nasuwt - society for education and training (set) · projects. prior to joining canterbury christ...

REFLECTION,RENEWALANDREALITY:TEACHERS’EXPERIENCEOFSPECIALEDUCATIONALNEEDSANDINCLUSION

Preparedby

SimonEllis,CanterburyChristChurchUniversity

ProfessorJanetTod,CanterburyChristChurchUniversity

DrLynneGrahamMatheson,CanterburyChristChurchUniversity

PeerReview

ChristopherRobertson

NASUWTTheTeachers’Union The largest teachers’ union in the UK

FirstpublishedintheUKin2012byNASUWTHillscourtEducationCentreRoseHillRednalBirminghamB458RS

www.nasuwt.org.uk

©NASUWTCopyright2012

Allrightsreserved

ISBN9781906611187

PrintedintheUKbyClarkeprintLtd4547StourStreetBirminghamB187AJ

Authors

SimonEllisisaSeniorLecturerwithCanterburyChristChurchUniversity’sCentreforEnablingLearningwithintheFacultyofEducation.HehaspreviouslyworkedasaKeyStage3NationalStrategy Behaviour and Attendance Consultant and a Local Authority Behaviour SupportServiceManager.Heoriginallytrainedandtaughtasaprimaryteacherandalsohasexperienceofworkingasaspecialeducationalneedscoordinator(SENCO).

JanetTod isanEmeritusProfessorofEducationatCanterburyChristChurchUniversity.Shewas formerly Head of Educational Research at the University. She is a BPS (BritishPsychologicalSociety)charterededucationalandclinicalpsychologistandaqualifiedspeechandlanguagetherapist.

Lynne GrahamMatheson is Principal Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education atCanterburyChristChurchUniversity.Shehasworkedonnumerousfundededucationalresearchprojects. Prior to joining Canterbury Christ Church, Lynne worked in human resourcemanagementbeforebecomingatutorcounsellorfortheOpenUniversityandalecturer.

PeerReview:ChristopherRobertsonChristopherRobertsonlecturesandresearchesinthefieldofspecialandinclusiveeducationattheSchoolofEducation,UniversityofBirmingham,andhasaparticular interest ineducationpolicy and teacher development. He is also editor of SENCO Update. Christopher’s role inrelationtothisresearchprojecthasbeentoprovideadviceandcomment,independentofboththeresearchteamandtheNASUWT.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorswishtothankalltheheadteachers,SENCOs,teachersandotherswhocompletedtheonlinesurveyortookpartinthecasestudyinterviews.

Disclaimer:AnyviewsexpressedaresolelythoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseofCanterburyChristChurchUniversity.

SpecialEducationalNeeds–Reflection,RenewalandReality 3

Contents

Executivesummary ....................................................................................................................7

Backgroundandaimsoftheresearch...................................................................................19

Methodology .............................................................................................................................23

Chapter1:TherelationshipbetweenthedefinitionofSENintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSENExplorationoftheliterature.........................................................................................................29Presentationanddiscussionofdata..........................................................................................35Findings.......................................................................................................................................43Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy..............................................................................44

Chapter2:Training,supportanddevelopmentneedsExplorationoftheliterature.........................................................................................................49Presentationanddiscussionofdata..........................................................................................54Findings.......................................................................................................................................66Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy..............................................................................68

Chapter3:PolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionExplorationoftheliterature.........................................................................................................73Presentationanddiscussionofdata..........................................................................................78Findings.......................................................................................................................................89Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy..............................................................................90

Chapter4:ThedeploymentofsupportstaffExplorationoftheliterature.........................................................................................................93Presentationanddiscussionofdata........................................................................................100Findings.....................................................................................................................................102Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy............................................................................103

Chapter5:BehaviourandSENExplorationoftheliterature.......................................................................................................107Presentationanddiscussionofdata........................................................................................111Findings.....................................................................................................................................119Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy............................................................................120

cont’d


Chapter6:LocalauthorityandotherexternalsupportExplorationoftheliterature.......................................................................................................123Presentationanddiscussionofdata........................................................................................126Findings.....................................................................................................................................129Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy............................................................................129

Concludingthoughtsandcoremessages............................................................................131

References ..............................................................................................................................139

Abbreviationsandacronymsused .......................................................................................145

Appendices .............................................................................................................................147

SpecialEducationalNeeds–Reflection,RenewalandReality6

ExecutiveSummary

BackgroundThe1997GreenPaperExcellenceforallchildren(DfEE,1997)outlinedtheLabourGovernment’scommitmenttohighqualityeducationforpupilswithspecialeducationalneeds(SEN),withinthecontext of inclusion. Whilst the Coalition Government’s 2011 Green Paper Support andaspiration:Anewapproachtospecialeducationalneedsanddisabilitynotesthatthereis‘muchthatisexcellentinthesupportforthesechildren,youngpeopleandtheirfamilies’(DfE,2011,p2),itexpressesconcernthat‘childrenandyoungpeoplewithSENdon’tachieveastheycould’andclaimsthatthe‘caseforchangeisclear’(DfE,2011,p2).The2011GreenPaperoffersan‘ambitiousvisionforreform’(DfE,2011,p13)and‘includeswiderangingproposalstoimproveoutcomes for children and young people who are disabled or have SEN, minimise theadversarialnatureofthesystemforfamiliesandmaximisevalueformoney.’(DfE,2011,p13).

In2006, theNASUWTcommissionedresearch1 onSENand inclusion inorder toexplore theimpactofpolicyonteachers’experienceintheirschools.Stage1oftheresearchwasaliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008)publishedin2008.Thisconcludedthatthefieldwascomplexduetoboth ‘SEN’and ‘inclusion’beingbroadtermsandsubject to interpretation.Gainingevidencethroughempiricalresearchonteacherexperienceandinterpretationofnationallegislationandguidancewasthereforeconsideredimportantforthesecondstageoftheresearch.

ResearchaimsThemainaimoftheresearchwastoexplorehowteachersareexperiencingpolicyandpracticeforSENandinclusionintheirschools.Thepredominantfocuswasthevariabilityinherentwithinthe identification, provision and outcomes in relation to SEN. In order to explore political,professionalandpersonaldifferencesinattributionofcausesandsolutionstothisvariability,thefollowingresearchquestionswereexplored:

1. HowareteachersinterpretingandimplementingpolicyforSENandinclusion?2. HowareteachersexperiencingteachingpupilswithSENinapolicycontextofinclusion?3. WhatarethetrainingandsupportneedsidentifiedbyteachersinrelationtoSEN?

PurposeofthisreportDrawingondatagatheredthroughtheempiricalresearchphaseoftheproject,thisreportseekstoofferaninsightintoteachers’experienceofandopinionsonthecurrentpolicycontextthatwasshapedbytheformerLabouradministrationaswellasofferingaperspectiveonthenatureand likely impact of the Coalition Government’s proposals for change. As part of thiscommentary,considerationisgiventothefitnessforpurposeandpotentialconsequencesofthe2011GreenPaperSupportandaspiration:Anewapproachtospecialeducationalneedsanddisability(DfE,2011).

MethodsThisresearchprojectdrewonover1,500responsestoanonlinesurveyfromarangeofteachersin primary, secondary and special schools. Case study data was gathered from over 100teachers in a range of schools from four local authorities (LAs). The methodology employedsoughttoinvestigatethefollowingareaspertinenttotheeducationofpupilswithSEN:

1FromCanterburyChristChurchUniversity,Canterbury,Kent


1. therelationshipbetweenthedefinitionofSENintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSEN;

2. training,supportanddevelopmentneeds;3. policyandguidanceforSENandinclusion;4. thedeploymentofsupportstaff;5. behaviourandSEN;6. LAsupport.

Theseareashadbeenidentifiedthroughtheliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008)carriedoutforstage1of theproject. In relation toeachof thesixareas,anexplorationof recent literature(20062011)wasconductedthatservedtoupdatetheoriginalliteraturereviewandgroundthefindingswithinthenationalpolicycontext.

Thefindingsrepresentasynthesisoftheresponsestothesurveyanddatagatheredfromthecasestudyvisitstoschools.However,differentquestionswereasked,socasestudydataandsurveydataisnotdirectlycomparable.Thecasestudyvisitsprovidedtheopportunitytoprobemoredeeplyintosomeissues,albeitwithasmallernumberofteachers.

FindingsChapter 1: The relationship between the definition of SEN in the Special EducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSEN1.1 There was overwhelming consensus from the case study schools that the purpose of

identification of SEN was that pupils could be allocated the provision and additionalmonitoringtheyneededtomakeprogress.

1.2 TeachersinterviewedexpressedgreaterconfidenceinidentifyingSENwheneithertherewasaclearneedfor‘specialeducationalprovision’(DfES,2001,p6)tobemadeforthepupil,orthepupilhada‘label’suchasdyslexiaorautismspectrumdisorder(ASD).Therewas less clarity where it was necessary to make a judgement based on whether thepupil’scurrentperformancerepresented‘asignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage’(DfES,2001,p6).Itwasevidentfromthesurveydatathatavarietyofcriteria isusedto identifypupilsasSENinadditiontotheformaldefinitionwithintheSENCodeofPractice.

1.3 In the case study schools it was evident that the identification of SEN is stronglyinfluenced by data related to rates of academic progress and response to existingprovision.Primaryschoolswereoftenabletoutilisetheenhancedopportunitiesaffordedby their setting to gain additional data to inform identification. Because of their size,secondaryschoolstendedtobemorereliantonthequalityofattainmentdatafromfeederprimaryschools,existingdocumentaryevidenceandentryleveltesting.

1.4. The schools visited all expressed confidence in their own SEN identification systems.SomecasestudyschoolswereawarethatSENidentificationratescouldfavourablyaffecttheircontextualvalueaddedscoreandinsomecasescarryfundingbenefits.However,schoolsalsonoted that relativelyhighpercentagesofpupilswithSEN impacteduponbehaviour and learning and that the cost of provision for pupils with SEN typicallyexceededthefunding.

1.5 There was general awareness in the case study schools that SEN identification ratesvariedbetweenschools inthesameLAandevenbetweenschoolsservingverysimilar


catchment areas. SENCOs in particular recognise, and have experienced, that thedefinitionofSENandotherelementswithintheCodeofPractice,suchasthetriggersforSchoolAction(SA),areopentointerpretation.

1.6 Many of the class and subject teachers in case study schools had not been directlyinvolved in the classification of a pupil as having SEN, because the identification hadtakenplacepriortothepupiljoiningtheirclassorsubjectgroup,butfullyacknowledgedtheirresponsibilityforprovisionandthemonitoringofprogress.WhenclassandsubjectteacherssuspectapupilmayhaveasyetunidentifiedSEN,theytypicallysupplydataandraiseconcernswiththeSENCOand/orviaregularSENreviewmeetings.

1.7 The identification of SEN takes place alongside identification of a range of additionalneeds. Many case study schools were accustomed to identifying vulnerable groups.Someschools,particularlysecondary,highlightedtheproblemindeterminingwhethertherange of social, emotional and cognitive difficulties experienced by the pupil couldreasonablybeclassifiedasSEN.Themajorityofsurveyrespondentswereconfident intheirabilitytoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilswithSEN.

1.8 Therewasconcern,particularly inprimaryschoolsettings,thatanypolicydirectivestoreducethenumberofpupilsidentifiedasSENwouldconflictwithexistingpracticesthatseektopromoteearlyidentificationandtimelyintervention.

1.9 Some interviewees expressed a view that it was very difficult to get a statement forbehavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) unless it could be attributed to amedicalconditionsuchasASDormentalhealth.

1.10Somespecialschools,notably thosewithanoriginaldesignationofmoderate learningdifficulty (MLD), have experienced a change in pupil population, with the balance ofintakes shifting towards more severe and complex needs, including significantlychallenging behaviour. The majority of special school respondents to the survey alsonotedthis.

1.11Manysecondaryschoolstaffinterviewedhighlightedthepervasiveeffectsonattainmentandbehaviouracrossthecurriculumof longtermdelaysanddifferences inbasicskillssuchaslanguageandliteracy.AnissueraisedbysomeoftheseschoolswastheextentofdelayordifferencethatwarrantedidentificationasSENagainstthecriteriasetoutintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPractice(DfES,2001).

Chapter2:Training,supportanddevelopmentneeds2.1 When asked if they needed more training in SEN, the majority of survey respondents

answered positively. There was strong agreement with the suggestion that ‘theGovernmentshouldprovidemoreSENtraining forall teachers’.ThemajorityofsurveyrespondentsalsoindicatedthatmoreknowledgeaboutSENwouldbeuseful.However,thenumberofrespondentsidentifyingthisasusefulwaslessthanforthoseidentifyingmore time, increased access to specialist teachers who work directly with pupils andmore additional adult support. The majority of case study respondents, whilstacknowledgingthatmoretrainingwouldalwaysbeconsidereddesirable,didnotprioritiseSENtrainingasanimmediateneed.

2.2 Trainingrequirementswereveryvaried.Someteachersinterviewedexpressedaneedinrelation to particular categories of SEN (e.g. ASD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia,


2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

10

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)), while others, particularly secondarysubjectteachers,wereconcernedwithfeasibilityissuessuchashowtoteach/motivatepupilswithSENwithinthediverseanddemandinggroupsettingoftheclassroom.

Within the survey responses, there was a strong view that initial teacher training (ITT)inadequatelypreparedteacherstoteachpupilswitharangeofSEN,irrespectiveofhowrecentlytheyhadqualified.Almostthreequartersofrespondentsexpressedthisopinion.CasestudyrespondentsreportedthatSENrouteswithinITTwereoftenoptional.Therewereveryvariedexperiencesreportedabout ITTandSEN.Somespokehighlyof theirexperiencesduring ITT,particularlywheretherewasaneffectivereciprocal relationshipbetween the taught content provided by the higher education institution (HEI) and theexperience of SEN teaching provided through placement in special and mainstreamschools.

There was acknowledgement in case study interviews that postgraduate routes,particularlythegraduateteacherprogramme(GTP),werealreadyoverloadedandthatitisoftendifficult for traineeteacherstorelateanySENknowledgetopracticeuntil theybegin their teaching. Valued ITT experiences included opportunities to observe and/orworkinspecialschoolsettingsortoworkinclasswithspecialistteachers/advisers.

DespiteacknowledgingshortfallsregardingthecoverageofSENintheirITT,mostofthesurveyrespondentsrespondedpositivelywhenquestionedabouttheirabilitytoidentifythe learningneedsofpupilswithSENandassesstheirprogress.However,onlyhalfofmainstream respondents felt theywereable toeffectively teachpupilswitha rangeofSENintheircurrentclass(es).Thismaybeindicativeofateacherviewonfeasibilityratherthanrelatedtoadeficitintheirknowledge,skillsandunderstanding.ThemajorityofcasestudyintervieweeswereoftheviewthattherewereinherentlimitationstowhatcouldbetaughtaboutSENduring ITTandageneralacceptance that itwasnecessary to learnthroughexperience,particularlyduringthenewlyqualifiedteacheryear.

Formainstreamandspecialschoolteachers,themostlikelysourcesofinformationwereseekingadvice fromaSENCOand/oranothercolleague inschoolandusingspecialistSENorotherwebsites.

TherewaslimitedevidencethatnationallyproducedguidancetostrengthentheteachingofpupilswithSENwas impactingonpractice.Onlya thirdofmainstreamandspecialschoolteachershadaccessedanyofthegovernmentproducedInclusionDevelopmentProgramme(IDP)materialsforSEN.

SurveyrespondentsreportedthatthemainformsoftrainingundertakensinceSeptember2004wereschoolbased,usuallyas‘oneoff’afterschoolsessionsorall/partofastaffdevelopment day. A minority of questionnaire respondents reported that they hadreceived no training on SEN or inclusion since 2004. Very few respondents hadundertakencoursesthatprovidedaqualificationorcreditstowardsone.

An interesting and unexpected finding was that case study interviewees valued theopportunity to talk to the researchers about SEN and inclusion issues. A numbercommentedon theusefulnessofhaving the timeandopportunity tobeable to reflectcriticallyontheirpracticeinanonjudgementalsetting.

SpecialEducationalNeeds–Reflection,RenewalandReality

Chapter3:PolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusion3.1 Therewasvariationbetweenschoolsvisitedintheextenttowhichtheyaccessednational

policyandguidanceforSENandinclusiondirectlyordrewuponLAinterpretation.Classandsubjectteachersinterviewedgenerallyreportedthattheydidnotdirectlyengagewithnational policy and guidance for SEN and inclusion. They tended to receive aninterpretationofpolicyandguidancefromanothersourcesuchastheSENCOorseniorleadershipteam.Someschoolscitedthesheeramountofelectroniccommunicationfromcentralgovernmentasabarriertoaccess.

3.2 The main triggers for class and subject teachers to engage with national policy wereOfstedinspectionsandstatutoryduties.TheinfluenceofOfstedrequirementsonpracticewasalsoconfirmedbysurveydata.LessthanafifthofteacherssurveyedreportedthatnationalpolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionwascleartoimplementinpractice.

3.3 School staff interviewed expressed varied views surrounding Ofsted depending onpersonal experience of the outcome and process. Within the survey, nearly half ofmainstreamteachersfeltthattheirlatestOfstedinspectionappropriatelyrecognisedtheprogressofpupilswithSENintheirschoolbutonlyaroundasixththoughtthatOfstedinspectorsrecognisetheeffectthathavingahighproportionofpupilswithSENcanhaveon a school. Case study schools valued inspectors who demonstrated a realunderstandingofSENandtheincreasedcomplexitiesofpupilsplacedinspecialschoolsettings.AllschoolsvisitedplacedapriorityonOfstedbecauseoftheeffectonschoolreputationandmoraleofstaff.

3.4 Themajorityofsurveyrespondentssaidthattheyexperienceatensionbetweenpoliciesfor inclusion and policies for raising academic standards. There was considerableconcernexpressed in thecase study interviews that national agerelatedperformancemeasuresweresupersedingprogressmeasuresasindicatorsofteachingeffectiveness.

3.5 Manyschoolstaffinterviewedwereconcernedthat,althoughtheterm‘achievement’waswidelyused,thoseresponsibleformaking judgementsabouttheschool’sperformancefrequentlyblurredthedistinctionbetweenattainmentandachievement.Schoolsfeltthatasaconsequencethereweresometimesunrealisticexpectationsregardingclosingthegap between particular children’s current performance and agerelated expectations.Although many pupils with SEN had targets that contributed to holistic learningoutcomes, itwasfelt that increasedemphasisonacademicattainmentoftenservedtomarginaliseprogressmadeintheseareas.

3.6 Many case study schools were heavily focused on using data to track academicachievement for all pupils, including those with SEN. These schools were able todemonstrate that they actively interrogated data in order to identify those not makingadequateprogressandinstigatechangesinprovisionandpracticeaccordingly.

3.7 The majority of mainstream survey respondents thought that there was insufficientfunding for SEN. Case study interviewees recognised that funding cuts were alreadytakingplaceinthelightofthecurrenteconomicclimate(interviewstookplacelaterthantheonlinesurvey).Mostconcernwasexpressed in relation to fundingcuts thatwouldresult in reductions in teachingassistant (TA)supportand/or inspecialistLAandothersupportservices.


3.8 Casestudyspecialschoolsexpressedagreaterdegreeofsatisfactionwiththeirfunding,acknowledging that it was linked to provision required to meet their pupils’ complexneeds.However, theynoted thatasnew formsofsupport,particularly technology,aredeveloped funding needs to keep pace. Only a quarter of special school surveyrespondentsthoughttheirschoolreceivedinsufficientfundingtoprovideanappropriateeducationforallpupils.

3.9 Anissuethatemergedfromthecasestudieswasthatdevelopmentsintechnologyandusagebypupilshaveimpactedontheworkloadofteachersbutperhapsnotasexpected.Inschoolemails,electroniccommunicationwithparentsandpupils,onlinemarkingandreporting, electronic tutor support and multimedia lesson preparation, in addition toexternal communications from government, LAs, etc., resulted in teachers reportingworkinglongerhours.

Chapter4:Thedeploymentofsupportstaff4.1 Just over half of survey respondents felt that the progress of pupils with SEN was

dependent on the availability of a TA. Within case study interviews, there was anoverwhelming view that the effective inclusion of pupils with SEN in classrooms wasdependentontheavailabilityofsupportfromaTA.Themostfrequentconcernexpressedintheinterviewswasthatbudgetcutswouldleadtoareductioninsupportstaff.

4.2 Itwasevidentfromthecasestudiesthatschoolsemployarangeofsupportstaffanduseavarietyofdeploymentstrategies.Theserangefromindividualsupport foraparticularpupil with SEN to allocation of support to a class or teaching group. Case studyinterviewees were aware of problems inherent in routinely and exclusively allocatingsupport staff to pupils with SEN. Only a third of survey respondents felt their schoolsemployedasufficientrangeofsupportstaff.

4.3 SurveydatasuggeststhatTAsaretypicallyemployedtosupportpupilswithSENand/orlowattaining pupils. From case study interviews it is clear that additional or extraprovisionand targeted ‘catchup’programmesaredeliveredmainlybysupportstaff inbothprimaryandsecondaryschools.

4.5 Only about a third of teachers within the survey felt they had sufficient time and/oropportunitytoliaisewithsupportstaff.Thiswasalsoanissuehighlightedbycasestudyinterviewees. Teachers interviewed often reported using a variety of opportunisticstrategies to address this issue, often relying on goodwill and informal arrangements.Someschoolshaddevelopedwrittenrecordingmethodstoshareinformation,includingelectroniccommunication.

4.6 Inthesurvey,overhalfofmainstreamteachersandamajorityofspecialschoolteachersfeltthattheirTAsweresufficientlytrained.Somesecondarystaff interviewedraisedthepoint that TAs had knowledge about SEN but often did not have sufficient subjectknowledgetoeffectivelysupportpupilswithSENinclass.

Chapter5:BehaviourandSEN5.1 Themainconcernreportedbyteachersduringcasestudyinterviewsrelatedtothefact

thattheyweredealingwithbehaviouraldifficultiesinthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.Theyhighlightedthecombinedimpactoffactors,includingthenumberofpupilsinaclassexhibitingbehaviouraldifficulties,theformthebehaviourtook,theavailabilityofinclasssupportandtheoverridingneedtomeetthelearningneedsoftherestoftheclass.

12 SpecialEducationalNeeds–Reflection,RenewalandReality

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

Therewasconsensusamongstschoolstaffinterviewedthattheinclusionofmorepupilswith SEN in mainstream schools had not significantly contributed to any increase ingeneral behavioural problems in schools. However, just under a half of surveyrespondentsfeltthatthebehaviourofpupilswithSENwasmorechallengingthanthosewithoutSEN.ThesurveyresponsesindicatethatthemostdifficultformofSENtoincludeinlessonsisBESD.

Fromthesurveyandamongstinterviewees,therewasanoverwhelmingperceptionthatbehaviourinschoolsgenerallyhadbecomemorechallenginginrecentyears.Acrossallsurveyrespondents,themainreasonforthisperceivedincreaseinchallengingbehaviourwas thought to be social factors, including parenting and a general deterioration ofbehaviourinsociety.Alotofintervieweesalsoattributebehaviourtothesefactors.

Very few teachers interviewed expressed a need for more training in behaviourmanagement specifically for pupils with SEN. The majority of survey respondentsreportedhavingagoodunderstandingofwhytheirpupilsexhibitbehaviouraldifficultiesand felt they had a sufficiently wide range of strategies to manage behaviour. Someteachers interviewed expressed an interest in training that would allow them tounderstandmoreabouthowallchildrenlearnanddevelopinordertobetterunderstandtheresponsesoftheirpupilstoclassroomteaching.

Most secondary schools visitedwereoperatinga support system for teachers so thatpupilswithpersistentbehaviourproblemscouldbeplacedinanotherclassorinanotherdesignatedarea.Behaviourpoliciescharacteristicallywerebasedonrewardsandstagedsanctionswithconsistency fromallstaffbeing raisedasacrucial issue.Forpersistentbehaviourproblems,thetrackingofpupilsthroughstagedsanctionssystemswasoftenperceived as unwieldy and in some cases offered considerable potential for pupils tomanipulatethesystem.

Despitetheconcernsexpressedregardingcertainaspects,mostteachersinterviewedfelttheirschool’sbehaviourpolicyworkedreasonablywell for themajorityofpupils.Therewasacknowledgementthatthereweresomepupils,includingsomewithSEN,forwhomthestandardcombinationofrewardsandsanctionsdidnotworkandadegreeofrealismthatthiswaslikelytobethecasewithanybehaviourpolicy.Thispositiveperspectivewasnotreflectedinsurveydata,withonly29%ofmainstreamteachersindicatingthattheirschool’spolicieswereeffectiveinsupportingteacherstomanagebehaviouraldifficulties.

Intervieweesinprimaryschoolsgenerallyexpressedlessconcernaboutbehaviourthantheir secondary colleagues. Ongoing lowlevel disruption was seen as draining acrossbothcontextsbutsecondaryschoolcasestudyrespondentsreportedanincreaseof,andconcern about, refusal to work, lack of respect for teachers and peers, poor listeningskills,apathyandlowmotivationforschoolbasedlearning.

Afrequentlyreportedproblemincasestudyinterviewswasthatsomepupilscouldnotbeleft to get on with their work unless constantly chivvied by adults. Another frequentlyreportedfactorwasthepervasiveimpactoflongtermunderachievement,particularlyinliteracy,onpupils’abilitytoaccessandrespondtothesecondarycurriculum.

Special school teachers interviewed generally expected to experience ongoing andchallenging behavioural difficulties and class size and the allocation of adult supportreflected thisneed.Behaviour tended tobeviewedasanaspectof thepupil’soverall


6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

14

learningdifficulty,illustratedbysomestaffwhoconceptualisedchallengingbehaviourasa means of communication within a relationship rather than noncompliance. From thesurveydata,manyspecial school staff alsoappear to feelpersonallywell equipped interms of strategies and their understanding of why pupils exhibited behaviouraldifficulties.However,opinionwasmorevariedregardingsupportfromtheirschoolsandthe effectiveness of the school’s behaviour policy in supporting teachers to managebehaviouraldifficulties.

Chapter6:LocalauthoritysupportTimely access to specialist support when needed was crucial to mainstream teachersinterviewed. Whether that was a behaviour specialist, SENCO, an experienced and/orspecial school teacher, support from a specialist trained TA, and/or educationalpsychologist,itmatteredthatteacherswereabletoaccessspecialistpracticaladvicethattookintoaccountthecontextinwhichtheywereworking.TherewasrealconcernfromintervieweesthatblanketcutstoLAserviceswouldimpactonthespecificservicesthattheyidentifiedasvaluable.Fromthesurvey,therewasastrongindicationthatmainstreamteacherswantedgreateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoeitherworkdirectlywithpupilsoradvisetheteacher/school.

Interviewees’experiencesofLAsupportvaried,withpersonalrelationshipsattheheartofeffective support. Such relationships had tended to develop over time. The extent towhich LA staff know their school was cited as a crucial factor. One small LA visitedreceivedexceptionallypositiveendorsementfromitsschoolsandteachersinvolvedinthecasestudies.

ItwasclearfromcasestudyinterviewsthatLAsplayedaroleintheinterpretationofpolicyandtheallocationoftrainingandsupportservices.Thiswasnotedthroughdifferencesinthe use of provision mapping and the takeup of IDP materials between schools indifferent LAs. However, survey data indicated that only approximately 40% ofrespondentsconsideredthatLApolicyandguidanceinfluencedschoolpractice.

Case study interviews suggest there is variability in the frequency and quality of LAsupport.Differenceswerefrequentlyattributedtopersonalrelationshipsandthequalityofthesupportofferedbyindividualadvisers.Teachersparticularlyvaluedtheexpertiseofspeechandlanguagetherapistsandeducationalpsychologistsandbehaviourspecialistswhocarriedoutclassroomobservationsandworkedwithpupilsinclass.

It was clear that case study schools did not look exclusively to their LA for support.Increasingly,schoolswere lookingtocollaboratewithotherschoolstoprovidebothonandoffsitesharedprovisionaswellasaccessingsupport fromspecialschools.Someschools visited perceived that there would be a continued move towards increasedworkingwithnetworksofschools,voluntarybodiesandotherprofessionals(e.g.healthandsocialservices).Fromthesurvey,itappearsthatteachersdonotprioritisetheLAasasourceofinformation.OnlyaroundathirdofmainstreamsurveyrespondentssaidtheywerelikelytoseekinformationfromLAsupportoradvisorystaffandfewerstillindicatedtheywouldaccesstheLAwebsiteorsupportnetworks.


CoremessagesChapter1:TherelationshipbetweenthedefinitionofSENintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSENWhile theCoalitionGovernment’scurrentconcern regarding identificationofSEN isprimarilyfocusedonissuesofvariability, fundingandaccountability,teachers’mainconcernregardingidentificationrelatestoitslinktoprovision.Schoolsneedtoidentifywhatprovisiontheirpupilsneed in order to make progress in the setting in which they are currently placed. Once thisdifferingemphasis isunderstood itcanbeseenthatteachersarenotdeliberately ignoringormanipulatingGovernmentguidanceon the identificationofSENcontainedwithin theSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPractice(DfES,2001).

When provision and progress are placed at the heart of identification of SEN, then it is thecurrent‘educationalneed’ratherthananyinherent‘learningdifficulty’thatbecomesthemainfocus for teachers’assessment.This ‘need’, inherentwithin the term ‘SEN’,dependson theeducationalenvironmentinwhichthepupilisplacedandmusttakeaccountofthenatureandassessmentofthe‘learning’thatisrequired.Ifthelearningthatisrequiredisdefinedintermsofprescribedlevelsofsubjectattainment,thenthepupil’seducationalneedswillbedifferentthanifthelearningrequiredisdefinedintermsofabroaderrangeofpersonalachievements.

Ifprovisionandprogress takepriorityover fundingandaccountabilityas thecorepurpose foridentification of SEN in schools, then variability is inevitable because school contexts are notstandardised. It follows that an emphasis on reducing variability in identification rates of SENthroughchanges topolicyandpracticeshouldnotbeseenas thesolution toconcernsabouteducationaloutcomesforpupilswithSEN.Changestoidentificationcriteriawouldserveonlytoreconstructthesize,natureandfundingoftheSENpopulation.Therewouldstillbeindividuals,categorisedornot,whowouldmakelessprogressinthegroupsettingoftheirclassroomthanthatmadebytheirsameagedpeers.Thishasimplicationsforfundingandthereisaneedtoexaminehowfundingisarrangedtoensurethattherangeofpupils’needsaresupportedadequately.

Ratherthancontinuingwiththepursuitofreducingvariability in identificationratesofSEN, itwould seem more productive for the Government to harness the expertise of teachers andparents to explore how positive and meaningful ‘outcomes’ can be conceptualised andachievedforallpupils,irrespectiveoftheircategorisation.

Chapter2:Training,supportanddevelopmentneedsIfinitiativesforteachertrainingandcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment(CPD)forSENaretoimpactonteachingqualityandoutcomesforpupilswithSEN,thentheymustaddressissuesofrelevance,feasibilityand,ofcourse,quality.Assuch,dueregardmustbegiventodeterminingtherelevantknowledge,skillsandunderstandingthatteachersneediftheyaretoteachpupilswithSENinthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.StrategiesthatmaybeappropriateforindividualpupilsassignedtoparticularcategoriesofSENmaynotbefeasibletobedeliveredbyteacherswhoseclasseshaveanimbalanceofpupilswithlearningand/orbehaviouralneeds.Ifintendedacademic outcomes for pupils with SEN are to become more literacybased, then for somesecondaryteachersthepriorityfortrainingmayneedtobecrossphaseliteracyteachingandlanguagedevelopmentratherthaninrelationtospecificformsofSEN.

For training to be effective it needs to be reconceptualised to cover a range of inputs andexperiences that lead to improvements inpractice. Inaddition to themore traditional forms,traininginSENmightusefullyinclude:

• dedicatedtimetoaccess,useandevaluateexistingguidanceonSEN–muchofwhichhasbeenofhighqualitywiththepotentialtoimpactpositivelyonpractice;


• opportunityandtimetoworkwithSENCOsandothercolleagueswithparticularexpertiseand/orexperienceinSENintheirownschoolcontext;

• opportunity to access, implement and evaluate local guidance and support from LAspecialistteachers,educationalpsychologists,speechandlanguagetherapistsandotherproviders,eitherinternallyorexternally;

• activeengagementinsharingofpracticebetweenlocalmainstreamandspecialschools.

Itwouldbeusefultoconsiderwaysofsecuringgreatercoherencebetweentrainingthatseeksto improve the subject learning and behaviour of all pupils and that which is deemed‘SENspecific’.Currentperspectiveson training for teachersseem tobeonhowSENpupilsdifferfromtheirpeersratherthanontheskillsandattributesthatallpupilsneedtodevelopinorder toeffectively learn ingroupsettings.Thiscan lead to fragmentation in relation towhattrainingisneededforpupilswithSENandwhattrainingisneededfornonSENpupils.

The 2010 White Paper (DfE, 2010) and the 2011 Green Paper (DfE, 2011) signal changes inrelationbothtoITTandCPD,placingconsiderableemphasisontheroleofteachingschools.PlanninganynewtraininginitiativesforSENneedstoinvolvedialoguebetweenprovidersandteachersifitistomeetnecessaryrequirementsforefficacy,relevanceandfeasibility.

Chapter3:PolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionThe brokering of the Government’s relationship with teachers through policy disseminationrequires significant reappraisal. It is crucial that Government and schools develop effectiveworkingrelationshipsiftheirsharedconcernforthewellbeingandachievementofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithSENistobeaddressed.Muchof theguidanceproducedbythepreviousGovernment has been of good quality with the potential to impact positively on teachers’professionaldevelopmentandpupilprogress.Useandtakeupofpolicyandguidanceisbasedonperceivedutilityandconsequentlyvariesaccordingtojobroleandresponsibility.Itwouldbeuseful toconsiderhowpolicyandguidancecouldbebettersignposted inorder to reach itsintendedrangeofrecipients.Formanyclassandsubjectteachers,policyandguidanceneedstobesuccinct,supportiveintoneandperceivedasusefultotheirpractice.Ofparticularconcerntoschools is thetoneof recentcomments fromofficialsources (e.g.Ofsted,2010) regardingoveridentificationratesandlowexpectationsforpupilswithSEN.Thereisafeelingthatblameis being apportioned to schools without due regard to the efforts schools and teachers aremakingtoeffectivelyincludepupilswitharangeofSEN.

Chapter4:ThedeploymentofsupportstaffThere is a strong view amongst teachers that the inclusion and progress of SEN pupils isdependentuponadditionalTAsupport. It iscrucial that thevalidityof thisconsensusview isfurtherresearchedtotakeonboardthefacilitatingeffectthatTAsmayhaveonteachinggroupsofpupils,includingthosewithSEN.Forexample,itwasevidentfromcasestudyinterviewsthatteachersbelievethatTAshaveanimpactonpupillearningthroughtheclosermonitoringtheycan provide for pupils who have yet to develop the necessary skills and/or dispositions tosustainattentiononataskinthegroupsetting. Interveningearlyservedto limitnegativeandofftaskbehaviourthatwouldimpactontherestofclassaswellasrefocusingtheindividualontheir learning.ThepositiveeffectofTAsandothersupportstaffonteachers’ jobsatisfaction,levelsofstressandworkloadshouldnotbeignoredasafactorlikelytoimpact,albeitindirectly,onpupillearning.

Onlyaboutathirdofteacherswithinthesurveyfelttheyhadsufficienttimeand/oropportunitytoliaisewithsupportstaff.Thiswasalsoanissuehighlightedbythecasestudyinterviewees.Teachersinterviewedoftenreportedusingavarietyofopportunisticstrategiestoaddressthis


issue, often relying on goodwill and informal arrangements. Some schools had developedwrittenrecordingmethodstoshareinformation,includingelectroniccommunication.Thisraisessignificant issues about how support staff are involved in the planning and assessmentprocesses, about the key features of good practice and the relationship between effectivepractice and learning outcomes for pupils with SEN. This is an area that warrants furtherresearch.

Chapter5:BehaviourandSENBehaviour in schools remains of more concern for many teachers than SEN, in spite of thegeneralviewthatschools’behaviourpolicieswork for themajorityofpupils.Theentrenchedbehaviouralcharacteristicsofsomepupils,perceivedtobelargelyattributabletofactorsoutsideschool,stronglysuggeststhat‘morediscipline’persewillnotsufficetoaddressthetroublingissuesofteachingandlearningfacedbyteachersinthegroupsettingofclassrooms.Teacherscannotbeblamedorexpectedtoaddressthisissuewithoutdueconsiderationofthefactthatthe problematic behaviour of individuals and its exacerbation in groups is not confined toschools.

Thereisaneedtoconsiderthedualchallengeforteachersinmainstreamschoolsandarangeofsettings,includingspecialschools,pupilreferralunits(PRUs)andalternativeprovision,ofnotonlymanagingbehaviourbutalsogettingdisaffectedanddisruptivepupilstomeetnationallyprescribedacademictargets.

Chapter6:LocalauthoritysupportThequalityandtakeupofLAsupportisveryvaried.AnyactionsthatimpactonLAsupportforschoolsriskdestroyinganyeffectiverelationshipandbenefitsthathavedevelopedovertime.Neithershoulditbeassumedthatschoolswillnecessarilyhavethecapacitytofillthegapsinsupportprovisioneitheratpractical/resource levelor intermsofprofessionalknowledgeandskills. Rather than addressing variability and budget constraints through blanket cuts,considerationneedstobegiventodevelopingpoliciesandapproachesthatidentifyandretaineffectiveworkingpracticesbetweenLAsandtheirschoolsandreplacingorstrengtheningthosethatfallshort.

InthecontextofcutstoservicesandthechangingroleforLAs,schoolswillneedtoestablishanewrelationshipwiththeirLAandarangeofotherservices,includinghealthandcareservicesandthethirdsector.Aconcernisthatdevelopingandmaintainingthesemultiplerelationshipswill place considerable additional demands on schools. This could impact adversely on thequalityofeducationforallpupilsbutespeciallythosewithSEN.


Backgroundandaimsoftheresearch

BackgroundIn 2006, the NASUWTcommissioned research on SEN and inclusion in order to explore theimpactofpolicyonteachers’experienceintheirschools.Stage1oftheresearchwasaliteraturereview2 published in2008.Thisconcludedthatthefieldwascomplexduetoboth‘SEN’and‘inclusion’beingbroadtermsandsubjecttointerpretation.

The1997GreenPaperExcellenceforallchildren(DfEE,1997)outlinedtheLabourgovernment’scommitmenttohighqualityeducationforpupilswithSEN,withinthecontextofinclusion.Theperiod immediately following this saw the publication of revisions to existing policy andguidance documents (e.g. DfES, 2001, DfEE/QCA, 1999a, 1999b) to reflect this inclusiveorientationaswellastheissuingofnewpolicyandguidance.Furtherchangeforschoolscamewith the introductionof theEveryChildMatters (ECM)policy initiative (TreasuryOffice2003,DfES, 2004a). Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government Strategy for SEN (DfES,2004b)broughtSENpolicyundertheECMumbrella.

Whenwewrotetheliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008)forthefirstphaseofthisproject,themostrecentliteratureincludedwasfrom2007.AtthatpointitfeltasifwewerewritingataperiodofchangeinrelationtoSENandinclusion.Ofsted(2004)hadpreviouslybeencriticalofaspectsofhow the national policy of inclusion was being implemented in schools. Whilst not directlycritical of government policy, there was a sense that the policy at national level was notdeliveringfully intermsofmakingapositive impactonpupilswithSENinschools.BaronessWarnock’s(2005)widelyreportedpaperSpecialEducationalNeeds:ANewLookwaspotentiallymoredamagingbecauseofherhighprofilestatusthroughthehighlyinfluentialWarnockReport(DES,1978).Shecommented:

“Thereisincreasingevidencethattheidealofinclusion,ifthismeansthatallbutthose with the most severe disabilities will be in mainstream schools, is notworking.”

(Warnock,2005,p32)

Warnock’s criticisms were followed by the report by MacBeath et al. (2006) The Costs ofInclusion.Thetitlealoneindicatedthatthiswasnotlikelytobeanentirelypositiveaccountoftheeffectsofthepolicyofinclusion.However,itwasthewidespreadreporting(e.g.BBC,2006)ofthecomment,attributedtoProfessorJohnMacBeath,thatinclusioncouldbeseenasaformofabusethatperhapsdealtthegreatestblowtogeneralconfidenceincurrentpolicy.

TheHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommitteeundertookacomprehensivereviewinresponsetoemergingcriticisms.Itstated:

“Having received over 230 written submissions, taken evidence from over 40witnesses in oral evidence, made visits to schools, and having considered therecentWarnockreport,aswellasOfstedandAuditCommissionreports,itisclearthat therearesignificantproblemswiththecurrentsystemofSENprovisionandhighlevelsofdissatisfactionamongstparentsandteachers.”

(HouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee,2006,p13)

2 Ellis, S., Tod, J., and Graham Matheson, L. (2008) Special Educational Needs and Inclusion: Reflection andRenewal.Birmingham:NASUWT


Withtheexceptionofthesmallnumberof2007sourcesthatcametoourattentionandwereaddedduringtheeditingprocess,itwasatthispointthatweleftthestoryinthe2008literaturereview.TherewasasensethatallwasnotwellinrelationtothepolicyforSENthathadbeenpursuedupuntilthispoint,butitwasnotclearwhatthegovernmentresponsewouldbe.

CentraltogovernmentconcernshasalwaysbeenvariabilityinSENidentification,provisionandoutcomes. Our original literature review (Ellis et al., 2008) attributed this variability to theinterpretativenatureofmanytermsassociatedwithSEN–notleastthetermitself.Itfollowedthatgainingevidence throughempirical researchon teacherexperienceand interpretationofnational legislation and guidance was considered important for the second stage of theresearch.

ThelifespanoftheresearchprojecthascoveredaperiodofconsiderabledebateinrelationtoSEN, beginning at a time when criticisms were emerging regarding government policy andconcludingwithanewgovernmentinpowerpromisingto‘removethebiastowardsinclusion’(DfE,2011,p5).Fourteenyearsonfromthepreviousgovernment’sExcellenceforallchildren(DfEE, 1997), the Coalition Government’s 2011 Green Paper Support and aspiration: a newapproachtospecialeducationalneedsanddisability(DfE,2011)notesthatthereis‘muchthatis excellent in support for these children’, but expresses concern that ‘children and youngpeoplewithSENdon’tachieveastheycould’andthatthe‘caseforchangeisclear’.TheGreenPaperoffersan‘ambitiousvisionforreform’and‘includeswiderangingproposalstoimproveoutcomes for children and young people who are disabled or have SEN, minimise theadversarialnatureofthesystemforfamiliesandmaximisevalueformoney.’(DfE,2011,p13).

The publication of this report is timely, coinciding with what is likely to be a period ofconsiderable change in relation to SEN. Drawing on data gathered through the empiricalresearchphaseoftheproject,thisreportseekstoofferaninsightintoteachers’experienceofandopinionsonthecurrentpolicycontextthatwasshapedbytheformerLabouradministration,aswellasofferingaperspectiveonthenatureandlikelyimpactoftheCoalitionGovernment’sproposalsforchange.

ResearchaimsThisresearchaimstoexplorehowteachersareexperiencingpolicyandpracticeforSENandinclusionintheirschools.Thepredominantfocusofthisresearchisthevariabilityinherentwithinthe identification, provision and outcomes in relation to SEN. In order to explore political,professionalandpersonaldifferencesinattributionofcausesandsolutionstothisvariability,thefollowingresearchquestionswereexplored:

1. HowareteachersinterpretingandimplementingpolicyforSENandinclusion?2. HowareteachersexperiencingteachingpupilswithSENinapolicycontextofinclusion?3. WhatarethetrainingandsupportneedsidentifiedbyteachersinrelationtoSEN?

Theseresearchaimsweremetthroughamethodologythat involvedanexplorationofrecent,relevantliterature,anonlinesurveyandcasestudyvisitstoschools.

It is hoped that the research will provide a valuable insight into how teachers currentlyexperienceandviewissuesofSENandinclusionandcontributetofurtherdebateaschangesproposed by the Coalition Government are implemented and take effect. It will inform andinfluence the NASUWT’s work with government and with national organisations on mattersrelatingtoSENandinclusion.


It is also recognised that this report is likely to serveanumberofotherpurposes, includingstrengtheningtheknowledgeofteachersandotherswithregardtocurrentareasofdebateinrelation to SEN and inclusion. In particular, it is likely to be of value to teachers and otherspursuingadditionalandhigherqualificationsintheSENfield.

ThestructureofthereportThereportisstructuredusingsixmainchapterheadingsthatreflecttheareasofinvestigationduringtheresearchprocess.Theseare:

1. TherelationshipbetweenthedefinitionofSENintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSEN.

2. Training,supportanddevelopmentneeds.3. PolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusion.4. Thedeploymentofsupportstaff.5. BehaviourandSEN.6. LAsupport.

Recognisingthevarietyofpurposesthereportislikelytoserveforadiverserangeofreaders,it is structured to allow each of these areas to be accessed individually. A consequence ofadoptingastructurethatsupportsthistypeofuseisthatsomedataisnecessarilyusedinmorethanonechapterifitrelatestomorethanoneofthesixthemes.Thereportingofeachofthesesixareasfollowsastandardstructure:

• ExplorationoftheliteratureAnexplorationof recent literature (20062011) isprovidedat thestartofeachchapter.Thisservestoupdatetheoriginalliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008)andgroundthedatagatheredwithinthenationalpolicycontext.

• PresentationanddiscussionofdataDatacollected from theonlinesurveyandcasestudyvisits ispresented togetherwithdiscussionofpossibleinterpretationsandemergingthemes.

• FindingsA set of findings is presented, synthesised from responses to the survey and datagatheredfromthecasestudyvisitstoschools.

• EmergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicyEach chapter ends with an interpretative commentary that highlights and debatesemergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicyandpractice.Drawingonthe literatureandcase study and survey data, this section represents the researchers’ interpretation ofcurrentkeyissuesandisintendedtocontributetofurtherdebatebyteachers,schools,LAs,policymakersandothers.Aspartofthiscommentary,considerationisalsogiventothe fitness for purpose and potential consequences of the Green Paper Support andaspiration:anewapproachtospecialeducationalneedsanddisability(DfE,2011).Pointswithin this section should be viewed as informed by but not necessarily reflective ofteacheropinionfromtheresearch.


Methodology

ThemethodologysoughttoinvestigatethefollowingareaspertinenttotheeducationofpupilswithSEN:

1. TherelationshipbetweenthedefinitionofSENintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSEN.

2. Training,supportanddevelopmentneeds.3. PolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusion.4. Thedeploymentofsupportstaff.5. BehaviourandSEN.6. LAsupport.

Themethodologyadoptedfortheprojectinvolvedthreedistinctelements:

• Explorationofliterature.• Asurveyofteachers.• Casestudyvisitstoschools.

Thesedatasourceswereselectedforthefollowingreasons:

• Thereviewofliteratureoffersthereadertheopportunitytoaccessasynthesisofrecentliterature(20062011)sothattheyarefullyawareofthenationalpolicycontextinwhichthefindingsaregrounded.

• Thesurveydataprovidesdescriptivestatisticsobtainedfromteacherswithdifferentrolesandresponsibilitiesinavarietyofschools.SurveyquestionsweredesignedtogainviewsandopinionssurroundingissuesofSENidentification,provisionandteachertrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentinSEN,withinthelocalcontextoftheteacher’sownschool.

• Thecasestudydataseekstoexploreinmoredepthteachers’daytodayexperienceofSENissues,particularlythosethatrelatetoidentification,provisionandtraining.

Thereisaclearrationaleforplacingthesethreedatasourcestogetherinthesixinvestigativeareasoutlinedaboveand, insodoing,departingfromthemoretraditional researchreportingstyle that separates literature from both empirical data and discussion. During the researchprocess we became increasingly conscious that political, professional and personalperspectives on the complex area of SEN and inclusion were not seen as interrelated andinterdependent factorsthatallservetogether to impactontheexperiencesandoutcomesofindividualpupilswithSENandtheirparents.

PlacingthechildwithSENatthecentreofourresearchconcernsreflectsaviewthatitiscrucialfor all parties involved in the educational experience of the child to be able to access andunderstandtheperspectiveoftheothers.

ExplorationoftheliteratureThereviewofliteratureseekstoexplorethecurrentpolicydiscourseinrelationtoeachofthesixareasofinvestigation.Itcoversprimarilyrecentliterature,actingasanupdatetotheliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008)thatformedstage1oftheresearchproject.However,wherenecessarytoexploreeitheranenduringissueorthebackgroundtoanemergingissue,earlierliteratureisaccessed.Theliteraturereviewadoptsareflectiveandexploratorystance.Thepurposeisnottopresentsimplywhattheliteraturesays–readerscanaccesstheoriginalsourceforthat–buttodebateboththepossibleimplicationsforschoolsandhowtheparticularpieceofliterature


influencestheareaofresearchunderinvestigation.Inevitably,itisnotanapproachthatcanbeentirelyfreefrombias,reflectingourownperceptionsandbeliefsasresearchersintheselectionandjuxtapositionofmaterialandthesubsequentdiscussion.

ThesurveyThesurveywas intended toexplore theperspectivesofawide rangeof teachers inschoolslocatedindifferentLAsinrelationtotheexperience,interpretationandimplementationofpolicyandguidance.Theoriginalintentionwasthatthesurveywouldbesenttoschoolsin20selectedLAs.

Forcosteffectivenessandefficiency,thesurveywasdesignedtobedistributedandcompletedelectronically.Thefirstiterationofthesurveywassentbyemailtoallschoolsintheselectedareasforwhomanemailaddresswasavailable.Thisresultedinanextremelypoorresponserate,assumedtoberelatedtothefactthattheonlyavailableemailaddressformostschoolswasadmin@xxxschoolorsimilar.Itwasassumedthatinmanycasesuseofthisgenericemailaddresspreventedthesurveyreachingthetargetedrespondents.

The low response rate necessitated that the project team rethought the method of surveydistribution.ItwasagreedthroughaprojectsteeringgroupmeetingthatthesurveywouldbedistributedtoNASUWTmembersviaemail.Thisentailedsomecompromisesbutalsosomebenefits.Thetargetpopulationwasnowteachersbelongingtooneteachingunion,althoughthesurvey remained open to all teachers. To encourage wider participation, NASUWTRepresentatives in schools were sent a flyer by email that could be used to advertise theresearchtononNASUWTmembers.UsingtheNASUWT’sdistributionchannelsmeantthatthesurveywasable to reachawideraudienceandwasnot limited to just the20LAsoriginallyplanned. Though survey respondents were not asked to indicate, it is likely that due to themethodofdistributionthevastmajoritywereNASUWTmembers.

The survey was completed online, using the Bristol Online Survey (BOS) system. Separatesurveysweresenttoteachersinmainstreamandspecialschools,althoughthequestionswereidentical as far as possible, to allow for comparison. Copies of the survey are provided inAppendixA.

TotalnumberofresponsesTherewere1,555responsestotheonlinesurvey,asfollows:

Mainstreamteachers 1,295

Specialschoolteachers 242

Mainstreamheadteachers 10

Specialschoolheadteachers 8

Theresponsewasveryencouraginggiven that thiswasacomprehensivesurveyofcomplexissues.Itdemonstratesconsiderableinterestandcommitmentfromtherangeofteacherswhoresponded.Inspiteoftheencouragingresponserate,itmustberecognisedthatthisisstillasmall proportion of the teaching profession as a whole (see Appendix B). Due to the smallnumber of headteacher responses to the survey, their data has not been included, butheadteachers’viewsweredirectlysoughtduringcasestudyvisits.


AtleastoneresponsewasreceivedfromeachLAarea,withtheexceptionofBath,CamdenandMerton. The highest number of responses were received from Kent (47), Hertfordshire (46),Nottinghamshire (36) and Birmingham, Hampshire, Lancashire (34). This is likely to be areflectionofthewaythesurveywasdistributedorNASUWTrepresentationinthearearatherthanalackofinterestorparticularinterestonthepartofteachersincertainareas.

Itshouldberecognisedthatwithinasurveyofthisnaturethesampleofrespondentsislikelytobe skewed towards those who have a strong interest in issues surrounding the inclusion ofpupilswithSEN.Surveyresponseswereanonymous.

Within the report, the survey responses are generally presented as percentages for ease ofcomparison,butitshouldbeborneinmindthatthenumbersofrespondentsfrommainstreamandspecialschoolsaredifferent–5%ofmainstreamrespondentsis65,whereas5%ofspecialschoolrespondentsis12.

DemographicprofileofsurveyrespondentsThe majority of teacher respondents were female (79%), aged over 35 (71%) and had beenteachingformorethantenyears(54%).Twohundredandninespecialschoolteachers(86%)hadworkedinmainstreamschools(seeTable1).

Gender Agerange Yearsasteacher NotUKqualified

m f u25 2635

3645

4655

56+ NQT 25 610 1115

15+

Mainstreamteachers

255 1,040 76 332 308 405 174 72 280 262 179 488 14

Specialschoolteachers

66 176 4 37 62 87 52 7 26 34 35 136 4

Table1:Profileofteacherscompletingthesurvey

Theproportionofmalerespondentsfrommainstreamschoolsat19.6%isbelowtheproportionofmaleteachersinEngland(25.4%).Similarly,theproportionofmalerespondentsfromspecialschoolsat27.6%isbelowthefigureforEnglandof38%.Twentyninepercentofrespondentsinthesurveyareagedunder35,againstthefigureforEnglandof34%.At14.7%,thenumberof respondentsagedover55 is lower than theEngland figureof18%.AppendixBprovidesinformationonteachersinEngland,tosetacontextforthestudy.


Mostof the teacherswhocompletedthesurvey identified themselvesasclass teachers (seeTable2):

Roleinschool Mainstream SpecialschoolClassteacher 521 107

Subjectteacher 371 65

Headofdepartment 176 60

SENCO 144

Specialistteacher 36

Outreachteacher 16

HeadofKeyStage/KSmanager 98 14

SENsupportteacher 54

Inclusionleader/manager 46 5

Headofyear 42 1

Assistantheadteacher 38 11

Deputyheadteacher 37 9

Other(s) 138

Table2:Rolesofthosecompletingthesurvey

Typeofschoolsreflected(mainstreamteachersurvey)Thelargestgroupofrespondentsfrommainstreamschools(53%)werefromsecondaryschools.Just over 40% were from the primary phase (primary, junior, infant). The distribution ofrespondentsisshowninTable3.

Typeofschool Number PercentageInfant 36 2.8

Junior 56 4.3

Primary 434 33.5

Middle 25 1.9

Secondary 686 53.0

Academy 7 0.5

Sixthformcollege 3 0.2

Other 48 3.7

Table3:Typesofschoolreflectedinthemainstreamsurvey

FiguresfromtheNASUWTsuggestthattheproportionofresponsesfromprimary,secondaryandspecialschoolsbroadlyreflectstheirmembershipprofile.

ThecasestudiesThe methodology for the case study element of the research was based on the intention ofvisiting20schools,consistingoffiveschoolsineachoffourLAs.WithineachLA,twosecondaryschools,twoprimaryschoolsandonespecialschoolweretobevisited,withsixmembersofstaffbeinginterviewedfromeachschool.


