion, theories of learning, coaching/​ mentoring and working with parents. Moore (2015) pointed to the move away from centralised SENCO training: whether the quality of the Award would be protected by school-​funded Accreditation. Providers are free to deliver programmes that respond to precise needs of schools, within the rubric of nationally agreed outcomes, with NASEN playing a facilitating role. Have most schools reached a point where the statement ‘all teachers are teachers of SEND’ is accepted, and how can SENCOs support this in schools needing more development? While much of what SENCOs need stems from generalised training, the rest comes from ‘walking the job’: communicating with colleagues, parents and pupils to apply the general to the specific. Research suggests that secondary schools have a wider achievement gap than primary. Should SENCOs observe SEND learners in subject-​based classrooms –​where reinforcement of English and Maths needs to happen? ‘Walking the job’ informs provision mapping, and collaborative research between SENCOs and subject colleagues will narrow that achievement gap. There is diversity within the SENCO role. A few (tiny schools) may be class teachers, while others co-​ordinate subjects. Dedicated SENCO time varies so widely, it is no surprise that SEND achievement also varies. The SENCO is crucial to overall success. Table 9.5 summarises the SENCO tool box. Table 9.5  The SENCO tool box HAVE

KNOW

DO

UNDERSTAND

Status as member of SLT Back up from Heads Clear vision and sense of purpose Clear job description Credibility from gained knowledge/​experience Time to collaborate effectively

Budgets that impact on SEND About SEN and Disability Code requirements Equality legislation How the school compares nationally All policies that impact on SEND learners

Involve staff, parents, learners in SEND system and policy-​making Lead collaborative provision mapping cycle Observe SEND learners in class –​walk the job Compare achievement with national data Train/​support SEND workforce Deploy TAs efficiently Plan/​chair annual and termly reviews Guide pupils’ transition Have some in-​depth conversations with parents and learners Gather evidence and use strategically Liaise with, and report to, governors

The dynamics of strategic/​collaborative working Steps of progression in language, literacy and maths The school’s main strengths/​weaknesses What teacher colleagues need What parents of SEND pupils need What SEND learners need

The ‘to-​do’ list is the longest! Policy-​making, provision mapping and all the other tasks that SENCOs undertake reflect the overall strengths/​weaknesses of the school.

SEND policy and practice While Heads and Governors have overall responsibility for SEND policy, SENCOs lead. How closely does practice reflect SEND policy, within inclusive principles and other related policies: assessment, discipline, record-​keeping, health/​safety? SEND policy, with provision-​mapping, guides practice. The policy should contain: • agreed beliefs, values, aims, principles, purpose and functions that underpin practice. • the ‘who, what, when, why, how, where’ of intervention. • the ‘who, what, when, how’ of evaluation.

The SENCO role  77 

Simply worded policies, concise, jointly written, understood and agreed –​have the capacity to filter down, and be reflected back through the achievements of learners with SEND.

The Modern SENCO How is the role changing? Is the SENCO now effectively –​SENDCO? The modern SENCO must be a qualified teacher, having completed a Masters in SEN Co-​ordination. The Code of Practice 2015, Equality Act 2010, and Child and Families Act 2014, underpin the role. Given the whole-​school nature of SEND, today’s SENCO cannot do an effective job without being a member of the SLT. The role is complex, with time needed for: • liaising: with parents, SEND pupils, LA personnel, external specialists, class teachers, previous and subsequent school staff, school leaders. • managing: SLT meetings, data/​paperwork, TA team, SEND register/​system, reviews, reports to Governors. • training or coaching: of class teachers, TAs and parents. • teaching or working with SEND learners. Recent research (Moloney 2018), suggests that 71% of SENCOs enjoy the role, rise to the challenges and feel they make a difference, but there is little consistency in allocated time. Only 23% have administrative support: 92% juggle other roles. Many feel their role is often misunderstood by teaching colleagues and SLT. Understandably, about 75% feel frustrated by their inability to do things thoroughly and effectively: some having two days or less weekly to focus on the role. One quote refers to a ‘frantic cycle of paperwork –​referrals, Annual Reviews and meeting records…not enough time for strategic work with impact…or to thoughtfully explore the best provision for vulnerable pupils, with possible SEND’. Many SENCOs report that they are often pulled away to deal with other issues, for example, pupil behaviour, SEMH often dominates, and pupils on SEN Support receive less attention. A quote, ‘…outcry when SEND pupils don’t make progress…funds directed at underachievers rather than genuine SEND…because performance management focuses on SATS scores rather than the challenge of closing the gap for SEND pupils’. Another interesting point –​26% feel that the SENCO is no longer a ‘one-​person’ role. No wonder the SEND gap is not adequately closing. References to ‘frantic cycles of paperwork, little time for strategic work with impact, or to thoughtfully explore best provision’, make clear that SENCOs must have dedicated time to perform their expanded role. So, as part of the SEND shake-​up, should the SENCO role become shared, thus bringing together a greater range of skills, knowledge and strengths? Should there be a SENCO team, with partial input and responsibility from subject teachers, given that the role is now based on whole-​school inclusivity? A further report (Cullen et al 2020), collates evidence about approaches to teaching and supporting pupils with SEND that are effective in promoting these pupils’ academic, social and emotional outcomes in mainstream, broken into the following areas: inclusion, effective SEND leadership, assessment/​identification of needs, HQT, targeted interventions, effective external specialist support and parental engagement. This exhaustive list makes clear that SENCO (or SENDCO) responsibilities extend across the whole school. Can a single person bring about successful outcomes in each area? Cullen further suggests that ‘starting points for educating pupils with SEND are the same as…. others…’, relying on acceptance of diversity, importance of an environment in which staff and pupils interact in their development, from the perspective that all pupils can learn, and that good teaching enables success. This report refers to ‘drivers of development’ as the everyday activities and interactions, supported by ‘influencers’, of pupils’ personal characteristics, context and time. Are SENCOs ‘drivers of development’? And how far are the starting points for educating SEND learners really the same as for educating others? There are implications for how the modern SENCO (or SEND team?) moves around, interacting with and influencing education as it happens: what I have referred to as ‘walking the job’. Administration and paperwork must not continue to be the main task of any SENCO.

78  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Summary This chapter has explored the SENCO role, through provision mapping that mirrors the Code’s graduated response (assess-​plan-​do-​review) in the following ways: • Audit (assess): SEN types and disabilities? Broad areas of need? Vulnerable underachievers? Priority areas of whole-​school need? • Map provision (plan): Code response, inclusion, HQT, SEN support interventions. • Organise delivery and individualise (do): Select best value resources. Train staff to deliver interventions. Synchronise with reviews and monitor progress. • Evaluate (review): Bring together all evidence to plan the next cycle. Throughout this process, SENCOs must judge where the school is stronger or weaker. Provision mapping enables those in management to decide which puzzle pieces are missing. Evidence is key! Where evidence is ongoing, as delivery happens, final evaluation is less cumbersome. At the end of the day, where individuals achieve, the whole school achieves. The chapter has also explored what SENCOs need to do an excellent job, and emphasised teamwork, with all staff striving towards the same outcomes. No longer can SENCOs work alone, or secondary support departments operate separately from subject-​based colleagues. The SENCO role is outward looking. I believe that when we focus on people, the systems almost take care of themselves. Schools with the best achievement have a tightly-​knit culture of ‘we’re all in this together’. So, spending time and effort on the effectiveness of the workforce forms a major part of the SENCO role.

10 A whole-​school approach

This chapter considers in greater detail, the ‘people’ aspects of the SENCO role, considering effective interaction with colleagues across the whole school. This chapter examines: • The range of skills needed by the modern SENCO, in order to ‘move and shake’ colleagues and bring about much-​needed improvements in SEND achievement. • a whole-​school approach to SEND policy and practice. • the effective use and deployment of TAs.

The workforce If ambitious aspirations for SEND and other vulnerable learners are to be realised, the whole workforce must rise to the challenge. Staff review might question how the workforce is up to the job of delivering mapped provision: • How well does staffing match audited needs? • Changes needed in recruitment and deployment? • Training needed for teachers and TAs? Taking stock of learners may question: • is achievement better or worse than national averages? • what do patterns of need indicate? Having matched data about learners to information about staffing, how well is the workforce geared up to deliver? The SENCO role has shifted significantly –​from ‘one who did’ –​to one who co-​ordinates a collective ‘doing’ on behalf of SEND. Table 10.1 illustrates the expanded ‘people’ focus. Table 10.1  The expanded SENCO role TRADITIONAL SENCO ROLE

EXPANDED ROLE

Identify learners with SEN, often using standardised tests

Using a broader range of data to identify needs SEN is now linked with disabilities (SEND)

Teach some learners with SEN, often by withdrawing from class

More emphasis on management than teaching groups or individuals

Write SEN policy, with regard to the Code

Involve colleagues in whole-​school SEND policy Collaborate on related policies: Inclusion, Behaviour and Bullying, Well-​being, Vulnerable groups

Write Individual Education Plans, with help from teachers

Provision mapping now combined with personal plans/​pupil passports Collaborate, re. whole school SEND provision Support HQT for pupils with SEND

Organise, collate evidence for, and attend reviews

Continued, more focus on parental contribution and provision mapping audits and outcomes Parents as equal partners? (continued)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-13

80  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 10.1  Cont. TRADITIONAL SENCO ROLE

EXPANDED ROLE

Organise and collate evidence for LA assessment, and ongoing reviews of statements

Statements now EHCPs, greater collaboration between education, health and social services Learners and parents central

Liaise with external specialists about individuals

Continued, with greater emphasis on provision mapping audits and outcomes

Inform classroom colleagues about SEN needs

Supporting classroom colleagues in situ Focus on HQT –​as inclusion for all Supporting pedagogical development

Informing parents of additional provision

Parents in co-​production, re. targets and strategies Parents as part of the team

Rarely involving children in their goals/​targets

Recognising pupil voice Pupils given more choice in their provision

Managing the Learning Support Assistants

Managing TAs at different levels, HLTAs Broader network of TA tasks, interventions

Reviewing progress, re-​use of standardised tests

Greater range of data for evaluation Regular tracking of progress More cross-​curricular evidence

Sometimes managing the SEN budget

Continued –​plus working with colleagues to combine budgets for ALL learners who need more than HQT.

While SENCOs might disagree with some points in Table 10.1, most would agree that the role is heavily overloaded. SENCOs now need to spend more time: • • • • •

collaborating with colleagues. in productive conversations with parents. involving external specialists in whole-​school improvement. organising joint-​funding projects with other finance managers. talking with learners about goals and aspirations.

This outward-​looking role requires a greater repertoire of people skills than its traditional counterpart. It is more difficult to influence change in others than to change own views and practices. To what extent is the modern SENCO: • • • • • • • • • • •

a champion for SEND achievement? a change-​agent –​influencing policy and practice? an advisor –​observing/​supporting classroom pedagogy? a manager of systems –​Code and Equality Act? a strategist –​rationalising, thinking creatively? a manager of people –​organising interventions? a staff trainer? a researcher and resource provider? a negotiator –​treading a fine line to satisfy parents and other stakeholders? a supporter of colleagues who fear change? a risk-​taker –​trying personalised strategies that are ‘off-​the-​wall’?

The role is made up of so many sub-​roles that SENCOs need to make their voices heard.

SENCOs as whole-​school movers and shakers The provision mapping audit may signal changes SENCOs are already aware of. But colleagues may see change as alarming –​threatening to uproot them from long-​standing familiarity. So, for colleagues to undertake a ‘change journey’ they need to feel motivated and energised, without

A whole-school approach  81 

fear of consequences, should their part in the changes involve temporary snags. Any initial stumbling blocks need to be regarded as challenges, with outcomes borne by the many –​a ‘no blame’ culture. Colleagues need to know: • • • •

what is necessary –​evidence from the audit. what needs to happen –​who and how? Timescale? how they will be supported and guided. at the end of the journey, how they and the school will gain.

All staff need to feel successful, so the more motivation SENCOs can stir into the new mix, the more likely change will happen. Start slowly, using colleagues already tuned-​in as key players to set positive examples. Remember my anecdote about ex-​grammar school staff struggling to face fears about their new intake? I worked with the History team first because the new head of department was anxious to set the scene. ‘Moving and shaking’ colleagues who are set in their ways requires a host of personal qualities: • • • • •

Sensitivity –​when faced with barriers or difficult staff. The ability to ‘read’ people –​when to back off, or nudge further. Flexibility to problem-​solve and respond to different challenges. Patience –​letting colleagues move at their own pace. Confidence in the anticipated outcomes.

Resistance to change may explain why, despite numerous documents, resources and training made available, the SEND achievement gap is still too wide. If the provision mapping audit has sent shock waves through the staff room, handling them may take a lot of SENCO muscle.

SENCOs as managers of relationships Joint working strengthens the potential for change –​through a consistent approach to collecting data, identifying needs, mapping provision and influencing improvements in classroom pedagogy. Figure 10.1 illustrates that tricky balance. Head and SLT

Middle Managers Faculty Managers Year Group Co-ordinators

External Specialists

SENCO

HLTAs and TAs

Class and Subject Teachers

Parents/Learners

Figure 10.1  Balancing professional relationships.

From Headteachers, SENCOs need: • time: to work with staff, converse with parents and pupils, observe classrooms, model good practice, liaise with external specialists, and conduct reviews properly. • status: to drive change forward. • opportunities for training: to keep up with key developments. • knowledge of, and access to, budgets. • support for risk-​taking.

82  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

While solid, well-​thought-​out systems are essential for success, relationships help them work. So, working with teaching colleagues involves: • • • •

sensitive coaching. mutual trust. willingness to try new materials and offer feedback. sharing successes and failures.

External specialists support SENCOs in different ways: • consultation/​advice on whole-​school issues. • assessment/​advice on individual pupils. • training on areas of SEND for teachers and TAs. Governors play a key role in policy and provision mapping, so SENCO/​Governor relationships are also important. What about parents? The Code makes clear that parents should be equal partners. Is the SENCO/​parent relationship now more of a two-​way communicative channel of mutual information sharing and decision-​making? Last, but certainly not least, the learners! I perceive relationships with learners undergoing the greatest change. Teaching and learning support each other through: • respectful sharing of views –​through lesson feedback. • pupils shaping their learning, through personalisation. • self-​responsibility and independence. Learners are the consumers and should have confidence to challenge and interrogate what they receive: active –​not passive. Learning that informs teaching demonstrates a reversal of the traditional teacher/​pupil relationship and could generate greater respect from pupils as their views are seen to influence change. Within these changing relationships, SENCOs and class teachers often select intuitively from a range of interpersonal skills they may be hardly aware they possess.

Whole-​school approach to SEND Research from the Educational Policy Institute (EPI 2020) suggests reasons why all teachers need to be teachers of SEND, to some degree. A study using data to 2017 reveals SEND identification as a postcode lottery, depending not on individual child circumstances, but on the school a child attends. The study points to: • inconsistent assessment between schools and areas. • mismatches between school and LA focus. • academies associated with fewer chances of being identified with SEND: one third less at SEN Support, half as many at Statutory Assessment. • children in disadvantaged areas. • missed schooling –​pupils under Child Protection with reduced chances of SEND being identified. A situation that was already not working, has worsened following the pandemic. The report suggests that SEND must become a ‘whole-​school’ area for urgent attention and that schools should have more access to EP support, not just for pupils with EHCPs. The report also suggests more use of standardised assessments, although, from the standpoint of multiple intelligences, I urge caution in interpreting the results of single standardised tests. A TV programme (The Chasers: 3.1.22) explored intelligence quotients. Do these play a valid part in determining potential –​or should intelligence be measured differently? Given that intelligence summarises innate ability to process information and problem-​solve, it must affect our general capacity to learn, emotional knowledge, creativity, as well as adaptability in meeting

A whole-school approach  83 

environmental demands. A single quotient cannot adequately sum up or be allowed to limit what learners can achieve. Can aspects of intelligence be nurtured and developed? And how far does educational achievement rely on innate intelligence? These are key questions for school-​based assessment. Intelligence is multi-​dimensional. To some extent, children can be taught how to learn, how to handle emotions, how to be creative and how to adapt to changing circumstances. The more we teach these types of skills, the more resilient young people will emerge. So, it is time for schools to broaden their perceptions of intelligence and take a more expansive view of what some children may be able to achieve. The EPI (2020) also recommends a framework of national expectations, aimed at mitigating variations in assessment, that would define the kinds of levels of adjustment/​support for all schools: with parents involved in its setting up. Such a framework would also ensure that the teaching/​learning curriculum was re-​designed in ways that would foster social and emotional development for all and take into account ethnic disparities. Assessments would also engage more with parents at home. The report suggests that the attainment gap had already stopped closing, prior to the pandemic: that at GCSE level, disadvantaged pupils (on FSM) were about 18 months delayed. These gaps are strongly linked to poverty: up to 20% of Reception children in deprived areas arriving in school with inadequate learning skills: and on the news (28.3.22), we heard that only about 65% of children currently leave primary with expected literacy and maths levels. Progress in reducing gaps for learners with SEND has slowed since 2015. At GCSE age, learners with EHCPs are three years behind peers: those on SEN support about two. These problems cannot be tackled without a whole-​school approach, whereby teachers band together to make well-​being and ‘capacity to learn’ the priority. Is it now time to explore the foundations upon which academic learning depend: shift focus –​towards what enables the learning required in each subject, and how these can be accessed by all, including those with SEND and/​or disadvantage?

Using teaching assistants effectively TAs do far more than ‘assist’. They are part of the whole-​school approach and schools cannot function without them. Yet, how valued and supported are these members of staff as part of the combined team? Learner outcomes depend on how effectively TAs deliver interventions. Their skills and knowledge impact on provision mapping success. SEND achievement depends on: • • • • •

clear TA job descriptions. deployment matched to audited needs. liaison and record-​keeping being part of TA hours. training directed to what TAs do. appraisals done annually.

Where is the staffing balance, as part of HQT? Blatchford et al (2015) recommended that TAs should: • • • • • •

not be used as informal teaching resources for low-​achievers. add value to what teachers do, not replace them. help pupils manage learning independently. be fully prepared for their roles. be used to deliver quality, evidence-​based interventions. ensure explicit connections between HQT and structured interventions.

I have observed too many children become over-​dependent on TAs –​thus limiting problem-​ solving capacity. Developing pupil independence needs to be a component of TA training. Table 10.2 reflects on TA needs.

84  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 10.2  What teaching assistants need LEVEL OF PROVISION

TO KNOW

TO DO

TO UNDERSTAND

Supporting HQT

How: -​  different staff teach -​  different pupils learn -​  lessons are adapted, or personalised -​  disability barriers are removed

Apply school policies: -​  SEND, discipline, health/​safety, safeguarding -​  maintain learning records -​  be consistent with teaching methods

-​

SEN Support: mild, moderate, grouped interventions

As above, plus how to: As above, plus: -​ -​  deliver specific  organise provision -​ interventions  maintain records for -​   work with groups reviews -​ -​  deal with technology  manage group -​   support personal plans dynamics and behaviour

As above, plus: -​  progression in basic skills -​  basic psychology of behaviour -​  when learning has, or not, happened

SEN Support: severe, including EHCPs

As above, plus how to: -​  deliver individual interventions -​  record outcomes -​  reach out to ‘hard to teach’ pupils -​  meet the requirements of EHCPs

As above, plus: -​  how individual teaching works -​  how different pupils learn best (styles) -​  small step targets -​  how to recognise engagement and progress in tiny steps

As above, plus: -​  manage resources -​  maintain records for annual and termly reviews

 pedagogy of learning and progression -​  how to adapt work as needs arise -​  some areas of SEND pupils’ needs

How purposeful is the TA role: to ensure pupils complete tasks, or to develop understanding of ideas and concepts? Should TAs focus on process or product? What should TA training comprise? Standardised training may offer a secure grounding and a certificate of basic competence but does not equip support staff to deliver specific interventions. TAs need: • basic training on the foundations of ‘know, do or understand’ that supports their role in any school. • specific training that conforms to a school’s provision mapping policies/​procedures. From my observations, TA training has often not been directed to specific roles. Time is an issue, but the end result of not ensuring that TAs are trained in the specifics, could impact negatively on provision-​mapping outcomes. TAs must also be able to apply whole-​school policies to practice. The thrust to promote language/​literacy across the curriculum cannot work without TAs being part of the collective endeavour. TAs also need to work as independently as possible. No longer are these members of staff constantly directed by teachers to perform low-​scale activities. What else might help TAs to perform at their best? Ongoing feedback? Support when things go wrong? Someone to ask advice from ‘as and when’, not just at meetings? All of these. In larger schools, HLTAs support SENCOs with the smooth running of TA teams. The success of provision planning/​mapping often lies in the hands of support staff, whose more ‘hands-​on’ role may also bring them closer to SEND learners, and parents. So, a little TLC is a worthwhile investment. Research suggests that TA support has not always improved academic outcomes. TAs have often been given more of an instructional role, more focused on task completion, rather than on developing learners’ skills and understanding. Yet, given the huge rise in TA deployment, their potential for ensuring SEND success, and narrowing that SEND gap must be realised. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF 2021) suggests the following strategies for re-​ developing a school’s use of TAs: 1. Head (with SENCO) form small development team to lead the project. 2. Scheduled, dedicated time is allocated to the project. 3. SLT promotes a clear vision of what the school needs from its TA workforce.

A whole-school approach  85 

4. Audit identifies what needs to change and why –​to include peer observation and discussions with teachers and TAs. 5. Development team do the job, effect required changes and report back. Morewood (2013) suggested that TAs share responsibilities for success alongside teachers, and offers examples of case studies and positive policies to support the above points. TAs need to be valued and supported to perform the best job possible. Getting people to change practice is far from easy. They need a valid reason, accompanied by understanding. What are TAs working towards –​what will they, and learners, gain? The sheer range of interventions referred to by Brooks (Chapter 6) underlines the importance of ensuring that TAs feel confident, both in their knowledge of literacy, as well as in reliably selected interventions, which should be used often: -​brief (20 to 50 mins). -​regular (3 to 5 weekly sessions). -​sustained (between 8 and 20-​week period). TAs need to know their roles in class and feel confident working alongside different teachers. Given that a substantial proportion of school budgets is used on TA deployment, the potential of these members of staff is worth investing in. The final chapter expands on the importance and deployment of TAs, highlighted from my ‘field research’.

Summary This chapter has explored the whole-​school nature of the SENCO role, considering relationships at every level of involvement in school or setting. Only when all staff fully embrace the statement ‘every teacher is a teacher of SEND’, can schools move forward and narrow the attainment gap by collective endeavour and determination. This chapter has also considered SENCO management of teaching assistants, recognition of their value within the whole workforce, and the development of TA skills and knowledge as part of an effective team for learners with SEND. When we concentrate on people, systems follow. So, spending time and effort on the whole workforce achieves results.

11 Developing personalised SEND-​friendly learning environments

Pupils, children, young people, learners: used collectively to describe people who attend Early Years settings, schools and colleges: young humans sorted into Key Stages, Year groups, sets and types, including SEND. Within this necessary organisation, where do individuals fit? What comprises a SEND-​friendly, personalised environment? With the focus on inclusion, this chapter explores personalisation in greater depth: • as part of an effective classroom environment. • within the pedagogy of teaching and learning. • as ‘iceberg’ factors that differentiate between success and failure. The chapter also considers the complexities of reading comprehension as barriers that can be broken down to enable all children to access reading.

What is personalisation? Personalisation holds the key to achievement for all, so is worth exploring in greater depth. Personalisation: • • • • •

is the opposite of stereotyping. supports high aspirations. could shorten that long tail of underachievement. recognises the many differences within SEND commonalities. motivates all learners to achieve their best.

Despite IDP and AfA initiatives, SEND learners are still not achieving well: proving that education does not boil down to mere input –​and output. So, might personalisation have the magic ingredient, with the power to: • reach parts of learners that some teaching strategies do not? • touch the beating hearts of people inside ‘types’? Personalisation recognises pupils with learning difficulties as not merely: • • • •

numbers on statistical charts. entries on SEN support registers. members of the ‘SEND’ table in class. parts of a group intervention programme.

Schools have tried teaching learners with SEND by commonality, with only partial success. Is it time to investigate further the differences for those who are ‘harder to teach’ than the rest of the learner population –​without clustering their uniqueness into a further commonality? Outcomes could include: • improved well-​being –​more children enjoying lessons. • improved motivation and self-​responsibility.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-14

88  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

• • • •

reduced absence. fewer incidents of challenging behaviour/​exclusions. more young people equipped for adulthood. further narrowing of the achievement gap.

How does personalisation differ from HQT differentiation? Godfrey (2015) suggests that differentiation moves from lesson to child, whereas personalisation moves from child to lesson: a subtle difference worthy of exploration. What type of learning environment supports personalisation? Is it: • • • • • • • • • •

valuing ALL progress, however removed from age-​related expectations? ceasing to compare learners against each other? making children feel safe and cared for? promoting confidence through the ‘I Can’ approach? full engagement in the life of school/​setting? celebrating broader achievement –​music, sport, art? eliminating self-​perceived failure? recognising the richness of diversity? compensating for vulnerability –​SEND? Looked after? Poverty? making pupils and parents equal partners?

All of these! Personalisation invites schools to place equal consideration on well-​being –​from which curricular achievement follows naturally.

