Competing agendas for SEN

A review of research on SEN and inclusion has found competing agendas in schools for SEN, inclusion, and standards raising, which may create problems for teachers

A comprehensive review of research on SEN and inclusion undertaken on behalf of the NASUWT suggests that there are competing agendas in schools for SEN, inclusion, and standards raising. Within a school or local authority one of these agendas may be prioritised over another.

Senior managers may be very concerned with performance tables and externally assessed levels of attainment of groups of pupils. This would be quite reasonable, given external criteria for ascribing labels of ‘successful’ schools.
The SENCO may be more focused on delivering policies for SEN that seek to include pupils and recognise the broader achievements of pupils with SEN from their starting point.
The class teacher may be focused on the day-to-day provision of quality teaching for the whole class, while maintaining a responsibility for the learning needs of individual pupils who experience SEN.

The research suggests that teachers may experience the tensions between the three agendas as a choice to be made rather than a balance to be struck.

Prioritising standards raising may result in schools inevitably having a concern for those pupils who ‘fall below’ national age related expectations. This interpretation would result in schools’ strategies
for inclusion being directed towards compensatory and catch up approaches. The efficacy of their inclusion policy would be judged in relation to the extent to which the gap between ‘mainstream’ and SEN attainment has been narrowed.

In contrast, an approach that focuses on diversity will value achievement in terms of personal progress rather than attainment compared to national expectations.

Implications
Given their different heritage and end goals, the blending and balancing of standards raising, SEN and inclusion agendas is not easy but it is necessary if the inclusion of pupils with SEN is to be successfully embedded in whole-school development.

The researchers argue that the greatest disservice to teachers would be to suggest that complexities arising from the coexistence of these agendas do not exist or can be easily ameliorated through training or the issuing of ‘good practice’ guidance.

They suggest that schools could usefully examine the extent to which standards raising (narrowly defined in terms of improvements in literacy and numeracy) is put into practice in a manner that is compatible with a policy of inclusion and the achievement of holistic outcomes for all pupils, including those with SEN.

This literature review explores issues relating to SEN and inclusion and considers possible implications for teacher workload in schools. It is intended to precede an empirical study as to how teachers are experiencing the educational agenda for inclusion.

A number of key themes identified by the authors are listed in the box below.

Conclusions
The authors conclude that inclusion, initially interpreted by many as being concerned with the increased integration of pupils with SEN into mainstream schools, is gradually developing through public, political and professional debate into the wider social context of issues relating to social disintegration and fragmentation. It follows that in any one educational context there is likely to be a culture that reflects:

an enduring concern with the academic component of schooling through an ongoing emphasis on standards and quality
the inheritance of a ‘special education’ system with its associated categories of difference, difficulty and need
a gradually emerging emphasis on inclusion in relation to SEN and disability
moves towards changing the way schools operate through remodelling, multi-agency working and personalisation in order to improve the wider social, emotional and physical outcomes for individuals.

In looking at such a culture it is clear for schools and their teachers that inclusion is a complex issue, that teachers will always be working in a changing system, and that pupil behaviour, initial teacher training and continued professional development, and teacher workload are likely to remain of primary concern to the profession.

Acknowledging that many of the issues identified have the potential to contribute to teacher workload and stress, the report argues that promoting enhanced holistic outcomes and social inclusion through, rather than for, classroom and subject teaching is not a new idea to teachers who traditionally have not seen their role as restricted solely to securing prescribed standards for academic attainment.

Special Educational Needs and Inclusion: Reflection and Renewal
Authors: Simon Ellis, Janet Tod and Lynne Graham-Matheson Canterbury Christ Church University
Published by NASUWT

Key themes arising from the literature review

In searching the literature, a number of themes pertinent to all teachers were identified. These are listed below and explored in more depth throughout the review.

Rights
Teachers generally endorse the principle of inclusion and the ‘right’ of individual children to be educated alongside their neighbourhood peers. As inclusion has become further entrenched in educational policy and practice there is an emerging view that this ‘right’ to be included may be superseded by the ‘right’ for SEN pupils to have an education that can meet their needs.

Educational inclusion is set within a political and societal context
Inclusion cannot be considered in isolation as it sits within a political and societal context and relates to wider considerations of the purposes and priorities of education.