Case study methodology was designed to build upon survey findings in terms of providingillustrativeexamplesofteachers’experienceofSENandinclusionintheirownschoolsettings.Itwasacknowledgedatthestartoftheresearchthat,duetocostandtime,casestudydatawasnotgoingtoprovidearepresentativesampleofrespondentsintermsoftypeofschoolandLA.SelectionofasmallsampleofLAswasinitiallybasedonthemhavingdifferent‘SEN’profilesafterdatawasobtainedforallLAsintermsof:

• size;• totalSENbudget200910;• SENbudgetperpupil;• percentageofpupilswithstatements;• percentageofpupilswho failed to reachLevel4atKeyStage4Englishandmaths in

2009.

WhilethisservedtoprovidealistofpossibleLAsfromwhichtoselectasampleoffour,therewereunderstandabledifficulties insecuringpermission fromschools tocarryoutcasestudyvisits.Schoolsareexceptionallybusyandwererequiredtoreleasestafffromteachingdutiesinordertoengageininterviews.Interviewingrequiredadayineachschool.Itisalsopossiblethatsomeheadteacherswerewaryoftheconsequencesoftakingpartinanyresearchactivity.Thiswasinspiteofassurancesthatdatawouldbetreatedwithdueregardforethicalrequirementsandconfidentiality.DuetothedifficultiesinsecuringaccesstocasestudyschoolsfromselectedLAs,itwasdecidedthatopportunitysamplingwouldhavetobeemployed.Thisinvolvedaskingthefundersoftheresearch(theNASUWT)toharnesssupportfromRegionalOfficerstoidentifyandapproachpotentialcasestudyschools in theirLA.This led to theselectionof twoshirecounties, a London borough and small metropolitan borough. From the four LAs a list ofpossiblecasestudyschoolswasmadeavailabletotheresearchers.ThesewereapproachedandcasestudyvisitsineachLAweresecured.Paymentwasmadetoschoolstocoverteacherreleasetime.Eachschoolvisitinvolvedinterviewswith:

• theheadteacherand/orotherseniorleader;• theSENCO/inclusionmanager;• twoteachersrelativelynewtothepost;• twoexperiencedteachers.

Inaddition,headteachersweregiventheoptionofmakingavailableforinterviewanyotherstaffmemberthattheyconsideredtoberelevanttotheresearchproject.

Duetodifficultiesinsecuringcasestudyvisitswithintherequiredtimescale,18schoolswerevisited instead of the intended 20. This sample comprised of seven primary schools, sevensecondaryschoolsandfourspecialschools.Intotal,108schoolstaffwereinterviewed.

Interviews were conducted either with individuals or pairs, according to the headteacher’spreference. An interview schedule (see Appendix C) was used, based broadly on themesexplored within the survey. Though the schedule was used to define a trajectory for datacollection,theinterviewtooktheformofprofessionaldialogue,withavenuesof interestoftendirectedandexploredbytheinterviewee.Thoseinterviewedwereassuredthatthepurposeofthe interview was not to make a judgement about either an individual or school’s degree ofcompliancewith localandnationalpolicyandguidance,but toexplorehowsuchpolicyandguidancewasbeingexperienced,interpretedandimplemented.Typically,eachinterviewlastedbetween45minutesandanhourandwasconductedwithinarelaxedsetting.


Data was collected by the same two members of the research team in order to ensureconsistency.Interviewinginpairs,oneresearcheraskedquestionsandtheotherprioritisedtherecordingoftheinterviewees’responsesbutalsocontributedtothediscussion.

Therichinterviewdatawascollatedintothemesrelatingtothecoreresearchquestions.Thisallowed for the identification of trends obtained by recording the frequency of types ofresponsestointerviewquestions.

Itisfullyacknowledgedthatcasestudydataislimitedduetoboththesizeandselectionofthesample.However,thisshouldnotservetomarginaliseitscontributionwithintheresearchdata.Facetoface interaction with case study interviewees yielded rich data that provided a realinsightintohowteacherswereexperiencingpolicyandpracticeinrelationtoSENandinclusion.


CHAPTER1:THERELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHEDEFINITIONOFSENINTHESPECIALEDUCATIONALNEEDSCODEOFPRACTICE

ANDTHEIDENTIFICATIONOFSEN

ExplorationoftheliteratureNationalconcernsovervariabilityintheidentificationofSENOfsted’s(2010)reportTheSpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilityReview:AStatementisNotEnough found that children and young people with similar needs were not being treatedequitablyandappropriatelyandthatparentalperceptionof inconsistency in this respectwaswellfounded.Acrosseducation,healthservicesandsocialcare,andacrosstherangeofLAs,assessmentsweredifferentandthethresholdsforsecuringadditionalsupportwereatwidelyvaryinglevels.Theproportionsofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithstatementsrangedfrom0.8%to3.9%acrossall152LAs.ForpupilsidentifiedwithSENbutwithoutstatements,therangewas12.7%to29.4%forallLAsand14.6%to27.1%forthe22visited.InspectorsfrequentlyfoundthatpupilswithastatementinoneLAhadasimilarlevelofneedtothoseprovidedforatSchoolActionPlus(SA+)inanother.InspectorsfoundthatitwashelpfultoschoolswhereLAsprovidedclearguidanceandchallengedlevelsofidentificationusingaprovisionmapormatrixofneed.

However,itwasnotsomuchthedetailinthereportbutthreekeyobservationsthatattractedconsiderablemediainterest:

• “…somepupilsarebeingwronglyidentifiedashavingspecialeducationalneeds…”and“…relativelyexpensiveadditionalprovisionisbeingusedtomakeupforpoordaytodayteachingandpastoralsupport.”(Ofsted,2010,p9)

• “Some schools visited believed that identifying more pupils with special educationalneedsresultedinapositiveinfluenceontheschool’scontextualvalueaddedscore.Thisprovided an incentive for higher levels of pupils to be identified as having specialeducationalneeds.”(Ofsted,2010,p22)

• “Inlocalareaswheretheformulaforfundingschoolstookintoaccounttheproportionsofchildrenidentifiedashavingspecialeducationalneeds,thisgaveanobviousmotivationforschoolstoidentifymoresuchchildren.”(Ofsted,2010,p23)

ThepopularmediainterpretationatthetimewasthatschoolswereidentifyingpupilswithSENasawaytocompensateforpoorteachingorforgain,eitherintheleaguetablesorfinancially.Theseheadlinegrabbingelements,criticaloftheteachingprofession,detractedattentionfromindepthexplorationofissuesofvariationcontainedwithinthedocument.

The issueof variation is not newandhadalreadybeennotedbyOfsted in2004when theyobserved:

“TheinconsistencywithwhichpupilsaredefinedashavingSENcontinuestobeaconcern.Someschoolsusethetermtocoverallwhoarelowattaining,orsimplybelowaverage,onentry,whetherornotthecauseislearningdifficulty.”

(Ofsted,2004,p10)

The difference in this earlier report was in the tone and approach. Rather than seeking toapportionblameorfindamotive,Ofstedhadspeculatedontheextenttowhichdifferencesinidentificationmattered,commenting:

“Clearly, ifpupilsarenotachievingtheirpotentialthis isaconcern,regardlessofwhethertheschoolhasidentifiedthemashavingSEN.However,loosenessinthe


useoftheSENdesignationdoesnothelptofocusontheactionneededtoresolveproblemsand,intheworstcases,itcandistractschools’attentionfromdoingwhatis necessary to improve the provision they make for all low or below averageattainers.”

(Ofsted,2004,p10)

Inits2010report,Ofstedwasmoredirect,statingthattheterm‘specialeducationalneeds’wasbeingusedtoowidely.Inouroriginalliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008),wealsohighlightedtheissueofvariabilityand,importantly,thedifferentinterpretativelayersthatcontributedtothis.WemadethepointthattheLAinterpretsnationalpolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionanddevelops systems and processes. Schools then interpret these systems and processes todevelop their own practice. Most importantly, however, we suggested that the term ‘specialeducational needs’ was highly interpretable and so variability in identification was to beexpected.

IntermsofhowschoolswereidentifyingSEN,Ofsted(2010)foundthataroundhalftheschoolsand early years provision visited used low attainment and relatively slow progress as theirprincipal indicator. In nearly a fifth of these cases, there was very little further assessment.Inspectors reported that some schools they visited had identified pupils as SEN when theirneedswerenodifferentfromthoseofmostotherpupils.Thereportsuggestedthatthesepupils‘wereunderachievingbutthiswassometimessimplybecausetheschool’smainstreamteachingprovisionwasnotgoodenough,andexpectationsofthepupilsweretoolow.’(Ofsted,2010,p9)

Ofsted (2010) suggested that the apparent incorrect identification of pupils with SEN coulddilutethefocusonoverallschoolimprovement.InspectorsfoundthatsomeschoolsfocusedonprovidingadditionalhelpforpupilswithidentifiedSENratherthanonimprovingthequalityoftheirstandardofferforallpupils.Insomeoftheirvisitstoschools,inspectorsreportedmeetingpupils ‘whowereprovidedwithsignificantadditionalsupportwhoseneedscouldandshouldhave been met by appropriately differentiated teaching, good learning and pastoral supportearlieron.’(Ofsted,2010,p22).

Returning to themes from their 2004 report, Ofsted (2010) noted that in some of the lesseffectiveschoolsvisitedthisoveridentificationcontributedtoloweringexpectationsforchildrenand young people. It was suggested that having identified pupils with SEN based on lowattainmentandrelativelyslowprogress,someproviderssawthepupil’sSENasa reason forcontinuedlowattainmentorslowprogress.ThustheSENlabelwasbeingusedtoexplain,andpossiblyjustify,whythepupilmightmakelimitedprogress.ThoughOfstedacknowledgedthattheproviderstheyvisitedgenerallywantedtohaveaccesstotherightsupporttohelpchildrenand young people achieve more, they also suggested that ‘in too many cases there was acultureofexcuses.’(Ofsted,2010,p22).AsimilarobservationismadewithintheLambInquiry(2009) through reference to Sir Alan Steer’s (2009a) view that ‘identifying high numbers ofchildren as having SEN may be unhelpful, may in some ways act as an excuse for lowattainmentandmaydrawattentionaway fromwhat theschoolneeds todo toenable thosechildrentolearnandprogress.’(Lamb,2009,p25).

Concerns expressed were not just restricted to those pupils considered to be unnecessarilyidentified.Thereportsuggestedthattherewasinsufficientdiscriminationintheapplicationofthe term ‘SEN’ that risked diverting attention from those who were in need of a range ofspecialistsupport. Interestingly,Ofstedalsobegan toquestion theutilityof the term ‘specialeducational needs’, querying whether, in the case of children and young people who need


complexandspecialist support fromhealthandother services toenable them to thriveanddevelop,theterm‘educationalneeds’alwaysaccuratelyreflectedtheirsituation.Ofsted’sviewwasthattherewasaneedto:

“…notonlymoveawayfromthecurrentsystemofcategorisationofneedsbutalsostarttothinkcriticallyaboutthewaytermsareused.”

(Ofsted,2010,p9)

Inadditiontothenumerouscriticalfindings,Ofsted(2010)recognisedsomecommonfeaturesofgoodpracticeinassessmentandidentification:

• carefulanalysisofprogressanddevelopmentmadebyallchildrenandyoungpeople;• accurateevaluationofthequalityofprovision,bothacademicandpastoral,offeredtoall

childrenandyoungpeople;• staffwhocouldidentifyfrequentlyfoundlearningdifficulties;• clear thresholds and referral routes to different services with higher levels of specific

expertise;• goodunderstandingofthethresholdsforreferralusedbydifferentservices;• assessmentswithpartnerservicescarriedoutswiftlyandinastreamlinedway,working

withingoodlocalprotocols;• assessmentsaccessibleforchildren,youngpeople,parentsandfamilies;• trustinpreviousassessments,builtuponinaformativeway.

Again returning to a theme from their 2004 report, Ofsted tackled the question of whetherinconsistencyintheidentificationofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithSEN,atanyofthethreelevels of School Action, School Action Plus and a statement of SEN, actually matters. Theirfindingssuggested:

• yes,ifthestandardofferofeducationorcareisinsufficientlyadaptedforfrequentlyfoundneeds;

• yes,ifsuchidentificationistheonlywayparentsandschoolscangainaccesstoexpertiseorsupportfromarangeof‘inhouse’orexternalservices;

• yes, ifSENordisabilityareusedasareasonfor lowerexpectationsandanexcuseforpooroutcomes;

• no, if the total package of services and support is appropriately customised to eachpupil’sindividualneeds;

• no, if theprovision that follows identification is, inanycase,ofpoorqualityand isnoteffective.

(Ofsted,2010,p24)

Ofsted(2010)foundthatwhenapupilwasidentifiedashavingSENatSchoolActionlevel,thisusuallyledtosomeadditionalhelpfromwithintheschool.WhenachildwasidentifiedashavingSENatSchoolActionPlus,orespeciallywithastatement,thisusuallyledtotheallocationoffurtheradditionalresourcesfromwithinandoutsidetheschool.TheissueforOfsted,however,wasthequalityoftheprovisionandtheimpactonpupils.Theadditionalprovisionwasoftennotofgoodqualityanddidnotleadtosignificantlybetteroutcomesforthechildoryoungperson.ItwassuggestedthatforsomepupilsidentifiedforsupportatSchoolActionleveltheadditionalprovision often fulfilled a compensatory role, making up for poor wholeclass teaching orpastoral support. Even for pupils at School Action Plus level and with statements, Ofstedreportedthattheprovisionwasoftennotmeetingtheirneedseffectively,‘eitherbecauseitwasnotappropriateornotofgoodqualityorboth’(2010,p7).ThoughthestatementofSENmeantthatthepupilwaslikelytoreceivetheserviceprescribedwithinit,thestatementinitselfdidnotmeanthattheircurrentneedswerebeingmet.


ExploringthereasonsforvariabilityWithintheOfsted(2010)reportthereisastrongimplicationthatschoolsand,tosomeextent,LAs are making mistakes in identification. The comment that ‘despite extensive statutoryguidancetheconsistencyof the identificationofspecialeducationalneedsvariedwidely,notonlybetweendifferentlocalareasbutalsowithinthem’(Ofsted,2010,p7)carriesthesensethat,despitebeingtoldclearlyhowtoidentifySEN,schoolsaregettingitwrong.Underpinningthiscomment,however,isanassumptionthatthe‘extensivestatutoryguidance’(Ofsted,2010,p7)contributestoclarity.Withinouroriginalliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008),wenotedLambeandBones’(2006)referencetoadditiveandgenerativemodelsofinclusion.Agenerativeapproachinvolves starting afresh, having determined to pursue an inclusive approach. In contrast, anadditivemodelisonewherechangesaremadetoexistingsystemsandstructures.InEngland,theapproachadoptedhas largelybeenadditive.WhentheLabourgovernmentexpresseditscommitmenttoinclusioninExcellenceforallchildren(DfEE,1997)itsetaboutrevisingexistingpolicyandguidancetoreflectthisinclusiveorientation.Suchanapproachcancausedifficultiesas theamendeddocuments frequently reflect theattitudes, valuesandprioritiesof a formertime.Lamb,whoseinquiryweconsiderlater,noted:

“TheeducationsystemislivingwithalegacyofatimewhenchildrenwithSENwereseenasuneducable.Toooftentheyarestillsettheleastdemandingchallenges.Wefound many examples where disabled children and children with SEN weresidelinedratherthanchallengedtobethebestthattheycouldpossiblybe.”

(Lamb,2009,p2)

Inexplainingthecomplexityoftheissuessurroundingidentificationandtheinevitablevariationthathasresulted,thehistoryofspecialeducationcannotbeignored.Historically,emphasiswasplacedinitiallyonamedicalmodelofdisabilityanddifference.Thisisevidentinthedefinitionoftheofficialcategoryof ‘feebleminded’usedatthestartofthe20thcentury,whichdescribessuchchildrenassufferingfrom:

“…suchanincompletecerebraldevelopmentthattheyarebehindotherchildren,atthesameageandstation in life, inmindandconduct,anddonotprofitbytheirenvironmentandbyeducationtothesameextentasaveragechildren.”

(Hollander,1916,p46)

Withinapolicyandculturalcontextwherethebeliefwasthatthedifficultyresidedentirelywithintheindividualandthepurposeofidentificationwastodeterminewhetherthatindividualshouldbeplacedinaspecialfacilityornot,suchadefinitionpresentsfewproblems.Essentially,thedefinitionisfocusingonhowthepupilpresentsandwhethertheycancopewiththesamesortof environment and education provided for a typical child. Although terminology changedthroughthe20thcentury(seeEllisetal.,2008),itwasaperioddominatedbythemedicalmodelandtheassociatedfocusonindividualdeficit.

The adoption of a policy of integration following the 1981 Education Act and subsequentlyinclusion in1997ledtoan increasingfocusonthenatureofthe learningenvironment,tothepointwherethe2001CodeofPracticesuggests:

“Theassessmentprocessshouldalwaysbefourfold.Itshouldfocusonthechild’slearningcharacteristics, the learningenvironment that theschool isproviding forthe child, the task and the teaching style. It should be recognised that somedifficulties in learning may be caused or exacerbated by the school’s learningenvironment or adult/child relationships. This means looking carefully at such


matters as classroom organisation, teaching materials, teaching style anddifferentiationinordertodecidehowthesecanbedevelopedsothatthechildisenabledtolearneffectively.”

(DfES,2001,p44)

IdentificationofSENbecomesamorecomplexandsubjectiveprocessoncethisapproachisadopted. Within the Code’s description of a fourfold assessment process, there isacknowledgementthatthechildbringssomethingtothesituation,expressedhereintermsof‘learningcharacteristics’,butthatthedegreeofdifficultyexperiencedisalsoinfluencedbyallaspectsoftheenvironment.Nolongerisidentificationsolelybasedonhowthepupilpresentsandwhether theycancopewith thesamesortofenvironmentandeducationprovided foratypicalchild.Thesuggestionisthattheaspectsoftheenvironmentneedtochange;thismeansthatanindividualschool’swillingnessandabilitytodevelopitsownpracticebecomevariablesindeterminingwhetherapupilcanbeconsideredtohaveSEN.

Despitethis,theformaldefinitionofSENstillreferstopupilshavingalearningdifficultydefinedintermsof‘asignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage’andarequirementfor‘specialeducationalprovision’definedintermsof‘additionalto,orotherwisedifferent from, theeducationalprovisionmadegenerally forchildrenof theirage inschoolsmaintainedbytheLEA,otherthanspecialschools,inthearea’(DfES,2001,p6).Thoughthephrasesaredifferent,theunderlyingcriteriaexpressedareverysimilartoHollander’s(1916)definitionoffeebleminded,eventhoughthiscamefromaverydifferentperiodinthehistoryofspecialeducation.Assoonascontextandconditionsarerecognisedasvariablesthatcanandshouldbeconsideredandmanipulated, thenotionof ‘educationalprovisionmadegenerally’loses clarity and relevance in the identification process. As schools develop their inclusivepractice,somepracticethatwasonceconsidered‘additionalto,orotherwisedifferent’(DfES,2001,p6)becomesstandardand‘partoftheschool’susualdifferentiatedcurriculumofferandstrategies’(DfES,2001,p52)andnolongeranindicatorofSEN.Ofsted(2010)highlightedthisissueintheircommentthat:

“Nearly one fifth of the schools visited suggested that they provided manyinterventions that could be considered ‘additional’ and ‘different’ when, in otherschools,suchprovisionwasregardedasthenorm.”

(Ofsted,2010,p40)

Arguably, the current difficulties in identification have been ‘stored up’ by the reliance on adefinition of SEN that has its origins a long time before the commitment to integration andsubsequentlyinclusion.Schoolsarefacedwithhavingtomakeapproximatejudgementsbasedon:

• a degree of difficulty in learning, which the Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) coversdescriptivelyratherthanintermsofspecificperformanceindicators;and

• anappraisalofwhetherwhattheyneedtoprovideforthepupilissufficiently‘additionaltoorotherwisedifferentfrom’(DfES,2001,p6)whatotherschoolsmightprovidetobeconstruedas‘specialeducationalprovision’(DfES,2001,p6).

ThefirstpointisdependentonaninterpretationoftheCode’sdescriptionoftriggersforSchoolActionandSchoolActionPlus.Thesecondpointmayreflecttheextenttowhichanindividualschool’sinclusivepracticehasevolvedratherthanthepupil’slevelofdifficulty.


Far from being a secure reference point that contributes to consistency in identification, theCodeofPractice (DfES,2001) includesnumerous interpretablephrasessuchas ‘significantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage’,‘educationalprovisionmadegenerallyforchildrenoftheirage’,‘additionalanddifferent’,‘inadequateprogress’,‘theschool’s usual differentiated curriculum offer and strategies’ and ‘differentiated learningopportunities’ that are not conducive to consistency. Though Ofsted suggested thatidentificationofSENvariedwidelydespiteextensivestatutoryguidance,itcouldbearguedthatitisthenatureoftheguidanceitselfthathascontributedsignificantlytothisinconsistency.

Aspreviouslynoted,Ofstedhadcommentedonvariationsinschools’useoftheterm‘specialeducationalneeds’intheir2004reportthroughtheirobservationthat:

“Someschoolsuse the term tocoverallwhoare lowattaining,orsimplybelowaverage,onentry,whetherornotthecauseislearningdifficulty.”

(Ofsted,2004,p10)

Within this comment there is an implicit assumption that a learning difficulty can be clearlydefinedandthatbeinglowattainingisnotarelevantfactor.TheCodeofPracticedefinitionofSENoffersarathertautologicaldefinitionofwhatconstitutesalearningdifficulty,statingthat:

“Childrenhavealearningdifficultyifthey…haveasignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage.”

(DfES,2001,p6)

Intermsofidentifyingwhetherachildhasasignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthanotherpupilsof the sameage, their attainmentwould seem tobequite a sensible referencepoint.However,itisinterpretablehowlowattainmentwouldneedtobebeforeitcouldbeconsideredevidenceofasignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearning.

Lamb’s(2009)pointreferredtoearlierregardingthe legacyofatimewhenchildrenwithSENwereseenasuneducableisrelevantinrelationtoexpectationsoftheachievementofpupilswithSEN. The language of the Code of Practice is focused on difficulty and failure. As alreadyindicated, the definition of a learning difficulty refers to ‘a significantly greater difficulty inlearningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage.’(DfES,2001,p6).IfteacherslookfurtherintotheCodeformoreguidanceonidentification,theyencounterthesuggestionthat:

“Thekeytestoftheneedforactionisevidencethatcurrentratesofprogressareinadequate.Thereshouldnotbeanassumptionthatallchildrenwillprogressatthesamerate.Ajudgementhastobemadeineachcaseastowhatitisreasonabletoexpect a particular child to achieve. Where progress is not adequate, it will benecessarytotakesomeadditionalordifferentactiontoenablethepupil to learnmoreeffectively.”

(DfES,2001,p52)

GiventhatSENisdefinedintermsofa‘significantlygreaterdifficultyinlearning’andnotionsofinadequateprogress,itseemsparadoxicalthatthereisongoingconcern(e.g.DfES,2005a,DfE,2011) regarding the underachievement of pupils with SEN. Underachievement is entirelyconsistentwith thecriteria set for identification;presumably, if thepupilwasachieving, theycouldnotbeviewedasmakingprogressthatwasinadequate.ToengageinsuchspeculationrunstheriskofaccusationsofacceptinglowexpectationsofpupilswithSEN.However,suchaccusationsmissthepoint.The issue isnotwhetherteachersshouldbeconcernedoverthe


progressofpupilswithSEN.Itis,ofcourse,entirelyappropriatetoexpectallpupils,includingthosewithSEN,tomakeprogressfromtheirownstartingpointsandforteacherstointervenewheresuchprogress isnotmade.The issueunderscrutiny is thecoexistenceofaCodeofPracticethatemphasiseseducationaldifficultiesandnotionsofinadequateprogressasdefiningfeaturesofSENalongsidepolicyandguidancethatregularlyremarkscriticallywhenthegroupofchildrendefinedinthiswayunderachieve.

TheSENGreenPaper(DfE,2011)OfstedreportedinSeptember2010,aftertheCoalitionGovernmenthadcomeintooffice.Thereviewhadbeencommissionedbythepreviousgovernment‘toevaluatehowwellthelegislativeframeworkandarrangementswereservingdisabledchildrenandyoungpeopleandthosewhoave special educational needs.’ (Ofsted, 2010, p5). The Coalition Government’s 2011 GreenPaperSupportandaspiration:anewapproachtospecialeducationalneedsanddisability(DfE,2011)hasshiftedthediscoursefromvariationsinidentificationtoanissueofoveridentificationof SEN. This is not a new concern for policy makers. In his foreword to the Green PaperExcellence for all children, David Blunkett commented that ‘as our policies take effect, theproportion of secondary age children whom schools need to identify as having SEN shouldmovecloserto10%’(DfEE,1997,p12).ThereplacementoftheoriginalCodeofPractice’s(DfE,1994a)threeschoolbasedstageswithSchoolActionandSchoolActionPluscouldbeseenasameansofremovingthosepupilsrecordedatStage1fromschools’SENregisters.TherevisedCode of Practice (DfES, 2001) made clear that differentiation was part of standard teachingratherthananindicatorthatthepupilhadSEN.Inreality,thischangeintheschoolbasedstagesmademinimal impactontheoverallnumbersofpupilsrecordedashavingSEN.In2006,theHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommitteestated thataround1.45millionchildrenwerecategorisedashavingsomesortofSENinEnglandin2005–18%ofallpupils.The2011GreenPaperstatesthatinJanuary201021%oftheschoolpopulationwereidentifiedashavingSEN.

The 2011 Green Paper sees replacing School Action and School Action Plus with a singlecategoryofSENasthesolutiontobothvariationandperceivedoveridentification.Thishasthepotential to radically reduce the number of pupils recorded as having SEN by removing asignificantproportionofthosecurrentlyclassifiedbyschoolsasSchoolAction.

PresentationanddiscussionofdataAstheprecedingsectionhighlights,theidentificationofSENhasbeenthesubjectofongoingdebatedue to variability in identification ratesbetweenLAsandbetween individual schools.BoththesurveyandthecasestudyinterviewsexploredhowschoolsweredeterminingwhetherornotapupilhadSEN.

Mainstream survey respondents were provided with the Special Educational Needs Code ofPracticedefinitionofSENandaskedhowhelpfultheyfoundit.Twentyeightpercentsaidthedefinitionwashelpfuland32%unhelpful,33%wereambivalentand6%saidtheyhadnotseenit.Theproportionsaying thedefinitionwashelpfulwas thesame forprimaryandsecondaryteachers (28%). Of those who had not seen the definition, slightly more (in relation to totalpopulation)weremale(25%),34%werenewlyqualifiedteachersorhadbeenqualifiedlessthanfiveyearsand30%hadbeenqualifiedmorethan15years.

Thirtyninepercentofmainstreamrespondentssaidthatthisdefinitioninformedtheirschool’sidentificationofpupilswithSEN,33%saiditdidnotand27%wereunsure.Ahigherproportionofprimary respondentssaid thedefinition informedtheirschool’s identificationofpupilswith


SEN(45%comparedwith34%secondary)andahigherproportionofsecondaryrespondentswerenotsure(34%comparedwith19%primary).

MainstreamrespondentswereaskedtoindicatewhichcriteriafromaprovidedlistapupilwouldhavetomeettobeidentifiedashavingSEN(seeTable1.1).Themajority(83.2%)ofrespondentsindicatedthattheonecriterionapupilwouldhavetomeettobeidentifiedistheformaldefinitionofSENfromtheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPractice(DfES,2001).Thiswasfollowedby‘hasadiagnosisorlabel(e.g.dyslexia,autism)’,whichwasidentifiedasanecessarycriterionby70.3%.

CriteriausedforidentifyingSENInmyschoolapupilwouldhavetomeetthiscriterionbeforeweidentifiedthemashavingSEN:

Criterion Yes No Notsure% % %

Lowattainingcomparedwithothersintheirclass/school

45.1 42 12.9

Lowattainingcomparedwithnationalexpectationsforpupilsoftheirage

53.3 35.4 11.3

Hasalearningdifficultywhichcallsforspecialeducationalprovisiontobemadeforthem3

83.2 12 4.8

Hasadiagnosisorlabel(e.g.dyslexia,autism) 70.3 25.3 4.4

Requiressupportinlessonsfromateachingassistant

46.3 46.7 6.9

Regularlyrequiresdifferentiatedwork 48.2 42.9 8.9

Regularlydisruptstherestoftheclass 36.2 53.9 9.9

Table1.1Mainstreamteachers’viewsoncriteriaapupilwouldhavetomeetbeforebeingidentifiedashavingSEN

RespondentscouldselectmorethanoneofthecriteriashowninTable1.1asnecessarybeforeapupilwasidentifiedashavingSEN.ThespreadofresponsesinTable1.1servestoillustratethatthoughthemajorityofrespondentsindicatedthattheformalCodeofPracticedefinitionwasacriterionthathadtobemet,arangeofothercriteriawasalsobeingusedinsomeschools,alongsideorinsteadoftheformaldefinition.Itisperhapstobeexpectedthatjudgementsaboutwhether a pupil met the formal definition of SEN would be informed by other criteria. Forexample, ‘lowattaining compared with national expectations for pupils of their age’ wasidentifiedasanecessarycriteria(seeTable1.1)byoverhalfofthesurveyrespondents.OnlytheformaldefinitionofSENandadiagnosisor‘label’attractedhigherpercentages.Anumberoftheresponse options available could be seen as indicative of a greater difficulty in learning orrepresentativeofspecialeducationalprovision.

Inorder to explorehowcentral the formaldefinitionwas to the identificationof thepupil ashaving SEN, teachers were asked which of the criteria alone would lead to a pupil beingidentifiedashavingSEN(seeTable1.2).

3TheCodeofPractice(DfES,2001),definitionofSEN


CriteriausedforidentifyingSENAnyofthecriteriathatalonewouldbesufficientforyourschooltoidentifyapupilashavingSEN

Criterion Yes No Notsure% % %


29.8 55.2 15


34 50.1 15.9

Hasalearningdifficultywhichcallsforspecialeducationalprovisiontobemadeforthem

84.4 7.3 8.3

Hasadiagnosisorlabel(e.g.dyslexia,autism) 81.2 11.4 7.3


39.2 48 12.8

Regularlyrequiresdifferentiatedwork 32.5 53.6 13.9

Regularlydisruptstherestoftheclass 33.7 52.6 13.7

Table1.2Mainstreamteachers’viewsoncriteriathatalonewouldbesufficientfortheschooltoidentifyapupilashavingSEN

Themajority (84.4%)said thathaving ‘a learningdifficultywhichcalls forspecialeducationalprovision tobemade for them’wassufficient forapupil tobe identifiedashavingSEN.For81.2%,having‘adiagnosisorlabel(e.g.dyslexia,autism)’wassufficient.

Though the majority of respondents have highlighted what might be viewed as the ‘right’responses,ofgreaterinterestintermsofnationalconcernsoverconsistencyintheidentificationofSENisthespreadofothercriteriathatalonewouldapparentlyleadtheschooltoidentifythepupilashavingSEN.

ThesurveydatasetoutinTables1.1and1.2doessuggestthatschoolsareusingarangeofcriteria to identifychildrenwithSENwhilestayingbroadly loyal toboth theCodeofPracticedefinitionandthemoretraditionalmedicaliseddefinitionrelatingtothechildhavingadiagnosisor label.Thisprovidessomeexplanationforthevariation in identification identifiedbyOfsted(2010).

At the timeof thecasestudy interviews,schoolswereawareofgovernmentconcernsaboutvariabilityandoveridentificationofSEN,havingbeenalertedbymediareports.Intervieweesfullyaccepted that there was variability in identification between schools in their LA but whendescribing theirexperiences itwasclear that theCodeofPracticedefinitiondidnotprovidesufficientguidancetoaddresstheidentificationdilemmastheyexperiencedintheirdaytodayteaching.Thefollowingexamplesillustratethis:

“It’snoteasy(i.e.identification)asasubjectteacher.Ihavechildrenwithverylowliteracyandlowattention–theyareverydifficulttoteach,butaretheySEN?Idon’tknow.Do theyneedextrasupport?Yes.Havewegot that?No.Do theydisruptothers?Yes.”

(Secondarymodernforeignlanguages(MFL)teacher)


“I have students who don’t have SEN but who cannot access the curriculumbecausetheyhavedifficultywithattentionandengagement,soIhavetoask,‘Isthereaspecificreasonforthis?Oraretheyjustlowachieving?’”

(Secondaryteacher)

These teachers’confusionand reluctanceaboutusing ‘lowachieving’asacriterion forSENidentification is important,suggestingadegreeofawarenessofOfsted’scriticismofschoolsthat use SEN to denote children who are ‘lowattaining, or simply below average, on entry,whetherornot thecause is learningdifficulty.’ (Ofsted,2004,p10).However, theirconfusioncannotbeattributed to lackofcompetenceor flagrantdisregard for theSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticebecausetherewasanoverwhelmingconsensusfromintervieweesthatthepurposeforidentificationofSENwassothatthechildcouldgettheprovisiontheyneedtomakeprogress.

TheCodeofPractice’s(DfES,2001,p6)referenceto‘asignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthan the majority of pupils of their same age’ and the advice that the ‘key test for action isevidencethat thecurrentratesofprogressare inadequate’ (DfES,2011,p69)wouldseemtosupporttheneedforteacherstomakeuseofattainmenttestingandratesofprogress intheidentificationofSEN.However,anoverarchingandongoingGovernmentconcerninrelationtoSENistheunderachievementofpupilswithSEN(e.g.DfES,2005a,DfE,2011).Teachersareexperiencing the paradox of using significant discrepancies in attainment from agerelatednormsandnotionsofinadequateprogresstoidentifySENwhileatthesametimebeingtoldthatSENisnotanexcuseforlowachievement(DfE,2011).Whileitisacknowledgedthattheremaybesomeinterpretationintheterm‘significant’,oneheadteachernoted:

“IwantmySENstomakebetterprogressthantheywouldinotherschoolsbutyoucan’tmakeanentrylevel2childmakethesameendpointasanentryLevel4.”

(Headteacher–secondary)

Anothercommented:

“WeneedtochallengetheassumptionofunderachievementofSENasitisbloodyobviousinmaths,science,EnglishandMFL.”


CasestudydatafoundthatcriteriausedtoidentifySENincludedtheuseofattainmenttestsandprogress profiles that would identify pupils who were lowattaining compared with nationalexpectationsforpupilsoftheirage.

ThemainpurposeforteachersinretainingtheSENcategorywassothatchildrencouldgetwhatthey needed and to facilitate all staff having an increased focus on monitoring their rate ofprogress.Withinthesurveytherewasonlylimitedsupportfromrespondents(mainstream10%andspecialschool12%)fortheabandonmentoftheterm‘SEN’andassociatedprocedures.There was rather more support though for the SEN Code of Practice to be revised (35%mainstream,47%special).

Given that teachers interviewed considered that one of the main purposes for specialeducationalneeds identificationrelatestoprovision, itmakessenseto judgetheirpractice inidentificationofSENagainst ‘triggers for intervention’citedwithin theSENCodeofPracticeGuidance.Theseinclude:

• “showssignsofdifficultyindevelopingliteracyormathematicsskillswhichresultinpoorattainmentinsomecurriculumareas”;


• “presentspersistentemotionalorbehaviouraldifficultieswhicharenotamelioratedbythebehaviourmanagementtechniquesusuallyemployedintheschool”;

• “has communication and/or interaction difficulties, and continues to make little or noprogressdespitetheprovisionofspecialistequipment”.

(DfES,2001,p52forprimaryandDfES,2001,p68forsecondary)

From a teacher’s perspective, if a pupil is significantly lowattaining, then that pupil couldreasonablybeconstruedtohavea‘learningdifficulty’whenplacedinthegroupsettingoftheclassinwhichtheyarerequiredtomakeprescribedlevelsofprogressinpredominantlyliteracybasedsubjects.

In listening to teachers’ dilemmas in deciding whether a pupil has SEN, it can be seen thatvariability in identificationratesisnotonlyunderstandablebut inevitableoncetheindividual’sneedsareconsideredinrelationto:

• thegroupcontextinwhichtheyareplaced;• thefeasibilityofprovidingdifferentiationtomeetthediverseneedsoftheclass;• thepace,levelandnatureofcurricularlearningdemands;• theavailabilityofadditionalsupport.

CasestudydatasuggestedthatteachersandtheirLAscontinuedtoplaceparticularcredenceonamedicalisedmodelofidentificationinwhich‘withinchild’constitutional,biologicalfactorsautomaticallyleadtoanidentificationofSEN.Thiswasoftenirrespectiveofwhetherthepupileitherneededorcouldbegivenadditionalprovision.Teachers’comments reflected that it iseasier to identify pupils who have an underlying ‘medical’ condition than to make decisionsaboutwhetherornotapupilwhoisnotmakingprogressshouldbecategorisedashavingSEN.Anumberofcommentsillustratedthispoint:

“Dyslexiaiseasytoidentify.”(Inclusionmanager–secondaryschool)

“SENidentificationgivesmeanexplanation–likedyslexiaorASD–butMLDisnotanexplanation.SEBD…that’sdifferentbecausethereisnoeasyanswer.”

(Subjectteacher–secondary)

“Idon’tlikelabellingpersebutadiagnosisisuseful.”(Primaryteacher)

Thecontinuedpracticeofplacingpriorityonmedicalisedratherthanenvironmentalmodelsofidentificationcanbeunderstood in termsof thehistoryof special education.Theuseof thephrase‘rootcause’withinthe2011GreenPaper(DfE,2011,p70)reinforcesthenotionthatthereare identifiable,and reliable,diagnosticcriteria thatcanserve to reducevariabilitywithin theapplicationof the term ‘learningdifficulty’andwhicharecentral to the identificationofSEN.However,althoughteachersappeartofeelmoreconfidentinidentifyingSENbasedonalabelor diagnosis from a medical practitioner or psychologist, it does not solve their problem inmeetingthe learningneedsofchildrenwhose learningdifficultiescan largelybeattributedtoenvironmentalfactors.Asoneteachernoted:

“WeneedtoidentifybehaviourproblemsbutoftenthesepupilsarenotSEN.”(Subjectteacher–secondary)


Another influenceof themedicalmodelemergedduringdiscussionswith teachers, includingthosefromspecialschools,aboutthecriteriaforstatementingchildrenwithSEN.TherewasaconsensusviewacrossallschoolsthatitwasbecomingmoredifficulttogetastatementofSEN,withthosepupilsplaced inspecialschoolsreflectingahigh levelofcomplexneeds,suchaspupils with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD) and ASD with challengingbehaviour. Of particular concern was the difficulty in getting a statement for pupils withsignificantBESD.Oneheadteacherfromaspecialschoolobserved:

“Statemented children have become more complex and you cannot get astatementforSEBDunlessit’smedical.”

Thisheadteacherexplainedthatby‘medical’theymeantpupilssuchasthosewithadiagnosisofASDorChildandAdolescentMentalHealthService(CAMHS)involvement.ThisheadteacherconfirmedthattherehadbeenadirectivefromtheLAonthisstance.AsecondarySENCOtoldus:“Thebarhasbeenraised,”inrelationtosecuringastatement.

Althoughthereiscontinueduseofmedicalisedmodelsfor identificationofSEN,acautionarynotewasprovidedbyaspecialschoolheadteacherwhonoted,whendiscussingprovisionforstatementedpupils:

“IfyouthinkofanSENchildinmedicalterms,youarenotgoingtogetanywhere–youneedtothinkineducationalterms.”

(Headteacher–specialschool)

Someofthespecialschoolstaffinterviewed,particularlythosewhowerecurrentlyworkinginorhadworkedinschoolswithanoriginaldesignationof‘MLD’,reportedexperiencingachangeinpupilpopulation,withthebalanceofintakesshiftingtowardsmoresevereandcomplexneeds,includingsignificantlychallengingbehaviour.Thiswasaviewreflectedinthesurvey.Sixtyninepercentofspecialschoolrespondentsfeltthatpupilshadmoresignificant/complexbehaviouraldifficultiesthanwasthecasefiveyearsago.Thischangeinthespecialschoolpupilpopulationis likely tobea result of thepolicyof inclusionpursuedandmainstreamschools’ increasedcapacitytoincludepupilswithhigherlevelneeds.

TherewasacceptancefromcasestudyrespondentsthatidentificationratesvaryandrecognitionthatsomeschoolswithinthesameLAand/orcatchmentareahadhigheridentificationratesthanothers.Headteachers,SENCOsandsomeclass teachers interviewedwereaware frommediacoveragethatOfsted’s(2010)Thespecialeducationalneedsanddisabilityreviewhadhighlightedconcern that teachers were overidentifying SEN. However, there was consensus fromintervieweesthatthiswasnotduetopervasivereasonssuchasincreasedCVAscoresorfundingbenefits.WhilstacknowledgingthatitcouldaffectCVA,itwasalsonotedthat:

“It’sapostcodelottery.WedohavemoreSENpupilsthanthenationalaverage–thisimpactsonourCVA–butthedownside(ofhavinghighnumbersofSEN)isthatit brings with it behavioural issues and affects AC grades. Ofsted have nowbecomemoreconcernedwithperformancethanprogress.”


In relation tobudgetbenefits thatmightbeassociatedwithmaintainingahighproportionofpupilsontheSENregister,oneheadteacherobserved:

“Youdon’tseeHTsquaffingchampagneon theirSENbudgets– italwayscostsmoretoprovideforourSENthanwegetabudgetfor.”



Anumberof teachers,particularly thosewithspecific responsibility forSEN,andEarlyYearspractitionersnotedthatwithingoodSENpracticestherewasaneedforearlyidentificationandintervention.ReferringtoOfsted’s(2010)widelyreportedcriticismofschools,onerespondentcommented:

“Wehavetobeconcernedwithearlyidentificationandtreatment,sohowdoesthisfitwithoveridentification?”


ThiscommentreflectsaviewthatearlyidentificationhasthepotentialtohighlightpupilswhomaynotturnouttohaveSENbutmaybeexperiencingsometransitorydifficulties.Thereisadegreeofconflictbetweenthegovernmentexpressingconcernatapparentoveridentificationwhilstatthesametimeemphasisingtheimportanceofearlyidentification.

FormanyheadteachersandSENCOs,issuesofidentificationratesforSENwereseenwithintheoverallcontextoftheincreasingdiversityoftheirintake,oftenduetosocialandculturalfactors,policydirectivesforinclusionandincreasedpressurestoreduceattainmentgapsandtacklelowachievement. Highlighting the number of different groups schools need to identify, onerespondentcommented:

“We now have LAC, SEN, vulnerable, G&T, BEM, FSM to identify and there isoverlap–theyallhaveneedsandtheyallneedidentification.”

(SENCO–largesecondaryschool)

Interestingly,althoughteachersacceptedthattheidentificationofSENwassubjecttovariabilityand were able to describe their dilemmas in deciding whether or not a child should becategorised as SEN, the majority (76.8%) of mainstream survey respondents expressedconfidenceintheirabilitytoidentifytheirpupils’learningneeds.ThisconfidencegapbetweenidentificationofSENandidentifyinglearningneedsisunderstandablegiventhatallteachersareinvolvedinthelatterbutonlysomehaveresponsibilityfordeterminingwhetherapupilshouldbecategorisedashavingSEN.

All thosewith leadershipresponsibility forcompilingSENregisters,usuallyheadteachersandSENCOs, were confident about how they identified SEN, irrespective of whether theiridentification rateswereconsidered tobehigheror lower thannationalor localaverages.Allusedarangeofdata,including:

• SENlistsfrompreviousschoolsandclasses;• entryleveltestCATscores;• entrylevelattainmentprofiles(particularlythosepupilswhoentersecondaryatNClevel2)• progress reportsand teacherconcerns– increasingly,particularly inprimary,basedon

pupilswhoarenotmakingtwoormorelevelsofprogressinaKeyStage(seeProgressionGuidance);

• diagnostictests;• parentalinformationandanyinformationfromotheragencies,particularlyhealth.

Primaryschoolswereoftenabletoutilisetheenhancedopportunitiesaffordedbytheirsettingtogainadditionaldatatoinformidentification.Becauseoftheirsize,secondaryschoolstendedto be more reliant on the quality of attainment data from feeder primary schools, existingdocumentaryevidenceandentryleveltesting.Themajorityofcasestudyrespondentsnotedtheneed to revisit identification rates of SEN at the end of Year 7 following pupil response tosecondaryeducation.Year7wasfrequentlytheyearinwhichnurturegroupswereimplementedandmixedabilityclassesendorsed,eveninschoolsthatsetbyabilityinYear8andonwards.


Althoughacknowledgingdifficulties inherentwithin the identificationofSENandoverlapwithothercategories,therewasconsensusincasestudyschoolsthattheSENcategoryshouldberetained.Thiswasinspiteofknowingthelimitationsandsometimespitfallsoflabellingthatisassociated with SEN. In particular, recently trained primary teachers interviewed expressedconcernaboutidentifyingandlabellingpupilsasSEN.Illustratingthispoint,oneteachertoldus:

“Weknowourchildrensowellthataneagernesstolabelisdetrimental–assoonasyougivealabelitisforlife.Ifyougivealabel,itisnotgoingtoswitchthelightson–but thenparents think, ‘Ifmychildhasa label, thenyouneed togivehimdifferentteaching.’”

(Classteacher–primary)

Anothersaid:

“Idon’tseepupilsas‘SEN’,IseetheminrelationtoNCLevelssothatwealltalkthesamelanguage.”

(Subjectteacher–secondary)

FromthecasestudyinterviewsitwasevidentthatwhatfollowedonfromidentificationofSENwasoftentheallocationofprovisionthatwasalreadyinplaceintheschool.Insomeschools,the adoption of provision mapping had encouraged this focus through the process ofdeterminingwhatprovisionwasrequiredatWave1,Wave2andWave3,basedontheprofileofneedwithintheschool.Oncedrawnup,theprovisionmapwastypicallyusedtorepresenttheprovisioncurrentlyofferedby theschoolandasevidence toparentsandothers that theschoolcanrespondtopupils’diverseneeds.Provisionoftenrecordedincludednurturegroups,additionalliteracyandnumeracygroups,circleoffriendsgroupsandsocialskillsgroups,aswellas more individualised approaches. The underlying question for schools in relation to SENprovisioniswhether,astheschoolisalreadyofferingtheprovision,itmeetsthecriteriaforbeing‘special’.TheSENCodeofPracticeconstruesspecialprovisionasthatwhichis:‘additionalto,orotherwisedifferentfrom,theeducationalprovisionmadegenerallyforchildrenoftheirageinschoolsmaintainedbytheLEA’(DfES,2001,p6).Usingthisasareferencepointrequiresthatanumberoffactorsaretakenintoaccounttoinformwhetherprovisionis‘special’ornot,suchasthenatureofprovisionmade ‘generally’ in localschoolsand thenumberofpupils, includingnonSENpupils,whousethisprovision.

Thisisanimportantpoint,as,ifthe‘standardofferofeducationorcareisinsufficientlyadaptedfor frequently foundneeds.’ (Ofsted,2010,p24), thentheneedfor theallocationofprovisiondeemedbytheschooltobe‘special’maybeanindicationoftheschool’sneedtodevelopits‘usualdifferentiatedcurriculumoffer’(DfES,2001,p52).Consequently,thepupilmaynotmeetthe national criteria for identification as SEN, even though within their own school they arereceivingprovisionthatis‘additionalto,orotherwisedifferentfrom’(DfES,2001,p6)thatwhichitprovidesforthemajorityofpupils.

In somecases, theapproachof looking first atwhat teacherscouldprovideaspartof theirquality first inclusive teachingand thenatwhat interventionswerenecessaryatWave2andWave3ledtocriticalconsiderationofwhether,asthiswasprovisionthatwasalreadyinplaceintheschool,itcouldbeconstruedas‘additionalto,orotherwisedifferent’(DfES,2001,p6).

The overall picture concerning the identification of SEN suggests that while the CoalitionGovernment’scurrentconcernaboutidentificationisprimarilyfocusedonissuesofvariability,fundingandaccountability,teachers’mainconcernaboutidentificationofSENisthroughitslink


toprovision.Thesedifferingperspectivesare,ofcourse,understandablegiventhedifferingrolesofteachersandgovernment.

Oncethisdifferingemphasis isunderstood, itcanbeseenthatvariation isunlikely tobetheresultofteachersdeliberatelyignoringormanipulatinggovernmentguidance,particularlythatwhichrelatestotheidentificationofSENdeliveredtoschoolsthroughtheSENCodeofPractice.Onceissuesofprovisionareplacedattheheartof identificationofSENthenit isthecurrent‘educationalneed’ratherthaninherent‘learningdifficulty’thatbecomesthefocusforteachers.Thisneed,inherentwithintheterm‘SEN’,dependsontheeducationalenvironmentinwhichthepupil is placed and must take account of the nature and assessment of the learning that isrequired.

Findings strongly suggest that once contextual factors are taken into consideration in theidentificationofSEN,variationisaninevitableconsequenceofthedefinitionofSENasoutlinedintheSENCodeofPractice,unlessitispossibletostandardiseschoolprovisionandresources.

Findings1.1 There was overwhelming consensus from the case study schools that the purpose of

identification of SEN was that pupils could be allocated the provision and additionalmonitoringtheyneededtomakeprogress.

1.2 TeachersinterviewedexpressedgreaterconfidenceinidentifyingSENwheneithertherewasaclearneedfor‘specialeducationalprovision’(DfES,2001,p6)tobemadeforthepupil,orthepupilhadalabelsuchasdyslexiaorASD.Therewaslessclaritywhereitwasnecessary to make a judgement based on whether the pupil’s current performancerepresented‘asignificantlygreaterdifficultyinlearningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage’(DfES,2001,p6).ItwasevidentfromthesurveydatathatavarietyofcriteriaareusedtoidentifypupilsasSENinadditiontotheformaldefinitionwithintheSENCodeofPractice.

1.3 In the case study schools, it was evident that the identification of SEN is stronglyinfluenced by data related to rates of academic progress and response to existingprovision.Primaryschoolswereoftenabletoutilisetheenhancedopportunitiesaffordedby their setting to gain additional data to inform identification. Because of their size,secondaryschoolstendedtobemorereliantonthequalityofattainmentdatafromfeederprimaryschools,existingdocumentaryevidenceandentryleveltesting.

1.4 The schools visited all expressed confidence in their own SEN identification systems.SomecasestudyschoolswereawarethatSENidentificationratescouldfavourablyaffectcontextual value added score and in some cases carry funding benefits. However,schoolsalsonoted that relativelyhighpercentagesofpupilswithSEN impacteduponbehaviour and learning and that the cost of provision for pupils with SEN typicallyexceededthefunding.

1.5 There was general awareness in the case study schools that SEN identification ratesvariedbetweenschools inthesameLAandevenbetweenschoolsservingverysimilarcatchment areas. SENCOs in particular recognise, and have experienced, that thedefinitionofSENandotherelementswithintheCodeofPractice,suchasthetriggersforSchoolAction,areopentointerpretation.


1.6 Many of the class and subject teachers in case study schools had not been directlyinvolved in the classification of a pupil as having SEN, because the identification hadtakenplacepriortothepupiljoiningtheirclassorsubjectgroup,butfullyacknowledgedtheirresponsibilityforprovisionandthemonitoringofprogress.WhenclassandsubjectteacherssuspectapupilmayhaveasyetunidentifiedSEN,theytypicallysupplydataandraiseconcernswiththeSENCOand/orviaregularSENreviewmeetings.

1.7 The identification of SEN takes place alongside identification of a range of additionalneeds. Many case study schools were accustomed to identifying vulnerable groups.Someschools,particularlysecondary,highlightedtheproblemindeterminingwhethertherange of social, emotional and cognitive difficulties experienced by the pupil couldreasonablybeclassifiedasSEN.Themajorityofsurveyrespondentswereconfident intheirabilitytoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilswithSEN.

1.8 Therewasconcern,particularly inprimaryschoolsettings,thatanypolicydirectivestoreducethenumberofpupilsidentifiedasSENwouldconflictwithexistingpracticesthatseektopromoteearlyidentificationandtimelyintervention.

1.9 SomeintervieweesexpressedaviewthatitwasverydifficulttogetaStatementforBESDunlessitcouldbeattributedtoamedicalconditionsuchasASDormentalhealth.

1.10Some special schools, notably those with an original designation of MLD, haveexperiencedachange inpupilpopulation,with thebalanceof intakesshifting towardsmore severe and complex needs, including significantly challenging behaviour. Themajorityofspecialschoolrespondentstothesurveyalsonotedthis.

1.11Manysecondaryschoolstaffinterviewedhighlightedthepervasiveeffectsonattainmentandbehaviouracrossthecurriculumoflongtermlearningdelaysanddifferencesinbasicskillssuchaslanguageandliteracy.AnissueraisedbysomeoftheseschoolswastheextentofdelayordifferencethatwarrantedidentificationasSENagainstthecriteriasetoutintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPractice(DfES,2001).

Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy• Ofsted(2010) foundthattheconsistencyofthe identificationofSENvariedwidely,not

onlybetweendifferentlocalareasbutalsowithinthem.The2011GreenPaperalsoraisesa concern regarding overidentification of SEN. Though Ofsted’s observation thatidentification of SEN varied widely ‘despite extensive statutory guidance’ (2010, p7)impliesthatschoolsarenotmakingappropriateuseofwhathasbeenprovidedbycentralgovernment, there is a need to question whether it is the interpretable nature of thisguidancethathascontributedsignificantlytothis inconsistency.Whenschoolsusethecurrent Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) as a guide toidentification,theyarefacedwithnumerousinterpretablephrases,suchas‘significantlygreaterdifficulty in learningthanthemajorityofchildrenofthesameage’,‘educationalprovisionmadegenerallyforchildrenoftheirage’,‘additionalanddifferent’,‘inadequateprogress’, ‘the school’s usual differentiated curriculum offer and strategies’ and‘differentiatedlearningopportunities’,thatarenotconducivetoconsistency.

• Overall,therewaslittleconfidenceamongteachersinterviewedthatcurrentlegislationandguidanceprovidedcomparableprocessesbetweenschoolsregardingidentificationofSEN.


• IdentificationofSEN iscomplexandhistoricallyplacedemphasis initiallyonamedicalandsubsequentlyasocialmodelofdisabilityanddifference.ItisclearfromtheresearchconductedthatthecurrentidentificationsystemisalreadymoreeasilyappliedtoformsofSENthatarerelativelystableacrosscontextsandlargelyattributabletoaphysicalormedicalneed.Aconcernisthatthe2011GreenPaperiswrittenwithafocusprimarilyonthese forms of SEN and the promised ‘new single assessment process’ will biasidentification towards a medical model. There is a risk that this could lead to theunderidentificationofthosechildrenwhosedifficultiesinlearningareamanifestationofanongoinginteractionbetweenemotional,socialandcognitivefactors.

• AnydefinitionofSENthatmakesreferencetotheinfluenceofcontextualfactorsislikelytoleadtovariability inidentificationratesbetweenschoolsandwithinLAs.Thecurrentdefinition of SEN makes reference to ‘educational provision which is additional to, orotherwisedifferentfrom,theeducationalprovisionmadegenerallyforchildrenoftheiragein schoolsmaintainedby theLEA’ (DfES,2001,p6). Therefore the identificationof thechildashavingSENisinpartareflectionofwhatprovisionandsupportisavailableinaparticularschoolandcommunity.Itisinterestingtonotethatthe2011GreenPaperitselfrefers to ‘schoolbasedcatchupsupportwhich isnormallyavailable’ (DfE,2011,p58),whichagainintroducesacontextualelementrelatedtowhatisnormallyavailableinanyoneschool.The implication is that there isastandardexpectationofwhatall schoolsshould be providing irrespective of their catchment area and the profile of their pupilpopulation.