Finding personalisation Traditionally, schools have focused on English/​Maths as measures of success –​inviting failure for some pupils with SEND. ‘Pedagogy and Personalisation’ (DfES 2007) suggested that every learner should achieve from a standpoint of high expectations. To what extent is personalisation achieved through pedagogical excellence –​HQT and the three-​part model? The report identified four domains underpinning HQT (Table 11.1). Where, within these, does personalisation hide? Table 11.1  Interrelated domains of pedagogy CURRICULUM AND SUBJECT KNOWLEDGE: -​  Key language/​concepts that define subject topics -​  Progress within subjects -​  Which models of teaching/​learning best match subjects -​  How literacy, maths and technology skills support subject learning

REPERTOIRE OF SKILLS/​TECHNIQUES THAT DEMAND ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT: -​  Competency in planning/​structuring learning -​  Skills of questioning, guiding, coaching and organising group work -​   Skills of working with learners

TEACHING AND LEARNING MODELS: -​  Direct teaching: for gaining new skills/​knowledge -​  Hierarchical sequences, for English and Maths -​  Cognitive models for processing information (build concepts, use enquiry, analyse, investigate) -​  Social models: for learner collaboration and problem-​solving

CONDITIONS FOR LEARNING: -​  Managing class, groups, pairs -​  Building inclusive interaction with learners -​  Ensuring learning builds onto prior learning and attainment -​  Effective use of time, space and resources to benefit all learners

Personalisation lies within each domain –​but is it equally spread? For some lessons, does knowledge of subject lead? When is the teaching model most important? Does interaction with learners lead when disruptive behaviour threatens lessons? Maybe ‘conditions for learning’ underpin other domains at all times, given that learners’ emotions govern outcomes –​from pride, satisfaction, interest –​to anger, frustration, apathy, boredom. Emotions rule in every classroom. Improved outcomes for teachers include: • raising achievement at the tail end. • access to best resources and ideas.

Developing personalised SEND-friendly learning environments  89 

• understanding progression in language, literacy and maths. • time to follow the ‘assess-​plan-​do-​review’ cycle thoroughly. Rarely is there enough time to evaluate the impact of pedagogy on individual learners. Could part of the SENCO role be observing ‘hard-​to-​teach’ targeted learners, feeding back, sharing ideas –​helping to build pedagogical excellence and develop collaborative colleague relationships? Table 11.2 considers the learners’ perspectives. Table 11.2  Teaching from learners’ perspectives YEAR 6: Construct sentences in different ways, expressing subtle distinctions of meaning

Year 6: Division and problem-​solving -​  What is 52 divided by 6? -​  How many bricks (each 20 cm long) are needed to build a wall 3m in length, and 4 layers high?

Problems for teachers: -​  Choosing the teaching models for this objective -​  Understanding the sentence skills preceding it -​  Engaging learners with sentence writing -​  Planning for those who can achieve it -​  Backtracking for pupils not ready for this level

Problems for teachers: -​  Choosing the most suitable teaching model -​  Recognising the preceding multiplication skills needed by pupils -​  Getting learners to understand the key concepts -​   Backtracking numeracy for some pupils

Thinking from learners’ perspectives: -​  Where do my sentences begin and end? -​  I can only write short sentences -​  I need a scaffold for complex sentences -​  I don’t understand the objective -​  What do I have to do? -​  Which particular words will make my meanings different?

Thinking from learners’ perspectives: -​  What does divide mean? The division sign? -​  How do I divide? -​  I don’t know my times tables -​  What are cm and m? How many cm in one m? -​  What is a remainder –​what do I do with it? -​  Decimal or fraction? -​  Which sum do I choose? Which step of the problem do I work out first? -​  I’ve forgotten where I’m up to

Would some children need to draw that imagined brick wall, as a visual approach to the problem: 100 divided by 20cm =​5 bricks for each metre, times 3 for length (15), then by 4 for height, to equal 60 bricks? Might approaching lessons from learners’ perspectives head off difficulties before they arise? If learners were asked for feedback, might their comments illuminate conflicting issues –​ strengthen that teacher/​learner bond? In this age of constant evaluation, why should feedback not apply to education’s ‘consumers’? So, might teachers use pedagogical domains to develop personalisation for ‘hard-​to-​teach’ learners? Are there strands of training within each domain to support the personalisation quest, beyond inclusion? Is this where special schools could support mainstream? Which children are ‘harder to teach’? Those who: • • • • • •

do not listen to instructions –​causing adults to repeat them. forget what they have to do –​needing tasks written down. work slowly, rarely finishing tasks –​making it harder to assess progress. struggle to concentrate –​causing disruption if not dealt with. struggle to grasp new concepts –​needing teaching from a range of angles. struggle to recall skills and information from one lesson to the next –​needing continual overlap and reinforcement.

Is the trick to always have a Plan B? Are we back to ‘knowing each learner?’ How can all teachers, especially in secondary, know the personal ‘ins and outs’ of each learner? Might parents be the ‘Plan B’ with the key to understanding why, for their child, teaching may not result in learning? Achievement for all relies on structured conversations with parents. So, should some of those conversations be attempts to unblock problems, unlock potential, and identify where teaching/​learning can hook up more effectively? Finally, on personalisation, how do emotions feature? Could the ‘feel good’ factor help, for example:

90  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

• • • •

never being allowed to experience failure? celebrating success –​sharing each other’s achievements? being mainly engaged and productive? sharing success with parents in ways that reap dual rewards?

Some of those problems from learners’ perspectives that affect pedagogical excellence, include such factors as: • • • •

I’m hungry –​had no breakfast. I can’t be bothered to think. Mum and Dad had a huge row last night –​I couldn’t sleep. I hate Maths –​boring!

Personalisation as part of pedagogical excellence, is elusive –​but worth searching for.

A broader look at personal achievement I have considered personalisation as something that enables hard-​ to-​ teach individuals to achieve in ways that measure success: attainment. Would celebrating broader achievements also support attainment? Examples: • • • • • • •

A ‘school-​phobic’ manages to attend five lessons per week. A learner with ASC manages a group-​based task. A child who hates writing, but excels in sport, writes about football. A home carer completes homework in difficult circumstances. A pupil manages without a TA for a set time. A child with SLD finds his way around his secondary school. A child finds the courage to report bullying.

Considering personalisation from broader perspectives, as huge challenges that learners overcome, may enable schools to recognise achievement on their terms –​coaxing learners towards the kind of achievement that schools desire. Having taken our special-​school pupils to an activity centre, one boy who was a behavioural pain in class, showed a side of himself that I had not observed: watching over younger kids, and falling over himself to be helpful. Following that week-​long trip, I harnessed that pupil’s ‘need to be helpful’ in class and eventually turned it into a more harmonious teacher/​learner relationship. That ‘hard-​to-​teach’ learner became less of a headache because I had observed something that enabled me to reach him. A Year 8 child with ADHD and cognitive learning difficulties (EHCP) enjoys playing the keyboard. That strength is now harnessed in school, as he welcomes parents with his music at social events. Personalisation, within the pedagogy of HQT, adds a further ingredient to the mix. Figure 11.1 illustrates how personalised strategies slice through other considerations, reflecting the ‘for all’ principle. PERSONALISATION | HQT differentiation SEN Support interventions Code of Practice/four broad areas of need Disability - Equality/reasonable adjustments | PERSONALISATION

Figure 11.1  Personalisation as part of the achievement mix.

Developing personalised SEND-friendly learning environments  91 

Could larger schools cope with such flexibility, and possible distance between policy and practice? Is personalisation only possible for the few, echoing ‘pupil voice’, by striving to meet these learners on their own terms? Yet making allowances need not contradict discipline, or reduce expectations. At its heart lies the principle that all learners need to be themselves, provided that others are not adversely affected. Personalisation enables pupils to make choices in learning habits and behaviours that schools seek. Everyone benefits. Achievement in school often means overcoming problems out of school, to do with well-​ being –​more crucial, following the pandemic: celebrating ‘off-​the-​wall’ achievement, as well as what is measurable. ‘Breaking the Link’ (DCSF 2010) stated that when personalisation is part of a whole-​school approach, ‘planning and teaching match the needs of all pupils, reducing the need to define children according to categories of need’. Thus, personalisation may prevent some children from requiring SEN Support. Personalisation involves psychology: getting children onto ‘our’ side, finding hidden or alternative strengths, particular learning styles, or strong emotions. The AfA principle necessitates a shake-​up of the teaching/​learning relationship: with potential to make every young person’s learning experience stretching, creative, fun and successful. Part of the responsibility lies with SENCOs through their support of HQT and SEN interventions. Those who can step back from day-​ to-​ day SEND engagement and think creatively about what is possible, however odd, stand a greater chance of narrowing that stubborn achievement gap.

What comprises an effective learning environment? This section further explores the ‘Q’ in High Quality Teaching. Do observers of HQT often judge from the teaching rather than learning side? From pupils’ perspectives, classrooms are learning environments, but how effectively do they work for all? An ideal lesson might include: • • • • • •

focused lesson design with clear objectives. high levels of engagement and interaction. modelling and explanation. emphasis on learning through talk. expectations of responsibility and independence. authentic praise.

The above needs are common to all. Emphasis on ‘learning through talk’ reminds us that teachers of every subject are teachers of speaking/​listening, and other foundation skills. Learning in every subject revolves around debate, explanation, question/​answer. The ‘Q’ stems partly from effective communication. How might children with SEND respond, if asked ‘what could we change to help you enjoy lessons and achieve your best?’ Responses might include: • • • • • • • • • • • •

I want to learn without noise. can we learn fewer spellings? I don’t want to write. I want to work alone. I want to choose my topic. I want to draw pictures. can we talk more? can I work with my friend? I need to lip-​read but it’s hard. I need help to remember. I don’t like reading aloud. can I work on the computer? I need work that I can understand and succeed in.

92  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Which broad areas of need (or SEN types) match these responses? Could the child who wants to learn without noise, or work alone, be autistic? Might the pupil who wants to write less and have fewer spellings be dyslexic? Offering pupils what they need, is not always what they want, but learners cannot always have it their way. Personalisation invites consideration of how to inject choice and freedom into learning –​without losing discipline and control. Interaction and engagement stem from motivation, so: • • • • • • • • • •

if some reluctant readers (mainly boys) prefer non-​fiction, might choice stimulate interest? do all children have to write about the same topic? do pupils with SEND always have to sit at the same table? do they all have to learn through technology? Might some engage in talk? might pupils who hate writing be allowed to record differently sometimes? do pupils have to produce neat copies of edited work? could choice feature in allotted tasks? could choice be through learning styles –​write, draw, or talk about a topic? could children choose when they need adult support –​self-​managing needs? would fewer, targeted spellings, inspire learning more?

Personalised choices offer a means of motivating children who struggle, but motivation is affected by how a child feels: • A child experiencing parental divorce knows the school makes allowances for ‘bad’ days. • Pupils with autism know peers don’t think it odd when they sit alone –​following class discussion about different ways of learning. • Pupils with SLD are supported by peers, as well as adults. • A child with SLCN has confidence to ask questions without feeling embarrassed. • Pupils with dyslexia attempt spellings, knowing they are ‘partly right’, because the class has discussed ‘trial and error’, and sensitive responses. • A child with MLD has confidence to ask a friend for help as the class has discussed the values of helping each other. • A child with SEMH knows the boundaries of classroom discipline and what happens when they are breached, as the class has discussed classroom rules. Does that elusive SEND-​friendly learning environment develop as much from learners as from teachers? Learning shapes teaching. Talking about learning may help all pupils to regard their classroom as a place where friends do different things and learn in alternative ways. Non-​SEND learners may behave with greater sensitivity when they understand the challenges their struggling friends face and will be more inclined to pitch in and make their classroom a happier and more positive place.

Observing and identifying fully inclusive learning How do we recognise classrooms as inclusive, and SEND-​friendly? Observing across the curriculum is vital. Who observes whom? As well as leaders ‘walking the job’, could teachers observe each other? Observation offers evidence of: • skills/​knowledge of HQT differentiation, personalisation, reasonable adjustments. • embedding of good pedagogical practice. • how learners appear to feel and respond. Fully inclusive classrooms should be full of pupils who are engaged and interacting with someone or something: learning leading teaching. Observation should be mutually agreed and focus on issues highlighted by the provision-​mapping audit: for instance, Year 8 boys’ attainment, ASD achievement, writing in Year 2, or access for sensory-​impaired pupils. Observers need to know

Developing personalised SEND-friendly learning environments  93 

what to look for, and why. Table 11.3 offers a format for recording focused, outcome-​based, observations. Table 11.3  Observing and recording degrees of outcome for pupils Lesson objectives ……………….

Tasks and activities for Degrees of learning for Notes and agreed each part –​what are each part: Engagement? actions to improve the learners doing? Participation? learner outcomes Gaining skills and understanding?

Introduction Main part of lesson Plenary/​conclusion

How reasonable is it for every learner to gain skills and understanding 100%? Is it more realistic for all pupils to emerge somewhere along that continuum, from engagement to understanding, most of the time? Teachers need re-​assurance that consistent perfection is unlikely, given such challenging dynamics. From observation, having identified learners’ degrees of outcome, does a pattern emerge? Does any type, group or individual stand out as being taught more or less inclusively than others? Is the reason noted? Teachers are so busy, they may miss children who: • sit passively, hardly engaged. • look as if they are participating, yet produce little. • produce work that is not their best. External specialists often comment on the difference between classroom outcomes, and what children demonstrate during assessment or individual support. Many children reveal skills not demonstrated or used independently in class. Could focused observation provide answers?

The iceberg factors Barriers to learning may be far removed from what adults observe, as Figure 11.2 illustrates. Above the waterline represents what adults often observe in classrooms. /\ /\/\/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\/\ /\ /\ The submerged part represents what can’t be observed hidden reasons why learners often fail to respond to expectations.

Figure 11.2  The iceberg factors.

Observers need to ask: • what might the learning barrier signify? • what kind of barrier is it –​one or more of the four broad areas of need? • whose help might we need to identify this barrier and advise? The following sub-​sections identify hidden barriers and offer solutions.

94  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Specific literacy difficulties: possible dyslexia? A: Observation shows that a child: • • • • •

cannot grasp/​retain phonic knowledge. has poor letter formation –​reverses letters. is delayed with spelling and sentence construction. loses control when writing. rarely finishes, produces little, is messy.

B: Possible iceberg barriers: • • • •

Poor auditory memory. Slow processing of information –​affecting listening and reading. Poor phonological awareness. Poor sequencing skills.

Table 11.4 illustrates the complexity of breaking down language into words, then into the smallest units of sound (phonemes). Table 11.4  From language to phonemes Language as a whole: Listeners have to break it down into parts Paragraphs: contain categorised ideas Sentences: From simple, to compound and complex Phrases: as meaning-​carrying groups of words within sentences Words: short and long (from ‘a’ to ‘antivivisectionism’) Syllables: as parts of words –​the above long word has seven syllables Phonemes: sounds as the smallest units of language

C: Strategies to deal with hidden barriers: • • • • •

Stimulating poor memory or teaching how to compensate. Extra time to respond to oral work or complete writing. Revisiting phonics regularly, transferring across subjects –​finding phonic patterns. Sequencing: sorting pictures in order, words into sentences, number patterns. A multi-​sensory approach –​auditory, visual, kinaesthetic.

Possible autism? A: Difficulties observed: • • • • •

Unable to join in discussion or work with others. Meltdown when routines changed. Does not like choice. Appears aggressive. Not conforming to rules/​routines.

B: Possible iceberg barriers: • • • •

Social interaction –​prefers to work alone. Insecurity –​safety undermined by change. Not ‘reading’ others’ actions, not understanding consequences. Not understanding emotions.

Developing personalised SEND-friendly learning environments  95 

C: Autism-​friendly classrooms: • • • •

teach explicitly how to ‘be’ in different situations (social stories?) introduce new routines, with advance notice and reassurance. offer individual work stations. provide visual timetable –​when, where, with whom (security).

Speech, language and communication (SLCN) A. Observations: • • • •

Cannot explain problems, or express meaning. Cannot use sentences. Cannot follow instructions. Unclear speech.

B: Barriers may be: • inadequate vocabulary. • difficulties processing receptive language. • difficulties in expressing themselves. C: Solutions include: • • • •

pre-​teaching reading scheme (and subject-​specific) vocabulary. simplifying instructions, placing verbal stress on meaning carrying words. explicit teaching on word manipulation and making meaning through language. referral to Speech and Language Therapy.

Cognitive learning difficulties (SLD and MLD) A: Observed problems: • • • • •

Unfinished work. Inability to work without an adult or follow instructions. Failure to generalise/​apply acquired skills/​knowledge. Limited ability to problem-​solve, lack of reasoning/​thinking skills, poor retention. General slowness across subjects.

B: Barriers will include some of the above, plus: • limited development of concepts, due to cognitive impairment. • difficulties with reading comprehension. • inability to connect ideas and grasp new ones. C: Learners with cognitive difficulties benefit from above strategies, plus: • • • • • •

concrete experiences –​practical, hands-​on, visual. multi-​sensory activities (VAKS). smaller learning steps –​carefully built up. explicit transfer of skills into other subject contexts. explicit use of language. meta-​cognition –​knowing how to learn.

96  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Social, emotional and mental health A: The challenges presented by pupils with SEMH affect learning for all. Beneath the observed behaviours lurk many possible causes. Disruption may mask: • • • • •

other learning difficulties –​dyslexia, autism. language/​communication problems. significant cognitive difficulties. school conflicting with home circumstances. emotional barriers that need professional support.

B: What hides beneath SEMH icebergs are not always SEND-​related. But many are. Do they imply: • • • • •

I can’t do as you ask because of my learning difficulty? I can’t get it right because instructions are not clear? I don’t want to do this task? I can’t focus because of noise, or I’m bored? I need to talk about my problems?

C: Strategies include: • • • • • • • • •

making routines clear, with sanctions/​rewards. dealing consistently with challenging behaviours. recognising, and taking care, when behaviours relate to disability. explicit instructions –​written as well as verbal. teasing out strengths, or offering a child responsibility, to build self-​esteem. well-​being –​digging deep to find causes, showing that staff care. providing a mentor –​encouraging pupils to talk. recognising that deep-​seated emotional problems may need external specialists working with parents.

Where home and school attempt to deal differently with behaviour problems, they can never be resolved. Children need to reflect on behaviours. Terminology matters: should the ‘naughty step’ be renamed the ‘thinking step’? The above sub-​sections focus on five SEN groups for which Lamb recommended staff training: two more deserve consideration.

Developmental co-​ordination disorder Observed difficulties include cutting, threading, letter formation, throwing/​catching, running/​ jumping. These difficulties, which need to be monitored from the EYFS, may need the attention of a physiotherapist or occupational therapist. Strategies include: • • • •

a computer to alleviate significant handwriting issues. pencil grips. focused practice in identified areas of difficulty. extra time to perform specific movements where shape/​space feature (art, PE).

Dyscalculia This is often regarded as the mathematical version of dyslexia: where pupils, despite intervention, fail to grasp numerical relationships. Strategies include: • multi-​sensory approaches to numeracy. • visual apparatus to acquire concepts.

Developing personalised SEND-friendly learning environments  97 

• linking numeracy to ‘real life’. • continued reinforcement at each stage. Some of these strategies apply also to non-​SEND, reflecting the continuum –​mild, moderate, severe: for example, most learners who struggle initially with reading are not dyslexic. Iceberg factors apply less to pupils with sensory or physical difficulties as these will have been identified early, but schools are more likely to need external specialists to determine their precise nature and extent and suggest appropriate strategies. Iceberg factors overlap, and float between HQT and additional interventions. Observation needs to trigger a ‘drilling down’ process, with parents, to find submerged causes of difficulty. Only then can schools know enough to get the best out of every pupil.

The complexities of language/​reading comprehension Difficulties with reading (and language) comprehension affect many children, with and without cognitive difficulties. In the interests of SEND-​friendly classrooms, and the fact that reading underpins all learning, it is worth focusing on. Knowing what skilled readers do, helps us to see WHY others struggle.

Reading according to text type and purpose Depending on purpose, we respond to texts in different ways: • • • • •

Searching for details –​who, what, how, why, when, where. Summarising main ideas –​what different texts are about. Sequencing –​ordering events, or parts of instructions. Cause/​effect –​what caused something to happen: consequences. Comparison –​what is the same or different about people, places or things.

All texts contain some of these aspects of comprehension. As readers, we interpret each according to our reading purpose.

Depths of comprehension Each aspect can be understood at different levels: • Literal: explicit –​reading the lines only. • Inferential: implicit, reading between the lines, more thinking required. organisational: re-​ shaping texts (changing tense or viewpoint) requiring good • Re-​ understanding of grammar and syntax. • Evaluative: bringing personal experience to reading –​to judge, reflect on the importance or credibility of texts. • Aesthetic: deep emotional response, e.g., to a poem or story.

The comprehension box Imagine a Rubik’s cube; three-​dimensional; its sub-​cubes creating different patterns. Like the cube, reading should change thinking patterns. I regard this as a box, with the different aspects reaching down through each layer of understanding. According to purpose, good readers dig deeply, rummaging in the box, to search for hidden meanings at deeper levels. The box (Table 11.5) summarises this efficient reading process.

98  Providing for the needs of learners with SEND

Table 11.5  The comprehension box LEVELS OF COMPREHENSION

ASPECTS OF COMPREHENSION: details, main idea, sequence, cause/​effect, comparison

LITERAL

Understanding lines of words only –​explicit

INFERENTIAL

Making meaning between the lines –​implicit

RE-​ORGANISATIONAL

Able to reshape texts –​with similar meaning

EVALUATIVE

Using personal experience to judge/​reflect

AESTHETIC

Emotional response to a particular text, e.g., poem.

These aspects of comprehension change as we read: a paragraph of comparison may be followed by one of cause/​effect, or sequence. Skilled readers adapt their focus to these changing parts, often using ‘cue’ words to trigger response: the word ‘because’ often triggers cause/​effect, ‘next’ may trigger sequence, while ‘different’ may trigger thoughts of comparison. The outcome is that skilled reading is three-​dimensional: with learners needing to build up these steps towards comprehension bit by bit, and why children with significant cognitive learning difficulties are highly unlikely to comprehend at deeper levels. All teachers, including secondary subject teachers, need to understand how these levels of comprehension are presented in subject-​based texts. Effective reading (and writing) depends on learners being able to apply/​ develop their skills across the curriculum.

Resourcing SEND-​friendly environments It is worth considering reading materials for less able readers. Only schools know which resources suit pupils’ varied learning styles and individual needs. Technology helps, but computers cannot deal with learning problems in ways that people can. For some vulnerable learners, talk is priceless! SEND Gateway (send.excellencegateway.org.uk) offers guidance on materials, information and training, shining a light on the challenges teachers and SENCOs face, supported by: • • • • •

Dyslexia SPLD Trust. Dyspraxia Foundation. National Autistic Society. Anti-​Bullying Alliance. NATSIP (National Sensory Impairment Partnership).

SEND Gateway offers SENCOs a lifeline of support: for class teachers, access to materials. How can post-​16 environments also be SEND-​friendly? Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement (RARPA), aimed at non-​accredited learning, involves students in their journeys towards adulthood, by making each college experience individual, student-​led, and as independent as possible. Ofsted recognises that where RARPA is robust –​it works.

Summary This chapter has considered the complexities of providing an inclusive learning environment that wraps around all learners, including those who are ‘harder to teach’ –​with pedagogy firmly at the centre. An effective learning environment recognises the rights of children to be themselves within a flexibly-​managed system. Creating a SEND-​friendly environment, at EYFS, and in schools and colleges, is an awesome task. Teachers may feel they need 30 pairs of hands! For SENCOs, helping to create SEND-​friendly environments is a starting point to meeting all needs.

Part 3

Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

12 Good progress or underachievement?

How do schools recognise good progress, or underachievement, for learners with SEND? What are the principles for assessing, reporting and evaluating success? This chapter considers: • principles for assessment –​differences between formative and summative. • judging expectations for SEND learners and recognising underachievement. • matching progress to Code provision.

Principles for assessment National Curriculum and Assessment: Information for Schools (DfE 2014c) visualised a system that enabled schools and colleges to: • check what pupils/​students have learned. • analyse if pupils are on track to meet Key Stage expectations. • report regularly to parents. The Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment (AAIA 2015), suggested assessment should purposefully reflect the curriculum. It should: be integral to teaching/​learning. recognise learning as a journey. underpin the potential of all learners to achieve. show clear standards that represent achievement. actively involve learners –​with feedback. reach beyond knowledge/​understanding –​to encompass other capabilities and attitudes to learning. • be task-​related, based on what pupils do independently. • result in useful, consistent data/​information for parents and governors. • • • • • •

AAIA (2015) reported that Ofsted do not expect any particular system, but will study pupils’ work, talk with staff about how they assess and evaluate all achievement against KS expectations. Schools need a robust, agreed policy, involving parents, including specialised arrangements for SEND learners, with Key Stage goals and a clear sense of direction: how short-​term targets meet medium-​term outcomes –​towards aspirations. The Government set broad standards for each Key Stage (DfE 2014d). Table 12.1 shows ‘below to mastery’ descriptors for numbers to 100. Table 12.1  Number to 100: from ‘below’ to ‘mastery’ EYFS/​RECEPTION: Pupils count, order, add, subtract numbers practically up to 10 Key Stage 1: Numbers to 100: Below national standard: pupils count, order, add, subtract to 20 Towards: Pupils count, order, add, subtract to 100 At: numbers to 100 understood in greater depth, more facts known Mastery: wider range, application (example, adding more than two double-​digit numbers: 23 +​42 +​17)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-16

102  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Descriptors only offer an accurate picture of SEND learning when performance is independent. Progression from ‘below’ to ‘mastery’ also suggests the need for all achievement to be celebrated –​and ‘mastery’ to be reached before any child moves on. But how are such broad standards broken down, especially for learners with SEND? What differences in performance indicate each judgement?

