All different, all the same - inspiringleaders-elearning.co.uk · needs of all children and the capacity of staff to deliver this agenda. Children and young people with SEN don’t

All different, all the sameThinkpiece

1/22

National College for Teaching & Leadership© Crown copyright 2013, National College for Teaching and Leadership

Thinkpiece I Effective leadership of SEN provision I LEVEL 1PB1046/LEVEL1/SEN/TP

All different, all the same

School leaders set the ethos that either welcomes or sidelines disabled children and children with SEN.

Lamb, 2009:22

This thinkpiece addresses the ‘dilemma of difference’. How do we on the one hand acknowledge that some children may have different or additional special needs than other children, and at the same time ensure equality of access to provision and resources for all children? This has been a long-standing challenge for both policymakers and school leaders, and the last two decades have seen it articulated through policies designed to promote ‘inclusion’. The focus of discussion at the school level has been on how best to implement inclusive practices, but at times the debate has considered the efficacy of inclusion as a strategy for meeting the needs of all children and the capacity of staff to deliver this agenda.

Children and young people with SEN don’t achieve as they could – by the time they leave school these young people are more than twice as likely to be out of education, training or employment as those without. That is wrong.

DfE, 2011:3

What can middle leaders do to improve this state of affairs?

This paper argues that whilst aspects of the national policy agenda may at times seem contrary to the promotion of the inclusion of children with SEN and disabilities:

…[t]he policy contexts within which inclusive values and principles have to be enacted are always likely to be complex, contradictory and, in some respects at least, inimical to inclusion.

Ainscow et al, 2006:4

Some of the reasons for this underachievement, and therefore solutions to it, lie within schools themselves and are a result of the values teachers promote and the practices they adopt.

That this can, at times, be difficult and challenging territory is accepted by most writers in the field whatever their particular perspective. Making sense of this complexity, finding a route and inspiring others to follow is an important leadership task: some might argue that it is the very essence of leadership.

A theme of this thinkpiece is that the promotion of inclusive approaches, values and principles by school leaders requires them to acknowledge, accommodate and resolve a number of dilemmas and to understand and provide for difference. Further, middle leaders have a pivotal role to play in the implementation of their school’s overall inclusion strategies as they will often be the lynchpin connecting policy to practice. It is they who must resolve some of these dilemmas and make provision for difference, for it is only when policy is translated into effective practice that some of these dilemmas and differences often become most acute.

2/22

National College for Teaching & Leadership


© Crown copyright 2013, National College for Teaching and Leadership

For each individual child with special educational needs (SEN), his or her experience of inclusion is what happens to them each day in classrooms and as he or she engages with the rest of the school community. Middle leaders and their teams have a powerful impact upon this. The parents of children with SEN will, to varying degrees, often bring with them a particular set of needs. They may be more anxious and be more closely involved with the school than other parents. This may require middle leaders and their team members to provide these parents with additional support in understanding, managing and helping their child. Through their leadership and the decisions they take, middle leaders can increase or diminish feelings of inclusion. They will do this through the expectations they have of staff and pupils; through the culture they promote; through the curriculum that is offered; through their allocation of resources, in particular staff; and most powerfully, through the personal values they espouse.

We begin this thinkpiece by wrestling with the ‘dilemmas of difference’: how do we on the one hand acknowledge that children are different whilst at the same time avoid labelling them? It considers the benefits that can accrue to the child from the specific identification of a special need and weighs this against the danger that this identification may actually result in a poorer educational experience because it results in reduced teacher expectations. Next it considers how school leaders respond to difference and the demands this brings, drawing on both medical and social models of disability for insights. Is the challenge for the individual who must adapt to the requirements of the school, or must the school to adapt itself to each individual’s needs? We argue that schools should adopt a primarily social model if they are to regard themselves as inclusive organisations. We then investigate the leadership skills and qualities needed to promote inclusive cultures.

Our focus then shifts from a strategic perspective to explore whether mainstream teachers have the skills and training required to cater for difference in their classrooms, and asks whether a separate pedagogy is needed for the effective teaching of pupils with SEN. Whilst acknowledging that mainstream teachers should draw upon appropriate advice from experts in the field of special education field, we find no strong evidence of the need for a completely separate pedagogy. Finally, we turn our attention to a difference that troubles and concerns many middle leaders: why are exclusions and bullying so much higher among pupils with SEN, and what can middle leaders do about it?

3/22




Terminology

The term ‘inclusion’ and references to ‘inclusive education’, ‘inclusive pedagogy’ and so on abound in recent literature. In their study, Ainscow et al (2006) identify six ways of thinking about inclusion:

• Inclusion as a concern with disabled pupils and others categorised as ‘having special educational needs’.

• Inclusion as a response to disciplinary exclusion.

• Inclusion in relation to all groups seen as being vulnerable to exclusion.

• Inclusion as developing the school for all.