Inclusion is a construct open to much interpretation
Interpretation is strongly influenced by the context in which it is discussed. Inclusion within education has be defined in relation to:

an ideology and/or aspiration: usually linked to human rights agenda
a place: usually mainstream vs special
a policy: normally from central government
practice: ‘inclusive teaching’
personal experience: pupil experience of feeling included.

There is not inevitably a coherent relationship between these differing perspectives and definitions.

The purpose of inclusion for individuals is not always clear
Consensus view has yet to be achieved, leading to problems as to how inclusion should be evaluated, eg should it be judged against a reduction in special schools? A reduction in exclusions?

More SEN school leavers engaging
in educational, community and work activities? An individual pupil or parent ‘experiencing’ beneficial effects of inclusive practices? Rates of academic progress? Should inclusion be judged
in relation to short or long-term outcomes?

Does inclusion relate to individuals or groups and is it only about SEN and disability?
Inclusion has tended to be viewed as primarily concerned with individuals with SEN, disability and behaviour problems. Inclusion is also regarded as concerned with inequalities for groups of children, including SEN but also gender, race, social background and attainment.

National and local policies for ‘SEN’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘standards’ do not always share aims and procedures.

Special schools
In spite of popular perceptions that inclusion is about the closure of special schools, the reality is that policy has been consistent in recognising the need for some children to be educated in special schools. There are, however, changes in the role of special schools, with increasing emphasis on supporting mainstream inclusion and building capacity within the wider workforce.

National and local variation in policy and practice for SEN and inclusion
Considerable variation in the response at local, regional and national levels. Differing experiences and impact of inclusion on pupils, parents and teachers are further influenced by:

limited statutory guidance for SEN and inclusion, allowing for interpretations leading to wide variation in provision and practice
teacher training in England and Wales has mandatory standards for achieving qualified teacher status, which make reference to SEN, however more detailed study is optional. Individual ITT providers may cover the SEN component of SEN-related standards in a variety of ways and in differing degrees of detail
use of support staff for whom qualification in SEN are desirable but not essential
differing roles of support services
use of a ‘relative’ definition of SEN allows categorisation as SEN in one school but not necessarily in another
varying teacher attitudes to inclusion
variations in the type, availability and demand for training.

Policy dilemmas
Teachers are required to juggle policy initiatives that require them to concentrate on individual outcomes and also group outcomes. Teachers have to make decisions about whether individual differences in learning, such as behaviour difficulties, take precedence over the learning needs of the class.

Primary/secondary differences
Differences in the incidence and pattern of type of SEN, in policy and provision for SEN and inclusion, exclusion rates and outcomes data. Behaviour represents
a considerably greater problem in secondary schools.

Classroom practice
National guidance materials for teaching of pupils with SEN are prolific. There is limited data on how frequently accessed and used by practising teachers, and how these materials impact on teacher competence and confidence and pupil outcomes.

Early identification and intervention for SEN
In spite of early identification being central to SEN policy initiatives, this has yet to become the norm for teachers and their schools and remains an issue for teacher training, funding, parental partnership and systemic development.

Categorisation of SEN
Coexistence of a medical (‘normative’) model for identifying SEN alongside a social (‘relative’) model leads to variations in identification between schools.

‘Medical’ model attributes difficulties in learning to deficiencies or impairments within the pupil, whereas ‘social’ model looks at the barriers that may exist in the nature of the setting or arise through the interaction between pupils and their contexts.

Using a ‘relative’ definition of SEN allows categorisation of child as having SEN in one school but not necessarily in another.

Relationships
Pupils with whom it is difficult to establish the reciprocal relationship that underpins teaching and learning (ie pupils with extreme behavioural problems, autistic spectrum disorders and speech, language and communication problems) can present particularly significant challenges to teachers.

Behaviour
There can be a significant problem, particularly in secondary schools, in balancing the ‘right’ of pupil to be included with the ‘right’ of others to learn. Distinction between ‘low level’ and ‘challenging behaviour’ may be helpful in applying preventative measures at an earlier stage. There is no shortage of national guidance and books on behaviour management but teachers need time to access, implement and evaluate these resources.

Teacher attitudes
This is an important factor which should not lead to a simplistic interpretation that a positive attitude is all that is necessary. There is a need for further empirical evidence as to how attitude influences and is influenced by experience of practice.

Area

Your Role

Competing agendas for SEN

Comments

Post new comment

See also