As a leader of SEND there are some phrases that trip off my tongue very readily, ‘every teacher a teacher of SEND, every leader a leader of SEND’ ‘you’re a SENDCo not a SEND- do’, ‘my aim is always to work myself into redundancy’ and ‘good teaching for SEND is just good teaching’. I find myself repeating them so often that sometimes I roll my own eyes internally. Whilst I agree with them all, the danger with this repetition is that the truisms become empty platitudes. Things that everyone agrees on, but no one can really pin down what they mean in practice. If we’re not careful this can leave a vacuum, whereby people either think they know but actually only have a surface level understanding or realise they don’t know but feel too ashamed to say.
Everyone agrees High Quality Teaching is the most important thing for pupils with SEND. The EEF guidance report here is a good place to start. What is increasingly also being said is that approaches that work for pupils with SEND will benefit everybody. It was a real delight to read, this from David Didau, who puts things so simply and eloquently, emphasising that pupils with SEND (and disadvantaged pupils for that matter) do not need a wildly different approach to other children. As he says “A child with an autistic spectrum disorder is likely to benefit from orderly routines and a calm environment. And a child who has ADHD is likely to benefit from clear boundaries and consistent, proportional consequences, but so is every other child”.
A diagnosis can be very helpful, for understanding need and accessing resources. The danger with labels is that they become a way of othering children, of placing a ceiling on what they can achieve. It can become a way for those, who should be supporting children, to outsource responsibility and justify forms of exclusion. Decades of research show us that the ‘separation effect’, of being pulled away from classroom teachers and peer interactions for unimpactful ‘intervention’ is real, persistent and damaging for pupils with SEND. The labels themselves also often get in the way of our being able to meet need. I’ve long felt it’s much more helpful to talk about the challenges within that (for example difficulties with social communication) rather than the overarching label (of for example Autism).
This really useful piece on Inclusive teaching from Pep’s Mcrea and his team introduces several helpful notions. One of which is ‘diagnostic overshadowing’, whereby one’s diagnosis masks or detracts from other important needs (for example comprehension issues or insufficient sleep). Another is the concept of ‘cognitive similarity’. Borrowing from David Willingham, they argue that the core mental processes for how we learn are more similar than they are different.
The notion of cognitive similarity helps us focus on shared needs. A truly Inclusive approach, what I term Radical Inclusion means getting it right first time. Because of cognitive similarity, the Science of Learning and current evidence best bets like Rosenshein’s Principles (when implemented well) do just this.
Many schools (more than not) are adopting this approach, at least on the surface. However, we’re still not getting it right for pupils with SEND. So, this can’t be the whole picture when it comes to meeting pupil needs.
I have several propositions as to why this is that I’d like to unpack further. These are:
1. We’re not always getting the implementation of science of learning right
2. We need to know and respond to our children as individuals
3. There are some gaps that schools cannot fill
1. We’re not always getting the implementation of science of learning right
Implementation is everything. Whilst many schools purport to teach the science of learning, scratch the surface and not all teachers have a deep understanding of how pupils learn, lest an understanding of how if a pupil has a complex need (for examples difficulties with emotional regulation) it might affect this learning process.
Whilst I am grateful that there is an increasingly robust and shared body of evidence best bets in teaching, in certain quarters this certainty, (alongside off the shelf curriculum materials) has led to a prescriptive approach that has disengaged some from the more responsive elements of teaching. Leading me to my next point…
2. We need to know and respond to our children as individuals
There isn’t a magic thing you can do for ‘ADHD’ or ‘Autistic’ pupils but all good teaching involves knowing your pupils, what they know and don’t know about your subject and being present and responsive with them. This cannot be entirely ‘off the shelf’ as it must respond to the children in front of you. Some assessment for learning techniques (lolly sticks come to mind) are very performative and have little impact on pupil learning. Good responsive teaching requires gathering accurate live data and then responding. It is in the interactions and decision making that it actually happens. This is unpredictable but is also the fun bit.
Knowing the children and knowing where they are at in relation to the curriculum is key. This is where things like Pupil Passports (or IEPs, or Learning Plans or whatever your school calls them) come in. And where good systems the assess need and access to services to ensure these are informed by professional recommendations and evidence-based practice.
However, none of this is substitute for just taking the time to talk to the child. Understanding their SEND needs might be part of this, sometimes knowing they have, for example Autism helps you get closer to this. Sometimes that label (and all that it harbours) actually take you further away from that understanding.
‘Knowing them’ can seem a wishy-washy concept (not least unrealistic for that year 9 Geography teacher). However, it isn’t as much about knowing what football team they support but more about knowing what topics they are confident with and inspired by and the elements of your discipline that they struggle with or have misconceptions in.
Academic success builds confidence. There is a strong link between unmet learning needs and SEMH. This is obvious when you think about it. If you can’t understand what’s going on in lessons you’re going to be disengaged and, for example, if you find it hard to express yourself, you will find peer relationships hard.
We need to see whole child, make them feel safe in school and have the highest expectations of them. The very best schools do this day in day out.
3. There are some holes schools cannot fill, however hard we try
I came into teaching via the Teach First programme, which had a simple mission- addressing educational disadvantage. Powerful research indicates the role that schools can play, in breaking that link. However, despite these gaps are not closing but widening, for about every marginalised group.
With an increasingly fractured society, a cost-of-living crisis and the state safety net systematically stripped through austerity, our families are struggling and it is hardly surprising. The link between poverty and educational disadvantage (including Special Educational Needs) is messy and pernicious. Lyndsey White has written an excellent piece on the lived reality of this. If a child is coming to school hungry, or experiencing abuse or neglect at home, success in school (however brilliant the school) becomes very difficult.
There are things that can be done, interventions that can be delivered, making schools a safe base for these children and practical things done in the classroom to include and engage everyone. I outline a number of them in the final part of my book Leading Mindfully for Healthy and Successful Schools (2022) where I explore creating a safe base in the classroom. There are also some really meaningful and practical ways set out in Doug Lemov’s (2022) book Reconnect on how we can signal and build belonging (alongside academic rigour) in the classroom. However, there are also limitations. Schools cannot fix every ill in society.
This is not an excuse to be complacency, schools have the power to change a lot, but it is a reality of the uphill battle we face. The current definition of SEND, means there will always be work to do and it will always be unfinished.
Implications
1. We need to get the implementation of science of learning right.
We need to ensure all teachers have a deep understanding of the science of learning- underpinned by an approach to professional development that is also informed by the same science). This includes an understanding of cognitive similarity and how more complex needs sit within this.
2. We need to know and respond to our children as individuals
We must support teachers to know their children as people, to know their curriculum well and crucially to respond to the ways these two things interrelate.
3. Accept or address the gaps that schools cannot fill
There are some very effective interventions, some of which I will explore in the next few posts but leaders need to become comfortable with the messy, unfinished nature of the work (or if not become more active in the policy and social justice space campaigning for better services and safety nets) and/ or develop the role of schools and trusts as Civic Anchor Institutions.
streamlinedsendco.com 