• Inclusion as ‘education for all’.

• Inclusion as a principled approach to education and society.

This module focuses on the group of pupils covered by the first definition, which encompasses approximately 20 per cent of the school population. However, in focusing on this group, we are aware that meeting the needs of this group will often involve consideration of some of the other ways of thinking about inclusion.

The definition of a ‘special educational need’ provided in government guidance is:

A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for them.

DfES, 2001:6

Definitions at this level of generality will require some interpretation in practice and there will be debate at the margins as to whether an individual child does or does not have a ‘special need’. In practice, what is considered to be a special educational need may in part be context specific and the reader should think of the term as it is used in their context and as a ‘concept in action’ rather than a static definition.

The children covered by the descriptor ‘special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEN/D)’ are not a homogeneous group. He description covers children with severe and profound physical disabilities, children with a range of learning difficulties, and children with behavioural and emotional difficulties. Our focus here is on meeting the special educational needs children may have, so the term SEN is used throughout. As you read through the thinkpiece you will find that on occasions some of the discussion is more relevant to particular subsets of children, whilst other discussions are relevant to the whole group. The reader should decide for him- or herself when this is the case.

4/22




The dilemmas of difference

The phrase ‘dilemmas of difference’ is used by Brahm Norwich (2006) to capture an issue that has troubled educationalists over many decades: how do we on the one hand view all children as being in some way equal and with equal entitlements, and at the same time acknowledge that all children have different needs, and that for some children, this may involve the specification of additional needs?

This dilemma asks different and challenging questions of leaders at three levels:

• National: Is it better to provide for children with SEN in special schools or mainstream schools? Should facilities be co-located?

• Schools: What structures should the school put in place in order to cater for all its pupils? Should it have separate units and separate facilities, such as learning resource areas for children with SEN? How should children be grouped – in bands, sets or mixed-ability groups? What provision should be made for different groups of pupils at breaks and lunchtimes?

• Department or section: How will children be grouped within classes? How will teaching assistants be deployed – to the whole class or assigned to specific children? Which teachers will be allocated to different groups of children, and will all children have an equal chance to be taught by the best teachers? What pedagogy (or pedagogies) will be promoted? What special arrangements will be made for individual children? What accommodation will be made for management systems for children with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD)?

Should we label differences?

Providing for the inclusion of children with SEN raises a number of dilemmas, and here we consider one of them. In general, inclusion strategies have avoided stereotyping particular groups of children and instead have celebrated diversity. However, the development of statements of SEN, individual education plans (IEPs), special needs registers and learning support departments in schools may have actually highlighted difference, which in turn may lead to labelling or stigmatising of these pupils by their peers, staff and even their parents or carers.

Hornby (2012) describes the dilemma thus:

There is then a dilemma, since if children are identified as having SEN, there is a risk of negative labelling and stigma, while if they are not identified there is a risk that they will not get the teaching they require and their special needs will not be met.

Hornby, 2012:54

5/22




Ainscow et al (2006:16) argue strongly against the conception of children as having special educational needs because this ‘undermines a transformative view of inclusion, in which diversity is seen as making a positive contribution to the creation of responsive educational settings’. Labelling pupils can lead to their stigmatisation and eventually to poorer outcomes for them.

Do labels matter? There is plenty of evidence that they do. Consider clothes for a moment and the importance attached to brand labels by young people – these labels certainly matter. They are used to demonstrate a range of things from wealth to group identity. This type of labelling is overt and can have significant social consequences.

Whilst the majority of clothes now have carefully designed external labels that differentiate their wearers, they also have standardised labels that describe the washing instructions or place of manufacture, for example. These labels are quite different. Their purpose is functional, and they are hidden away and certainly not intended to be visible. However, their users regard them as valuable; they ensure each item of clothing is washed at the right temperature, ironed correctly and so on.

For a number of years researchers and school leaders have argued that labelling pupils as ‘gifted’ ‘average’ or having ‘special educational needs’ has a significant impact upon teacher expectations of the learning that is possible for individual children. The Learning without Limits project, based at the University of Cambridge, presents a powerful case against this sort of labelling by ability. Its proponents argue that the use of such labels affects our expectations of what a child might be capable of in the future. For example, we expect that a child labelled as ‘less able’ today will not reach the same level of attainment as a child labelled ‘more able’ at some stage in the future. To some extent their future achievements are perceived to be known.

This is contrasted with an approach that is ‘guided by the idea of transformability’:

Teachers whose practice is guided by the idea of transformability, on the other hand, are convinced that the present does and must play a pivotal role in determining the path of future development. The future is unknowable and unpredictable because it is being actively created in the present.