• Currently,considerableemphasishasbeenplacedonidentificationofSEN(e.g.Ofsted,2010,DfE,2011).Thisislikelytobeadistractionfromtheneedtoaddressrealconcernsaboutprovisionandoutcomes.WhileidentificationashavingSENmayservetohighlightbothadifficultyandaneedforprovision,initselfitdoesnotnecessarilyinformspecificteaching approaches. The 2011 Green Paper proposes clearer ‘guidance forprofessionals about how to identify SEN accurately’ (DfE, 2011, p67). This assumes astraightforward link between identification and provision required. While there may besomecategoriesofSENforwhichthismodelmightbeapplicable,thereremainsconcernaboutthosepupilsforwhomthelinkbetweenidentificationandprovisionislessclearcut.WhilstitisentirelyappropriatetopursueimprovementsineducationalprovisionforpupilswithSEN,asimplisticnotionoftransferable‘bestpractice’needstobechallenged.

• In isolation, variability in identification of pupils as SEN is arguably inevitable and notespeciallyproblematic.However,thelinkbetweenidentificationashavingSEN,fundingandaccesstosupportintroducesissuesofparityofexperienceforbothpupilsandtheirparents/carers.IdentificationisimportantifthereisafiniteamountofresourcestowhichidentificationasSENprovidesaccess.Inthecurrenteconomicclimate,itisnecessarytorecognisethat identificationasSENpresentlyofferssomedegreeofprotectionagainstcostsaving measures both locally and nationally. For many parents the fundamentalprinciplewithintheCodeofPractice(DfES,2001)thatachildwithSENshouldhavetheirneeds met means that identification as SEN offers a degree of protection and schoolaccountability.TheCoalitionGovernment’s2011GreenPaperidentifiesreplacingSchoolActionandSchoolActionPluswithasinglecategoryofSENasthesolutiontovariationand perceived overidentification. However, there may be serious implications if areductioninapparentoveridentificationalsoleadstoareductioninearlyidentification.


• TheemphasisonpupilachievementwithinnationalpolicyandaconcernthatpupilswithSENareunderachievinghasalsointroducedanotherdilemmainidentification.Thereisaneedtoexplorehowunderachievementandinadequateprogressareconceptualisedbygovernment,Ofsted,LAsandschools.TheCodeofPracticestatesthat‘Thekeytestoftheneedforactionisevidencethatcurrentratesofprogressareinadequate’(DfES,2001,p52) and that ‘Where progress is not adequate, it will be necessary to take someadditionalordifferentaction toenable thepupil to learnmoreeffectively’ (DfES,2001,p52). The definition of SEN requires the pupil to be in need of special educationalprovisiondescribedintermsofthat‘whichisadditionalto,orotherwisedifferentfrom,theeducationalprovisionmadegenerallyforchildrenoftheirageinschoolsmaintainedbytheLEA’(DfES,2001,p6).InadequateprogressthereforewouldseemtobeinextricablylinkedwiththeidentificationofpupilsashavingSEN.Itiscurrentlyopentointerpretationhowunderachievementand inadequateprogressareconceptuallydifferent. ItcouldbeexperiencedasparadoxicalthereforeforteacherstobetoldwithconcernoranydegreeofsurprisethatasignificantnumberofpupilswithSENareunderachievingwhennotionsofinadequateprogressareembeddedinthedefinitionofSEN.Forexample,ifapupilismakinggoodprogress fromtheirownbaseline (i.e. ‘achieving’),even ifnotexceeding,meetingorclosingthegapwithnationalexpectations,isitlegitimatetoidentifythemashavingSEN?Inraisingthisissue,theintentionisnottodefendlowexpectationsbuttohighlighttheissuethatteachershavetomakesenseofthedifferingreceivedmessagessurrounding inadequate progress and underachievement. This is important because itrelatesdirectlytogovernmentconcernsregardingschools’overidentificationofSENandteachers’lowexpectationsforpupilswithSEN.

• The2011GreenPaperiscommittedtoafocusonoutcomesandpromisesto‘introducean indicator in performance tables which will give parents clear information on theprogressofthelowestattainingpupils’(DfE,2011,p58).Itwouldseemimportantforsuch‘progress’tobearticulatedintermsofbothattainmentandachievementifwiderholisticoutcomesaretoberecognised.ForsomepupilswithSEN,andtheirparents,progressthat only recognises academic attainment may be inappropriate and could lead tonegative experiencesof school and feelingsof failure. For schools and their teachers,therewillbeaneedforclarityaboutwhatmeasuresareused,whatthedatawillbeusedforandtheextentofresponsibilityassignedtotheschool.

• The 2011 Green Paper and Ofsted (2010) have brought into sharp focus the issue ofidentification of pupils. Debates on this topic are likely to provoke strong feelings,particularlyinthelightofmessagesfromOfsted(2010)andreinforcedbythe2011GreenPaperthatseemedtoapportionconsiderableblametoteachersandschools.Teachersinthe schools visited as part of this research were concerned that identification shouldrecognise how the individual’s learning difficulties are experienced within the groupsettingoftheclassroominorderthatappropriateprovisioncouldbeputinplace.Theseschoolsweregenerallydatarichenvironmentsandusedpupilleveldatatoenablethemto spot any pupils who were underachieving, ask themselves why and intervene toaddressthis.Thereisaneedforsensibledebateregardingidentificationfreedfromsomeofthemoreemotivesuggestionscontainedintheserecentdocuments.

• Therearemanypupils,besidesthosewithSEN,whoexperience,inBoothandAinscow’s(2002,p4)terms,‘barrierstolearningandparticipation’.Itwasevidentfromcasestudyinterviewsthatschoolsfocusedonarangeofvulnerablegroups,ofwhichpupilswithSENwereone.ThisheightenedawarenessmaybeattributabletoOfsted’s(2000)EvaluatingEducationalInclusion.Therealityisthatthepracticeandprovisionavailableinaschool


toaddresstheneedsofaparticularvulnerablegroupmayalsomeettheneedsofarangeofpupilsdeemedvulnerableunderdifferentheadings.Thisisanalternativeperspectiveto one that views pupils with SEN as necessarily always in need of provision that isdistinct. However, unlike other vulnerable groups, those with SEN are subject toidentification and provision through a Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) and frequently adiscretefundingstream.

• Insomeschoolstheuseofprovisionmappinghascontributedtoastrongerfocusonthedevelopmentofarangeofprovisionandinterventionsavailabletomeetthediversityoftheschoolpopulation.ApotentialriskofsuchanapproachisthatthechildwithSENisfitted to the available provision rather than triggering the identification of provisionrequired for the individual. A wide range of provisions within any one school requirerigorous communication and monitoring systems to ensure quality and coherence ofexperiencefortheindividualpupil.


CHAPTER2:TRAINING,SUPPORTANDDEVELOPMENTNEEDS

ExplorationoftheliteratureTrainingforteachersinrelationtoSEN:anenduringissueAccording to Hodkinson (2010, p64), inclusion has stalled in schools because educationalinstitutionsarenotfittoincludeallchildrenduetobarriersof‘lackofknowledge,lackofwill,lackofvision,lackofresourcesandlackofmorality’(CloughandGarner,2003).Thepremiseunderpinning this suggestion is that inclusion is dependent on teachers’ attitudes andcompetence: ifschoolsaretobecomeinclusive,theymustdevelopanethosthatenablesallpupilstobesupportedandwhichprovidesfortheneedsofteachers(Hanko,2003).Asfarbackas theWarnockReport (DES,1978), the trainingof teacherswashighlightedasa factor thatinhibitedthesuccessfulimplementationofSENstrategiesanditisapointthathasbeenmadesubsequently by various other commentators, but there remains a common feeling amongprofessionalsthattrainingtodatehasbeen‘woefullyinadequate’(Corbett,2001).

Inanearlier(2009)paper,HodkinsonreportsthefindingsfromaliteraturereviewoftheEnglishgovernment’sresponsetothe issueof trainingpreserviceteachers inthedeliveryofeffectiveSENsupport,focusingonliteraturebetween1970and2008onITT,highereducationinstitutes(HEIs)andSEN.Miller(2008)commentedthattheGovernment’slackofactionontraininghadenveloped its policy within a ‘groundhog day’ and Hodkinson’s review shows that the 2002standardsforqualifiedteacherstatus(QTS)‘beararemarkableresemblance’tothoselaidoutintheWarnockReport(DES,1978),suggestingthatsuccessivegovernmentshadmadelittleornoprogressinregardtotrainingforSEN.AcommentmadebyOfstedreiteratesthatofWarnock,stating that teachers ‘were being asked to lead children with significant learning needs andmanagedifficultsituationswithoutenough learning’ (Ofsted,2003,p24).RemovingBarriers toAchievement(DfES,2004b)againmadeitclearthattheGovernmentexpectedeveryteachertobeateacherofchildrenwithSEN.Withinthisdocument,theGovernmentproposedathreetiertrainingmodelof:

• Coreskills:forallteachersinallschools.• Advancedskills:someteachersinallschools.• Specialistskills:insomelocalschools.

(DfES,2004b)

Hodkinson (2009) reportedthatVickerman (2007) foundonly29%ofHEIs inEnglandofferedtraineesmandatorymodulesinSEN,with42%offeringoptionalmodulesand50%developingtrainees’ knowledgeofSEN in apurely theoreticalway.According toWinter (2006), traineescouldreceiveaslittleastenhours’trainingonSENissues.In2007,theTeacherDevelopmentAgency(TDA)workedwithHEIsonaprojectthatinvolvedthedeliveryofthreetrainingmodulesfocusingonSENanddisabilitywithafourweekspecialschoolplacementpilotedin20HEIs.ThiswassaidtohavehadaverypositiveresponsebuttherewasnodatafromtheTDA.InadebateonSEN,MPsaskedaboutthesignificanceoftheseinitiativesandMiller(2008)saidshecouldfindnoofficialstatisticsofthenumberoftraineeswhohadreceivedspecialisttraining,suggestingnothinghadchanged.Thenewstandards forQTS (TDA,2007)wereseenby theGovernmentasanimportantvehicleforthedevelopmentoftrainees’SENknowledgebutstillpromote a ‘technicist approach’ (Pearson, 2007, p26) of auditable competences rather thanvalues of pedagogical principles that underpin SEN practice. It could be argued that thestandards might only restrict the further development of SEN knowledge to promote theGovernment’sagendaofpersonalised learning:asOfsted (2008) found, there isconsiderablevariationbetweenprogrammes.Therecommendationfromthestudy is thatGovernmentandHEIsneedtoworktogethertoprovidecoordinatedlearningprogrammes.


TheHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee(2006)highlightedtheissueoftrainingthroughitsclearrecommendationthat:

“…theGovernmentfullyimplementsitsownstrategicapproachtotrainingoutlinedintheSENStrategy:puttingintopracticethe“triangleoftrainingneeds”inordertoachievetheproposedthreetiersofspecialismineveryschool;makingSENtrainingacore,compulsorypartofinitialtrainingforallteachers;andensuringappropriatepriority and quality of continuing professional development to equip all of theworkforce.Thereisabroadconsensusofagreementontheseproposalsandyetlittleprogresshasbeenmadesince2004.Thisisnotacceptable.”


The Inclusion Development Programme (IDP) materials followed in 2008. These had beenproposed inRemovingBarriers toAchievement (DfES,2004b) so it is unclearwhether thesewouldhavebeenissuedanywayorwereadirectresponsetothereminderfromtheEducationandSkillsCommittee.

ThefirsttwosetsofIDPmaterialsreleasedfocusedonspeech,languageandcommunicationneedsandondyslexia.Thesewerefollowedin2009bymaterialsforsupportingpupilsontheautismspectrumandmaterialsforsupportingpupilswithBESDin2010.ResearchbyLindsayet al. (2011) looking at a number of government initiatives aimed at improving teachers’knowledge, skills and understanding in relation to SEN and disabilities (SEND) reportedpositivelyontheuptakeanduseoftheIDPmaterials.

TheIDPmaterialswereintendedtostrengthenCPDinrelationtoSENandweredisseminatedthrough the National Strategies. Alongside this development, the TDA developed the SENDTraining Toolkit for students in ITT. The Toolkit was made available to providers of primaryundergraduatecoursesinITTinHEIsinPhase1(200809),followedbymaterialsin200910forprovidersof secondaryundergraduatecoursesand forprovidersof thepostgraduate teachertraining (PGCE)primary/secondary in201011 (Lindsayetal.,2011). Inaddition to the toolkit,therewasanextendedplacementinitiativethatallowedundergraduateprimaryandsecondaryITT students to gain firsthand experience of pupils with SEND, particularly the specialistprovisionthatisavailable,byspendingperiodsoftimeinaspecialschoolsetting.TheLindsayetal.(2011)researchreportedpositivelyonboththetoolkitandtheextendedplacementinitiative.

MandatoryTrainingforSENCOsTheHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommitteereporthadalsoidentifiedanumberofissuesrelatedtotherole,statusandqualificationofSENCOs.Itstated:

“Specialeducationalneedscoordinators(SENCOs)shouldinallcasesbequalifiedteachersandinaseniormanagementpositionintheschoolasrecommendedintheSENCodeofPractice.”


Thoughneithertheoriginal(DfE,1994a)northerevisedCode(DfES,2001)couldbeaccusedofencouraging it as an approach, some schools chose to appoint staff without a teachingqualificationtotheroleofSENCOasthiswasnotspecificallyprecluded.ThesuggestionthattheSENCOshouldbepartoftheseniormanagementteamhadbeenputforwardintheCodeofPractice(DfES,2001)andRemovingBarrierstoAchievement(DfES,2004b).Indiscussingthisissue,theHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommitteemadeanimportantpointaboutthestatusoftheCodeofPractice,noting:


“FirmerguidelinesarerequiredratherthantheGovernmentaskingschoolsto‘haveregardto’theSENCodeofPractice.TheroleandpositionofaSENCOmustreflectthecentralprioritythatSENshouldholdwithinschools.”


ThisissueisrelevantnotjusttotheSENCO’splaceontheseniorleadershipteam.TheCodeonlystatesthatschools,LAsandotherbodiesthatmaybeinvolved‘mustconsiderwhatthisCodesays’and‘mustfulfiltheirstatutorydutiestowardschildrenwithspecialeducationalneedsbutitisuptothemtodecidehowtodoso–inthelightoftheguidanceinthisCodeofPractice.’(DfES,2001,piii).Thisstatusallowsconsiderable flexibility inhowschoolsandLAs interpretmanyaspectsoftheCodeofPractice.

TheEducationandSkillsCommitteealsohighlightedtheneedforSENCOstoreceive‘ongoingtrainingopportunitiestoenablethemtokeeptheirknowledgeuptodate’(HouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee,2006,p116).

Ofthethreepoints–theneedtobeaqualifiedteacher,theneedtobeappropriatelytrainedandtheneedtobepartoftheseniorleadershipteam–twohavesubsequentlybeenaddressedbygovernment.TheEducation (SpecialEducationalNeedsCoordinators) (England)Regulations(2008)requiredSENCOstobequalifiedteachersfromSeptember2009.TheEducation(SpecialEducational Needs Coordinators) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 introduced therequirement for SENCOs new to the role from 1 September 2009 onwards to undertake amandatorycourse.Thiswasreferredto in theregulationsas ‘TheNationalAwardforSpecialEducationalNeedsCoordination’.Theregulationsstatethatthequalificationmustbegainedwithinthreeyearsofappointment.Sofar,thecoursehasbeenfundedbytheTDA.Itremainstobeseenwhatwillhappenifthefundingceasesbutthemandatoryrequirementremains.Insuchasituation,schoolsappointingateachertotheSENCOrolewhohasneverheldtherolebeforewouldneedtofactorintotheirconsiderationsthecostoftraining.

TheNationalAwardforSpecialEducationalNeedsCoordinationcourseisaccredited,providing60creditstowardsaMaster’sdegree,andtakesayeartocompleteonaparttimebasis.Theaward is therefore both a professional and academic qualification. Special schools are notcovered by the regulations and so there is no requirement for a special school SENCO toundertakethecourse.

TheHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee’s(2006)pointregardingtheSENCO’smembershipoftheseniorleadershipteamhasnotbeenfullyaddressed.ThepositionisstillthattheSENCOshouldbepartoforhavedirectaccesstotheseniorleadershipteam.Thenotionofdirect access is not clarified and is open to interpretation, potentially representing a verydifferentlevelofinfluencefrommembershipoftheseniorleadershipteam.

Thefocusontrainingwithinthe2011GreenPaper(DfE,2011)The2011GreenPaperhasalsoplacedemphasisontheissueoftraining,referringtoplansto‘strengtheninitialtraining’and‘boosttheavailabilityofadvancedlevelcontinuousprofessionaldevelopment’ (DfE, 2011, p60). It seems that a focus for some of the training will be onidentifyingchildren’sneeds.Theterminologyrelatedtotraininginidentificationisinteresting:the2011GreenPapernotestheconcernthat:


“Children’sneedsshouldbepickedupasearlyaspossible,butteacherstellusthattheyhavenotalwayshadtrainingtoidentifychildren’sneeds,ortoprovidetherighthelp.”

(DfE,2011,p9)

Traininginidentificationperseislikelytobeoflimitedvaluetoclassroomteachersifitdoesnotalsocontributetoabetterknowledgeandunderstandingofstrategiesandapproachesthatarefeasibletoimplementinaclassroomcontext.Thereisperhapsaneedtoquestionthedifferencebetween identifying what a child needs in order to learn in terms of teaching approaches,supportandadditionalresourcingandidentifyingachild’sneedsintermsoftheformofSENtheyhave.TheformerwillalwaysbeimportantintermsofimprovingtheeducationofpupilswithSENand/ordisability.Thelatterisimportantwhereidentificationofaparticulartypeofneed(e.g.ASD, dyslexia) informs teaching approaches or the need for specific interventions. Inrecognising the valuable contribution that identification of the particular type of need cansometimesmake,itshouldnotleadtoanassumptionthatprioritisingthisasafocusfortrainingwilladdressperceivedconcernsregardingtheeducationofpupilswithSEN.

The terminology regarding the focus of identification also changes at points within the2011GreenPaper,attimesreferringtoidentifyingchildren’sneedsandelsewheretoidentifyingSEN.Oneproposal, forexample, referstobeing‘muchclearer inguidanceforprofessionalsabouthowtoidentifySENaccurately’(DfE,2011,p67)andseekstoimproveteachers’abilityinthisarea.ItisimportanttorecognisethatidentifyingSENaccuratelyisdifferenttoeitheridentifyingchildren’sneedsorthetypeofSENtheyhave.Theformerwouldseemtorelatetoidentifyingwhether or not a pupil fits within what is essentially a socially constructed category. As hasalready been explored in Chapter 1, the definition of SEN that is currently used is open tointerpretation. It isdifficult to imaginehowgreater accuracy in identification in relation toaninterpretablecategorycanbeachievedthroughtraining.TheissuetheGovernmentwouldseemtobewrestlingwithinrelationtowhichpupilsschoolsviewashavingSENwouldnotseemtobeoneofaccuracybutofconsistency.Consistencywouldseemtobebestachievedthroughclearernationalcriteriaratherthantraining–thoughsometrainingmaybenecessaryinhowtoapplythecriteria.

Giventheemphasisthe2011GreenPaperplacesontheidentificationofchildren’sneedsandmoreaccurateidentificationofSEN,itisinterestingtonotehowfewofthefactorsidentifiedbyOfsted(2010,p47)thatinfluencedsuccessfullearningrelateddirectlytoissuesofidentification(SeeTable2.1).

Whenchildrenandyoungpeoplelearnedbest:

Whenchildrenandyoungpeople’slearningwasleastsuccessful:

Theylookedtotheteacherfortheirmainlearningandtothesupportstaffforsupport

Teachersdidnotspendenoughtimefindingoutwhatchildrenandyoungpeoplealreadykneworhadunderstood

Assessmentwassecure,continuousandactedupon

Teacherswerenotclearaboutwhattheyexpectedchildrenandyoungpeopletolearnasopposedtowhattheyexpectedthemtodo

Teachersplannedopportunitiesforpupilstocollaborate,workthingsoutforthemselvesandapplywhattheyhadlearnttodifferentsituations

Therolesofadditionalstaffwerenotplannedwelloradditionalstaffwerenottrainedwellandthesupportprovidedwasnotmonitoredsufficiently

cont’d


Whenchildrenandyoungpeoplelearnedbest:

Whenchildrenandyoungpeople’slearningwasleastsuccessful:

Teachers’subjectknowledgewasgood,aswastheirunderstandingofpupils’needsandhowtohelpthem

ExpectationsofdisabledchildrenandyoungpeopleandthosewhohadSENwerelow

Lessonstructureswereclearandfamiliarbutallowedforadaptationandflexibility

Communicationwaspoor:teachersspenttoomuchtimetalking,explanationswereconfusing,feedbackwasinconsistent

Allaspectsofalessonwerewellthoughtoutandanyadaptationsneededweremadewithoutfusstoensurethateveryoneinclasshadaccess

Languagewastoocomplexforallchildrenandyoungpeopletounderstand

Teacherspresentedinformationindifferentwaystoensureallchildrenandyoungpeopleunderstood

Thetone,andevenbodylanguage,usedbyadultswasconfusingforsomeofthechildrenandyoungpeoplewhofoundsocialsubtletiesandnuancesdifficulttounderstand

Teachersadjustedthepaceofthelessontoreflecthowchildrenandyoungpeoplewerelearning

Activitiesandadditionalinterventionswereinappropriateandwerenotevaluatedintermsoftheireffectonchildrenandyoungpeople’slearning

Thestaffunderstoodclearlythedifferencebetweenensuringthatchildrenandyoungpeoplewerelearningandkeepingthemoccupied

Resourceswerepoor,withtoolittlethoughthavingbeengiventotheirselectionanduse

Respectforindividualswasreflectedinhighexpectationsfortheirachievement

Childrenandyoungpeoplehadlittleengagementinwhattheywerelearning,usuallyasaresultoftheabovefeatures

Theeffectivenessofspecifictypesofsupportwasunderstoodandtherightsupportwasputinplaceattherighttime

Table2.1FactorsidentifiedbyOfsted(2010)thatcontributetosuccessfulandunsuccessfullearning

However, itwouldbewrong tosuggest thatnosupportcouldbe found inOfsted’s report inrelationtothe2011GreenPaper’sinterestinstrengtheningteachers’abilitytoidentifypupils’needs.Ofsted(2010)notedthatcarefulanalysisofneed,closemonitoringofeachindividual’sprogress and a shared perception of desired outcomes was a feature of effective provision.However,theothercharacteristicsofeffectivenesspracticenotedwere:

• highaspirationsfortheachievementofallchildrenandyoungpeople;• goodteachingandlearningforallchildrenandyoungpeople;• evaluationoftheeffectivenessofprovisionatalllevelsinhelpingtoimproveopportunities

andprogress;• leaderswholookedtoimprovinggeneralprovisiontomeetawiderrangeofneedsrather

thanalwaysincreasingadditionalprovision;


• swiftchangestoprovision,inandbyindividualprovidersandlocalareas,asaresultofevaluatingachievementandwellbeing.

Again,thereisnotastrongmessagethatbetteridentificationofneedisthedeterminingfactor.Indeed,itwouldbepossibletoarguethattrainingwouldbebetterfocusedonthefeaturesofpracticethatOfsted(2010)suggestarepresentwhenchildrenandyoungpeoplelearnbest.

Withinthe2011GreenPaper,trainingappearstobeconceptualisedas‘spreadingbestpractice’(DfE,2011,p67)fromeithermainstreamorspecialschoolswithoutstandingOfstedreports.Theuseofspecialschoolsinthiswayisnotanewidea:Excellenceforallchildren(DfEE,1997,p49)expressed an intention to ‘examine how special school staff can work more closely withmainstream schools and support services to meet the needs of all pupils with SEN’ andRemovingBarrierstoAchievement(DfES,2004b,p26)referredtoaroleforspecialschoolsin‘sharingtheirspecialistskillsandknowledgetosupportinclusioninmainstreamschools’

The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010) set out proposals to develop a national network ofteaching schools, intended ‘to lead and develop sustainable approaches to teacherdevelopment across the country’ (DfE, 2010, p23) and drive school improvement. The 2011GreenPaperextends this idea in relation toSEN,seeking to findwaysofensuring ‘that theexpertiseofspecialschools,andmainstreamschoolswithexcellentSENpractice,isharnessedandspreadthroughTeachingSchoolspartnerships’(DfE,2011,p60).

Thoughthe2011GreenPaperpresentsitsinterestinstrengtheningtrainingwithinthecontextofanewapproachtoSENanddisability,itshouldberecognisedthatthepreviousgovernmentplaced considerable faith in strengthening ITT and CPD in relation to SEN (e.g. DfEE, 1997,DfES,2004b).ResearchbyLindsayetal.(2011)reportedpositivelyonanumberoftheLabourGovernmentinitiativesaimedatimprovingteachers’knowledge,skillsandunderstandingskillsinrelationtoSEND.CopiousmaterialswerealsoproducedbytheNationalStrategiesrelatedtoSENandinclusiveteaching.TherehasthereforebeennolackoftrainingmaterialsinrelationtoSEN. Before the Government seeks to produce more materials, there is perhaps a need toidentifywhatisalreadycurrentlyavailableandcanvassteachers’viewsonpreferredformatsandmodesofdelivery.

PresentationanddiscussionofdataInthesurvey,only12.4%ofmainstreamand27.7%ofspecialschoolteachersindicatedthatthey had an additional qualification in SEN. The special school percentage is interesting inrelationtotherecentPolicyExchangestudyofspecialschools(Hartley,2010),whichfoundthatonaverage52%ofteachersinaschoolhadaqualificationinSEN,with23%ofrespondentssayingthatalltheirteachingstaffhadaqualificationinSEN.Itshouldberecognisedthattheterm‘qualification’isinterpretable:someofoursurveyrespondentsmayhaveinterpretedthisas a nationally recognised award or completion of an accredited university course, whereasothersmayhaveinterpretedqualificationasanycourseonwhichsomeformofcertificatewasprovided on completion. A small number of respondents in the survey had included, forexample,theSENpathwayintheirinitialteachereducation.Mostofthosewhohadrecordedthat theyhadaqualification inSENhadcompletedcertificates/diplomas/advanceddiplomaseitheringeneralSEN/learningdifficultiesorinaspecificarea,suchasdyslexiaorworkingwithdeafchildren.Ofthemainstreamrespondents,22hadaMaster’sdegreeinarelatedarea(otherswerestudyingforaMaster’s),fivewerequalifiedteachersofthedeaforvisuallyimpairedandtwohadbeennursesbeforequalifyingasteachers.Mainstreamteacherswhoqualified1115yearsagoweremorelikelythanotherstohaveanadditionalqualificationinSEN.


ThemajorityofsurveyrespondentsfeltthattheirITTdidnotadequatelypreparethemtoteachpupils with a range of SEN in mainstream schools (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). Only 13% ofmainstreamrespondentsand10.7%ofspecialschoolrespondentsfelttheirITTwasadequatein this respect.Only9%ofspecial school teachers felt that their ITThadprepared them forteachingpupilswiththerangeofSENintheircurrentschool(Table2.4).Therewasnomarkeddifference between recently qualified and more experienced teachers in their views in thepreparationprovidedbytheirITT.

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agr e

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

r ee

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le

Myinitialteachertrainingadequatelypreparedmetoteachpupilswitharangeofspecialeducationalneedsinmainstreamschools

2.3% 10.7% 14.7% 36.3% 35.4% 0.1% 0.6%

Table2.2Mainstreamteachers’viewsoninitialteachertraining

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

r ee

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le


1.2% 9.5% 10.7% 31.8% 41.7% 0% 5%

Table2.3Specialschoolteachers’viewsoninitialteachertraining

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agr e

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

r ee

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le

Myinitialteachertrainingadequatelypreparedmetoteachpupilswitharangeofspecialeducationalneedsinmycurrentschool

2.5% 6.2% 5.4% 26.9% 54.5% 0% 4.5%

Table2.4Specialschoolteachers’viewsontheextenttowhichtheirinitialteachertrainingpreparedthemtoteachintheircurrentsetting


TherewereveryvariedresponsesfromcasestudyrespondentsconcerningtheextenttowhichtheirITTpreparedthemtoworkeffectivelywithpupilswithSEN.RespondentsnotedthattherewasoftenlimitedcoverageofSENontheircoursesbuttheyalsofullyacceptedthattraining,particularlypostgraduate,wasalreadyoverloaded.Asoneteachernoted:

“Wewere trainedoutonGTP!’Wewere trained to ‘solveaproblem’ rather thanbecomefantasticteachers.”

(Secondaryteacher)

If,asthedirectionofcurrentpolicywouldsuggest,moretrainingistobedeliveredinschools,thenthereisriskthatthisexperiencecouldbecomemorecommon.

TherewasalsogeneralrecognitionthatitwasdifficultfortraineestorelateanySENknowledgetopracticeuntiltheybegantheirteaching,althoughthisvarieddependingontheirplacements.Therewasageneralfeelingfromthoseinterviewedthat:

“Youlearntobeateacherbybeingateacher.”(Primaryteacher)

WhenaskedabouttheirITT,itemergedthatthemajorityofcoursescoveredpolicyrequirementsand trajectories forSENandso includedsignposting theSENCodeofPractice, theSpecialEducationalNeedsAct2001,standardsraisingandinclusion.

Examples given of any direct experience of working in specialist SEN settings were limited.Threerespondentshadchosentoworkinaspecialschool/unitforoneoftheirITTplacementsandtwocitedtheirpriorexperienceasTAsworkingwithpupilswithSENasusefulduringtheirsubsequentITT.Oftheexamplescited,workinginaspecialschoolforpupilswithBESDwasnotedasbeingaveryvaluableexperienceduringITT,aswascompletinganoptionalspecialistmoduleondyslexia.

Survey data showed that the main forms of training for SEN and inclusion undertaken by allrespondentssinceSeptember2004were‘oneoff’afterschoolsessions(53%),asallorpartofa staff development day (46%) and a sequence of related afterschool sessions (21%).Twentytwoper centof respondents indicated theyhadanopportunity to collaboratewithorobserve another teacher, but only 16% of special school teachers had received training tosupport thesharingofexpertisebetweenspecialandmainstreamschools.Fifteenpercentofrespondents had received no training on SEN or inclusion since 2004. Thirteen per cent hadworked on courses that provided a qualification or credits towards one. The year 2004 wasspecifiedinthesurveyquestionasthiswasthedateRemovingBarrierstoAchievement(DfES,2004b)waspublished,outliningthethengovernment’sstrategyforSEN,includingthethreetiermodeloftraining.

Thesurveyrespondentsindicatedthatthemainbarrierstoundertakingtrainingweretime(24%)andworkload(29%).Havingnothingsuitableorofinterestavailablelocallywasaparticularissuefor some special school respondents (19%). Only a very small percentage from both groups(8.6%mainstream,7.4%special)referredtolackofsupportfromtheschoolorheadteacher.Only8%ofallrespondentssaidtherewerenobarrierstothemundertakingtraining.

Manycasestudyteachersnoted,particularlyinspecialschools,thatmuchoftheirtrainingtimewas taken up with issues to do with safety and behaviour. Positive handling training was arequirementformanyspecialschoolstaffandbecausethisrequiresregularupdatingtherewas


limited time and funding left for other SEN training. Mainstream teachers also reported thatwholeschooltrainingtimehadtoprioritisesafetyandwellbeingissuessuchascyberbullyingandpositivehandlingaswellastheoverridingprioritieslinkedtosubjectareasandstandardsraising.

Themajorityofrespondentsfrombothmainstream(61.4%)andspecialschools (60.7%)saidthey needed more training in SEN. Looking at the responses from mainstream teachers inrelation to the time they qualified (Table 2.5), it is perhaps unsurprising that the highestproportion indicating that they considered they needed more training were newly qualifiedteachersandthelowestwereexperiencedteacherswhohadbeenqualifiedformorethanfifteenyears. It is interestingthatthepercentageof ‘notsures’ isapproximatelythesameacrossallgroups(excludingnewlyqualifiedteachers).

No.ofyearsasateacher

NQT(n=72)

25(n=280)

610(n=262)

1115(n=179)

15+(n=488)

NeedmoretrainingonSEN 76% 67% 63% 64% 53%

Notsure 14% 22% 24% 21% 22%

Table2.5Respondents’yearsofexperienceandtheirperceivedneedfortraining

Itneedstoberecognisedthattherelativelyhighpositiveresponseinregardtoneedingtrainingmaybeareflectionofthefactthatmostprofessionalsseektoimprovetheirpracticeratherthananindicationofalargeproportionofteachersfeelingtheywerecurrentlyinsufficientlyequippedtocarryout their role.Toexplore this issue,boththemainstreamandspecialschool teachersurveyscontainedquestionsrelatingtoteachers’beliefintheirabilitytoteachpupilswithSEN.Respondentswereaskedtoconsidertheirlevelofagreementwithasetofstatementsreferringto what could arguably be seen as representing the key components of effectively teachingpupilswithSEN.ThestatementsandtheresponsesareshowninTables2.6and2.7.

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

r ee

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le

IamgenerallyabletoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilswithSENintheclass(es)Icurrentlyteach

19.3% 57.5% 12.4% 7.5% 1.7% 0.4% 1.3%

IamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyteachpupilswitharangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)

10.6% 38.8% 20.7% 21.2% 6.6% 0.5% 1.6%

IamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyassesstheprogressofpupilswitharangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)

11.7% 47.7% 20.2% 14.1% 4.2% 0.5% 1.5%

Table2.6Mainstreamteachers’viewsoncurrentcapacityinrelationtoteachingpupilswithSEN


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agr e

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

r ee

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le

Iamgenerallyabletoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilsintheclass(es)Icurrentlyteach

40.1% 51.7% 4.1% 1.7% 0.4% 0% 2.1%

Iamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyteachallthepupilsinmycurrentclass(es)

31% 43% 12.8% 8.3% 2.1% 0% 2.9%

Iamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyassesstheprogressofallpupilsinmycurrentclass(es)

30.6% 49.6% 12.4% 3.3% 0.8%3 0% 3.3%

Table2.7Specialschoolteachers’viewsoncurrentcapacityinrelationtoteachingpupilswithSEN

Scrutinisingthesepercentagesfurtherintermsoftheproportionofteachersexpressinglevelsofagreementordisagreementrevealsavariedpictureintermsofteachers’beliefintheirabilitytoteachpupilswithSEN.Approximatelyhalfofmainstreamrespondentsfeltabletoindicatealevelofagreementwiththestatement‘IamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyteachpupilswitharangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)’andjustoveraquarterdisagreed.Cautionshouldbeexercisedininterpretation of this statistic. An inevitable limitation of this type of question is that it onlycaptures the individual respondent’s belief in their ability. Their belief may be different to thereality.Nevertheless,atthelevelofteacherexperienceitdoesmeanthatasizeableproportion(27.8%)ofteachersarecarryingouttheirrolebelievingthattheyarenotabletoeffectivelyteachallthepupilsintheircurrentclass(es).Afurthersalientpointintryingtodeterminewhattherealitymight be is the relatively high proportion of ambivalent responses in relation to effectivelyteachingpupilswithSEN.Theseresponsesalsoneedtobeviewedinthecontextofresponsestootherquestions.FiftyonepercentagreedorstronglyagreedthattheprogressofmostpupilswithSEN in theirclass isdependenton theavailabilityofaTAandonly32%said theschoolemployedasufficientrangeofsupportstafftofullysupporttheneedsofchildrenwithSEN.Whenconsideringthestatement‘IamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyteachpupilswitharangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)’,respondentsmaynothavebeenansweringontheirpersonalcapacityintermsofknowledge,skillsandunderstandinginrelationtoSEN.Theymayhavebeenmakingacommentonanissueoffeasibilitybasedontheirperceptionsoftheneedforadditionalsupportandoftheamountofsupportcurrentlyavailable.Itisalsounknownwhetherparticulartypesofneedaffected teachers’ responses whenconsidering thepart of the statement referring to ‘arangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)’.Weknowfromanotherquestionthat89.1%ofmainstreamrespondentsindicatedthattheinclusionofmorepupilswithSENhasmeantthattheyneedmorestrategies to manage behaviour. If teachers included pupils whose form of SENincluded abehaviouralcomponentintheirconsiderationof‘arangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)’,thisisalsolikelytohaveimpactedonperceptionsofcurrentpersonalcapacity.

As might be expected, teaching experience appears to be a factor influencing responsesregarding perceived ability to ‘effectively teach pupils with a range of SEN in my currentclass(es)’. A total of 45.8% of newly qualified teacher respondents agreed that they weregenerallyabletoteachpupilswitharangeofSEN,comparedwith49.3%ofrespondentswhoqualified25yearsago,52.3%whoqualified610yearsagoand54.2%ofthosewhoqualified1115yearsago.However,thisdropsto46.5%ofthosewhoqualifiedmorethan15yearsago.


Itshouldberecognisedthatalthoughthereisageneralincreasethatgoesalongsidelengthofservicetheincreaseisnotparticularlygreat.

Approximately60%ofmainstreamrespondentsindicatedthattheyfelttheyweregenerallyableto effectively assess the progress of all pupils in their current class(es), though a sizeableminority(18.3%)disagreed.

Therewasafarhigher levelofagreement(76.8%)inrelationtothestatement‘IamgenerallyabletoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilswithSENintheclass(es)Icurrentlyteach’andafarsmaller proportion disagreeing (9.2%). A possible picture emerging is that teachers feelconfidentintheirabilitytodeterminewhatpupils’learningneedsarebutareconsiderablylesssure in how to meet these needs through their teaching or to assess progress. This is aninteresting finding in the light of the 2011 Green Paper’s focus on strengthening teachers’capacity to identify children’s needs as this appears to be an area where teachers alreadyappeartofeelconfident.

Special school respondents indicated higher levels of agreement and lower levels ofdisagreementinrelationtotheircapacitytoassesspupilslearningneeds,teacheffectivelyandassessprogress.Therewerealsofewerambivalentresponses(seeTable2.7).

The survey data would support the view that there is a need to investigate further theknowledge,skillsandunderstandingthatteachersrequiretoteachpupilswithSENeffectively.Itisworthyofnote,however,thatwhenaskedwithinthesurveywhatwouldbemostusefultothem in relation to theSENofpupils theycurrentlyworkwith, ‘moreknowledgeaboutSEN’receivedfewerpositiveresponsesthan‘moretime’,‘greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoworkdirectlywithpupils’and‘moreadditionaladultsupport’(seeTable2.8).

Combinedtotalsforstronglyagreeandagree

Mainstream SpecialschoolMoretime 86.5% 82.6%

Greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoworkdirectlywithpupils

84.7% 59.5%

Moreadditionaladultsupport 83.2% 61.1%

MoreknowledgeaboutSEN 72.6% 60.3%

Greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoadvisetheteacher/school

72% 53.3%

Moreseniorleadershipteamsupport/understanding

63.2% 10%

Morestrategies 60.7% 44.2%

Greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologists 60.4% 63.6%

Moreexternalagencysupport 58.9% 61.6%

Table 2.8 Respondents’ views on what would be most useful to them in relation to the pupils with SEN theycurrentlyworkwith

This is not necessarily at odds with teachers’ apparent desire to have more training. ThequestionsetoutinTable2.8asksabouttherelativeutilityof‘moreknowledgeaboutSEN’notaboutmoretraininginSEN.Thechoicessetoutinthetablewerenotintendedtocompetewith


traininganditshouldalsoberecognisedthatanumberoftheoptionsalsoaffordanopportunityforincreasingtheteacher’sknowledge,skillsandunderstandinginrelationtoSEN.

ItwasevidentfromthesurveydatathatteachersdidnotjustrelyonwhatmighttraditionallybeconsideredtorepresenttraininginrelationtoSEN.Respondentswereaskedtoindicate(fromalist)wheretheywouldbemostlikelytolookforinformationinrelationtoSEN.Formainstreamteachers,themostlikelysourcesofinformationwere:

• seekingadvicefromaSENCO(79%);• seekingadvicefromanothercolleagueinschool(75%);• usingaspecialistSENwebsite(67%);• usingotherwebsites(51%);• usinggovernmentwebsites(49%).

As might be expected, the survey data indicated that recently qualified teachers wereparticularlylikelytoseekadvicefromSENCOsorothercolleaguesinschool.WhenaskedwheretheywouldgoforinformationonSEN,themajorityofcasestudyintervieweessaidtheysoughtadvice from theSENCO,who, inmost schools visited,was seenasa valuableand relevantsourceofinformation.

Resultsweresimilarforspecialschoolrespondents.Themostlikelysourcesofinformationwere:

• usingaspecialistSENwebsite(81%);• seekingadvicefromaspecialistcolleagueinschool(80%);• usingotherwebsites(72%);• usingbooks/magazines/journals(61%);• usinggovernmentwebsites(57%).

ThefindingthatmostteachersseeksupportandguidancefromtheirSENCOand/orcolleagues,coupledwiththepreviouslydiscussedfindingthattheyreceivemostoftheirtrainingintheirownschools,has implications in termsof thevariability inprovisionandoutcomesforpupilswithSEN that is of ongoing concern for the government. If teachers’ training and CPD is overlydependent on the setting in which they are placed, then of course it follows that teachers’professional knowledge, skills and understanding in SEN is going to vary depending on thequalityofthesupport,theSENCOandtheexperiencesandopportunitiestheyaregivenintheirschoolsetting.ItiswiththisinmindthathighqualitynationalSENCOtrainingisjustified.DespitethestrongindicationinthesurveyandinterviewsthatteacherslookforsupportinschoolwheninneedofinformationinrelationtoSEN,only36.6%ofmainstreamsurveyrespondentsagreedthattheyfeltwellsupportedinteachingpupilswithSEN;39.9%disagreedwiththisand21.9%wereambivalent.

Incommonwithsurveyrespondents,manyteachersinterviewedalsosaidthattheymadeuseofwebsites.Acommonlycitedapproachwas touse the relevantSENcategoryasasearchterm.Interestingly,veryfewteachersandaminorityofSENCOsandheadteachersinterviewedsaidtheyhadusedtheIDPmaterials.OneSENCOinterviewednoted:

“Navigation [of IDP website materials] is too complex and there is a need toregister,whichdetersbusyteachers–someofthematerialsareabitbasic.”

(SecondarySENCO)


ThelimiteduseoftheIDPmaterialsbystaffincasestudyschoolsreflectsthesurveydata,whichindicatedthatjustunderathirdofmainstreamrespondentshadaccessedthese,althoughjustunder78%ofthosewhohadusedthematerialshadfoundthemuseful.

Clearly, there are implications for the Government in assuming that the development ofelectronic resources to support teacher training in SEN is sufficient to address an identifiedneed.FollowingthedevelopmentofanyspecialistSENmaterials,thereneedtobestrategiestofacilitateandmonitortakeup,useandevaluationofthesebyteachersinclassrooms.

Case study data suggests that most teachers seem to be effectively compensating forperceived shortfalls in their training for SEN by using available resources, including theircolleagues’experienceandknowledgeandelectronicmaterials.Fromtheseresponsesteachersmaywellbegivingthemessagethatif‘training’isdesignedtobeusefultothemintheircurrentjob, then such training would need to include a range of opportunities, experiences andactivities, including thoseprovided fromwithin their school,between local schoolsand fromtheirLAandotheragencies.

Surveyrespondentswereaskedtogiveanexampleofagoodtrainingexperience.Thehundredsofexamplesaresovariedthattheyaredifficulttosummarise,withcoursesrangingfromanhourtotenweeks. It isclear thoughthatwhat teachersvalue is trainingonspecific issues,givingthemknowledgeandideasthattheycanuseintheirclassrooms,forexample:

“The most useful have been onetoone or small group sessions in school(occasionallyinterschool),generallyspecifictoindividualsortypesofSEN;oftenunrecorded,neveraccredited,buthighlyfocusedandrelevanttoperceivedneedtoknow.”

“TheAutisticChildintheClassroom,runbyLEAadvisers.Gaveveryspecificideasthatwereactuallyworkable!”

“TeamTeachtraininggivenbystaffwhoworkinalocalspecialschool.We’vehadafulldayandamorerecenthalfdayrefresher.Itwaswellstructured,wellpreparedandrelevanttobehaviourissueswehadinschoolatthetime.Itwasalsovaluabletogaintheinsightsofspecialistteachers.”

“Two years ago. Onehour training on pupils with hearing difficulties. Run byoutside specialists who gave very precise information and practical classroomstrategies.”

Anumberofsurveyrespondentsrepliedtosaythattheywereunabletogiveusanexampleofgoodtraining,forexample:

“No,sorry.Allafterschooltraininghasbeenshockinglypoorby‘consultants’whoclearlycannotcopeinaclassroomsohavegoneontobecome‘advisers/experts’.”

“None of the training I have received since completing my Dip SpLD has been‘good’–ithasbeendeliveredbynonspecialistsandhasusuallybeenacobbledtogetherbookletofinformation.”

Surveyrespondentswereaskedwhattrainingtheywouldlike.Again,thehundredsofresponsesaredifficulttocategorisebutasignificantnumbersaidthatanytrainingwouldbeuseful.Some


ofthesurveyrespondentswantedhelpindealingwithaspecificcondition–suchasdyslexiaandautism.OtherswantedmoregenerictrainingonhowtodealwithSEN,earlyidentification,planning and strategies to engage pupils and manage behaviour. Some survey respondentsraisedparticularissues:

“HowtomaketheSENchildrenmoreindependentsomyselfortheTAdoesnothavetoworkwiththemallthetime.”

“Generalhelponhowtodifferentiateeffectively forseveralchildrenworkingwellbelowlevelbutnotallatthesamelevel.”

When asked what training they need/would like in relation to SEN, case study intervieweespredictably gave a variety of responses. Many respondents had some difficulty stating whattrainingtheyneededbecauseinthemaintheyknewwhattheyshoulddowiththeirindividualpupilswithSENbutoftenfounditdifficulttoeffectivelydeliversuchstrategiesinthecontextofatypicalclassof2530pupils.

Evenintervieweeswiththebenefitofseveralyears’experiencestruggledtoidentifywhatelsecouldusefullyhavebeenincludedduringITT.Asoneteachersuggested:

“Iwouldtick‘yes’tomoretrainingbutdonotknowwhatthatwouldbe.”(SecondarySENCO)

Many case study teachers expressed a view that more support in class would be just asimportanttothemasmoretrainingonSEN.

Althoughcasestudyrespondentsacknowledgedthatitwasnecessarytoknowabouttypesof‘common SEN’ and strategies, they expressed a view that either they already had someknowledge from their training, practice or personal experience or that such additionalinformationcouldalwaysbeobtainedfromtheSENCO.

WhenaskedwhatspecificSENtrainingwouldbeuseful to them, interviewees typicallycitedtopicsthatwouldberelevanttotheircurrentrolesandneedsofthepupilstheyhadatthetime.Forexample,ifapupilwaseithercomingintooralreadyplacedintheirclass/subjectgroupwithaspecific‘lowerincidence’SEN,thenrespondentssaidthatofcoursetheywouldneedtoknowaboutthis–oneteachercitedFragileXasanexampleandanotherDown’sSyndrome.Otherspecificcategoriesnamedmore frequentlyseemed tobe linked tonationalemphasison thereportingofpupilprogressinliteracyandnumeracy.Anumberofsecondaryteachersidentifieddyscalculia,dyspraxiaanddyslexiaasareas foradditional training.Otherspecificcategoriescitedbyintervieweeswerethoselikelytopresentparticulardifficultieswhenteachingpupilsinaclassroomcontext,namelyADHDandASD.Thenamingofspecificcategorieswasslightlymoreprevalentinprimarysettings.SecondaryschoolstaffweremoreinterestedinanyformoftrainingorguidancematerialsthatwouldenablethemtomotivateandteachpupilswithSENintheirsubjectarea.Articulatedinavarietyofways,acommonthemeemergingfrombothprimaryandsecondary intervieweeswas theneed foranystrategiesorapproachespresentedwithintrainingtoberelevantandapplicabletothegroupsettingoftheclassroom.Thoughallteacherswereveryawareoftheirresponsibilityfortheprogressofalltheirpupils,secondaryintervieweesinparticularstressedthattheprescribed,timeframedsubjecttargetsthatneededtobemetbytheclasswereafactorinfluencingthestrategiesandapproachesitwasfeasibletoimplementforindividuals.


Many teachers spoken to during case study visits were concerned with pupils who werepresentingwithbothSENandbehaviouralandsocialproblems.Consequently,mostcasestudyteacherswereconcernedwithhowtogetpupilsengagedintheirlessons.Responsesregardingtrainingfellbroadlyintotwocategories:understandinghumanbehaviourandthecurriculum.

• UnderstandinghumanbehaviourCommentsrelatedtotraininginthisareaincluded:

“Understanding thepsychologyofbehaviour so thatweknowwhysomepupilsbehaveandothersdon’t(inclass).”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Itisnotjusttheteaching…theyarenotdoingitforsakeofit.”(Primaryteacher)

“Weneedtobringbackpsychology,sociologyandphilosophyifweareto‘beatthemattheirowngame’.”

(Primaryteacher)

“WorkingwithBESDpupilsalongsideexperiencedteachers.”(Secondaryteacher)

“JustfindingouthowIteachapupilwithSENinaclassof30.”(Secondaryteacher)

“Howtogetpupilsengagedinagroup.”(Secondaryteacher)

“AttachmentTheory.”(Primaryteacher)

“Teachersneedtoknow‘whatnottodo’forASD,dyslexiaandbehaviour.”(PrimarySENCO)

• CurriculumCommentsrelatedtotraininginthisareaincluded:

“MoreonICTandSEN,likeuseoftheVLE.”(Secondaryteacher)

“Plevels.”(Primaryteacher)

“Secondaryteachersneedmoreonteachingliteracy–theyarenottrainedtoteachliteracybuttheydoteachEnglishandoftenhaveresponsibilityforraisingliteracylevels.”

(Headofdepartment–English)

“ItwouldbeusefultohavesomepreparedsubjectresourcesforpupilswithSEN.”(SecondaryMFLteacher)


Whenaskedincasestudyinterviewswhattypeoftrainingwasuseful,therewasoverwhelmingsupport for training that aimed directly to improve current classroom practice. Responsesincluded:

“Teachertrainingsays, ‘This ishowit is’…but it’snot ‘onethingforall’butwhatworksforaparticularchildinaparticularclass.”

(Primaryteacher)

“Moreobservationinotherteachers’classessothatyoucouldseehowyourownpupilsrespondedtodifferentsettings–butyouwouldneedtoknowwhatyouarelookingfor.”

(Secondaryteacher)

Intervieweesshowedastrongpreferencefortrainingthatwasspecificallyrelevanttopupilstheywerecurrentlyteaching–oftenwiththetrainingbeingcarriedout intheschool.Asecondaryteacherexpressedthisas:

“Traininginourownschoolbecauseyouwerethentalkingaboutthechildrenyouwereteachingandshareideas.”

Othersecondaryteachersnoted:

“YoucanlearnabouttypesofSENbutindividualsvarywithinSENcategoriesandeachcontextisdifferentsoyouneedtodoitinyourownschools;it’sgoodwhenwhatyoucoveroncoursesatHEisfollowedupwithwhatyoudoinclass.”

“Theverybesttrainingwaswhenwehadanedpsychcomeintoclasswhoworkedwithusonpupilbehaviour–itwasbrilliant.”

A number of interviewees also noted the value of the demonstration of strategies andapproachesintheirschooland/orclasssetting.

Someteachers,bothprimaryandsecondary,wereappreciativewhentheirSENCOs,aswellasprovidingalistofpupilswithSENwhowouldbeintheirclass,hadprovidedalistofstrategiesthateitherappliedtoaspecificcategory(e.g.dyslexia)orhadprovenusefulwiththeparticularchild named on the list. Although not typically considered training, this contributed to theteacher’sability to teach thispupilandotherswith this typeofneedmoreeffectivelyandsocouldbeseenasbuildingteachercapacityinrelationtoSEN.

InschooltrainingthatwascitedasusefulinrelationtoSENincluded:

• socialandemotionalaspectsoflearning(SEAL);• praiseandreward;• communication,interactionandbehaviour;• breakingbarrierstoboys’underachievement;• positivehandling.

Althoughintervieweeswelcomedtrainingintheirownschoolsetting,itwasnotedbyafewthattherewasa risk ifSENtrainingwasundertakenexclusively in the teacher’sownsetting.Thefollowingtworesponsesreflectthisview:


“You need to get out of your own school at times otherwise you can becomeblinkered–it’sgoodtothinkoutsidetheboxattimesandmeetotherteachersfromdifferenttypesofschools…wethoughtweweregoodatindependentlearning,thenwevisitedanotherprimaryschoolanditwasamazing.”

(Primaryteacher)

“Doing SENCO accredited training allowed me to meet other people – you gettunnelvisionsoanythingthathelpsfromtheoutsideisgood.”

(PrimarySENCO)

Itwasnoteworthy thatwhendiscussing training forSENwith interviewees,phrasessuchas‘coverageofSENintraining’wereinterpretedbymanyrespondentsaslinkedtospecificSENcategories such as autism or dyslexia rather than training that covered areas such as‘differentiation’or‘behaviourmanagement’.Illustratingthispoint,oneteachercommented:

“Welearntaboutdifferentiationandhadtoshowthatinourplanning,butwedidn’tdomuchaboutteachingSENpupils.”

(Primaryteacher)

Casestudyintervieweeswerefullyacceptingthattheyhaveresponsibilityforteachingallpupilsin their classes, including those with SEN. However, in spite of this, there may still befragmentationwithinthemindsofteachersastowhichinitiatives,trainingandstrategiesapplyto‘nonSENsubjectteaching’andwhichrelateto‘teachingindividualswithSEN’.Theissuethatmoreknowledgeandexperiencewasneededaboutsubjectdifficultiesexperiencedbypupils,notjustthosewithSEN,wasnotedbythosecasestudysubjectteacherswhosaidthatmoretraininginhowtoteachliteracytopupilswhohadfoundthisdifficultwouldbeaneededareaoftrainingforthem.

A view that ‘training for SEN’ may sometimes be viewed through a rather narrow lens wasreflectedinacommentbyateacherwhosaidthat:

“Iwenton training formotivationalstarters,whichwasexcellentbutverypoorlyattended.”

(Secondaryteacher)

The low attendance noted by this teacher is interesting in the light of teachers frequentlyreportingthatgettingpupilstogetstartedandstayontaskwasproblematic,particularlyiftherewas no additional adult support and the class had too many pupils with concentrationdifficulties. Motivational starters would seem to be a very relevant topic in relation to theteaching of pupils with SEN. It is reasonable to posit that pupils who experience greaterdifficultiesin learningthantheirpeerswillneedmoremotivationthanthosewhofindlearningrelativelyeasy. It is,ofcourse, likely that teachersdidnotattend thiscourse foravarietyofreasons.However,itmayalsobethecasethattrainingrelevanttoSENisstillviewedinrelationtohowpupilswithSENdifferfromtheirpeers,ratherthantheextenttowhichtheysharetheneedtodevelopthosebehavioursthatallowthemtolearninthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.These behaviours include those that characterise motivation, selfefficacy and independentlearning, including selfmonitoringand selfevaluation, andmakinguseof feedback,positiveandnegative,toimprovelearning.


