Identification of SEN: is consistency a realistic or worthy aim?

I D E N T I F I C A T I O N O F S E N

Identification of SEN: is consistency a realistic orworthy aim?

SIMON ELLIS and JANET TOD

The SEN Green Paper and OFSTED have raised con-cerns about both variability in, and apparent over-identification of, SEN. This article draws on the authors’research into teachers’ experiences of identification ofSEN. Findings, along with critical exploration of thecurrent 2001 SEN Code of Practice guidance and pro-posals for reform outlined in the 2011 SEN GreenPaper, suggest that an overemphasis on trying to secureconsistency is misconstrued as a route to securingimproved outcomes for pupils with special educationalneeds. The identification of SEN in schools requiresassessing the dynamic interaction between the pupil’sunique learning characteristics, the class group learningenvironment and the demands of meeting prescribedcurricular learning outcomes. Such acknowledgementrenders variability in SEN identification rates betweenschools as an expected consequence of local responsiveplanning and provision, rather than an anomaly to beeliminated.sufl_1514 59..66

Key words: identification, assessment, curriculum, Codeof Practice.

The national policy context

Warnock’s notion that about one in six children at any timeand up to one in five children at some time during theirschool career will require some form of special educationalprovision is reflected in national figures for special educa-tional needs (SEN) (DES, 1978). In 2006 the House ofCommons Education and Skills Committee stated thataround 1.45 million children were categorised as havingsome sort of SEN in England in 2005 – that is, 18% of allpupils. The DfE 2011 SEN Green Paper states that inJanuary 2010, 21% of the school population were identifiedas having SEN. Whether Warnock’s figure was a very goodprediction or reflects the possibility that if an anticipatedproportion is stated it influences identification rates is opento question. However the idea that having about 20% is thenorm for schools has become part of educational discourse,such that when, among a gathering of special educationalneeds co-ordinators (SENCos), phrases like ‘we have 45%

SEN’ or ‘we have 15% SEN’ are used it leads to particularassumptions about the respective demands on schools. Suchdiscussion rarely extends to consideration of whether suchfigures might reveal more about the interpretation of theterm ‘special educational needs’ that informs identificationin these establishments. What is clear from OFSTED (2010)and the 2011 SEN Green Paper (DfE, 2011) is that thelong-standing attachment to Warnock’s 20% is likely to endand schools – and SENCos in particular – will be challengedto consider how they identify whether a child can be con-sidered to have special educational needs.

The current concerns expressed by OFSTED (2010) andDfE (2011) regarding variability in identification ratesbetween and within local authorities (LAs) are not new.OFSTED had remarked on this issue in 2004, stating:

‘The inconsistency with which pupils are defined ashaving SEN continues to be a concern. Some schools usethe term to cover all who are low attaining, or simplybelow average, on entry, whether or not the cause islearning difficulty’ (OFSTED, 2004, p. 10).

The details in the later OFSTED (2010) report on the degreeof variability revealed that though Warnock’s 20% hadremained relatively stable as a national proportion of pupils,the range of LA percentages that contributed to this variedconsiderably. The proportions of children and young peoplewith Statements ranged from 0.8% to 3.9% across all 152LAs. For pupils identified with special educational needsbut without Statements, the range was 12.7% to 29.4% forall LAs and 14.6% to 27.1% for the 22 LAs visited byOFSTED. Inspectors frequently found that pupils with aStatement in one LA had a similar level of need to thoseprovided for at School Action Plus in another.

Of significance for schools and teachers was the differencein tone of the 2010 OFSTED report. In 2004 OFSTED hadmerely speculated on the extent to which differences inidentification mattered, commenting:

‘Clearly, if pupils are not achieving their potential this isa concern, regardless of whether the school has identifiedthem as having SEN. However, looseness in the use ofthe SEN designation does not help to focus on the actionneeded to resolve problems and, in the worst cases, it candistract schools’ attention from doing what is necessary

bs_bs_banner

© 2012 The Authors. Support for Learning © 2012 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, MA 02148, USA.

to improve the provision they make for all low or belowaverage attainers’ (OFSTED, 2004, p. 10).