University of Cambridge, 2013 [online]

The project’s authors argue that our attention should focus on the concept of ‘learning capacity’ and the factors that shape this. Some of these factors are internal to the child but others are external and within the control of the teacher. Learning capacity will be affected by the groups within which children are asked to learn and the dynamics that operate within those groups; by emotional factors, for example the extent to which the child feels accepted by the group; and by the cognitive dimensions of learning which are not regarded as unfathomable, but rather are skills and understandings that can be learned.

6/22




These issues are at the core of the discussion about the identification of difference, and as Norwich (2006:1) points out, ‘either way there are some negative implications or risks associated with stigma, devaluation, rejection or denial of relevant opportunities’.

In Scotland, the term ‘special educational needs’ is not used. Instead, local authorities are required to provide additional support where needed to enable any child or young person to benefit from education and the discussion is around ‘additional support needs’. Some argue that the use of the term ‘additional’ conveys a lesser sense of difference than the term ‘special’ with its connotations of uniqueness. Might a change of language reduce the potential for labelling and stigmatising?

Hornby (2012) is not convinced:

This concern is the product of confused thinking as it is clear that children with SEN attract labels from other children and teachers even when they are not formally identified as having SEN. So being stigmatized is not necessarily a result of the identification but related to the fact that their SEN mark them out as different in some way. Therefore, avoiding identifying SEN will not prevent children with SEN from being stigmatized but it may prevent them from getting the education that they need.

Hornby, 2012:54

There is much sense in Hornby’s argument and it draws attention to the need for middle leaders to manage both the rational and emotional features of labels.

The rational features are those that provide valuable information to help ensure that each child’s needs will be met, for example where a child with dyslexia is provided with particular teaching and learning strategies. For middle leaders this translates into acquiring appropriate professional knowledge, for themselves and their team members, of the range of special educational needs children in their context may have. This is not to suggest that they should have the fine level of understanding expected of special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs), but that they should have sufficient understanding of concepts such as autism, for example, to be able to hold professional conversations with their team members, other professionals with whom they liaise and parents and carers.

Managing the emotional features of labels such as ‘SEN’ is much more about professional values and how these are communicated. Staff may have an emotional response to the expectation that they will teach a child with SEN. Whether this response is largely positive or negative is something the middle leader can influence, initially by their overall commitment to inclusion as evidenced through what they say and do – fine statements in policy documents will count for far less than the leader’s own demonstration of a strong personal commitment to inclusion, evidenced by their interactions with children with SEN and their capacity and confidence in teaching children with SEN.

7/22




By acknowledging the challenges teaching children with SEN may bring to some team members and acknowledging that at times this may be a result of feelings of professional inadequacy, borne out of a lack of confidence or concerns about insufficient training, middle leaders can demonstrate their professional empathy with team members. A report by the Youth Driver Trust (2013) into the teaching of children with dyslexia found that:

60% of teachers we surveyed did not feel satisfied that their initial teacher training provided them with the skills they need to teach those who struggle to learn to read and write.

Youth Driver Trust, 2013:18

Effective middle leaders understand this and so offer guidance on appropriate pedagogy and provide support when team members feel anxious or threatened. Middle leaders use their skills in emotional intelligence to provide effective leadership in these situations.

In conclusion, the use of labels has some clear benefits. They allow teachers to make appropriate, targeted provision geared to individual needs. Labels can, however, lead also to diminished expectations if middle leaders allow them to become an excuse for poor teaching.

Labels and expectationsIn Support and Aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability (DfE, 2011), the government is unambiguous in its view that for some children with SEN ‘families are made to put up with a culture of low expectations about what their child can achieve at school’ (DfE, 2011:4), and expresses a determination that this must change.

Reflect deeply on practice in your area by team members:

• Do any team members ever engage in fixed-ability thinking? If so, what might be causing this? Are the causes related to your leadership practices or school policies in general – one example in which expectations may unwittingly be reduced is the allocation of a teaching assistant to support a child.

To what extent are the causes related to the skills or attitude of team members? What have you done or can you do to remove these low expectations?

• In the preceding discussion, we explored some of the dangers of using labels but concluded that there are some benefits to using them and that we are unlikely to be able to escape them. What can you do to ensure that labels attached to children are used positively to stretch expectations of their prospective achievements rather than limit their potential?

8/22




Providing for difference

In the previous section, we concluded that it is difficult to escape labels, but that how we respond to labels and cater for the differences they identify are of much greater importance. At the heart of the debate about provision for children with SEN is the extent to which the individual child should adapt him- or herself to the school environment or how far the school should adapt itself to the child. This is a familiar debate to those who work with people with disabilities generally and is often referred to as the medical versus the social model of disability. The distinction may be summarised as follows:

The medical or individual model of disability sees the problem of the child’s inability to engage with the curriculum, their peers and so on as the result of an impairment within the individual rather than as something that results from the way society is organised. Taking this approach leads those who favour it to suggest ‘compensatory’ strategies for meeting the needs of disabled children, such as the provision of special facilities that may segregate them from their peers.