TherewasaclearfeelingoffrustrationfromteacherswespoketowhodidnotfeelsupportedbytheGovernmentintheirpursuitoftryingtofindeffectivewaysofteachingpupilswithSENinmainstreamsettings.Reflectingthisview,oneteachercommented:

“Often, because we get permanently criticised by government, training thatreaffirmswe’redoingtherightthingisvaluable.”

(Primaryteacher)

Interestingly,feedbackvoluntarilyexpressedduringthecasestudyvisitswasverypositive,withintervieweesnotingthattheyvaluedtheopportunitytotalktotheresearchersabouttheirworkon SEN and inclusion. A number commented on the usefulness of having the time andopportunitytoreflectcriticallyontheirpracticeinanonjudgementalsetting.Virtuallyallteacherinterviews were conducted in pairs and secondary school teachers in particular wereenthusiasticabouthavingthechancetotalktoothercolleaguesabouttheirexperiencesandviewsonSENandinclusion.Itmaybethatstructuredopportunitiesofthisnaturethatinvolvereflecting critically on practice should be recognised as a potentially useful professionaldevelopmentactivity.

Boththepreviousandcurrentgovernmenthaveseenspecialschoolsasasourceofexpertisethatcouldbeutilisedtodeveloppracticeinmainstreamschools.Specialschoolteacherswereasked about outreach work within the survey. Fiftytwo (21%) out of the 242 special schoolteacherswhocompletedthesurveysaidthattheywereinvolvedinoutreachworktomainstreamschools.Oftheserespondents,slightlylessthanhalf(25)agreedthattheyhadsufficienttrainingfortheiroutreachwork,with16sayingthattheydidnot.Itwasgenerallyfeltthatmainstreamschoolswelcomedtheirinvolvement(79%)andgenerallyactedontherecommendationsmade(69%).Only13respondents(25%)thoughtthatoutreachworktookstaffawayfromnecessaryduties in their own school, with 44% disagreeing with this statement. There are clearlydifferences in the formoutreach fromspecial schools takes.Of the52 respondentswhoareinvolvedinoutreachwork,23saidthattherolemainlyinvolvesdirectworkingwithpupils,18disagreedandtenwereambivalent.Twentyeightsaidthattherolemainlyinvolvesadvisingandtrainingstaff,with13disagreeingandagaintenbeingambivalent.Twentysixrespondentssaidthattheirroleinvolvedacombinationofworkingwithpupilsandadvising/trainingstaff,with17disagreeing.

Findings2.1 When asked if they needed more training in SEN, the majority of survey respondents

answered positively. There was strong agreement with the suggestion that ‘theGovernmentshouldprovidemoreSENtraining forall teachers’.ThemajorityofsurveyrespondentsalsoindicatedthatmoreknowledgeaboutSENwouldbeuseful.However,the number of respondents identifying this as useful was less than for ‘more time’,‘increased access to specialist teachers who work directly with pupils’ and ‘moreadditionaladultsupport’.Themajorityofcasestudyrespondents,whilstacknowledgingthatmoretrainingwouldalwaysbeconsidereddesirable,didnotprioritiseSENtrainingasanimmediateneed.

2.2 Trainingrequirementswereveryvaried.Someteachersinterviewedexpressedaneedinrelation to particular categories of SEN (e.g. ASD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia,ADHD), while others, particularly secondary subject teachers, were concerned withfeasibilityissuessuchashowtoteach/motivatepupilswithSENwithinthediverseanddemandinggroupsettingoftheclassroom.


2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

Within the survey responses, there was a strong view that ITT inadequately preparedteachers to teach pupils with a range of SEN, irrespective of how recently they hadqualified. Almost three quarters of respondents expressed this view. Case studyrespondents reported thatSEN routeswithin ITTwereoftenoptional. Therewere veryvariedexperiencesreportedaboutITTandSEN.SomespokehighlyoftheirexperiencesduringITT,particularlywheretherewasaneffectivereciprocalrelationshipbetweenthetaughtcontentprovidedbytheHEIandtheexperienceofSENteachingprovidedthroughplacementinspecialandmainstreamschools.

There was acknowledgement in case study interviews that postgraduate routes,particularly the GTP, were already overloaded and that it is often difficult for traineeteacherstorelateanySENknowledgetopracticeuntiltheybegintheirteaching.ValuedITTexperiencesincludedopportunitiestoobserveand/orworkinspecialschoolsettingsortoworkinclasswithspecialistteachers/advisers.

DespiteacknowledgingshortfallsregardingthecoverageofSENintheirITT,mostofthesurveyrespondentsrespondedpositivelywhenquestionedabouttheirabilitytoidentifythe learningneedsofpupilswithSENandassesstheirprogress.However,onlyhalfofmainstream respondents felt theywereable toeffectively teachpupilswitha rangeofSENintheircurrentclass(es).Thismaybeindicativeofateacherviewonfeasibilityratherthanrelatedtoadeficitintheirknowledge,skillsandunderstanding.ThemajorityofcasestudyintervieweeswereoftheviewthattherewereinherentlimitationstowhatcouldbetaughtaboutSENduring ITTandageneralacceptance that itwasnecessary to learnthroughexperience,particularlyduringthenewlyqualifiedteacheryear.

Formainstreamandspecialschoolteachers,themostlikelysourcesofinformationwereseekingadvice fromaSENCOand/oranothercolleague inschoolandusingspecialistSENorotherwebsites.

TherewaslimitedevidencethatnationallyproducedguidancetostrengthentheteachingofpupilswithSENwas impactingonpractice.Onlya thirdofmainstreamandspecialschoolteachershadaccessedanyofthegovernmentproducedIDPmaterialsforSEN.

SurveyrespondentsreportedthatthemainformsoftrainingundertakensinceSeptember2004wereschoolbased,usuallyas‘oneoff’afterschoolsessionsorall/partofastaffdevelopment day. A minority of questionnaire respondents reported that they hadreceived no training on SEN or inclusion since 2004. Very few respondents hadundertakencoursesthatprovidedaqualificationorcreditstowardsone.

An interesting and unexpected finding was that case study interviewees valued theopportunity to talk to the researchers about SEN and inclusion issues. A numbercommentedon theusefulnessofhaving the timeandopportunity tobeable to reflectcriticallyontheirpracticeinanonjudgementalsetting.


Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy• The previous government placed considerable faith in strengthening ITT and CPD in

relationtoSEN(e.g.DfEE,1997,DfES,2004b).ThecurrentGovernmenthasalsoplacedemphasis in this area, referring to plans to ‘strengthen initial training’ and ‘boost theavailability of advancedlevel continuous professional development’ (DfE, 2011, p60).Whilst therewasanacknowledgement thatmore trainingwouldalwaysbeconsidereddesirable,fewteachersinterviewedperceivedthattheircurrentlevelofknowledgewasabarrier to teaching pupils with SEN effectively. For the Government, an emphasis onreducingthevariabilityinqualityandaccessibilityofrelevanttrainingthatcharacterisesthe current situation would seem to be more of a priority than ‘more’ training.RespondentssawtrainingasonlyoneofarangeoffactorsthatcouldcontributetobetteroutcomesforpupilswithSEN.MoreknowledgeinSENwasseenaslessimportantthanincreased access to specialist teachers who work with pupils in the classroom andadditionaladultsupport.Thesefindingssuggestthatinseekingtoimproveoutcomesforpupils with SEN, the possible contribution of more training needs to be consideredalongside, rather than as a replacement for, a range of support. Consideration couldusefullybegiventoreplacinganarrowviewoftrainingwithonethatviewsthenatureofinschoolsupport,thequalityofSENCOandothercolleagues’knowledgeandexpertise,the availability and quality of external support and time to explore, use and evaluateexisting training materials as all contributing to teacher training and professionaldevelopmentinSEN.

• Teachers’professionaldevelopmentinrelationtoSENvariesconsiderably:i) ItappearsthatcoveragevariesonITTcourses,withsometeachersreportingthatthey

felt well prepared and others indicating they had covered little on SEN. Schoolplacementduringtrainingisalsoarelevantfactor.SometraineeshadbeeninschoolswheretherewasahighproportionofSENorhadpupilsintheirclasswithparticularneedsandhadlearnedfromthis.Whilstthiswasvaluable,apertinentquestionishow,asatraineewithlimitedbackgroundknowledge,theyareabletojudgewhetheranypracticeadvocatedorobservedisgoodpractice.Thequalityoftheplacementschoolis therefore a variable and the input provided by HEIs in relation to the use of anevidencebaseandopportunitiesaffordedforsupportedcriticalreflectiononpracticewould seem to be important in ensuring trainees can make informed judgementsaboutthetypesofteachingapproachesandstrategiestheyshouldseektoemulate.This raises questions about SEN and ITT within restructured teacher trainingprogrammesthataremoreschoolbased.

ii) A teacher’s training in SEN can finish once their newly qualified teacher year iscompletedand,as indicated,thisgroundingmaybeofvariablequality.SubsequentCPDisdependentontheprioritytheschoolattachestostaffdevelopmentinrelationtoSEN,theavailablesupportfromSENCOsandotherswithexpertiseinSENandtheindividualteacher’smotivationtopursueadditionaltraining.

iii) Acommonresponsefromteachersintheinterviewswasthattheywouldseekadvicefrom the SENCO and/or other member of staff if they were unsure regarding thestrategies and approaches to employ with a pupil with SEN in their class. Whilstteachers did not perceive this as a problem, a potential issue is that the quality ofadvice received is dependent on who else is in their school. Many SENCOs areknowledgeableandwell trainedandarewell placed togive suchadvice.However,thereisstillariskofoverrelianceononepersonratherthanateamandalackofanexternal perspective through, for example, involvement of LA support service staff.


There is a need for further research on the role and value of internal and externalsupport.

• Giventhedifferentexperiencesofteachers,anyadditionaltrainingforSENwouldneedtooffer a degree of personalisation reflecting their individual starting points, currentprofessional development needs and future aspirations. Such ongoing professionaldevelopmentcannotbeconsideredinisolationfrominhouseandexternalexpertiseandsupport.Thereisatendencycurrentlytofocusonseparateaspectsoftraining(i.e.ITE,NQT,CPD)whereasitmaybemorebeneficialtofocusoncontinuityandprogressionsothatthere isgreatercoherencewithintheteacher’sportfolioofevidencethatrelatestosubjectbaseddevelopment for all pupils, including thosewithSEN,and thatwhich iscurrentlyregardedas‘SENspecific’.

• Thereisaneedtoconsiderwhattypeoftrainingandexperiencesteachersrequireastheyprogressthroughdifferentstagesoftheircareers.Forexample, itwouldbepossibletoprovidesomeunderstandingofhowapupilwithahighincidenceneedmightpresentinclassandafewkeystrategiesthatitisfeasibletoincorporateinclassteachingtoreducebarriers to learning. This may contribute to trainee confidence and competence. Thisgeneral level of preparedness does not address the issue that pupils within any onecategory are not a homogeneous group. As teachers progress they are likely to needtraining that allows them to problem solve in relation to specific pupils, selecting andevaluatingstrategiesbasedonthepupil’sresponsetoteachingratherthanrelyingupongenericlistsofstrategieslinkedtoaparticulartypeofneed.

• Schools currently harness inhouse expertise to provide training and support in SEN,which is valued by teachers and support staff. This is a costeffective and relevantapproachbutthismustbebalancedwithaccessto,andengagementwith,enduringandemerging evidence for effective practices from outside teachers’ immediate schoolcontext.Whilst it ispositivethatteachersarereportingthattheymakeuseof inhousecapacity, the negative angle is that the quality of advice from a colleague is entirelydependent on that colleague’s experience and expertise. In the current climate ofreductionsinLAservicesnationally,thereisaneedtolookathowschoolsidentifyanddrawonappropriate,highqualityexternaltraining,developmentandsupport.

• There is a need to distinguish between high and low incidence needs. Teachersinterviewedwereclear that trainingwasbetterwhen it related toasituation theywereexperiencing and included ideas that were feasible to use in the classroom setting.Training in relation to thehigh incidenceneeds that teacherswill typicallyencounter islikelytobethemosthelpful.TraininginrelationtolowincidenceneedsislikelyonlytoberelevantwhenitisknownthatapupilwiththisparticularSENwillbejoiningtheclassorschool.

• The2011GreenPaperproposes‘tobemuchcleareringuidanceforprofessionalsabouthowtoidentifySENaccurately’(DfE,2011,p67)andseekstoimproveteachers’abilityinthisarea.ItisrelevanttonotethatmanyoftheclassandsubjectteachersinterviewedhadnotbeeninvolvedintheidentificationofpupilsashavingSEN.Formanyteachers,theirrole in identification will be in the form of spotting and reporting that a child isexperiencing difficulties in learning rather than any formal identification as SEN.Recognising when pupils are not learning (or not learning as well as they might) andinterveningisalready,andhaslongbeen,anintegralpartofateacher’srole.


• Withinthe2011GreenPaper,trainingappearstobeconceptualisedas‘spreadingbestpractice’(DfE,2011,p67)eitherfrommainstreamandspecialschoolswithoutstandingOfstedreports.Therearethreekeypointstonote:

i) Any training that may emerge as a result of the 2011 Green Paper needs to beconceptualisedwithinaframeworkthatrecognisesthattheteacherwillbeteachingthe pupil with SEN within the group setting of the classroom. Strategies that haveemerged from special schools or studies of what works with individuals may notnecessarilytransfertoamainstreamsetting,althoughsomeprinciplesmight.

ii) The2011GreenPaper’sproposalthatschoolswithoutstandingOfstedreportscouldact as training providers needs to be further explored. There are a number offundamentalquestionsrelatingtotheevidenceavailablethatschoolswithoutstandingOfstedreportsarenecessarilybestplacedtotrainteachersinhowtosecureimprovedoutcomesforpupilswitharangeofSENfromarangeofbackgrounds.

iii) TherelationshipbetweenteachingschoolsandHEIsremainsunclear,thoughthereisreference in the White Paper (DfE, 2010, p23) to inviting ‘some of the best highereducation providers of initial teacher training to open University Training Schools’.Whilst many interviewees valued schoolbased experiences that teaching schoolsmight in the future provide, a salient point is that some survey and case studyrespondents expressed interest in training related to child development andpsychologicalperspectivesonbehaviourandlearningthattypicallywouldbetaughtbyHEItutors.Aquestionthereforeiswhetherteachingschoolswillnecessarilyhavetheexpertise toprovidehighquality training in theseareas.ManyHEIswouldalsopride themselveson,andstress the importanceof, thedevelopmentof traineesasreflectivepractitioners,abletoengagewithevidencebasesthatinformpractice.Itisencouraging that the National College reports that the TDA anticipates ‘that allteaching schools will have strong and meaningful links with at least one universitypartnertosupporttheirwork’whichcouldinvolvedeliveryof‘accreditedITTMasterslevelworkandpracticebasedresearch’(2011,p6).However,aquestionthatremainsis whether TDA ‘anticipation’ is sufficient to ensure these important areas ofprofessionaldevelopmentaregivensufficientpriorityincomparisontotheacquisitionofpracticalcompetences.

• There is a need to identify and address barriers that contribute to variability in thetakeupanduseoftheexistingtrainingmaterialsonSEN,includingtheIDP.BeforetheGovernment embarks upon the production of any more materials, there is a need toidentifywhymany teachers arenot accessingwhat is currently available andcanvasstheirviewsonpreferredformatsandmodesofdelivery.

• ThemodeloftraininginRemovingBarrierstoAchievement(DfES,2004b)thatrelatedtodegreesofexpertisewouldseemstilltoofferausefulframeworkfortraining.Themodelencouragesafocusontheskillsallteachersneed,theadvancedskillsthatsomestaffineveryschoolneedandtheskillsthatsomestaffinalocalclusterofschoolsneed.Suchanapproachplacesemphasisonconsidering individualschooland localcapacityandseemsamorerealisticalternativetotheassumptionthatitisindividualteachercapacitythatneedstobebuilt.

• There is a need to explorewhat a teacher can realisticallydowithin theirwholeclassteachingthatreducesbarrierstoaccessandparticipationforallpupils,includingthose


withSEN.Suchanapproachrecognisesthattheissueforteachersisthattheyseektomeet the learning needs of individual pupils with SEN within the group setting of aclassroom and reflects principles set out by Corbett and Norwich (1999) and O’Brien(1998).Thepreviousgovernment’sterm‘QualityFirstInclusiveTeaching’(e.g.DfES,2002,DfES,2005b)hadsomeutilityinhighlightingthispriority.Theriskwithsuchatermwasthatitimpliedthattherewasalevelofpracticethatcouldbedeemed‘quality’withtheimplicationthatanythingfallingshortofthiswassomehowsubstandard.TheCoalitionGovernmenthasnowmovedtotheterm‘qualityteaching’,whichmaymakethisanevenstrongerimplication,particularlyinthelightofOfstedcommentsthat‘ForpupilsidentifiedforsupportatSchoolActionlevel,theadditionalprovisionwasoftenmakingupforpoorwholeclassteachingorpastoralsupport’(Ofsted,2010,p7).Freedfromthepotentiallyunhelpful rhetoricof ‘quality’, thenotionofexploringwhat the teachercan incorporatewithin their practice that improves access and engagement for their pupils, includingthosewithSEN, isan importantarea for researchanddevelopment.Therewouldbeaneedtoincludeconsiderationof,forexample:

(i) whatthisteachingwouldlooklikeforparticularformsofneed(e.g.forBESD);(ii) whatthisteachingwouldlooklikeinaparticularsubjectarea(e.g.MFL).

An important caveat is that proper account must be taken of feasibility. This includesrecognisingthenatureandnumberofneedswithintheclassandthesupportavailable.Without this regard for feasibility, the risk is that teachers are presented with animpracticallistofdesirablestrategies.


CHAPTER3:POLICYANDGUIDANCEFORSENANDINCLUSION

ExplorationoftheliteratureMuch of the significant government policy and guidance related to SEN and inclusion hadalreadybeenissuedbythetimeouroriginalliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008)waspublished.Bythispoint,criticismswereemerging(e.g.Warnock,2005,MacBeathetal.,2006,HouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee,2006).ItwasalsothestartofaperiodthatsawthepublicationofanumberofreviewslookingatspecificareasrelatedtoSEN.

ReviewsrelatedtoSENIn 2008, theBercowReviewofServices forChildren andYoungPeople (0-19)withSpeech,LanguageandCommunicationNeeds(Bercow,2008)foundthatoverallonein14fiveyearoldswere starting school with serious speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) andmade40recommendationsaroundfivethemes:

• communicationiscrucial;• earlyidentificationandinterventionareessential;• acontinuumofservicesdesignedaroundthefamilyisneeded;• jointworkingiscritical;• thecurrentsystemischaracterisedbyhighvariabilityandalackofequity.

ThiswasfollowedbytheactionplanBettercommunication:Anactionplantoimproveservicesforchildrenandyoungpeoplewithspeech,languageandcommunicationneeds(DCSF,2008).Theprioritisationofthisareaandsubstantialfinancialsupportwasbasedontherationalethatcommunicationproblemscanleadtoseriousdisadvantageinlaterlife–frominitialfrustrationatnotbeingabletoexpressoneself,tobullying,reducededucationalachievements,fewerjobprospectsandeventhedescentintocriminality.Thepackageofmeasuresincluded:

• theappointmentofanewCommunicationChampiontoraisetheprofile,drivereformandleadtheNationalYearofSpeech,LanguageandCommunication(2011/12);

• 16pilotareastoidentifygoodpractice,whichwouldleadtoanationalframework;• theUniversityofWarwicktoleadathreeyearresearchprogramme;• 12organisationsworkingtosupportchildrenwithSLCNgivengrants.

TheLambInquirywassetuptolookatSENandparentalconfidence.Thereport,publishedin2009,concludedthatthereneededtobeamajorreformofthecurrentsystem,withakeypointbeingthatSENmustbeembedded inschool leadership.Theothermainmessageswerethatparentsneededtobelistenedtomore,thesystemneededtobemoreambitiousforchildrenandthereneededtobearadicaloverhaulofthesystemwithaculturalshiftinthewayschools,LAsandotherprofessionalsworkwithparentsandchildren.Despitetheseproblems,Lamb(2009,p6)argued:‘…itisnotthecurrentframeworkthatisatfaultbutratherthefailuretocomplywithboththespiritand the letterof the framework.Wethereforeneedtoensure thatwhat thebestaredoingtodaytherestcan,andwill,dotomorrow.’Thisargumentwasbasedonthefactthat:

“Intalkingwithparentsofdisabledchildrenandchildrenwithspecialeducationalneeds(SEN),wemetsomeofthehappiestparentsinthecountryandsomeoftheangriest.Manyhadchildrenwhoarewellsupportedandmakinggoodprogress.Butwealsometparentsforwhomtheeducationsystemrepresentsabattletogettheneedsoftheirchildidentifiedandforthesetobemet.Thecrucialissueisthatbothexperienceshappenwithinthesamesystem.”

(Lamb,2009,p2)


This is a compelling argument, based on a view that if some LAs and schools can operateeffectivelywithintheexistingframeworkthentheframeworkitselfcannotbeatfault.However,a counter view would be that if the national framework is intended to provide a degree ofconsistencyofapproachandparityofexperiencethenitisclearlynotprovidingthis,giventhevariationidentified.

Changewasrecommendedinfourmainareas:

• children’soutcomestobeplacedattheheartofthesystem;• astrongervoiceforparents;• asystemwithagreaterfocusonchildren’sneeds;• amoreaccountablesystemthatdeliversbetterservices.

Thereporthas51recommendationsincluding:

• the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) develops guidance on theeffectivedeploymentofTAs;

• theDCSFcommissionstheTDAtodevelopmaterialstosupporttrainingatanadvancedlevelineachofthefivemainareasofSEN;

• theDCSFcommissionstheTDAtodevelopteacherswithspecialistSENanddisabilityskillsacrossclustersofschools;

• preparation for working with parents of disabled children and children with SEN isincludedininitialandcontinuingtrainingacrossthechildren’sworkforce;

• theDCSFreviewstheeffectivenessofarangeofapproachestopreventingandtacklingbullyingofchildrenwithSENanddisabilitiesandinvestsfurther inthosewiththemostimpact;

• theDCSFcommissionstheNationalStrategiestopromotedisabilityequalityschemesasavehicleforworkingwithdisabledpupilstoidentifyandaddressbullying;

• allSchoolImprovementPartners(SIPs)workingwithmainstreamschoolsreceivetraininginSENanddisability;andthat,inreportingtotheschoolgoverningbody,theheadteacherandtheLA,SIPsreportontheextenttowhichtheschoolhaspromotedgoodoutcomesandgoodprogressfordisabledpupilsandpupilswithSEN.

ThoughtheLambInquirywascommissionedbythepreviousLabourgovernment,theCoalitionhasdrawnextensivelyonittoinformthe2011GreenPaper.

In2009thefindingsoftheRoseReviewwerepublished.Thereviewhadbeencommissionedtoexploretheidentificationandteachingofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithdyslexiaandliteracydifficulties. The review said that it was important to implement high quality interventions forthesechildren.Althoughtherewereproblems,thereviewfoundmuchgoodprovisionwhichwascommendedbyparents.ItrecommendedthattheDCSFshouldcommissionshortcoursesforteachers on selecting and teaching literacy intervention programmes and should fund someteacherstoundertakespecialistcoursessothatexpertisecanbesharedacrossLAsandschoolpartnerships. The review made the point that dyslexia, once questioned, is now widelyacknowledged as a specific difficulty in learning to read. Rose (2009) suggested thatpersonalisedlearningwasacriticaldriverinhelpingchildrenmakethebestpossibleprogress–centraltothiswasassessmentforlearningwiththeuseofassessingpupilprogressmaterialstoseeifachildishavingdifficulties.


Rose(2009)quotestheobservationfromaMcKinseyandCompanyreportthat‘Thequalityofaneducationsystemcannotexceedthequalityof itsteachers’ (BarberandMourshed,2007,p16)andsuggeststhat:

“Virtuallyallrecentreviewsofeducationalprovisioncallformoreandbettertrainingof teachersandothermembersof theworkforce.This review isnoexception. Itaccepts,however,thattheeconomicclimateishardlyfavourableformeetingwhatislikelytobethemostcostlyaspectofitsrecommendations:highqualitytrainingfor the workforce. In consequence, the review looks to providers to make evenbetteruseofexistingtrainingresources,sothatanyadditionalfundingthatmaybeavailablecanbeconcentratedwhereitwillmakemostimpact.”

(Rose,2009,p16)

In its consideration of the skills that teachers need, the Rose Review referred back to thethreetier model presented within Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES, 2004b) anddiscussedwhatthecore,advancedandspecialistskillsrepresentinrelationtoteachingpupilswithdyslexia. It also reiterated theDfES’s (2004b)point that every teacher shouldexpect toteachchildrenwithSENandtheyneedtobeequippedwiththeskillstodosoeffectively.

Thereviewaffirmedtheimportanceofschoolsandparentsworkingtogether,andreferstotheLambReviewofSEN,notingthestepstheDCSFhastakentostrengthenworkforceknowledge,skillsandunderstandingofSENanddisability,including:

• encouraging ITTproviders tobuildon their coverageofSENanddisabilitybyofferingspecialist units for primary undergraduate ITT, launched in June 2008, with £500,000funding to aid dissemination. These include a Unit entitled Learning and Teaching fordyslexicpupils;

• similarunitsforsecondaryundergraduatecoursesandforPGCEcourseswillberolledoutinSeptember2009;

• developingmaterialsenablingsubject/curriculumtutorstochecktheirknowledgeofSENanddisabilityinrelationtotheirsubjectarea;

• promotionofenhancedopportunitiesforstudentteacherstogainexperienceofworkinginspecialschoolsorotherspecialistprovision;

• promotingtheuseofspecialistmaterialsfortheinductionofnewteachers;• developingnationallyapprovedtrainingforSENCOs,whohaveakeyroleineachschool

inensuringeffectiveprovisionforchildrenwithSENanddisabilitiesandareanimportantlinkwithparents.

Anumberofinitiativesrecommendedbythereviewsabovehavebeendiscontinuedfollowingtheelectionofthenewgovernmentin2010.

NationalStrategymaterialsonSENandinclusionWhilstvarious inquiriesandreviewsweretakingplace lookingat theoperationof thecurrentsystem,schoolsnecessarilycarriedonwiththeirdaytodaypractice.TheNationalStrategieswere prolific in their production of materials intended to support the development of thispractice.ThePrimaryNationalStrategyinparticulardiversifiedintotheproductionofguidancematerialsrelatedtoSENandinclusion.Aswenotedintheoriginalliteraturereview(Ellisetal.,2008), the National Strategies emphasised a generic strengthening of teaching and learning(ratherthanspecialistapproaches)basedonabeliefthatthiswouldleadtobetteroutcomesforallchildren,includingthosewithSEN.IntermsofthefuturedirectionofpolicyforSEN,perhapsthe most significant contribution from the National Strategies was the waves of intervention


(e.g.DfES,2002,2005b).Theterm‘Wave1’wasusedtodescribetheinclusionofallchildrenina high quality lesson. This was also referred to as quality first inclusive teaching. Wave 2interventions involvedsmall groupwork. In theearlydocumentation (e.g.DfES,2002) itwasmadeexplicitthatthesewerenotprimarilySENinterventions.However,asthewavesmodelhasevolved,amoreflexibleapproachhasgenerallybeenadoptedwherethedefiningfeatureofaWave2provisionisthatitinvolvessmallgroupwork.Itmight,forexample,beinvolvementinaspeechandlanguagegroupandsomeorallofthosewithinitmayhaveneedsatSchoolActionorSchoolActionPlus.Wave3provision involvedspecific targetedapproaches for individualchildrenidentifiedasrequiringSENintervention.

ThepotentialsourceofconfusionforschoolswashowthisthreetiermodelfittedwiththetwoschoolbasedstagesoftheCodeofPractice(DfES,2001)andwhetheraninterventionatWave2orWave3constitutedthe‘additionalto,orotherwisedifferent’(DfES,2001,p6)provisionthatispartofthedefinitionofSEN(seeChapter1forfurtherdiscussionofthisissue).

Theprocessofprovisionmappingisassociatedwithwavesofintervention.Thereisnotasinglemodel of provision mapping, though there are some common principles. A number ofgovernmentguidancedocuments(e.g.DfES,2002,DfES,2005b,DfES,2006)andindependentauthors (e.g. Gross and White, 2003, Ekins and Grimes, 2009) present models of provisionmapping. Broadly, provision mapping involves a school considering its profile of need anddeterminingwhatprovisionithasavailableandwhatmoreitneedstomakeavailable.Atypicalapproach would be for a school to consider firstly what provision it makes at Wave 1 andwhetherthereismorethatcouldbedonetodeveloppracticeatthislevel.Afterthishasbeenconsidered,theschoolwouldthenlookattheinterventionsitneedstomakeavailableatWaves2and3.Atallpoints,thedecisionisbasedontheschool’sownprofileofneedso,thoughtheremightbesomesimilarities,thereisnotasetrangeofinterventionsthataschoolshouldoffer.Itshouldalsobenotedthattheprovisionmapshouldbekeptunderreviewandchangedtoreflectdifferencesincohortsandemergingtrends,suchas,forexample,anincreaseinnewentrantsintoReceptionwithspeechandlanguagedifficulties.

Ofsted(2010)reportedpositivelyontheuseofprovisionmapping,stating:

“AfewoftheLAsandschoolsvisitedusedprovisionmappingtoimproveprovisionand outcomes for children and young people with additional needs. The bestprovisionmappingobserveddidnotsimplylistwhatwasavailable;italsoshowedwhichinterventionswereparticularlyeffective.Thiscontributedtoefficientplanningtomeettheneedsofindividualsorgroups,keptpupilsandtheirparentsuptodatewithprogressfollowinganinterventionandhelpedaschooloranLAtoevaluateitsoveralleffectiveness.”

(Ofsted,2010,p63)

The 2011 Green Paper also notes that ‘many schools have developed new approaches toplanning,reviewingandtrackingtheprogressofallpupilsthathaveenabledthemtoachievewhatIEPsaimedtodowithoutmanyoftheassociatedbureaucraticburdens.’(DfE,2011,p98).Itgoesontociteprovisionmappingasonesuchapproach.Theindividualeducationplan(IEP)hadbeenintroducedthroughthefirstCodeofPractice(DfE,1994a).TheCoderequiredIEPstobeproducedforpupilsatstage2andbeyond.TherevisedCode(DfES,2001)alsocarriedastrongexpectationthatpupilswithSENwouldhaveanIEP.By2005adifferentmessagewasemergingwiththestatementthat:

“ItisnowgovernmentpolicythatIEPsareonlyonemethodbywhichschoolscanplanforpupilswithSEN.Theyarenotstatutoryandaremerelyonewayofplanning


and recording the additional or different provision for a child with SEN andrecordingoutcomesforindividualpupils.Whereschoolshavearrangementstoplanindividuallyforallpupilsandrecordtheirprogress–aswillbecomemorecommonwithpersonalisedlearning–thenIEPsmaybeunnecessary.”

(DfES,2005b,p214)

AsimilarmessagewasprovidedinthedocumentEffectiveLeadership:ensuringtheprogressofpupilswithSENand/orDisabilities(DfES,2006),whichstated:

“IEPsarenotastatutory requirement.Whereschoolshaveapolicyof individualplanningandrecordingforallpupilsthenthepupilwithSENshouldnotneedanIEP.”

(DfES,2006,p22)

The2011GreenPaperstates thatadviceonusing IEPswillbe removedandschoolswillbeencouragedtoexplorethewaysinwhichprovisionmappingandothernewapproaches‘canbeusedtoenablepupilswithSENtodevelop,progressandfulfiltheirpotential.’(DfE,2011,p99).

As thepreviouschapteroutlined, the firstphaseof the IDPmaterialswas launched in2008.TheserepresentedthefulfilmentofaproposalwithinRemovingBarrierstoAchievement(DfES,2004b). The first two sets of IDP materials released focused on speech, language andcommunicationneedsandondyslexia.Thesewerefollowedin2009bymaterialsforsupportingpupilsontheautismspectrumandmaterialsforsupportingpupilswithBESDin2010.TheIDPmaterialswerenotmandatoryandsotherewasnorequirementforschoolstousethem.

DfEfunded research conducted by Lindsay et al. (2011) looked at a number of governmentinitiativesaimedatimprovingteachers’knowledge,skillsandunderstandinginrelationtoSEN,includingtheIDPmaterials.Withregardtoimpact,thereportfoundthat:

• awarenessofandengagementwiththe IDPcontinuedto increaseover theproject.ByNovember2010,sixoutoftenteachersnationallywereawareoftheIDP:66%ofprimaryand49%ofsecondaryteachers;

• threequartersofSENCOshadattendedLAtrainingontheIDP;• between70%(dyslexia)and84%(autismspectrum)judgedtrainingtobeeffective;• SENCOs reported that the IDPCPDhadpromoteddiscussionofpupils’ teachingand

learningneeds(96%SENCOs),improvedteachers’knowledge(94%),improvedteachers’empathy with pupils’ having barriers to learning (90%) and benefited the learning oftargetedpupils(89%);

• between two thirds and three quarters of teachers judged that the IDP materials hadimprovedtheirknowledge,understandingandconfidencetoteachpupilswithdyslexia,speech,languageandcommunicationneeds(SLCN),ASDandBESD;

• nineoutof tenSENCOs reported that IDP traininghad led to improvements inpupils’learning;

• newlyqualified teachersweremoreconfident tosupportpupilswithSEND if theyhadreceivedIDPtraining.

(Lindsayetal.,2011,p11)

Inthecontextofthischapter’sfocusontheinfluenceofcentrallyproducedpolicyandguidanceonschools,engagementwiththeIDPisanimportantareaofenquiry.AsLindsayetal.(2009)note,uptakebyschoolswaslikelytobedependentontheneedsandprioritiesofeachLAandschoolbutalsotheperceivedusefulnessandrelevanceoftheIDPmaterialsthemselves.


ThedemiseoftheNationalStrategiesTheNationalStrategiescontractendedon31March2011andthewebsiteclosedon28June2011.ThoughthetimingmayleadtoanassumptionthattheendingoftheNationalStrategieswasrelatedtothechangeofgovernment,theirfatewassealedwithintheLabourgovernment’sWhitePaperYourChild,YourSchools,OurFuture (DCSF,2009a),whichhadstated that thecurrentcentralcontractwouldnotberenewedwhenitcametoanendin2011.The2009WhitePaper presented the National Strategies as a necessary and successful phase in schoolimprovementnationally, describing themas ‘crucial toour successover the last 12 years inaddressingnationalpriorities,andraisingstandardsatalllevels’(DCSF,2009a,p56).The2009WhitePaper,however,proposedamoveawayfromschoolimprovementactivity‘controlledanddeliveredfromcentralandlocalgovernmentthroughnationalprogrammes’(DCSF,2009a,p56)infavourofeveryschooldrivingitsownimprovementandthetailoringofsupport‘morecloselytothespecificchallengesandissuesfacedbyindividualschools’(DCSF,2009a,p56).

TheLabourGovernment’s2009WhitePaperpromisedthat:

“Wewillensurethatthereisasmoothtransitiontothenewarrangements,andthatthelegacyofhighqualityprogrammesandguidancethattheNationalStrategieshavedevelopedoverthelast12yearscontinuestobeaccessibletoschoolsandLAs.”

(DCSF,2009a,p59)

TheCoalitionGovernmenthastransferredthematerialsproducedbytheNationalStrategiestotheNationalArchiveswebsite.

PresentationanddiscussionofdataAkeyareaofinvestigationwastheextenttowhichnationalpolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionimpactedonpracticeinschools.Withinboththesurvey(seeAppendixA)andthecasestudyinterviews(seeAppendixC)questionswereaskedthatsoughttoexplorethisissue.

Fortyonepercent of all survey respondents thought that national guidance on SEN andinclusioninfluencedpracticeintheirschool.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatjustunder49%of respondents were either ambivalent or indicated that they did not know whether nationalguidance influencedpractice in their school. Theproportionof respondentsdisagreeing thatnationalguidanceinfluencedschoolpracticewasverylow(approximately10%).Thesefiguresseemtosuggestthatsomerespondentsmaynotbeawarewhenaparticularpieceofnationalpolicy or guidance is the driver for certain developments within their school. This issue waspursued through another question within the survey, which asked respondents about theinfluenceofanyspecificnationalguidancedocument.Only13.7%ofmainstreamrespondentsconsidered that a specific national policy or guidance on SEN and inclusion had beenparticularly influentialontheirpractice.Thefigureforspecialschoolrespondentswasslightlyhigherat19.8%.

Inadditiontothesmallproportionindicatingthataspecificpieceofnationalpolicyorguidancehadinfluencedpractice,theotherareaofinterestisthelargenumberofrespondentsindicatingthattheywere‘notsure’.Thesefiguressuggestthatrespondentsdonotknowenoughaboutthepolicyorguidancedocumentstocomment,ordonotknowenoughabouthowtheylinktoschoolpractice.


There is a degree of inconsistency between the larger proportion (41% of all respondents)indicatingthatnationalpolicyandguidanceinfluencespracticeandtherelativelysmallnumberofrespondentswhofeltaspecificnationalpolicyorguidancedocumenthad influencedtheirschool’spractice.Theseapparently contradictory responsesmay reflect that thereare somerespondentswhobelievethatpracticeisinfluencedbynationalpolicyandguidancebutstruggleto identifyspecificpiecesofpolicyandguidancethathaveexertedan influence.DocumentscitedasinfluentialweretheCodeofPractice,closelyfollowedbyECMandtheIDP,withafewreferencestotheDisabilityDiscriminationAct(DDA).

Questionswithinthesurveyalsoexploredtheperceivedclarityofnationalguidance.Only17%ofall survey respondents thought thatnationalguidancewasclear for them to implement inpractice. However, responses to this question need to be understood in the context of thepreviouslydiscussedquestionsregardingawarenessofpolicyandguidance,whichsuggestedthatteacherswerenotdirectlyengagingwithpolicyandsowouldnotbeabletocommentonitsclarity.Thisseemstobeborneoutbythefactthat55%wereambivalentordidnotknowwhethernationalguidancewascleartoimplementinpractice.

Thoughanassumptionfromthepercentagespresentedabovemightbethatschoolslookedtolocal rather than national policy and guidance, this is not borne out by the similarly lowpercentagespresentedinChapter6regardingtheinfluenceoflocalpolicyandguidance.

RespondentswereaskedwhathadbeenmostinfluentialonschoolpracticeinrelationtoSENand inclusion. A significant majority (see Table 3.1) indicated that they thought Ofstedrequirementsweremoreinfluentialthanlocalornationalpolicyandguidance.

Mainstream SpecialOfstedrequirements 59% 63%

Localauthoritypolicyandguidance 20% 22%

Nationalgovernmentpolicyandguidance 20% 15%

Table3.1InfluenceofOfstedandnationalandlocalpolicy

Respondents were asked whether they had heard of specific terminology and interventionsrelatedtoSEN(seeTable3.2).Thissetofquestionsdrewmorepositiveresponsesinrelationtothe level of awareness. The majority of respondents reported that their schools were in theprocessofimplementingtheseprogrammesortheywerealreadyembeddedinschoolpractice.


Havenotheardofthis

Haveheardthetermbutdonotunderstandwhatitmeans

Understandthetermbutmyschoolhasnotstartedtoimplementit

Myschoolisintheprocessofimplementingthis

Iconsiderthistobeembeddedinschoolpractice

Mainstream

Special Mainstream

Special Mainstream

Special Mainstream

Special Mainstream

Special

% % % % % % % % % %

Assessmentforlearning

0.7 1.6 1.5 3.7 3.6 15.7 33.8 37.2 61.4 42.6

Personalisedlearning

2.3 3.7 4.9 4.1 25.0 15.7 43.2 28.1 25.3 48.8

Qualityfirstinclusiveteaching

50.7 53.3 10.4 18.2 13.2 12.3 13.2 6.6 13.4 10.3

Wavesofintervention

29.4 41.7 10.4 12.0 11.5 23.5 18.4 9.5 30.5 13.6

Provisionmapping

31.9 35.1 12.7 13.2 12.8 19.8 19.6 16.1 23.8 16.1

AssessingPupils’Progress

3.4 5.8 3.4 3.3 7.6 17.3 50.6 35.9 35.9 38.0

Table3.2AwarenessoftermsassociatedwithSEN

Thecomparativelylowlevelofawarenessindicatedinrelationtoqualityfirstinclusiveteaching,wavesofinterventionandprovisionmappingisinterestinginthecontextofconsiderationoftheinfluenceofcentrallyproducedguidanceonpractice.These representnationallyencouraged(e.g.DfES,2005b,DfES,2006)approaches toplanningandprovision forpupilswithSEN. Incontrast, only 0.7% of mainstream respondents indicated that they had not heard ofAssessmentforLearning,2.3%hadnotheardofPersonalisedLearningand3.4%hadnotheardofAssessingPupils’Progress(APP).Thedifferencemayreflectthatahigherpriorityisattachedtothoseareasthatrelatetothecurriculumandassessment.

Particularly surprising is thehighproportionof respondents indicating theyhadnotheardofqualityfirstinclusiveteaching.Lessawarenessinrelationtowavesofinterventionandprovisionmappingcouldperhapsbeexplainedbecausetheserelatemoretothestrategicmanagementofprovisionratherthandirectlytoclassroompractice.Qualityfirstinclusiveteaching,however,doeshavepracticalapplicationintermsofclassandsubjectteachersdevelopingtheirstandardclassroompracticetoincludeabroaderrangeoflearners.Itshouldberecognisedthatalthoughrespondentsmaynothaveknowntheterm‘qualityfirstinclusiveteaching’thisisnotnecessarilyan indication that they are not teaching in a manner that reflects its principles or that theirschoolshavenotprioritiseddevelopmentsinthisarea.

The principles of ECM underpinned educational policy from 2003 onwards. In the context ofexploring the influenceofnationalpolicyonpractice, thiswasan importantpolicy initiative toconsider within the research. Survey respondents were asked how ECM had affected theirpractice in relation to pupils with SEN. Forty per cent of respondents said there had beenincreasedemphasisonsocialandemotionaldevelopment,although47%thoughttherehadbeenanincreaseinpaperworkandbureaucracy.Morespecialschoolrespondentsthanmainstreamthoughtithadresultedinbetterinteragencyworking(33%and21%respectively)andworkingmorecloselywithparents(31%and25%).TheresponsesaresummarisedinTable3.3.


Morepaperwork/bureaucracy

Increasedemphasisonsocialandemotionaldevelopment

Ithasn’taffectedourpractice

Closerworkingwithparents

Betterinteragencyworking

Fasteraccesstoexternalagencies

Mainstreamschools

47.7% 38.9% 26.9% 24.8% 21.5% 7.7%

Specialschools

46.7% 46.2% 26.0% 31.4% 33.5% 12.4%

Table3.3EffectsofEveryChildMatters

MostofthecommentssuppliedbysurveyrespondentsonwhetherECMhadaffectedpracticewerenegative,relatingtomorepaperwork,delaysinaccessingservicesandminimalprogresstowards interagency working. A number of respondents said that the common assessmentframeworkhadalso ledtomorepaperworkanddelays inaccessingexternalservices.Somerespondentssaidthattheywererecently/newlyqualifiedteacherswhowerenotteachingbeforeECMandwerethusunabletomakeacomparisonortocomment.Thereweresomeconcerningcomments:

“EveryChildMattersisadocumentwhichisbandiedaboutbutneverreadoutsidetheSMT.Wearetoldaboutitbutnotabletoaccessit.”

“Hasnotbeenpartoftheschool’sofficialpractice.”

“Notsurewhatthetermmeans.I’vehearditmentionedinadverts,etc.”

Some respondents said that the ECM agenda had raised awareness of the issues, while anumberofrespondentscommentedthatECMhadnotaffectedtheirpractice:

“ECMisattheheartofourschoolethos.”

“Everychildmatteredbeforetheagendabecametrendy.”

“It hasn’t directly affected my practice as I already thought every child shouldmatter,henceIbecameateacher!”

Theresponsestothesurveycanbeinterpretedindifferentways.Theincreaseinbureaucracyison thesurfaceanegativeoutcomeofECMbut if throughmoredetailed informationbeinggathered on children and young people they are better protected, it may be viewed asnecessary.However,ifconsiderabletimeandeffortaredevotedtoevidencinghowtheschoolmeetseachofthefiveECMoutcomes,wemightquestionthenecessity.Similarly, ‘increasedemphasisonsocialandemotionaldevelopment’isonthesurfaceapositivefindingbutweareawareoftheviewofEcclestoneandHayes(2009)thatschoolshavebecometoopreoccupiedwiththeemotionallivesofpupils.Fromthisperspective,an‘increasedemphasisonsocialandemotionaldevelopment’couldbeviewednegativelyasadistractionfromtheteacher’scorerole.


Despite representing a major government initiative to strengthen the teaching of pupils withSEN,only30%ofmainstream teacher respondentsand33%of special school respondentsreportedthattheyhadaccessedanyoftheIDPmaterialsforSEN.Sixtypercentofmainstreamand58%ofspecialschoolrespondentshadnotusedthem,and10%and9%respectivelywerenotsurewhethertheyhadornot.OfthosewhohadusedtheIDPmaterials,11%ofmainstreamand13%specialrespondentsfoundthemveryuseful;67%and58%respectivelythoughttheywerequiteuseful.Threepercentofmainstreamrespondentswhohadusedthematerialsfoundthemnotatalluseful.

In terms of the effects of the previous government’s policies for SEN and inclusion, 19% ofspecialschoolrespondentsand18%ofmainstreamrespondentsfeltthatthethesehadbeenbeneficialtopupilswithSEN.However,thesefiguresneedtobeinterpretedinthecontextofalargeproportionofrespondents(52%mainstream,53%special)whowereeitherambivalentorindicated that they did not know. For both special school and mainstream teachers, theproportion disagreeing that government policies for SEN and inclusion had benefited pupilsrepresented a sizeable minority – 27% and 30% respectively. Although 48% of mainstreamteachersfeltthattheinclusionofmorepupilswithSENhadledtopupilsintheirschoolbeingmore accepting and understanding of disability and difference, only 36% felt that policiesadoptedbytheirschoolhadsupportedthis.

Thecasestudyvisitsprovidedavaluableopportunitytoexplorefurtherthenatureofteachers’engagementwith,andperceptionof,policyandguidanceinrelationtoSENandinclusion.Thevisitsinvolvedinterviewingarangeofstaffandperhapsnotsurprisinglyresponsestoquestionsconcerned with policy and guidance varied according to the interviewee’s role andresponsibilities.

Seniorstaffinterviewedreportedthattheyneededtoknowaboutnationalpolicybothforexternalandinternalevaluationandtokeepabreastofanyemergentsourcesoffundingthatmightbeofbenefittotheschool.Headteachersengagedwithpolicyinavarietyofways.Insomecases,itwasdirectlyfromthesource,eitherbecausetheyhadbecomeawareofinformationtheyneededtoaccessorbecauseofdirectcommunicationtoschoolsfromcentralgovernment.Awarenessofnationalpolicy,guidanceoraparticularinitiativeoftencameaboutthroughanLAsourceintheformofeitheranindividualmemberoftheLA’sadvisoryteamorheadteacherbriefingsorganisedbytheLA.Inanumberofcases,itwasclearthatheadteachersplacedconsiderablefaithintheLAtodisseminatetothemtheimportantelementsofnationalpolicyandtheyvaluedthisservice.Itwasalsoclearfromdiscussionsthatheadteachersandtheirseniorleadershipteamsspenttimeengaged in discussions regarding the implications of any changes in policy or new policyinitiativesbeforedisseminatingthekeyinformationtoschoolstaff.

Concernwasexpressedbyanumberofheadteachersregardingthesheeramountofelectroniccommunication from central government. It was evident that a number of headteachersinterviewedsawthemselvesas‘gatekeepers’,working intheirschool’s intereststoselectthemost relevant elements of the information. A key factor in judging relevance was whetherinformationrelatedtoastatutoryresponsibilityoranaspectofpracticethattheschoolwouldbeinspectedon.Inaddition,headteachersalsotooknoticeofinformationthatrelatedtoareasalreadyidentifiedbytheschoolasprioritiesorforsomeotherreasonappeareddirectlyrelevanttotheschool’scontext.Reflectingtheneedtobeselective,oneheadteacherexplained:

“Wecannotdoallthings–youjustneedtodoafewthingsbetter.Ifyouarebraveenough,youcandoyourownthing.”



Another referred to the importance of interpreting policy in a manner reflecting the school’scontext,remarkingontheneedto:

“Interpretpolicysuchthatitwasofmaximumbenefittomypupils.”(Headteacher–secondary)

Classandsubjectteachersinterviewedgenerallyreportedthattheydidnotengagedirectlywithnational policy and guidance but received interpretations from another source such as theSENCO or a member of the senior leadership team. The exception to this was if they hadattendedexternallyruncoursessuchasLAtrainingeventsoracademiccoursesrunbyHEIswherepolicyissuesweretypicallyincluded.Formostteachers,engagingdirectlywithnationalpolicyandguidancedidnotappeartobeahighpriority.Mostseemedcontentthatifanythingofsignificancewasproducedsomebodywoulddrawittotheirattention.Despitenotgenerallyengagingwithnationalpolicy,therewasaperceptionthatpolicyandguidancechangedfairlyfrequently. In somecases thisbelief seemed to serve to reinforce the view that therewasalimitedneedtoengageinnationalpolicy.Theviewthatpolicywasregularlychangingwasnotconfinedtoclassandsubjectteachers.Onesecondaryheadteacherobserved:

“Thereisnostability–politicalcyclesatmosthaveafiveyearturnaround;achild’sschoolingtakes13years.Ittakesfiveyearsforanynewpolicytobecomesettledandembeddedbutitischangedallthetime.”


The political influence on educational policy was noted by a number of headteachers andteacherswespoketo.Onesecondaryheadteachercomplained:

“It’stodowithpoliticalwhim,notaboutpupils’education–Gove4 judgedschools’progressinGCSEsagainstdifferentACcriteriathanthosethatwereinplacewhenpupils tooktheirGCSEs.Sohowareweexpectedtotakepolicyseriouslywhentheychangethegoalposts?”


Whilstanumberofheadteacherswereverycandidinexpressingcriticalviewsonnationalpolicyitwasalsoevidentthatnationalpolicyinfluencedseniorleadershipteams’priorities,particularlyin relation to raising standards.Anumberof teachers spokeof the very closemonitoringofattainmentbymembersoftheseniorleadershipteam.Insomecasestheexpectationsregardingpupilattainmentwereconsideredtobeunrealistic.Onesecondaryteacherexplained:

“Weareinnodoubtthatthemain[policy]focuswithmanagementistocracktheACbarriers–theworryisthatifpupilsdonotgeta‘C’gradethentheybecomesecondclasscitizens–theriskisthatboysbecomethe‘DCcohort’.”

(Secondaryteacher)

4www.cypnow.co.uk/Education/article/1049102/Governmentaccusedshiftinggoalposts200schoolsfailreachnewtarget


Despiterepresentingamajorpolicy initiative, fromthecasestudieswewerenot leftwiththeimpressionthatECMhadmadeasignificantimpacteitherpositivelyornegativelyonteachers.Few teachers voluntarily named it when asked about influential national policy during theinterviewsbutwhenpromptedacknowledgedthattheyhadheardofit.Inalotofcasesclassandsubjectteachersthenproceededtotalkaboutitassomethingthatwasquitehighprofiletwoorthreeyearsagobutwasnowtalkedaboutfarless.

SENCOsinterviewedweremoreawareofECMduetoinvolvementintheCommonAssessmentFramework(CAF)andTeamAroundtheChild(TAC)processes.ReactiontoourquestionsaboutECMduringthecasestudyvisitsservedtoconfirmaviewemergingfromthesurveydatathatevensignificantpiecesofgovernmentpolicyandguidancedonotmakeadirectimpactonclassandsubjectteachers,especiallyinsecondaryschools.

AnexampleoftheroleofLAsinensuringthatnationalpolicyandguidanceinfluencespracticeinschoolswastheuseofprovisionmappingasanalternativetoIEPs.InoneoftheLAsvisitedthishadreportedlybeenheavilypromotedbySENadvisorystaff throughtrainingeventsandguidancematerials.AlltheSENCOswespoketointhisLAreferredtoareductioninIEPs,oftenretaining these only for some pupils at School Action Plus with complex needs and/orconsiderablemultiagencyinvolvementandthosewithstatements.TherewasalsoanexampleofanLAthathadbeenproactive inpromoting theuptake in theuseof the IDPmaterials. InanotherLA,thepromotionoftheIDPmaterialshadnottakenplaceduetoalackofclarityoverwhetherthiswouldbeledbySENorSchoolImprovementstaff.

It has already been noted in relation to the survey data (see Table 3.1) that Ofsted wasconsidered more influential than local or national policy and guidance. There was broadagreementbetweenschoolstaff interviewedthat interest inpolicywasheightenedbyOfstedvisits.Headteachersandteacherswereacutelyawareoftheneedtodemonstratecompliancewithstatutoryguidanceandengagementwithhighprofilenationalinitiatives,includingcertainNationalStrategymaterials.

Within the case study visits, views regarding Ofsted varied depending on the personalexperienceofOfstedvisits.

ThesignificanceofOfstedtoschoolswashighlightedbyoneheadteacherwhocommented:

“Itisimportantbecauseitmattersverymuchtoteachers’morale–yourschoolcango from ‘outstanding’ to ‘satisfactory’ depending on any changes to inspectioncriteriaandinterpretationbytheinspectors–thisisdevastatingforstaff.”


Intervieweesexpressedaviewthatinspectors’understandingofSENissuesinfluencedOfstedoutcomesandthiswasoftenfelttovarydependingontheparticularinspectionteam.Withinthesurvey,only13%ofmainstreamrespondentsfeltthatOfstedinspectionsrecognisedtheeffectthat a high proportion of pupils with SEN can have on a school and 55% felt they did not.Fortyfive per cent of mainstream teachers felt that their latest Ofsted report appropriatelyrecognised theprogressofpupilswithSEN in their school. Interestingly, ahigherproportion(57%)ofspecialschoolrespondentsagreedwiththisview.

InspectorswhodemonstratedarealunderstandingofSENwereviewedpositively–thiswasparticularlynoticedinspecialschoolswhereitwaslargelyfeltthatinspectorsdidrecognisethatthepupilshadcomplexneedsandrecognisedtheteachingandlearningchallenges.Inthesmall


numberofspecialschoolsvisited,headteacherswereproactiveinsupplyingOfstedinspectorswithverydetaileddataplottingindividualpupils’progress(andinafewcasesthedeterioration),theintentionbeingtogiveOfstedevidencethatprovisionwasintenselypersonalised,rigorouslymonitoredanddatadriven.Thisprovisionofsuchdetailedevidencewastimeconsumingandmaynotbefeasibleformainstreamschools,particularlysecondaryschools,givenstaffinglevelsforpupilswithSENand,insomecases,adecreaseintheuseofIEPsandlessuseofsmallstepsmonitoringprogrammesthatcanrecordverysmallchangesinprogressonavarietyofsocial,emotionalandcognitivescales.

ItmaybethatinmainstreamschoolsthecommentmadebyoneteacherinterviewedthatOfstedis “less interested in progress, more in attainment” has some validity, whereas in a specialschool the intake now is typically such that Ofsted has to recognise the importance ofindividuallyreferencedholisticprogressratesasameasureofschooleffectivenessratherthannormativelymeasuredattainmentlevels.ASENCOfromaspecialschooltoldus:

“Allofthesystemssetupformainstreamgenerallydonottakeaccountofschoolswithahigh levelofSEN.Societycannotaccept thatallpupilswithSENarenotgoingtothriveinmainstreamschools,althoughsomewill.SoOfstedreportsthatschoolsarefailing–oftenOfstedinspectorsdonothaveknowledgeofsevereSENordisabilitysotheyarescaredtosaythings.”