Formative and summative assessment Formative assessment incorporates day-​ to-​ day, week-​ by-​ week, information into summative –​end of term, year or Key Stage. Without formative assessment that tracks progress and evaluates standards, there can be no summative results that stem from teaching/​learning –​as standardised tests are isolated from what children do. Closely observed, formative assessment features three underpinning elements, shown in Table 12.2. Table 12.2  Elements of assessment DAY BY DAY –​ONGOING

PERIODIC: termly or half-​termly

TRANSITIONAL: annual or Key Stage

 Pupils’ responses to lessons  Objectives explicit, achievement noted -​  Use of peer and self-​assessment -​  Learners engaged, with immediate feedback -​   Range of evidence gathering

-​

 Evidence from personal plan reviews -  Tracking against national performance descriptors -​   Adjusting medium-​term planning

-​

-​ -​

 Evidence from annual reviews (EHCPs) -​  Reporting to follow-​on teachers and parents/​carers -​  Matching/​comparing performance data to summative evidence, e.g. standardised tests

Schools need to place assessment at the heart of lessons, and record as it happens. Formative evidence is present tense: undertaken in ways that do not take the heart and freshness out of teaching/​learning by obsessive evaluation. How might standardised tests complement the formative assessment summarised in Table 12.2? Tests have the potential to: • • • • • • •

predict future performance. justify low attainment. validate formative data/​information. conflict with formative data –​alerting schools to what does not seem right. compare pupil achievement against norms –​potential against actual learning. identify SEND when used by specialists. offer a blanket picture of collective progress for year groups, vulnerable learners and Key Stage cohorts.

Standardised results must be interpreted with care. How useful are they, beyond comparing one child with another? What does a fall in reading age from 7.3 to 7.1 tell us? Slight falls or rises count for little unless a trend becomes significant over time. An improved score on the British Picture Vocabulary Scale from 78 to 84, may suggest progress, but as vocabulary acquisition differs between children, the difference is minimal. Standardised tests also measure non-​verbal ability: intelligence. Might a lower-​than-​average score influence teachers’ expectations? Where such tests conform or conflict with class-​based evidence, what does it suggest? Tests that measure potential can justify why some learners are not achieving, or question why achievement does not match potential. So, while summative results must be approached with caution, they complement formative assessment.

Good progress or underachievement?  103 

Judging expectations for learners with SEND For which SEND learners are lower than age-​ related expectations justifiable? Progression Guidance (DCSF 2009c) stated that analysing SEND progress involves in-​depth knowledge from: • high expectations. • accurate assessment. • age and prior attainment. The document called for ‘realistic but stretching targets’. How do teachers judge degrees of stretch for each learner? If targets are too high, we risk failure. If too low, they obscure potential. How high is realistic? The document suggested Key Stage attainment as a starting point, degrees of ‘stretch’ emerging from: • HQT observations. • SEN Support interventions. • achievement data from annual and termly reviews. If HQT and termly targets have been ‘realistic and stretching’, records show achievement and inform longer-​term expectations. I have seen too many targets on personal plans either not met, or partly met, suggesting either too little focus, or too much stretch. ‘Progression Guidance’ also referred to accurate assessment as a guiding principle: questioning whether ‘falling behind’ necessarily equates to SEN. When a child does fall behind, should schools question innate potential –​or the learning environment? How do schools judge accurately what a child with SEND is fully capable of, and recognise underachievement?

Recognising underachievement Evidence still indicates underachievement amongst SEND and other vulnerable groups. Which children could do better? If underachievement is the discrepancy between attainment and perceived ability –​no underachievement is acceptable. Potential must always be first base. The difference between SEND and non-​SEND underachievers is important because interventions used to address mismatch are different. Could more effective HQT also stem the tide of children labelled as SEND? ‘Addressing Underachievement’ (DCSF 2009d) identified groups whose potential were not nurtured, including: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

low socio-​economic –​disadvantaged. ethnic minority. English as an additional language. in small schools with limited resources. with SEN. with disabilities. from service families who move frequently. as new arrivals. frequently absent. as home carers. looked-​after children. from families undergoing stress. at risk of disaffection or exclusion. with summer birthdays.

104  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

An exhaustive list! Many categories overlap, and learners with SEND are spread amongst all groups: emphasising well-​being as a priority when judging underachievement. How much underachievement could be eradicated if more attention is paid to well-​being and social factors? For years, society has accepted disadvantage as an excuse for poor performance. The need now, post-​Covid, is to recognise genuine ability, and ensure that every child achieves according to potential, using pupil premium appropriately. Table 12.3 speculates on which children with SEND could achieve better. Table 12.3  Higher expectations? PMLD: These learners progress through the tiniest steps, and can never achieve average, but could increased levels of engagement help them to progress faster? SLD: Significant cognitive impairment affects language, as well as all other skills, preventing these learners from achieving average. Many SLD learners progress up to Key Stage 1 curriculum levels, but fall further behind as the demands become more complex. MLD: These children comprise a larger group of cognitively impaired learners. Depending on their level of learning difficulty, could some of these children achieve average expectations with appropriate support? SpLD, dyslexia: Cognitive limitations may limit achievement in specifically affected areas, if moderate or severe. Mild dyslexia should not impede development at all. Pupils with dyslexia should achieve in areas that are not affected. Autism: With social and communication barriers removed, there is no reason why learners with at least average cognitive ability should not achieve well. There are no excuses for low achievement for the majority of pupils with ASC. DCD: With the specific barriers removed there is no reason why children with dyspraxia cannot reach at least average expectations. SLCN: Speech, language and communication present huge barriers to learning, yet unless a child has a disorder, as opposed to delay, and provided that all needs are thoroughly addressed, most pupils with SLCN could perform much better. HI and VI: Where sensory impairment is the only problem, most learners should achieve at least average. PD: Where physical disabilities are not accompanied by learning difficulties, and provided that PD pupils receive access to all learning opportunities, their difficulties should not impact on achievement at all. SEMH: When the emotional and behavioural barriers to learning are addressed, most of these learners achieve their potential. SEMH alone is no reason to accept low achievement.

Significant cognitive learning difficulties represent the only justifiable reason for less than average achievement. Most other barriers can be swept away.

Eradicating SEND underachievement SENCOs play a leading role in: • • • • •

removing individual barriers. severing links between SEND and low expectations. promoting seamless interaction between HQT and SEN Support. ensuring a balance of formative/​summative assessment. linking assessment with provision mapping/​planning.

Important questions: • • • • •

How do we know when pupils have improved? Where is the evidence? Does the improvement represent good progress for each learner? What is each SEND learner’s absolute best? How does the SEND system connect with whole-​school assessment? How does assessment fit with additional interventions?

SEND data/​evidence needs to be built up –​from short, to medium, to longer-​term –​using formative sources:

Good progress or underachievement?  105 

• Achievement in language, literacy, maths. • Cross-​curricular achievement. • Progress in areas that form barriers –​listening/​attention, language, self-​help, social/​communication, emotion. Evidence may conflict, if one teacher has observed what another has not. Children with SEND may not demonstrate achievement consistently across subjects. Evidence of writing needs a range of samples, while data on reading needs to include different text types. Who collects evidence? • Teachers and TAs across subject areas. • Pupils –​as feedback from teaching and personal reflection/​evaluation. • Parents –​from observed homework and behaviours at home. Not all information forms useful evidence. The bulk needs to be boiled down to what is significant. Too much, or irrelevant, data deflects from the assessment focus. So HQT data collection relies on staff knowing what is significant, with timescales. Data is also collected from interventions. Once boiled down, where is it stored and who has access? Progress may be evaluated differently. Stakeholders include • • • • • • •

Class teachers –​as progress reflects HQT skills and appraisal. TAs –​intervention outcomes impact on job satisfaction. Managers, including SENCOs –​who are judged on SEND outcomes. Heads and Senior Staff –​judged on whole-​school results. Learners –​achievement influencing their life chances. Parents –​who desire the best for their child. Governors –​taking responsibility for the school’s success and reputation.

To satisfy stakeholders, achievement data needs to be accurate and transparent: alerting teachers to shortfalls, enabling vulnerable groups to be tracked/​monitored regularly, and informing leaders how well the school performs.

Adequate or good progress? How is evaluation for individual SEND learners measured differently from non-​SEND? Should good progress: • • • • • •

represent narrowing of the achievement gap? be similar to others with the same SEND difficulties? match or better a pupil’s previous rate? ensure greater cross-​curricular access? demonstrate improvements in personal, self-​help, social or behavioural skills? show greater likelihood of leading to accreditation or employment?

Table 12.3 speculates which pupils could achieve better. Cognitive impairment offers greater justification for below-​average achievement than non-​cognitive. Can children with PMLD or SLD really narrow the gap? If so, is their rate of progress evaluated under the same conditions –​solely independent? If not –​is it progress? Table 12.3 implies that SEND improvement is not confined to academic: • • • • •

Improved attendance. Improved behaviour. Reductions in bullying. Development of friendships. Increased participation in extra-​curricular activities.

106  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

The above impact hugely on academic achievement. Measuring progress through wider outcomes invites schools to take a broader look at SEND success. How do summative assessments help schools to judge between ‘adequate’ or ‘good’? Table 12.4 contains the type of evidence external specialists often provide, to supplement formative school data. Table 12.4  Summative assessment: child aged 6–​9 RECEPTIVE VOCABULARY: standard score 97, within the average range PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS: standard score 90, just within the average range AUDITORY MEMORY: standard score 74, well below average NON-​VERBAL ABILITY: standard score 72, very low, but treated with caution at such a young age INFORMATION PROCESSING SPEED: standard score 69, suggests that this child has significant problems with processing information

Average is 100. Three are well below ‘average’ range (90 to 110). Scores such as these have done much to reduce expectations, generating complacency, or justifying reasons why children have performed poorly. The principle of high expectations invites schools to keep an open mind. Such a young child could emerge with much improved scores by the end of Key Stage 2, having benefited from HQT, effective intervention, and accurate formative tracking.

Measuring small-​step progress Small-​step assessment measures progress for pupils who cannot yet access National Curriculum. Performance Indicators for Value-​Added Target Setting (Lancashire County Council 2015), are adapted to suit the Engagement model. Other small-​step tools: • Small Steps Summative Assessment (B Squared 2015b). • Early Steps Summative Assessment, leading to the EYFS (B Squared 2015c). • Connecting Steps: Sample Assessment pages, core subjects, English, Maths and Science, that split progress into tiny step objectives (B Squared 2015a). These resources enable learners at the lowest levels to be included in whole-​school evaluation. Table 12.5 illustrates how any task tracks back to its simplest beginnings. Table 12.5  Tracking writing back to simplest levels Marks on paper show understanding of the difference between pictures and writing Marks on paper are accompanied by the child telling an adult what they mean Marks include a greater range of shapes –​straight, curved, angled Some marks begin to represent letters A greater proportion of letter-​like shapes Clear letters are placed randomly amongst the letter-​like shapes Some letters are placed strategically (e.g., letter ‘f’ at beginning of ‘fish’) Spaces appear between attempted words Writing shows clusters of letters placed clearly and consistently to represent words Attempts show more strategic placing of letters to represent sounds: at end as well as beginning of words Words start to be grouped together in a meaningful way Writing begins to include phrases Phrases begin to link into simple sentences Letter formation and writing develops………

Does effective, fully inclusive, HQT depend on knowing how to simplify any skill or topic, matched to an individual’s exact need? Training on the teaching techniques of small-​step progression is surely time well spent.

Good progress or underachievement?  107 

Matching evaluation to COP provision How does both formative and summative evaluation help SENCOs to manage Code responses? A strategic accumulation of evidence needs to be built up at each stage, illustrated in Table 12.6. Table 12.6  Accumulating evidence for Code responses COLLECTING EVIDENCE

JUDGING ACHIEVEMENT

Day to day: -​   Data gathering from staff and parents -​   HQT, with changes where necessary

From prior knowledge of child: -​   Ongoing progress? -​   On track with everyday learning? -​   Records from staff and pupils?

Termly Reviews: -​  Formative data from HQT and interventions, collated for parents and pupils -​   May be supported by summative evidence

From collation of term’s evidence: -​  Do achieved targets indicate prior knowledge, within reach of child? Expectations high or low? -​  Does summative data support, or conflict with, formative evidence? -​  Does provision map need amending? -​  Does child stay at this stage, or move to different response level?

Annual Reviews: EHCPs -​   Termly reviews feed annual outcomes -​   Plus more formative data from HQT/​interventions -​   Summative evidence from external specialists

From previous review and new evidence: -​  Does learning show how termly targets have led to annual outcomes? -​   Outcomes achieved or not? -​   What does additional formative data indicate? -​  Does summative data support, or conflict with, previous reviews and updated formative data? -​   Has best possible progress been made? -​  Does EHCP provision need amending?

Yearly evaluation, for children on SEN Support -​   Termly review evidence -​   Formative data from HQT -​   Summative evidence -​   Evidence from interventions

From previous review and new evidence: -​  Does termly learning show smooth progression to end of year achievement? -​  Is child on track to meet Key Stage expectations? -​  If not, how can child be placed back on track? -​   Has best possible progress been made? -​  Does any summative data support or conflict with formative? -​  Does provision map need amending?

End of Key Stage and transition -​   More updated formative evidence -​   Previous annual evidence

From annual, and new formative evidence: -​   Has child achieved age-​related KS expectations? -​  If not, has progress been the best possible? -​  Does achievement represent a realistic summative appraisal of progress? -​  What needs to be done in next Key Stage/​ transition?

The termly review The review summarises progress, supporting further decision-​making. Perhaps the child: • has made such good progress, intervention is no longer needed –​the child continues with appropriately targeted HQT. • has made some progress but the plan should be continued into a further term, with either same, or fresh, targets. • has made very little progress and needs more intensive response, perhaps with the involvement of an external specialist.

108  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Difficult decisions! How do schools decide what is good or less than expected? The Code suggests that schools question progress that: • • • •

is significantly lower than the child’s peer group. fails to match or better previous rate of progress. fails to close the attainment gap between the child and his peers. widens the attainment gap.

These loose criteria build into schools’ policies to determine differing levels of SEN. Ideally all professionals involved, along with child and parents, attend reviews. Parents cannot play their part unless fully involved. The Code also stipulates that schools should allow time to review and plan effectively. All learners need to take partial responsibility for success –​both Plans and reviews are personal to them. I have seen many Plans fail to become personal because learners have had little input. At this stage of SEN Support, well-​devised targets and effective strategies for delivery should place most children back on track. What happens when progress is less than expected, or the attainment gap between child and peers has widened? In this case, the review may identify whether to involve external specialists, or if involved already, whether more extensive input is required. Chapter 8 expanded on multi-​ agency support for children whose needs cannot be accommodated otherwise. Where progress has been minimal, despite intervention, a significant learning difficulty may be assumed. There will always be conflict between the Code’s requirement to identify learning difficulties early –​yet avoid labelling a child with SEN unnecessarily. The Code also refers to the EYFS within this needy group. By this stage there should be accumulated information about rates of progress and learning styles, and possible reasons for a child’s weaknesses that have so far not been alleviated by targeted intervention. Aside from known sensory or physical difficulties, are there outstanding problems with communication or interaction, cognition and learning, social skills or behaviour? Does one broad area stand out? Are the difficulties more complex? Has the merging of School Action and School Action Plus made it less easy for schools to differentiate between learners who can progress without specialist intervention, and those who can’t? In my view, the ‘plus’ element of the Code’s graduated response still applies in practice. Local Authorities have a duty to publish available support inside and outside the local area. SENCOs may need to translate the LA offer into a school-​specific version, available for parents. For children who have been supported by an external specialist, reviews may have the following outcomes: • Good progress suggests the specialist is no longer needed –​child returns to targeted intervention. • The child is still struggling –​specialist involvement continues. • The child has made such poor progress that LA assessment is agreed between school, external specialist and parents. The Code’s graduated response is intended to ensure that, apart from children with acute sensory or physical difficulties, only a tiny minority needs an EHCP. The review becomes an essential means of ensuring that each child is allocated the right level/​type of support –​based on the considered views of school, parents, child, and LA specialist if necessary.

From individual to whole-​school progress Any underachievement impacts upon the school. Lamb (DCSF 2009b) recommended that ‘good or outstanding’ Ofsted judgements should not be given where outcomes for SEND learners are not good enough. Evidence sought may include: • staff training –​impact on achievement. • how curriculum changes have improved access.

Good progress or underachievement?  109 

• • • •

how personalisation has improved outcomes. how high expectations have made a difference. how SEN funding, with that of vulnerable groups, has supported achievement. parent and pupil views.

Schools need rock-​solid evidence that where learners have not achieved average, they have achieved their best. Ofsted needs to see the impact of SEND policy and practice: • • • •

How has HQT improved achievement? The impact of class-​based TAs? How have interventions impacted on progress? How have improved attendance and behaviour improved progress?

Given that evaluation represents the end of the provision mapping cycle, it leads naturally to the next audit.

Resources for assessment and reporting How do larger schools manage the entire system? Luckily, SENCOs have resources to hand. These resources are used by: • Inspectors –​to help understand the school before they visit. • LAs to judge whole-​school performance. • School Improvement Partners –​to understand the schools they work with. RAISE online enables schools to judge own performance against national. A further strength is the facility to look at how types of intervention have impacted on performance. This updated resource is a secure evaluation system that can be matched to provision mapping, to make the whole process as simple as possible. School Pupil Tracker Online (SPTO: www.spto.co.uk) also claims to be a whole school assessment solution, used by primary schools. It: • • • • •

keeps information in one secure place. ties together the whole assessment and evaluation journey. enables data to be extracted easily. is simple to use. is quick to personalise for individuals.

This chapter has attempted to help SENCOs judge between good progress and underachievement. Are learners judged on personal progress or national expectations? Is a pupil who performs his best, yet below average, underachieving? In my view, underachievement describes children who are not achieving what they are genuinely capable of, regardless of how far below average. When the search for underachievement is relentless, schools will find it. As schools strive towards national standards for as many children as possible, it is useful to reflect on why old levels were abandoned. Oates (2014) offered these reasons: • The National Curriculum emphasises deeper exploration of central concepts/​ideas. • Original assessment was over-​influenced by labelling children (level 2 or level 3). • Too much focus on moving through attainment levels, without ensuring that all children were ready for the next stage. Oates suggested that teachers must become expert at probing learners’ understanding, and that pupils should produce more ‘stuff’ to be evaluated. Deeper learning suggests that pupils need to

110  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

make more connections between ideas, explore beneath the surface and interrogate for greater meaning. The performance descriptors must ensure that learners with SEND, where possible, also experience greater depth and reap rewards. At the end of the day, measurement itself does not result in good progress, or prevent underachievement. Effective teaching and learning do both! Finally, the long-​awaited paper (DfE 2022) setting out a vision for education in England, includes the goal for 90% of children to leave primary with expected standards in English and Maths by 2030. In 2019, about 65% achieved this goal, girls slightly outperforming boys. High expectations indeed!

Summary This chapter has explored key differences between ‘good’ progress and under-​achievement for learners with SEND, with due emphasis on eradicating all under-​achievement. Evidence shows that most pupils with SEND can perform better. Knowing learners, and judging expectations as accurately as possible, enables every pupil to achieve individual potential.

13 Developing pupil voice and independence

The chapter: • explores the idea of ‘pupil voice’ as a learning strength, and how learners with SEND can be helped to develop this. • considers how strong pupil voice leads on to independence at each educational stage.

Extending pupil voice Improved pedagogy and personalisation rely on all pupils becoming learning partners to some extent –​knowing what they are learning and why. The Code requires pupils to be involved in decision-​making, at each stage of ‘assess-​plan-​do-​review’. With entitlements also come responsibilities. Should entitlements start from a system that: • • • • •

treats all learners with respect? enables them to enjoy learning and achieve their best? places well-​being at the heart? promotes a sense of belonging within the school community? equips all learners for adult life?

All (or most) learners can take part in decisions that shape their future, have their views taken into account, and where necessary be supported to express them, starting from: • • • •

respect for other cultures, beliefs –​and diverse needs. taking a greater part in community activities. helping to shape school policy/​practice. accepting some responsibility for personal progress.

How might enhanced self-​responsibility happen? Pupils might debate: • disability –​who may be disabled and how to support them. • how/​why pupils learn differently and need support. • issues relating to equality. What about community? Pupils could: • take part in local community activities. • visit businesses and interview people about their jobs. • help resolve community-​based problems. Learning is mainly isolated from community application. Citizenship needs regular practice, for learners to experience a smooth flow between school, college and adulthood. Formal ‘work experience’ is not enough.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-17

112  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Learners helping to shape school policy/​practice, might involve: • developing a culture of togetherness –​staff/​pupils striving towards the same outcomes. • extended participation in areas that help pupils become better learners: citizenship, social, health, economics, social/​emotional development. • debating policies: health/​safety, inclusion, SEND, discipline, school uniform. • pupils helping to resolve real school problems –​bullying, litter. • taking part in the provision mapping process. Taking personal responsibility involves knowing: • • • • •

what learners need, and why. how they and others learn best –​understanding differences. when and how to seek help. how to adjust learning to suit different contexts. how to use technology and learning tools.

Pupils will appreciate taking part if their opinions are respected and they are given feedback, with reasons for decisions and anticipated improvements. If pupils were to debate school issues, would respect, social/​communication and improved achievement result? The probability is high, but schools would need to loosen the mould of practices designed to secure control. Pupil voice also heightens potential for academic learning. Pupil power is not risk-​free. Yet, without risk, there is no change, and no significant narrowing of that achievement gap.

Developing pupil voice for learners with SEND Some pupils with SEND, or in vulnerable groups, need support to shape outcomes. Children with SEND may be under-​represented in activities such as: • before/​after school clubs, organising activities. • membership of the school council. • membership of working groups that shape policies. SEND learners can contribute to decisions that affect well-​being and achievement, and school results will be the better for it. Having set up safe, well-​managed situations, to maximise opportunities, learners may need: • • • • •

help with language/​protocols for debate. coaching in focused listening and appropriate response. support to take notes and weigh up key points. support to access information that enables them to make decisions. help with questionnaires and other opinion-​giving tools.

Observers may note children: • better able to discuss own strengths/​weaknesses. • giving and receiving feedback –​acting on it independently. • becoming more confident learners. No longer are pupils merely ‘receivers’. The NC requires deeper, extended thought processing: reasoning, analysis, hypothesis, projection, speculation, evaluation. Learners could have a prominent voice in:

Developing pupil voice and independence  113 

• • • • • • •

how to complete tasks and what to do when finished. keeping the classroom tidy. where to sit for different lessons. how to work as members of different groups. rules of communication. how to be a learning ‘buddy’. how to learn independently –​yet seek help.

Although teachers strive to get HQT right for all, to become experts, learner feedback is vital. Teachers need pupils to: • help get teaching styles and objectives right. • feedback lesson responses. • help each other, using self and peer assessment. Might pupil voice influence provision mapping? Consider: • • • •

a pupil dislikes a phonic programme, is unmotivated, so progress is slow. a secondary learner has an assigned TA but feels embarrassed so fails to respond. a pupil is taken out of Spanish for extra maths, but feels resentful. a child with reading difficulties is on a low-​readability scheme she cannot engage with.

Teachers know best which interventions produce best outcomes, but where, occasionally, pupils cannot get on with them, and alternatives exist, pupil voice as part of provision mapping, is an investment. A study of disabled learners (Lewis et al 2007) highlighted what they wanted from additional support. Young people at a specialised residential college yearned for greater independence, even if it involved risk-​taking. Pupils in school often valued support but felt resentful about asking teachers for the same things repeatedly. Other young people wanted more flexible deployment of adult helpers. Transition to a new school can be traumatic, so pupils with SEND may need help to air anxieties: • • • • • • • •

What happens on the first day? How do I find my way around? Lunch arrangements. Who to go to with a problem. Who to approach about bullying. Where the toilets are. How to cope with many different teachers. How to make new friends.

These issues are perplexing for pupils with autism, or social/​communication difficulties, so talking about anxieties before transition practises communication in familiar settings. What proportion of learners attends reviews, and helps influence outcomes? Too few. To be an effective voice, learners need to: • be well-​prepared –​what questions might they be asked? • have discussed learning regularly –​feel comfortable talking about strengths/​weaknesses, responsive to constructive criticism. • recognise the review as a forum for aspirations, and an evaluation of their outcomes over a term/​year. • have formed their own views: on personal barriers, targets achieved, effectiveness of interventions, and what has been successful or not. With coaching, most children can think about learning in these ways from KS1. The Code refers to children being able to make choices from an early age, so that, from Year 9, they become ‘explicit elements of conversations’ between professionals and families.

114  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Finally, with regard to pupil voice, annual reviews are more pupil-​centred, especially at secondary, placing young people at the heart of decision-​making. They should be encouraged to organise their reviews, prepare invitations, help to collate samples of work, discuss achievements and aspirations. A tool kit (Children’s Society 2009) and booklet (Barnardo’s 2006) offer guidance/​ resources for involving disabled learners. The majority can become active learning partners but the process needs to start early.