The 2010 report was far more critical in its suggestions ofthe reasons why schools might be over-identifying, stating:

● ‘Some pupils are being wrongly identified as havingSEN and relatively expensive additional provision isbeing used to make up for poor day-to-day teaching andpastoral support’ (OFSTED, 2010, p. 9).

● ‘Some schools visited believed that identifying morepupils with special educational needs resulted in a posi-tive influence on the school’s contextual value-addedscore. This provided an incentive for higher levels ofpupils to be identified as having special educationalneeds’ (OFSTED, 2010, p. 22).

● ‘In local areas where the formula for funding schoolstook into account the proportions of children identifiedas having special educational needs, this gave anobvious motivation for schools to identify more suchchildren’ (OFSTED, 2010, p. 23).

Less headline grabbing than allegations of bad teaching andmanipulation of figures for financial or reputational gain butnonetheless implicitly critical of schools and LAs was theobservation that ‘despite extensive statutory guidance, theconsistency of the identification of special educationalneeds varied widely, not only between different local areasbut also within them’ (OFSTED, 2010, p. 7). The inferencewas that despite being told clearly how to do it, schools andLAs were getting identification wrong.

The OFSTED report emerged a few months after the elec-tion of the Coalition Government and in the wake of severalother publications (Warnock, 2005; House of CommonsEducation and Skills Committee, 2006; Macbeath et al.,2006; Lamb, 2009) that cumulatively had suggested all wasnot well under the previous Labour Government’s policy forSEN. Its findings are reflected in, and are used to provide arationale for, many of the proposed changes within the 2011Green Paper.

Teachers’ experience of the identificationof SEN

As part of a research project (Ellis et al., 2012) commis-sioned by the NASUWT, the authors of this article exploredthe question:

‘What is teachers’ experience of the relationship betweenthe definition of SEN in the Special Educational NeedsCode of Practice (DfES, 2001) and the identification ofSEN in their schools?’

This was one of six research questions intended to explorehow teachers were experiencing policy and practice for SENand inclusion in their schools. The research project drew on

over 1,500 responses to an online survey from a range ofteachers in primary, secondary and special schools. Casestudy data were gathered through interviewing over 100teachers in a range of schools from four LAs. The identifi-cation question became particularly pertinent in the light ofOFSTED (2010) and the Green Paper (DfE, 2011).

Not surprisingly there was variability within the responsesto the survey and interviews. The key findings reportedbelow have been taken from a synthesis of the responsesto the survey and data gathered from the case study visitsto schools.

Key findings

● Those teachers involved in identifying SEN expressedmore confidence when either there was a clear need for‘special educational provision’ (DfES, 2001, p. 6) to bemade for the pupil, or the pupil had a ‘label’ such asdyslexia or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There wasless clarity where it was necessary to make a judgementbased on whether the pupil’s current performance rep-resented ‘a significantly greater difficulty in learningthan the majority of children of the same age’ (DfES,2001, p. 6).

● SENCos in particular recognised that the definition ofSEN and other elements within the Code of Practice,such as the triggers for School Action, are open tointerpretation. As such they were fully aware of howidentification rates vary between schools.

● Many secondary school staff interviewed highlightedthe pervasive effects of long-term delays and differ-ences in basic skills such as language and literacy onattainment and behaviour across the curriculum. Someschools experienced difficulties in determining whetherthe range and extent of social, emotional and cognitivedifficulties could reasonably be classified as SENagainst the criteria set out in the Special EducationalNeeds Code of Practice (DfES, 2001).

● Teachers stressed that they were expected to meetpupils’ special educational needs within the groupsetting of the classroom. As such there was a feasibilityissue linked to the number of pupils in any one class,the range of needs reflected, the subject being taughtand the availability of additional support. This influ-enced decisions surrounding provision that wasrequired for the pupil to make expected rates ofprogress.

The following quotes taken from interview data are illustra-tive of teachers’ experiences in relation to identification ofSEN in practice.