(SENCO–specialschool)

Itwas,however,noticedthatinspectionhadbeenfrustratingforspecialschoolsinthataschoolcould receive ‘outstanding’ in all areas other than attainment because such a measure wasbasedonexpectednationalresultsatKS4.Withinthesurvey,42%ofspecialschoolteachersfeltthatOfstedrecognisedthecomplexityofpupils’needs.Sixtyninepercentfelttheseneedshadbecomemorecomplexsincestartingworkintheircurrentschool.

Within the survey, the respondents were asked a single question exploring their views onwhether they experience a tension between policies for inclusion and policies for raisingstandards.Justunder80%ofmainstreamrespondentsagreedthattheydid.Incomparison,justunder66%ofspecialschoolrespondentsindicatedtheyexperiencedthistension.

Duringthecasestudyvisits,manyteacherssaidthattheyexperienceatensionbetweenraisingstandardsandinclusionsimplybecause:

“Youwanttodoyourbestforallpupilsintheclass.Ifwehavetoconcentrateongetting higher GCSE grades, we then have to put a lot of effort into borderlinepupilsandthatmeans that thoseateithersideareat riskofnotgettingenoughattentionorrecognitionforprogress.”

(Secondaryteacher)

Anothersecondaryteachernoted:

“It’sconfusing–wehavesettingforabilityforACs,butforinclusionwenowhavemixed ability. The Government needs to make choices about attainment anddiversity.”

(Secondaryteacher)


Therewasnot,however,disagreementwithanagendathatsoughttoraiseexpectationsandoutcomesforpupilswithSEN.Oneheadteacherstated:

“Standardsraisingenablesustobemoreinclusiveandprovidegreatervarietyofprovision–it’stheonlychancesomeofourpupilswillhavetomakesomethingofthemselves.”

(Secondaryheadteacher)

Suchviewswerenotsolelyfromseniorleaders.Onesecondaryteachertoldus:

“It’shard,butensuresyouchallengeSENpupils,notuseitasanexcuse.”(Secondaryteacher)

Manycasestudyrespondentsbroughtdatawiththemtoshowhowtheyusedittotrackpupilprogress,includingofthosewithSEN,andtodecideuponacourseofaction.Monitoringwaslargelyundertakenagainstacademicachievementalthoughmanyprimaryandsomesecondaryrespondentsregrettedthatprogressinsocialandemotionalareas,althoughbeingimportantforapupil’sfutureprogressandinlinewiththeECMagenda,didnothaveasmuchvalueasratesofprogressmeasuresforliteracyandnumeracy.

Mostcasestudyrespondentswereconcernedwithhow‘standards’werejudgedandthefactthatthisseemedtochangewithunduefrequency.Discussionswithintheinterviewsfocusedonissues related to the distinction between attainment and achievement and the problem ofpolitical swings with regard to what counts as valuable. Many school staff interviewed wereconcernedthat,althoughtheterm‘achievement’waswidelyused,thoseresponsibleformakingjudgements about the school’s performance frequently blurred the distinction betweenattainment and achievement. A number of teachers felt that this ‘blurring’ sometimes led tounrealisticexpectationswithin theirownschool regardingclosing thegapbetweenparticularchildren’s current performance and agerelated expectations. A number of headteachersexpressedasimilarconcerninrelationtoLAandOfstedexpectationsof,andjudgementsabout,theschool.

Itwasnotedthataconsiderableamountofworkandinvestmenthadbeenputintoprovidingarange of qualifications for secondary school pupils but that ultimately for both schools andpupilswhatwasbeingcountedasprogresswasacademicGCSEsgradesAC.

Atthetimeofthecasestudyvisits(July2010toMarch2011)schoolswerefullyawareofandexpecting fundingcuts.Whenaskedabout funding respondentspredictablynoted that therewasinsufficientfundingforSEN.Specialschoolsgenerallyexpressedgreatersatisfactionwiththeir funding but noted that ongoing developments in technology to support pupils withsignificantandcomplexneedsmeantthattherewasnotsufficientfundingtomeetthecostofrequiredprovision.Therewasadegreeofdifferencebetweenspecialschoolandmainstreamperspectivesreflectedinthesurveydata,withonly7.7%ofmainstreamteachersfeelingtheirschool receives sufficient funding to provide an appropriate education for pupils with SENcompared with 24% of special school teachers. However, with 69.5% of mainstreamrespondentsand60.7%specialrespondentsdisagreeingwiththisview,itisclearthatthereisaperceptionamongmanyteachersthatfundingisinsufficient.

Mainstreamandspecialschoolheadteachersreportedspendingaconsiderableamountoftimeidentifyinganyfundingstreamsthatcouldbeofbenefittoalltheirpupils, includingthosewithSEN.Somemadereferencetotheproblemsofprojectsandothershorttermsourcesoffunding.


These included implications for staff stability and the associated issue of sustainability oncefundinghadcometoanend.Incasestudyschools,fundingcutsthatmightleadtoareductioninTAsupportwereofparticularconcernfortheclassandsubjectteacherswespoketo.

Thoughnotdirectlyrelatedtopolicyorguidance,anissuethatemergedfromdiscussionswithinthe case study interviews was the impact of advances in technology, which seem to havebroughtaboutadditionalpressuresthatmaynothaveexistedafewyearsago.Insupportinganational and school level focus on standards, most teachers were involved in working withelectronicdata–eitherdirectlyorasaprintout–inrelationtothemonitoringofpupilprogress.Insecondaryschoolsinparticular,electronicsystemswereusedforpupiltracking,particularlyin relation to behaviour. Teachers also reported that they spent a lot of time preparingPowerPointpresentationsthatincludedfeaturessuchasvideoclipsinordertoengagepupils.Therewasafeelingthatmanypupilshadcometoexpectthistypeoflessoncontentandithadbecomethenorm.

Theissueofworkloadgenerallycameupasaregulartopicwithintheinterviews.Commentswereceivedincluded:

“Nodrugintheworldcouldgiveyouthisbuzzbutit’sexhausting.”(Secondaryteacher)

“Weallhaveearlystartsandlatefinishes–workspillsintoallweekends.There’sahugeworkload.AlltheInternetresourcesmakeitworseinawaywithalongtimespentplanninggoodPowerPoints.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Iworkalldayandathome–Idoallmylessonplans,chasepupils’work,asitisallsentelectronically,keepuptodate.Emailsaremassiveatsecondaryschool.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Ihavemassesofdatatoworkon–Icanreportbutnotreflectonwhatisworkingforwhounderwhatconditions.MarkingisaparticularissueinEnglish–there’snotimeformoderation.Asasubjectteacher,I’mnotstretchingmyself–Ijusthavetocopewithbasicteachingandbehaviour.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Ihavestruggledwithworkloadbecause I like todoagood job. Ihavebecomemore efficient and organised but if I have a family I may have to give up myleadership role – it’sdifferent formenbut forwomen theyhave togiveup theircareerbecauseofworkloadthatcomeswithanypromotions.”

(PrimarySENCO)

“EverySeptember,IthinktheremustbesomethingelseIcandoasacareer–thenIclosethedoorandteach.Ilikethejobbutwouldn’twanttobeateacherforever.”

(Secondaryteacher)


ThesurveyaskedwhattheGovernmentshoulddotoimproveoutcomesforpupilswithSEN.Thesuggestionsattractingthehighestlevelofagreementfrommainstreamwereareductioninclasssize,earlyinterventionatanearlyageandmoreonetoonesupportforpupilswithSEN.Specialschool respondents indicatedahigh levelofagreementwithearly intervention (atanearlyageandatthefirstsignofdifficulty)aswellaswithareductioninmainstreamclasssizes.Therewasaclearvoteagainstremovingtheterm‘SEN’anditsassociatedprocedures.Therewasacoreofsupportfrombothspecialschool(46.7%)andmainstreamrespondents(35.3%)forrevisingtheSENCodeofPractice.

Tables3.4and3.5showthe‘StronglyAgree’and‘Agree’and‘StronglyDisagree’and‘Disagree’categoriescombined.Theitemsarearrangedinorderoflevelofagreement.

TheGovernmentshould: StronglyAgreeorAgree

DisagreeorStronglyDisagree

Reduceclasssizes 92.7% 1.0%

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atayoungage) 91.5% 1.1%

ProvidemoreonetoonesupportforpupilswithSEN 86.3% 3.4%

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atfirstsignofproblem/difficulty) 81.1% 0.8%

ProvidemoreSENtrainingforallteachers 83.9% 4.5%

TrainmoreSENspecialistteachers 83.1% 3.9%

ReducebureaucracyrelatedtoSEN 81.1% 1.5%

Increase the amount of special school outreach support tomainstreamschools

80.0% 19.8%

Introduceamoresupportiveinspectionframework 76.4% 2.1%

Providemoresupport/advisoryserviceinput 70.5% 5.7%

Provide more access to split placement arrangements (e.g.mainstream/specialschool,mainstream/shortstayschools)

70.2% 11.0%

Allowmoresmallschools 67.1% 4.2%

Changetestingarrangementsatnationallevel 66.0% 9.4%

Establishmoreunitswithinmainstreamschools 64.5% 16.4%

Providemoreeducationalpsychologyinput 63.6% 8.9%

Resource some mainstream schools in each area in relation to aparticularformofSEN

58.8% 14.7%

Changethecurriculumrequirementsatnationallevel 56.6% 12.9%

PlacemorepupilswithSENinspecialschools 55.2% 19.5%

RevisetheSENCodeofPractice 35.3% 5.2%

Abandontheterm‘SEN’andassociatedprocedures 9.6% 46.6%

Table3.4Mainstreamteachers’viewsonwhattheGovernmentshoulddo


TheGovernmentshould: StronglyAgreeorAgree

DisagreeorStronglyDisagree

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atayoungage) 95.9% 0.4%

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atfirstsignofproblem/difficulty) 95.4% 0.8%

Reduceclasssizesinmainstreamschools 91.7% 0.4%

ProvidemoreSENtrainingforallteachers 91.3% 2.1%

TrainmoreSENspecialistteachers 90.1% 1.2%

ReducebureaucracyrelatedtoSEN 88.8% 1.6%

Introduceamoresupportiveinspectionframework 87.2% 1.2%

Allowmoresmallschools 85.5% 0.8%

Changetestingarrangementsatnationallevel 81.0% 3.7%

Increase the amount of special school outreach support tomainstreamschools

81.0% 4.9%

ProvidemoreonetoonesupportforpupilswithSEN 78.5% 5.4%

Changethecurriculumrequirementsatnationallevel 75.6% 7.0%

Providemoresupport/advisoryserviceinput 74.8% 5.4%

Providemoreeducationalpsychologyinput 71.5% 5.4%

Provide more access to split placement arrangements (e.g.mainstream/specialschool,mainstream/shortstayschools)

71.5% 10.3%

PlacemorepupilswithSENinspecialschools 61.6% 10.3%

Resource some mainstream schools in each area in relation to aparticularformofSEN

54.9% 13.6%

RevisetheSENCodeofPractice 46.7% 6.6%

Establishmoreunitswithinmainstreamschools 45.4% 25.6%

Abandontheterm‘SEN’andassociatedprocedures 12.0% 45.4%

Table3.5Specialschoolteachers’viewsonwhattheGovernmentshoulddo

Findings3.1 Therewasvariationbetweenschoolsvisitedintheextenttowhichtheyaccessednational

policyandguidanceforSENandinclusiondirectlyordrewuponLAinterpretation.Classand subject teachers interviewed generally reported they did not directly engage withnational policy and guidance for SEN and inclusion. They tended to receive aninterpretationofpolicyandguidancefromanothersourcesuchastheSENCOorseniorleadershipteam.Someschoolscitedthesheeramountofelectroniccommunicationfromcentralgovernmentasabarriertoaccess.

3.2 The main triggers for class and subject teachers to engage with national policy wereOfstedinspectionsandstatutoryduties.TheinfluenceofOfstedrequirementsonpracticewasalsoconfirmedbysurveydata.LessthanafifthofteacherssurveyedreportedthatnationalpolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionwascleartoimplementinpractice.

3.3 School staff interviewed expressed varied views surrounding Ofsted depending onpersonal experience of the outcome and process. Within the survey, nearly half ofmainstreamteachersfeltthattheirlatestOfstedinspectionappropriatelyrecognisedtheprogressofpupilswithSENintheirschoolbutonlyaroundasixththoughtthatOfsted


3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

•

90

Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy

inspectorsrecognisetheeffectthathavingahighproportionofpupilswithSENcanhaveon a school. Case study schools valued inspectors who demonstrated a realunderstandingofSENandtheincreasedcomplexitiesofpupilsplacedinspecialschoolsettings.AllschoolsvisitedplacedapriorityonOfstedbecauseoftheeffectonschoolreputationandmoraleofstaff.

Themajorityofsurveyrespondentssaidthattheyexperienceatensionbetweenpoliciesfor inclusion and policies for raising academic standards. There was considerableconcernexpressed in thecase study interviews that national agerelatedperformancemeasuresweresupersedingprogressmeasuresasindicatorsofteachingeffectiveness.

Manyschoolstaffinterviewedwereconcernedthat,althoughtheterm‘achievement’waswidelyused,thoseresponsibleformaking judgementsabouttheschool’sperformancefrequentlyblurredthedistinctionbetweenattainmentandachievement.Schoolsfeltthatasaconsequencethereweresometimesunrealisticexpectationsregardingclosingthegap between particular children’s current performance and agerelated expectations.Although many pupils with SEN had targets that contributed to holistic learningoutcomes, itwasfelt that increasedemphasisonacademicattainmentoftenservedtomarginaliseprogressmadeintheseareas.

Many case study schools were heavily focused on using data to track academicachievement for all pupils, including those with SEN. These schools were able todemonstrate that they actively interrogated data in order to identify those not makingadequateprogressandinstigatechangesinprovisionandpracticeaccordingly.

The majority of mainstream survey respondents thought that there was insufficientfunding for SEN. Case study interviewees recognised that funding cuts were alreadytakingplaceinthelightofthecurrenteconomicclimate(interviewstookplacelaterthantheonlinesurvey).Mostconcernwasexpressed in relation to fundingcuts thatwouldresultinreductionsinTAsupportand/orinspecialistLAandothersupportservices.

Casestudyspecialschoolsexpressedagreaterdegreeofsatisfactionwiththeirfunding,acknowledging that it was linked to provision required to meet their pupils’ complexneeds.However, theynoted thatasnew formsofsupport,particularly technology,aredeveloped funding needs to keep pace. Only a quarter of special school surveyrespondentsthoughttheirschoolreceivedinsufficientfundingtoprovideanappropriateeducationforallpupils.

Anissuethatemergedfromthecasestudieswasthatdevelopmentsintechnologyandusagebypupilshasimpactedontheworkloadofteachersbutperhapsnotasexpected.Inschoolemails,electroniccommunicationwithparentsandpupils,onlinemarkingandreporting, electronic tutor support and multimedia lesson preparation, in addition toexternal communications from government, LAs, etc., resulted in teachers reportingworkinglongerhours.

The research findings suggest that there is not the expected timely link between theissuing of government policy and guidance for SEN through to changes to classroompractice in schools. The exception is when these changes are statutory or directlyinspectedbyOfsted. Itmaybethatteachersareprioritisingareaswheretheyperceivethere is a high level of accountability. An overemphasis on accountability could risk


placingcomplianceabovecreativityandinsodoingcouldcompromiseprofessionalismandinnovation.ItcouldbethatthesheeramountofpolicyandguidancegenerallyissuedtoschoolsprecludesagainsttheeffectivetakeupofspecificpolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusion.

• ItwouldbeusefulfortheGovernmenttoidentifybarrierstotakeupandusageofalreadyproducedtrainingandguidancematerials. It is likely thatconsiderationwillneedtobegivento format, tone,andnational, localandschooldisseminationstrategies.Perhapsthegreatestbarriertoaddressisteachers’perceptionsthatgovernmentguidanceislikelytobeoflimitedpracticalvalueandwillinevitablybereplacedintherelativelyshortterm.GreaterconsultationwithteachersregardingpolicyandguidanceforSENcouldservetobuild a more positive relationship between policy and practice. The tone of somecomments within the 2011 Green Paper relating to teachers’ and schools’ apparentoveridentification and low expectations hardly encourages full engagement with andsharedcommitmenttotheaimsofanynewinitiativesormaterials.

• Policyandguidanceagainstwhichschoolsfeeltheyareinspectedoraccountableismorelikelytodirectlyinfluencepractice.AstheDfEwebsite5 states:‘TheCodeitselfdoesnotplaceanystatutorydutiesonschools.RatheritgivesguidanceonhowschoolsandLAscanmeet theirdutiesunder the1996EducationActand thevariousSENregulations.’Commenting on this issue, the Education and Skills Committee (2006, p74) stated:‘Firmer guidelines are required rather than the Government asking schools to “haveregardto”theSENCodeofPractice.’LackofclarityregardingthestatusoftheCodeofPractice(DfES,2001)maybeanotherfactorcontributingtovariationsintheidentificationofSEN.

• Change in response to national policy and guidance is more likely to take place ifsomebody (ora team)hasspecific responsibility for leadingthis in theschooland it isgivenpriority(andappropriatetime)bytheseniorleadershipteam.Logically,inrelationtoSEN, this role could be fulfilled by the SENCO, but unless they are part of the seniorleadership team (as recommended within the Special Educational Needs Code ofPractice(DfES,2001))andhaveappropriatetimeandtrainingitmaybedifficulttoeffectchange.

• The LA can exert an influence if it promotes a particular aspect of national policy orguidance.Ifpolicyandguidanceisexpectedtodirectlyinfluencepracticeinschools,thenattention must be given to the variation in dissemination strategies and the potentialimpactthiscouldhaveonpupilexperienceinschools.ItisimportanttonotetherolethatgoodLAsplayinhelpingschoolstointerpretpolicyandinhelpingtoensureconsistencyandqualityofimplementationlocally.

5www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/sen/sen/faqs/a0013088/codeofpracticemandatory,accessed5/1/12


CHAPTER4:THEDEPLOYMENTOFSUPPORTSTAFF

ExplorationoftheliteratureLike the issue of identification of SEN, the deployment of support staff is a topic that waspresent insourcesconsultedaspartofouroriginal literature reviewbuthassincebecomeahighprofile issue. In its 2004 report, Ofsted noted that in recent years there had been ‘asignificantchangeinschools’approachtostaffinginordertosupportpupilswithSEN,withatrend towards employing teaching assistants and other nonteaching staff and away fromspecialistteachers’(Ofsted,2004,p16).ThereportnotedatendencyinschoolstoallocateaTAtothelowestattainingpupilsandabeliefamongstteachersthatthesepupilswouldmakelittleprogresswithoutthatsupport.

Ofstedhighlightedanumberofproblemsbothwithmethodsofinclasssupportandwithdrawalforworkoutofclass.WithregardtoinclasssupportitwassuggestedthattheallocationofaTAtoalowattaininggroupreducedtheextenttowhichtheteacherplannedtaskssothatpupilswith SEN could undertake them successfully. The suggestion was that whilst teachers wereplanningandteachinglessonsthatwerewellmatchedtomostpupils’needs,theyreliedonTAstobreakthetasksdownfurthersothatpupilswithSENcouldparticipate.Consequently, thefocuswasonhowtoenableaccesstotheactivitytherestoftheclasswasundertakingwithinsufficient focus on what the pupil with SEN needed to learn or on how to improve theirunderstandingandskills.Ofsted(2004)sawthisasacommonreasonwhyasignificantnumberofpupilswithSENmadetoolittleprogress,despitegoodteachingforthemajorityoftheclass.

TheproblemsOfsted identifiedwith regard tosupportoutofclasswereassociatedwith thepupil’slossofcontactwiththeclassteacherandtheirpeergroup.Aswellastheissuesrelatedtothesocialdimensionofinclusion,thisalsoraisedthepointthatpupilswithSENwerebeingdeniedaccesstoteachingbyaqualifiedteacher.Ofsted(2004)phrasedthispointwithadegreeofcaution,stating:

“Additionally, thosepupilswhoneededcontactwith thebest teaching,whateverthepersonalqualitiesandskillsoftheteachingassistants,weredeniedit.”

(Ofsted,2004,p17)

Inexpressingthepointinthisway,OfstedseemedtobeattemptingtomakeitclearthattheywerenotcriticisingthequalityofTAsbutcritiquingtheeffectsofmethodsofdeployment.

Ofsted’s2006reportInclusion:DoesitMatterWherePupilsAreTaught?alsomadereferencetotheuseofTAs.Itsuggestedthattherewasageneralmisconceptionthatprovisionofadditionalresources,includingtheallocationofTAsupport,wasthekeyrequirementforindividualpupils.Specifically,onthesubjectoftheuseofTAs,thereportcommented:

“Pupils in mainstream schools where support from teaching assistants was themaintypeofprovisionwerelesslikelytomakegoodacademicprogressthanthosewhohadaccesstospecialistteachinginthoseschools.”

(Ofsted,2006,p3)

Throughoutthedocument,Ofstedusestheterm‘specialistteaching’torefertoteachingbyateacher who has experience and qualifications across a range of learning difficulties anddisabilities (LDD) (Ofsted, 2006). The report does not elaborate particularly on what suchspecialistteachingmightentailorwhatexperienceandqualificationsmightcontributetothis.


However,itdoesgivesomebroadindicationsofwhatthespecialistteacherscontributedintheschoolsvisitedaspartofthereview,suggesting:

“Their understanding of the implications of the pupils’ LDD enabled a greatersophisticationinassessingandplanning.Theseteachershadhigherexpectationsfor pupils over the longer term. They applied their knowledge of the pupils’difficultiessuccessfullytoensurethattheirbarrierstolearningwerereduced.Theyweremoreconfidentinmanagingthevarioussupportstrategies,suchasinclasssupport,andadaptedcurriculatomeetthepupils’changingneeds.Theyactivelyencouraged pupils’ independence. Involvement in the curriculum was enabledthrough careful consideration of teaching strategies, appropriate resources andfocusedsupport.”

(Ofsted,2006,p10)

Though Ofsted (2004, 2006) had raised the issue of the deployment of support staff, thereportingofresearchbyBlatchfordetal. (2009)inparticularhasfuelledthedebateabouttheeffectivenessofTAsandotheradditionaladultsupport.Thefindingthatattractedthegreatestattentionwasthenegativerelationshipbetweentheamountofsupportapupilreceivedandtheprogresstheymadeincorenationalcurriculumsubjects.Thereportnoted:

“The more support pupils received, the less progress they made, even aftercontrollingforotherfactorsthatmightbeexpectedtoexplaintherelationshipsuchaspupils’priorattainment,SENstatusandincomedeprivation.”

(Blatchfordetal.,2009,p34)

The research reportwascomplex,providingdetailed informationonmethodsused togatherdataandtheanalysisprocess.However,asisoftenthecase,thefindingswerereportedinthemediaassoundbites, separate frommuchof thesurroundingdiscussion that set them inabroader context. An article (Marley and Bloom, 2009) in the Times Educational Supplement(TES),forexample,carriedthetitle‘TeachingAssistantsImpairPupilPerformance’.OthertitlesfromthetimeincludedTheIndependent’s‘Childrenworseoffwithclassroomassistants,reportsays’ and the Daily Telegraph’s ‘Teaching assistants “fail to improve school results”’. ThediscourseestablishedthroughthereportingofresearchbyBlatchfordetal.wasoneoffailure.ThegeneralstorylineportrayedwasofsignificantincreasesinthenumberofTAsemployedoverrecentyearsatconsiderableexpenseandtheapparentrealisationthroughtheBlatchfordetal.(2009) research that this was not only making no difference but seemingly leading to worseprogress.TheBlatchfordetal. findingshadbeen reportedearly inSeptember.At theendof2009,therewaswidespreadcoverageinthepressofareportbyRichardHandoverforthethenSecretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, which recommended up to40,000TApostscouldbelost.

ThestorylineestablishedthroughthereportingoftheBlatchfordetal.(2009)researchthatTAsmadelittledifferencewasthereforesupplementedwiththemessagethatareductionof40,000postscouldrepresentanefficiencysaving.

A systematic literature reviewbyAlborzet al. (2009) representedmorepositive reading.Theliterature suggested that trained and supported TAs could have a positive impact on theprogressofindividualorsmallgroupsofchildreninthedevelopmentofbasicliteracyskills.Italsoseemedthattherewasalessmeasurablebutnonethelessimportanteffectintermsofthecontribution of ‘sensitive’ TA support in facilitating pupil engagement in learning and socialactivities with the class teacher and their peers. Alborz et al. expanded on the notion of


‘sensitive’TAsupport,suggestingthesensitivityinvolvedbothfacilitatinginteractionandbeingawareoftimeswhenpupilsneedtoundertakeselfdirectedchoicesandactions.

Alborzetal.(2009)reportedontheeffectsoftheavailabilityofTAsupportonteachers.Fromtheliteraturereviewed,theyconcludedthat:

“UseofTAsupportallowsteacherstoengagepupilsinmorecreativeandpracticalactivitiesandtospendmoretimeworkingwithsmallgroupsorindividuals.Classrelatedworkload issomewhat reducedwhenworkingwithaTA,but the teacherrole may become more managerial as this workload may increase. An adultpresenceintheclassroommakesteachersfeelsupportedandlessstressed.Theknowledgethatpupilswerereceivingimprovedlevelsofattentionandsupportwasalsoreportedtoenhancejobsatisfactionforteachers.”

(Alborzetal.,2009,p1)

Farrelletal.(2010)discussedthekeyfindingsfromtheAlborzetal.(2009)systematicreviewofliteraturethatrelatedspecificallytotheimpactofTAsonacademicachievement.Apointnotedby Giangreco et al. (2001) and Giangreco and Doyle (2007) was that there had been nosystematic review of literature focusing on the key question of whether support staff inclassroomshadanimpactonraisingstandards.

TheFarrelletal.(2010)papernotesthewelldocumentedrapidincreaseinthenumbersofTAsand the fact that for some years the Government explicitly recognised the ‘valuable andsupportiverole’thatTAscanplay.Forexample,theGoodPracticeGuide(DfEE,2000)referredto HMI reports that have ‘confirmed the tremendous contribution that well trained and wellmanagedteachingassistants(TAs)canmakeindrivingstandardsupinschools’(Alborzetal.,2009,p4)withafurtherHMIreport(Ofsted,2002)suggestingthequalityofteachinginlessonswhereTAswerepresentisbetterthaninlessonswithoutthem.Thisviewissupportedinotherstudies(e.g.Lee,2002,ButtandLance,2005),whicharepositiveabouttheimpactofTAsonpupils’learningbutthereiscontinuinguncertaintyabouttheimpactofTAsonraisingstandards.

Intotal,theFarrelletal.(2010)paperreportson13papersusedwithintheAlborzetal.(2009)systematic review–nine focuson targeted interventionstudies (TAsselected toworkwithasmallgroupofpupilswithanidentifiedlearningproblemandattainmentmeasuredbeforeandafter) and four onnontargeted intervention studieswhere themerepresenceof aTA in theclassroomislinkedtoacademicachievement.Theconclusionfromthereviewofthisliteratureisthat,whereproperlytrainedandsupported,TAscanhaveapositiveimpactonprimarypupils’progress, especially for literacy and language (findings were less positive for numeracy).However,Farrelletal. (2010)acknowledged that findings from largescalestudies linking thepresence of TAs in primary schools with pupils’ academic progress mirrored the findings ofBlatchfordetal.(2009)insuggestingthatTAshadnoimpact.ArecommendationfromFarrelletal.(2010)isthatschoolsandLAsneedtohaveclearobjectiveswhenappointingTAs.Expandingonthisissue,Farrelletal.(2010)explainthatiftheaimofhavingTAsistoincreaseteachers’levelsofjobsatisfactionandprovidemoregeneralsupportthenthereisevidenceinarangeofstudies that they are doing a good job. If, however, the aim of TAs is to raise academicattainment,researchwouldsuggesttheyshouldonlybeappointediftheyhavespecifictaskstoperformwithanidentifiedchildorgroupofchildrenandtheyareprovidedwithsufficienttraining,supportandmonitoringatalltimes.Theimplicationsofthereviewforthetrainingofteachersare that trainee teachers need to be trained in how to work with TAs so they can be fullyprepared when they begin teaching, school staff need training on how to develop effectiveteamsofteachersandTAsandteachersneedtobeskilledinofferingsupportandmentoringtoTAsaswellaspupils.


Websteretal.(2010)organisedthefindingsofthefiveyearDeploymentandImpactofSupportStaff(DISS)study,ofwhichtheBlatchfordetal.(2009)reportreferredtoabovewasapart,intothreeareas–deployment,practiceandpreparedness–andreportedonthese:

Deployment: TAs’ employment and deployment are inextricably linked with inclusion. TAsenabled pupils with SEN to be included in mainstream classes and it is frequently said thatwithoutthemschoolswouldstruggletocope.ItisclearthatTAshaveadirectpedagogicalroleinsupportingand interactingwithpupils,usuallyworkingonetooneor insmallgroups.TheinteractionsthatSENpupilshavewithTAsaremuchmoresustainedandinteractivethanthosewithteachers,wherepupilstendtobepassive.ThemaineffectofthisdeploymentthoughisthatitleadstopupilswithSENbecomingseparatedfromtheteacherandthecurriculumsotheymissoutonteacherpupil(andpupilpupil)interactions.TAsupportisthusanalternativetotheteacher,ratherthanadditional.

Practice: The quality of interactions is questionable. TAs are more concerned with taskcompletion than learning and understanding and inadequate preparation means that TAs’interactionsare reactive rather thanproactive.Thekeydifference is that in teacherpupil talkteachersgenerallyopenupthepupil,whereas inTApupil talk,TAsgenerallyclosedowntheinteraction linguisticallyandcognitively.ThusTAsdonotmakebestuseoftheextendedandmorefrequentinteractionstheyhavewithpupils.ThestudyrecommendsthatteachersneedtomonitorTAinteractionsandmodifyasappropriate,withmoretrainingnecessary.

Preparedness:ThestudyfoundthatmanyTAsgointolessonsunawareofwhatteacherswillask them todo tosupportpupils,mainlydue to lackof time for teacherTAcommunication.Coupledwithalackoftraining,thishasabearingonlearningoutcomesforpupilswithSEN:teachersneedmoretraininginhowtomakeuseofTAs.ItisnotedthatsincepublicationoftheprojectfindingsinSeptember2009theGovernmenthaspublishedplanstoinvestintraininginSENforteachers(DCSF,2010).

Websteretal.(2010)concludethatthereisaneedtogobacktofirstprinciplesandaskwhetherTAs should have a pedagogical role. Giangreco (2009) argues that instruction given byparaprofessionals should be supplemental, rather than primary or exclusive so they are notrequiredtomakepedagogicaldecisions.ReviewsbyAlborz(2009)andSlavin(2009)citedbyWebsteretal.wouldsuggestthatifTAsaretohaveapedagogicalroletheyneedpreparationand training and to receive support and guidance from the teacher/school about practice.Websteretal.(2010)suggestedtherewasscopeforbuildingonthefindingsoftheDISSstudyonpositiveapproachestolearning(PAL),commenting:

“TAsmaybemoreeffectiveintermsofhavinganindirecteffectonpupillearningbyhelpingwithclassroomorganisation, limitingnegativeandofftaskbehaviour,andensuringlessonsrunmoresmoothly.TAscouldsupportpupils’developmentof what are sometimes referred to as ‘soft’ skills – confidence and motivation,dispositions toward learning and facilitating collaborating between pupils – thatmanynowseeasimportantforworkinschool,butalsobeyond.SuchfactorsweremeasuredintheDISSstudyinthePALsurvey,andaconsistentlypositiveeffectofTAsupportwasfoundforpupilsinYear9.FurtherresearchisrequiredtoshedlightonthepracticethatproducedtheseoutcomesinordertoinformTAdevelopment.”

(Websteretal.,2010,p331332)


Websteretal.(2010)commentedontheeffectoftheavailabilityofTAontheteacher,makingthepoint:

“It isworthnotingthat findingsfromteacherquestionnairesconsistentlyshowedthat, from the teachers’ perspective, TAs and other support staff had a strongpositiveeffectontheir jobsatisfaction, levelsofstressandworkload–chieflybyrelievingteachersofmanyof theiradministrativeduties.Results fromsystematicobservationsalsoconfirmedteachers’viewsthatTAs inparticularhadapositiveeffect in classrooms, in terms of reducing instances of offtask behaviour ordisruptionandallowingmoretimefortheteachertoteach.”

(Websteretal.,2010,p321)

This distinction between impact on pupils and impact on teachers represented a degree ofsubtletythatwasnotcapturedinthepopulardiscourseregardingTAsatthetime.Itintroducedthepossibilitythatthoughdirect impactofTAsupporton individualpupilsmaybedifficult toidentify,therewasapositiveimpactonteachersthatmay,inturn,impactpositivelyonpupilsgenerally.Theissuethoughstillremainedthat,iftheintentionofTAsupportwastobenefitthepupil(s) towhich thissupportwasassigned, the lackofevidence for this impact remainedaconcern. Certainly, Ofsted’s (2004, 2006) earlier concerns and the more recent research ofBlatchfordetal.(2009)servetochallengeanycomplacency‘concerningtheroutinedeploymentofclassroombasedsupportstafftolowerattainingpupilsandpupilswithSEN’(Blatchfordetal.,2009,p141).

Severalwritershave responded to the findings fromBlatchfordet al. (2009).Balshaw (2010)suggeststheseareunsurprisingfindingsbutnotesthatmanyschoolshavebeguntolookatTAsinamoreroundedway,withafocusonfourdimensionsoftherole–supportforteachers,thecurriculumandthewholeschool,aswellasparticularpupils–firstrecommendedinthegoodpracticeguide (DfEE,2000).Thishas led toanalternative framingof the issues,soBalshawquerieswhythisisnotfeaturedinthereport.Shealsonotesthatithasbeenfoundthatschoolsencouraging the development of TAs is a significant factor, as is deployment of higher levelteachingassistants(HLTAs),andthisisnotmentionedinthereport.Mostimportantly,Balshawsuggests,theattitudesofschoolleadersmatter,makingthepointthat‘Thoseleaderswhoseethepotentialof theskillsof theirsupportstaffandhaveconfidence in thosecolleaguesthendeploy them more creatively.’ (Balshaw, 2010, p338). Drawing on her personal experience,Balshaw also notes that where more experienced TAs have engaged in the professionaldevelopmentoftheirpeers,andinmanycasesbecomefirstlinemanagers,ithasmeantthattheythemselveshavebecomeconfidentintakingawiderroleintheschool.

Balshawsuggests thereport iscouched inoutofdateperceptionsofSEN– the focus isonperceived weakness in individual pupils and supportive interventions that are supposedlyneededanditissetintermsofusingparaprofessionalsupportforpupilsratherthancreatingalearningenvironmentcharacterisedbyteamwork.

FletcherCampbell (2010, p339) describes the DISS project as extensive yet ‘disappointing,evendepressing’intheassumptionsitmakesandthewayitconceivesofSEN.Shearguesthat‘‘Learningneeds’and‘behaviouralneeds’aretakenas‘givens’andunproblematic–thepupil‘has’ them and there is no challenge of the curriculum or pedagogy to which the pupil isexposed,andnohintofthepossibilityofthesocialconstructionofspecialeducationalneeds’(FletcherCampbell,2010,p339).This,FletcherCampbellcontinues,leavestheimpressionthatpupils with SEN do not fit the norm and are thus an inconvenience to the system. TAs arewelcomebecausetheyallowmoretimeforteacherstoteach,butthisignoresthefactthatmany


TAs are graduates, even teachers, and makes an assumption that time with the teacher isnecessarilybetter.

Giangreco(2010)beginswithaquotationfromthechildren’spoemHelping:

“Somekindofhelpisthekindofhelpthathelping’sallabout.Andsomekindofhelpisthekindofhelpwecanalldowithout.”

(Silverstein,1974,p101)

Theimportantmessageconveyedistheneedtorecognisethatwhenreferenceismadeto‘TAsupport’thismayencompassabroadrangeofpracticesandpupilexperiences.

Giangreco notes that there has been a rapid increase in the numbers of TAs (UK) andparaprofessionals(US)withouta‘theoreticallydefensiblefoundationandasubstantiveevidencebase’ (2010,p341)andno literature todate ‘hasofferedacompelling rationale insupportofassigningtheleastqualifiedschoolpersonnel,namelyteacherassistants,tostudentswiththemostcomplexlearningchallenges’(2010,p341).ThereispraisefortheDISSreportforprovidingasubstantialcontributiontotheevidencebase.GiangrecosaysthatdatacallingintoquestionthecurrentdeploymentofTAsmustnotbeseenasblamingthemorasacalltoremovethemand makes the point that ‘Anyone familiar with schools knows of caring, hardworking,underappreciated teacher assistants who are considered assets in their schools, yetinappropriately are expected [to] carryon teacher type duties without adequate training,planning,supervisionorcompensation’(2010,p344).GiangrecoarguesthatbeforelookingattheroleoftheTAitisnecessarytoreconceptualiseallrolesinschool,tolookagainattherolesofteachersandspecialeducatorsandtheinterplaybetweenthem.Giangrecoconcludesthat‘inorder forstudentswithdisabilities to receiveequitableopportunities,effective instruction,and appropriate supports in inclusive schools, an expectation of teacher engagement isessential,as is theirpreparationandsupport forsuchdirect instructional roles’ (2010,p345).This,hesuggests,‘necessitatescollaborationwithspecialeducatorsandarethinkingoftheirroles,potentiallyinvolvingashiftawayfromtraditionalpulloutapproachesnarrowlyfocusedonremediation, toward more collaboration, coteaching, differentiation, and universal design inclassrooms’(2010,p345).

Ofsted(2010)wascriticalofhowadditionaladultsweredeployedinsomeschools,commenting:

“Whereadditionaladultsupportwasprovidedintheclassroomforindividuals,thiswas sometimes a barrier to including them successfully and enabling them toparticipate.Intoomanyexamplesseenduringthereview,whenachildoryoungpersonwassupportedcloselybyanadult,theadultfocusedonthecompletionofthe task rather than on the actual learning. Adults intervened too quickly, sopreventingchildrenandyoungpeople fromhaving time to thinkor to learn fromtheirmistakes.”

(Ofsted,2010,p46)

The Coalition Government introduced the pupil premium (£2.5 billion of extra money by201415)asamethodofprovidingsupportforthemostdisadvantagedpupils.Themoney‘willfollow poorer children directly to the school they attend’ (DfE, 2010, p4). It is for schools todecidehowtospendthemoneybut‘therewillbecleartransparencyrequirementstoensureitisspenton improving the lifechancesofourpoorestyoungpeople’ (DfE,2010,p4).Clearly,basedonthefavourableviewsschoolsexpressregardingtheimpactofTAs,oneuseofthepupilpremiumcouldbeinincreasingadditionaladultsupport.Initsreviewofpossiblewaysofusing


thepupilpremium,theSuttonTrustlistedtheoverallcostbenefitofTAsas‘Verylow/noimpactforhighcost’(Higginsetal.,2011,p7).InthewakeofearliercoverageoftheissueofTAuse,suchafindingwasnotwastedonthepress.TheMailOnline,forexample,carriedtheheadline‘Teachingassistants‘donothelpimprovegrades’,report intoPupilPremiumspendingfinds’.However,asmightbeexpectedfromasynthesisofarangeofresearchstudies,theSuttonTrustreportpresentedamorecomplex,mixedpicture,stating:

“Most studies have consistently found very small or no effects on attainment,thoughpupils’perceptionsandattitudesmaybemorepositivelyaffected.Therearealsopositiveeffectsintermsofteachermoraleandreducedstressofworkingwithateachingassistant.Oneclear implicationfromthis isthat if teachingassistantsare used with the intention of improving the learning of pupils, they should notundertakethetaskstheyareroutinelyassigned.Thereissomeevidencethatthereisgreaterimpactwhenteachingassistantsaregivenaparticularpedagogicalroleorresponsibilityinspecificcurriculuminterventionswheretheeffectappearstobegreater, particularly with training and support. Even here, however, comparisonswithqualifiedteacherssuggesttheyareconsistentlylesseffective(achievingabouthalfthegainscomparedwithqualifiedteachers).”

(Higginsetal.,2011,p28)

WhilstbynomeansaringingendorsementoftheimpactofTAs,theSuttonTrustreportraisedimportantissuesregardingthewayTAsareused.Thereissomesupport,itseems,forTAstobeused to run targeted intervention programmes. However, it should be recognised that onereasonformoreevidenceof impact inrelationtotheuseofTAs inthiscapacitymaybethatevidenceiseasiertogatherusingentryandexitdata.Referringtotheissueofanevidencebase,Blatchfordetal.(2008,p13)commentedthat‘thegeneralviewinschoolswasthatsupportstaffdid have an impact on pupil attainment, behaviour and attitudes: the problem headteachersfacedwasprovingit.’

The2011GreenPaperdevotesaparagraph to the issueofTAuse that reflectssomeof theissueshighlightedbytherecentresearch(e.g.Blatchfordetal.,2009,Alborzetal.,2009)andtheearlierOfsted(2004,2006)criticisms,stating:

“Within schools, support staff can make a real difference to the achievement ofpupilswithSEN,buttheyneedtobedeployedandusedeffectivelyinordertodoso. Some schools have helped to achieve significant improvements in theoutcomesoftheirpupilswithSENbyreviewingtheamountoftimespentwith,andtypeofsupportfrom,teachingassistants.Evidencepublishedin2009showedhowteachingassistantscanhaveapositive impactonpupils’selfesteem.However,teachingassistanttimeshouldneverbeasubstituteforteachingfromaqualifiedteacher.Toooften,themostvulnerablepupilsaresupportedalmostexclusivelybyteachingassistants.”

(DfE,2011,p63)

Thoughacknowledgingthepotentialcontributionofsupportstaff,the2011GreenPaperwasclearinitsmessagethat:

“ChildrenwithSENneedmore,not less, timewith theschool’smostskilledandqualifiedteachers.”

(DfE,2011,p63)


PresentationanddiscussionofdataItwasclearfromthesurveyresponsesthatamainrolefortheTAwassupportingpupilswithSENand/orlowattainingpupils–71%ofmainstreamrespondentsagreedthatthiswashowtheTAwasused.Casestudyintervieweeswerealsoaskedquestionsabouthowsupportstaffweredeployedintheirschool,howtheyasindividualsworkedwithsupportstaffandtheirperceptionof theefficacyofworkingwithTAs tosupportSENpupils.Those interviewedweregenerallyaware that support staff couldpotentially haveanadverseeffecton thedevelopmentof theindependenceofpupilswithSEN,andalsothatteachersshouldnotdelegatetheteachingofpupilswithSENentirelytotheirTAs.Mostwereabletoelaborateonthemethodsofdeploymenttheyemployedwithintheirclassestoavoidtheseproblemsdeveloping.Insomeschools,itwasclear thatsuchmethodsofdeploymentwereverymuchanestablishedpartofpolicy. ItwasclearthatthemajorityofteachersinterviewedwereawareofgeneralmessagesfromresearchandmediacoverageconcerningtheimpactofsupportstaffontheprogressofpupilswithSEN.In spite of the critical nature of some of these messages, there was an overwhelming andpassionateviewincasestudyschoolsthattheinclusionandprogressofpupilswithSENwasdependent on the availability of support from a TA. There was less consensus on this pointwithinthesurvey,withonly51%ofmainstreamrespondentssayingthattheprogressofmostpupilswithSENintheirclasswasdependentontheavailabilityofsupportfromaTA.Only10%ofrespondentsindicatedthattherewasnoTAintheirclassroomorthequestiondidnotapplytotheircurrentroleand24%disagreed(i.e.progressisnotdependentontheavailabilityofaTA).

There was an agreed view amongst interviewees that the teacher made decisions aboutteaching and was responsible for the delegation and monitoring of TA support in theirclassrooms.However,mostteachersreportedthattherewasinsufficienttimetoliaise.Thiswaseasier inprimarysettingsandoftentookplaceduring lunchbreaksand informalmeetings. ItwasevidentthatsucharrangementsoftenreliedonthegoodwillofTAstostayonalittleaftertheircontractedhoursand teachers togiveuppartof their lunchbreaks.Manyprimaryandsecondaryteachersalsotalkedoftheimportanceofdevelopingagoodprofessionalrelationshipwith the TAs they worked with, particularly where the TA’s role involved working extensivelywithin theclassroom.Astable teamofTAsandmodelsofdeployment thatallowedTAsandteachers to become used to working with each other over a period of time seemed to beimportant factors in the development of such relationships. From discussions within theinterviews it seems that this familiarity allows the TA and teacher to know each other’sexpectations,basedonanunderstandingofrespectiverolesandresponsibilitieswhenworkingtogether.

Only 36% of mainstream survey respondents felt that there were sufficient opportunities toreceivefeedbackonpupils’learningfromTAs.Fortysixpercentdisagreedand9%indicatedtheyhavenoTAorthequestiondidnotapplytotheircurrentrole.ThisfindingreflectsarecentGTC(2010)reportthatfoundthattherewereonlylimitedopportunitiesforTAsandteacherstocommunicateandplanandprepare for,and feedbackon, lessons,particularly insecondaryschools.Anumberofsecondaryteachersinterviewednotedproblemswithahighturnoverofsupportstaffandwithnotknowing ifandwhenTAsupportwouldbeavailable in theirclass.SuchfactorsarelikelytomakeeffectiveplanningfortheuseoftheTAinalessondifficult.

Sixtyper centof special school respondents felt theyhad sufficient opportunities to receivefeedback on pupils’ learning. This is quite a big difference compared with their mainstreamcounterpartsandmightbepartlyexplainedbygenerallysmallerteachinggroupswithadulttochild ratios that afford far closer working between the adults in the classroom throughout alesson.However,itmightalsobethatspecialschoolsplacehighpriorityonprovidingthistime


as part of a more individualised approach to learning and assessment that is typically acharacteristicofthespecialschoolenvironment.

Fromthesurveyresponses,itappearsthatteachersaresatisfiedwiththeirknowledgeoftheTAroleandtheirabilitytoworkeffectivelywithTAs.Themajorityofmainstreamandspecialschoolrespondents(75%and86%respectively)eitheragreedorstronglyagreedthattheyknewandunderstoodtheroleoftheTA.Only27%ofmainstreamrespondentsand19%ofspecialschoolrespondentsindicatedthattheyfelttheyrequiredmoretraininginordertoworkeffectivelywiththeadditionaladultsintheirclassroom.

Amongst mainstream survey respondents, there was less difference than might have beenexpectedbetweentheviewsofexperiencedand lessexperiencedteachersandtheneedfortraininginordertoworkwithadultsintheclassroom–29%ofnewlyqualifiedteacherssaidtheyneededmoretraining,comparedwith26%ofteacherswhoqualifiedmorethan15yearsago.Fortyfivepercentofrespondentswhohadbeenteachingfor15yearsormoreindicatedthattheydidnotneedadditionaltraininginthisarea.

MostteachersinterviewedfeltthattheTAstheyworkedwithhadsufficienttraininginSENandsometimesknewmoreaboutspecificSENthantheydid.Somesecondaryteachersnotedthat,although their TAsknewabout theSENof theirpupils, somedidnothavesufficient subjectknowledgetoeffectivelysupportpupilswithSENinthelesson.Someschoolshadaddressedthis by having TAs attached to subject departments. The survey responses offered a lesspositiveviewwithregardtoTAs’ training.Only36%ofmainstreamteachersfelt thatsupportstaff were sufficiently trained to support the needs of pupils with SEN. Fortytwo per centdisagreedand19%wereambivalent.Fiftyonepercentofspecialschoolsurveyrespondentsthoughtsupportstaffweresufficientlytrainedtosupporttheneedsofallpupils.Thirtyfourpercentdisagreed.

Fromthecasestudyvisits,itwasevidentthatmostschoolsemployedarangeofsupportstaffand used a variety of support strategies, ranging from onetoone support for statementedpupilstoworkingwithsmallgroups,bothinandoutsidetheclassroom.SchoolswereconsciousofneedingtomeettheirobligationsregardingTAsupportforstatementedpupils.Theschoolsvisited were in LAs that operated different funding arrangements with regard to statutoryassessment. In some LAs, funding was directly linked to the issuing of a particular child’sstatement,whereasinothers,fundinghadbeendevolvedandsothespecificationofTAhoursplacedaresponsibilityontheschooltoprovidethisfromitsbudget.InschoolsinLAswhereanindividualstatementbroughtfunding,therewasconsiderableawarenessoftheimplicationsoffluctuationsinthenumberofstatementedpupilsonrollforthebudget.

Irrespectiveofdifferencesinfundingmechanisms,casestudyschoolsprioritisedcoveringthestatutory obligations for support. Most of the schools visited allowed the TA allocated to aparticularpupiltooffersupporttootherpupilsintheclasstoavaryingextentanddependingon the nature of the statemented child’s needs. This was done in the interests of fosteringindependenceinthepupiltowhomthesupportwaslinkedandalsoinpursuitofwhattheschoolconsideredtobethebestuseofresources.

Inprimaryschools,thereappearedtobeamovetowardsTAsrunning‘catchup’programmesandlessemphasisongeneralinclasssupport,thoughitwasevidentthatTAswerealsousedtofulfilthisrole.Insecondaryschools,aswellasgeneralinclasssupporttherewasafocusonTAsrunningadditionalliteracyinterventionsusingspecificprogrammessuchasSuccessMaker,oradditionalICT.Thoughmostschoolsoperatedamixtureofgeneralinclasssupportandwork


ontargetedinterventions,variabilityinpracticewasevident.WhereschoolshadmovedheavilyinthedirectionofusingTAstoleadinterventiongroups,therewasastrongfocusonmonitoringandevaluationinordertoevidenceimpact.

Inthesurvey,32%ofmainstreamrespondentsand57%ofspecialschoolrespondentsfeltthattheirschoolemployedasufficientrangeofsupportstafftofullysupporttheneedsofchildrenwith SEN. In both the mainstream and special school surveys, teachers agreed that theavailabilityofmoreadditionaladultsupportstaffwouldbeuseful.Ofmainstreamrespondents,83.2%agreedwiththissuggestion.Thepercentageofspecialschoolteacherssupportingthisviewislower(61.2%),thoughonlymoretimeandgreateraccesstoeducationalpsychologistsattractedhigherlevelsofagreement.

Thereasonsthatintervieweesgaveforneedingsupportstaffwereusuallyrelatedtothefactthatteachers are required to teach a wide range of pupils in a group setting. This required theteacherpreparingmaterial that spannedanumberofKeyStages, suchas fromKS24.Oneproblemwasthatevenwheretheteacherhaddifferentiatedthetaskthepupilwasstillrequiredtoengagewith it.This requiredconstantchivvyingandcoaxing thatprescribed theneed foradditionaladultsupport.Ifpupilswerenotenabledtogetonwiththeirwork,thennotonlydidtheynotmaketherequiredprogressbutbehaviouralproblemsalsoensued.Thisoftenhadanegativeimpactonthelearningofthewholeclass.AnissuethatemergesfromviewsexpressedbyintervieweesiswhethertheimpactofTAsshouldbeconsiderednotonly inrelationtothepupilstowhomtheirsupportisdirectedbutalsoinrelationtomakingtheclassteachingofadiverserangeofpupilsmanageable.

Reflecting the period during which the case study visits took place, there was considerableconcernamongstthoseinterviewedthatanticipatedbudgetcutswouldresultinfewerTAs,withsome schools already experiencing a reduction in this area. Some interviewees highlightedissuesoffeasibilitythatcutstoTAsupportmightraise.Oneteachertoldus,forexample:

“Youcan’tkeepthesamecurriculumwith thesameACexpectations,have thislevelofdiversityandlessTAs.”

(Secondaryteacher)

Temporary contracts were highlighted as a particular issue, meaning that it was difficult tomaintain a stable staff team. TAs on temporary contracts often looked for the security ofpermanentemploymentelsewherebeforetheircontractsended.SometeachersalsoreportedexperiencingareductioninthenumberofTAhoursacrosstheschool,whichhadledtolesstimetoliaisebecausethemaintenanceofhoursfordirectlyworkingwithpupilshadbeenprioritised.

The data gathered through the survey and the interviews broadly reflect the GTC’s (2010)findings that although evidence suggests that the more TA support pupils receive, the lessprogresstheymade,individualteachersbelievedthatTAshadageneralpositiveeffectonpupillearningandbehaviour,includingimprovementsinprogress.

Findings4.1 Just over half of survey respondents felt that the progress of pupils with SEN was

dependent on the availability of a TA. Within case study interviews, there was anoverwhelming view that the effective inclusion of pupils with SEN in classrooms wasdependentontheavailabilityofsupportfromaTA.Themostfrequentconcernexpressedintheinterviewswasthatbudgetcutswouldleadtoareductioninsupportstaff.


4.2 Itwasevidentfromthecasestudiesthatschoolsemployarangeofsupportstaffanduseavarietyofdeploymentstrategies.Theserangefromindividualsupport foraparticularpupil with SEN to allocation of support to a class or teaching group. Case studyinterviewees were aware of problems inherent in routinely and exclusively allocatingsupport staff to pupils with SEN. Only a third of survey respondents felt their schoolsemployedasufficientrangeofsupportstaff.

4.3 SurveydatasuggeststhatTAsaretypicallyemployedtosupportpupilswithSENand/orlow attaining pupils. From case study interviews it is clear that additional or extraprovisionand targeted ‘catchup’programmesaredeliveredmainlybysupportstaff inbothprimaryandsecondaryschools.

4.5 Only about a third of teachers within the survey felt they had sufficient time and/oropportunitytoliaisewithsupportstaff.Thiswasalsoanissuehighlightedbycasestudyinterviewees. Teachers interviewed often reported using a variety of opportunisticstrategies to address this issue, often relying on goodwill and informal arrangements.Someschoolshaddevelopedwrittenrecordingmethodstoshareinformation,includingelectroniccommunication.

4.6 Inthesurvey,overhalfofmainstreamteachersandamajorityofspecialschoolteachersfeltthattheirTAsweresufficientlytrained.Somesecondarystaff interviewedraisedthepoint that TAs had knowledge about SEN but often did not have sufficient subjectknowledgetoeffectivelysupportpupilswithSENinclass.

Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy• CasestudydatainparticularindicatesastrongbeliefamongstteachersthathavingaTA

present iswhatmakes teachingadiverse rangeofpupilsmanageable.DespiteOfsted(2004,2006)criticismsoftheuseofTAsandalsoresearchfromBlatchfordetal.(2009)regarding evidence of impact, teachers seem in no doubt that TAs are essential. Thiswouldseemto reflect theBlatchfordetal.point thatalthoughmostheadteachersandteacherswouldtalkaboutthepositiveimpactofTAs,theproblemisprovingit.Theimpactmay not be measurable in relation to the individual pupil or group with SEN to whomsupportisallocated.However,becauseteachersaredealingwithSENwithinthegroupsettingoftheclassroom,itcouldbethatsupportrelatestothefeasibilityofteachingaclasswithadiverserangeofneedsandabilities.ResponsesfromintervieweessuggestedthatTAswereabletoprovidethecloserattentionandmonitoringthatsomepupilsneededtoenhancetheiraccessandparticipation.Forsuchpupils,thissupportrepresentedanaspectofthe‘additionalordifferentactiontoenablethechildtolearnmoreeffectively’(DfES,2001,p33)prescribedwithintheSENCodeofPractice(DfES,2001).