Developing pupil independence What could independence look like? Would learners with SEND: • • • • •

work without adults for a greater proportion of time? when stuck, use a range of strategies to become ‘unstuck’? use tools to support learning –​number lines, sentence scaffolds? use checklists to assess work before adults see it? make informed choices –​order of tasks?

Independence is a mindset: pupils saying, ‘I can do this myself’. What about benefits? Pupil independence could create more time for adults to: • • • • • •

observe unaided learning and make informed assessments. talk to individuals. manage behaviour better. spend more time developing those deeper concepts within the NC. help learners with SEND apply intervention work to HQT. manage classroom learning in relaxed ways.

Independence has not been naturally focused on. Unnecessary dependence on TAs has often limited pupil’s thinking. Classrooms could be transformed if SEND learners are trained to work as independently as possible. Table 13.1 offers examples. Table 13.1  SEND independent behaviours SLCN: Asks adult for word meanings. Asks questions from prepared card during class discussion. Uses simple thesaurus to expand vocabulary. Uses assigned ‘buddy’ support. DYSLEXIA: Uses LSCWC spelling strategy. Jots effectively to support poor memory. Uses times table square. Uses mind-​mapping to draft ideas. Uses diary as an organising tool. ASD: Uses ‘time out’ card appropriately. Organises own work station. Uses emotion cards to communicate/​resolve issues. Tells adults of need to work alone or differently. DYSPRAXIA: Sets up own laptop for writing. Gets out special scissors and other equipment. SEMH: Operates ‘time out’ with adult. Self-​evaluates behaviour. Takes responsibility for classroom tasks. MLD: Solves maths problem using prompt cards. Works for 20 minutes without adult. SLD: Works without adult for 10 minutes. Completes piece of work without adult. Recognises danger and informs adult. Gets out own supportive equipment. HI/​VI: Organises special equipment. Sits where least noise interference. Chooses where vision is best. Self-​organises enlarged font. PD: Places wheelchair in best place. Organises own peer support as needed.

Independence at each key stage Most learners develop independence naturally. They: • understand their own learning styles and help adults to know them. • accept age-​appropriate responsibility.

Developing pupil voice and independence  115 

• • • •

engage in discussions about strengths/​weaknesses. accept mistakes as part of learning. avoid reliance on others. take pride in their progress and strive to succeed.

Pupils with SEND need more help to do these things, and benefit from knowing and coming to terms with their own difficulties, in the complete trust and confidence that adults are there to help them develop self-​coping strategies for life. The journey begins with policy. Starting points: • • • • • • • • • •

Establish whole-​school culture of independent learning. Train pupils how to evaluate their work using tools and checklists. Scribe for learners only when necessary. Insist on all learners working without support for given amounts of time. Reward independent behaviours –​celebrate positive examples. Ensure pupils have tools to overcome barriers: number lines, scaffolds, word lists. Ensure all activities are achievable, to enable independence. Model tasks prior to independent work. Ensure instructions are clear –​written down. Have clear expectations for each child.

The aim is never to use TAs to help children achieve more than they are capable of alone. I have observed many children supported to do class-​based work at too high a level, marked as the child’s own. Assessment then becomes meaningless. From this culture of independence, HQT is enhanced through the three inclusion factors: appropriate challenges, removal of access barriers and accommodation of diverse learning styles. Some age-​appropriate ideas.

EYFS: • • • •

Simple choices: Which activity shall I do next? Sorting equipment. Engaging in simple decision-​making. Giving opinions on what they find easy/​hard or likes/​dislikes.

Making sensible choices is a first important skill.

KS1, build on above, plus: • encourage more specific self-​responsibility. • generate sensitivity in relationships, through group working/​communication. • start to develop skills for discussing/​resolving difficulties to support reviews.

KS2, as above, plus: • as learning becomes more complex, strengthen skills of requesting explanation. • reinforce ‘inner’ learning, as self-​controlled –​teachers only control ‘outer’ learning. • strengthen effective use of language: to challenge, question, explain, describe, persuade, summarise. • refine skills of talking about own strengths/​weaknesses –​build self-​esteem. • help learners with SEND understand their types of difficulties and how to cope, their learning styles –​teach self-​coping strategies.

Secondary, as above, plus: • further develop self-​coping strategies –​allow learners to solve their own problems, with advice/​support as necessary.

116  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

• teach pupils how to develop personalised learning, and to help others understand their needs. • teach SEND learners to organise and chair their reviews, with support. • coach learners to write own termly/​annual reports, supplemented by those of adults. Is this last point a step too far? I don’t think so. If pupils have been encouraged to review their learning cumulatively throughout schooling, self-​reporting (part of English?) should not be a problem. Such tasks offer learners a genuine context for written communication –​to teachers and parents. Motivation to present their best! Secondary learners with SEND need the freedom to become independent young people. Far too many are wrapped in cotton wool throughout schooling and emerge into the adult world unable to cope. The sensitive deployment of TAs is crucial. We need to dispense with ‘SEN tables’ for these reasons: • Placing SEND learners together reinforces perceptions of ‘sameness’. • A TA at the ‘SEN table’ encourages learned helplessness –​children engage more with an adult than peers. • The TA is tempted to do more for a child than is needed. • It is more difficult to assess work accurately when adult-​prompted. TAs remain an indispensable feature of classrooms, but their presence has fostered a culture of dependency. Most pupils will rise admirably to the independence challenge if given the training, encouragement and freedom. Table 13.2 shows a model for developing independence, adapted from Edwards (2001). Table 13.2  Making independence happen PRIORITISE: Place independence at the top of the school development plan. Feature for staff training, to agree policy, and present to learners as a whole-​school initiative to raise achievement. EXPECT IT: Be consistent. Set independence targets for different age-​groups and ability levels, across the whole school, and support all pupils to achieve them. MODEL IT: Ensure pupils know which behaviours match the independence targets in lessons. OBSERVE/​EVALUATE: Record independent behaviours alongside other aspects of achievement. FEEDBACK to PUPILS: Fly the flag for independence! ‘Well done, for asking about that word!’ or ‘This group put away their equipment really well’. Or ‘You worked by yourself for 10 minutes –​well done!’ REWARD IT: Build rewards that pupils value into the programme, so that learners soon see independence as a crucial factor of their personal achievement.

The Code places independence at the top of the agenda in preparing young people for adulthood. Section 8.1 refers to them being able to discuss aspirations, interests and needs, with regard to health, participation in society, making friends, and independent living arrangements: ‘the great majority of young people with SEN and disabilities, with the right support, can find work, be supported to live independently and participate in their community’ (DfE/​DH 2015, p.124). Schools and parents must work together to encourage these aspirations.

Summary This chapter has focused on pupil voice and independence as important factors in SEND achievement. ALL learners must come to understand themselves and their learning needs in order to help adults support them better. I believe that independent learning, alongside pupil voice, is key to improving the dynamics of teacher/​learner interaction and narrowing that achievement gap that leads to gross inequalities in society. Such an aim represents improved quality of life for people with SEND who can achieve such aspirations. And all but the tiniest minority CAN! Setting high expectations for pupil voice and independence helps ensure success for all.

14 Parents as equal partners

Parents are expected to exert huge influence on SEND policy and practice –​as equal partners. But how can schools enable such equality, especially with parents who are ‘harder to reach’? Developing parental partnership is a significant part of the SENCO role. This chapter considers parental partnership in terms of: • where schools are now. • developing parental confidence and knowledge at each key stage. • harnessing parental power and influence as part of whole-​school SEND policy and practice.

Progress so far The Lamb Inquiry (DCSF 2009b) expressed concern about lack of parental satisfaction, recommending: • a stronger parental voice, better communication, access to information –​parents as equal partners. • more accountability –​pupil/​parent voice strengthened. • Ofsted to judge schools as ‘good’ or better, only if SEND achievement is also good. The Inquiry outlined parents’ struggles and emphasised the value parents place on staff with SEND expertise –​summarised by the wish for ‘someone who understands my child’s needs’. Lamb implementation focused on: • • • • •

improving workforce practice. children’s outcomes. strengthening parental engagement. strategic local approaches. making the SEND system accountable.

Lamb’s recommendations have already improved practice: high expectations, inclusive HQT, improvements in pedagogy and personalisation, and that Ofsted ‘limiting judgement’. Following the Salt Review (2010), more teachers are trained in SLD and PMLD. The role of SENCOs in leading, advising and training has also been strengthened. So why is the SEND achievement gap still so wide? Could it be that both pupils’ and parents’ voices need to be more than ‘heard’? Could parents form the ultimate solution? Within the spirit of Lamb, partnership is about: • • • •

honesty –​being open about a child’s needs/​potential. conversations as ‘two-​way’. using parental knowledge to overcome barriers. removing the parent/​professional divide.

The final point has often limited parental confidence. Many feel on far less of an ‘equal footing’ than teachers: who (like doctors) are regarded as professionals who always know best. Parents who think like this are unlikely to bridge this divide. It is up to schools to reach out.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-18

118  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Developing parental confidence through the Code Traditionally, liaison has rarely focused on outcomes. Conversations often centre around provision, with less emphasis on achievement. Now that ‘high expectations’ lead, how can parents be more involved? From ‘initial concern’, parents need to know. Without reference to SEN, parents, teachers, perhaps with SENCOs, need to identify the problem. ‘Equal partnership’ seeks to include parents from the beginning and problem-​solve together. Parents of SEND pupils need to understand the Code: • • • • • • •

What happens at each stage. How HQT is differentiated for their child. What additional interventions are provided, and how they link with HQT. How their child’s personal plan/​pupil passport matches up. What it means when external specialists are involved. What should happen at termly/​annual reviews. Their role as equal partners.

Training parents on the Code is a starting point, enabling them to converse on equal terms. I have met numerous parents with little understanding of their child’s targets, or strategies to achieve them. A further barrier is jargon: plans needing to be pupil/​parent-​friendly. Reports from specialists often challenge comprehension (standardised score 79?). Parents welcome clarification to enable full support. Do schools underestimate the potential for home-​based learning? Do parents know the difference between learning tricky words ‘whole’ –​and decoding phonically regular words using phonemes? What does ‘improve comprehension’ mean? Or multiplication of double-​ digit numbers? Parents need to know the methods used. How is ‘equal partnership’ achieved with parents of children who are disadvantaged, or whose emotional problems stem from home circumstances? Breaking down barriers to create relationships with all parents is fundamental. Lamb reported on parents’ ‘negative and stressful’ experiences of statutory assessment. When EHCPs replaced statements, Michaelson (2015) reported that statements should not inform EHCPs because they had not been sufficiently ‘outcome-​focused’. EHCPs are an opportunity to involve parents in their child’s aspirational journey. Lamb also reported parents need reassurance that teachers and TAs have the specialist knowledge to move forward their child’s learning, and welcome outcomes and objectives for broader achievement, rather than purely academic attainment.

Towards an improved parental role Amongst parents who want to be more involved are those who do not know how. Might schools offer workshops on basic skills?

1 Teaching parents how to support maths At the early stages, help parents to: • • • • •

play with maths. make it real: counting, measuring, weighing. talk about mathematical language: more/​less, half/​quarter, heavy/​light. build talk into activities. consolidate concepts: 4 as ‘one more than’ 3, but less than 7.

Parents as equal partners  119 

Activities • • • • • •

Count stairs. Count sweets/​biscuits –​How many? Eaten? How many left? Cut cakes/​pies into halves/​quarters. Shapes: how many rectangles (windows, books), or circles (clock, plates) can we find? Play ‘I Spy’ –​‘something blue, and square’. Play games such as ‘snap’ and ‘dominoes’.

At KS1 Help parents to grasp the importance of mental computation before written methods. Activities • For memory –​up to 10 objects on table, child memorises, parent takes some away. What is missing? • Chain game –​Parent: I have 6, what is 2 more? Child:8. Parent: Take away 3. Child:5. Parent: Double it. Child:10. Each number is derived from the last. • Play ‘snap’ for pairs that total 10 (8/​2) or 20 (17/​3). Emphasise the importance of: • language: ‘subtract, take away, minus, difference, less than’ mean similar ideas. • practising ideas until secure as facts –​halving/​doubling, number bonds, times tables. Help parents to see ‘tens/​units’ as the first step towards understanding numerical relationships and solving problems: 10 more than 57, half of 60.

From KS2 Parents can help their child develop logical sense: when multiplying, answers are more, but when dividing answers are less –​or digits for place value (‘3’ in 2,398 or 3.6). Parents could pose logical puzzles: • When we double a number is the answer more –​or less? • Do squares and rectangles each have four right angles? • Find the odd one out –​half of 70, 10 x 3.5, 2 x 15, 100 -​65. Such puzzles encourage logical, thoughtful responses. Help parents see the importance of ensuring concepts are secure. Emphasise praise, sensitivity to errors, while maintaining motivation. Above all, show parents how to make maths fun and rewarding!

2 Teaching how to support language Help parents to know that: • words help us to acquire concepts. • more immediate concepts help reveal those more obscure. If a child touches a hot oven, he needs no words to tell him not to touch it again. But the moon needs more immediate concepts for understanding. Without language to describe what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell, as well as what we feel as emotions, and without words that extend understanding beyond immediate sensory experience, our knowledge of the world would be very limited. • a rich vocabulary is the most precious gift parents can give to children.

120  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Language as communication Stress the importance of talk and resolving issues in productive ways. In our technological world, children are becoming better able to communicate with devices than humans. We can also help parents understand how good listening/​speaking underpins reading/​writing.

Early on, parents could: • • • •

talk about everything they do. pronounce words clearly. demonstrate words as a source of help, comfort and human interaction. read stories and make reading a cosy experience.

Throughout the EYFS, talk can help children: • • • • • • •

explain feelings and resolve problems. develop confidence and independence. explore thoughts: what if …..? What do we need for….? reinforce learning. describe objects (colour, size, shape). make simple choices. give opinions respectfully.

Throughout KS1, continue to talk about everything, plus: • learning: what children are good at, or need help with –​for self-​esteem and motivation. • expand on words/​concepts, especially literacy and numeracy. • recognise that language/​literacy grow together –​how sounds/​letters develop into words, phrases, sentences, and how language structures underpin reading/​writing. Is there a case for training parents how to listen to and support reading? For parents to become truly equal partners, the more knowledge they acquire, the more valuable their input has the potential to be. Throughout KS2: As more cross-​curricular concepts are introduced, children must self-​recognise their confusions. Parents can help children to use language for different purposes: • • • • •

Asking questions. Explaining how things work. Describing more accurately, using a range of vocabulary. Giving opinions in different ways –​resolving problems positively. Debating/​evaluating issues.

At secondary: As subjects become separated, and reading/​writing take priority, talk still matters. Parents can: • • • •

continue to reinforce subject vocabulary –​and abstract concepts. encourage young people to debate/​evaluate news. help pupils use talk to support literacy and other learning. use talk at every opportunity –​to praise, comfort, reassure.

Parents as equal partners  121 

Throughout schooling, parents can demonstrate that through talk, problems shared really can be halved! Parents may also welcome training in other areas: developing independence, homework, maintaining motivation and self-​esteem, especially where there are significant learning difficulties. An audit of parental needs could end up being the most effective school consultation exercise carried out!

Parental engagement through culture, policy and practice Where the ethos of a school makes clear that the progress of every child is of equal importance, parental engagement is partway there. Some may welcome a more extensive role. Could some parents of children with SEND engage in policy co-​production: SEND, assessment, inclusion, well-​being, or health and safety? Responses to the Equality Act should also involve parents and learners with disabilities. More challenging is targeting parental involvement to address specific areas, perhaps from audit. Using Lamb Inquiry data (DCSF 2009b): • below age 7, SLCN was the prevalent area of need, with 42% at KS1 or below receiving support. • from 7 to 11, MLD was most common, with 34% needing extra help. • from age 12 to 17, SEMH was most common, with 34% needing intervention. These SEND areas are still most common. It seems logical that language/​ communication problems feature highly during early learning, also that MLD, often masked by language difficulties, is identified into KS2, and that behaviour difficulties escalate throughout secondary. None of these issues can be tackled without parents. To improve language/​communication in KS1, schools might: • invite parents with children in these age-​groups to an initial meeting –​outlining issues, purpose and objectives. • assign a project leader. • train parents how to develop vocabulary/​language at each stage. • develop simple ‘before/​after’ evaluation criteria. • hold regular meetings to discuss progress and offer support. • make the parental project part of provision mapping. Variations in confidence need to be judged sensitively. Confidentiality would also have to be handled carefully. Parental projects could address any SEN area. Clusters of schools together, perhaps with a relevant specialist, would enhance value. Just as research has the potential to improve HQT –​ well-​targeted parental support offers innovative ways to boost achievement. Parents can also help to address provision mapping issues identified from audit –​targeting whole-​school problems in visionary ways. Schools could also use the potential of Parent Teacher Associations (PTA 2015). The national PTA goal is to bring about joint understanding –​getting everyone singing from the same hymn sheet. Do some schools have parent/​carer forums? Many parents feel isolated with the challenges of caring for a child with SEND. The Pupil/​Parent Guarantees (DCSF 2009a) are no longer guaranteed, but should still be entitlements, offering learners: • • • • •

good discipline and safety. a balanced, flexible curriculum –​meeting all needs. opportunities to take part in cultural and sporting activities. an environment that supports well-​being. support to express their views.

122  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Such entitlements offer parents: • choice with information and support. • home-​school agreements, outlining joint responsibilities. • opportunities to fully engage in their child’s learning –​as equal partners. Research suggests that the home environment impacts greatly on school achievement. Most parents would like to increase involvement, but challenges include work commitments, childcare and lack of time. Making parents aware they matter, and working around such barriers, brings reverse challenges for schools. Above all, parents must feel they are the solution, not the problem. A report, Sacker (2002), linked the effects on pupil achievement, of social class, school and parental involvement, with pupils’ ages, concluding: • parental impact was strongest to age 7, then declined. • school effect increased with pupil age. • the effect of social class increased slightly with pupil age. While this research is not new, and the relationship between parental involvement and social class is complex, it suggests that parental influence declines greatly after KS1. So, the earlier parents get on board with education, and remain involved, including post-​16, the greater the effect on their young person’s success. Finally, Harris (2012) reported interesting data on parental barriers to school engagement, shown in Table 14.1. Table 14.1  Potential barriers to parental involvement School itself 10%

No education experience School not doing enough Child attitudes 18% 26% 1%

Perceived attitude of teacher 17%

Parents’ lack of support skills 18%

Practical issues 3%

Parents not interested 7%

Summary This chapter has offered ideas for parents to engage with schools on a number of levels: • • • •

Supporting basic skills as part of HQT. Supporting personalised interventions. Helping to develop and evaluate SEND policy and practice. Supporting projects highlighted by the provision mapping audit.

Many parents should be able and willing to support the first two. The last two demand more, as fewer parents may be inclined to engage in projects not directly related to their own child’s outcomes. Nevertheless, some will welcome the chance to be at the centre of change, so schools need to grab hold of these adventurous souls, nourish their needs and train them further. Parent power is here! The Code and Equality Act require schools to place parents at the centre of policy and provision mapping processes: tapping into the huge volume of information parents have about their child’s behaviours, characteristics and personalities that could unlock learning potential. Equal partnership may mean stepping back to view issues more from the parental perspective. SENCOs are at the centre of this movement towards genuine parental partnership.

15 Walking the (SENCO) job

This chapter exemplifies and illuminates many points already made. I feel privileged, having been able to ‘walk the job’, as observer. This ‘field-​research’, building onto the theory and principles of effective SEND teaching/​learning explored in preceding chapters, and coinciding with the forthcoming SEND Review, has led to startling conclusions. This chapter further considers SEND philosophy, principles and policy –​as ‘on the ground’ practice. Observations include: • • • •

secondary. primary. special schooling. post-​16.

Literacy issues feature strongly in each case study. This chapter outlines ‘literacy across the curriculum’ as a necessary, vital strategy for addressing underachievement.

Case study A: secondary Ofsted in 2018 identified this school as ‘requiring improvement’: funding used ineffectively, poor SEND progress, high absenteeism. Recommendations: • • • •

Higher expectations. Better use of assessment to plan. More consistent use of literacy policy. Better planning to meet SEND needs.

The report stated that some learning was insufficiently challenging, not applied to problem-​ solving. Workbooks demonstrated low expectations, but in maths, teachers link previous with current learning to ensure mastery. The literacy policy is not consistently applied, with misspelling of subject vocabulary. Some teachers appear unclear about SEND. The proportion of SEND, overlapping with disadvantage, is above average. SEMH needs are high. The school’s information report reads positively, with SEND identified through a range of sources, commitment to student voice, inclusive HQT, interventions and parental partnership: a whole-​school platform for positive policy/​practice. The new SENDCO has initiated many changes, incorporating inclusive principles and practice. But the mountain is high. Ofsted’s ‘required improvements’ will take time to achieve.

The Hub The Hub is this school’s excellent response to significant ‘vulnerability’, providing: • • • •

nurturing. Language for Thinking intervention. ELSA for ‘one-​to-​one’ needs. a retreat.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-19

124  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

The Hub includes a sensory room for calm reflection. I observed a Year 7 nurturing session, focusing on emotion/​ anger management: relating music to mood. Previous activities have included sensory circuits, worry dolls, sensory bottles and emotion fans. Pupils have compared traits of anxiety (characteristics) with states (responses to situations). Each student has a ‘target’ book: teachers comment on how ‘emotion/​behaviour’ targets are applied. The Hub reflects this school’s focus on well-​being. I observed many students for whom friendships appear easier in this small, safe environment. The Hub represents a valiant attempt to keep vulnerable pupils in the learning loop.

Literacy intervention In response to underdeveloped language/​literacy, the strategy includes phonic intervention, with computer-​based summative assessment (STAR: Accelerated Reading), and ‘Spelling Shed’. The phonic programme operates as small groups. Pupils who score badly receive further intervention in English. Accelerated reading is for low attainers in Years 7/​8, and a Year 9 nurture group. Reading ages are as low as 7! On Spelling Shed, pupils arrange on-​screen letters into words. One pupil working on multi-​ syllabic words demonstrated little knowledge of syllables. Intervention includes IDL reading/​spelling, accessed during 15/​20 mins of form time. The school plans to include IDL numeracy. The SENDCO meets with English staff to discuss progress: more phonics –​or more emphasis on subject-​word application? Increased RAs show significant progress for Years 7/​8, less so for Year 9. High achievers in Year 10 are being trained to support reading intervention.

EAL intervention EAL needs are high. Years 10 and 11 receive a daily hour with a TA (first language speaker) to support transition. This TA shares responsibility (with SENDCO) for EAL and teaches groups with low levels of English.

HQT examples Each lesson starts with five-​minute ‘Ready Task’. 1. Maths, Year 7: Topic –​ median Ready task: write ‘two hundred and three thousand’ in figures’ (203,000). Some pupils asked what ‘figures’ meant. - Introduction: oral explanation of median. - Activities: counters on whiteboard show median. Pupils line up, shuffle into ‘birthday order’ –​identify ‘median’ pupil. - Applied: 6,8,10,11,14 (median 10): if six numbers (6,8,10,11,14,17), split (10.5). - Oral Reinforcement: ‘median middle’ –​phrase repeated by all. - End of lesson: Reports (pupil with behaviour card), and rewards (golden tickets). -

The lesson demonstrated multi-​ sensory learning with engagement. The teacher identified delayed numeracy as limiting mathematical concepts (few understood 10.5 as midway between 10 and 11) –​and that many pupils dislike maths. Interactive whiteboards have the potential to make any subject engaging. Should lessons focus on how to improve mathematical confidence –​embracing its capacity for creative fun?

Walking the (SENCO) job  125 

2. Science: Year 11: –​ Measuring radiation - - - -

Ready task: Recap, using equations to measure. Statements displayed: Unstable nuclei emit radiation… Radioactive decay: random and spontaneous. Activity measured in ‘becquerels’. Half-​life, key ideas: Time it takes for half nuclei in radioactive sample to decay. Time for count rate to halve… activity to halve. Process of unstable ‘isotope’ becoming stable? Quiz to identify answers as ratios, in becquerels. Discussion: Pupils reminded of Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

As a science ‘dummy’, I had no chance. As the teacher did her best to engage these ‘lower-​ set’ students, I wondered what they were gaining. One admitted confusion of how ratios were arrived at. I suspected similar misunderstandings. Is readability in science highly dependent on technical vocabulary? Are these students likely to take science further, or recall much of this? Doubtful! So, should science remain a core NC subject for all? 3. Year 9 English: Of Mice and Men (18 -​ 1 SpLD, Pupil H below –​ 6 absent) - - -​

Ready Task: Correcting punctuation. Oral recap: Discussing characters. Written tasks: Using context to identify word meanings: bouquets, brusquely, apprehensive. Connotations: matching colours to words: (evil/​death/​grief –​black). Dictionaries accessed by some.