The social model distinguishes between ‘impairment’ and ‘disability’. Disabled People’s International (DPI) defines impairment as the ‘functional limitation within the individual caused by physical, mental or sensory impairment’. A ‘disability’, on the other hand, is seen as the loss of opportunities to take part in society on an equal basis as a result of social or environmental factors.

Through the social model, disability is understood as an unequal relationship within a society in which the needs of people with impairments are often given little or no consideration. People with impairments are disabled by the fact that they are excluded from participation within the mainstream of society as a result of physical, organisational and attitudinal barriers.

Carson, 2009:10

You will recognise, no doubt, the implications of these models for school leaders. Inclusive approaches to education are largely predicated on a social model. Providing for the needs of children with disabilities is not about the children making adjustments to themselves; it is about others changing the context in which they function in order to allow the children to participate equally with their peers. For middle leaders, this may demand significant leadership skills and an opportunity to demonstrate their capacity for creative thinking. Many ‘barriers’ faced by children with disabilities are the result of the way we choose to arrange the world, and we can choose to arrange it differently.

The supporters of inclusion argue that this is also true of children with learning difficulties: middle leaders and their team members choose how to organise the teaching or pastoral arrangements in their area. This will include making decisions over pupil groups, curriculum materials, practical experiences, the type of extra-curricular activities on offer and so on. In summary, if middle leaders wish to be genuinely inclusive they will establish a culture in which a social rather than a medical model prevails.

9/22




Reflection: A social model?If you were asked to demonstrate that you adopted the approach proposed in the ‘social model’, what evidence would you provide for this?

How have you changed the way your area does things to enhance the inclusion of children with SEN?

Which areas are concerns and what can you do about this?

Do you have a zero-tolerance policy for some aspects of pupil behaviour? If so, is it possible to reconcile this with a social model of inclusion?

Leaders make a difference

So far we have argued that establishing the culture implied by a social model, which acknowledges and values difference and regards providing for difference as a professional challenge rather than a problem, is the one most likely to bring about the inclusion of pupils with SEN. We now consider the particular leadership skills and qualities needed to create such inclusive cultures.

There is a growing body of research evidence about how leaders can promote inclusive attitudes and practices, and whilst much of this research has focused on senior leaders, the findings have validity for middle leaders too. Chapman et al (2011) report that some highly inclusive schools are able to achieve ‘equity and excellence’ for pupils with SEN. This has been achieved as a result of the organisational conditions leaders have established, chief among which are as follows:

Culture and ethos

Culture is always a tricky concept to pin down and yet most of us are comfortable in talking about the culture of organisations. As might be expected, inclusive schools have cultures in which the diversity of pupils in all its forms, not just in relation to SEN, is regarded as a rich resource to be celebrated and valued. Celebrating diversity is an area in which middle leaders can show real leadership skills. Middle leaders with pastoral responsibilities have tremendous opportunities through assemblies and rewards systems; those with subject/phase responsibilities can promote the celebration of diversity through their approach to wall displays of children’s work, engaging with all types of children when they ‘walk’ their area and identifying areas of the curriculum that lend themselves to the promotion of inclusive attitudes.

10/22




Practice

Interestingly, Chapman et al (2011) do not identify a set of common ways of providing for children with SEN; in fact they find a diversity of practice. However, they highlight that:

What was common, however, was an emphasis on staff working together in ways that supported their efforts to adapt lesson plans in response to individual needs within their classes. In this context, they were often involved in balancing tensions between individual and group needs, drawing on child-to-child support and promoting access to the curriculum and educational experiences through adaptation and acquisition of additional resources.

Chapman et al, 2011:3; emphasis added

Teams led by middle leaders will often be among the most tightly-knit units within a school, and effective middle leaders can foster and use this cohesion in order to enhance provision for children with SEN. This might range from sharing expertise between team members to sharing responsibility for the management of particular pupils, particularly those with BESD.

Structures and systems

Chapman et al (2011) found that effective schools supported staff and pupils through the establishment of finely tuned systems, and of particular relevance to middle leaders, ensured staff had access to external support from within or outside of the school. For middle leaders, these systems may include those used to identify individual pupil needs, assessment systems for monitoring pupil progress; and systems for supporting and managing pupils with BESD. A passion for inclusion by middle leaders is not sufficient: it must be underpinned by robust systems and processes if team members are to fully embrace their leader’s vision.

Management and leadership

Chapman et al (2011) report that providing effectively for all children and improving their achievement was a source of professional pride. In practice this manifested itself in a strong emphasis on teamwork and on collaborative problem-solving and through this, middle leaders modelled a profound commitment to the learning of every child.