‘It’s not easy (i.e. identification) as a subject teacher – Ihave children with very low literacy and low attention –they are very difficult to teach, but are they SEN? I don’tknow – do they need extra support? – Yes – have we gotthat? – No – do they disrupt others – Yes’ (secondaryMFL teacher).

60 Support for Learning · Volume 27 · Number 2 · 2012 © 2012 The Authors. Support for Learning © 2012 NASEN

‘Dyslexia is easy to identify . . . SEN identification givesme an explanation – like dyslexia or ASD – but MLD isnot an explanation – SEBD . . . that’s different becausethere is no easy answer’ (secondary subject teacher).

‘Statemented children have become more complex andyou cannot get a statement for SEBD unless it’s medical’(headteacher – special).

‘We have to be concerned with early identification andtreatment so how does this fit with over identification?’(headteacher – secondary).

These quotes point to a number of key issues that influenceidentification of SEN:

1. Teachers have more confidence in identification whenthe child has a recognised label or diagnosis such asdyslexia, ASD or attention deficit hyperactivity disor-der (ADHD). These types of need are associated withclear diagnostic criteria. For pupils without a recogn-ised label or diagnosis teachers were less confident asthey had to determine whether the difficulties experi-enced in learning constituted ‘a significantly greaterdifficulty in learning than the majority of children ofthe same age’ (DfES, 2001, p. 6) that could be classi-fied as a learning difficulty as defined in the Code ofPractice.

2. Schools reported increasing difficulty in categorisingpupils who exhibit behavioural, emotional and socialdifficulties (BESD) unless such learning difficultiescould be attributed to a medical cause such as ASD. Itappears that there is an intention within the GreenPaper (DfE, 2011) to dissect the current category ofBESD and either place pupils under a different cat-egory of SEN where a specific cause can be found(e.g. speech, language and communication needs) orremove them from the SEN framework, constructingthem instead as part of a vulnerable group due to otherfactors such as their home lives. The issue that contin-ues to confront teachers and others concerned with theidentification process is the point at which a pupil’ssocial and emotional problems are so entrenched intheir very being and pervasive across all contexts thatthey meet the criteria for a special educational need,regardless of original cause. Such pupils would seemto have a ‘learning difficulty’ when placed in the groupsetting of the classroom and may require additionalor extra provision.

3. Teachers experienced the paradox of operating under aCode of Practice that emphasises difficulties in learningthrough its reference to ‘a significantly greater diffi-culty in learning than the majority of children of thesame age’ (DfES, 2001, p. 6) and triggers for actionbased on inadequate progress while at the same timeencountering Government documents (e.g. DfES,2005a; DfE, 2011) which remark with concern thatnationally children and young people identified throughsuch criteria do not attain as well as other pupils.

4. The point at which the provision a school makes canbe considered ‘additional to, or otherwise differentfrom, the educational provision made generally forchildren of their age in schools maintained by theLEA, other than special schools’ (DfES, 2001, p. 6) isincreasingly difficult to gauge. The policy and philoso-phy of inclusion have encouraged schools to extendtheir practice to include a far broader range of learnersto the point that in some schools practice that mightonce have been viewed as additional or different isnow part of the school’s standard offer. Terminologyemerging from National Strategy materials (e.g. DfES,2002, 2005b, 2006) such as catch-up interventions,waves of intervention and provision mapping may alsohave contributed to uncertainty as to whether any pro-vision was additional and different or ‘school-basedcatch-up support which is normally available’ (DfE,2011, p. 9).

5. Using the Code of Practice definition of SEN pre-sented problems where the child had a recognised needbut the nature of this need required teachers to takevery minimal ‘additional or different action to enablethe pupil to learn more effectively’ (DfES, 2001, p.52), often little more than maintaining a level ofawareness. The other issue that emerged was whethera child could be identified as having special educa-tional needs if a need for ‘additional to, or otherwisedifferent’ provision was recognised but that provisionwas not available in the school or from elsewhere.Both points can be summarised as reflecting the ques-tion of whether a child can be recorded as SchoolAction or School Action Plus when the action is eithernot available or not required.