I observed poor levels of language, reading, spelling, handwriting and confusion of alphabetical order, with boredom/​disaffection. We (teacher, TA, and myself) tried to keep students on task. Engagement seemed non-​existent; the novel obscure. Despite valiant efforts, little learning took place. So, should such texts remain on the NC for all? Might functional literacy replace inaccessible literature? 4. Year 7 English (13 pupils –​ five EAL): Oliver Twist Ready task: Describe Fagin, using ‘sensory’ language, simile. Oral feedback: Throwing ball maintained focus. Activities: Extend description for ‘wanted’ posters. Draw Fagin, design posters. Some pupils struggled to begin. Many spelling issues. Inadequate English proved a barrier. The teacher managed pupils well –​but could precious learning time for some be better spent on texts with which they might engage intrinsically and independently, with greater likelihood of developing English at word, sentence and text levels? 5. Carousel, Year 7 English: 14 pupils This idea (initiated by English teacher) split lesson into short activities –​to improve engagement. Ready task: questions about Oliver Twist –​pupils using whiteboards. Carousel: Three groups, moving between: a) prefix task –​match un, mis, dis –​to words. b) reading passage –​write about how you feel about ending. c) linking weather with mood, using pictures. Interactive, all pupils engaged: but needed three adults. Poor spoken/​written English evident. Tasks balanced ‘word level’ with ‘text level’ comprehension. This strategy has potential to enhance engagement –​but do tasks need a linked theme? The intention is to try this with maths (times tables, number bonds).

126  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

6. English, Year 10: 19 pupils: Poetry assessment 2 pupils (including H below) left to do IDL in SEND base. - Task 1: How is loss presented in, ‘A wife in London’? Highlight words/​phrases that show loss. Some struggled. - Task 2: Compare with other poem –​teacher helped pupils recall previous poem. Few pupils understood ‘comparison’ as an aspect of comprehension. Metaphors presented barriers. Some couldn’t get started. Others lost focus. This teacher tried admirably to bridge the huge gap between levels of English with the NC emphasis on poetry. A further example of wasted learning time? 7. Science, Year 10: 15 pupils (some SEND, 1 severe dyslexia) Revision, with choice of task: Q/​A cards to match, grids to complete, or spider diagram. Many pupils struggled to engage, and match questions/​answers. Some worked in pairs. One pupil ‘couldn’t concentrate’, was taken out, and later returned, but achieved nothing. A further sad mismatch of learners’ abilities, challenged by unrealistic NC content? 8. Geography, Year 8: Why do cliffs collapse? Ready Task: recap: Which ocean surrounds Antarctica? What is ‘ageing’? A coast? Teacher explanation/​tasks: - Using whiteboard/​colourful sheets: pictures of waves: vocabulary (coastline, weathering, attrition, abrasion, destructive, swash/​backwash, fetch). - Draw/​label pictures. - Waving ribbon lengths to compare waves: Biggest: Blackpool or Land’s End? - Text about wave action read by teacher, pupils asked to read/​follow, but comprehension high –​with abstract, multi-​syllabic words used in topic-​specific ways. This teacher did her best to engage this lower set using VAKS: auditory (teacher explanation, ‘wave’ sounds), visual (pictures), kinaesthetic (waving ribbons). One pupil played with a Rubik’s cube, another with nail varnish. Behaviour was constantly ‘on the edge’. Recent test results out of 30 ranged from over 20 (few) to below 10 (many). 9. History: Year 7 (included Pupil J below) How important was the medieval church? - Short text on board (low readability): one pupil read aloud to class. - Pupils completed simple ‘Cloze’ test. - Picture on whiteboard –​in groups: one pupil drew from description of what others saw (heaven/​hell: angels top, demons below, ladder between). - Discussed ‘purgatory’. Interactive, with VAKS variation. Many EAL learners. Answers judged by teacher as: understanding –​ good, with description –​great, plus ­examples –​fantastic. 10. Food Technology: Year 7: Safety in Kitchen: 14 (some SEND pupils in Hub) - - - - - - -

Worksheet with learning objectives (hazards, risks, health/​safety). Picture of kitchen: identify 10 hazards. Write why it’s important to follow health/​safety rules. List ways to make kitchens safer. Video: funny (100% pupil concentration!). outline of person –​draw hygiene-​related things. Name 4Cs of food hygiene (cleaning, cooking, chilling, cross-​contamination).

Walking the (SENCO) job  127 

Teacher discussion: • Pupil with Dyspraxia/​ASD getting laptop –​should any pupil completely abandon handwriting? • Spelling: unduly affected by predictive text on screens? • Would ‘middle school’ bridge gaps between NC requirements and lack of ‘readiness’? This teacher used ‘learning journey’ to identify goals/​objectives –​with ‘traffic light’ records of progress in workbooks. 11. Year 11 English: (11 pupils, including pupil C, assigned TA) - 5 min, task: Using ‘comma splice’. - Lesson: Romeo and Juliet: reading extract, pupils read dialogue, responses to question, with teacher prompts and sentence starters for support. Pupil C requests toilet (repeatedly). After 20 minutes, he leaves lesson (works with TA in library). Levels of engagement/​interaction varied: 3 constant, 5 at intervals, 3 rarely. These pupils are on track for GCSE grades 2 to 6. 12. Year 10: English: Set 1 (30 pupils –​ 2/​3 girls) - Ready Task: questions re. poet, Caroline Duffy. - Sonnet 43: students read and comment: how ‘dashes’ affect meaning, highlight phrases showing ‘religious imagery’. - Compare poem with one previously studied. In this high-​achieving, top set are 2 with additional needs: dyslexia and mild cognitive difficulties: all on track for GCSEs: 8/​9. These young people are already ‘students’, striving towards University and successful, independent adulthood. Skills observed: • • • • •

Positive attitudes: every student 100% task-​focused. Good listening and quality of language –​vocabulary and sentence structures. Relaxed atmosphere –​teaching meeting learning. Students have strong recognition of learning purpose. High, thoughtful levels of comprehension response (evaluative/​aesthetic).

At close of lesson, some students lingered, anxious to know what grade their previous assignment had been allocated. I sensed a healthy, respectful competitiveness –​students wanting to perform well, no doubt prodded by parents. What joy on the faces of those who had gained a distinction!

Reflections from observations Staff:pupil ratios were generally low (compared with 30 in top set). Many of these less able pupils would have been educated in special schools prior to the (Warnock) inclusion journey. Would a sensitive combination of special/​mainstream approaches now enable more pupils to achieve? Is success about reaching personal potential –​based on the highest, realistic expectations? The challenge for government is to look at which areas of the NC may not be suitable for all –​ and allow reasonable opt-​out. The challenges for teachers faced with huge gaps between teaching and learning are to identify small progressive steps that enable all learners to feel some measure of success. Is poetry for all? Of course, pupils must be introduced to this beautiful form of language. A few may go on to create poems from the heart –​intrinsic. For most, is the study of poetry more

128  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

extrinsic –​contributing to a good GCSE grade (that top set)? For those at the tail end, is poetry a waste of precious learning time? Personalisation Without personalisation, many students with high emotional needs would be lost in the system. Consider: 1. H, Year 10, has mild cognition/​learning difficulties, with SEMH: EHCP pending. Personalisation included a trip out. H becomes anxious in complete silence –​so opted out of the poetry assessment (6 above). 2. H, Year 9, has an EHCP for mild HI, cognition/​learning, social/​communication and SEMH. He has a stammer and avoids wearing his hearing aid. TA describes his ‘tiny-​step’ progress like ‘turning around a huge tanker’. Observed progress: • • • • •

Confidence –​H now asks questions in class. Improved listening/​focus. Talks more about issues that bother him. Doesn’t ‘object’ as much. Responds better to praise.

The TA says that H has not voiced any personal aspirations: does he feel unable to achieve? These small steps demonstrate that progress is not solely measured by standardised scores or academic levels. 3. J has an EHCP for SEMH, ADHD (linked to neurofibromatosis), and is developing Tourette’s. He receives speech/​language therapy. J has anxiety, supported by an external specialist and receives nurture in the Hub. 4. C, Year 11, has developed ‘learned helplessness’. He has an EHCP for behaviour and has a stammer. C has been given ‘helping’ responsibilities in the Hub. He is allowed to drop some subjects to reduce ‘cognitive overload’ and spend more time on English/​Maths. C is frequently in the ‘isolation’ room, and sometimes vacates school. The SENDCO has negotiated one day a week in college (bricklaying, without theory –​going well). C is on track for GCSE grade 3 (with scribe). Do these brief descriptions make us fear for the future life chances of these students, and others with emotional and/​or behavioural problems –​struggling to ‘fit in’? These profiles highlight the need for highly personalised approaches in whatever form. The school is attempting to hold on to these vulnerable learners, to prevent exclusion or truancy –​reminding us how difficult it is for schools to reach out and achieve total inclusivity.

TA deployment –​and questionnaire feedback TAs do far more than ‘assist’. Their roles complement those of teachers, helping teaching/​ learning to bond. TAs are vital to SEND achievement. One TA works with Years 7 to 9, mainly in class. She recognises independence, so moves away from students once on task. To avoid over-​dependence, TA/​pupil allocations change regularly. We discussed the importance of trust between TAs and pupils. This TA feels her status has improved; her role is seen as important and training is more available. There is a team approach. TAs have tablets: in Geography, this TA showed her pupil pictures of a jungle, as he did not understand the concept. These TAs have a mentoring role, as ‘key workers’, and complete ‘learner profiles’ to support assessment. The point was made that some pupils, when asked what they want to do on leaving school, or what they are good at –​have nothing positive or aspirational to say. How can we establish self-​esteem in students who struggle to visualise a future? Most TAs in this school do far more than their grades dictate. Table 15.1 summarises questionnaire feedback.

Walking the (SENCO) job  129 

Table 15.1  TA reflections on role Which aspects of your role do you enjoy most or least?

Variety of children I work with. Enjoy all aspects. Enjoy interaction/​relationships. built up with pupils –​least enjoy not having complete picture of vulnerable pupils, unable to support them effectively. 1–​1 sessions planned to match English and maths –​purposeful. Group interventions.

Helping pupils make sense of complex topics –​where TA role is most recognised. Love it when, with my help, pupils ‘get it’. Boosting self-​esteem. Celebrating success. Forming trusting relationships. Seeing students succeed.

How far do you feel valued, that your role is a vital element of SEND success?

Feel more valued than before. Valued by most staff. Much improved with current SENCO in charge. Some staff appreciate us. Need more training on paperwork to be filled in.

Sometimes feel undervalued by teachers, but valued by SEND dept. TA role is backbone of SEND. Essential for SEMH, and communication/​interaction.

How well trained do you feel? Is there any particular area where you would like more training?

Better trained than before. Love all training and refreshers. Need more training in all aspects of my role. Need training on: behaviour, medical conditions, strategies to use and TA techniques, dyslexia, autism, dyspraxia, dyscalculia.

Feel trained enough for my role. Most training has been through experience.

Any other comments –​how might the SEND system be improved?

Sharing best practice, having a close-​knit team. Decompressing after a tough day. Good communication. Excellent perception –​ recognising needs of pupils. Flexibility, willingness and ability to assist SEND Dept. in any way possible. ‘One size doesn’t fit all’ –​what works for one may not work for all, even with similar needs.

Improvement –​staff outside of department to understand and value our role –​not use as a ‘dumping ground’. Our team needs more players! Need time to liaise with teachers –​ on main focus of lesson. Need more background info. on students to help them better.

Overall, I gained the impression of a happy, co-​ordinated team doing a fantastic job, led by a SENDCO who values their input. Responses are thought-​provoking: • • • • • •

Feeling better valued by subject staff. Training –​what specifically do TAs need? Needing a more complete picture of individuals? Liaison with teachers? ‘One size doesn’t fit all’ –​recognising individuality? How far is classroom experience, also training?

Could better-​ trained TAs (paid accordingly) help close the achievement gap by knowing/​ understanding pupils’ needs more extensively?

SENDCO discussion This SENDCO appreciates 100% of dedicated time. We discussed the problems of identifying SEND –​given above-​average disadvantaged and EAL learners. The referral system operates through teachers, includes student information, and what additional strategies have been tried in class. The SEND team discusses needs –​universal, targeted, specialised? One pupil with significant writing difficulties is allocated a laptop. One with SpLD is allocated a ‘reading pen’. We talked about how easy it is to miss children who cause no fuss –​yet don’t engage.

130  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

This school uses SNAP diagnostic assessment, that pinpoints specific learning and behavioural needs and identifies a range of interventions –​using pupil information from different sources, including parents. The SEND register changes constantly. It is organised by the four broad areas, colour-​coded, detailing each pupil’s intervention. The school is piloting a ‘feedback book’ into which TAs comment on progress/​achievements. Eight pupils currently have EHCPs. SEN Support overlaps with EAL/​disadvantage, sometimes masking genuine SEND. This school uses the Synergy ‘one-​ stop-​shop’ recording/​organising system. Further SENDCO discussion: Attending subject department planning –​and ‘walking the job’. Year 8/​9 withdrawn from Spanish –​how else could interventions happen? How can poor literacy at Year 7 be prevented –​and/​or addressed? Psychology –​a whole-​school need, but expensive. Should EPs be cheaper for schools with significant pupil vulnerability? • Cluster SEND, with TA access –​or spread more thinly? • • • •

This SENDCO feels she is failing pupils. She is not! The system is. Education needs a master plan. The SENDCO meets with SLT every 3/​4 weeks, and the English Dept. to discuss literacy. Does this school, and others with similar problems, need a whole-​school literacy policy/​plan (outlined below)? School Development: Audit The school is now part of a multi-​agency trust, recently audited. Auditors talked with a SEND student panel, TA panel and looked at how EHCP’s follow through into lessons. Overview: • Students reported feeling well-​supported –​no particular needs expressed. • Some TAs feel they are spread too thinly amongst students and need more training. • EHCP application is achieved sometimes. Auditors have suggested a ‘SEND champion’ for each subject department, focused on improving HQT. Talk with class teachers Points made: • Inclusion not working –​discussed difference between inclusion and integration. • The aim of equality through NC is not always fair (for SEND pupils). • Should learning for some include more vocational input? Not every student can pursue academia. Should moving forward herald a return to preparation for ‘trades’ –​with evidence for any student to opt out of NC study? Is achievement by an alternative route more acceptable than self-​perceived failure?

Parental partnership Only about 50% of parents of students with SEND attended a recent parents’ evening. Parents, like teachers, are at the heart of learning. For all students, especially those with SEND, home/​ school must bond. The school has recently appointed a Family Learning Support Worker to reach out and encourage involvement. There are plans for parent ‘drop-​ins’. Currently time is taken by ‘personalised’ approaches –​visiting homes, engaging parents in collaborative problem-​solving. A breakfast club has begun. Future plans include a sensory garden for pupils to grow edible plants. The focus is on creating a calm, relaxed environment: recognising that well-​being underpins effective learning.

Walking the (SENCO) job  131 

Attitudes to learning (ATL) The school collates ATL data from teachers, on every student: described in Table 15.2. Table 15.2  Attitudes to learning from 1–​4 1. Fully engaged, work finished to highest standard. Listens intently and actively participates at all times. Self-​assured and eager to learn. 2. Ready to learn, confident. Good self-​management. Usually engaged, and much good work produced. A bit more concentration and application needed to reach highest standard. 3. Needs reminding at times to stay on task. Not always listening. Lacks pride in work. Self-​management and motivation could be better. 4.  No focus. Not engaging with any work. No commitment to learning. No self-​discipline.

Most students in lesson 12 above are probably rated 1, while many in the other observed lessons hover between 3/​4. Given that attitudes influence learning, should schools focus more attention on engagement? If NC topics prove unsuitable because challenges can’t be reached, even with additional support, what should schools do? We can no longer ignore that ‘tail end’ who become ‘switched off’. Further, do those with ‘attitudes’ rated 4, carry their sense of failure like a yoke weighing heavily on their shoulders? The difference in atmosphere between classes of able and least able students reminds us that learning stems from positive attitudes and open minds. Schools need freedom to reset challenges –​with the focus on reopening the (sadly) closed minds of many learners with SEND. Negative attitudes can result in truancy. Pupil C, Year 7, is bereaved, severe SEMH, with frequent absence. The Family Learning Support Worker and SENDCO, have requested urgent family assessment and support. Does this case, and others where pupils neither conform nor attend, merit further research into personalised strategies that work well? With no other learning difficulty, there is time for pupil C’s attitude to be turned around, but well-​being must come first. Secondary schools like this have an uphill struggle (worsened by Covid). The SENDCO, with other dedicated staff, are fighting to release the potential of every learner with SEND –​against the odds. Does this case study paint a depressing picture? It is not meant to. I have observed teachers working their socks off to provide good, inclusive HQT. But this can only be achieved when challenges are realistic. The NC needs change: to improve life chances for pupils currently failed by an outdated system. Having painted this picture of vulnerability, disadvantage and urgent need for NC systemic change, we must not lose sight of high achievers. Many learners with average and above attainment progress extremely well in this school and receive glowing reports at parent evenings. What might be said to parents of those failed by the system? What nuggets of positivity can teachers pass on to keep those children motivated? This is a small secondary, with an inclusive environment, offering wrap-​around care. But the gap between its vulnerable pupils and ‘high flyers’ is wide –​as is that between its collective results and national expectations. Staff also need to feel success! Prior to the NC, teachers had professional freedom to teach according to needs. With greater diversity, are teachers now, for some pupils, battling against unrealistic expectations –​and being failed also by an inflexible system not fit for inclusive purpose? Back to Ofsted –​what is it that ‘requires improvement’ –​teaching or system? Teaching is both a joy and a privilege –​a profession in which teachers need to feel able to bring success to every student. In light of this study, how far should education focus on ensuring that fewer pupils leave primary school unable to access secondary learning?

132  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Case study B: primary This mainstream school includes a specialist unit for children with ASD.

Ofsted report The 2018 judgement was ‘good’ –​breadth and quality of curriculum a strength. The school teaches the same ‘topic’ across a KS at age-​appropriate levels. Pupils develop subject-​specific skills, with opportunities to practise English/​ Maths across the curriculum. The school has addressed issues with grammar, punctuation and spelling. A learning mentor is in place, as the gap between disadvantaged children and others was not previously diminishing. Attendance has risen. Improved tracking identifies disadvantaged pupils with SEND. A 2020 monitoring visit emphasised: • loss of ‘reading stamina’ since Covid. • need for whole-​school focus on reading comprehension. • some maths taught before Covid ‘forgotten’: catch-​up sessions offer opportunities to practise calculations and problem-​solving. 1. Mainstream observations General lesson structure: 1. Maths mixed practice Year 6: preparing for SATS, plus work on perimeter, area, volume: Year 5 –​multiple fractions, larger/​smaller (< >): Year 4 –​Quick maths: practising previous learning (eg. 3/​5 of 60, 67 x 3, 156 shared by 4, 3 fractions that =​1/​4): Year 3: 13 squared, 13 =​3 x 9 -​?, 3/​4 of 48, 125 divided by 25, 7641 +​1259. 2. English: Year 6 –​main/​subordinate clauses, guided reading, using memory aid (vocabulary, infer, retrieve, summarise, explain, predict). Year 5 –​‘ed’ endings (annoyed, described), ‘Amazon’ theme –​groups created plots (opening, building, problem, resolution, ending), then voted for best to create story. Reading comprehension. Spellings (ough). Using Netbooks, designed website in pairs. Year 4: Structuring writing as ‘debate’ (Should mobile phones be allowed in school?). Pupils given prompt sheet for note-​making (intro, for, against, conclusion). Previous writing: grammatical/​linguistic features (fronted adverbials, determiner, adjective, pronouns, prepositions, adverb). Previous work: diary, joining clauses, using commas, writing in 1st/​3rd person, conjunctions. Year 3 –​Spellings, multi-​syllabic (probably, experience). Grammar game: bingo card numbered: simile, conjunction, adjective, adverb, preposition –​pupils roll dice, match number to grammar, form sentence. 3. TT Rock Stars –​practising times tables, computer programme for speed of recall. 4.  Spelling shed: 4 levels (easy, medium, hard, extreme): computer reads word to spell from randomly arranged letters. Such activities will be familiar to SENCOs who ‘walk the job’. Differentiation noted: - - - - - - - - - -

Backtracking: Year 5 fractions simplified to colouring 1/​2, 1/​4 of shapes. Groups withdrawn for ‘post-​Covid’ catch-​up. In class, some pupils practised ‘tricky’ words and simple phonics with TA. Spellings differentiated. Writing mainly differentiated by ‘outcome’. Year 3 group withdrawn (TA) for spellings: same group receives extra phonics, 3 times per week. Year 3 group withdrawn (TA): same activity (< >), simpler numbers. Year 5, TT Rock stars (mixed times tables) simplified to single. Year 6 scaffolding: box of materials for support (times-​table squares, dice, counters, visual aids). Some targets differentiated.

Walking the (SENCO) job  133 

Points noted: - - - - - - -

Fractions found difficult. Place value (4 digit) found difficult. A few pupils did not work with peers. Year 4: a few pupils not ready for ‘purpose-​driven’ writing. Pupils struggled with note-​making. A few confused symbols (< >). Numerical logic lacking: answers obviously wrong (7 x 36 =​57?).

Summary of observations In general, most pupils seemed engaged: Year 3 pupils took turns as ‘teachers’, using the whiteboard. Different methods for solving maths problems were discussed. Spelling Shed and TT Rock Stars are set as homework. The class TA helps with marking, group or 1–​1 intervention. Discipline is high. In only one class were SEND pupils clustered at the same table. Interventions matched strategies on the SEND register. Could the ‘Q’ in HQT be improved? In general, most pupils were focused and completed tasks at varying levels. Activities fluctuated between VAKS (auditory, visual, kinaesthetic, social) –​with less emphasis on kinaesthetic and social. When pupils were struggling to spell, write or understand, it was mainly TAs who stepped in: yet these are opportunities for teachers to interact and note specific barriers/​issues –​to support planning. Year 6 pupils placed finished work in piles: pink (confident), yellow (okay), green (struggling): compared to this teacher’s ongoing record, identifying confusions –​and encouraging pupils to self-​reflect on learning. In general, children worked from the same NC objectives with emphasis on achievement at individual levels. Able children helped less able peers. I observed a reasonable level of engagement and independence. Range of SEND A glance at the SEND register reminds us of the difficulties in achieving 100% inclusion. Table 15.3 represents a typical SEND register. Table 15.3  Typical SEND register –​just over 25%? YEAR

SEN SUPPORT

EHCP

RANGE OF TYPES

Reception

9

1

Year 1

9

4

Year 2

3

2

Year 3

6

1

1 part-​time in specialist unit –​cognitive, SLCN 1 traveller, previously in unit for SLCN, speech difficulties Cognitive difficulties

Year 4 (of 25 -​19 boys)

9

0

2 ASD Asperger’s (not yet diagnosed) –​1 very bright, amazing memory 1 traveller –​low ability 1 ADHD +​very poor English skills 1 Tourettes (not SEN) General support needs 1 diabetic, no SEN

Year 5

3

1

2 cognitive difficulties Others general delay

Year 6

5

1

1 medical (not SEN) 1 ADHD Severe SLCN –​illegible writing Pastoral needs 2 with mild cognitive difficulties

2 on SEN Support as more able Some in specialist unit

134  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

The Year 3 teacher remarked that the speech/​language of a pupil from the specialist unit, now part-​time in main, is much improved. Table 15.4 illustrates maths backtracking in Year 3 for a learner with cognitive difficulties. Table 15.4  Backtracked targets Know number bonds to 20

Know doubles to 20

Know halves to 20

Multiply/​divide 2’s, up to 10 x 2

Multiply/​divide 5’s up to 50

Multiply/​divide 10’s up to 100

TA discussion TA hours have been cut. Discussion focused on pupils with disadvantaged backgrounds –​ requiring breakfasts and other well-​being strategies. Do salary grades always match deployment? One TA (Grade 2) role included planning, backtracking for PIVATS, marking and recording. Key question: for maximum outcomes, what grades should TAs be allocated? Teacher discussion One teacher remarked that, years ago, children with learning difficulties would have had TA support: what proportion now accept this cultural shift in SEND responsibility? Another remarked on the difficulties of racing through an overcrowded NC, with inadequate time to reinforce learning. Well-​b eing The school has appointed a Learning Mentor to address problems with emotions, friendships, bullying and general well-​being –​and help close the ‘disadvantage’ gap. The LA is leading a preventative programme aimed at improving resilience: from baseline to final assessments, data will identify children who need more directed emotional support. Discussion with SENCO –​ re. mainstream The SENCO is responsible for both mainstream SEND and specialist unit. She struggles to get through termly/​annual reviews. Plans are for the role to be shared –​current SENCO taking responsibility for the Unit: a class teacher for mainstream SEND. Identification is mainly by teachers completing a form, detailing difficulties and perceived needs. PIVATS is the main tool for backtracking. Expense limits greater use of external specialists. The SENCO expressed the importance of knowing pupils well. She feels the whole school has developed an acceptance of SEND diversity –​with able peers understanding and supporting less able. This SENCO has little time to ‘walk her job’. 2. Specialist Unit The Unit, originally SLCN, caters for children with ASD (EHCPs). The pupil-​staff ratio (2:1) supports engagement: these children do not yet interact with peers. • Pupil 1: Year 1, high-​functioning, PIVATS at P7, matches bonds, adds numbers to 10, and, from ‘SATPIN’, is ready for his first reader. • Pupil 2: Year 3, SLCN, moves flexibly between Unit and main: speech/​language has developed significantly through peer interaction. • Pupil 3: counts objects to 10, matches to numerals, and identifies tens (10, 20, 30). He speaks a few words. No reading yet. • Pupil 4: fascinated with maths –​gravitates towards numerical aspects of every activity. • Pupil 5: understands many words, but speech is unintelligible. She receives SALT. • Pupil 6: does not speak, is often confused and frustrated. Learning through play/​a ctivities The ‘Jungle’ theme begins with ‘counting to 20’ using the interactive whiteboard, with sing-​ along. Sensory learning:

Walking the (SENCO) job  135 

• • • • • • • • •

What’s in the box (animals)? Animal jigsaws.   Magnetic letters.   Money man: matching plastic coins, to parts of human shape.   Animals with body parts that lift off: What is missing?   Sensory tubes: combinations of sparkling colours.   Craftwork: making ‘elephants’.   Building a tower from building blocks.   Play: with animals and cars.    