Much of what Chapman et al (2011) identify resonates with more general studies of the key characteristics of effective schools and leads to this question: is there something qualitatively different about leading for inclusion? Whilst Chapman et al concur that there are dangers in developing an inclusion agenda that is separate from the main school improvement agenda, they argue that to bring all leaders to the levels of excellence they found requires professional development that:

11/22




• offers opportunities for school leaders to become more sensitive to the differences between young people

• challenges their views of equality and diversity

• develops their skills in information-gathering about the barriers to diversity that exist in their schools

• fosters collaborative problem-solving

Thus whilst we can conclude that many of the characteristics necessary for successful inclusive leadership are, as we might have expected, generic leadership qualities, we are able to identify some specific practices, in particular an emphasis on teamwork and joint problem-solving, that seem to be a prevalent feature of schools with inclusive cultures.

Leading for equity and excellenceReflect on each of the four organisational conditions identified by Chapman et al (2011) and review your practice against them:

• Culture and ethos: how would you describe the ‘culture and ethos’ of your area of responsibility to a newly appointed member of staff? What would be the visible symbols of this culture? Where could they find an articulation of this culture?

• Practice: how effective have you been in getting staff to work together in the ways described by Chapman et al? If you feel that practice is good, why is this and what learning could you share with other middle leaders? If you feel practice needs to improve, how will you go about doing this? Are the changes needed cultural, organisational or both?

• Structures and systems: what feedback have you had from your team members on the effectiveness of the systems and processes you have put in place? Do team members feel that these support their needs? Are there aspects that you are dissatisfied with? Why is this and what will you do about it?

• Management and leadership: how do you model your profound commitment to the learning of every child, and in particular those with SEN? Can you give examples of things that you do?

12/22




A different pedagogy?

In the previous section, we focused on the need for middle leaders to be active in establishing an inclusive culture among their team members. We now consider their responsibility for the leadership of learning in their area and the need for middle leaders to have a firm grasp of what is an appropriate pedagogy for pupils with SEN.

Norwich and Lewis (2007) pose a long-standing question in this field: ‘How specialised is teaching children with disabilities and difficulties?’ One response to this question is provided by Davis et al (2004) in their comprehensive report for the DfES, Teaching Strategies and Approaches for Pupils with Special Educational Needs. Their review of the special education literature found that:

… there is a great deal of literature that might be construed as special education knowledge but… the teaching approaches and strategies themselves were not sufficiently differentiated from those which are used to teach all children to justify the term SEN pedagogy. Our analysis found that sound practices in teaching and learning in mainstream and special education literatures were often informed by the same basic research (eg Heward, 2003).

Davis et al, 2004:34; emphasis added

These findings suggest that on the one hand all teachers should feel confident that they have the professional skills expected of them in the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2012a):

have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs; those of high ability; those with English as an additional language; those with disabilities; and be able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them.

DfE, 2012a:7

On the other hand, it may be that classroom teachers lack specialist professional knowledge about specific types of special need or which strategies are most likely to be effective with particular groups of pupils. This leads Davis et al (2004) to make the case for specialist and mainstream staff within the school working together to share their knowledge and diversify their roles. Thus, the specialist knowledge brought by the SENCO, for example, should be viewed as part of the pedagogy used by the class teacher rather than as a distinct pedagogy. Middle leaders can extend this argument further and take the initiative by going beyond their own institutions to learn from, and with, colleagues from special schools. The DfE (2011) commend the lessons Lampton School learned through its participation in the London Leadership Strategy:

13/22




Utilising the skills of special school colleagues to support curriculum development, improv[ing] behaviour and rais[ing] the attainment of SEN pupils in mainstream schools has been an important part of the strategy.

DfE, 2011:61

This might take some mainstream middle leaders outside their comfort zones, but would that be such a bad thing? Reflect for a moment: do you know where there is outstanding special school practice in your area? Have you visited a special school recently?

Norwich and Lewis (2007) acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence to allow us to identify a specific special needs pedagogy and they argue for a different approach. They suggest that the notion of a ‘continua of teaching approaches’ might provide a better analytical framework. Effective teachers constantly adapt their teaching strategies often on a lesson-by-lesson basis, and even within an individual lesson in response to the needs of the children they are teaching. We can distinguish, however, between ‘normal’ adaptations to general teaching strategies of the sort that are used with most pupils, and the ‘specialised adaptations’ or ‘high-density’ teaching used for pupils with SEN. This is a nuanced discussion. Whilst pointing to a continua of teaching approaches, Norwich and Lewis (2007) do not believe that strategies across the continua will be appropriate for all children: some teaching strategies designed for children with learning difficulties will not be appropriate for children who do not have learning difficulties, and so on.

This raises the question: are these ‘specialised adaptations’ sufficiently different from the ‘normal’ pedagogy to represent a distinctive form of special needs pedagogy, or (as Norwich and Lewis suggest), are they the ‘intensification’ of strategies that sit on a continuum that can be used with all learners?