The SEN Code of Practice: clearor confusing?

As previously mentioned, the implication of the commentthat variation in identification was ‘despite extensive statu-tory guidance’ (OFSTED, 2010, p. 7) is that this guidanceis clear. This would seem to be far from the case. As theprincipal document guiding identification, the Code ofPractice contains numerous interpretable phrases including‘additional and different’, ‘progress is not adequate’, ‘theschool’s usual differentiated curriculum offer and strate-gies’, ‘differentiated learning opportunities’ and ‘behaviourmanagement techniques usually employed in the setting’as well the previously mentioned ‘significantly greater dif-ficulty in learning than the majority of children of thesame age’ and ‘educational provision made generally forchildren of their age’. Such phrases are not conducive toconsistency.

In understanding the origins and nature of current issuesrelated to identification it is necessary to explore themeaning held currently and historically by the term ‘SEN’.One of the core issues for policy and practice in relation to

© 2012 The Authors. Support for Learning © 2012 NASEN Support for Learning · Volume 27 · Number 2 · 2012 61

‘SEN’ is that the term covers such a wide range of indi-vidual differences, difficulties and delays. Thereforetalking about children with special educational needs asthough this is a homogeneous group is problematic. TheCode faces the challenge of needing to cover a range ofneeds from those children with profound and multiplelearning difficulties through to others whose learning dif-ficulties are moderate and in some cases either not easilyobservable or only apparent in some contexts and notothers, as might be the case for a pupil with social, emo-tional and behavioural difficulties. It should also berecognised that ‘SEN’ is essentially an administrative andsocially constructed category; it tells teachers little aboutthe child who will be sitting in front of them, except that heor she meets a set of largely subjective, interpretable cri-teria designed to identify SEN. This is different to, forexample, a diagnosis of autism which might link to par-ticular bodies of knowledge and research that could informteaching strategies or provide some understanding of howthe child is likely to be experiencing the world.

The traditional medical model of SEN that dominated think-ing for the majority of the 20th century was based on theview that difficulties resided solely in the child. This isillustrated in Hollander’s (1916) description of childrenwithin the official category of feeble minded as sufferingfrom:

‘such an incomplete cerebral development that they arebehind other children, at the same age and station in life,in mind and conduct, and do not profit by their environ-ment and by education to the same extent as averagechildren’ (Hollander, 1916, p. 46).

Although reference is made to the environment the implica-tion is that this remains largely unchanged. The fact that thechild does not ‘profit by their environment and by educationto the same extent as average children’ is a measure of thechild’s level of difficulty.

The policy trajectory from segregation to integration andsubsequently inclusion is well documented (e.g. Ellis et al.,2008). The salient point however is that the Code of Practicedefinition of SEN predates the Labour Government’s com-mitment (DfEE, 1997) to inclusion, appearing in a verysimilar form in the 1981 Education Act. In its reference toboth ‘a significantly greater difficulty in learning than chil-dren of the same age’ and the ‘educational provision madegenerally for children of their age’ it is not that dissimilar toHollander’s reference points. It could be argued thereforethat current issues related to consistency in identification arethe inevitable outcome of a definition of SEN that has itsorigins prior to global changes to policy trajectories forspecial education that place increased emphasis on identi-fying and overcoming situational and locational ‘barriers tolearning and participation’ (Booth and Ainscow, 2002, p. 4).As soon as the learning environment, in the broadest sense,is accepted as a variable, the notion of ‘educational provi-sion made generally for children of their age’ no longer

functions as a fixed reference point in the process of iden-tification. That the child requires provision additional anddifferent to that which is generally available may, in somecases, say more about the breadth and quality of the provi-sion than the child’s level of need. This is reflected inOFSTED’s view that:

‘nearly one fifth of the schools visited suggested that theyprovided many interventions that could be considered“additional” and “different” when, in other schools, suchprovision was regarded as the norm’ (OFSTED, 2010,p. 40).