• Though evidence from Ofsted (2004, 2006) and Blatchford et al. (2009) serves tochallenge any complacency ‘concerning the routine deployment of classroombasedsupportstafftolowerattainingpupilsandpupilswithSEN’(Blatchfordetal.,2009,p141),itisalsonecessarytobemindfuloftheFarrelletal.(2010)observationthat:

“ThereisaclearlackofevidenceontheimpactofTAsonthewidercurriculuminbothprimaryandsecondary schools. Inaddition, furtherwork isneededon theimpact of TAs in supporting pupils with behaviour problems. The few controlledstudiesthathaveaddressedthisareatendtoreportmixedfindings(Alborzetal.,2009).Finally,fewhighqualitystudieshaveaddressedtheimpactofTAsinraisingthe academic attainments of pupils with identified SEN, for example, autism,


Down’s syndrome, specific learning difficulties. In the recent DCSF study(Blatchfordetal.,2009) therewere insufficientpupils falling into theseandothercategoriestomakeitpossibletoundertakeameaningfulstatisticalanalysisoftheimpactofTAsinraisingtheattainmentsofthesepupils.”

(Farrelletal.,2010,p4647)

GivencommentsbyFarrelletal. (2010)andthe2011GreenPaper’sacknowledgementthat‘supportstaffcanmakearealdifferencetotheachievementofpupilswithSEN,buttheyneedtobedeployedandusedeffectivelyinordertodoso’(DfE,2011,p63),itwouldseemnecessarythatfurtherresearchisundertaken.Thiswouldneedtofocusonwhattypeofadditionalsupport iseffective forwhat typeofpupil inwhichtypeofsetting. Itfollows that the nature of training for TAs and other support staff needs to be closelyalignedtotheirrolesandresponsibilitiesinrelationtoimprovedoutcomesforpupilswithSEN.

• Within the case study research, respondents noted that it was important for thedeployment of TAs to be managed and monitored such that teachers could workcollaborativelywith,andnotinparallelto,theirTAs.TeachersneededtoknowinadvancewhetherornottheywouldhaveaTAintheirlessonforplanningpurposesandtohavetimeandsystemstoliaisebothbeforeandafterlessons.Thebenefitsoftheopportunitytoliaiseprior to the lesson are evident; this allows the teacher and TA to be clear about theirrespectiverolesandresponsibilities.Theneedforliaisonfollowingalessonmaybelessimmediately obvious. However, where this is in place it allows the TA to report to theteacheronaparticularpupilorgroup’sperformanceandprogressandthuscontributestoassessment and informs future planning. It is notable that only a third of surveyrespondents felt they had had sufficient opportunities to receive feedback on pupils’learningfromtheTA.

• Schoolswereconsciousofneeding tomeet their obligations regardingTAsupport forstatementedpupils.ThereisvariationbetweenLAsinfundingfortheprovisionidentifiedas part of the statement. In some LAs, funding was directly linked to the statement,meaningthatifasetnumberofTAhourswerespecified,theLAprovidedthefundingforthese. In other LAs, the funding had been delegated. In such cases the school wasrequiredtodrawonthedelegatedbudgettofulfilanyTAhoursspecifiedinanyindividualpupil’sstatement.Irrespectiveofdifferencesinfundingmechanisms,casestudyschoolsprioritisedcoveringthestatutoryobligationsforsupport.Fundingmechanismspotentiallyhave implications for theschool’sability tosecureastableworkforceofsupportstaff.Most schools, to a greater or lesser extent and depending on the nature of thestatementedchild’sneeds,allowedtheTAallocatedtoaparticularpupiltooffersupporttootherpupilsintheclass.Thiswasdoneintheinterestsoffosteringindependenceintheindividualpupiltowhomthesupportwaslinkedandalsoinpursuitofthebestuseofresources.

• Itwasevidentfromcasestudyinterviewsthatthequalityoftheprofessionalrelationshipbetween the classroom teacher and TA was usually built over time and as such wasdependentonmodesofTAdeploymentthatallowedbothpartiestoworktogetheroverasustained period. Though the concept of a professional relationship in this context israthernebulous,thevalueattachedtoitbyintervieweeswouldsuggestthereisaneedforfurtherresearchintotheessentialfeaturesofthisrelationship.


• IfTAsandothersupportstaffaredeemedimportantinthepursuitofimprovedoutcomesforpupilswithSEN,theirrolemustbeseenascomplementaryratherthancompensatory.ThereisaneedforbothpolicymakersandschoolsasindividualorganisationstocontinuetoseekwaystoaddressthecommunicationandplanningrequirementsbetweenteachersandTAsandothersupportstaff.Therelianceongoodwilltoallowliaisontotakeplacebetween TAs and teachers needs to be examined. Though many staff (both TAs andteachers)maysimplyacceptthisaspartoftheirroles,suchanessentialtaskshouldnotbelefttochance.Dueregardneedstobegiventothedevelopmentofframeworksthatprovidethetimeandopportunitiesnecessaryforeffectivecollaborativeworking.


CHAPTER5:BEHAVIOURANDSEN

ExplorationoftheliteratureLabourgovernmentguidancetoschoolsThe 2007 guidance document School Discipline and Pupil Behaviour Policies (DfES, 2007)arrived too late for inclusion in our original literature review. Its general significance was insettingout theprovisionsof theEducationand InspectionAct2006. Itcovered thestatutorypower todiscipline introduced in theActaswellas includinga rangeofotherguidance thataimedtohelpschoolsunderstandtheiroveralllegalpowersanddutiesasregardsestablishingaschoolbehaviourpolicyanddiscipliningpupils.Itprovidedgeneraladviceongoodpracticeregardingrules,rewardsandsanctions,aswellasmorespecific,detailedadviceoncertainkeysanctionssuchastheuseofdetentionsandtheconfiscationofpupils’property.

The specific significance of School Discipline and Pupil Behaviour Policies (DfES, 2007) inrelationtoSENwastheinclusionofanextensivesectionon‘Takingaccountofindividualpupilneeds’.ThissectionfocusedprimarilyonpupilswithSENand/ordisabilitiesbutalsoreferredtoothergroupsdefinedbyOfsted(2000)as‘atrisk’withintheeducationsystem,including:

• minorityethnicandfaithgroups,Travellers,asylumseekersandrefugees;• pupilswhoneedsupporttolearnEnglishasanadditionallanguage(EAL);• childrenlookedafterbytheLA;• sickchildren;• youngcarers;• childrenfromfamiliesunderstress;• pregnantschoolgirlsandteenagemothers;• anyotherpupilsatriskofdisaffectionandexclusion.

(DfES,2007)

Thedocumentincludedarangeofshortscenariosthatdescribedanapproachemployedbyaschoolandthenofferedanalternative,preferableresponse,italicisedbelow.Forexample:

“Apupilisadmonishedforfailuretofollowalongandcomplicatedinstructiongivenbyanadult,butthepupilhasspeechandlanguagedifficultiesandcannotprocesscomplexlanguage.

“Amoreappropriateresponsewouldbefortheadult tomake instructionsshort,andclarifyunderstandingbyaskingthechildtorepeatthem.”

(DfES,2007,p48)

Thissectionmixedscenarioswherethebetterpracticedescribedwassimplydesirableintheinterestsofbeingsensitivetoindividualdifferenceswiththosewheretheexistingpracticeriskedcontraveninglegislativerequirementsandcouldresultintheschool’sactionsbeingsubjecttochallengeongroundsofdiscrimination.

Though‘consistency’isoftenregardedasawatchwordinrelationtobehaviourmanagement,itwasclearfromtheguidancethatthiscouldnotbeinterpretedasrespondinginthesamewaytoeverypupil.Effectively, theguidancerequiredschools todifferentiate in their responsestobehaviour.Thisposesaparticularchallenge toanyschools thatoperatepoliciesbasedonastandard,fixeddisciplinaryresponsetocertainoffences.


In an unusual but ultimately useful awarenessraising section, School Discipline and PupilBehaviourPolicies(DfES,2007)movedawayfromguidingschoolsprimarilyonwhattodotoaconsiderationofwhysomepupilsbehaveinthewaythattheydo.Itpositsandthenexpandsuponthreereasons:

• pupilswhodonothavethenecessaryunderstandingorskills;• pupilswhocanbehavebutchoosenotto;• pupilswhohavethenecessaryskillsbutareexperiencingtrauma.

SchoolDisciplineandPupilBehaviourPolicies:GuidanceforSchoolswasrepublishedin2009inaglossierstyleandwiththestandardDCSFstylecoverthatwasinuseatthistime(DCSF,2009b).

TheCoalitionGovernment’sconcernwithbehaviourThe2010SchoolsWhitePaper(DfE,2010)focusesfirmlyonauthorityanddiscipline.Itpaintsableakpictureofthecurrentsituationinschools,suggesting:

“The greatest concern voiced by new teachers and a very common reasonexperienced teacherscite for leaving theprofession ispoorpupilbehaviour.Weknowthataminorityofpupilscancauseseriousdisruptionintheclassroom.Thenumberofseriousphysicalassaultsonteachershasrisen.Andpoorlydisciplinedchildrencausemiseryforotherpupilsbybullyingthemanddisruptinglearning.”

(DfE,2010,p9)

Thisdoesseemratheratoddswiththeconsistentmessagefromthepreviousgovernment(e.g.DfES,2005c,DCSF,2009b)that ‘themajorityofpupilsenjoy learning,workhardandbehavewell’ (Ofsted,2005,p3).Thisfindingwasbasedondatafromschools inspectedbyOfstedin2003/04thatindicatedthat‘behaviourwasgoodorbetterin90%ofprimaryschools,68%ofsecondary schools and 80% of special schools and PRUs’ (Ofsted, 2005, p3). More recentfigurescitedby theHouseofCommonsEducationCommitteewouldsuggest thatbehaviourhasinfactimproved:

“The2009/10AnnualReportofHerMajesty’sChief Inspector found thatpupils’behaviour was “good or outstanding in 89% of primary schools and 70% ofsecondaryschools inspected in2009/10”.Thiscompareswith95%primaryand80%secondaryin2008/09and93%primaryand72%secondaryin2007/08.”

(HouseofCommonsEducationCommittee,2011,p9)

ApositiveviewisalsopresentedbySirAlanSteer,whostates:

“Behaviourstandards inschoolsarehighfor thegreatmajorityofyoungpeople.Themisconductofafewrepresentsasmallpercentageofthesevenmillionpupilsintheschoolsystem.Concernoverbehaviourstandardsamongtheyoungisoftenfuelled by the news of well publicised incidents. Invariably these areunrepresentativeandrare.”

(Steer,2010,p8)

Such observations should not lead to complacency. The DfE’s written memorandum to theHouse of Commons Education Committee summarising the findings of a range of surveysundertakenbyteachingunionsonthesubjectofpupilbehaviournoted:


“Thereisviolenceandassaultinourschools.NASUWThaveestimatedthatthereis one assault (verbal or physical) every seven minutes. A recent poll by theAssociationofTeachersandLecturers(ATL)foundthat38.6%ofrespondentshaddealtwithphysicalaggressionthatacademicyear.Mostreportedincidents(87%)involved violence towards another pupil, more than a quarter involved violenceagainst the respondent, with 44% of incidents involving another teacher or amemberofsupportstaff.“

(HouseofCommonsEducationCommittee,2011,p9)

TheCoalitionGovernmentseemstohaveframedbehaviourinschoolsasawidespreadproblemtobesolvedandsees thesolution in increasedpowers forschoolsandteachers.TheWhitePaperexpressestheintentionto:

• increase theauthorityof teachers todisciplinepupilsbystrengthening theirpowers tosearchpupils,issuesamedaydetentionsandusereasonableforcewherenecessary;

• strengthen headteachers’ authority to maintain discipline beyond the school gates,improveexclusionprocessesandempowerheadteacherstotakeastrongstandagainstbullying,especiallyracist,homophobicandotherprejudicebasedbullying;

• change thecurrentsystemof independentappealspanels forexclusions,so that theytakelesstimeandheadteachersnolongerhavetoworrythatapupilwillbereinstatedwhentheyoungpersonconcernedhascommittedaseriousoffence;

• protectteachersfrommaliciousallegations–speedingupinvestigationsandlegislatingtograntteachersanonymitywhenaccusedbypupils.

(DfE,2010,p32)

Thesefourproposalsareframedintermsofgrantingschoolssomethingadditionaltosupportthem in the complex task of addressing issues of behaviour. However, a year earlier Steer(2009b)hadmadethepointthat‘Schoolshaveabroaderrangeofpowersthaneverbeforetoprevent and tacklepoorbehaviour’ (Steer, 2009b,p6).He found little evidenceof a needordesireamongtheprofessionforschoolstobegivenwiderpowers.Rathertherewasaneedforadisseminationstrategytoraiseawarenessandunderstandingofthepowersthatalreadyexist(Steer, 2009b). On the subject of increased powers, the House of Commons EducationCommittee(2011)commented:

“We welcome the proposals set out in the Schools White Paper for additionalpowerstoimprovestandardsofbehaviour,butrecognisetheywillbelimitedintheirimpact.Witnessesplacedmuchgreaterstressontheimportanceofincreasingandimproving initial teacher training and continuing professional development onbehaviourmanagementforteachers.”

(EducationandSkillsCommittee,2011,p34)

OtherproposalsintheWhitePaperrepresentedgreateraccountabilityinrelationtobehaviour.Itexpressestheintentionto:

• trial a new approach to exclusions where schools have new responsibilities for theongoingeducationandcareofexcludedchildren;

• focusOfstedinspectionmorestronglyonbehaviourandsafety,includingbullying,asoneoffourkeyareasofinspections.


BehaviourandSENThe 2011 Green Paper identifies an increase in the number of pupils identified with BESD,reportingariseof23%between2005and2010. It reportsthat: ‘Some26percentofyoungpeopleatSchoolActionPlusand14percentofpupilswithstatementshaveabehavioural,emotionalorsocialdifficulty(BESD)identifiedastheirprimaryneed.’(DfE,2011,p69).

SomewhatsurprisinglyforaGreenPaperonSEN,considerationofbehaviourfocusesinitiallynotonthosepupilswhohaveBESDbutontheeffectsofbehaviourdirectedtowardsotherswithSEN.Itcommentsthat:‘DisabledchildrenandchildrenwithSENaremorelikelytoexperiencebullying than their peers’ (DfE, 2011, p69) and ‘The behaviour of other children can causeparticulardistressfordisabledpupilsandpupilswithSEN’(DfE,2011,p69).Whilsttheissueisrelevant, it seems strange that, having identified that a significant proportion of pupils haveBESD,thereisnotmorecoverageofaddressingtheneedsofthisgroupofpupils.

The2011GreenPaperexpressesanintenttoensureassessments‘identifytherootcausesofthebehaviourratherthanfocusonthesymptoms’(DfE,2011,p70).Thetwoexamplesofrootcausesgiveninthe2011GreenPaperarepupilswithunderlyingcommunicationproblemsandthosewho‘displaychallengingbehaviour,labelledasSEN,whichisactuallytheresultofotherissues, including difficulties in their home lives’ (DfE, 2011, p69). The inference from theseexamples is that identificationofcausewill lead to themoreaccurate identificationof thosewhosepresentingBESDcanbeattributed toanSEN. Itappears that there isan intention todissectthecurrentcategoryofBESDandeitherplacepupilsunderadifferentcategoryofSEN(e.g.speech, languageandcommunicationneeds)orremovethemfromtheSENframework,constructingtheminsteadaspartofavulnerablegroupduetootherfactorssuchastheirhomelives.Neitheroftheseoutcomesarenecessarilyproblematicinthemselves.However,theissuethatcontinuestoconfrontteachersandothersconcernedwiththeidentificationprocessisthepointatwhichapupil’ssocialandemotionalproblemsaresoentrenchedintheirverybeingandpervasiveacrossallcontextsthattheymeetthecriteriaforanSEN,regardlessoforiginalcause.

Thedifficulties indefiningBESDhavebeenwell documented (e.g.DfE, 1994b) and inmanyways the 2011 Green Paper has highlighted the right issue in raising questions about themeaning of this category. The Green Paper’s overall concern with overidentification of SENwouldsuggestthatanystrategiestostrengthentheaccuracyofidentificationarelikelytoleadtofewerpupilsbeingidentifiedashavingBESD.However,regardlessofdesignation,pupilswhoexperience difficulties in building and maintaining the reciprocal relationships required forlearninginschoolsettingswillnotdisappearandwillcontinuetorequireappropriateresourcing.

TeachertraininginrelationtobehaviourGoodmanandBurton(2010)raisetheissuethatalthoughinitialteachereducationinEnglandincludes compulsory content on general behaviour management (TDA, 2009), there is nomandatoryspecialisttrainingcomponentforworkingwithstudentswhohaveBESD.Theyalsonotethat‘thereisnocompulsorycontinuedprofessionaldevelopmentdedicatedtoupskillingteachersalreadyworkingwiththisgroupofstudents’(GoodmanandBurton,2010,p224).

GoodmanandBurtonsuggest that theirstudy‘depictsasituation inwhichteachers,despitetheir lack of training, have through a combination of creativity, trial and error and their owncommitment to teaching, foundways to engagewith this groupof students’ andargue that‘Whilstthisdedicationisinspiring,thepressureplacedonteacherstotrytomeettheneedsofstudentswithBESDwithapparentlyvery littlesupporteither in trainingoradditionalsupportstaffishuge’(GoodmanandBurton,2010,p234).TheinterpretationbyGoodmanandBurtonisthatthisisevidenceoftheneedformoretraining.DrawingonPoulou’s(2005)earlierworkthat


stressed that how teachers interact with pupils with SEN has a huge impact on pupils’development, theyarguethat ‘teacher trainingmustprepare teachers to interacteffectively ifthesestudentsaretohaveasuccessfuleducation’(GoodmanandBurton,2010,p234).

ThepointthatGoodmanandBurtongivelimitedattentionto,however,istheissueofwhatthefocusofthistrainingmightbe,giventhat‘BESD’isasomewhatimpreciseterm(ColeandVisser,2005).Thepupilswhofallunderthebroadumbrellatermof‘BESD’arefarfromahomogeneousgroup.ThispointwasdemonstratedthroughtheDfE’s(1994b)attemptstodefine‘EBD’:

“Theirbehaviourmaybeevidentatthepersonallevel(forexamplethroughlowselfimage,anxiety,depressionorwithdrawal;orthroughresentment,vindictivenessordefiance);attheverballevel(forexamplethechildmaybesilentormaythreaten,or interrupt, argues or swear a great deal); at the nonverbal level (for examplethroughclinginess,ortruancy,failuretoobserverules,disruptiveness,aggressionor violence); or at the work skills level (for example through an inability orunwillingnesstoworkwithoutdirectsupervision,toconcentrate,tocompletetaskortofollowinstructions).”

(DfE,1994b,p78)

GoodmanandBurton(2010)seemtobefocusedprimarilyonthosestudentswithBESDwhopresentasbeinghyperactiveandlackingconcentration,presentingchallengingbehaviourandbeingdisruptiveanddisturbing.Positively,ratherthanfocusingsimplyonthemanagementofbehaviour, theysuggest that thechallenge for teachers ‘is toengage thestudentwithBESDwhilst minimising disruption and providing effective educational provision to all the otherstudentspresent intheclassroom, includingmeetinganySENspresentedbyotherstudents’(p224).

Goodman and Burton report that some (of the eight) teachers involved in the researchsuggested‘aneedfortrainingonlabelsfordifferentsortsofBESDandtheimplicationsofeachof these labels on how best to work with the students to which these classifications areassigned’(GoodmanandBurton,2010,p233).Theydonotexpandonwhattheselabelsmightbe.Clearly,alabelintheformofadiagnosisofADHDorASDmightrevealsomeimplicationsforpracticewhereas the labelof ‘disruptive’ isprimarilyadescriptionof thechild’seffectonothers. Goodman and Burton argue that their respondents’ interest in training in relation tolabels is consistent with work by Atici (2007), which examined preservice teachers’understandingofclassroommanagementandstrategiesforcopingwithdifficultbehaviour.Aticireported that, as well as needing to experience different teaching situations and becomingcompetent in contemporary teaching methods, preservice teachers needed a greaterunderstandingofchildpsychology.

PresentationanddiscussionofdataIn the light of concerns expressed by policy makers and the media regarding standards ofbehaviour in schools, the survey asked respondents whether they thought that behaviour inschoolshadbecomemorechallenginginrecentyears.Ofmainstreamrespondents,82.2%saidithad.Only7.5%thoughtithadnot,and10.3%werenotsure.Specialschoolteacherswereaskedwhethertherehadbeenanincreaseinchallengingbehaviourinmainstreamschoolsandthere was a similar response – 90.5% thought there had, 1.7% disagreed and 7.9% wereunsure.Amajority (66.9%)ofspecialschool respondents thought thishad impactedontheirschool(e.g.throughmorereferralsorpupilsplacedthere),although16.1%disagreed.


Therewasaviewfrommanyteachersinterviewedduringthecasestudyvisitsthatthebehaviourofsomeindividualchildrenwasbecomingmorechallenging.

Survey respondents who had indicated that there had been an increase in challengingbehaviourwerethenaskedtoindicatewhattheyconsideredthemainreasonforthistobe(seetables5.1and5.2).

Mainreason %Parentstakinglessresponsibilityfortheirchildren 37

Generaldeteriorationofbehaviourinsociety 19.7

Insufficientpowertodisciplinepupilsinschool 16.2

Inclusionpolicies(school,localand/ornational) 9.7

Constraints/demandsofthecurriculum 5.7

Insufficienttrainingforteachersonbehaviourmanagement 1.6

Other(pleasespecify) 10

Table5.1Mainstreamteachers’perceivedreasonsforbehaviourbecomingmorechallenginginrecentyears

Mainreason %Parentstakinglessresponsibilityfortheirchildren 27.4

Generaldeteriorationofbehaviourinsociety 22.8

Inclusionpolicies(school,localand/ornational) 15.5

Insufficientpowertodisciplinepupilsinschool 7.8

Insufficienttrainingforteachersonbehaviourmanagement 7.8

Constraints/demandsofthecurriculum 5.9

Other(pleasespecify) 12.8

Table 5.2 Special school teachers’ perceived reasons for an increase in challenging behaviour in mainstreamschools

Itshouldbenotedthatthepercentagesintables5.1and5.2representtheproportionofthosewhoindicatedintheprecedingquestionthattheyfeltchallengingbehaviourhadincreased,notofthesurveyrespondentsasawhole.

Aninterestingfeatureoftheresponsesregardingreasonsforaperceivedincreaseinchallengingbehaviouristhatthetwomostcommonlyidentifiedfactorsarelargelyexternalanddifficultforschoolstodirectlychange.Intermsofteacherexperience,itpresentsapictureofteacherswhoperceivetheretobeaproblem(behaviourismorechallenging)butattributethistofactors(homeandsociety)overwhichtheyhavelittleornocontrol.Schoolstaffinterviewedduringthecasestudy visits also attributed a perceived increase in challenging behaviour to social factors,mainly related to family breakdown, parenting issues and social problems such asunemployment, drug use and gang culture. The quotes below illustrate the types of viewsexpressed:

“Ourschooliscalminlessons,it’soutsideclassthatistheproblem–thisisgreaterthananyissueswemighthaveaboutSEN.”



“Theonesthatcauseusproblemsareoftenselfish,unkind,donotrelate,donotcommunicate. Children are more confident and streetwise – it’s a problem withbehaviourthatmanifestsitselfasamoralandhurtsothers.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Theyareusedtoinstantgratification–there’snofearofanypunishmentsandtheydonotcomefromhomeswithemployedparentsorjobaspirations.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Year7aregettingmorebelligerent–‘Iknowmyrights!’–thisstemsfromhome,whichsays, ‘Youcanhavewhateveryouwant, youdon’thave towork for it.’ Itcomesfromthebenefitssystems.Childrenpickitupfromtheirparents.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“The problem we are experiencing is apathy and lack of aspiration. We have tosupplyprovisionANDdeveloptheirmindsets.”

(Secondaryteacher)

“Thereare risingmentalhealth issues–youhave topermanentlyexclude togetchildrenintospecialprovisionforbehaviouroraPRU.”


“It’sashiftingculture;somechildrendowell,somechildrenarealwaysgoing tostrugglebecauseofemotionalproblems.”

(SecondarySENCO)

“Society ischangingandwearenotadapting to it.Weexpect thepupils to justadapttowhatwegivetheminschool.”


“Wehavetocopewithlowselfesteem,littleornoparentalsupport,youngcarers,andparentalattitudetoschool.”


“Pupils’wholefocusisonecommunication–that’showtheyrelatetoeachother.”(Secondaryteacher)

“Wehavemoreincidentsofpupilsbeingdefiantandabusivetoadults.It’sthe‘AmIbovvered?’attitude.”

(Secondaryteacher)

AsTable5.1 shows, somemainstreamsurvey respondentsbelieve that insufficientpower todiscipline in schools is the reason that behaviour has become more challenging. This beliefwouldgivesupporttoagovernmentviewthatextendingthispowerwouldbebeneficialbutthiswould need to be set against two important considerations. First, the 173 mainstreamrespondentswhosuggestedinsufficientpowertodisciplineasthereasonthatbehaviourhadbecomemorechallengingonlyrepresentsjustover13%ofthe1,295mainstreamteacherswhorespondedtothesurvey.Thisisnotcompellingevidenceforastrongbeliefamongstteachersthateither insufficientpowertodisciplineliesbehindanyexperiencedincreaseinchallengingbehaviouror,byimplication,thatincreasingthispowerwouldofferasolution.


Secondly,accordingtoSteer(2009b),teachersalreadyhavebroaderpowersthaneverbeforeandyet,inthesurvey,82.2%ofmainstreamrespondentsstillreportedthattheyfeltbehaviourhadbecomemorechallenginginrecentyears.Itdoesnotseemthereforethattheincreaseinpowers in thewakeof the2006Educationand InspectionsActhasbeenaccompaniedbyaperceptionbyteachersthatbehaviourisimprovingorthatanyperceivedincreaseinchallengingbehaviourhasbeenslowedorhalted.Thisraisesthequestionofwhethermorepowerswouldmakeadifference.

The lowest ranked reason foran increase inchallengingbehaviourwasa lackof training forteachersinbehaviourmanagement.Aninterpretationofthisinrelationtothemorefrequentlyidentifiedreasonsisthatteachersfeeltheyhavetheknowledgeandskills,butarefacedwithbehaviour that is influencedbyexternal factors thatcannotbeaddressedby increasing theirown professional capacities. Calls for more or better training in relation to behaviourmanagementbygovernmentandothershaveconsiderablefacevaliditybutthereisaneedtorecognisethatteachersinthissurveyarenotperceivingalackoftrainingtobethekeyissue.Veryfewteachersinterviewedduringthecasestudyvisitsexpressedaneedformoretraining.Those that did express this need were interested in training that would improve theirunderstandingofthereasonsforbehaviourproblems(i.e.morepsychology)andinrelationtospecifictroublingbehaviours(e.g.selfharmingandmentalhealthissues).Theytypicallydidnotexpressaneedfortraininginbehaviourmanagementstrategiesperse.Teachers’mainconcernwashowtomanagegroupsofpupilswherebehaviourdisruptedthelearningofothers.

In the context of this research, any link between behaviour and SEN is an importantconsideration.Fewerthan10%ofmainstreamrespondentswhofeltchallengingbehaviourhadincreasedattributedthistoapolicyofinclusion.However,48.7%indicatedthattheyfoundthebehaviourofpupilswithSENmorechallengingthanthebehaviourofotherpupils.Justunderathird(31.2%)disagreedwiththisview.Ininterpretingthisdata,itisimportanttorecognisethatofcoursenotallpupilswithSENexhibitchallengingbehaviour.TherearetypesofSENthatoftenhaveabehaviouralcomponentaswellaspupilswhoseprimarySENisBESD.Takingthisintoaccount, a possible interpretation of the data is that when pupils do exhibit problematicbehaviouritisexperiencedasmorechallengingbyteachersthanthebehaviourthatmightbeexhibitedbypupilswithoutSEN.

WithinthecasestudyinterviewstherewasaconsensusviewthattheinclusionofpupilswithSENinmainstreamschoolshadnotsignificantlycontributedtobehaviourproblemspersebutthatthemixofpupils,andthenumberwithbehaviouralproblemsinanyoneclass,impactedonthe feasibilityof effectivebehaviourmanagement forclassandsubject teachers.PupilswithformsofSENthatimpactedontheirabilitytoworkingroupssuchaspupilswithASD,ADHDandBESDwerenoted tocontribute todifficulties inmanaging thewholeclass if the ratioofpupilswithparticularbehaviouralproblemsandlearningdifferenceswastoohigh.

SurveyrespondentsfeltthatbyfarthemostdifficultformofSENtoincludeinlessonsisBESD(59.9%mainstreamand44.6%specialschoolrespondents).ThispercentagewasconsiderablyhigherthanthoseforotherformsofSEN.FormainstreamrespondentsthenexthighestgroupwaspupilswithASD:12.7%indicatedthatthisgroupofpupilswerethemostdifficulttoinclude.For special school respondents the next highest group after BESD was pupils with severelearningdifficulties(includingprofoundandmultiplelearningdifficulties):16.4%indicatedthatthisgroupofpupilswasthemostdifficult to include.ThemainstreamsurveysuggestssomedegreeofdifferenceinviewsbetweenphasesregardingtheinclusionofpupilswithBESD:47%of primary respondents considered pupils with BESD to be the most difficult to include,comparedwith61%ofsecondaryschoolrespondents.


DespitethesuggestionthatbehaviourfrompupilswithSENwasfoundtobemorechallenging,there was strong agreement (81%) amongst mainstream respondents that they had a goodunderstandingofwhysomepupilswithSENexhibitbehaviouraldifficultiesintheirclassroom.Ofcourse,knowingwhythebehaviourmaybeoccurringandbeingabletorespondeffectivelyaretwolinkedbutdifferentmatters.FiftypercentofmainstreamrespondentsagreedthattheyhadasufficientlywiderangeofstrategiestomanagethebehaviourofpupilswithSEN,while23.5%neitheragreednordisagreed,23.5%disagreedand2.3%stronglydisagreed.Clearly,thereissomecauseforconcernifonlyhalfofrespondentsfeeltheyhavethestrategiesattheirdisposal to manage the behaviour of pupils with SEN. In a separate question, 89.1% ofmainstreamrespondentsindicatedthattheinclusionofmorepupilswithSENhasmeantthattheyneedmorestrategiestomanagebehaviour.

Ninetyonepercentofspecialschoolrespondentssaidtheyhadagoodunderstandingofwhysomepupilsexhibitbehaviouraldifficulties.However,unlike theirmainstreamcolleagues, thepercentage indicating that they had a sufficiently wide range of strategies to manage thebehaviourofpupilswithSENwashighat82%.Thoughthispresentsapositivepicture,69%ofspecial school respondents thought that pupils have more significant or complex behaviourdifficulties than was the case five years ago. Fortyseven per cent indicated that they wereunabletoteachsomepupilsintheirclassbecauseoftheirbehaviour.

Ininterpretingthedatafromspecialschools,itseemsthatteachershaveconsiderablepersonalcapacity:theyknowwhythebehaviourisoccurringandhavethestrategiestodealwithit.Yetalmost half feel that they are unable to teach some pupils in their class because of theirbehaviour. Itseemsthat thisdoesnotcausespecial teacherstoquestionordoubttheirownknowledge, skills and understanding. This may reflect an awareness among special schoolteachers that by virtue of their school’s designation they are generally dealing with morecomplexeducationalneedsanditisunrealistictoexpecttobeabletopredictandcontroleveryform of behaviour that occurs. The interviewees from special schools generally had a verydifferent attitude to behaviour from their mainstream colleagues. For them, significantbehaviouralissueswereexpectedgiventheirintakeandthesetookpriorityinorderthatlearningcouldbefacilitated.Behaviourwasoftenseennotasaproblematicresponsebutasthepupil’swayofcommunicating.Theyperceivedthatlookingatbehaviourascommunicationratherthana lack of compliance had proved useful in their outreach work with mainstream teachers. Itappearsthatforspecialschoolteachersthebehaviourmaybemorelikelytobeseenasapartofthepupil’soverallneed,whereasformainstreamcolleaguesthebehaviourmaybeseenasathreattogoodorderanddisciplineandconsequentlytheprogressoftheclass.

BothmainstreamandspecialschoolstaffinterviewedacknowledgedthatboththeratioofstafftopupilsandtheirlevelofexpertisewasacoreissuewhendealingwithbehaviouraldifficultiespresentedbypupilswithSEN.Thiswasalimitingfactorinmainstreamschools,particularlyinthelightofanyreductionofTAsupportandwasnotalwaysfullyaddressedinspecialschools.

Withinthesurvey64%ofspecialschoolstaffsuggestedthattheywerewellsupportedinschoolto manage behavioural difficulties. Fiftyfive per cent said that the school’s policies wereeffective in supporting teachers to manage behavioural difficulties. Despite the fact that themajorityofresponseswerepositiveinrelationtotheissueofsupportfromtheschoolanditspolicies,thisisstillanareathatwarrantsexploration.Overathirdofspecialschoolrespondentsdidnotfeeltheycouldindicatealevelofagreementwiththeviewthattheywerewellsupportedintheirschooltomanagebehaviouraldifficulties.Almosthalfofspecialschoolrespondentsdidnotfeeltheycouldindicatealevelofagreementwiththeviewthattheschool’spolicieswereeffective in supporting teachers to manage behavioural difficulties. The possible pictureemerging is that special school teachers generally have a high degree of faith in their ownabilitiesbutinsomecasesmaybelargelyreliantonthisbecauseofalackofsupportfromtheschoolanditspolicies.


Mainstream respondents presented a far more negative view than their special schoolcounterpartsinrelationtothesupportofferedbytheschoolanditspolicies.Only34%agreedthattheywerewellsupportedinschooltomanagethebehaviouraldifficultiesofpupilswithSENandonly29%indicatedthattheschool’spolicieswereeffectiveinsupportingteachers.Intermsof teacherexperience, theworryingpicturethatemergesfromthemainstreamsurveydata isthatthereisasizeableproportionofteacherswhodonotconsiderthattheyhaveasufficientlywide range of strategies to manage the behaviour of pupils with SEN and do not feel wellsupportedbytheirschoolanditspolicies.

Mostintervieweesfeltthattheirschoolbehaviourpolicyworkedformostpupils.Thiscontrastswiththemorenegativeviewexpressedbysurveyrespondentsinrelationtosupportfromtheschool’s policies. This difference may reflect a difference in the pupils that interviewees andsurveyrespondentsbroughttomindwhenrespondingtothequestions.Thesurveyspecificallyasked about the effectiveness of policies in supporting teachers to manage the behaviouraldifficultiesofpupilswithSENwhereastheinterviewsexploredeffectivenessinrelationtomostpupils.Thisdistinctionwashighlightedinacommentfromoneteacherthat:

“Ourbehaviourpolicyworksformoststudentswhoaredoingitonpurposeandsetout todisruptbut itdoesn’twork for thosewhodonothave thesocial skills tobehaveinagroup.”

(Secondaryteacher)

Within this teacher’scomment, there is recognitionthat if thepupilhasnotyetdevelopedtheskillsnecessarytobehaveinagroupsettingthenastandardcombinationofrules,rewardsandsanctionsislikelytohavealimitedimpactonbehaviour.TherewillbesomepupilswithSENwhoareoperatingatadevelopmentallevelconsiderablybelowtheirchronologicalage.Therewillalsobe other pupils whose type of SEN often includes a behavioural component. For example,schoolswillencounterpupilsontheautismspectrumwhosebehaviourmightbearesponsetoanxietyprovokedbyaparticularsocialsituationorsensoryoverload.Itisunrealistictoexpectapolicythat isdesignedtopromoteandmaintaingoodorderanddisciplinefor largegroupstowork for every individual. A key message may be that it is important to adhere to a fewwellknown key principles and implement some proven strategies really well, rather thanattemptingtodevelopevermorecomplexsystemsinthehopeofdevelopingapolicythatwillwork for all. The secondary interviewees who appeared most content with their schools’behaviourpolicywerethosewhounderstoodtheirpartwithinitbutalsorecognisedtherolesandresponsibilitiesofotherpersonnelinrelationtobehaviour,includingseniorandmiddleleaders,pastoralandSENstaff. Importantly, these teachersalsohadconfidence in thesestaff to fulfiltheserolesandresponsibilities.Teachersinterviewedwerecriticalofsystemswherebehaviouralissueswerenotfolloweduporroutestoaccesstoappropriateinschoolsupportwerenotclear.

Although interviewees acknowledged that the number of pupils who exhibit intransientbehaviourproblemswererelatively few,theyfelt that theyusedupaconsiderableamountofresources, including staff time, and had a negative effect on staff retention and morale.Referencewasalsomade to theproblemofongoing lowleveldisruptionandother formsoffrequentlowlevelbehaviour.Thiswasseenasdrainingbybothprimaryandsecondaryteachersinterviewed.Secondary teachers inparticular reportedproblemswith refusal towork, lackofrespectforteachersandpeers,poorlisteningskills,apathyandlowmotivationforschoolbasedlearning.Maintainingthelevelofwholeclassvigilancenecessarytominimiseopportunitiesforthesebehaviourstodevelopandinterveningearlyatthesignofaproblemtookalotofteacherattention.Thiswasareasoncitedinthecontextofdifficultiesinvolvedinmanagingthelearningandbehaviourof thewholeclassaswell asoffering thenecessaryattentionandsupport topupilswithSEN.


Consistencyandfeasibilitywerethetwomostfrequentlymentionedissuesrelatingtobehaviour:allstaffneededtoadheretotheschool’spolicyandsystemshadtobemanageabletooperate.Manyschoolshaddevelopedsupportstrategieswherebydisruptivepupilscouldbeplacedwithanotherteacherorclass.Anumberofsecondaryschoolsreferredtoasequenceofnumberedconsequences (e.g.C1C2C3).Consistency in implementationand followupof theschool’srewardsandsanctionsbetweenstaffwasnotedasacrucialissue.Knowledgeofthesequenceof sanctions and associated tracking was also noted as important. Some secondary staffinterviewedfelttheirschool’spolicyinvolvedtoomanystagesandthereforedidnotlenditselfto sufficient close monitoring. Consequently, deferred sanctions such as detentions wereimposedbutwerenotfollowedup.Themotivationbehindsuchsystemsseemedtobetoavoidpupilsreachingthehigherlevelsanctionssuchasexclusionbutanumberofteachersfelttherealitywas that thereweresomanystages thatnothingactuallyhappened to thepupilasaconsequenceoftheirbehaviour.

Anumberofsecondaryschoolsusedelectronicsystemstologincidentsandoutcomessothatthepupilcould‘travelthroughthesanctionssystem’.Thoughthiswouldseemtoofferthepotentialforimprovedmonitoring,anumberofintervieweessuggestedthatitwasnotalwayspossibletosaywhereapupilwasatanypointintimewithinthesanctionssystemandthisresultedinpupilsbeing able to play the system. Time delays between rule breaking and sanctions beingimplementedwerealsoidentifiedasaproblem.Lackofparentalsupportwasnotedasafactorthatwassometimesabarriertosanctions,suchasdetentionorextraworkbeingimplemented.

Oneteacherdescribedtheirschool’ssystem:

“Icanparkuptotwopupils,phonestaffmembersoncall,logbehaviouronSIMS–butIcanonlydothisifyouhavealreadytakenaction,theninformHoD.Alltheseactionshavetobeloggedandtrackedandunlesseveryonedoesitsystematicallyitdoesn’twork.Itworksforusbecausewedoitatdepartmentallevelandwehavemadeitanareaforaction.”

(Secondaryteacher)

Thisteacherspeakspositivelyandconfidentlyofasystemthatsoundscomplex.Thecommentshighlighttheissuethatindividualshavetofullyunderstandthesystemandthereneedstobeconsistencyinitsoperation.

Though therewasaperceptionamongstcasestudy respondents thatbehaviourwasgettingworsedue to factorsoutside theschools, those interviewedgenerallyaccepted thatschoolshadaresponsibilitytoattempttoworkconstructivelywithallpupils.However,manyarticulatedissuesoffeasibilityassociatedwithbeingexpectedtomanageawiderangeofbehaviourandavarietyoflearningdifferences/difficultiesinagroupsettingandwithcurriculartargetsthatwereheavilyliterarybased.Althoughteachersinterviewedgenerallyacknowledgedthatpupilsshouldfeel included,bepraisedandbeenabled toachievesuccess, theynoted that thiswasoftendifficult,particularlyintheabsenceofadditionaladultsupportinclass,thesupportofparentsoutsideclassandanywillingnessoreffortfromthepupil.Oneheadofdepartmentcommented:

“We have a wide spread of abilities ranging from NC level 25, plus a few withbehaviourproblems.IfthereisnoTAsupport,andjustonesubjectteacher,thenthisleadstodifficulties.”

(SecondaryHoD)

Therewasadegreeoffrustrationthatgovernmentemphasisonaneedformoredisciplinewasbasedonanassumptionthatallpupilshadappropriatesocialbehaviourintheirrepertoireand


allthatwasrequiredwasforthemtobedisciplinedintousingthatbehaviour.Therewasalsoafeeling that national policy for schools was serving to reduce measures of progress toliteracybasedacademicsubjectsmeasuredbyACGCSEgrades.Manyteachersinterviewedpointedoutthattheyareabletomakevaluableprogresswiththeirpupilsin,forexample,thedevelopmentofsocialandemotionalskills,butthiswasseldomrecognised.

Teachersfelt it importantthatitwasrealisedthattheyhavetomanagepupilbehaviourinthegroupsettingoftheclassroominorderthattheycangetpupilstomeetprescribedtargetsforprogress in academic subjects. Some teachers interviewed highlighted the issue that somepupils’behaviourwasexacerbatedbyacurriculumthatwasunsuitedtothem.Thoughthiswasanissueraisedincasestudyvisits,only5.7%ofmainstreamsurveyrespondentsidentifiedtheconstraintsanddemandsof thecurriculumas themain reason foranyperceived increase inchallengingbehaviour.

Secondary interviewees expressed concerns that longterm underachievement in literacy inparticularpresentedabarriertopupilsaccessingandrespondingtothesecondarycurriculum.Teachersfounditverydifficulttodifferentiatetheirlessonssothattheywereaccessibletopupilswithpoorliteracyskills.Wherepupilsstruggledtoaccessthetaskorwereunabletomakelittleprogress without adult assistance, this often led to problematic behaviour and a generaldeteriorationinthechild’sattitudetolearninginthesubject.Afrequentlyreportedproblemwasthatsomepupilscouldnotbelefttogetonwiththeirworkunlessrefocusedonthetaskthroughconstantchivvyingeitherbytheteacheroranadditionaladult.

A number of secondary headteachers we interviewed spoke of managed move systemsoperatedbetweenlocalschools.Thegeneralfeelingwasthatthesesystemscouldbeeffectiveandthatpupilscouldbenefitfromafreshstartinanewenvironment.However,itwasevidentthatsuchsystemsdependonallschoolsparticipatingandbeingpreparedtotaketheirshareofpupils.Thegeneralviewwasthatmanagedmovestendedtoworkbestiftheissuewasprimarilythepupildevelopingareputationamongstpeersandstaffthroughtheirfrequentmisbehaviour.However,therewaslessconfidenceinmanagedmovesasameansofeffectingchangewherethebehaviourrelatedtocomplexsocialandemotionalissues.Insuchcases,itwasfeltthattheproblemswouldemergeagaininthenewsetting.Headteachersweregenerallykeentoavoidtheuseofexclusion.Oneheadteachercommented:

“Exclusionisbadforthepupilandtheschoolandmustbeavoided,butitisverydifficulttogetstatementsforpupilswithBESDunlessyoucanciteASDandtherearelimitedPRUplaces.”

(Headteacher–secondary)Anothernoted:

“Exclusionmustbeavoidedforthechild’ssake–it’saharshplaceonthestreets.”(Headteacher–secondary)

Thesecommentsreflectamorewidespreadviewamongstprimaryandsecondaryheadteachersinterviewedthattherewereoftenfewoptionsifthechildwasnotplacedinamainstreamschool.


Findings5.1 Themainconcernreportedbyteachersduringcasestudyinterviewsrelatedtothefact

thattheyweredealingwithbehaviouraldifficultiesinthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.Theyhighlightedthecombinedimpactoffactors,includingthenumberofpupilsinaclassexhibitingbehaviouraldifficulties,theformthebehaviourtook,theavailabilityofinclasssupportandtheoverridingneedtomeetthelearningneedsoftherestoftheclass.

5.2 There was consensus amongst the school staff interviewed that the inclusion of morepupilswithSENinmainstreamschoolshadnotsignificantlycontributedtoanyincreasein general behavioural problems in schools. However, just under a half of surveyrespondentsfeltthatthebehaviourofpupilswithSENwasmorechallengingthanthosewithoutSEN.ThesurveyresponsesindicatethatthemostdifficultformofSENtoincludeinlessonsisBESD.

5.3 Fromthesurveyandamongstinterviewees,therewasanoverwhelmingperceptionthatbehaviourinschoolsgenerallyhadbecomemorechallenginginrecentyears.Acrossallsurveyrespondents,themainreasonforthisperceivedincreaseinchallengingbehaviourwas thought to be social factors, including parenting and a general deterioration ofbehaviourinsociety.Alotofintervieweesalsoattributebehaviourtothesefactors.

5.4 Very few teachers interviewed expressed a need for more training in behaviourmanagement specifically for pupils with SEN. The majority of survey respondentsreportedhavingagoodunderstandingofwhytheirpupilsexhibitbehaviouraldifficultiesand felt they had a sufficiently wide range of strategies to manage behaviour. Someteachers interviewed expressed an interest in training that would allow them tounderstandmoreabouthowallchildrenlearnanddevelopinordertobetterunderstandtheresponsesoftheirpupilstoclassroomteaching.

5.5 Most secondary schools visitedwereoperatinga support system for teachers so thatpupilswithpersistentbehaviourproblemscouldbeplacedinanotherclassorinanotherdesignatedarea.Behaviourpoliciescharacteristicallywerebasedonrewardsandstagedsanctions,withconsistencyfromallstaffbeingraisedasacrucial issue.Forpersistentbehaviourproblems,thetrackingofpupilsthroughstagedsanctionssystemswasoftenperceived as unwieldy and in some cases offered considerable potential for pupils tomanipulatethesystem.

5.6 Despitetheconcernsexpressedregardingcertainaspects,mostteachersinterviewedfeltthat their school’s behaviour policy worked reasonably well for the majority of pupils.Therewasacknowledgementthatthereweresomepupils,includingsomewithSEN,forwhomthestandardcombinationofrewardsandsanctionsdidnotworkandadegreeofrealism that this was likely to be the case with any behaviour policy. This positiveperspective was not reflected in survey data, with only 29% of mainstream teachersindicating that their school’s policies were effective in supporting teachers to managebehaviouraldifficulties.

5.7 Intervieweesinprimaryschoolsgenerallyexpressedlessconcernaboutbehaviourthantheir secondary colleagues. Ongoing lowlevel disruption was seen as draining acrossbothcontextsbutsecondaryschoolcasestudyrespondentsreportedanincreaseof,andconcern about, refusal to work, lack of respect for teachers and peers, poor listeningskills,apathyandlowmotivationforschoolbasedlearning.


5.8 Afrequentlyreportedproblemincasestudyinterviewswasthatsomepupilscouldnotbeleft to get on with their work unless constantly chivvied by adults. Another frequentlyreportedfactorwasthepervasiveimpactoflongtermunderachievement,particularlyinliteracy,onpupils’abilitytoaccessandrespondtothesecondarycurriculum.

5.9 Special school teachers interviewed generally expected to experience ongoing andchallenging behavioural difficulties and class size and the allocation of adult supportreflected thisneed.Behaviour tended tobeviewedasanaspectof thepupil’soveralllearningdifficulty,illustratedbysomestaffwhoconceptualisedchallengingbehaviourasa means of communication within a relationship rather than noncompliance. From thesurveydata,manyspecial school staff alsoappear to feelpersonallywell equipped interms of strategies and their understanding of why pupils exhibited behaviouraldifficulties.However,opinionwasmorevariedregardingsupportfromtheirschoolsandthe effectiveness of the school’s behaviour policy in supporting teachers to managebehaviouraldifficulties.

Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy• Thepredominantconcernforcasestudyteacherswasbehaviourthatistypicallyreferred

toaslowleveldisruptionratherthanspecificextremeacts,thoughsomeintervieweesdidofferexamplesofthese.Inidentifyinglowleveldisruptivebehaviourasthepredominantconcern,thecumulativeeffectonteachingandlearningofseveralpupilsexhibitingthesebehaviours,oftensimultaneously,shouldnotbeunderestimated.

• The view expressed in government documents is that the majority of children enjoycomingtoschool,workhardandbehavewell.Whilstmostschoolswouldprobablyagreewith this, a very real issue is that of critical mass. The concern for schools is theproportionofpupilstheyencounterwhodonotenjoycomingtoschool,workhardandbehavewell.Thebehaviouralandattitudinalprofileoftheclassisalsoasalientissueforteachers. Teachers found it harder to teach classes that included both a significantproportion of pupils prone to engage in lowlevel disruption and individual pupils whoexhibited more challenging and/or unpredictable behaviours. Teachers were often wellawareofthereasonsforindividualpupilbehaviourandhadstrategiestocopewithbothlow level disruption and more challenging behaviour, but it was the combination ofbehaviours, often occurring simultaneously, that was experienced by teachers asproblematic.

• The2011GreenPaperproposes‘trainingteachersinarangeofbehaviourmanagementtechniques’(DfE,2011,p69).However,withintheresearch,veryfewteachersexpressedaneedformoretraininginbehaviourmanagementspecificallyforpupilswithSEN.Givenan apparent mismatch between the government and teacher perceptions surroundingtrainingneeds,itwouldseemtimelyfortheGovernmenttoengagewithteacherstoseektheirviewsonthecontent,formandpurposeofanytrainingbeforerollingoutanationalprogramme.

• Itwouldseemessentialthatanyguidanceortrainingdoesnotseektotrivialiseorignorethefactthatteachersexperiencebehaviouraldifficultiesingroupsettings.Neithershouldany training inbehaviourmanagementsuggest that there isa finite rangeofstrategiesthatwillallowteachers toanticipate,prepare forandmanage theentire rangeofpupilresponsestheywillexperienceintheclassroom.Teachinginevitablyinvolvesrespondingto the complex needs of individual learners and therefore involves making multipledecisions in nonroutine situations (Haggarty, 2002, drawing on the work of Darling


Hammond, 2001). Centrally produced guidance materials and toolkits could usefullycontributetothegeneralpreparednessofbeginningteachersbutitisimportantthattheirlimitations in providing a panacea to concerns regarding classroom behaviour areacknowledged.

• The 2011 Green Paper expresses an intent to ensure assessments ‘identify the rootcauses of the behaviour rather than focus on the symptoms’ (DfE, 2011, p70). Thisendorses some teachers’ views regarding their training needs in relation to childdevelopmentandpsychology(seechapter2).Thefacevalidityofthenotionofidentifyingarootcauseneedstobeexploredmorefully.Thereiscertainlyastrongargumentthatunderstandingthemeaningorpurposeofthebehaviourfortheindividualisimportantandcaninformstrategyselectionbutthisisnotthesameassayingthatitisalwaysnecessarytopinpointarootcause.Thereneedstobeduerecognitionthatidentifyingrootcausesisnotalwayseasygiventherangeofadaptivebehavioursthatpupilsdevelopinresponsetotheirownuniqueandindividualexperiences.Norisknowingthecausenecessarilyaprerequisitetoidentificationofthesolution,asdemonstratedbythereportedefficacyofsomecognitivebehaviouralandsolutionfocusedapproaches.

• Although BESD is accepted by teachers, policy makers and others as a legitimatecategory of need, it is a very broad category and does not fit well with the stagedapproachoutlined in theSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPractice (DfES,2001).Asnoted previously, the 2011 Green Paper has addressed issues of the identification ofBESDbyseekingtobasethismoreontherootcausethanonobservedbehaviour.Theexamples given are pupils with underlying communication problems and those who‘display challenging behaviour, labelled as SEN, which is actually the result of otherissues,includingdifficultiesintheirhomelives’.(DfE,2011,p69).Theinferencefromtheseexamples is that identificationof causewill lead to themoreaccurate identificationofthosewhoseBESDcanbeattributedtoanSEN.The issuefor teachers is thepointatwhichapupil’ssocialandemotionalproblemsaresoentrenchedintheirverybeingandpervasiveacrossallcontextsthattheymeetthecriteriaforanSEN,regardlessoforiginalcause.

ThedifficultyindefiningBESDiswelldocumentedanditisimportantthatanystrategiestostrengthentheaccuracyofidentificationdonotresultinthosewhodonotmeetanyrevised SEN criteria losing access to the support and provision they need to learneffectivelywithinthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.IncreasedaccuracyinidentificationofpupilswithBESDmaywellservetoreducetheirnumberandinsodoingmayinfluencestatistics on A*C at GCSE specifically for pupils with SEN. However, regardless ofdesignation,pupilswhoexperiencedifficultiesinbuildingandmaintainingthereciprocalrelationshipsrequiredforlearninginschoolsettingswillnotdisappearandwillcontinuetorequireappropriateresourcing.

• There were clear differences in concerns regarding behaviour between primary,secondary and special school interviewees. It has been noted (Parsons, 1999) thatprimary schools have an intrinsic pastoral quality. The nature of responses in ourinterviewsseemedtoreflectthis.Secondaryschoolswerereliantonsystemstorecreatethispastoralquality.Consequently,secondaryteacherstendedtoseethebehaviourasprimarilyaprobleminrelationtoteachingtheclass.Otherstaffhadtheresponsibilityofexploring the behaviour from the perspective of the problem it represents for theindividualandanyunderlyingcauses.Thisisnotthesameassuggestingthatsecondaryteachersarenotinterestedinthepastoralneedsoftheirpupilsbutarecognitionthatin


thecontextofteachingthepupilforperhapstwo45minutelessonsaweekitisdifficulttoachievethepastoralrelationshipthataprimarycolleaguehaswiththeirpupils.Schoolsthat ensure there is a good system of communication between subject teachers andpastoralstaffarelikelytobemostsuccessful.

• The2011GreenPaper’sproposalstotrain‘teachersinarangeofbehaviourmanagementtechniques’(DfE,2011,p69)anditsexpressedbeliefintheimportanceof‘goodpastoralcare’ (DfE, 2011,p69)will need to takeaccountof thedifferencesbetweenphases intermsoftheperceivedissuesrelatedtobehaviourandschools’differingorganisationandstructures.

• TheamountofproblematicbehaviourinschoolwasnotanissuethatourrespondentsinthesurveyandinterviewsattributedtoahighernumberofpupilswithSENinmainstreamschools brought about by a national policy of inclusion. Indeed, from interviewdiscussions, itseemedthat teachers feltadegreeof reassurance if thebehaviourwaspartofthepupil’sSEN.Thisisnottosuggestthatthepresentingbehaviourwasanylessdisruptiveoreasiertodealwithbuthavingsomeunderstandingofwhyitwashappeningseemedtobehelpful.Greaterconcernwasexpressedinrelationtobehaviourthatwaspersistent and resistant to attempts to ameliorate it through the use of the school’sbehaviour policy and other interventions and for which there was either no obviousexplanationorthereasonsrelatedtohomeandcommunityfactors.