MacBeath et al (2006), in a report commissioned by the National Union of Teachers, offer another perspective. They found that teachers generally welcomed the trend for increased inclusion and supported the underlying principles behind the policy agenda. However, they were less confident that teachers have the skills necessary for effectively meeting the broader range of needs that occur in inclusive classrooms:

There is a significant lack of expertise and professional development in meeting a wide spectrum of needs. The importance of professional development, and lack of it, was consistently raised by teachers, heads and [teaching assistants] as a critical issue if inclusion policies were to have any prospect of success. School staff were too often left to fall back on common sense or ‘instinct’.

MacBeath et al, 2006:38

14/22




MacBeath et al do not dispute that ‘effective pedagogy may be effective pedagogy no matter the clientele’, but they question the ability of teachers to apply these ‘effective pedagogies’ equally well whatever the class size. Interestingly, MacBeath et al do not move to the conclusion that providing smaller classes will secure inclusion. Far from it. Whilst some very skilled teachers are able to effectively adapt their pedagogy when given smaller classes, less skilled teachers require a significant level of investment in their development. In practice, the authors observe, research has failed to identify any major change in teacher pedagogy when teachers are given smaller classes.

MacBeath et al (2006) point to an inherent cultural conservatism in the approach of teachers to pedagogy. There are a number of reasons for this conservatism but of particular interest to our discussion are the parts played by the heart and the head, the emotional and the rational when teachers make their choices over pedagogy. The case for adopting new pedagogies, such as more finely differentiated tasks or group working, will most often have a cerebral (rational) basis and teachers will often understand, accept and even espouse these arguments themselves. However, when they find themselves in an actual classroom situation, the focus of the teacher may be less on what is an appropriate learning strategy and more on:

the composition of the class and their likely response to a situation which allows pupils a degree of scope and freedom to decide for themselves, to move around the classroom at will.

MacBeath et al, 2006:14

In such scenarios teachers may ‘reach for the worksheet’ as a method of ‘control’. The above discussion needs to be put into context; in making these observations MacBeath et al refer in particular to the presence of ‘disruptive pupils’ in classrooms, and it may be that the teacher anxieties they observed are less severe for other types of SEN.

These findings are not in direct opposition to those articulated by Ainscow et al (2006) or Norwich (2006). There is a strong consensus among most writers in this field that the sheer complexity and range of needs combined with the diversity of school context militate against universal solutions or panaceas: but they do raise doubts about the ease with which teachers are able to apply what might be described as ‘routine pedagogies’ in all contexts without significant further investment in their professional development.

In 2010 Ofsted added further to this debate. In its generally critical report on provision for children with SEN they included this recommendation:

ensuring that schools do not identify pupils as having special educational needs when they simply need better teaching.

Ofsted, 2010:8; emphasis added

15/22




Whilst Ofsted’s observations produced newspaper headlines about the number of children placed on special needs registers by schools it is the reference to the need for ‘better’ rather than ‘different’ teaching that is most relevant to our discussion. Behind the statement is an assumption that providing for the needs of all children is more about good and bad teaching than it is about particular types of teaching.

The foregoing analysis suggests that there is not a distinct, separate SEN pedagogy and that mainstream teachers, with specialist help and guidance where appropriate, should be able to adapt from their teaching strategies for pupils with SEN. Whether all teachers feel confident in their ability to do this is another matter, and middle leaders may find that they spend more time developing staff confidence than staff skills.

A separate pedagogy?The preceding section has debated whether or not there is a distinctive SEN pedagogy. What do you think? In your professional experience, is it sufficient to guide teachers in the adaptation of existing teaching strategies (for example, differentiation), or do you feel that children with SEN require a different pedagogical approach? You might wish to discuss this with your SENCO in order to gain their insights.

Assessment for all, assessment of all?

Similar issues as those discussed above arise when we consider assessment provision for pupils with SEN. The great strides in assessment practices in schools and the positive impact this can have on pupils’ development, achieved through strategies such as Assessment for Learning (AfL), are well documented. Assessment is an integral part of the learning process and can impact positively or negatively upon the progress of children with SEN, as this extract from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector’s Annual Report 2010 illustrates:

In these schools poor achievement was related to teachers’ low expectations of what pupils could do, weak ongoing assessment of their progress and, in some, a lack of differentiation in teaching.

HMCI, 2011:11; emphasis added

16/22




Are there significant differences between the skills required to assess the progress of pupils with SEN and those without? Whilst the specific instruments used for particular assessments will differ, and the methodologies for recording progress and capturing evidence will vary, do teachers routinely draw from a common set of underlying principles as to what constitutes robust, evidence-based formative and summative assessment or do they require specialist knowledge of particular assessment techniques used only with children with SEN? Martin (2012), in her advice to SENCOs, suggests that:

Most of the methods of assessing progress (of pupils with SEND) mentioned above are standard practice for schools, and training comes in the form of whole-school, subject or team training related to standardisation and moderation of assessment levels. However, as the SENCO in your school you should check that whoever is giving the training includes reference to pupils with SEND, as some teachers may not know how to manage progression that is outside the norm.