Despite these issues, within the survey conducted as part ofthe NASUWT research project only 10% of the 1,295 main-stream respondents and 12% of the 242 special schoolrespondents favoured the abandonment of the term ‘SEN’and associated procedures. There was rather more supportfor the Code of Practice to be revised (35% mainstream,47% special). From the case study interviews with head-teachers, SENCos and teachers it appears that, althoughrecognising the subjective nature of the identificationprocess, there is not significant concern in schools regardingidentification. Those with leadership responsibility for com-piling SEN registers, usually headteachers and SENCos,were confident about how they identified SEN, irrespectiveof whether their identification rates were considered to behigher or lower than national or local averages.

Can the current identification criteria forSEN deliver consistency?

Despite Government concern regarding children being‘incorrectly identified as having SEN when they may haveother non-SEN related difficulties’ (DfE, 2011, p. 67), itshould be recognised that it is difficult to define what‘correct’ would be, given the broad nature of the SEN cat-egory and the need to make judgements regarding factorsrelating to the child and the environment. The complexity –and arguably necessity – of identification of SEN focusingon the interaction between the individual and their environ-ment is captured in a paragraph buried deep within theCode, which states:

‘The assessment process should always be fourfold. Itshould focus on the child’s learning characteristics, thelearning environment that the school is providing for thechild, the task and the teaching style. It should be recog-nised that some difficulties in learning may be caused orexacerbated by the school’s learning environment oradult/child relationships. This means looking carefully atsuch matters as classroom organisation, teaching materi-als, teaching style and differentiation in order to decidehow these can be developed so that the child is enabled tolearn effectively’ (DfES, 2001, p. 44).

Within this description there is acknowledgement that thechild brings something to the situation, expressed in terms


of ‘learning characteristics’, but that the degree of diffi-culty experienced is also influenced by all aspects of theenvironment. This effectively means that in identifying SENit is necessary to grapple with combining a range of criteriathat offer varying levels of consistency and reliability.

1. The child’s learning characteristics: These could bemeasured against normative tables and charts forsame-aged peers, giving some assurance of consis-tency – albeit within the standard errors ofmeasurement of the tests used. Although consistencyof measurement may not be the main concern therehas been recognition that such measures do notremain stable over time with children having bothpeaks and troughs of progress in development, andthat ‘consistency’ of measure of SEN at any one pointrisks setting and maintaining either low or unrealisticexpectations over time depending on the nature andcourse of the child’s condition.

2. The learning environment provided for the child: In amainstream school the typical learning environment inwhich the child spends most of their time is a class of25–30 with one teacher and possibly one or more addi-tional adults. The difficulties a child experiences inlearning in this context are likely to be different to thoseexperienced in one-to-one teaching or in a small groupwhere it is feasible for the adults to monitor moreclosely and be immediately responsive to the child’sresponse to teaching. It is also necessary to recognisethat there are numerous variables affecting the child’sexperience and response in a class of 25–30 includ-ing the task, the teacher, peers and the availability ofadditional or specialist resources. Consequently iden-tification of SEN will vary between schools and some-times even between classes.

It is noteworthy when considering the increase in thenumber of pupils with special educational needs thatthe number of pupils with behavioural, emotional andsocial difficulties has increased by 23% between 2005and 2010, the number of pupils with speech, languageand communication needs has increased by 58%, andthe number of children with autistic spectrum disorderhas increased by 61%, to 56,000 pupils (DfES, 2005c;DfE, 2010). Children who experience particular diffi-culties in forming the relationships that underpineffective learning are likely to be particularly disadvan-taged in the typical learning environment of a class of25–30 pupils and vulnerable to delays in progress andlow attainment.

3. The task: The nature of the task given to the child is afactor in the identification of SEN. The term ‘differen-tiation’ is typically applied to the process of makingtasks more accessible, relevant and achievable forpupils. The Code’s reference to ‘the school’s usual dif-ferentiated curriculum offer’ makes it clear that theneed for differentiation is not an indicator that the childhas special educational needs. However there is adilemma in determining at what point the level of dif-ferentiation represents provision that is ‘additional to,

or otherwise different from, the educational provisionmade generally for children of their age in schoolsmaintained by the LEA, other than special schools’(DfES, 2001, p. 6).