CHAPTER6:LOCALAUTHORITYANDOTHEREXTERNALSUPPORT

ExplorationoftheliteratureThe2010WhitePaperTheImportanceofTeachingmakesitclearthattheGovernmentseesacontinuing role for LAs. However, it is undoubtedly going to be a changing role due to theCoalition Government’s expressed intent ‘to extend autonomy and freedom for schools inEngland’(DfE,2010,p52)andthesuggestionthat‘academystatusshouldbethenormforallstateschools,withschoolsenjoyingdirectfundingandfullindependencefromcentralandlocalbureaucracy’(DfE,2010,p52).

Whenwecompletedthefirstliteraturereview,theLabourgovernment’sacademiesprogrammewaswellunderway.Thefirstthreeacademieshadopenedin2002and,bySeptember2007,83academieswereopenandprovidingsecondaryeducation(HouseofCommonsCommitteeofPublicAccounts,2007).TheLabourgovernmenthadoriginallyintroducedacademiesasaresultof ongoing concern over the performance of secondary pupils in the cities. They aimed tointroducenew,highqualitybuildings,anewethos,anewstructureofgovernanceandnewstaff,alongwithahigher level ofprivate sector input.By theGeneralElection in2010 therewereapproximately200academiesinEngland.

InJuly2010,theAcademiesBillwaspassedbyParliament.TheresultingAcademiesActmadeitpossibleforallmaintainedschoolstoapplytobecomeanacademy,withallschoolsjudged‘outstanding’byOfstedtobeapprovedunlessthereweregoodreasonsnottodoso.OneofthecontroversiessurroundingtheActwasthatithadnotbeenintroducedasaproposalviaaGreenorWhitePaper.Theproposalsregardingacademiesandfreeschoolsledtoconcernsthattheywouldbeoutsidetherulesthatapplytomainstreamschoolsregardingtheadmissionofchildren with SEN. Children/parents would not be able to complain or enforce their rightsthroughanLAorSENandDisabilityTribunal(SENDIST)becausetheywerenotpartiestothecontractthatcontrolstheacademy.SubsequentamendmentstotheAcademiesBillmeantthatacademieswouldberequiredtodischargetheirdutieswithregardtolearnerswithSEN.

WhentheWhitePaperwaspublishedinNovember2010,itcontinuedthethemeofencouragingschoolstobecomeacademies,stating:

“It isourambition, therefore, tohelpeveryschoolwhichwishestoenjoygreaterfreedom to achieve Academy status. Some schools will not want to acquireAcademystatusjustyet,othersdonotyethavethecapacitytoenjoyfullAcademyfreedoms without external support or sponsorship. But our direction of travel istowardsschoolsasautonomousinstitutionscollaboratingwitheachotherontermssetbyteachers,notbureaucrats.”

(DfE,2010,p12)

The2010WhitePaperalsoproposedtomakechangestotheexistingsystemwhere‘ithasbeenvirtuallyimpossibletoestablishanewstatefundedschoolwithoutLAsupport’(DfE,2010,p11)toonewheresupportisofferedto‘teachers,charities,parentgroupsandotherswhohavethevisionanddrive toopen freeschools in response toparentaldemand,especially inareasofdeprivationwherethereissignificantdissatisfactionwiththechoicesavailable’(DfE,2010,p52).


These changes raise the question of what LAs will be doing when they lose some of theirresponsibilitiesas increasingnumbersofschoolsbecomeacademies.The2010WhitePaperidentifiedfivekeyareas:

• LAswillencouragegoodschoolstoexpandandencouragefreeschoolsoracademiestomeetdemand.

• LAs will coordinate admissions and ensure fair access to all schools, includingacademiesandfreeschools.

• LAswillstandupfortheinterestsofparentsandchildrenandpromotehighstandards.• LAswillactasthechampionforvulnerablepupilsintheirarea.• LAs will move over time to a strategic commissioning role, championing educational

excellence.

TheseproposalscasttheLAinamorestrategicroleratherthanhavingdirectinvolvementwithschools.ThenewproposalswouldseemtoallowschoolstochoosetocontinuetocommissionservicesfromtheLA.However,inaneraofsignificantbudgetconstraints,theproblemforLAsmay be whether they can afford to retain staff on their payroll without the guarantee thatsufficientschoolswillcommissionworktocoverthecost.Oneargumentwouldnodoubtbethatiftheservicesofferedbythesestaffareofsufficientqualitythenschoolswillpayforthem.FewLAs,orindeedtheindividualstaffinvolved,arelikelytohaveexperienceofoperatinginamarketeconomyofthissort.Itshouldalsoberecognisedthatschoolsfacetoughdecisionsregardingbudgetsandthatreducingtheiruseofexternalsupportmaybeareadysourceofsavings.

TheissueforpupilswithSENistheeffectofthesechangesontherangeofsupportservicestypicallyprovidedbytheLA.IthasbeencommonpracticeforLAstomaintainteamsofcentrallymanagedstaffinadvisoryandsupportserviceroles,butthe2011GreenPaperhasproposedanumberofsignificantchangesintheLA’sroleinrelationtopupilswithSENand/ordisabilities.Withinthischangedrole,LAsareseenasuniquelyplacedtomaintainastrategicoverviewoftheneedsoflocalcommunitiesandtoensureservicesmeetthoseneeds.Undertheproposals,LAswillworkmoreeffectivelyandcollaborativelywithlocalhealthservicesandwillplayastrongstrategicroleinthenewschoolsystem,actingaschampionsforparentsandfamilies,vulnerablechildrenandeducationalexcellence.Underthesereforms,thecorefeaturesoftheLA’srolearelikelytobe:

• strategicplanningforservicesthatmeettheneedsoflocalcommunities;• securingarangeofhighqualityprovisionforchildrenandyoungpeoplewithSENorwho

aredisabled;• enablingfamiliestomakeinformedchoicesandexercisegreatercontroloverservices.

(DfE,2011)

The 2011 Green Paper sees LAs as continuing to play a vital role in supporting individualdisabledchildrenandchildrenwithSENandtheirfamilies,withthemovetoamorestrategiccommissioning rolemeaning theyneed toworkcollaborativelywitha rangeofproviders.Anintention is expressed within the Green Paper to explore how the voluntary and communitysectorcouldbeusedtointroducemoreindependencetotheprocess.

Though framing the future role of LAs positively, the changes are based on a view that thecurrentSENsystemsarenotworkingeffectively.TheGreenPaperhighlightstheissue,identifiedby some parents, that there may be a conflict of interests between the LA’s duty to ensurespecialeducationalprovisionandtheirdutiesinrelationtoassessment.TheimplicationisthattheLA’sdecisionsaboutwhethertoissueastatementandtheprovisionspecifiedwithinitcouldbeinfluencedbytheprovisiontheLAwaspracticallyandfinanciallyabletomakeavailable.


TheGreenPaperstates:

“Today’ssystemforsupportingchildrenwithSENisbasedonamodelintroduced30 years ago. It is no longer fit for purpose and has not kept pace with widerreforms;itfailschildrenandunderminestheeffectiveuseofresources,anditdoesnotmakethebestuseoftheexpertiseinthevoluntaryandcommunitysector.”

(DfE,2011,p15)

Asnotedinchapter1,highvariationinidentificationratesbetweenLAsisidentifiedasanissuewithin the2011GreenPaper.TheDfE (2011) reportedthat inJanuary2010theproportionofpupilswithSENrecordedbyLAsrangedfrom11.9%to33.5%.Therewerealsosignificantlocalvariations in where children with statements of SEN attend school: in 2010, pupils withstatementsplacedbyLAsinmaintainedspecialschoolsvariedfrom7%to68%,thoseplacedinmaintainedmainstreamschools from16%to67%andthose innonmaintainedspecialorindependentspecialschoolsfrom1%to23%.

Currently, LAs take decisions on statutory assessment based on correspondence with otheragencies.Basedon the information received, theLA takesadecisiononwhether to issueastatementandtheprovisiontobespecifiedwithinit.Theproposalisforalessbureaucraticandadversarial approach where agencies come together to agree support with parents and theresponsibilities of different agencies are clear. The time limit for the statutory assessmentprocesswillbereducedfrom26to20weeks.

Concern regarding the perceived adversarial nature of the current system is reflected in theGreenPaper’scriticismoftheinformationregardingprovisionprovidedbyLAsforparents.LAsare already required by The Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by LocalAuthorities)(England)Regulations2001topublishtheprovisiontheyexpectschoolstomakeforchildrenwithSENbutwithoutstatementsandtheprovisionmadeavailableforthosechildrenbytheLA.However,theGreenPaper,drawingoninformationfromOfsted,suggeststhatthisinformationisrarelyprovidedclearlyoreffectivelyandstatesthat:

“Clearer local informationonwhat isavailable for familiesand fromwhomcouldhelpreducetheneedforparentstoinvesttheirtimeandenergyinanappealtotheTribunal inorder toget the rightsupport,aswellassaving localauthoritiesandlocalservicestheexpenseofthisprocess.”

(DfE,2011,p66)

To address this issue, the proposal is to ensure that LAs set out a local offer indicating thesupportthatisavailableforchildrenwithSENorwhoaredisabledandtheirfamiliesandfromwhom.LAswillbeexpectedtoworkwithparents,localschoolsandcolleges,andotherlocalservices,includingthoseontheproposedHealthandWellbeingBoards,todeveloptheoffer.


In relation to school provision, the 2011 Green Paper proposes that the local offer woulddescribewhatadditionalordifferentprovisionschoolsmakeforchildrenwithSENandcoverfourkeyareas:

• curriculum – how the curriculum offers breadth and balance and is tailored to meetchildren’sindividualneeds;

• teaching–howteachingisadaptedtomeetchildren’sSENandhowarrangementsaremadetosecurespecialistexpertise;

• assessment–howongoingteacherassessmentisusedtoidentifybarrierstolearningforchildrenwithSEN;and

• pastoral support –howparentsare involved inchildren’s learningandhow theschoolsupportstheeducationandwellbeingofdisabledchildrenandchildrenwithSEN.

(DfE,2011,p46)

PresentationanddiscussionofdataOnly38.4%ofmainstreamrespondentsand42.5%ofspecialschoolrespondentsthoughtthatLAguidancehadbeeninfluentialonschoolpracticeinrelationtoSENandinclusionbutonlyasmall percentage of respondents (mainstream 11.6%, special 12.8%) disagreed. A largeproportion of respondents were either ambivalent (33.8% mainstream, 34.3% special) orindicatedthattheydidnotknow(16.1%mainstream,10.3%special).

Only6.8%ofmainstreamand9.9%ofspecialschoolrespondentsfeltthataspecificlocalpolicyorguidancedocumentonSENandinclusionhadbeenparticularlyinfluentialontheirschool’spractice.However,itshouldbenotedthat59.1%ofmainstreamteachersand51.7%ofspecialschoolteachersindicatedthattheywere‘notsure’.

Therelativelyhighproportionof‘notsure’and‘neitheragreenordisagree’responsestothetwoquestionsexploringtheinfluenceofLApolicymaybeareflectionofrespondents’levelofdirectengagementwithpolicyandguidance. It ispossible therefore that localpolicyandguidancedoesinfluencepracticebutteachersarenotawareofthis,perhapsbecausetheyarereceivingdistilledrelevantmessagesfromtheSENCOormembersoftheseniorleadershipteamanddonotknowtheoriginalsource.

Onlyaminorityofmainstreamandspecialschoolrespondents(16.2%and21%respectively)indicatedthat theyfelt thatguidanceonSENand inclusionprovidedbytheLAwasclear forthem to implement inpractice.However,58.1%ofmainstream teachersand55%ofspecialschoolteacherswereambivalentorunsure.AswiththepreviousquestionsdiscussedrelatedtoLAinfluence,themeaningbehindthehighproportionof‘neitheragreenordisagree’responses(mainstream42.4%,special43%)isanimportantaspecttoconsider.ForsomerespondentsaresponsemaygenuinelybeindicativeofacarefullyconsideredappraisaloftheclarityoftheLAguidance.However,itispossiblethatthisrelativelyhighpercentageisagainreflectingalackofawarenessofeitherwhatLAguidancehasbeenproducedorofLAguidanceasthesourceofinformationthathasbeendistilledtothembytheSENCOormembersoftheseniorleadershipteam.

Asstatedinchapter3,themajority(59.7%)ofrespondentssaidthatOfstedwasmoreinfluentialthaneitherlocalornationalpolicyandguidance.ToputthepercentagesregardingtheinfluenceofLApolicyandguidanceanditsclarityinperspective,only41%ofall6surveyrespondentsthoughtthatnationalguidanceonSENandinclusioninfluencedpracticeinschool.Only17%thoughtthat

6Specialandmainstreamrespondents


nationalguidancewasclearforthemtoimplementinpractice.ItdoesnotthereforeseemtobethecasethattherelativelowpercentagesinrelationtoLApolicyandguidanceareanindicationthatschoolsareengagingdirectlywithnationalpolicyandguidanceandbypassingtheLA.

Thesurveyaskedrespondentstoindicatehowlikelytheyweretoconsultparticularsourcesifthey required information in relation to SEN. A relatively small proportion of respondentsindicated they were likely or very likely to seek information from LA websites (mainstream23.7%,special31.4%),LAsupport/advisorystaff (32%mainstream,38.4%special)oranLAsupportnetwork(19.9%mainstream,26%special).Thiscomparedwith,forexample,57.4%ofspecialschoolteachersand49.4%ofmainstreamteachersindicatingtheywerelikelyorverylikelytousegovernmentwebsites(e.g.TeacherNet,NationalStrategysite,TheTeacherTrainingResourceBank(TTRB)).

WhenteacherswereaskedwhatwouldbeusefultotheminrelationtotheSENofpupilstheycurrentlyworkwith,anumberofoptionspresented related toservicesanLAmightprovide.Thesewere:

• greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoworkdirectlywithpupils;• greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoadvisetheteacher/school;• greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologists;• moreexternalagencysupport.

Of mainstream respondents, 84.7% agreed or strongly agreed that ‘specialist teachers whoworkdirectlywithpupils’wouldbeuseful.Only‘moretime’attractedahigherlevelofagreement(86.5%). It is impossibletoknowwhetherrespondents interpretedthereferenceto‘specialistteacher’asmeaningamemberofstaffemployedonafullorparttimebasisbytheschooloranLA peripatetic teacher. An important element seemed to be direct working with the pupil asfewer respondents (72%) agreed that greater access to ‘specialist teachers who advise theteacher/school’wouldbeusefultothem.Atotalof60.4%ofmainstreamrespondentsagreedthat‘greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologistsandmoreexternalagencysupport’wouldbeuseful and 58.9% agreed that ‘greater access to external agency support’ would be useful.RespondentsmaynotnecessarilyhavethoughtexclusivelyaboutLAserviceswhenconsideringthecontributionofexternalagencies;itislikelythatmanyrespondentsbasedtheirresponsesonexperiencesofdealingwithhealthandsocialservices.

Special school respondents presented a different view, with 63.6% indicating that ‘greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologists’wouldbeuseful.Thepercentageisnotthatdifferenttothemainstreamsurvey,butinthecaseofspecialschoolrespondentsonly‘moretime’attractedahigherlevelofagreement(82.6%)than‘greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologists’.Atotalof59.5%agreedorstronglyagreedthat‘specialistteacherswhoworkdirectlywithpupils’wouldbe useful, while 53.3% agreed that ‘greater access to specialist teachers who advise theteacher/school’wouldbeusefultothem.Thesmallerproportionofspecialschoolrespondentssuggestingthattheseformsofsupportwouldbeusefulmaybeindicativethatspecialschoolteachers believe they largely have the necessary expertise either personally or within theirsetting.Theinterestineducationalpsychologysupportmaybeindicativeofaperceivedneedforapsychologicalperspectiveonachild’sbehaviourandlearningthatisnotavailableinhouse.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, few survey respondents thought that their school received sufficientfunding to provide an appropriate education for pupils with SEN. Only 100 mainstreamrespondents(7%)thoughttherewassufficientfunding,with69.5%saying‘no’and22.8%‘notsure’. There was no significant difference between primary and secondary schools. Special


school respondentswereslightlymorepositive,with24%sayingtheyhadsufficient funding,60.7%saying‘no’and15.3%‘notsure’. It isnotpossibletodeterminefromthesurveydatawhether respondentssawtheperceived lackof funding tobedue toLAdecisions regardingbudgetallocationoragenerallackoffundingforeducationfromcentralgovernment.

CasestudyrespondentswereaskedabouttheirexperienceofLAsupportandothersupportfromexternalagencies.Aswouldbeexpected,respondents’viewsvarieddependingontheirLA. One LA visited was overwhelmingly endorsed by its schools as providing timely andeffectivesupport.Formost interviewees, timelyaccesswasan important factor in relationtoperceptionsoftheutilityofsupportprovidedbytheLA.

Thequalityofsupportvarieddependingontheindividualsinvolved.SomerespondentssaidthatsomeLAsupportstaffwereoutofdate in theirknowledge.Thiscriticismdidnotnecessarilyrelatetotheirspecialistareabuttotheirknowledgeofwiderdevelopmentsinschoolsrelatedtothe curriculum and assessment. This had implications when advice was offered related toclassroompractice.However,othersspokeveryhighlyofspecialistsupportreceivedfromLApersonnel. Inparticular, teachers likedLApersonnelwhoworkeddirectly intheirclassrooms.Thisdidnotnecessarilymeandirectworkingwithpupils,butteachersfeltmorepositiveaboutadvice and guidance offered by specialist teachers, advisory staff and educationalpsychologistsifthesepersonnelhadsomeformofdirectexperienceoftheclassroomcontext.

Inmanycases,theLAhadinterpretednationalpolicyandguidanceandthendisseminatedittotheirschools.Thiswasseenashelpfulbysomeschools,whileotherheadteachersfeltthattheyneededtoaccessnationalpolicydirectlysothattheycouldmakebestuseofitfortheirownschoolneedsandnotjustbefed‘thepartyline’.

InoneLAvisited,provisionmappingandwavesofinterventionhadbeenheavilypromotedbyadvisory staff as an alternative to maintaining high numbers of IEPs, based on the modelcontained within Leading on Inclusion (DfES, 2005b). In schools we visited in this LA, IEPstendedtoberetainedonlyforstatementedpupilsandthoseatSchoolActionPluswithcomplexneedsand/orabroadrangeofmultiagencyinvolvement.ThiswasdifferenttootherLAswhereprovisionmappinghadbeenadoptedbutschoolswerestillmaintainingIEPsformost,ifnotall,pupils identifiedashavingSEN.While thenatureof this researchmeans it isnotpossible tocommentontherelativemeritsofIEPsandprovisionmappinginrelationtopupiloutcomes,theeffectontheuseofIEPsinthisLAwasanexampleofhowimportanttheLAcanbeinensuringthatnationallyproducedguidanceimpactsonpracticeinschools.

Headteachers and SENCOs interviewed emphasised the importance of the quality of therelationship.Oneheadteachernoted:

“WhatyougetfromtheLAisasgoodastherelationshipyoumakewiththem.Ittakestimetobuilduparelationshipandhowwellitworksdependsverymuchonthepeopleinvolved.”

(Primaryheadteacher)

The time necessary to develop relationships and the influence of personal and professionalqualitiesof individualpersonnelwerecommonpoints raised in interviews.For thoseschoolsthatexperiencedaverygoodrelationshipwiththeirLA,therewasconsiderableconcernaboutcutstoLAservices,includingspecialistteachingservicesandeducationalpsychologyservices.SchoolsthatdidnotparticularlyvaluetheinputoftheirLAwerestillconcernedaboutcutsandnoted that theirmainaimwas toexplorepolicy initiatives inorder to locateandpursueanyfundingstreamthatmaybeofbenefittotheirpupils.


Itwasevident thatschoolsdidnot lookexclusively totheirLAsforsupport.Somebought inservices and training. Others made use of collaborative initiatives between clusters of localschools,includingworkingwithspecialschools.

Findings6.1 Timely access to specialist support when needed was crucial to mainstream teachers

interviewed. Whether that was a behaviour specialist, SENCO, an experienced and/orspecial school teacher, support from a specialist trained TA, and/or educationalpsychologistitmatteredthatteacherswereabletoaccessspecialistpracticaladvicethattookintoaccountthecontextinwhichtheywereworking.TherewasrealconcernfromintervieweesthatblanketcutstoLAserviceswouldimpactonthespecificservicesthattheyidentifiedasvaluable.Fromthesurvey,therewasastrongindicationthatmainstreamteacherswantedgreateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoeitherworkdirectlywithpupilsoradvisetheteacher/school.

6.2 Interviewees’experiencesofLAsupportvaried,withpersonalrelationshipsattheheartofeffective support. Such relationships had tended to develop over time. The extent towhich LA staff know their school was cited as a crucial factor. One small LA visitedreceivedexceptionallypositiveendorsementfromitsschoolsandteachersinvolvedinthecasestudies.

6.3 ItwasclearfromcasestudyinterviewsthatLAsplayedaroleintheinterpretationofpolicyandtheallocationoftrainingandsupportservices.Thiswasnotedthroughdifferencesinthe use of provision mapping and the takeup of IDP materials between schools indifferent LAs. However, survey data indicated that only approximately 40% ofrespondentsconsideredthatLApolicyandguidanceinfluencedschoolpractice.

6.4 Case study interviews suggest there is variability in the frequency and quality of LAsupport.Differenceswerefrequentlyattributedtopersonalrelationshipsandthequalityofthesupportofferedbyindividualadvisers.Teachersparticularlyvaluedtheexpertiseofspeechandlanguagetherapistsandeducationalpsychologistsandbehaviourspecialistswhocarriedoutclassroomobservationsandworkedwithpupilsinclass.

6.5 It was clear that case study schools did not look exclusively to their LA for support.Increasingly,schoolswere lookingtocollaboratewithotherschoolstoprovidebothonandoffsitesharedprovisionaswellasaccessingsupport fromspecialschools.Someschools visited perceived that there would be a continued move towards increasedworkingwithnetworksofschools,voluntarybodiesandotherprofessionals(e.g.HealthandSocialServices).Fromthesurvey,itappearsthatteachersdonotprioritisetheLAasasourceofinformation.OnlyaroundathirdofmainstreamsurveyrespondentssaidtheywerelikelytoseekinformationfromLAsupportoradvisorystaffandfewerstillindicatedtheywouldaccesstheLAwebsiteorsupportnetworks.

Emergingissuesandimplicationsforpolicy• JustaswecannottalkaboutpupilswithSENasthoughthisrepresentsahomogeneous

group,sowecannottalkaboutLAsasthoughtheyareallthesame.Theyvarynotjustinsizebutinthemodelsandutilityofsupporttheyprovide.AviewthatanyblanketcutsinLAsupportwillhaveminimalimpacton‘frontline’deliveryforpupilswithSENneedstobeexaminedinrelationtoindividualLAs,theirgeographyandexistingcapacityandcostinrelationtosupporttoschoolsforSEN.Thenotionoffrontlinedeliveryinitselfmaybe


unhelpfulinminimisingthecontributionofarangeofstaff,includingthoseemployedbytheLA,whoimpactpositivelyatthepointofdelivery.

• ItwasclearfromthecasestudyinterviewsthattheperceptionoftheutilityofLAsupportserviceswasvariedanddependentona rangeof factors.Schoolswereoftenable toidentifyparticularservicesandindividualsasbeingvaluableandtherewasanxietyabouttheirpossibleloss.ThesizeoftheLAmaywellbeafactorbuteveninlargerLAsitwasthequalityoftherelationshipthatunderpinnedeffectivepractice.SuchrelationshipshadtendedtodevelopovertimeandreliednotjustontheprofessionalknowledgeoftheLApersonnelbuttheirpersonalityandunderstandingoftheparticularschoolcontext.Incasestudyschoolswheregoodworkingrelationshipshadbeenestablishedandtheirsupporthighly valued there was a very real concern about the impact of proposed cuts onestablishedgoodpractice.ThedirectionofcurrentgovernmentpolicyinrelationtotheLArole may make it more difficult to develop and sustain the type of relationships thatschoolsreportedonpositively.

• LAsarepotentiallyanimportantconduitforpolicyandguidanceforcentralgovernment.Indeed, some schools openly acknowledged that they acted on what their LA hadhighlightedasimportantandwereconfidentthatbydoingthistheywouldbesufficientlycompliant with any national requirements. Whilst Ofsted has an important role inmonitoring compliance with national policy and guidance, the LA is better placed tointerpretnationalpolicyandguidance for its schoolsbasedonawarenessof the localcontextandalsoindividualschools’needs,prioritiesandcapacityforchange.TheLAcanalsochallengepracticewhereschoolsarenotengagingappropriatelywithnationalpolicyandguidance intended to improveoutcomes forpupilswithSEN. Itwasevident fromcase study interviews that some LAs were fulfilling their support, challenge andinterventionrolewithinthecontextofanestablishedandproductiveworkingrelationshipwiththeschool.AnychangestotheLArolethatseektoaddressvariability inpracticebetweenLAsshouldhavedueregardforthegoodpracticethatexistsinsomeareasandensurethatthisispreserved.AdiminishedroleforLAs,eitherasabyproductoffinancialconstraints or deliberate policy direction, risks contributing to the variability in theexperiences of pupils with SEN. Whilst it would be too simplistic to assume that areductioninLAinfluencewillbeuniversallydetrimental,thereisanimportantquestionofwhat will happen in the future if LAs are not there to serve as a conduit for policy orguidance from central government or fulfil a support, challenge and intervention role.Thereareinherentrisksiftheseresponsibilitiesarelefttoschools.


CONCLUDINGTHOUGHTSANDCOREMESSAGES

ThisresearchhassoughttoexplorehowteachersareexperiencingSENandinclusionintheirschools. The predominant focus of the research has been the variability that is of enduringconcernwithinthefieldofSENandinclusion.

Identification rates for SEN vary between LAs and schools; the allocation and funding ofadditional resources for SEN varies; there is variability in how well teachers are prepared toteachpupilswithSENandintheamountandqualityofsupportteachersreceiveoncetheyarequalified;andparentsandcarersvaryinwhethertheyseekspecialormainstreamprovisionfortheirchildren.OfparticularimportanceisthatoutcomesforpupilswithSENnotonlyvarybutalsoareoftenlowerthanexpected.

VariabilityintheidentificationofSENTheidentificationofSENisatthecoreofconcernsaboutvariability.Suchidentificationrestsonassessingthechild,theirenvironmentandthereciprocalinteractionbetweenthesetwofactors.TheidentificationofSENisthusnecessarilycomplexandvariabledue,notleast,totheimpactofdifferentandchangingenvironmental factorsonthechild’scognitive,socialandemotionalprogress. Over the years, government has placed faith in guidance within the SEN Code ofPractice (DfES,2001)asamechanism for securingsomeconsistency in the identificationofSEN.ThisguidancebasesidentificationofSENontheindividualchild’sprogresscomparedwithsameagedpeersandalsoagainstthechild’sresponsetoexistingeducationalprovision.

FindingsfromthisresearchdonotchallengethatthereisvariabilityintheidentificationofSEN.Theydochallenge,however,anyassumptionsthatnationalvariabilityinidentificationratescanbeattributedtoschoolsandtheirteachersdeliberatelyoveridentifyingSEN,eitherforreasonsrelatedtofundingorasanexcusefortheirpupils’lackofprogress.

Findingsalsosupportaview that teachersarenot ignoring the identificationcriteria forSENwithin SEN Code of Practice guidance but they are experiencing the terms used within theCode’sdefinitionbeingopentointerpretation.Notsurprisingly,teachersfinditeasiertoidentifySENthathaveapredominantlymedicalorphysicalrootcausethanthosethatarelessvisible,but nonetheless pervasive, such as those characterised by social and emotional delays anddifference.

Findings strongly suggest that teachers seek to identify pupils with SEN so that a focus ismaintainedonthepupils’ratesofprogressandtheneedforaccesstoanyexistingadditionalprovisionand/orarequirementforreferralfor‘specialist’provision.TherewasbroadconsensusfromteachersthatSENshouldberetainedasadistinctcategoryfromotherformsofneed,suchasthoseoftensubsumedundertheheading‘vulnerable’.However,insomecases,particularlyfor some pupils recorded at School Action, the rationale would often seem to be thatidentificationashavingSEN ‘protects’byensuring that the individual isnotoverlooked.Themajority of schools now have welldeveloped data monitoring systems that allow them toidentifyanypupilswhoarenotmakingexpectedprogressand to interveneaccordingly.Thiswouldseemtobeanalternativemethodofensuring thatpupilsarenotoverlookedand ‘getwhat they need’. Where schools have secure monitoring systems for all pupils and thismonitoring isusedto informtheneedfor interventions, itmaybetimely toquestionwhetheridentificationasSENisservingapurpose.

Itisunfortunatethattheclimateforthisdebateisoneinwhichadegreeofblame(e.g.Ofsted,2010,DfE,2011) isbeingdirectedat teachersandschools foroperating theexistingsystem


incorrectlywhen,asthisreportsuggests,thesystemitselfhasinherentproblemsthatleadtovariation.Theriskisthatschoolsandteacherswillbeplacedinapositionwheretheyfeeltheyneedtodefendtheirpracticeratherthanbeingencouragedtoengageinprofessionaldialogueregardingtheutilityoftheterm‘specialeducationalneeds’anditsassociatedprocesses.

OnesolutiontoaddressissuesofvariabilityorexcessintheidentificationofSENwouldbetochangeorreplacetheexistingidentificationcriteriathatarecurrentlycontainedwithintheSENCodeofPractice.Thishasalreadybeensuggested through thepublicationof the2011SENGreenPaper.However,findingsfromthisresearchsuggestthatanychangewouldneedtobemindfuloftheriskofunderidentificationofthosepupilsforwhomtherootcauseoftheirlearningdifficultiesdoesnotliewithinvisibleandeasilyidentifiablemedicalorphysicalconditions.Thiswould include those with significant and pervasive social and emotional delays and/ordifference.

EarlyidentificationofSENismorefeasibleinearlyyearssettingswherethechildisobservedover time in response todifferentadult:child ratios, tasksandactivities.However, asachildmovesthroughtheeducationsystem,earlyidentificationislikelytobecomemoreproblematicifanynationallyrevisedidentificationcriteriaforSENmarginalisestheeffectonprogressofthechild’sschoollearningenvironment.Inmainstreamcontexts,thisenvironmentischaracterisedbypupilshavingtolearnaprescribedcurriculuminthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.

It is acknowledged that variability in identification of SEN is an area of concern in schools,particularly when it is directly linked to issues of equity and fairness regarding allocation ofresources.However,itmustalsobeacknowledgedthatanychangestotheidentificationofSENwill not, in themselves, provide a quickfix solution to government concerns about parentalconfidence in the identification of SEN or to the cost and poor outcomes that are currentlyassociatedwiththiscategoryoflearners.

Changestoidentificationcriteriawouldserveonlytoreconstructthesize,natureandfundingoftheSENpopulation.Therewouldstillbeindividuals,categorisedornot,whowouldmakelessprogressinthegroupsettingoftheirclassroomthanthatmadebytheirsameagedpeers.Thesignificant changes currently proposed to SEN identification and associated funding willnecessarily impacton theexperiencesofparents and their children.Particular considerationneeds tobegiven to the transitionalarrangements thatareafforded toprotect thosepupils,currently identified as having SEN, who will fall outside the future single category of SENproposedinthe2011GreenPaper.

VariabilityinprovisionandoutcomesforSENVariabilityinoutcomesforpupilswithSENisunderstandablyanothersignificantareaforpolicymakers. Findings from this research suggest that teachers are experiencing SEN policydirectivesforthisintwoways.

Oneisrelatedtothedominanceofa‘standardsraising’agendawherebyschoolpracticeisnowdrivenbyprescribedexpectationsforNationalCurriculumratesofprogress.Asaconsequence,National Curriculum data is being used much more extensively to identify and address thelearning needs of individuals, including those with SEN, who are vulnerable in terms of notmeetingprescribedratesofprogress.

A concern for teachers is that the dominance of narrowly defined academic targets as ameasureofprogressforpupilswithSENrisksmarginalisingprogresssuchpupilshavemadeinotherareasoflearning,includingsocialandemotionalaspectsoflearning,thatisexperienced


as ‘achievement’ for that individual. As a consequence, both teachers and pupils can bedeemed ‘failures’ even if thepupil hasmadeprogresswhen this isnot in theareas that areprioritisedandpublished.Attentiontothebalancebetweenachievementandattainmentmayservetoimprovepupilmotivation,behaviourandprogressandimpactmorefairlyonmeasuresusedforteacherappraisal.

ThesecondareaofconcernforteachersrelatestotherelationshipbetweentheidentificationofSENandassessmentofthepupil’sresponsetoprovision.ChildrenareidentifiedashavingSEN,viatheSENCodeofPractice,intermsoftheextenttowhichtheirrateofprogressissignificantlybelowthatoftheirsameagedpeers.However,onceidentified,itisfeltbyteachersthattheyareexpected tosomehowenable those individualpupilswithSEN toeither ‘catchup’with theirpeersormakethesamerateofprogress.

Inreality,thiscanleadtoexpectations,particularlyfromOfstedinspectorsbutalsosometimesfrom senior leadership within schools, that are often experienced as unrealistic. Highexpectations are recognised as necessary by teachers, but such expectations need to bereasonableandtakeaccountof thecontext inwhichthechild is learning– inschools this iswithinthegroupsettingoftheclassroomandagainstprescribedcurriculumtargets.Teachersareparticularlyconcernedthat theEnglishBaccalaureatewas introducedasa (retrospective)performancemeasureinthe2010performancetables.ThismeasurerecogniseswherepupilshavesecuredaCgradeorbetteracrossacoreofacademicsubjects–English,mathematics,historyorgeography,thesciencesandalanguage.ManypupilswithSEN,includingthosewithSLCNanddyslexia,experiencedifficultieswithliteracy.Thenarrowingofperformancemeasurestothosesubjectsthatareheavilyreliantonliteracyisplacingfurtherpressureonteachersandgivinglesschoicetopupils,regardlessoftherootcauseoftheirlearningdifficulty.

Teachers in special schools also have to provide considerable evidence of their pupils’academicprogressinresponsetoprovisionbutareonthewholeaffordedgreaterunderstandingbyOfstedinspectorsintermsoftheirpupils’barrierstolearning.SometeachersinmainstreamschoolsnotedthatOfstedinspectorsvaryintheirunderstandingofthebarrierstolearningthatareexperiencedbysomepupilswithSEN,andthechallengesofteachingsuchpupilsingroupsettingswithvariablelevelsofadultsupport.

Overall, teachers are experiencing conflict between the identification of SEN based on asignificantdelayinrateofprogressandtheexpectationthatpupilswithSENshouldmakethesame rate of progress across all subjects as measured by National Curriculum levels andsublevels.Thisfailstotakeonboardthat‘SEN’coversabroadcategoryandthatcategoriesofSENdonotimpactequallyonallsubjectareas.Pupilswhoexperiencedyslexia,forexample,arelikelytoshowunevenprogressdependinguponthesubjectareaunderassessment.

UnsatisfactoryratesofprogressforpupilswithSENmightinsomecasesbeattributedtolowexpectations. However, instructing teachers to ‘raise expectations for SEN’ will not in itselfsuffice to address government concerns about the relatively poor educational outcomes ofpupils with SEN. Conflict between the identification of the broad category of SEN andassessmentbasedonincreasinglynarrowmeasuresofprogressneedstobefurtherexploredifprogressmadebyallpupilswithSEN,andtheirteachers,istoberecognisedandvalued.

Variabilityinteachers’knowledge,skills,understandingandexperienceofSENFindingsconfirmedthattrainingforSENisvariable.Surveydatareflectedthatteacherswantmore training inSEN.At facevalue these findingsendorse theviewpointofgovernment thatmore training is required if outcomes for pupils with SEN are to be improved. However,


explorationofthisissuefrominterviewdatasuggeststhataddressingteachertrainingforSENisfarfromsimple.TeachersdowantmoretrainingbuttheydidnotprioritisethatasasolutiontotheproblemssurroundingoutcomesforpupilswithSEN.

Most teachers feel that they know what their pupils with SEN need in terms of teaching. IfteachersencounterparticularissueswithspecifictypesofSEN,theyreportbeingabletoaskcolleagues, particularly their SENCO, for advice and support. There is also a plethora ofguidanceavailablefromwebsites,includinggovernmentsources.

Forteachers,thecoreissuesfortrainingarethoseoffeasibility,relevanceandquality.Teachersare required to teach pupils with diverse needs in group settings and within the context ofdelivering and assessing a prescribed curriculum. The makeup of the class group, thecurriculumsubjectbeingtaughtandtheavailabilityofadditionaladultsupportallimpactonthebehaviourandlearningofapupilwithSEN.

Thetrainingteachers‘need’toimprovetheirteachingisobviouslygoingtovarydependingontheir personal level of professional development and experience in SEN and the nature anddemands of their current teaching roles. Affordability is also emerging as an issue during aperiodofeconomicrecession.

Thisresearchsuggeststhatanynarrowconceptualisationof‘training’needstobereappraisedto includeprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesandexperiences that include:access toacombinationofinschoolandlocalsupportandpracticalguidance;timetoliaisewithcolleaguestoshareandevaluatestrategiesandapproachesusedwithpupilsintheirownschoolcontext;opportunities to work collaboratively in the classroom either with internal or externalspecialists/advisors, includingteachersfromspecialschools;timeandopportunitytoaccess,useandevaluatetheexistingplethoraofguidance;inputonspecificSENintermsofhowtheirpupilsarelikelytorespondbothasindividualsandingroups.

Teachersneed training in relation toSENthat isgoing tocontributedirectly to theircapacitywithin their current context. For most mainstream teachers, this is a class containing 2530pupils,usuallywithawiderangeofabilities.Teachersdonotvaluetrainingthatjustfuelsanyguilt theyareexperiencingaboutknowing‘what’ todofor individualpupilswithSENwithoutbeingabletosolvethe‘how’ofdoingthisingroupsettings.

Teachersalsorecognisedthat iftheyaretoimproveoutcomesforpupilswithSEN,theymayneedtrainingthatisnotnecessarilySENspecific.Forexample,secondaryschoolteachersarenottrainedtoteachliteracyanddonotnecessarilyhaveadeepenoughunderstandingofhowdifferences and delays in language development and communication can impact on pupils’learning and behaviour in the classroom. Likewise, some teachers felt that an emphasis onsubject teachingduringtrainingmayhave limitedthetimespentonthedevelopmentof theirskillsandunderstandinginrelationtothepsychologyoflearningandchilddevelopment.

It isofcoursethecasethat individualsmaynotknowwhat theyneedtoknowuntil theyaregiven that knowledge. However, that does not justify deciding what teachers need to know,giving it to them and expecting outcomes for pupils to improve. Teachers are experiencingchallengesintheclassroomonadailybasisandhaveavaluablecontributiontomakeinrelationtoinformingthenatureandpurposeofteachertrainingforSEN.It is importantthatteachers’views,someofwhichareexpressedinthisreport,continuetobesoughtandareappropriatelyvaluedbypolicymakersifanynewinitiativesforSENtrainingaretobeeffectiveintermsofcostandimpact.


CoremessagesThisresearchprojectsetouttoexamineteachers’experienceofSENandinclusionasaroutetounderstandingandcontributingtothedebateaboutconcernssurroundingthevariabilitywithinpolicy,provisionandpractice forSENand inclusion.Publicationof thereporton theresearchconductedhascoincidedwiththebeginningsofwhatislikelytobeaperiodofsignificantchangein relation to educational provision for pupils with SEN. Teachers are at the front line ofimplementingnationalpolicychangesandarecrucialtothebringingaboutofimprovementsinoutcomesforpupilswithSEN.Ifteachers’reportedexperienceoftherealityofteachinggroupsofpupils,includingthosewithSEN,isignoredordismissedasprofessionalweakness,thenanypolicy changes, however laudable and well intentioned, are unlikely to lead to their intendedoutcomes.Itiswiththisinmindthatthefollowingcoremessageshavebeenextrapolatedfromthefindingsofthisresearch.Itishopedthatthesemessageswillbeofinteresttopolicymakers,professionalsandparentswhoareinvolvedintheeducationofpupilswithSEN.

Chapter1:TherelationshipbetweenthedefinitionofSENintheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticeandtheidentificationofSENWhiletheGovernment’scurrentconcernregardingidentificationofSENisprimarilyfocusedonissuesofvariability,fundingandaccountability,teachers’mainconcernregardingidentificationrelatestoitslinktoprovision.Schoolsneedtoidentifywhatprovisiontheirpupilsneedinordertomakeprogressinthesettinginwhichtheyarecurrentlyplaced.Oncethisdifferingemphasisis understood, it can be seen that teachers are not deliberately ignoring or manipulatinggovernment guidance on the identification of SEN contained within the Special EducationalNeedsCodeofPractice(DfES,2001).

When provision and progress are placed at the heart of identification of SEN, then it is thecurrent‘educationalneed’ratherthananyinherent‘learningdifficulty’thatbecomesthemainfocus for teachers’assessment.This ‘need’, inherentwithin the term ‘SEN’,dependson theeducationalenvironmentinwhichthepupilisplacedandmusttakeaccountofthenatureandassessmentofthe‘learning’thatisrequired.Ifthelearningthatisrequiredisdefinedintermsofprescribedlevelsofsubjectattainment,thenthepupil’seducationalneedswillbedifferentthanifthelearningrequiredisdefinedintermsofabroaderrangeofpersonalachievements.

IfprovisionandprogresstakepriorityoverfundingandaccountabilityasthecorepurposeforidentificationofSENinschools, thenvariability is inevitablebecauseschoolcontextsarenotstandardised. It followsthatanemphasisonreducingvariability in identificationratesofSENthroughchangestopolicyandpracticeshouldnotbeseenasthesolutiontoconcernsabouteducationaloutcomesforpupilswithSEN.Changestoidentificationcriteriawouldserveonlytoreconstructthesize,natureandfundingoftheSENpopulation.Therewouldstillbeindividuals,categorisedornot,whowouldmakelessprogressinthegroupsettingoftheirclassroomthanthatmadebytheirsameagedpeers.Thishasimplicationsforfundingandthereisaneedtoexamine how funding is arranged to ensure that the range of pupils’ needs are supportedadequately.

Ratherthancontinuingwiththepursuitofreducingvariability in identificationratesofSEN, itwould seem more productive for the Government to harness the expertise of teachers andparents to explore how positive and meaningful ‘outcomes’ can be conceptualised andachievedforallpupils,irrespectiveoftheircategorisation.


Chapter2:Training,supportanddevelopmentneedsIf initiatives for teacher training and CPD for SEN are to impact on teaching quality andoutcomesforpupilswithSEN,thentheymustaddressissuesofrelevance,feasibilityand,ofcourse,quality.Assuch,dueregardmustbegiventodeterminingtherelevantknowledge,skillsandunderstandingthatteachersneediftheyaretoteachpupilswithSENinthegroupsettingoftheclassroom.Strategiesthatmaybeappropriateforindividualpupilsassignedtoparticularcategories of SEN may not be feasible to be delivered by teachers whose classes have animbalanceofpupilswithlearningand/orbehaviouralneeds.Ifintendedacademicoutcomesforpupils with SEN are to become more literacy based, then for some secondary teachers thepriority for trainingmayneedtobecrossphase literacy teachingand languagedevelopmentratherthaninrelationtospecificformsofSEN.

For training to be effective it needs to be reconceptualised to cover a range of inputs andexperiences that lead to improvements inpractice. Inaddition to themore traditional forms,traininginSENmightusefullyinclude:

• dedicatedtimetoaccess,useandevaluateexistingguidanceonSEN–muchofwhichhasthepotentialtoimpactpositivelyonpractice;

• opportunityandtimetoworkwithSENCOsandothercolleagueswithparticularexpertiseand/orexperienceinSENintheirownschoolcontext;

• opportunity to access, implement and evaluate local guidance and support from LAspecialistteachers,educationalpsychologists,speechandlanguagetherapistsandotherproviders–eitherinternallyorexternally;

• activeengagementinsharingofpracticebetweenlocalmainstreamandspecialschools.

Itwouldbeusefultoconsiderwaysofsecuringgreatercoherencebetweentrainingthatseeksto improve the subject learning and behaviour of all pupils and that which is deemed ‘SENspecific’.CurrentperspectivesontrainingforteachersseemstobeonhowSENpupilsdifferfromtheirpeersratherthanontheskillsandattributesthatallpupilsneedtodevelopinordertoeffectivelylearningroupsettings.ThiscanleadtofragmentationinrelationtowhattrainingisneededforpupilswithSENandwhattrainingisneededfornonSENpupils.

The 2010 White Paper (DfE, 2010) and the 2011 Green paper (DfE, 2011) signal changes inrelationbothtoITTandCPD,placingconsiderableemphasisontheroleofteachingschools.PlanninganynewtraininginitiativesforSENneedstoinvolvedialoguebetweenprovidersandteachersifitistomeetnecessaryrequirementsforefficacy,relevanceandfeasibility.

Chapter3:PolicyandguidanceforSENandinclusionThe brokering of the Government’s relationship with teachers through policy disseminationrequires significant reappraisal. It is crucial that Government and schools develop effectiveworkingrelationshipsiftheirsharedconcernforthewellbeingandachievementofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithSENistobeaddressed.Muchof theguidanceproducedbythepreviousGovernment has been of good quality with the potential to impact positively on teachers’professionaldevelopmentandpupilprogress.Useandtakeupofpolicyandguidanceisbasedonperceivedutilityandconsequentlyvariesaccordingtojobroleandresponsibility.Itwouldbeuseful toconsiderhowpolicyandguidancecouldbebettersignposted inorder to reach itsintendedrangeofrecipients.Formanyclassandsubjectteachers,policyandguidanceneedstobesuccinct,supportiveintoneandperceivedasusefultotheirpractice.Ofparticularconcern


toschools is thetoneof recentcommentsfromofficialsources (e.g.Ofsted,2010) regardingoveridentificationratesandlowexpectationsforpupilswithSEN.Thereisafeelingthatblameis being apportioned to schools without due regard to the efforts schools and teachers aremakingtoeffectivelyincludepupilswitharangeofSEN.

Chapter4:ThedeploymentofsupportstaffThere is a strong view amongst teachers that the inclusion and progress of SEN pupils isdependentuponadditionalTAsupport. It iscrucial that thevalidityof thisconsensusview isfurtherresearchedtotakeonboardthefacilitatingeffectthatTAsmayhaveonteachinggroupsofpupils,includingthosewithSEN.Forexample,itwasevidentfromcasestudyinterviewsthatteachersbelieveTAshaveanimpactonpupillearningthroughtheclosermonitoringtheycanprovideforpupilswhohaveyettodevelopthenecessaryskillsand/ordispositionstosustainattentiononataskinthegroupsetting.Interveningearlyservedtolimitnegativeandofftaskbehaviourthatwouldimpactontherestoftheclass,aswellasrefocusingtheindividualontheirlearning.ThepositiveeffectofTAsandothersupportstaffonteachers’jobsatisfaction,levelsofstressandworkloadshouldnotbeignoredasafactor likelytoimpact,albeit indirectly,onpupillearning.

Onlyaboutathirdofteacherswithinthesurveyfelttheyhadsufficienttimeand/oropportunitytoliaisewithsupportstaff.Thiswasalsoanissuehighlightedbythecasestudyinterviewees.Teachersinterviewedoftenreportedusingavarietyofopportunisticstrategiestoaddressthisissue, often relying on goodwill and informal arrangements. Some schools had developedwrittenrecordingmethodstoshareinformation,includingelectroniccommunication.Thisraisessignificant issues about how support staff are involved in the planning and assessmentprocesses, about the key features of good practice and the relationship between effectivepractice and learning outcomes for pupils with SEN. This is an area that warrants furtherresearch.

Chapter5:BehaviourandSENBehaviour in schools remains of more concern for many teachers than SEN, in spite of thegeneralviewthatschools’behaviourpolicieswork for themajorityofpupils.Theentrenchedbehaviouralcharacteristicsofsomepupils,perceivedtobelargelyattributabletofactorsoutsideschool,stronglysuggest that ‘morediscipline’persewillnotsufficetoaddressthetroublingissuesofteachingandlearningfacedbyteachersinthegroupsettingofclassrooms.Teacherscannotbeblamedorexpectedtoaddressthisissuewithoutdueconsiderationofthefactthatthe problematic behaviour of individuals, and its exacerbation in groups, is not confined toschools.

Thereisaneedtoconsiderthedualchallengeforteachersinmainstreamschoolsandarangeofsettings,includingspecialschools,pupilreferralunitsandalternativeprovision,ofnotonlymanaging behaviour but also getting disaffected and disruptive pupils to meet nationallyprescribedacademictargets.

Chapter6:LocalauthoritysupportThequalityandtakeupofLAsupportisveryvaried.AnyactionsthatimpactonLAsupportforschoolsriskdestroyinganyeffectiverelationshipandbenefitsthathavedevelopedovertime.


Neithershoulditbeassumedthatschoolswillnecessarilyhavethecapacitytofillthegapsinsupportprovisioneitheratpractical/resource levelor intermsofprofessionalknowledgeandskills. Rather than addressing variability and budget constraints through blanket cuts,considerationneedstobegiventodevelopingpoliciesandapproachesthatidentifyandretaineffectiveworkingpracticesbetweenLAsandtheirschoolsandreplacingorstrengtheningthosethatfallshort.

InthecontextofcutstoservicesandthechangingroleforLAs,schoolswillneedtoestablishanewrelationshipwiththeirLAandarangeofotherservices,includinghealthandcareservicesandthethirdsector.Aconcernisthatdevelopingandmaintainingthesemultiplerelationshipswill place considerable additional demands on schools. This could impact adversely on thequalityofeducationforallpupilsbutespeciallythosewithSEN.


REFERENCES

Alborz,A.,Pearson,D.,Farrell,P.andHowes,A. (2009)The impactofadultsupportstaffonpupilsandmainstreamschools.TechnicalReport in:ResearchEvidence inEducationLibrary.EPPICentre,SocialScienceResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon

Atici, M. (2007) ‘A smallscale study on student teachers’ perceptions of classroommanagement and methods for dealing with misbehaviour’ in Emotional and BehaviouralDifficulties12(1)pp1527

Balshaw,M.(2010)‘Lookingforsomedifferentanswersaboutteachingassistants’inEuropeanJournalofSpecialNeedsEducation25(4)pp337338

Barber,M.andMourshed,M.(2007)Howtheworld’sbest-performingschoolsystemscomeoutontop.London:McKinsey&Company

BBC (2006) ‘School inclusion “can be abuse”’ (online) Available fromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4774407.stm(Accessed14January2007)

Bercow, J. (2008) A Review of Services for Children and Young People (0-19) with Speech,LanguageandCommunicationNeeds(TheBercowReport)Nottingham:DCSF

Blatchford,P.,Bassett,P.,Brown,P.,Martin,C.,Russell,A.andWebster,R.withBabayigit,S.andHaywood,N.(2008)DeploymentandImpactofSupportStaffinSchoolsandtheImpactofthe National Agreement: Results from Strand 2, Wave 1 – 2005/06. DCSF Research ReportDCSFRR027.InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon

Blatchford,P.,Bassett,P.,Brown,P.,Koutsoubou,M.,Martin,P.,Russell,A.andWebster,R.withRubieDavies, C. (2009) Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: The Impact ofSupportStaffinSchools(ResultsfromStrand2,Wave2).DCSFResearchReportDCSFRR148.InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon

Booth,T. andAinscow,M. (2002) Index for Inclusion:developing learningandparticipation inschools.Bristol:CSIE

Butt, G. and Lance, A. (2005) ‘Modernizing the roles of support staff in primary schools:changingfocus,changingfunction’inEducationalReview57(1)pp139149

Clough,P.andGarner,G. (2003) ‘Specialeducationalneedsand inclusiveeducation:Originsandcurrentissues’inSBartlettandDBurton(eds)EducationStudies:EssentialIssues.London:Sage

Cole, T., and Visser, J. (2005) Review of literature on SEBD definitions and ‘good practice’,accompanying the managing challenging behaviour report published by Ofsted (2005)www.ofsted.gov.uk

Corbett, J. (2001) Supporting Inclusive Education: A Connective Pedagogy. London:Routledge/Falmer

Corbett, J. andNorwich,B. (1999) ‘Commonor specialisedpedagogy?’ inPMortimore (ed)UnderstandingPedagogyanditsImpactonLearning.London:PaulChapman


DarlingHammond,L.(2001)‘StandardSettinginTeaching:ChangesinLicensing,Certification,and Assessment’ in V Richardson (ed) (2001) Handbook of Research on Teaching. 4th. ed.WashingtonDC:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation

DCSF(2008)Bettercommunication:Anactionplantoimproveservicesforchildrenandyoungpeoplewithspeech,languageandcommunicationneeds.Nottingham:DCSF

DCSF(2009a)YourChild,YourSchools,OurFuture.Nottingham:DCSF

DCSF(2009b)SchoolDisciplineandPupilBehaviourPolicies.Nottingham:DCSF

DCSF (2010) Improving parental confidence in the special educational needs system: Animplementationplan.Nottingham:DCSF

DES(1978)SpecialEducationalNeeds:ReportoftheCommitteeofEnquiryintotheEducationofHandicappedChildrenandYoungPeople(theWarnockReport).London:HMSO

DfE (1994a) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special EducationalNeeds.London:DfE

DfE(1994b)Circular9/94,TheEducationofChildrenwithEmotionalandBehaviouralDifficulties.London:DfE

DfE(2010)TheImportanceofTeaching:TheSchoolsWhitePaper2010.Nottingham:DfE

DfE (2011) Support and Aspiration: a New Approach to Special Educational Needs andDisability.Nottingham:DfE

DfEE(1997)ExcellenceforAllChildren.London:DfEE

DfEE(2000)WorkingwithTeachingAssistants:AGoodPracticeGuide.London:DfEE

DfEE/QCA (1999a)NationalCurriculum:Handbook forPrimaryTeachers inEngland. London:DfEE/QCA

DfEE/QCA(1999b)NationalCurriculum:HandbookforSecondaryTeachersinEngland.London:DfEE/QCA

DfES(2001)SpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPractice.Nottingham:DfES

DfES (2002) Including All Children in the Literacy Hour and the Daily Mathematics Lesson.Nottingham:DfES

DfES(2004a)EveryChildMatters:ChangeforChildreninSchools.Nottingham:DfES

DfES (2004b) Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for SEN.Nottingham:DfES

DfES(2005a)HigherStandards,BetterSchoolsForAll.Nottingham:DfES

DfES(2005b)LeadingonInclusion.Nottingham:DfES


DfES(2005c)LearningBehaviour:TheReportofthePractitioners’GrouponSchoolBehaviourandDiscipline(theSteerReport).Nottingham:DfES

DfES(2006)EffectiveLeadership:ensuringtheprogressofpupilswithSENand/orDisabilities.Nottingham:DfES

DfES(2007)SchoolDisciplineandPupilBehaviourPolicies.Nottingham:DfES

Ekins, A. and Grimes, P. (2009) Inclusion: Developing an Effective Whole School Approach.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress

Ellis, S. and Tod, J. (2009) Behaviour for Learning: Proactive Approaches to BehaviourManagement.Abingdon:Routledge

Ellis, S., Tod, J. and GrahamMatheson, L. (2008) Special Educational Needs and Inclusion:ReflectionandRenewal.Birmingham:NASUWT

Farrell,P.,Alborz,A.,Howes,A.andPearson,D.(2010)‘Theimpactofteachingassistantsonimprovingpupils’academicachievement inmainstreamschools:a reviewof the literature’ inEducationalReview62(4)pp435448

FletcherCampbell,F.(2010)‘Doublestandardsandfirstprinciples:framingteachingassistantsupportforpupilswithspecialeducationalneeds:aresponse’inEuropeanJournalofSpecialNeedsEducation25(4)p339340

Giangreco, M.F. (2009) Critical issues brief: Concerns about the proliferation of one-to-oneparaprofessionals. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Autism andDevelopmentalDisabilities

Giangreco,M.F.(2010)‘Utilizationofteacherassistantsininclusiveschools:Isitthekindofhelpthathelpingisallabout?’inEuropeanJournalofSpecialNeedsEducation25(4)p341345

Giangreco,M.F.andDoyle,M.B.(2007)‘Teachingassistantsininclusiveschools’inLFlorian(ed)TheSageHandbookofSpecialEducation.London:Sage

Giangreco,M.F.,Edelman,S.W.,Broer,S.M.andDoyle,M.B.(2001)‘Paraprofessionalsupportofstudentswithdisabilities:Literaturefromthepastdecade’inExceptionalChildren68(1)pp4563

Goodman,R.I. andBurton,D.M. (2010) ‘The inclusionof studentswithBESD inmainstreamschools: teachers’ experiences of and recommendations for creating a successful inclusiveenvironment’inEmotionalandBehaviouralDifficulties15(3)pp223237

Gross,J.andWhite,A. (2003)SpecialEducationalNeedsandSchool Improvement.London:DavidFulton

GTC(2010)ResearchforTeachers.Theimpactofclassroomsupport:newevidence.London:GeneralTeachingCouncilforEngland.www.gtce.org.uk/tla/rft/classroomsupport1010

Haggarty, L. (2002) ‘What does research tell us about how to prepare teachers?’ PaperpresentedtotheESCalatePGCEConference,Nottingham,9July2002


Hanko,G.(2003)‘Towardsaninclusiveschoolculture–butwhathappenedtoElton’saffectivecurriculum?’inBritishJournalofSpecialEducation30(3)pp125131

Hartley,R.(2010)TeacherExpertiseforSpecialEducationalNeeds:FillingtheGaps.London:PolicyExchange.www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Teacher_Expertise_for_SEN.pdf

Higgins,S.,Kokotsaki,D.andCoe,R.(2011)ToolkitofStrategiestoImproveLearning:SummaryforSchoolsSpendingthePupilPremium.London:SuttonTrust

Hodkinson, A. (2009) ‘Preservice teacher training and special educational needs in England19702008: Isgovernment learning the lessonsof thepastor is itexperiencingagroundhogday?’inEuropeanJournalofSpecialNeedsEducation24(3)pp277289

Hodkinson, A. (2010) ‘Inclusive and special education in the English educational system:historicalperspectives,recentdevelopmentsandfuturechallenges’inBritishJournalofSpecialEducation37(2)pp6167

Hollander, B. (1916) Abnormal Children (Nervous, Mischievous, Precocious and Backward).London:KeganPaul,Trench,TrubnerandCo.Ltd.