Martin, 2012:33

Whilst Chapman et al (2011) point out that:

For some groups, such as students with sensory impairments or those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, the usual test and examination measures are often appropriate, although there remain problems regarding how best to compare the progress of cohorts in different schools. Measuring the progress of youngsters with more severe learning difficulties presents particular challenges.

Chapman et al, 2011:5

Providing for difference during assessments, for example by allowing some pupils different modes of response in classroom situations or additional time in examinations or tests, are now common practice in many schools. It is an area in which the actions of middle leaders can have a significant impact on provision: they can encourage creative approaches in the use of assessment techniques; provide additional resources during assessments for children with SEN; and foster a culture that facilitates all children being able to demonstrate their capabilities.

Assessment for all?Ofsted (2010) was critical of the ‘weak ongoing assessment’ of the progress of children with SEN. Consider this comment against current practice in your area of responsibility. Do you feel confident that Ofsted would report positively on your provision? Discuss this issue with your team members and the evidence you could provide to Ofsted to demonstrate that ongoing assessment was strong.

17/22




Difference within difference

Finally, we switch our attention from pedagogy and assessment to the welfare of SEN pupils and to issues that have troubled policy makers for a number of years – the distribution of pupils with SEN is not equal between particular groups within the school population. There are significant differences between the proportion of boys and girls with SEN, between groups from different ethnic origins and between different social groups.

2012 SEN – statement SEN – without a statement

Gender All 2.8% 17%

Boys 2.0% 21.8%

Girls 0.8% 12.2%

Ethnic origin White 1.6% 19%

Black Caribbean 4.0% 26.7

Source: DfE, 2012b (adapted)

We also know that rates of exclusion and absence are higher among pupils with SEN than other groups of pupils:

Pupils currently identified as having special educational needs are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, are much more likely to be absent or excluded from school, and achieve less well than their peers, both in terms of their attainment at any given age and in terms of their progress over time. Over the last five years, these outcomes have changed very little.

Ofsted, 2010:5

What might lie behind these differences? The causes are complex and multi-faceted; some will be external to the school but some will be a result of the child’s experience of school and the capacity of the school to meet the needs of all children equally effectively. The factors within the school’s control are: the curriculum it offers; the quality of teaching; the support it provides for each child; and the cultural values promoted by its leaders. What is certain is that these outcomes are not inevitable: research (Ofsted, 2010; Chapman et al, 2011) demonstrates that some schools make better provision than others.

18/22




Children with SEN are also more likely to experience bullying than other pupils:

The behaviour of other children can cause particular distress for disabled pupils and pupils with SEN. Disabled children and children with SEN are more likely to experience bullying than their peers and evidence suggests that the incidence of bullying for this group is increasing

DfE, 2011:69, emphasis added

These are uncomfortable and challenging findings, particularly when placed alongside Ofsted’s (2012) observation that even in schools with well-developed curriculum programmes to educate pupils about bullying disability was seldom covered as thoroughly as other aspects of diversity. It is possible for pupils with SEN to find themselves in a vicious circle in which their special needs or disabilities result in labelling, which may bring with it prejudice -based bullying, and which in turn leads to feelings of insecurity and disengagement from school life.

Fortunately, Ofsted’s report found many examples of excellent practice and school leaders who had established well-thought-out strategies for managing and preventing bullying that middle leaders can learn from. Many of these strategies will be very familiar and have been used by schools for a number of years but it is instructive to note the item. Ofsted placed first on its list of recommendations for headteachers:

The school has a set of clear, inclusive values that are understood and lived by all members of the school community.

Ofsted, 2010:5 (emphasis added)

Surely this goes to the heart of the matter? Systems and processes are essential but a commitment to inclusion has to go beyond this: it has to be an integral part of a leader’s value system. We stressed earlier that middle leaders, because of the role they play in directing the implementation of so many aspects of school policy, will often become the embodiment of the school’s commitment to the inclusion of children with SEN. After all, it is they rather than the head with whom most pupils, staff and parents or carers will interact. Whilst Ofsted’s recommendations were framed against the management of bullying they apply to the leadership of inclusion in general.

19/22




Concluding remarks

This thinkpiece has argued that Norwich’s (2006) notion of the ‘dilemmas of difference’ captures some of the fundamental challenges faced by school leaders who wish to establish inclusive cultures and practices. It highlights the complexities of treating everyone as equal but not the same and it suggests that whatever choices are made, there are no guarantees that leaders will get things right. Faced with this scenario what do leaders do? Fullan (1992) suggests that:

There is no point lamenting in the fact that the system is unreasonable and no percentage in waiting around for it to become more reasonable. It won’t… What is needed is to reframe the question. What does a reasonable leader do faced with impossible tasks?