The tasks that pupils are required to undertakecannot be discussed in isolation from changes atnational policy level. For example, the English Bacca-laureate, being based on a set of five subjects that arelargely language and literacy based, may disadvantagechildren with special educational needs and others whoexperience hidden language and literacy difficulties. Itmay also cause others to be identified as having specialeducational needs because their difficulties are exacer-bated in these types of subject.

4. Teaching style: While the majority of pupils adapt tothe different teaching styles to which they areexposed, some pupils, including some with specialeducational needs, react differently. OFSTED (2010)makes reference to both ‘poor’ and ‘good’ teaching. Inpractice, however, although certain broad characteris-tics of ‘good teaching’ have been identified throughresearch and via OFSTED reporting on practice, whatis ‘good’ for one pupil may be experienced as ‘poor’by another. Dunne et al.’s work on Effective Teachingand Learning for Pupils in Low Attaining Groupsillustrated that it would be difficult to identify a spe-cific teaching style that worked. They found that‘teachers had a variety of teaching styles whichentailed relating to pupils in different ways; somewere more distant and formal, others more informaland chatty, cracking jokes . . . whatever the teachingstyle and whatever the disciplinary approach, success-ful classroom relations seemed to be based on mutualrespect’ (Dunne et al., 2007, p. 84). The extent towhich the child responds to the teacher’s teachingstyle and that teacher’s capacity to adapt this are vari-ables influencing identification of the pupil as havingspecial educational needs.

Are the Government’s ‘solutions’ to the issueof inconsistency in the identification of SENlikely to be effective?

In looking at the range of interacting variables within anyschool or classroom context, and given that schools’ provi-sion for diversity cannot be ‘standardised’, it is unsurprisingthat variability in identification rates of SEN has remainedan enduring issue for policy makers and parents. It is worthconsidering briefly whether the Government’s ‘solutions’ tothis issue are likely to be effective.

A change of criteria?

The Green Paper proposal is to replace existing SEN Codeof Practice categories of School Action and School ActionPlus with a new single school-based SEN category. This


change is likely to result in a reduction of numbers of pupilsidentified as having special educational needs, particularlythose currently identified as School Action. There may alsobe some reduction in variability due to changes to identifi-cation criteria. However these changes to criteria andprocess will serve only to reconstruct the size, nature andfunding of the SEN population. There would still be indi-viduals, categorised or not, who would make less progressin the group setting of their classroom than that made bytheir same-aged peers and whose needs would still have tobe met. These will include:

● those pupils who have a pervasive and significant learn-ing difficulty but for whom a ‘root cause’, such as amedical condition, is not clearly identifiable – as mightbe the case in medical conditions, or pupils who meetclear diagnostic criteria for SEN;

● pupils in schools that have 20% underachieving – theirlearning needs risk being attributed to ‘poor teaching’or lack of appropriate ‘generalised’ provision;

● those who have specific difficulties in learning withinthe group setting of the classroom, that is, those withsignificant social, emotional and behavioural difficul-ties who do not meet criteria for ‘root cause’;

● those with language and literacy delays/differences thatare not attributable to a ‘root cause’ but nonethelessrender them vulnerable to low achievement whenjudged against predominantly literacy-based learningoutcomes.

Many SENCos already have a role that extends to respon-sibilities for other vulnerable groups. It seems likely thatSENCos will still have a role to play in relation to thosepupils who may not meet the revised criteria to be categor-ised as having special educational needs but neverthelessexperience barriers to learning and participation that needto be addressed. It is important that simply because theremay be fewer ‘SEN’ pupils, attribution for concerns aboutprogress is not simply made against teaching quality.Teachers will still need support in addressing the different‘learning behaviours’ (Ellis and Tod, 2009) that individualpupils bring to their classroom which impact on their andothers’ progress, irrespective of whether these pupils havebeen allocated to an SEN category.

Change of guidance?