Every opportunity is used to feed language/​numeracy into play, interactive resources helping to stretch engagement. VAKS: engagement Visual or kinaesthetic activities lengthen response. Listening is underdeveloped. Simple conceptual understanding (naming animals) is evident –​‘jungle’ obscure. For these children, communication is by pointing or single words. Pupil 3’s perseverance with working out how to use the interactive whiteboard for drawing demonstrated multi-​faceted engagement. This Unit demonstrates intense personalisation. Engagement is difficult when short attention spans and social/​behaviour issues disrupt learning. Learning, language, social skills Learning how to learn, using language, is a priority. Visual timetables show the rule: ‘work… then choice’. Choices always feature iPad! How can technology best support learning for severe SEND? Expressive language lags way behind receptive. At which point does SLCN cross into DLD, requiring specialist support? These children have ASC with SLCN. If the SLCN can be reduced through a programme of small-​step goals –​might this eventually support the ASC? These children need to be taught explicitly what most absorb implicitly: social skills, such as waiting, taking turns. Assessment There are difficulties in observing, recording and communicating small progressive steps. Photos of work are placed onto a secure website for parents, with originals as evidence for reviews. Questions Where are the priorities? • • • • •

Should children be ‘trained’ explicitly how to play/​interact with peers? Be taught to listen/​focus for gradually increasing time spans? Could more targeted literacy/​numeracy be threaded through ‘play’? Could focusing on SLCN further support the ASC? How might particular interests/​obsessions be used to sweep away learning barriers?

What training is required for teachers/​TAs supporting these difficulties? Speech/​language must enable access to literacy/​numeracy: using opportunities to develop vocabulary/​communication through play –​building onto engagement. Making ‘egg sandwiches’ offered an opportunity. Adults modelled –​children cut, spread and folded, as we talked them through each stage. Such needs illustrate why this staff/​pupil ratio is necessary. Discussion with SENCO: re. unit Children in this Unit are assessed through PIVATS for literacy/​numeracy, plus the PSED version: independence, self-​help, social awareness/​relationships and emotional aspects of behaviour. The SENCO would like ASD specialist support but it’s too expensive. We speculated on the likelihood of these children thriving in mainstream secondary. Unlikely? This SENCO has been trained in how to handle/​restrain children safely.

136  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Merging special with mainstream This mainstream primary is unusual in having a special Unit. It works well, as children move flexibly between, some remaining in mainstream. A way forward? Should other Units be set up –​each focusing on a SEND area? Could dual placement for some who cannot manage in mainstream provide a solution –​leaving special school places for those who need them 100%? Can this primary, and others with similarly disadvantaged intakes, achieve the 2030 goal: 90% leaving with expected standards in literacy and maths? To what extent does intervention need to focus on areas of SEND, disadvantage, or both?

Case study C: post-​16 Conversations with Advanced Practitioners, two SEND plus one Advanced Practitioner for Quality Improvement (APQI), questioned how FE might become a more successful part of the educational journey for SEND students.

Discussions with college staff Further Education and Skills inspections (Ofsted 2019) judged 56% ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’: 14% lower than previously. From an annual report (Ofsted 2019/​20), of 46 newly-​merged colleges inspected, 65% were ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’: a third ‘requiring improvement’. This report points also to a crisis worsened by Covid. The colleges I visited were in disadvantaged areas. While most providers do their best to promote achievement, with largely successful outcomes, our discussions questioned outcomes for some learners with SEND. How might they be improved? In FE parents are less involved. Socio-​economic disadvantage is likely. Students entering FE often represent the tail end of the educational race: disillusioned, with below-​average literacy and maths. Social/​communication skills are often underdeveloped. Some of these students have SEND. EHCP students receive continued funding: those previously on SEN support rely on HQT. While most courses do not require high literacy or maths –​functional skills matter: supported learning is provided for students up to Level 1. FE does not have to have SENCOs. Teachers may not have a teaching qualification. PGCE for FE does not necessarily include training on SEND. Food for thought? We discussed the necessity of ‘knowing learners’. Is SEND intake in FE unclear? Needs often include –​dyslexia, autism, ADHD and neuro-​divergence. Learning for some autistic students has over-​focused on behaviour, to the detriment of language and academic skills. Is there a stigma to declaring disability? Should all Individual Learner Records include baseline assessment to support planning? Conversation included: • inclusive teaching –​adapting practice, putting students first –​HQT essential. • one-​way delivery: much teacher talk, poor engagement, over-​reliance on powerpoint –​student apathy/​boredom. • importance of specialist vocabulary. • need for VAKS approaches. • iceberg factors –​from observed behaviours, what lurks below the surface? • inadequate maths/​English? • resources needing to be age/​interest appropriate. If a dyslexic student needs coloured paper, might others also use it? Similarly, simplifying Powerpoint benefits all. All students need teaching how to take effective notes –​might ‘Cloze’ activities help? Developing functional maths/​literacy can be topic-​linked: e.g., in ‘Creative Enterprise’, students made Xmas cards, a combined project that involved buying materials and calculating costs.

Walking the (SENCO) job  137 

The HQT planning principles apply also to FE: simplified, average, extension. And not clustering SEND students together! Fully inclusive delivery needs to ‘wrap around’: only in a class with an EHCP student, can additional support overlap. Teaching is not always adapted to needs: minimal interaction or over-​use of didactic delivery. Many tutors, excellent in their vocational fields, need SEND training. A culture of ‘learned helplessness’? Many SEND students, used to having a TA, arrive with that expectation. One student in a wheelchair (EHCP but no other difficulties) was allocated support unnecessarily. Teenagers don’t want to feel unnecessarily singled out. Students must be partly in charge –​independent and empowered. Aspirations stem from students as well as teachers. Should a deaf student wanting to work in construction be discouraged because a teacher doesn’t think he can do it? Education aims towards enabling –​ not disabling. Are we empowering young people to think they CAN achieve, become independent and establish good careers? Is FE preparing all students to progress confidently towards suitable employment? Do some FE teachers have low expectations of students with SEND? A student’s reliance on British Sign Language (with EHCP) does not equate to cognitive difficulties. Age-​appropriate teaching resources are also needed: linked to students’ interests, games, films, sport, music –​as well as to course topics. Do some students bring fresh meaning to personalisation, requiring creative problem-​solving? Personalisation for students on Z code (EHCP) may focus on skills, without non-​essential theory, e.g., for hairdressing, cutting hair and mixing dyes takes priority. An ASD student, with escalating absenteeism, was asked what she could manage: ‘two mornings weekly’ have since grown to four days. Where does personalisation meet the need for reasonable conformity –​or depart from it? Some theory, e.g., safety in the workplace, is essential. Personalised approaches remind us that learning is not climbing a ladder –​but a mountain with different pathways to the top. An Achievement Tutor is available for every student: for pastoral care and progress. FE focus is more on life skills than qualifications. Functional maths and English need to be threaded through teaching in practical ways, applied to different work situations. Do these areas need addressing? • • • • • • •

FE as a purposeful and worthwhile path to skilled employment. More effective inclusion –​teaching/​training differentiated. Age-​appropriate FE teaching materials. SEND learners gaining functional English/​maths. Higher expectations of SEND. Independence and empowerment. Levelling up –​and status.

Some 16 year-​olds arrive in FE with delayed maturity: left behind through schooling –​made worse by Covid. Society has much to address in terms of hierarchy. Skilled jobs, such as bricklaying, plumbing or working with car engines, deserve to be equally valued with the more academic. Should ‘levelling up’ philosophy underpin SEND policy –​to transform FE status? The Educational Training Foundation (2014) seeks to improve FE, inviting self-​assessment, adapted below. On a scale of 1–​6, how effective are you in each area? VALUES:

1. Reflecting: ‘what works’ to meet diverse needs? 2. Evaluating practice, values and beliefs? 3. Inspiring, motivating…raising aspirations? 4. Being creative, innovative…adapting strategies? 5. Promoting social/​cultural diversity…equality of opportunity? 6. Building collaborative relationships? KNOWLEDGE/​U NDERSTANDING:

7. Maintaining subject knowledge? 8. Knowledge of educational research? 9. Theory to effective practice?

138  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

10. Evaluating learner outcomes? 11. Promoting positive behaviour? 12. Understanding professional responsibilities? SKILLS:

13. Motivating learners …enabling progression? 14. Delivering effective learning…diverse…inclusive environment? 15. Use of technology? 16. Addressing maths/​English needs? 17. Enabling self-​responsibility? 18. Applying fair, appropriate assessment? 19. Collaborating with employers to update vocational skills? 20. Contributing towards quality improvement? Should such self-​reflection apply at every educational stage?

The SEND toolkit A 2022 online conference workshop, delivered jointly by the APQI and myself, had the following learning objectives: • Exploring key principles underpinning SEND. • Discussing values/​qualities of HQT. • Sharing practical strategies for inclusion. The Code’s ‘graduated response’ (Figure 2.1, reproduced here as Figure 15.1), to which colleges also ‘have regard’, brought out points relevant to FE: SEND –​combines SEN (Code of Practice) with Disability (Equality Act). Bottom up: each Code response builds from previous –​ALL to few. The baseline as inclusive personalisation –​every student with a sense of belonging. HQT as a universal, quality experience in FE. SEN Support: linked to disadvantage and/​or EAL, often overlaps with SEND: interventions for reading/​writing, maths, social skills or language, with Personal Plans/​Passports, SMART targets –​offer valuable information for FE planning/​progression. • EHCPs: often with specialist Annual Review input, also offer useful FE information. • Students needing ‘intensive personalisation’ were described as ‘harder-​to-​teach’, needing FE educators to reach out –​using individualised, psychological approaches. • • • • •

Pupils with EHCPs are entitled to: HQT, SEN Support, plus EHCP top-​up –​combined. The post-​ 16 workshop participants were invited to reflect on how this might translate into effective FE practice. Personalised AT D F EH CP complex EH CP severe SE N S u pp o rt - moderate/severe SE N S u pp o rt - mild/moderate HQ T - Targeting mild areas of weakness High quality classroom teaching: differentiated, fully inclusive for all

Figure 15.1  The ideal shape of SEN intervention.

Walking the (SENCO) job  139 

Further workshop discussion focused on how types/​categories of SEND fall generally into the Code’s four broad areas: Cognition and Learning, Communication/​Interaction, Social, Emotional and Mental Health, Physical/​Sensory Difficulties. Participants raised a number of points: • • • •

High expectations: SEN labels must never ‘disable’. Multiple intelligences –​below-​average single quotients must never lower expectations. Students with SEND have both strengths and weaknesses. SEND emphasises neuro-​diversity –​brains operating in different ways.

Having highlighted and discussed the four broad areas as effective starting points for planning inclusive HQT –​participants were hopefully inspired to self-​reflect. The workshop explored engagement: what might be assumed from observation: • • • • •

Exploration: Alert –​waiting to explore? Realisation: Understanding. Anticipation: Thinking what might come next. Persistence: Solving problems? Different ways to do tasks? Not giving up? Initiation: Different ways to solve problems?

FE practitioners’ own engagement practices (Table 15.5) invite reflection. Table 15.5  Recognising student engagement Body language. Thumbs up or down. Facial expressions. Eye contact. Alert and responsive. Responding to questions. Not playing on phone. Enthusiastic. Acknowledging teacher. Recall. Being productive. Asking questions. Taking notes. Tone of voice. Talking appropriately Posture. Presenting own ideas. Talking with peers. Nodding.

The focus on engagement led participants to consider how VAKS (Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Social), also relate to FE: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Using dyslexia-​friendly texts as standard. Students constructing own questions on learned topics –​class quiz. Attaching quiz to video. Option to voice record assessments? Printed resources, as well as PowerPoint. Hands-​on resources, eg. Play-​Doh time (interesting?). Role-​modelling. Starter activity to engage senses –​silent ‘disco’? Combining visual/​auditory in ways that boost retention. Less text on PowerPoint. Assignments chunked: using range of tasks in assignment briefs (not all written?) Group work for discussion. Sort definitions/​terms in pairs, using paper cut-​outs (kinaesthetic). From the industry –​using same equipment (work experience). Good use of assistive technology. See: demo or model –​Do: learner has a go –​Review: with peer, with ‘2 stars and a wish’ (2 good, and 1 to be improved on).

One participant related how her deaf student taught her peers sign language so they could communicate with her. Another uses the term ‘differently-​abled’ to describe SEND. The difference between words and visuals deserves reflection: words are always sequential –​whereas visuals are variably synchronous. Might this help to convey complex ideas to ‘differently-​abled’ learners? Would ‘drawing’ problems (Table 15.6) help? Problem: John delivers bottles in boxes: 20 in each. How many boxes are needed for 134 bottles? Imagine roughly drawn ‘boxes’ –​20 in each, with left-​overs. ‘Seeing’ problems helps some learners to think them through.

140  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Table 15.6  Visualising word problems 20

20

20

20

20

20

14

The above problem is simple, but some (on functional maths papers) have multiple steps that need thinking through in sequential order. Problem-​solving is a major barrier for some students. VAKS –​linked to the four broad areas –​provides an effective starting point for inclusion. Having explored, discussed and shared a host of ideas for HQT, I sensed participants had gained many SEND ‘tools’ to take away and apply. I hope these ideas may inspire both schools and FE providers to reflect on how to achieve the best outcomes for their vulnerable SEND students. As one participant reminded us, ‘nothing motivates like success’.

Case study D: special Since Warnock, inclusion has sought to educate more pupils with SEND in mainstream, with mixed success. Where are we now with special education? Pupil N: 16, MLD and ADHD, has an EHCP, with minor medical/​physical needs. He attended mainstream until his parents decided his needs would be best met in special. N has made good progress, demonstrates improved maturity and is on track for Level 1 in English and Maths. Working through N’s practice on mathematical problem-​solving, I realised he needed a sequential strategy: • • • •

Read problem –​underline key phrases to clarify meaning. Which sum? Check he has answered the exact question. Check: is the answer sensible?

N has benefited from excellent special provision, with strong parental back-​up. Challenges for FE: • • • •

Pushing N to reach his full potential. Independence –​avoiding over-​reliance on EHCP support. Preparation for work –​N is fully capable of employment. Recognising his skills in music and technology as strengths to pursue.

Alongside his parents, I also expect Pupil N’s EHCP, when re-​drafted for transition, to emphasise high expectations, aspirations and independence. The EHCP must focus on pushing N to know where he is going and lead himself (with support), to his destination. Thinking skills, as focused problem-​solving, also need to feature in N’s activities –​to strengthen cognitive responses to challenges. Pupil B: aged 10, has PMLD (cognition/​learning, with physical disabilities). His parents chose mainstream, but by Year 2, realised his severe/​complex needs would be best met in special. B’s EHCP, specifies physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech/​language. He has a dietician and paediatrician. The parents are pleased with their son’s progress, using the small-​step engagement model, communicated by a ‘home/​school’ book. B’s parents would like TAs to be better trained to support complex difficulties. B is one example of how advanced technology can transform achievement. ‘Eye Gaze’ enables B to communicate using eye movements to access a computer –​with potential to enable pupils with the most complex difficulties to demonstrate maximum learning. Main challenges: • Observation –​exploring the engagement model –​to maximise B’s cognitive abilities. • Using technology to advantage –​maximising communication. • Gaining the best possible quality of life. Two examples of special education –​vastly different. N demonstrates the need for FE and society to ensure that his outcomes lead to his personal aspirations. B reminds us that special

Walking the (SENCO) job  141 

schools will always be needed for the least able, and that their tiny progressive steps must also be celebrated.

Literacy across the secondary curriculum This section considers the massive issue of inadequate language/​literacy in many schools. The Bullock Report (HMSO 1975), intended to initiate whole-​school approaches to language/​ literacy, lost momentum years ago; yet its message is relevant where poor literacy seriously affects learning. Main recommendations: • Schools to have a policy for developing reading across age/​ability. • Schools to have a policy for language across the curriculum. • Both primary/​secondary teacher training to include reading development. What needs to happen in schools where poor literacy, overlapping with SEND, have been flagged up? A whole-​staff training day might focus on: • • • • •

how speaking/​listening, with extensive vocabulary, underpins reading. developmental stages of phonics. irregular ‘tricky’ words –​how pupils learn these. how recognising context/​content of different texts enables comprehension. how language/​literacy difficulties become barriers to cross-​curricular learning.

Talking about reading initiates a project in which all staff, including TAs, is involved. Bullock identified the need for a ‘literacy specialist’ in each school –​to guide the project, discuss needs and connect reading/​writing in English with cross-​curricular demands: possibly focusing on: • strategies to support reading, especially for learners with SEND. • DARTS (Directed Activities Related to Texts): How subject-​specific texts demand different strategies for comprehension (details, cause/​ consequence, main ideas, comparison, sequencing). • use of ‘Cloze’ to develop comprehension. • identifying subject-​specific vocabulary. Inspired by the launch, teachers might look closely at literacy within their subject. Table 15.7 offers ideas. Table 15.7  Improving literacy standards WHAT SUBJECT TEACHERS CAN DO

WHAT PUPILS CAN DO

Teach specialist vocabulary –​meanings, spellings, link with phonics, use vocabulary to further develop subject-​related speaking/​listening

Use these words in talk –​learn, read, spell

Insist on pupil’s’ best efforts in subject-​based writing

Use subject work as opportunities to develop and practise good writing

Point out specific writing techniques that characterise their subject –​e.g. use of description, persuasion, reports, bullet points

Understand how/​why writing is different for every subject, and use varying techniques to demonstrate English competency, plus subject knowledge

Teach note-​taking –​help pupils to separate ‘meaning’ words from functional (tricky)

Practise speedy, effective note-​taking at every opportunity

Ask questions that develop pupils’ thinking skills for deeper comprehension

Learn to think, read/​write in subject-​specific ways

Observe/​note areas of literacy in which pupils need to improve (report to project leader)

Understand how/​why literacy is not just in English –​ that technical vocabulary, reading and writing in every subject develops overall competency

142  Evaluating progress for learners with SEND

Might English staff pair with other subject specialists: using subject-​based evidence to inform audit assessment/​planning through the SENCO –​linked to phonic catch-​up? Any literacy project benefits from ‘Cloze’ and DARTS: helping to clarify ‘semantic density’. ‘Cloze’ strengthens use of context/​grammatical cues; derived from human tendencies to complete familiar patterns (speech) by filling textual gaps. ‘Cloze’ demands text interaction, as pupils read forwards/​backwards: benefits enhanced by groups debating different words/​phrases to fit spaces. DARTS (Table 15.8) strengthens text/​reader relationships: by directing reading towards specific text features. Table 15.8  DARTS ideas Details: Pupils scan to locate specific details: answering what, where, when, how, who, why questions Sequence: Learners put linked phrases or sentences in order Cause/​consequence: Pupils match ‘cause’ with ‘consequence’ sentences/​paragraphs Comparison: Learners identify opposing or contrasting features Main idea: What word or phrase (as title) summarises text? Subject-​specific: -​ Comparing countries in geography, societies in history or how chemicals behave in science. -​ Exploring cause/​consequence: how colours mix or paints behave in art -​ Sequencing: plot lines in stories.

The project may take a term –​or year. Teachers (and TAs) will be better able to support ALL needs. Standards will have improved. Ofsted will report very favourably.

Conclusions –​from my observations Linked to the literacy dilemma, it’s hard to believe pupils begin secondary with RAs of 7. Griffiths (2022) writes that in one school, a dozen 11 year-​olds have this low RA: tablets having overshadowed books –​exacerbated by Covid. Secondary staff are being trained to teach reading. Parents too need training on how to support reading and relaunch their child’s reading habits. How has book-​reading been allowed to become so submerged? Inadequate literacy (and maths) presents huge challenges. If I was a SENCO –​what would I do? 1. The secondary school literacy needs a whole-​ school, cross-​ curricular thrust –​linking HQT and • Language/​ interventions –​involving pupils and parents. • EAL needs must be addressed urgently. • Disadvantage must not impede learning –​using the Family Learning Support Worker, more parents must be involved in problem-​solving. • Independence: more learners need to positively exercise ‘pupil voice’. • Engagement must be enhanced –​with fun/​games to stamp out boredom. 2. The primary school –​ mainstream • • • •

HQT better connected to SEND –​teachers and TAs to research ‘how’ Could year groups be sometimes mixed –​for literacy intervention? Language/​literacy/​maths –​as whole-​school projects –​involving parents Only pupils with severe SEND to leave Year 6 with inadequate literacy or maths.

Walking the (SENCO) job  143 

3. In FE The focus must be on getting HQT right for all, with independence leading: students in control of their destination. Students with SEND must help tutors to understand and respond to their needs. FE must also be part of ‘levelling up’ –​recognising its status in preparing young people for high-​quality adult life. 4. Special school Pupil N demonstrates that high expectations belong in special schools –​that these are not ‘dumping grounds’ for low achievers. All EHCPs for transition to post-​16 must emphasise independence/​ownership. Special education should no longer carry a stigma. It represents the alternative provision that some learners need. My conclusions are that learning must be more active –​engaging skills of deeper thinking, reflection and problem-​solving –​including pupils with SEND. I have observed many passive learners, who sit –​fidgeting, bored, inattentive –​waiting for learning to appear magically on the horizon and activate their brain cells. Could more peer-​focused interaction, perhaps using games, enable such active problem-​ solving to liven up classrooms? Throughout my observations, I saw and heard very little laughter. Is fun missing from learning? Life is all about overcoming challenges and solving problems. If this kind of learning does not happen throughout school –​then how can it happen in adult life? All learners, including those with SEND, need to be taught through a problem-​solving, and fun-​based approach.

Summary This ‘field research’ has opened up many issues for Government, schools and settings, post-​ 16 colleges and society to urgently address, if the achievement gap is to be narrowed. The issues raised from these observations are similarly replicated in many schools and other educational institutions throughout the country, especially where disadvantage is high. They MUST be tackled. The SEND Review, on the horizon, now offers a chance to address these long-​standing issues –​starting with the curriculum. The conclusion of this book develops these thoughts.

Conclusion And SEND Review

Where are we now: still journeying from integration to inclusion, following those 2014 reforms? Can the forthcoming SEND Review finally deliver?

Summary of philosophy and principles for good practice This edition has generated further issues for discussion –​aimed at narrowing that elusive attainment gap and retained the philosophy and principles that underpin good policy/​practice. Schools might question: • Whether they have a healthy, positive philosophy for SEND: high, realistic expectations for ALL –​individuality without labels. • Adherence to the Code: How reflected in policy/​practice? • The Equality Act: How does SEND incorporate both SEN and disability needs? • Inclusion: access, challenges and barriers: How closely does policy/​practice match up? • HQT: The ‘for all’ concept represents a seamless approach to inclusion –​with all SEND learners blending in. How does practice reflect this? • SEN Support: How effectively do interventions build on HQT, with TAs well-​trained to deliver? • EHCPs: Do all pupils/​students who genuinely need them, have them? How effectively do they support the learning journey –​from targets to adult aspirations? • Multi-​agency: Do all learners who need external specialist support, have it –​based on needs –​ not resources? • SENCO role: ‘Walking the job’? Reaching out to staff? Paperwork efficient/​manageable? • Whole-​school: How consistently does practice reflect policy –​all staff striving for SEND success? • Using TAs: Is training effective –​and applied? Do responsibilities match grades? How well does deployment reflect needs? • The SEND-​friendly environment: How effectively do staff/​pupils pitch in to make the learning environment work for all? • Good progress, or underachievement: Does assessment illustrate the difference? Do all staff strive to prevent SEND underachievement? • How does ‘pupil voice’ influence teaching/​learning? Could SEND learners become more independent? • Parental partnership: How effectively are parents ‘levers’ for SEND achievement? The above philosophy, principles and approaches form the essential backbone of this book. Without them, that 2030 goal cannot be achieved. What about leadership? Is this what Ofsted will ask of the SLT, including SENCOs: • • • • •

Have leaders got a strong grip on their organisation –​culture, policy, practice? Are they sufficiently focused on the achievement of ALL? Do they relentlessly pursue underachievement? Is the workforce well-​trained and up-​to-​the-​job? Do leaders challenge all staff and pupils to perform at their best?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003270690-20

146  Conclusion: and SEND Review

Conclusions from field research Chapter 15 offers insight into the likely state of SEND in many disadvantaged schools and colleges. My observations have led to conclusions I would not have formed, if I had not joined in lessons, conversed with teachers and TAs, discussed policy/​practice with SENCOs, debated FE issues with SEND staff in colleges –​and spoken with parents. These issues have surfaced: • Is there an unbridgeable gap between some low achievers and NC challenges? Would some ‘opting-​out’ enable language/​literacy to be addressed? • Well-​being as a major focus. • Difficulties of separating SEND from disadvantage and EAL. • Engagement –​and attitudes to learning. • TAs –​grades, responsibilities. • HQT –​teachers needing time to teach ALL learners. • Culture –​is inclusion embedded? There are no simple answers. If there were, education would have progressed a lot further along its inclusion journey. The need for post-​Covid catch-​up runs alongside the need for improved SEND achievement and inclusive learning. Education needs both –​urgently! Time for radical change? Despite significant training, teachers struggle. Given the challenges of totally inclusive teaching, should class sizes be reduced, especially in disadvantaged areas? Might additional salaries be balanced by reduced costs of chasing unnecessary EHCPs, thus leaving more time to make HQT and SEN Support work effectively? Are more TAs the answer? Do teachers/​TAs need to team up, plan together? TAs are traditionally managed by SENCOs, but is it feasible for some to be managed/​trained, by class teachers –​ with greater emphasis on cross-​curricular SEND outcomes? Or an extra half hour on the end of the school day? Covid catch-​up for all? SEND catch-​up? Urgent teaching on literacy/​maths would make a huge difference. The problems of inadequate language/​literacy have featured highly. Sadly, a significant proportion of secondary-​aged learners in my observed lessons would fail to meet even the literacy/​maths challenges of those KS2 lessons outlined. So, is the goal to ensure that Year 6 expectations are realised for every learner who can realistically achieve them? If Government seriously wants to close that achievement gap, something radical must happen. Further thoughts: • Should science remain ‘core’ for all in KS4? Are we producing disaffection? • EPs: would more psychology support inclusion –​especially for schools with greatest diversity or ‘high needs’? Should EPs be easier/​cheaper to access? • No pupil to leave primary with a RA as low as 7 (unless complex SEND) –​NO underachievement. • Literature: should traditional texts remain compulsory? • Should we loosen the academic chase for grades, that emphasises failure? • Should creativity and problem-​solving feature more? • Should secondary/​FE links be strengthened? SEN Support continued post-​16? • More co-​production? More effective parental negotiation to solve problems? • Engagement: could games feature more? VAKS lends itself to fun-​filled activities. It saddens me to see so many young people bored with learning. What is really preventing that achievement gap from closing? Well-​being? Could more personalisation make a difference? Do more schools need hubs, like that observed in my secondary study? Language/​literacy are key factors! Who should deliver catch-​up –​and how are they trained? How can poor readers be motivated to read independently? The process begins early: children who have not mastered phonics and reading by KS1 will have an uphill struggle. How can schools address EAL needs in ways that connect with curricular learning? How can HQT become reality, connect with SEN Support, and cater effectively for all SEND needs?