Fullan, 1992:16–18

If we are to follow Fullan’s advice and frame it in the context of our discussions, it suggests that the inclusive middle leader will have:

• a set of inclusive values that they personally embody and model

• the courage to implement those values and sustain them when the prevailing culture may seem to militate against them, for example the importance attached to pupils with SEN in policy statements yet a failure to acknowledge the achievements of pupils with SEN in the data dashboard or performance tables

• a propensity for collaboration and sharing professional knowledge

• the ability to build a team ethos on inclusive values and that facilitates joint problem-solving

• sound professional knowledge about what works in classrooms and how general teaching strategies can be used to meet the needs of all pupils

• good emotional intelligence so that they know when and how to support colleagues who experience temporary difficulties when teaching children with SEN

• the resilience to live with ambiguity and uncertainty

• expectations that guide their practice and the resolution to challenge team members who fail to meet them

20/22




This latter set of expectations is crucial and includes expectations for pupils, for example by challenging those who engage in ‘fixed-ability’ thinking. The expectations of teachers bring to light some interesting insights: providing for children with SEN can challenge the professional competence of some teachers and may not always have the same appeal to some teachers as teaching ‘gifted’ children. Teaching children with SEN can also be emotionally draining on occasions. As a leader these are things you may recognise, understand and seek to manage. Your leadership is diminished, however, if you allow the expectations of your team for pupils with SEN to be a fraction lower than their expectations for all other pupils.

The ‘special education knowledge’ identified by Davis et al (2004) means that middle leaders and their teams cannot make the most effective provision for children with SEN on the basis of their own professional knowledge alone. There is an onus upon them to develop productive partnerships with the SENCO and other visiting professionals in the field of special education; and to draw upon the experience, expertise – and expectations – of colleagues from special schools.

Middle leaders also need to consider the expectations that relate to themselves. Teachers expect their leaders to be leading professionals. They expect them to know about pedagogy; they expect to be able to go to them for advice; and they expect them to live their values.

School leaders set the ethos that either welcomes or sidelines disabled children and children with SEN.

Lamb, 2009:22

21/22




References

Ainscow, M, Booth, T & Dyson, A, 2006, Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion, London, Routledge

Carson, G, 2009, The Social Model of Disability, Norwich, The Stationery Office

Chapman, C, Ainscow, M, Miles, S & West, M, 2011, Leadership that promotes the achievement of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities: full report, Nottingham, National College for School Leadership

DfES, 2001, Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, Nottingham, Department for Education and Skills

DfE, 2011, Support and Aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability, London, Department for Education

DfE, 2012a, Teachers’ Standards, London, Department for Education

DfE, 2012b, Special Educational Needs in England: First Statistical Release, London, Department for Education and Skills

Fullan, M, 1992, What’s Worth Fighting for in Headship? Milton Keynes, Open University Press

HMCI, 2011, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector 2010/11, London, Ofsted

Hornby, G, 2012, Inclusive education for children with special educational needs: a critique of policy and practice in New Zealand, Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1,(1), 52–60

Lamb, B, 2009, The Lamb Inquiry: Special educational needs and parental confidence, London, Department for Children, Schools and Families

MacBeath, J, Galton, M, Steward, S, MacBeath, A & Page, C, 2006, The Costs of Inclusion, Cambridge, University of Cambridge Press

Martin, J, 2012, Making and measuring progress for pupils with SEND, London, Optimus Education ebooks

Norwich, B, 2006, Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: international perspectives. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6–9 September. Available at www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/ 161083.htm [accessed 10 August 2013]

Norwich, B & Lewis, A, 2007, How specialized is teaching children with disabilities and difficulties?, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 127–150

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/ 161083.htm

22/22




Ofsted, 2012, No place for bullying, London, Ofsted. Available at www.ofsted.gov.uk/ resources/110179 [accessed 13 August 2013]

Ofsted, 2010, The special educational needs and disability review, London, Ofsted. Available at www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematicreports/The-special-educational-needs-and-disability-review [accessed 13 August 2013]

University of Cambridge, 2013, Learning without Limits [online]. Available at http://learningwithoutlimits.educ.cam.ac.uk/about/key.html

Youth Driver Trust, 2013, The fish in the tree: why we are failing children with dyslexia [online]. Available at http://driveryouthtrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DYT-Fishinthe-Tree-LR.pdf

www.ofsted.gov.uk/ resources/110179

www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/ Documents-by-type/Thematicreports/The-special-educational-needs-and-disability-review

http://driveryouthtrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DYT-FishintheTree-LR.pdf

© Crown copyright 2013, National College for Teaching and Leadership.

Reproduced with the permission of the National College for Teaching and Leadership under delegated authority from the Controller of HMSO. To reuse this material, please contact the Membership Team at the National College or email [email protected].

PB1046/LEVEL1/SEN/TP