House of Commons Education Committee (2011) Behaviour and Discipline in Schools: FirstReportofSession2010–11VolumeI.London:TheStationeryOfficeLimited

HouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee(2006)SpecialEducationalNeeds:ThirdReportofSession2005-06VolumeI.London:TheStationeryOfficeLimited

House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007) The Academies ProgrammeFifty–secondReportofSession2006-07.London:TheStationeryOfficeLimited

Lamb, B. (2009) Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence (the Lamb Inquiry).Nottingham:DCSF

Lambe,J.andBones,R.(2006)‘Studentteachers’attitudestoinclusion:implicationsforInitialTeacher Education in Northern Ireland’ in International Journal of Inclusive Education 10(6)pp511527

Lee,B. (2002) ‘Teachingassistants inschools:Thecurrentstateofplay’.Report34.Slough:NFER

Lindsay,G.,Cullen,M.,Cullen,S.,Dockrell,J.,Strand,S.,Arweck,E.,Hegarty,S.andGoodlad,S. (2011) Evaluation of impact of DfE investment in initiatives designed to improve teacherworkforceskills in relation toSENanddisabilities.ResearchReportDfERR115.Nottingham:DfE

MacBeath,J.,Galton,M.,Steward,S.,MacBeath,A.andPage,C.(2006)TheCostsofInclusion.Cambridge:VictoirePress

Marley,D.andBloom,A.(2009)‘Teachingassistantsimpairpupilperformance’inTimesEducationalSupplement, September 2009. Available via www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6022071(accessed8July2011)


Miller,M.(2008)SecondreadingoftheSpecialEducationalNeeds(Information)Bill.1February2008.Columns597601

NationalCollege for LeadershipofSchools andChildren’sServices (2011)TeachingSchools (Available online www.tda.gov.uk/about/latestannouncements/~/media/resources/schoolleader/trainingteachingschools/teaching_schools_information.pdf,accessed21/9/11)

O’Brien,T.(1998)‘Themillenniumcurriculum:confrontingtheissuesandproposingsolutions’inSupportforLearning13(4)pp147152

Ofsted(2000)EvaluatingEducationalInclusion:GuidanceforInspectorsandSchools(HMI235).London:Ofsted

Ofsted(2002)Teachingassistantsinprimaryschools:Anevaluationofqualityandimpactoftheirwork.London:Ofsted

Ofsted(2003)SpecialEducationalNeedsintheMainstream.London:Ofsted

Ofsted (2004) Special educational needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools. London:Ofsted

Ofsted(2005)ManagingChallengingBehaviour.London:Ofsted

Ofsted (2006) Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught? Provision and outcomes indifferentsettingsforpupilswithlearningdifficultiesanddisabilities.London:Ofsted

Ofsted (2008) How well new teachers are prepared to teach pupils with learning difficultiesand/ordisabilities.London:HMSO

Ofsted (2010)SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilityReview:AStatement IsNotEnough.London:Ofsted

Parsons,C.(1999)Education,ExclusionandCitizenship.London:Routledge

Pearson,S.(2007)‘Exploringinclusiveeducation:earlystepsforprospectivesecondaryschoolteachers’inBritishJournalofSpecialEducation34(1)pp2532

Poulou, M. (2005) ‘Perceptions of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties’ inEmotionalandBehaviouralDifficulties10(2)pp137160

Rose,J.(2009)IdentifyingandTeachingChildrenandYoungPeoplewithDyslexiaandLiteracyDifficulties.Nottingham:DCSFwww.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/006592009DOMEN.pdf(accessed13August2011)

Silverstein,S.(1974)WheretheSidewalkEnds.NewYork:HarperandRow

Slavin,R.E.,Lake,C.,Davis,S.andMadden,N.(2009)Effectiveprogramsforstrugglingreaders:Abestevidencesynthesis.Baltimore,MD:JohnHopkinsUniversity,Center forResearchandReforminEducation

Steer,A.(2009)Reviewofpupilbehaviour:InterimReport4.Nottingham:DCSF


Steer,A.(2009b)LearningBehaviour:LessonsLearned.Nottingham:DCSF

Steer,A.(2010)BehaviourandtheroleofHome-SchoolAgreements.Nottingham:DCSF

TDA(2007)ProfessionalStandardsforTeachers.London:TDA

TDA(2009)Coursecontent.www.tda.gov.uk/Recruit/thetrainingprocess/courseoverview.aspx

TreasuryOffice(2003)EveryChildMatters.London:TSO

Vickerman, P. (2007) ‘Training physical education teachers to include children with specialeducational needs: Perspectives from physical education initial teacher training providers’ inEuropeanPhysicalEducationReview13(3)p385407

Warnock,M.(2005)SpecialEducationalNeeds:ANewLook.London:PhilosophyofEducationSocietyofGreatBritain

Webster. R., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C. and Russell, A. (2010) ‘Doublestandards and first principles: framing teaching assistant support for pupils with specialeducationalneeds’inEuropeanJournalofSpecialNeedsEducation25(4)pp319336

Winter,E.C.(2006)‘Preparingnewteachersforinclusiveschoolsandclassrooms’inSupportforLearning21(2)pp8591


ABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS

ADHD AttentionDeficitandHyperactivityDisorderAPP AssessingPupils’ProgressASD AutismSpectrumDisorderATL AssociationofTeachersandLecturersBESD Behavioural,SocialandEmotionalDevelopment/DifficultiesBOS BristolOnlineSurveyBPS BritishPsychologicalSocietyCAF CommonAssessmentFrameworkCAMHS ChildandAdolescentMentalHealthServiceCPD ContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentCVA ContextualValueAddedDCSF DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamiliesDDA DisabilityDiscriminationActDES DepartmentofEducationandScienceDfE DepartmentforEducationDfEE DepartmentforEducationandEmploymentDfES DepartmentforEducationandSkillsDISS DeploymentandImpactofSupportStaffEBD EmotionalandBehaviouralDifficultiesEAL EnglishasanAdditionalLanguageECM EveryChildMattersGOR GovernmentOfficeRegionGTP GraduateTeacherProgrammeHEI HigherEducationInstitutionHLTA HigherLevelTeachingAssistantIDP InclusionDevelopmentProgrammeIEP IndividualEducationPlanITE InitialTeacherEducationITT InitialTeacherTrainingLA LocalAuthorityLDD LearningDifficultiesandDisabilitiesMFL ModernForeignLanguagesMLD ModerateLearningDifficultyNASUWT NationalAssociationofSchoolmastersUnionofWomenTeachersNQT NewlyQualifiedTeacherPGCE PostGraduateCertificateinEducationPMLD ProfoundandMultipleLearningDifficultiesPRU PupilReferralUnitQTS QualifiedTeacherStatusSA SchoolActionSA+ SchoolActionPlus


SALT SpeechandLanguageTherapistSEAL SocialandEmotionalAspectsofLearningSEBD Social,EmotionalandBehaviouralDifficultiesSEN SpecialEducationalNeedsSENCO SpecialEducationalNeedsCoordinatorSEND SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilitySENDIST SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilityTribunalSIP SchoolImprovementPartnerSLCN Speech,LanguageandCommunicationNeedsSLT SeniorLeadershipTeamSSEN StatementofSpecialEducationalNeedsTA TeachingAssistantTAC TeamAroundtheChildTDA TrainingandDevelopmentAgencyforSchoolsTTRB TeacherTrainingResourceBank


AppendixA:Surveyquestions

Questionsaskedintheonlinemainstreamteachersurvey:3. Gender

Male/Female

4. Age

25orunder

2635

3645

4655

56orover

5. Dateofqualificationasateacher

NQT

25yearsago

610yearsago

1115yearsago

morethan15yearsago

notaUKqualifiedteacher

6. Roleinschool

Headteacher/Principal Deputyheadteacher

Assistantheadteacher SENCO

Subjectteacher Classteacher

Headofdepartment Headofyear

SENsupportteacher Inclusionleader/manager

HeadofKeyStage/KeyStagemanager

Other(s)

Comments

7. AdditionalqualificationinSEN

Yes/No

Comments


8. In relation toSENand inclusion,whatsort(s)of traininghaveyou receivedsinceSeptember2004?

‘Oneoff’afterschoolsessions

Asequenceofrelatedafterschoolsessions

Allorpartofastaffdevelopmentday

Courseaccreditedbyuniversityorotherproviderthatprovidesanadditionalqualificationorcreditstowardsone

Opportunitytocollaboratewith/observeanotherteacher

None

Other

Comments

9. PleasecouldyougiveusanexampleofapieceoftrainingyouhaveundertakeninrelationtoSENthatyouconsidertohavebeengood.

Comments

10. Currently,doyouthinkthatyouneedmoretrainingonSEN?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

11. MainbarriertoundertakingmoretrainingonSEN

Nobarrier

Cost

Time

Workload

Nothingsuitable/ofinterestavailablelocally

Lackofsupportfromschool/headteacher

Other(pleasespecify)

Comments


12. IfyouwantedtolookforinformationinrelationtoSEN,howlikelyareyouto:

Verylikely

Likely Neitherlikelynorunlikely

Unlikely Veryunlikely

Notsure

Usegovernmentwebsites(e.g.TeacherNet,NationalStrategysite,TTRB)

Uselocalauthoritywebsites

UsespecialistSENwebsite(e.g.NationalAutisticSociety,DyslexiaAction)

Useotherwebsites

Usebooksandmagazines/journals

UseTeachersTV

SeekadvicefromaSENCO

SeekadvicefromacolleagueinschoolotherthanaSENCO

Seekadvicefromaspecialistteacher/ASTatanotherschool

Seekadvicefromanoneducationbasedagencyorservice,e.g.health,police,socialservices

Seekadvicefromlocalauthoritysupport/advisorystaff

Seekadvicefromalocalauthoritysupportnetwork

13. Ifyouusewebsites,whichdoyoumainlyuse?

Comments


14. Pleasegiveyourviewsonthefollowing:

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le

Myinitialteachertrainingadequatelypreparedmetoteachpupilswitharangeofspecialeducationalneeds

InmyschoolIfeelIhavebeenwellsupportedinteachingpupilswithSEN

IamgenerallyabletoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilswithSENintheclass(es)Icurrentlyteach

IamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyteachpupilswitharangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)

IamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyassesstheprogressofpupilswitharangeofSENinmycurrentclass(es)?

15. Doyouthink thatanyspecificnationalpolicyorguidancedocumentonSENandinclusionhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialonyourschool’spractice?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

16. Do you think that any specific local policy or guidance document on SEN andinclusionhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialonyourschool’spractice?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

17. Do you think your school receives sufficient funding to provide an appropriateeducationforpupilswithSEN?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

18. HaveyouaccessedanyoftheInclusionDevelopmentProgramme(IDP)materials?

Yes/No/Notsure


18a. Ifyouhaveaccessedanyofthesematerials,howusefuldidyoufindthem?

Veryuseful/Quiteuseful/Notveryuseful/Notatalluseful

Comments

19. HowhastheEveryChildMattersagendaaffectedyourpracticeinrelationtopupilswithSEN?







Comments

20. What (if any) form of SEN have you found the most difficult to include in yourlessons?

Moderate(general)learningdifficulty Visualimpairment

Specificlearningdifficulty(e.g.dyslexia)

Physicaldisability

Behavioural,emotionalandsocialdifficulties

Autismspectrumdisorder

Hearingimpairment Speech,languageandcommunicationneeds

Severelearningdifficulty(inc.profoundandmultiplelearningdifficulty)

Other

Comments



Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Iexperienceatensionbetweenpoliciesforinclusionandpoliciesforraisingstandards

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbymylocalauthorityisclearformetoimplementinpractice

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbynationalgovernmentisclearformetoimplementinpractice

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbynationalgovernmentinfluencespracticeinmyschool

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbymylocalauthorityinfluencespracticeinmyschool

GovernmentpoliciesonSENandinclusionhavebenefitedpupilswithSENinmyschool

OurlatestOfstedinspectionreportappropriatelyrecognisedtheprogressofpupilswithSENinourschool

OfstedinspectionsrecognisetheeffectthathavingahighproportionofpupilswithSENcanhaveonaschool

22. Inyourview,whichoftheseismostinfluentialonschoolpracticeinrelationtoSENandinclusion?

• nationalgovernmentpolicyandguidance• localauthoritypolicyandguidance• Ofstedrequirements


23.

Inmyschoolapupilwouldhavetomeetthiscriterion

beforeweidentifiedthemashavingSEN:

AnyofthecriteriathatALONEwouldbesufficientforyourschooltoidentifya

pupilashavingSEN

Yes No Notsure Yes No Notsure



Hasalearningdifficultywhichcallsforspecialeducationalprovisiontobemadeforthem

Hasadiagnosisorlabel(e.g.dyslexia,autism)


Regularlyrequiresdifferentiatedwork

Regularlydisruptstherestoftheclass

Comments



Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

No

TA

sp

rese

ntin

my

less

ons

Que

stio

nd

oes

no

tap

ply

to

my

curr

ent

role

MyschoolemploysasufficientrangeofsupportstafftofullysupporttheneedsofchildrenwithSEN

Notanoptionforthesequestions

MyexperienceisthatthesupportstaffemployedbymyschoolaresufficientlytrainedtosupporttheneedsofpupilswithSEN

TheprogressofmostpupilswithSENinmyclassisdependentontheavailabilityofsupportfromateachingassistant

InmostlessonsthatIteachwhereateachingassistantispresent,Iknowandunderstandhis/herrole

InmostlessonsthatIteachwhereateachingassistantispresent,s/heistypicallydeployedtosupportpupilswithSENand/orlowattainingpupils

Ihavesufficientopportunitiestoreceivefeedbackonpupils’learningfromanyteachingassistantswhoworkinmyclassroom

Irequiremoretraininginordertoworkmoreeffectivelywithadditionaladultsinmyclassroom


25. Pleasegiveyourviewsonthefollowing: *

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

TheinclusionofmorepupilswithSENhasledtopupilsinmyschoolbeingmoreacceptingandunderstandingofdisabilityanddifference

PoliciesforSENandinclusionadoptedbymyschoolhaveledtopupilsbeingmoreacceptingandunderstandingofdisabilityanddifference

26. Pleasegiveyourviewsonthefollowing:S

tro

ngly

agre

e

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

TheinclusionofmorepupilswithSENhasmeantthatIneedmorestrategiestomanagepupils’behaviour

IhaveagoodunderstandingofwhysomepupilswithSENexhibitbehaviouraldifficultiesinmyclassroom

IhaveasufficientlywiderangeofstrategiestomanagethebehaviourofpupilswithSEN

IamwellsupportedinmyschooltomanagethebehaviouraldifficultiesofpupilswithSEN

Myschool’spoliciesareeffectiveinsupportingteacherstomanagethebehaviouraldifficultiesofpupilswithSEN

Generally,IfindthebehaviourofpupilswithSENnomorechallengingthanthebehaviourofpupilswithoutSEN


27. Howawareareyouofthefollowing?

Havenotheardof

this

Haveheardthetermbut

donotunderstand

whatitmeans

Understandthetermbutmyschool

hasnotstartedto

implementit

Myschoolisintheprocessofimplementing

this

Iconsiderthistobe

embeddedinschool

practice




Wavesofintervention

Provisionmapping

AssessingPupils’Progress(APP)

28. Doyouthinkthatbehaviourinschoolshasbecomemorechallengingoverrecentyears?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

29. Ifyes,whatdoyouthinkisthemainreasonforthis?

Generaldeteriorationofbehaviourinsociety

Parentstakinglessresponsibilityfortheirchildren

Inclusionpolicies(school,localand/ornational)

Insufficientpowertodisciplinepupilsinschool

Insufficienttrainingforteachersonbehaviourmanagement

Constraints/demandsofthecurriculum


Comments


30. ThinkingaboutthepupilswithSENyoucurrentlyencounterinyourrole,whichofthefollowingwouldbeusefultoyou?

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Moretime

MoreknowledgeaboutSEN

Moreadditionaladultsupport

Greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoadvisetheteacher


Greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologists

Moreseniorleadershipteamsupport/understanding

Morestrategies

Moreexternalagencysupport

31. Inyourview,whatshouldtheGovernmentdotoimproveoutcomesforpupilswithSEN?

TheGovernmentshould:

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Establishmoreunitswithinmainstreamschools

PlacemorepupilswithSENinspecialschools

Providemoreaccesstosplitplacementarrangements(e.g.mainstream/specialschool,mainstream/shortstayschools)

Increasetheamountofspecialschooloutreachsupporttomainstreamschools

Abandontheterm‘SEN’andassociatedprocedures

ProvidemoreSENtrainingforallteachers

TrainmoreSENspecialistteachers

Providemoresupport/advisoryserviceinput

Providemoreeducationalpsychologyinput cont’d



Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

ProvidemoreonetoonesupportforpupilswithSEN

ResourcesomemainstreamschoolsineachareainrelationtoaparticularformofSEN

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atayoungage)

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atfirstsignofproblem/difficulty)

Changethecurriculumrequirementsatnationallevel

Changetestingarrangementsatnationallevel

ReducebureaucracyrelatedtoSEN

RevisetheSENCodeofPractice

Introduceamoresupportiveinspectionframework

Allowmoresmallschools

Reduceclasssizes

32. TheSpecialEducationalNeedsCodeofPracticegives the followingdefinitionofspecialeducationalneeds.Howhelpfuldoyoufindthisdefinition?

‘Children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty whichcallsforspecialeducationalprovisiontobemadeforthem.’

(DfES,2001)

Veryhelpful Helpful Neitherhelpfulnorunhelpful

Nothelpful Veryunhelpful

Ihadnotseenthisdefinitionbefore

33. In your experience, does this definition inform your school’s identification ofchildrenwithSEN?

Yes/No/Notsure

34. SinceSeptember2008haveyouoranyofyourstaffhadtoattendanSENtribunal?

Yes/No/Notsure


35. Doyouthinkthatparents/carersofpupilswithSENaregenerallysatisfiedwiththeprovisionmadefortheirchildren?

Yes/No/Notsure

36. Typeofschool:

Infant

Junior

Primary

Middle

Secondary

Special

Other

Comments


Questionsaskedintheonlinespecialschoolteachersurvey:3. Gender

Male/Female

4. Age

25orunder

2635

3645

4655

56orover

5. Dateofqualificationasateacher

NQT

25yearsago

610yearsago

1115yearsago

morethan15yearsago

notaUKqualifiedteacher

6. Roleinschool

Headteacher/Principal Deputyheadteacher

Assistantheadteacher Specialistteacher

Subjectteacher Classteacher

Headofdepartment Headofyear

Outreachteacher Inclusionleader/manager


Other(s)

Comments

7. AdditionalqualificationinSEN

Yes/No

Comments


8. Whatistheschool’sofficialdesignation?

Comments

9. Haveyoueverheldapositioninamainstreamschool?

Yes/No

9a. Whichpositiondoyoucurrentlyhold?

Headteacher/principal

Deputyheadteacher

Assistantheadteacher

SENCO

Subjectteacher

Classteacher

Headofdepartment

Headofyear

SENsupportteacher

Inclusionleader/manager


Other

10. Howlongagowereyoulastemployedinamainstreamschool?

Under2years

25yearsago

610yearsago

1115yearsago

Morethan15yearsago

Neverworkedinamainstreamschool


11. In relation toSENand inclusion,whatsort(s)of traininghaveyou receivedsinceSeptember2004?

‘Oneoff’afterschoolsessions

Asequenceofrelatedafterschoolsessions

Allorpartofastaffdevelopmentday

Courseaccreditedbyuniversityorotherproviderthatprovidesanadditionalqualificationorcreditstowardsone

Opportunitytocollaboratewith/observeanotherteacher

Trainingtosupportthesharingofexpertisebetweenspecialandmainstreamschools

None

Other

Comments

12. PleasecouldyougiveusanexampleofapieceoftrainingyouhaveundertakeninrelationtoSENthatyouconsidertohavebeengood

Comments

13. Currently,doyouthinkthatyouneedmoretrainingonSEN?

Yes/No/Notsure

13a. Whattrainingwouldyoulike?

Comments


14. MainbarriertoundertakingmoretrainingonSEN

Nobarrier

Cost

Time

Workload

Nothingsuitable/ofinterestavailablelocally

Lackofsupportfromschool/headteacher


Comments

15. IfyouwantedtolookforinformationinrelationtoSEN,howlikelywouldyoubeto:

Verylikely

Likely Neitherlikelynorunlikely

Unlikely Veryunlikely

Notsure

Usegovernmentwebsites(e.g.TeacherNet,NationalStrategysite,TTRB)

Uselocalauthoritywebsites

UsespecialistSENwebsite(e.g.NationalAutisticSociety,DyslexiaAction)

Useotherwebsites

Usebooksandmagazines/journals

UseTeachersTV

Seekadvicefromspecialistcolleagueinschool

Seekadvicefromateacheratanotherspecialschool

Seekadvicefromanoneducationbasedagencyorservicee.g.health,police,socialservices

Seekadvicefromlocalauthoritysupport/advisorystaff

Seekadvicefromalocalauthoritysupportnetwork/schoolsconsortium


16. Ifyouusewebsites,whichdoyoumainlyuse

Comments


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le


Myinitialteachertrainingadequatelypreparedmetoteachpupilswitharangeofspecialeducationalneedsinmycurrentschool

InmyschoolIfeelIhavebeenwellsupportedinteachingpupilsinmyclass/subjectarea

Iamgenerallyabletoidentifythelearningneedsofpupilsintheclass(es)Icurrentlyteach

Iamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyteachallthepupilsinmycurrentclass(es)

Iamgenerallyabletoeffectivelyassesstheprogressofallpupilsinmycurrentclass(es)

Iamgenerallyabletoensurethatpupilsinmycurrentclass(es)canaccessallareasofthecurriculum/allaspectsofmysubject

18. Doyouthink thatanyspecificnationalpolicyorguidancedocumentonSENandinclusionhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialonyourschool’spractice?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments


19. Do you think that any specific local policy or guidance document on SEN andinclusionhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialonyourschool’spractice?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

20. Do you think your school receives sufficient funding to provide an appropriateeducationforallpupils?

Yes/No/Notsure

Comments

21. Have you accessed any of the governmentproduced Inclusion DevelopmentProgramme(IDP)materialsforSEN?

Yes/No/Notsure

21a. Ifyouhaveaccessedanyofthesematerials,howusefuldidyoufindthem?

Veryuseful/Quiteuseful/Notveryuseful/Notatalluseful

Comments

22. HowhastheEveryChildMattersagendaaffectedyourpracticeinrelationtopupilswithSEN?







Comments


23. Whichpupilsorgroupsofpupilshaveyoufounditmostdifficulttoincludeinyourlessons(ifany)?

Pupilswith:

Moderate(general)learningdifficulty Visualimpairment

Specificlearningdifficulty(e.g.dyslexia)

Physicaldisability

Behavioural,emotionalandsocialdifficulties

Autismspectrumdisorder

Hearingimpairment Speech,languageandcommunicationneeds

Severelearningdifficulty(inc.profoundandmultiplelearningdifficulty)

Other

Comments


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Iexperienceatensionbetweenpoliciesforinclusionandpoliciesforraisingstandards

SinceIstartedworkinginthisschoolIhavenoticedanincreaseinthecomplexityofpupils’needs

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbymylocalauthorityisclearformetoimplementinpractice

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbynationalgovernmentisclearformetoimplementinpractice

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbynationalgovernmentinfluencespracticeinmyschool

TheguidanceonSENandinclusionprovidedbymylocalauthorityinfluencespracticeinmyschool

GovernmentpoliciesonSENandinclusionhavebenefitedpupilswithSENinmyschool

cont’d


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

OurlatestOfstedinspectionreportappropriatelyrecognisedtheprogressofpupilswithSENinourschool

Ofstedinspectorsrecognisethecomplexityofneedsofpupilsinmyschool

25. Inyourview,whichoftheseismostinfluentialonschoolpracticeinrelationtoSENandinclusion?

• nationalgovernmentpolicyandguidance• localauthoritypolicyandguidance• Ofstedrequirements

Comments


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Myschoolemploysasufficientrangeofsupportstafftofullysupporttheneedsofallpupils

Myexperienceisthatthesupportstaffemployedbymyschoolaresufficientlytrainedtosupporttheneedsofallpupils

Myschoolemploysandtrainsspecialistsupportstafftoworkwithparticulargroupsofpupils


27.

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

dis

agre

e

Dis

agr e

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

No

TA

sp

rese

ntin

my

less

ons

Que

stio

nd

oes

no

tap

ply

to

my

curr

ent

role

InmostlessonsthatIteachwhereateachingassistantispresentIknowandunderstandhis/herrole

Ihavesufficientopportunitiestoreceivefeedbackonpupils’learningfromanyteachingassistantswhoworkinmyclassroom

Irequiremoretraininginordertoworkmoreeffectivelywithadditionaladultsinmyclassroom

28. Doyouworkwithanyotheradultswhoprovide regularsupport topupils inyourclassroom?

Yes/No

Comments

29.

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Que

stio

nd

oes

no

tap

ply

to

curr

ent

role

Ithinkthatpupilshavemoresignificant/complexbehaviourdifficultiesthanwasthecasefiveyearsago

Iamunabletoteachsomepupilsinmyclassbecauseoftheirbehaviourdifficulties

Ihaveagoodunderstandingofwhysomepupilsexhibitbehaviouraldifficultiesinmyclassroom

IhaveasufficientlywiderangeofstrategiestomanagethebehaviourofpupilswithSEN

cont’d


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Que

stio

nd

oes

no

tap

ply

to

curr

ent

role

Iamwellsupportedinmyschooltomanagepupils’behaviouraldifficulties

Myschool’spoliciesareeffectiveinsupportingteacherstomanagepupils’behaviouraldifficulties

30. Howawareareyouofthefollowing?

Havenotheardof

this

Haveheardthetermbut

donotunderstand

whatitmeans

Understandthetermbutmyschool

hasnotstartedto

implementit

Myschoolisintheprocessofimplementing

this

Iconsiderthistobe

embeddedinschool

practice




Wavesofintervention

Provisionmapping

AssessingPupils’Progress(APP)

31. Whatotherresourcesdoyoufindparticularlyhelpful?

Comments

32. Doyouthinkthatcolleaguesinmainstreamschoolshaveexperiencedanincreaseinchallengingbehaviouroverrecentyears?

Yes/No/Notsure


32a. Ifyes,whatdoyouthinkisthemainreasonforthis?

Generaldeteriorationofbehaviourinsociety

Parentstakinglessresponsibilityfortheirchildren

Inclusionpolicies(school,localand/ornational)

Insufficientpowertodisciplinepupilsinschool

Insufficienttrainingforteachersonbehaviourmanagement

Constraints/demandsofthecurriculum


Comments

33. Doyouthinkthishashadanimpactonyourschool,e.g.throughmorereferralsormorepupilsplaced?

Yes/No/Notsure

34. Hasyourschoolbeenredesignatedbythelocalauthoritysince1997?

Yes/No/Notsure

35. Areyoudirectlyinvolvedinoutreachworktomainstreamschools?

Yes/No


36. Ifyes,pleasegiveyourviewsonthefollowing:

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Do

esn

ot

app

lyt

ocu

rren

tro

le

Ihavehadsufficienttrainingformyoutreachrole

MainstreamschoolsIdealwithgenerallywelcomemyinvolvement

MainstreamschoolsgenerallyactontherecommendationsImake

Myoutreachrolemainlyinvolvesdirectworkingwithpupils

Myoutreachrolemainlyinvolvesadvising/trainingmainstreamstaff

Myoutreachroleinvolvesacombinationofworkingdirectlywithpupilsandadvising/trainingmainstreamstaff

Providingoutreachtomainstreamschoolstakesstaffawayfromnecessarydutiesintheirownschool

Specialschoolsdonotreceivesufficientfundingtosupportoutreachtomainstreamschools


37. Thinking about the special educational needs of pupils you currently work with,whichofthefollowingwouldbeusefultoyou?

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Moretime

MoreknowledgeaboutSEN

Moreadditionaladultsupport

Greateraccesstospecialistteacherswhoadvisetheteacher/school


Greateraccesstoeducationalpsychologists

Moreseniorleadershipteamsupportandtraining

Morestrategies

Moreexternalagencysupport

38. WhatshouldtheGovernmentdotoimproveoutcomesforpupilswithSEN?


Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

Establishmoreunitswithinmainstreamschools

PlacemorepupilswithSENinspecialschools

Providemoreaccesstosplitplacementarrangements(e.g.mainstream/specialschool,mainstream/PRU(shortstayschools)

Increasetheamountofspecialschooloutreachsupporttomainstreamschools

Abandontheterm‘SEN’andassociatedprocedures

ProvidemoreSENtrainingforallteachers

TrainmoreSENspecialistteachers

Providemoresupport/advisoryserviceinput

Providemoreeducationalpsychologyinput cont’d


Thegovernmentshould:

Str

ong

lyag

ree

Ag

ree

Nei

ther

agre

eno

rd

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Str

ong

lyd

isag

ree

Do

n’t

kno

w

ProvidemoreonetoonesupportforpupilswithSEN

ResourcesomemainstreamschoolsineachareainrelationtoaparticularformofSEN

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atayoungage)

Promotemoreearlyintervention(atfirstsignofproblem/difficulty)

Changethecurriculumrequirementsatnationallevel

Changetestingarrangementsatnationallevel

ReducebureaucracyrelatedtoSEN

RevisetheSENCodeofPractice

Introduceamoresupportiveinspectionframework

Allowmoresmallschools

Reduceclasssizesinmainstreamschools

39. Whichtypeofschoolareyouworkingin:

Infant

Junior

Primary

Middle

Secondary

Special

Other

Comments


AppendixB:TeachersinEngland

ThefollowinginformationistakenfromSchoolWorkforceinEngland,2010(DfE,2010)7andtheGeneralTeachingCouncilforEngland’sAnnualDigestofStatistics2009-10(GTC,2010).8 NotethattheGTCfiguresrelatetoregisteredteachers,sodifferfromtheDfEstatistics.

Fulltimeequivalentnumbersofteachersandsupportstaffinmaintainedschools,2010(thousands)

Totalteachers Totalsupportstaff* Totalworkforce

Nurseryandprimary 201.0 189.7 390.7

Secondary 209.4 126.0 335.4

Special 15.1 31.4 46.6

Totalmaintained 431.9 351.3 783.2

*includesteachingassistants,higherlevelteachingassistants,specialneedsandminorityethnicpupilssupportstaff

RegisteredteachersinEngland2010bygenderandage

Female% Male%

Nursery 97 3

Primary 88 12

Special 75 25

Secondary 62 38

Total 423,70874.6%

144,10925.4%

Age

Below35 34%

3544 25%

4554 23%

55+ 18%

Locationofinserviceteachersbygovernmentofficeregion(GOR)

GOR ’000s %

NorthEast 205 3.6

NorthWest 379 6.6

YorkshireandtheHumber 453 7.9

EastMidlands 459 8.0

WestMidlands 635 11.0

Eastern 822 14.2

London 1362 23.6

SouthEast 1179 20.4

SouthWest 275 4.8

7www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s0009978www.gtce.org.uk/documents/publicationpdfs/digest_of_statistics0910.pdfSpecialEducationalNeeds–Reflection,RenewalandReality 175

AppendixC:Casestudyinterviewschedules

Headteacher–MainstreamTheme:Provision• FromyourperspectivehowwouldyoudescribethenatureandefficacyofSENprovision

withinyourschool?• Ifwewentaroundtheclassroomshere,howwouldwetypicallyseeteachingassistants

beingused?• Whathaveyoufoundtobethemosteffectiveuseofteachingassistants?• HowisthequalityofSENprovisionmonitoredinyourschool?• HowdoyouthinkparentsofpupilswithSENfeelabouttheprovisionyourschoolmakes?• InyourexperiencewhatsortsofthingshavebotheredtheparentsofpupilswithSEN?• As theheadteacherwhatdo you see your role as in relation toSENprovision in your

school?

Theme:Pupilprogress• Whatdoyouuseasevidencetosaythatyourschoolisdoingagoodjobforpupilswith

SEN?• WhatdoyouuseasindicatorsofindividualprogressbypupilswithSEN?• DoyouthinktheOfstedinspectionprocessallowsopportunitiesforyoutodemonstrate

theprogressmadebypupilswithSENinyourschool?• Thepreviousgovernmentexpressedconcernabouttheunderachievementofpupilswith

SEN.Howwouldyousuggestthisissueshouldbeaddressed?

Theme:Experienceofnationalpolicyandguidance• Howdoyou feel thatgovernmentpolicyandguidanceupuntilnowhasaffectedyour

school’spracticeinrelationtopupilswithSEN?• Whatchangesdoyouanticipatewithanewgovernment?• If you were advising the Government, what do you think should happen in relation to

policyonSEN?• Lookingattheschool’sdevelopmenttodate,whathavebeenthepositiveeffectsofthe

nationalpolicyofinclusionthathasbeenpursued?• Lookingattheschool’sdevelopmenttodate,whathavebeenthenegativeeffectsofa

nationalpolicyofinclusionthathasbeenpursued?• How have your roles and responsibilities changed in recent years as a result of

governmentguidanceandpolicyforSENandinclusion?• Arethereanyotherpoliciesorguidance,notspecificallyrelatedtoSENandinclusion,that

haveimpactedonyourrolesandresponsibilities?• Howdoyouthinkyourstaffwouldrespondtothisquestion–arethereanypoliciesor

guidancetheywouldbelikelytoseeasimpactingonthem?• Doyouexperienceanydegreeoftensionbetweenthestandardsraisingagendaandthe

inclusionagenda?

Theme:Identification• Asyouknow,there isconsiderablevariabilitybetweenschools inthenumberofpupils

they identifyashavingSEN.Given thecommonlycited figure isaround20%ofpupilshavingSEN,whydoyouthinkthisis?

• AccordingtotheDCSFAchievementandAttainmentTablesfor2009,yourschoolhadX%ofpupilswithSEN(totalSA,SA+andSSEN).Doesthisfigurestayrelativelystableyearonyear?


• HaveyouseenanychangeinthetypeofSENreflectedinthisfigure?• HowconfidentareyouinthereliabilityofyouridentificationproceduresforSEN?

Theme:Localauthority• AreyoubroadlyhappywithhowyourLAorganisesfundingforSEN?• CanyoutellmehowthisfundingoperatesforSENinthisLA?• Doyouthinkyourschoolreceivessufficientfundingtoprovideanappropriateeducation

forpupilswithSEN?• WhataboutLAsupportservices–howaretheseorganised?• What’syourviewonthespecialschoolprovisionavailablewithintheLA?• WhatarethemostusefulformsofsupportyoureceivefromtheLA?• ArethereanyaspectsofLAsupportyouarelesshappywith?

Theme:Training• CanyoutellmealittleaboutanytraininginrelationtoSENandinclusionthathasbeen

undertakeninrecentyears?• Whatarethemainissuesandbarriersinrelationtotraining?• Whatdoyouthinkaresomeofthekeycharacteristicsofsuccessfultraining?• Fromyourexperiencewhathaveyoufoundtobethebestkindoftrainingforyourstaff?• Are thereanySENor inclusionrelatedareaswhereyou feelyourstaffare inparticular

needoftraining?

Theme:Behaviour• Howeffectivedoyoufeelyourschool’sbehaviourpolicyisindealingwiththepupilsyou

currentlyhaveonroll?• Arethereanyparticulargroupsofpupilsthepolicydoesn’tworkfor?• Whatdoyouconsidertobethegreatestchallengefortheschoolintermsofbehaviour?• Arethereanykindsofbehaviouryourstafffindparticularlydifficulttodealwith?• Ifweweretoaskyourclassteachers,whatdoyouthinkwouldbetheirmainconcernwith

behaviour?• Whatdoyouconsidertobethemaincontributoryfactorsbehindthemoreproblematic

formsofbehaviouryouencounter?• DoyouthinkthatthenationalpolicyofincludingmorepupilswithSENinmainstreamschools

hashadanyeffectoneitherthetypeoramountofproblematicbehaviouryouencounter?• AretheredifferencesinhowyouapplythebehaviourpolicyforpupilswithSEN?


SENCO/InclusionManager–MainstreamTheme:Identification• TalkmethroughhowapupilwouldbeidentifiedashavingSEN.• Howareclassteachersinvolvedintheidentificationprocess?• Fromyourperspective,whatisthepurposeofthechildbeingidentifiedasSEN?• WhatisthepurposeofthechildbeingidentifiedasSENforthechildand/orparent?• Asyouknow,there isconsiderablevariabilitybetweenschools inthenumberofpupils


• AccordingtotheDCSFAchievementandAttainmenttablesfor2009,yourschoolhadX%ofpupilswithSEN(totalSA,SA+andSSEN).Doesthisfigurestayrelativelystableyearonyear?

• HaveyouseenanychangeinthetypeofSENreflectedinthisfigure?• HowconfidentareyouinthereliabilityofyouridentificationproceduresforSEN?

Theme:Provision• WhatdoyouseeyourroleasinrelationtoSENprovisioninyourschool?• How do you feel about the organisation and management of SEN provision in your

school?Isitasyou’dlikeittobe,orarethereanyareasfordevelopment?• Ifwewentintotheclasses,wouldtheteacherknowwhichchildrenintheclasswereon

theSENregister?• Ifweweregoingintooneoftheclassrooms,whatsortsofthingscouldweexpecttosee

inplaceforpupilswithSEN?• Ifwewentaroundtheclassroomshere,howwouldwetypicallyseeteachingassistants

beingused?• Whathaveyoufoundtobethemosteffectiveuseofteachingassistants?• HowmuchmovementisthereonceapupilisidentifiedashavingSEN?Dopupilscome

offtheSENregister,ormovebackfromSchoolActionPlustoSchoolAction?• HowisthequalityofSENprovisionmonitoredinyourschool?• Within the school’s overall budget are you broadly satisfied that sufficient funding is

allocatedtoprovideanappropriateeducationforpupilswithSEN?• HowdoyouthinkparentsofpupilswithSENfeelabouttheprovisionyourschoolmakes?• InyourexperiencewhatsortsofthingshavebotheredtheparentsofpupilswithSEN?

Theme:Progress• Whatdoyouuseasevidencetosaythatyourschoolisdoingagoodjobforpupilswith

SEN?• WhatdoyouuseasindicatorsofindividualprogressbypupilswithSEN?• DoyouthinktheOfstedinspectionprocessallowsopportunitiesforyoutodemonstrate

theprogressmadebypupilswithSENinyourschool?• Thepreviousgovernmentexpressedconcernabouttheunderachievementofpupilswith


Theme:Experienceofpolicyandguidance• Howdoyou feel thatgovernmentpolicyandguidanceupuntilnowhasaffectedyour


policyonSEN?


• Lookingattheschool’sdevelopmenttodate,whathavebeenthepositiveeffectsofthenationalpolicyofinclusionthathasbeenpursued?

• Lookingattheschool’sdevelopmenttodate,whathavebeenthenegativeeffectsofanationalpolicyofinclusionthathasbeenpursued?

• How have your roles and responsibilities changed in recent years as a result ofgovernmentguidanceandpolicyforSENandinclusion?

• Arethereanyotherpoliciesorguidance,notspecificallyrelatedtoSENandinclusion,thathaveimpactedonyourrolesandresponsibilities?

• Howdoyouthinkyourstaffwouldrespondtothisquestion–arethereanypoliciesorguidancetheywouldbelikelytoseeasimpactingonthem?

• Doyouexperienceanydegreeoftensionbetweenthestandardsraisingagendaandtheinclusionagenda?

Theme:Localauthority• CanyouexplainhowLAservicesareorganised?• What’syourviewonthespecialschoolprovisionavailablewithintheLA?• WhatarethemostusefulformsofsupportyoureceivefromtheLA?• ArethereanyaspectsofLAsupportyouarelesshappywith?



needoftraining?




formsofbehaviouryouencounter?• DoyouthinkthatthenationalpolicyofincludingmorepupilswithSENinmainstreamschools

hashadanyeffectoneitherthetypeoramountofproblematicbehaviouryouencounter?• AretheredifferencesinhowyouapplythebehaviourpolicyforpupilswithSEN?


ClassTeacher–Mainstream• TellmeabitaboutpupilswithSENthatyouteachatthemoment.

Theme:Identification• HowarepupilsusuallyidentifiedashavingSEN?• Whatinvolvementdoyouhaveintheidentificationprocess?• WhatarethecriteriabywhichtheschoolmakesthedecisionthatachildhasSEN?• WhatdoyouseeasthepurposeofthechildbeingidentifiedasSEN?• WhatisthepurposeofidentificationasSENforthechildandtheirparent?

Theme:Provision• WhatinformationdoyoutypicallyalreadyhaveonpupilswithSENbeforetheycometo

you?• Doyouhavetoaskforinformationonthepupilorisitroutinelygiven?• Howdoyoudecidehowtoadaptthecurriculum/lessonsforthechild?• Wheredoyougetyourstrategiesandideasfrom?• Howdoyouknowifaparticularstrategyorapproachisappropriate?• DoyourpupilswithSENhavesomesortofindividualplan?• (Ifyes)Whopreparesit?• If Iwas to come into your class,what sortsof thingswould I seegoingon thatwere

additionalordifferentforpupilswithSEN?• IsthereanythingadditionalordifferentthatthepupilswithSENreceivefromanywhere

elseotherthaninyourclassroom?• (Ifyes)Whatinformationdoyoureceiveonthis?

Theme:UseofTAs• CanyouexplainhowTAstypicallyworkwithpupilswithSEN?• DoyouhaveopportunitiestoliaisewithanyTAswhoworkinyourclassroom?• WhatdoyoudothattheTAcan’tdo?• WhatdoestheTAdothatyoucan’tdo?• Ifyoudidn’thavetheTAavailable,whatdifferenceswouldpupilswithSENexperience?• WhatimpactwouldithaveonyouastheteacherifaTAwasnotavailable?• TherehasbeenalotofcriticismofthepracticeofroutinelyallocatingTAstolowattaining

pupilsorpupilswithSEN.Doyouthinkthisisacriticismthatcouldbelevelledatyourschool?

Theme:Progress• WhatevidencedoyoulookforthatthepupilswithSENaremakingprogress?• Whendoyoudecidetochangewhatyou’redoingoradjustapupil’stargets?• Howdoyoudecidewhenapupilneedstobemovedfrom,say,SchoolActiontoSchool

ActionPlusortakenofftheSENregister?• DoyouknowofanypupilwhohasbeenmovedfromSchoolActionPlustoSchoolAction

or from the SEN register completely? What about any pupil who no longer requires astatementofspecialeducationalneeds?

Theme:TeachingpupilswithSENinagroupsetting• Inwhatwayshaveyouhadtoadaptyourgeneralclassroomteachingtoincludeawider

rangeofpupilswithSEN?• Doyouexperienceanydegreeoftensionbetweentheraisingstandardsagendaandthe

inclusionagenda?


• (Howmuchofaconcernisthis–aconstantconcern,anoccasionalnigglingthought?)• How do you achieve a balance between responsibilities for pupils with SEN and your

responsibilitiesfortheclassasawhole?

Theme:Training• Whattypeofteachertrainingcoursedidyoufollow?• TellmeaboutthecoverageofSENonyourinitialteachertrainingcourse.• HowwelldoyouthinkitpreparedyouinrelationtoteachingarangeofpupilswithSEN?• How much support have you had in school in developing your knowledge, skills and

understandinginrelationtoSEN?• WhattraininghaveyouhadinrelationtoSENinrecentyears?• Wasthatprovided‘inhouse’,byanoutsidepersoncomingin,oryouattendinganevent

elsewhere?• WhatdoyouthinkaresomeofthekeycharacteristicsofgoodtraininginrelationtoSEN?• Currently,doyouthinkyouneedmoretraininginSEN?• (Ifyes)Whatwouldthatbe?

Theme:Behaviour• Tellmeaboutthebehaviouryouencounterintheclass(es)youteach.• Aretherebehavioursthatcauseyouparticularconcern?• (Ifyes)What’sthenatureofthisconcern?• Whatdoyouthinkaresomeofthecausesforsomeofthemoreproblematicbehaviour

youencounter?• DoyouthinkyouencounteranymorechallengingbehaviourfrompupilswithSENthan

fromthosewithoutSEN?• Doesyourschool’sbehaviourpolicyworkforpupilswithSEN?


Headteacher–SpecialTheme:Provision• Fromyourperspectivehowwouldyoudescribethenatureandefficacyofprovisionwithin

yourschool?• Ifwewentaroundtheclassroomshere,howwouldwetypicallyseeteachingassistants

beingused?• Whathaveyoufoundtobethemosteffectiveuseofteachingassistants?• Howisthequalityofprovisionmonitoredinyourschool?• Howdoyouthinkparentsfeelabouttheprovisionyourschoolmakes?

Theme:Pupilprogress• Whatdoyouuseasevidencetosaythatyourschoolisdoingagoodjobforyourpupils?• Whatdoyouuseasindicatorsofindividualprogress?• DoyouthinktheOfstedinspectionprocessallowsopportunitiesforyoutodemonstrate

theprogressmadebypupilsinyourschool?• Thepreviousgovernmentexpressedconcernabouttheunderachievementofpupilswith





nationalpolicyofinclusionthathasbeenpursued?• Lookingattheschool’sdevelopmenttodate,whathavebeenthenegativeeffectsofthe




guidancetheywouldbelikelytoseeasimpactingonthem?• As a special school, do you experience any degree of tension between the raising

standardsagendaandtheinclusionagenda?

Theme:Identification• Asyouknow,thereisconsiderablevariabilitybetweenmainstreamschoolsinthenumber

ofpupilstheyidentifyashavingSEN.Giventhecommonlycitedfigureisaround20%ofpupilshavingSEN,whydoyouthinkthisis?

• Howsatisfiedareyouwiththeadmissionsprocedureforyourschool?• Haveyouseenanychangeinthetypeorlevelofneedofyourpupilsinrecentyears?


foryourpupils?• What’syourviewonthespecialschoolprovisionavailablewithintheLA?


• WhataboutLAsupportservices–howaretheseorganised?• HowsatisfiedareyouwiththeamountandtimingofLAsupportservices?• WhatarethemostusefulformsofsupportyoureceivefromtheLA?• ArethereanyaspectsofLAsupportyouarelesshappywith?



needoftraining?




formsofbehaviouryouencounter?• DoyouthinkthatnationalpolicyofincludingmorepupilswithSENinmainstreamschools

hashadanyeffectoneitherthetypeoramountofproblematicbehaviouryouencounter?• Aretheredifferencesinhowyouapplythebehaviourpolicyforparticularpupils?


SENCO/InclusionManager–SpecialTheme:Identification• Talkmethroughhowtheneedsofapupilareidentifiedwhentheyareplacedatyourschool.• Fromyourperspective,whatisthekeypurposeoftheplacementofthechildinaspecial

school.• Whatisthepurposeoftheplacementofthechildinaspecialschoolforthechildand/or

parent?• Howareclassteachersinvolvedintheneedsanalysisprocess?• Asyouknow,there isconsiderablevariabilitybetweenschools inthenumberofpupils


• Howsatisfiedareyouwiththeadmissionsprocedureforyourschool?• Haveyouseenanychangeinthetypeorlevelofneedofyourpupilsinrecentyears?

Theme:Provision• Howdoyoufeelabouttheorganisationandmanagementofprovisioninyourschool?Is

itasyou’dlikeittobe,orarethereanyareasfordevelopment?• Ifwewentaroundtheclassroomshere,howwouldwetypicallyseeteachingassistants

beingused?• Whathaveyoufoundtobethemosteffectiveuseofteachingassistants?• Ifweweregoingintooneoftheclassrooms,whatsortsofthingscouldweexpecttosee

inplaceforpupilswithSEN?• Howdoyouthinkparentsfeelabouttheprovisionyourschoolmakes?• Inyourexperiencewhatsortsofthingshavebotheredtheparents?• Howmuchmovementistherebetweenspecialschoolandmainstream?• Howisthequalityofprovisionmonitoredinyourschool?

Theme:Pupilprogress• Whatdoyouuseasevidencetosaythatyourschoolisdoingagoodjobforyourpupils?• Whatdoyouuseasindicatorsofindividualprogress?• DoyouthinktheOfstedinspectionprocessallowsopportunitiesforyoutodemonstrate

theprogressmadebypupilsinyourschool?• Thepreviousgovernmentexpressedconcernabouttheunderachievementofpupilswith





nationalpolicyofinclusionthathasbeenpursued?• Lookingattheschool’sdevelopmenttodate,whathavebeenthenegativeeffectsofthe





guidancetheywouldbelikelytoseeasimpactingonthem?• As a special school, do youexperienceanydegreeof tensionbetween the standards

raisingagendaandtheinclusionagenda?


foryourpupils?• What’syourviewonthespecialschoolprovisionavailablewithintheLA?• WhataboutLAsupportservices–howaretheseorganised?• HowsatisfiedareyouwiththeamountandtimingofLAsupportservices?• WhatarethemostusefulformsofsupportyoureceivefromtheLA?



needoftraining?




formsofbehaviouryouencounter?• Doyou think that thenationalpolicyof includingmorepupilswithSEN inmainstream

schoolshashadanyeffectoneither the typeoramountofproblematicbehaviouryouencounter?

• Aretheredifferencesinhowyouapplythebehaviourpolicyforparticularpupils?


ClassTeacher–Special• Tellmeabitaboutpupilsthatyouteachinyourclassatthemoment.

Theme:Identification• Whenanewpupilisplacedinyourschool,howaretheirneedsassessed?• Howinvolvedareyouintheprocessofidentifyingandassessingneeds?• Whatdoyouthinkparentsseeasthepurposeoftheplacementoftheirchildinaspecial

school?

Theme:Provision• Whatinformationdoyoutypicallyhaveonpupilsbeforetheyjoinyourclass?• Doyouhavetoaskforinformationorisitroutinelygiven?• Howdoyoudecidehowtoadaptthecurriculum/lessonsforthechild?• Wheredoyougetyourstrategiesandideasfrom?• Howdoyouknowifaparticularstrategyorapproachisappropriate?• Doyourpupilshavesomesortofindividualplan?• (Ifyes)Whopreparesit?

Theme:UseofTAs• CanyouexplainhowTAstypicallyworkinyourclassroom?• DoyouhaveopportunitiestoliaisewithanyTAswhoworkinyourclassroom?• WhatdoyoudothataTAcan’tdo?• WhatdoestheTAdothatyoucan’tdo?• Ifyoudidn’thaveaTAavailable,whatdifferencewoulditmaketoyourpupils?• WhatimpactwouldithaveonyouasateacherifaTAwasnotavailable?

Theme:Pupilprogress• Whatdoyoulookforasindicatorsofindividualprogress?• Arethereanyparticularassessmenttoolsthatyouusetomeasureprogress?• Whendoyoudecidetochangewhatyou’redoingoradjustapupil’stargets?• DoyouthinktheOfstedinspectionprocessallowsopportunitiesforyoutodemonstrate

theprogressmadebypupilsinyourschool?

Theme:Training• Whattypeofteachertrainingcoursedidyoufollow?• TellmeaboutthecoverageofSENonyourinitialteachertrainingcourse.• How well prepared did you feel in relation to teaching a range of pupils with SEN in

mainstreamschools?• Howwellprepareddidyoufeelinrelationtoteachingpupilsinaspecialschool?• WhattraininghaveyouhadinrelationtoSENinrecentyears?• Wasthatprovided‘inhouse’,byanoutsidepersoncomingin,oryouattendinganevent

elsewhere?• WhatdoyouthinkaresomeofthekeycharacteristicsofgoodtraininginrelationtoSEN?• Currently,doyouthinkyouneedmoretraininginSEN?• (Ifyes)Whatwouldthatbe?• Areyouinvolvedinanyoutreachworktomainstreamschools?• (Ifyes)Whatformdoesthattake?


Theme:Behaviour• Tellmeaboutthebehaviouryouencounterintheclass(es)youteach.• Aretherebehavioursthatcauseyouparticularconcern?• (Ifyes)What’sthenatureofthisconcern?• Whatdoyouthinkaresomeofthecausesforsomeofthemoreproblematicbehaviour

youencounter?• Doesyourbehaviourpolicyworkforallthepupilsinyourschool?• Aretheredifferencesinhowyouapplythebehaviourpolicyforparticularpupils?• Doyou think that thenationalpolicyof includingmorepupilswithSEN inmainstream

schoolshashadanyeffectoneither the typeoramountofproblematicbehaviouryouencounterinyoursetting?


NASUWT The Teachers’ Union

Hillscourt Education Centre Rose Hill Rednal Birmingham B45 8RS

Tel: 0121 453 6150 Fax: 0121 457 6208 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.nasuwt.org.uk

England 11/09045l