Conclusion: and SEND Review  147 

Thompson (2022) is also worried about the future of education –​that it must be at the heart of ‘levelling up’: that employers rely on teachers, currently forced to deliver an ‘inflexible, outdated curriculum, producing identikit robots, when human creativity, curiosity and competitive thinking are required…’ I wholeheartedly agree.

The SEND Review Much hangs on the consultation responses, and Government decisions, following the SEND Review Green Paper (DfE 2022). Can it deliver? The Code of Practice is to be, if not fully revised, tightened up –​hopefully with emphasis on ‘must’ rather than ‘have regard’. Where are we, pending the Review outcome? Post-​Covid catch-​up, intended to boost performance, is so complex, that fewer pupils than expected signed up. Have vulnerable pupils and those with SEND lost out again? The whole point of inclusion is to enable all who can, to achieve full potential in mainstream. There is no point in any learner being present if not benefiting. Research into what makes HQT fully inclusive at every key stage is overdue: additional interventions alone have limited effect. Many learners requiring intense personalisation would have been in special schools, prior to Warnock. The task is to make mainstream education work for every pupil in it. The Review aims to make schools more inclusive. The 2014 SEND reforms have not been well implemented. LAs have struggled with budgets, conversion into academies has reduced SEND focus, and the emphasis on academic attainment overshadows broader outcomes that could be achieved by many rather than few. So, what should the Review focus upon? There has been too much emphasis on EHCPs. We need to shift focus towards HQIT (I for inclusive) with SEN Support. The Review needs to identify what every mainstream school must make ‘ordinarily available’. If more needs can be accommodated within SEN support, with EHCPs only for those who require them, the system could work effectively for all. SENCOs need time. Far too much has been spent on administration, rather than ‘walking the job’. SENCOs can help develop ‘HQIT’. Every SENCO must be a member of the SLT, with Admin support. Only with strong back-​up can any SENCO lead, manage and direct the change that will bring about desired SEND outcomes. This Review must be about levelling up: abandoning value judgements. FE, as that final corridor between school and adulthood, must no longer be seen as the consolation prize for those who do not attend University. A high-​grade GCSE cannot be the ultimate challenge –​ resulting in failure for some. It is time to prepare ALL young people for the society of today and tomorrow. The consultation paper identifies: • poor outcomes for learners with SEND, and in alternative provision (e.g., PRUs) • difficulties for families navigating the SEND system. • a system not offering value for money. The focus seems to be on EHCPs, a proposed ‘national banding system’ for funding the high needs block, applied to state schools, independent and special –​to reduce inconsistency. Question 18 reads ‘How can we best develop a national framework for funding bands and tariffs to achieve our objectives and mitigate unintended consequences and risks?’ Issues: • • • • •

Ensuring all needs are met. Assurances driven by need –​not cost. How are bands applied to multiple types of SEND? Categories? Four broad areas? Can differences be ‘banded’ given varied responses from England’s LAs? What recourse would LAs, schools and families have, if bands do not meet all needs?

While consistency is desirable, would flexibility need to be built in? Multi-​agency partnerships are also on the agenda, requiring greater joint working between education, health and social care. The DfE seeks to standardise/​regulate the SEND system.

148  Conclusion: and SEND Review

‘Inclusion dashboards’ will monitor how things are going at local and national level. Question 17: ‘How can key metric capture and use data to measure local and national performance?’ LAs are being given powers to direct admissions (academies?) in some circumstances. For too long, some schools have refused to admit pupils with SEND. The aim is to improve quality of assessment, and EHCPs, as well as reduce them: • Increase attendance. • Improve pupil outcomes. • Improve waiting times for access to services. The Government seeks to improve mainstream SEND provision through training –​using ‘what works’ evidence. SENCO training is under the spotlight too, with a proposed new SENCO qualification (lower level for EYFS). By 2030, schools will belong to a ‘family’ of mainstream, special and alternative provision, as ‘multi-​academy trusts’. The plans include improved transition to FE, with ‘common transfer files’ and ‘adjustment passports’ intended to prepare young people for employment. SEND capital funding will be available to build/​renovate settings. DfE intends to work with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission –​with a focus on clear roles and responsibilities. The document makes clear the Government’s determination to ‘level up opportunities’. The 2014 reforms anticipated greater joint-​working between education, health and social care. This has not happened. The aims now are for: • support determined by need –​not where a child lives. • a single national system… build on high aspirations and ambition. • SEND funding nationally sustainable. As of 2020/​21: • 15.8% of pupils were identified with SEN –​12.2% needing SEN support • Amongst SEN support –​SLCN was most common (34%), with SEMH second (22%). • Most common EHCP was ASD (30%) –​with 50% in mainstream, 41% in special, 7% in independent and 1% in state-​funded alternative provision. • The high needs budget has risen by 40% over 3 years. A further sad statistic for 2018–​19: at the end of KS2, only 22% of pupils with SEND reached expectations in literacy and numeracy, compared with 74% with no SEND. At KS4, attainment 8 scores for 2020/​21 were 31.1% for SEN: 54.5 % with no SEN. In summary: • A vicious circle of late intervention, low confidence and inefficient resourcing (p.11). • Settings ill-​equipped to identify/​effectively support … despite best endeavours of the workforce (p.12). • Pupils often identified as SEN, having not had sufficient access to HQT, in particular, reading/​ language (p.12). • Proposals for inclusive system… improved mainstream provision… high quality teaching of knowledge-​rich curriculum prompt access to targeted support (p.13). • Stronger special sector for complex needs (p.13). • Co-​production (p.13). • Update SEN Code of Practice (p.14). • Confidence is low –​in 2019, only 41% of teachers felt SEND training was appropriate (p.42). • Training linked to Education Endowment Foundation (p.43). • TAs to play key role –​clear guidance on effective deployment (p.43). • New SENCO qualification (p. 44). • SENCOs to have ‘sufficient protected time’ plus ‘dedicated admin…’ (p.44). • Improved ‘timely access to specialist support’ –​more EP trainees (p. 46). • More special placements (p.48). • FE: the ‘Skills Bill’ to place duty on colleges to review provision at least every 3 years (p.51).

Conclusion: and SEND Review  149 

Question 20 of the consultation: What will make the biggest difference to successful implementation of these proposals? Barriers? Enablers? Have we been here before? Most of this book presents a case for points summarised above. It is depressing to think that the last 45 years have wasted time, funding and opportunities for many learners. These proposals are admirable in their pursuit of success for learners with SEND. Yet focusing on ‘what’ –​goals without detailed strategies –​often ends in failure. Only detailed clarification on ‘how and who’ can attach healthy flesh to this skeleton’s bare bones. It is understandable that finances form a major thrust. The funding pot cannot continue to grow like Jack’s beanstalk. EHCPs are not always the answer. So, emphasis on HQT and SEN Support is welcomed. Nevertheless, value for money must be measured through the achievements of those for whom the funding is provided. Does emphasis on more specialist settings herald a step backwards from the principle of inclusion (p.13)? Is there a danger that children who can achieve in mainstream may find themselves in settings intended for those with the most complex needs?

Education –​the future? Where is education heading: following the turn-​around in ethos, culture, policy and practice –​in addition to the forthcoming SEND Review –​and post-​Covid? Much has already been achieved: • High expectations and aspirations –​with success the ultimate destination for ALL. • Learners are at the centre –​driving progress. • The spotlight is on ensuring that HQT is the best for all, well-​complemented by SEN support –​ effective in closing that achievement gap. And following the SEND Review: • EHCPs are to be improved, standardised and consistently allocated. • more effective SEND training for teachers and TAs is set to strengthen the workforce. • parental co-​production is about to be realised. There is little mention of children who are vulnerable through social disadvantage –​and is the average pupil-​teacher ratio still too high to enable success for all? The Review proposals say little about the NC, but is change imminent? The Times (11.5.22) Education Summit, reporting on the work of its Education Commission, featured input from prominent business leaders and educators on ways to improve teaching/​learning and workplace skills. Qualities such as –​critical thinking, problem-​solving, resilience, initiative, innovation and creativity –​need to enhance knowledge. It’s time to embrace AI and virtual reality. Should ‘Design and Technology’ have enhanced status? Should GCSEs be replaced by something that better reflects today’s changing society? All learners, including those with SEND, would benefit greatly. Might such initiatives also inject fun into learning? In the wake of the pandemic, well-​being amongst young people remains a huge issue. How can education get back on track? Only when all schools fully adopt the philosophy, principles and practical strategies explored in Chapters 1–​14 of this book can achievement for ALL finally happen. My observations (Chapter 15) show that there is still some way to go. There have been many casualties as integration has crawled slowly towards inclusion. Yet, without initial integration, inclusion would not be where it is. Should a parent have the final word? On Radio 2 (28.4.2010) the mother of a girl with Down’s Syndrome explained how an EP had alerted her not to expect much in attainment –​yet this

150  Conclusion: and SEND Review

learner went on to achieve five GCSE’s, Grades A –​C, offering her a quality of life on a par with her peers. A heartwarming example of what high aspirations can achieve! Can SEND review goals be met, with 90% of Year 6 achieving at least average expectations by 2030, and can the GCSE stranglehold be loosened: enabling more young people with SEND to succeed through secondary, and FE? Education, through Government, must rise to these challenges!

Bibliography

Achievement for All (2009) Guidance for Schools, Characteristics of Effective Inclusive Leadership, National Strategies, DCSF www.essexp​rima​ryhe​ads.do.uk. Ascentis House, Lancaster Business Park, 3 Mannin Way, Lancaster, LA1 3SW. ALLFIE (2020) Alliance for Inclusive Education: Accessibility Plans as Effective Tools for Inclusion in Schools: Are They Working? Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment (2015). www.aaia.org.uk. B Squared (2015a) Connecting Steps: sample assessment pages, Core subjects, English, maths and science. www.bsqua​red.co.uk/​Conn​ecti​ngSt​eps/​…/​Sample​Asse​ssme​ntPa​ges.aspx. B Squared (2015b) Small Steps Summative Assessment. www.bsqua​red.co.uk. B Squared (2015c) Early Steps Summative Assessment. www.bsqua​red/​Con​nect​ing Steps/​Assessment Areas/​Early years.aspx. Barnardo’s/​Yorkshire and Humberside SEN Regional Partnership (2006). Involving Children and Young People in Meetings and Reviews. www.chi​mat.org.uk/​resou​rce. Baron-​Cohen S (2022) The Pattern Seekers: A New Theory of Human Invention. London: Penguin. Blanchford S (2015) Founder/​CEO of AfA, Common Sensing Code of Practice (9.7.15), Speaker at Centre for Equity in Education, Manchester Metropolitan: Manchester University. Blatchford P, Sharples J, Webster R (2015) Making the best use of Teaching Assistants: Education Endowment Foundation. Brooks G (2007) What Works for Pupils with Literacy Difficulties, The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes (3rd). Slough. National Foundation for Educational Research, DCSF. www.essex.gov.uk. Brooks G (2013) What Works for Children and Young People with Literacy Difficulties: Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes (4th). London: Dyslexia/​SpLD Trust. www.inte​rven​tion​forl​iter​acy.org.uk. Brooks G (2016) ‘That Reading Thing’, What Works for Young People with Literacy Difficulties, 5th Ed. Dyslexia/​SpLD Trust. Burroughs-​Lange S and Douetil J (2006) Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London Schools, ECaR 2005. Institute of Education, London University. www.ioe.ac.uk. Carpenter B (2011) Project Manager, Complex Learning and Difficulties Research Project: Developing Pathways for Personalising Learning: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, DfE. Carpenter B, Rose S, Rawson H, Everton J (2011) The Rules of Engagement. www.comple​xld.ssatr​ust.org. uk/​uplo​ads/​SEN54%comple​x20%needs.pdf. Carroll J, Bradley L, Crawford H, Hannah. P, Johnson H, Thompson A SEN Support: A rapid evidence assessment research report, July 2017, Coventry University, DfE. Caxton Trust Charity, [email protected]. Clark C, Teravainen-​Goff A (Feb 2020) Young People’s Reading in 2019: National Literacy Trust research report. Cocco F (2015) Education: the pupil premium had one job –​it failed. Daily Mirror, March 2015. www.mir​ror. co.uk>News>Amp​p3d>Educat​ion. Children’s Society (2009) Disability Toolkit. www.disabi​lity​tool​kit.org.uk. CDC Education, Health, Care Plans: Examples of Good Practice: councilfordisabledchildren.org.uk. Cullen MA, Lindsay G, Hastings R, Denne L, Stanford C (2020) SEN in Mainstream Schools: evidence review: CEDAR, Warwickshire: University of Warwick. DCSF (2007) The Children’s Plan: Building Brighter Futures, Nottingham, www.cw.routle​dge.com/​tex​tboo​ ks97​8041​5485​586/​data/​TheCh​ildr​ensP​lan.pdf. DCSF (2008a) Bullying Involving Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: safe to Learn. Nottingham. www.norf​olk.gov.uk/​downl​oad/​NCC097​496. DCSF (2008b) The Inclusion Development Programme: Primary/​Secondary: Dyslexia/​SpLD: Nottingham. www.idponl​ine.org.uk/​downlo​ads/​ps-​dysle​xia. DCSF (2008c) Every Child a Talker: Guidance for Early Language Lead Practitioners: Nottingham. www.web​ arch​ive.natio​nala​rchi​ves.gov.uk/​…/​https:/​…/​DCSF-​00854-​2008.pdf. DCSF (2009a) Your Child, Our Schools, Our Future: Building a 21st Century School System. Nottingham. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​…/​21st_​Cent​ury_​Scho​ols.pdf.

152 Bibliography

DCSF (2009b) Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence: Report to the Secretary of State on the Lamb Inquiry Review on SEN and Disability. Nottingham. www.dys​lexi​aact​ion.org.uk/​files/​dys​lexi​aact​ ion/​_​lamb_​inqu​iry.pdf. DCSF (2009c) Progression Guidance 2009–​10, Improving Data to Raise Attainment and Maximise the Progress of Learners with SEND. National Strategies. www.web​arch​ive.natio​nala​rchi​ves.gov.uk. DCSF (2009d) Gifted and Talented Education: Guidance on Addressing Under-​Achievement. Planning a Whole School Approach. Nottingham. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​ DCSF (2009e) Implementing Every Child a Writer, Primary National Strategies, London. www.dera. ioe.ac.uk DCSF (2010) Breaking the Link between Special Educational Needs and Low Attainment: Everyone’s Business. Nottingham. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​ DCSF/​DH (2008) Aiming High for Disabled Children: Transforming Services for Disabled Children and their Families, Nottingham. DCSF. www.incl​usiv​echo​ice.com/​aim​ing%20h​igh.pdf. DfE (2011a) Leading on Intervention: Strengthening the Quality of Everyday Inclusive Teaching. Originally published by Primary National Strategy. www.teachf​i nd.com/​natio​nal-​str​ateg​ies/​waves-​inter​vent​ ion-​model-​0. DfE (2014a) Children and Families Act. London, Original Version. www.legi​slat​ion.gov.uk/​ukpga2​014/​6/​ conte​nts/​enac​ted. The Young Person’s Guide at: www.gov.uk/​…/​young-​pers​ons-​guide-​to-​the-​child​ren-​ and-​famil​ies-​act. DfE (2014b) Equality Act 2010 and Schools: Departmental Advice for School Leaders, School Staff, Governing Bodies and Local Authorities. London. www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​…/​equal​ity-​act-​2010-​adv​ ice-​for-​scho​ols. DfE (2014c) National Curriculum and Assessment from 2014: Information for Schools. London. www.gov. uk/​ …/​NC-​assessment-​quals-​fact sheet-​Sept-​update.pdf. DfE (2014d) Performance Descriptors for Use in 2015/​16 Statutory Teacher Assessment. London. www. gov.uk/​ …/​performance-​descriptors-​key-​stages-​1-​and-​2. DfE (2014e) Special Educational Needs and Personal Budgets Regulations. London. www.legi​slat​ion.gov. uk/​ukdsi/​2014/​978011​1114​056. DfE (2014f) Preventing and Tackling Bullying, Advice for Headteachers, staff and Governing Bodies. London. www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​ …/​Preventing-​and-​tackling-​bullying-​advice. DfE (2014g) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations, London. www.legi​slat​ion.gov.uk/​uksi/​ 2014/​1530/​pdfs/​uksi-​20141​530-​en.pdf. DfE (2015) Working Together to Safeguard Children. DfE (2015a) Mental Health and Behaviour in Schools. Departmental Advice for School Staff, London. www. gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​ …/​mental-​health-​and-​behaviour-​in-​schools. DfE (2016) Special Educational Needs in England: January 2016. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​ sta​tist​ics/​special_​educational_​ne​eds_​in_​e​ngla​nd_​j​anua​ry_​2​016. DfE/​DH (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 Years. Statutory Guidance for Organisations which support children and young people who have SEND. London. DfE.www.gov.uk/​ gov​ernm​ent/​publi​cati​ons/​send-​code-​of-​pract​ice-​0-​to-​25. DfE (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children: Guide to Inter-​agency Working to Promote the Welfare of Children: DfE. DfE (2020) Standards Testing Agency: Guidance for Maintained Schools, academies, free schools: The Engagement Model, Gov. UK. DfE (2021) Special Educational Needs in England at Jan 2021. DfE (2022) SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time: Green paper, 29.3.22, Consultation on the SEND and alternative provision system in England. DfES (2003a) Every Child Matters. London. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​eOrder​ingD​ownl​oad/​CM5​ 860.pdf DfES (2003b) Excellence and Enjoyment: A Strategy for Primary Schools. Nottingham. www.educat​ion.gov. uk/​publi​cati​ons/​ …/​dfes-​0377-​2003PrimaryEd.pdf. DfES (2004) Learning and Teaching for Children with Special Educational Needs in the Primary Years. Primary National Strategy. London. www.web​fron​ter.com/​bex​ley/​Scie​nce/​ …/​SEN-​Teaching-​and-​ Learning-​DCSF.pdf. DfES (2005a) Leading on Inclusion, Primary National Strategy, London. Archived. Summary: www.theg​rid. org.uk>Teach​ing@Learn​ing>Prim​ary Strategy. DfES (2005b) Excellence and Enjoyment: Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning: Guidance. London. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​ …/​DFES0110200MIG2122.pdf. DfES (2006a) 2020 Vision: Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. Nottingham. www. dera.ioe.ac.uk/​6856-​DfES-​Teach​ing%20and%20L​earn​ing.pdf.

Bibliography  153 

DfES (2006b) Learning from Every Child a Reader. London. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​ …/​lit-​ intervention-​0391806.pdf. DfES (2007) Pedagogy and Personalisation: National Strategies. London. www.dera.ioe.ac.uk/​7585/​ …/​ 39a74dbb8829067fc3d0a582deb518f5-​Redacted.pdf. Douglas J, Lawton K (2016) Read on –​Get on: National Literacy Trust and Save the Children Coalition: cdn. literacytrust.org.uk Dowker A (2009) What Works for Children with Mathematical Difficulties: The Effectiveness of Intervention Schemes. DCSF. www.catc​hup.org/​ …/​what-​works-​for-​children-​with-​mathematical-​difficulties. Ref. 00086BKT-​EN. Dunford J (2013) A New Direction: Effective Use of the Pupil Premium in Building a Rounded Education for all Young People, Creative Schools Conference, London, 23rd, October, 2013. www.anewdi​rect​ion.org. uk/​asset/​1115. Dyson A (2015) What is Problematic about SEN? Transforming the Role of the SENCO, National Award for SEN Co-​ordination, Annual Conference, Centre for Equity in Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, 9th July, 2015. www.ioe.mmu.ac.uk. Educational Policy Institute. Education in England: Annual Report 2020. Edwards S (1999) Reading for All, London: David Fulton Publishers. Edwards S (2001) Independence for All. Tamworth: NASEN. EEF (2021) SEN in Mainstream Schools, Guidance Report, March 2021. Educational Training Foundation (2014) Achieving Professional Standards: Self-​development: Using the 2014 Professional Standards. Godfrey W (2015) Personalised Learning: Transforming the Role of the SENCO, National Award for SEN Co-​ordination, Annual Conference, Centre for Equity in Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, 9th July, 2015. www.ioe.mmu.ac.uk. Griffiths. S (2022) article, The Times, 23rd Jan. Harris A (2012) Parents Matter: Institute of Education, London: University of London. www.alm​ahar​ris. co.uk/​files/​paren​tal-​eng​agem​ent.pdf. HMSO (1975) The Bullock Report: Language for Life. I CAN www.ican.org.uk/​dld-​webi​nar-​ser​ies. Kasari C, Dean M, Kretzmann M, Shih W, Orlich F, Whitney R, Lauder R, Lord C, King B (2016) Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Social Skills Groups at School: a randomised trial comparing intervention approach and peer composition: Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 57(2), 171–​179. Lancashire County Council (2015) Performance Indicators for Value Added Target Setting (PIVATS): Preston: Lancs Professional Development Service. www3.lan​cash​ire.gov.uk./​corpor​ate/​web/​?PIV​ATS/​14588. Laugeson EA, Ellingsen R, Sanderson J (2014) ABCs of Teaching Social Skills to Adolescents with ASD in the Classroom, UCLA PEERS programme, Developmental Disorders: Retrieved from http:/​link.sprin​ger. com/​arti​cle/​10.1007/​s10​803-​014-​2108-​8. LeGoff DB (2004) Use of Lego as a therapeutic medium for Improving Social Competence: Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 34(5), 557–​571. Lewis A, Parsons S, Robertson C (2007) My School, My Family, My Life: Telling It Like It Is. Birmingham: Disability Rights Commission, University of Birmingham. epapers.bham.ac.uk/​631/​1/​Lewis_​drc2_​2005. pdf. Lindsay G, Dockrell J, Wedell K (2020) Warnock 40 Years on: The Development of Special Educational Needs since the Warnock Report and Implications for the Future. Centre for Educational Development (CEDAR), University of Warwick. Lausanne. Frontiers Media SA. Maloney EA, Ramirez G, Gunderson EA, Levine SC, Beilock SL (2015) Intergenerational Effects of Parents’ Maths Anxieties on Children’s Maths Achievement: Psychological Science: 26(9), 1480–​1488. Michaelson M (2015) Parents and the Law: Transforming the Role of the SENCO, National Award for SEN Co-​ordination Annual Conference, Centre for Equity in Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, 9th July, 2015www.ioe.mmu.ac.uk. Moloney H (2018) reporting in Special Needs Jungle on ‘It’s about time: The impact of the SENCO workload on the professional and the school: Curran M. A, Moloney H, Heavey A, Boddison A, published by Bath Spa University and NASEN. Moore M (2015) Transforming the Role of the SENCO, Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University, 9th July 2015. www.ioe.mmu.ac.uk. Morewood G (2013) Successful Classroom Partnerships: Making the Most of TAs. London: Optimus Education. Muller E, Cannon LR, Kornblum C, Clark J, Powers M (2016) Description and Preliminary Evaluation of a Curriculum for Teaching Conversational Skills to Children with High Functioning Autism, and other Social Cognition Challenges, Language, Speech, Hearing Services in schools, 47(5), 191–​208.

154 Bibliography

NAS (2016) Government must tackle the Autism Employment Gap. London: National Autism Society. National Award for SEN Co-​ordination: Learning Outcomes (2014) National College for Teaching and Leadership. www.gov.uk/​ …/​national-​award-​for-​sen-​co-​ordination-​learning-​outcomes. Nuffield Foundation (2009) The Secrets of Words: A Programme to Help Develop Deaf Children’s Literacy: Retrieved from: www.nuf​fiel​dfou​ndat​ion.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​mor​phol​ogy%20book​let%20A5%20 USB.pdf Oates T (2014) Assessment without Levels in depth: Extended version. Cambridge School of Assessment. www.camb​ridg​eass​essm​ent.org.uk/​ …/​assessment-​without-​levels-​extended-​version. OFSTED (2006) Inclusion: Does it Matter Where Pupils Are Taught? London. Office for Standards in Education. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​ …/​ HMI-​2535.doc. OFSTED (2009a) An Evaluation of National Strategy Intervention Programmes. London. OFSTED. www.dera. ioe.ac.uk/​ …/​An%20evaluation%20of%20National%20Strategy%20intervention%20programmes. OFSTED (2009b) Twelve Outstanding Secondary Schools: Excelling Against the Odds. London. Office for Standards in Education/​Dr Peter Matthews. www.lamp​ton.org.uk/​wp…/​Twelve_​out​stan​ding​_​sec​onda​ ry_​s​choo​ls1.pdf. OFSTED (2010) Framework for the Inspection of Maintained Schools in England from September 2009. London. Office for Standards in Education. www.elc-​gel.org/​ …/​the-​ofsted-​framework-​for-​school-​ inspection-​jan-​2010/​. OFSTED (2014) Annual Report for 2013/​14: Schools. www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​coll​ecti​ons/​ofs​ted/​ann​ual/​ rep​ort-​201​314. OFSTED (2019) Further Education and skills inspection outcomes at February 2019: main findings. OFSTED (2019/​20) Annual Report: key findings for FE and skills sector. OFSTED (2021) SEND, Old issues, New issues, Next steps: 16.6.21. Parent Teacher Association (2015) Get the Right School. www.getthe​righ​tsch​ool.co.uk. Rose J (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading. London. DfES. www.dera.ioe.ac.uk/​ 5551/​2/​rep​ort.pdf. Sacker (2002) ‘To Explain Social Inequality in Education’, in ‘Desforges C and Abouchaar A, The Impact of Parental Involvement on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review. Research Paper 433. www.educat​ion.gov.uk/​publi​cati​ons/​eOrder​ingD​ownl​oad/​RR.doc. Salt T (2010) Salt Review: Independent Review of Teacher Supply for Pupils with Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties. Nottingham. DCSF. webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/​…/​saltreview/​…/​ SaltReportRevisedFinal. SEND Gateway (2021) www.send​gate​way.org.uk/​resour​ces. Sharples J, Webster R, Blatchford P (2021) Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants: Guidance report. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Spivack R, Craston M, Thom C, Carr C (2014) Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Pathfinder Programme Evaluation Thematic Report: The Education, Health and Care Planning Pathway for Families New to the SEN System. London. DfE. www.gov.uk/​…/​RR3​26B-​EHC_​pl​anni​ng_​p​athw​ay_​-​_​FI​NAL.pdf. Sylvester R Times 27.11.21: AI revolution can supercharge learning in schools. Thompson A (2015) Special Needs System Gets Grade F for Failure: The Times, 8th April, 2015. www.theti​ mes.co.uk/​tto/​opin​ion/​col​umni​sts/​art​icle​4404​736.ece. Thompson (2022) Times article. Feb 9th: Teachers are crucial to our country’s future. Training and Development Agency (2009) New Training Framework for SENCOs. TDA. www.nasen.org.uk/​ …/​download.74E8F4BA-​8065-​4B50-​A9F3EAFBB6576. Warnock (1978) Report of the committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. London. HMSO. Webster R (2021) with Norwich B, Gray P: article in Special Needs Jungle: Who Benefits from Inclusive Education and How? From research published by SEN Policy Research Forum. Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust (2013): Every Child a Talker: Evaluation Summary of Worcestershire ECaT Programme, Delivery and Outcomes, 2009-​2013. www.lang​uage​forl​earn​ing.co.uk/​ ima​ges/​uplo​ads/​5270bd​57b5​8df.pdf.

Index

access: classroom inclusion 36, 37; reasonable adjustments 19–​20, 22–​4 accessibility plans 19, 23–​4; evaluation 25–​6; whole-​school responses 25 Achievement for All (AfA) 31–​2, 41, 87, 91 achievement gap 56, 146, 149; EHCPs 58; funding 72; independence 41, 116; parental partnership 117; personalisation 17, 33, 53, 88, 91; pupil voice 112, 116; SENCOs 75–​6, 81, 91; TAs 129; see also attainment gap adaptations 9, 23, 35, 45, 51 additional to and different from (ATDF) activities 45 additional to and different from (ATDF) targets 17–​18 adequate progress, assessment 105–​6 ADHD see attention deficit hyperactivity disorder admission, rights of refusal 148 after school clubs 20, 23, 112 AI see artificial intelligence annual reviews 59, 60, 61, 102, 103, 107, 114 artificial intelligence (AI) 40 ASC see autistic spectrum condition aspirations: Code of Practice 15, 21; discussing 80, 113, 114, 116; EHCPs 57, 58, 59–​60, 68, 118, 140–​1; Equality Act 24, 25; importance of 5–​6, 128, 136, 149, 150; inclusion 30, 31, 32; personalisation 87; pupil passports 55, 56 assessment: annual 59, 60, 102, 103, 107, 114; day-​to-​day 102, 107; formative and summative 102, 107; frameworks 65, 83; measuring progress 103, 105–​6; principles 101–​2; resources 109–​10; small-​step progress 12, 32, 106, 128, 135; termly 59, 60, 102, 103, 107–​8; underachievement 103–​5; whole-​school approach 82–​3; see also reviews ATDF see additional to and different from attainment gap 11–​13; evaluating progress 108; funding 72; inclusion 29; link to poverty 83; SENCO training 76; technology 40; see also achievement gap attendance of progress reviews 113 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 17 attitudes to learning (ATL) 131 auditing, provision mapping 70–​1 autistic spectrum condition (ASC) 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 40; expectations 104; hidden barriers 94–​5; learning styles 36; social/​communication skills 49, 50 auxiliary aids 19 backtracking 35, 132, 134; classroom inclusion 36, 39 barriers to learning 37–​8 before school clubs 20, 112 behavioural difficulties 22–​3, 41, 63–​4 boys 12, 13

breakfast clubs 37, 130 broad areas of need 16, 17–​18; planning from 35–​6 Bullock Report (1975) 141 bullying 41, 65, 69, 105, 112, 113, 134; Equality Act 24, 25, 123; interventions 16, 75 carers, learners as 24, 31, 103 changing perceptions of SEN 5–​6 Children’s Plan, The (2007) 6 classrooms: effective learning environments 91–​8; resources 98 class sizes 72, 146 CLDD see Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities research Cloze 126, 141, 142 Code of Practice (2015) 5, 12; accumulating evidence 107; aims 15, 18; ATDF targets 17–​18; disability responses 21–​2; EHCPs 17, 18; external specialists 67, 68; graduated responses 16–​17, 18, 21, 58, 67–​9, 73, 78, 108, 138; labels and needs 16; learning difficulties 7, 15, 16; parental confidence 118; personalisation 17–​18; provision mapping 69, 71, 72, 73; SENCO responsibilities 67–​9; Special Educational Needs support 7, 16–​17, 18; transitional arrangements 15 Cognitive Behavioural Anger Management (CBAM) 51 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) 48, 50, 51 cognitive learning (CL) difficulties 9, 48–​9, 95, 98, 104; see also moderate learning difficulties; profound and multiple learning difficulties; severe learning difficulties collaboration, Achievement for All 32 commitment, Achievement for All 31 communication: Achievement for All 32; parents 120, 121; pupil’s voice 113 community participation 33, 111 compensating for barriers to learning 37–​8 Complex Learning Disabilities and Difficulties (CLDD) research 38, 39, 61 compliance: accessibility plans 25; The Equality Act 19–​20 components of effective learning environments 91–​2 comprehension, complexities of 97–​8 confidence 5 confidence of parents 118, 121 core bases for building learning 39 core ideas, planning for inclusion 38–​9 costing, provision mapping 72 Council for Disabled Children (CDC) 62 COVID-​19 pandemic: attainment gap 12, 13, 83; Educational Psychologists 66; effect on families 64, 65; effect on SEND services 12; engagement model 61; impact on literacy and

156 Index

numeracy 46, 146; and inclusion 6, 38, 39–​40; personalisation 91; SEMH 50; technology 40; well-​being 38, 51, 61, 64, 65, 66, 91, 149; whole-​school approach 82 creative activities 5 culture 12, 112; fostering independence 115, 116, 137; inclusion 29, 30, 31, 38, 146; parental engagement 121; workforce 78, 81 Daily Report Cards (DRCs) 51 DARTS see Directed Activities Related to Texts day-​to-​day assessment 102, 107 DCD see developmental co-​ordination disorder deployment of additional adults 43, 83–​5, 113, 116, 128–​9, 145, 148 depth of comprehension 97 determination of need, intervention 18, 53–​4 development: independence 83, 114–​16, 120, 121, 137, 140, 142; planning for inclusion 38–​9; provision maps 69–​71; pupil’s voice 112–​14 developmental co-​ordination disorder (DCD) 96, 104 developmental language disorder (DLD) 8, 50 Directed Activities Related to Texts (DARTS) 141, 142 disability: accessibility plans 19, 23–​4, 25; definition 5, 20; links with SEN 21–​2; reasonable adjustments 19–​20, 22–​3; responding to challenges 25–​6; see also Special Educational Needs and Disabilities disadvantage 146, 149; alleviating 37, 132, 134; attainment gap 31, 72, 83, 103, 104; FE 136, 138; learning mentors 132, 134; parental involvement 118, 143; relationship to SEND 12, 13, 123, 129, 130, 136, 138, 146; social/​ communication needs 16, 70; technology 40; whole-​school approach 31, 82, 83 DLD see developmental language disorder Down’s Syndrome (DS) 9–​10, 149–​50 dyscalculia 9, 96–​7 dysgraphia 9 dyslexia 8, 9, 17, 94 dyspraxia 8, 9, 51 EAL see English as an additional language Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) 60, 96, 106, 108, 115, 120, 148 Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) 5, 7, 12, 13, 64, 65; annual and termly reviews 60; engagement model 60–​2; improving effectiveness 57–​60, 62; reducing number of 146, 148; SEND Review 148, 149; targets 59–​60 Educational Policy Institute (EPI) 82, 83 Educational Psychologists (EPs) 63, 65–​6, 146, 148 Educational Training Foundation (2014) 137–​8 effective learning environments: autism spectrum disorder 95; cognitive learning difficulties 95; components 91–​2; comprehension levels 97–​8; developmental coordination disorder 96; dyscalculia 96–​7; hidden barriers 93; observation and identification 92–​3; social, emotional and mental health 96; specific literacy difficulties 94; speech, language and communication needs 95 EHCPs see Education, Health and Care Plans engagement: FE 139; games 143, 146; inclusion strategies 37, 39, 41; learning environments 91, 92; parents 121–​2

engagement model 32, 60–​2, 106 English as an additional language (EAL) 7, 70, 124, 129, 130, 138, 142, 146 enrichment 38–​9 entitlements 111, 121–​2 EPs see Educational Psychologists Equality Act, The (2014): accessibility planning 19, 23–​4, 25; aims 19–​20; definition of disability 20; evaluation 25–​6; involvement of parents 121; links between disability and SEN 21–​2; reasonable adjustments 19–​20, 22–​3, 53 equality of opportunity 19, 41, 137 equal treatment through reasonable adjustment 20 eradication of underachievement 104–​5 ethnicity 13, 16, 83, 103 evaluation: accessibility plans 25–​6; Code of Practice matching 107; interventions 47; progress 103, 105–​6; provision maps 74–​5 Every Child Matters (2003) 6 Every Child programmes 45–​6 evidence gathering 16–​17 exclusions 23, 64, 88, 128 executive function (EF) 48, 49 expectations: adequate and good progress 106; judging 103, 109, 110; national 83, 109, 131; raising 9, 11, 24, 38, 104, 137, 139; shared vision 31; underachievement 11, 103–​4, 148 external specialists 63–​4, 65–​6 family income 13 feel good factor 33, 89–​90 five outcomes for every child 6 flexibility 17, 91, 147 formative assessment 60–​1, 102, 104–​5, 106, 107 four Ps 29 frameworks: assessment 65, 83; funding 147; supporting the engagement model 62 friendly learning environments see effective learning environments fully inclusive learning, observing and identifying 92–​3 funding, provision mapping 72, 73, 74, 75 Further Education (FE): case studies 136–​8; Code of Practice 138, 139; EHCPs 138; engagement practices 139; HQT 142; VAKS 139 gaining skills and understanding 32–​3 general duties under The Equality Act 19, 20 good practice 65, 81, 145 good progress assessment 41, 42, 104, 105–​6, 108, 109, 110 GPs see group plans graduated responses 16–​17, 18, 21, 58, 67–​9, 73, 78, 108, 138 group plans (GPs) 55, 56 ‘hard to teach’ learners 89, 90 hearing impairment (HI) 9, 11, 51–​2, 104 hidden barriers 93; autism spectrum condition 94; cognitive learning difficulties 95; developmental coordination disorder 96; dyscalculia 96; dyslexia 8, 94; dyspraxia 8; literacy 94; social, emotional and mental health 96; speech, language and communication needs 8, 95 high quality teaching (HQT) 146; ‘for all’ challenge 40–​1, 42; inclusion 36–​40, 42, 52; planning from

Index  157 

broad areas of need 35–​6; technology 40; and the three-​wave model 43–​5 HI see hearing impairment iceberg factors 93–​7 identifying needs see needs identification IDL Literacy 47, 124, 126 IDL Numeracy 47, 124 IDP see Inclusion Development Plans improving outcomes: five aims 6; strategies 75 inclusion: 2020 vision 40; access and barriers to learning 37–​8; Achievement for All 31–​2; backtracking 36, 39; balanced with intervention 54; concept 29; high quality teaching 36–​40; versus integration 6, 17, 18, 30, 149; learning environments 37, 51, 52; learning styles 36–​8; as personal experience 33–​4; personalisation 33; in practice 32–​3; SEND Review Green Paper 149; as a sense of place 30; as a whole-​school policy 30–​2 Inclusion Development Plans (IDP) 38 Inclusion Development Programme (2008) 38, 39, 40, 87 independence: accessibility planning 23; assessment 101, 102, 105; ATDF targets 17, 18; choice 5, 12; development 83, 114–​16, 120, 121, 137, 141, 143; HQT 35, 38, 41, 91; inclusion 30, 33; Key Stages 114–​16; models 116; pupil passports 55, 56 individual needs, provision mapping 70 integration, to inclusion 6, 17, 18, 30, 149 interaction in learning environments 46, 91, 92, 143 Interim Teacher Assessment Framework (ITAF) 12 interrelated domains, pedagogy 88 interventions: cognition and learning 48–​9; communication and interaction 49–​50; determination of need 18, 53–​4; evaluations of 47, 53–​4; ‘Every Child’ programmes 45–​6; literacy and numeracy 45–​7, 48–​9, 53; personalised 46; personal plan integration 53; provision mapping 70, 71, 72, 73–​4, 75; sensory and physical 51–​3; social, emotional and mental health 50–​1; structured 45–​6, 47, 52, 83; targeted 16, 18; three-​wave model 43, 44, 45 judging expectations 109, 110 Kagan techniques 46 Key Stages: assessment 101, 102; current attainment levels 11, 148; independence 114–​16; parental involvement 119, 120, 121 labelling, needs and the Code of Practice 21, 108 Lamb Inquiry (2009) 12, 24, 31, 38, 75, 96, 108, 117, 118, 121 leadership 31, 41, 145 Learners First School Partnership 41 learners’ perspectives 89 learning difficulties 7 learning environments: components needed 91–​2; personalisation provision 87–​91; SEND-​friendly 92–​3, 98; see also effective learning environments learning mentors 132, 134 learning styles, classroom inclusion 36–​8 levels of comprehension 98

literacy: hidden barriers 94; interventions 45–​6, 47, 48–​9, 52–​3, 124; parental support 119–​20; reading comprehension 97–​8; Reading Recovery 46, 47; secondary curriculum 141–​2; underachievement 11–​12, 146, 148 local authorities (LAs) 64–​5, 108, 148 males 12, 13 management of graduated responses 67–​9 managing relationships 81–​2 mapping, provisions see provision mapping mathematics 36, 47, 146; interventions 49; parental support 118–​19 memory 48, 49 mindfulness 48, 50 MLD see moderate learning difficulties models: independence development 116; provision mapping 73, 74 moderate learning difficulties (MLD) 48; attainment gap 11, 29; description 8–​9; expectations 104; hidden barriers 95; independent behaviours 114 motivation, learning environments 92 MSI see multisensory impairment multisensory impairment (MSI) 51 National Autistic Society (NAS) 10 needs, of SENCOs 75–​6 needs identification: accessibility plans 23–​4; ATDF targets 17–​18; broad areas 16; Code of Practice requirements 15; graduated responses 16–​17; hidden barriers 93–​7; labelling 16, 17 needs-​led provision versus resource-​led provision 70 new pupils, transitional arrangments 113 numeracy 46, 47, 49, 96–​7, 148 observation, fully inclusive learning 92–​3 opportunity, equality of 19, 41, 137 outcomes: Code of Practice 15; Equality Act 20, 23, 24, 25 outreach 11, 30 ownership, pupil 40, 41, 55, 143 parental involvement 89, 130; Code of Practice 118; culture, policy and practice 121–​2; improving roles 117, 118–​21; language support 119–​20; mathematics support 118–​19; social class 122 Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) 121 participation, inclusive practices 32–​3 patterns of need 73, 79 PD see physical difficulties pedagogy 81, 88–​9, 90 personal achievement 90–​1 personal experience 33–​4, 97, 98 personalisation: attainment 90–​1; concept 87–​8; emotions 33, 89–​90; inclusion 33; learning environments 88, 91–​2; needs identification 17–​18; pedagogy 88–​90; pupil passports 55–​6 personal plans (PPs) 50, 53, 54–​5, 56, 60, 63, 103; ATDF targets 17, 18; parental understanding 118; provision maps 69, 71–​2, 73 personal responsibility 112 phonics 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 94, 118, 124; underachievement 11–​12 physical difficulties (PD): accessibility planning 23, 25; expectations 104; needs of learners 9, 37, 51, 97, 108

158 Index

planning for core, development and enrichment 38 PMLD see profound and multiple learning difficulties PPs see personal plans presence, inclusive practices 32–​3 primary schools: case studies 132–​6; literacy 143 profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) 9, 60, 104, 105, 117, 140 progress evaluation: adequate or good progress 105–​6; Code of Practice 107; expectations 103; independence 114–​16; measuring steps 106; parents as equal partners 117–​22; pupil’s voice 111–​13; resources 109–​10; underachievement 103–​5, 108–​9 Progression Guidance (2009) 103 provision mapping 69–​75, 76, 78, 80, 81; role of Governors 82; role of support staff 84 provison maps: concepts 69; development 69–​71; evaluation 74–​5; funding and costing 72; versus personal plans 71–​2; structure 73–​4 PTAs see Parent Teacher Associations pupil passports 55–​6, 63 pupil premium (PP) 72, 104 Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) 12, 13, 64 pupil’s voice 111–​13, 142 RAISE online 109 raising attainment 11–​13 RAPID Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 48, 51 RARPA see Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement RA see reading age reading age (RA) 54, 75, 102, 124, 142, 146 reading comprehension 97–​8 reading enjoyment 52 Reading Recovery 46, 47 reasonable adjustments 19–​20, 22–​3, 53 Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement (RARPA) 98 relationship management 81–​2 removing barriers to learning 22, 25, 31, 37–​8 reporting, resources 109–​10 resource-​led provision versus needs-​led provision 70 resources, assessment and reporting 109–​10 reviews: annual 59, 60, 61, 68, 102, 103, 107, 114; learner involvement 113, 114, 116; personal plans 54, 56, 63; provision maps 69, 71; pupil passports 56, 63; termly 56, 59, 60, 68, 102, 103, 107–​8 right of inclusion 29 right of refusal 148 role of SENCOs 67–​75, 76–​8, 79–​80 Rose review (2006) 46 RR see Reading Recovery safeguarding 23, 32, 65 Salt Review (2010) 38, 117 School Action Plus see Special Educational Needs support School Action see Special Educational Needs support school choices 25 School Pupil Tracker Online 109 school workforce: deployment of additional adults 43, 83–​5, 113, 116, 128–​9, 145, 148;

relationship management 81–​2; SENCO’s role 67–​75, 76–​8, 79–​80; support staff 75, 84; taking stock 79; whole-​school coordination 80–​1, 82–​3; see also Special Educational Needs Coordinators; teaching assistants; training secondary level learners, independence 115 secondary schools: case studies 123–​31; literacy 141–​3 self-​monitoring devices 48 self-​ownership 41 SEND Gateway 98 SEND Review Green Paper (2022) 147–​9 SEND see Special Educational Needs and Disabilities SEN see Special Educational Needs sensory difficulties 9, 11, 37, 51 sensory processing difficulties 51 severe learning difficulties (SLD) 9, 32, 95, 104, 105, 114, 117 skills development, inclusive practices 32–​3 SLCN see speech, language and communication needs SLD see severe learning difficulties small-​step progress 32, 106, 112, 128, 135 SMART plans see Strategic, Manageable, Achievable, Relevant, Timed plans social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) 7, 8, 9, 11, 17; disruptive behaviours 63–​4; expectations 104; hidden barriers 96; interventions 50–​1 social class 122 social constructs 29 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) x; behind the label 10–​11; changing perceptions 5–​6; current attainment levels 11, 148; disability and SEN links 21–​2; five outcomes 6; inaccurate identification of 12–​13; learning difficulties 7; philosophy 5–​6, 145; policy and practice 76–​7; pupil voice development 112–​14; raising attainment 11–​13; reasonable adjustments 19–​20, 22–​3, 53; resources 98 Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCO): needs 75–​6; relationship management 81–​2; role 67–​75, 76–​8, 79–​80; toolbox 76; training and deployment responsibilities 77, 78, 117, 146; training for role 75–​6, 81, 136, 148; whole-​school coordination 80–​1 Special Educational Needs (SEN): changing perceptions 5–​6; current attainment levels 11, 148; five outcomes 6; learning difficulties 7; links with disability 21–​2; percentage of pupils 148; raising attainment 11–​13; types 7–​10 Special Educational Needs (SEN) support 5, 7, 16–​17, 18, 146; external specialists 63–​4, 65–​6; interventions 45–​54; personal plans 53, 54–​5, 56; three-​wave model 43, 44, 45 special schools 6, 9, 10, 12, 33, 149; case studies 140–​1; effect of Warnock Report 5, 147; need for 29, 140–​1, 142; outreach 11, 30; parental choice 25 specific learning difficulties (SpLD) 9, 47, 48, 104, 129 speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13; expectations 104; hidden barriers 95; interventions 49–​50; learning styles 36 SpLD see specific learning difficulties

Index  159 

standardised tests 58, 75, 82, 102 statements, differences to EHCPs 57 Strategic, Manageable, Achievable, Relevant, Timed (SMART) plans 54, 55 structure, provision mapping 73–​4 structured interventions 45–​6, 47, 52, 83 summative assessment 61, 102, 104, 106, 107, 124 support staff 75, 84 taking stock, school workforce 79 targeted interventions 16, 18; see also interventions targets, EHCPs 59–​60 TAs see teaching assistants teaching assistants (TAs) 36, 38, 46; case studies 128–​9, 130; as part of whole-​school approach 83–​5; training 11, 52, 83, 84, 129, 145, 146, 149 teaching from learners’ perspectives 89 technology: assistive 51, 139; as part of HQT 40; reading standards 52; self-​monitoring 48 termly reviews 56, 59, 60, 102, 103, 107–​8 themes, backtracking 36 three-​wave model 43–​5 toolbox for SENCOs 76 training 13, 30, 41, 50, 70, 82, 108, 141; FE teachers 136, 137; parents 118, 120, 121, 122, 142; responsibilities 77, 78, 81, 117, 146; SENCOs 75–​6, 81, 136, 148; TAs 11, 52, 83, 84,

129, 145, 146, 149; teachers 9, 11, 38, 49, 64, 65, 117, 149 transitional arrangements: Code of Practice 15; new pupils 113 types of special educational needs 7–​10 underachievement 12; eradicating 104–​5; recognising 103–​4 VAKS see Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Social VI see visual impairment vision, Achievement for All 31 Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Social (VAKS) 95, 126, 133, 135, 136, 139, 146 visual impairment (VI) 9, 11, 51, 104 voice, development and extension 111–​14 vulnerable groups 31, 65, 69, 75, 103–​4, 105, 112 walking the job 38, 76, 77, 92, 147 Warnock Report (1978) 5, 33, 66, 127, 140, 147 well-​being 5, 6 whole-​school approach 82–​3; inclusion 30–​2; role of teaching assistants 83–​5; SENCO role 79–​82 whole-​school progress assessment 108–​9 year group patterns, provision mapping 70 yearly evaluation 107; see also annual reviews