The Government intends to bring about increased consis-tency by ‘simplifying and improving the statutory guidance’on the appropriate identification of SEN (DfE, 2011, p. 12).As this article has illustrated, the Code of Practice strugglesto provide clarity to the process of identification. It wasissued in 2001 to replace the original Code (DfE, 1994). Alot has changed in this time. Many schools have developedtheir provision in response to the increased diversity of theirpupil population, teachers have grown used to their respon-sibility for teaching all pupils including those with specialeducational needs, and the use of data to monitor progress

closely and target intervention is well developed. It is to beexpected that guidance would need to be changed from 2001to 2012.

Adjustments to, or renewal of, guidance in identification ofSEN should be seen as an endeavour to assess the qualityand efficacy of the interaction between the pupil and theirlearning environment – not just as an exercise to reducevariability and tackle perceived over-identification of SEN.This would serve to support teachers and schools in bringingabout improvements to these crucial interactions – notblame the learning environment and seek to find a ‘cause’for individual difference.

Although it is currently accepted that the Pupil Premiumcan be spent on a range of provisions to meet the needs ofthe school’s intake (SENCO Update, 2011/2012) there willbe a requirement for these provisions to have a positiveimpact.

SENCos are likely to be involved in rigorous assessment of‘positive impact’, although ‘impact’ is likely to be weightedin favour of progress made in attainment, particularlyEnglish and maths. There will be a need to focus on the‘interaction’ between the pupil and the Pupil Premiumby developing monitoring and evaluation criteria thataddresses the question: ‘what works for which pupil underwhat condition?’ Such data will allow decisions to be madeabout adjustments and/or changes to provision that mayinvolve attention to the group mix, teaching style andassessment criteria. As an example, one pupil may respondpositively to being given ‘challenging’ targets as part of theadditional provision while another may see this as scary orthreatening.

This does not mean that the provision itself is either‘working’ or ‘not working’ for the target group. If we look athaving ‘special educational needs’ or ‘learning difficulty’from the pupil’s perspective it is an ongoing experience thathas cognitive, social and emotional components. As suchany change to the pupil’s interactions with the curriculum,their relationships with others and their perceptions ofself-efficacy and control could reasonably be included inevaluation criteria designed to measure progress in learning.SENCos can have a crucial role in the development of suchcriteria which it is hoped may restore the balance betweenmeasure of attainment and measure of achievements as indi-cators of progress in learning.

Teacher training?

Teachers are not a homogeneous group in terms of theirtraining needs in relation to SEN identification. Within theresearch (Ellis et al., 2012) teachers do not report a particu-lar problem in this area, though it should be recognised thatany training in ‘revised’ criteria has the potential to lead tosome increased consistency and a reduction in ‘over-identification’. Only a percentage of teachers are directly


involved in categorisation of SEN with many acting as an‘alert’ system that will then trigger involvement of theirSENCo and other staff and agencies. There is a risk that ifthere is an undue focus on reducing numbers of pupilsidentified as having special educational needs the veryimportant early identification of learning difficulties byclass and subject teachers may be threatened, particularly ifthere is a hint that raising concerns may risk attributions of‘poor or inadequate teaching’. Even if this is a valid attri-bution the pupil is still experiencing a learning need andshould not be expected to wait until a teacher receives moretraining or measurable improvements to teaching are made.Early identification of learning delays, difference or diffi-culties should remain on the SENCo’s agenda as an issue forin-school training even in the light of increased nationaltraining for SEN teachers. Similarly SENCos will continueto need to support teachers in meeting the needs of theirpupils, including those with special educational needs, inorder to address the issue of feasibility in relation to whatprovision can be provided in the group setting of the class-room to meet specific learning needs.

Conclusion: is consistency in identification aworthy aim?

The concern with establishing national consistency withinthe identification of SEN may be a distraction from themore worthy aim of improving educational outcomes forthe group of pupils who are the focus of this attention. Aconsiderably higher degree of consistency could, forexample, be achieved by a measure such as an IQ test orsimilar standardised test and a prescribed set of measuresthat every mainstream school must have available within its‘standard differentiated curriculum offer and as part ofcatch-up support which is normally available’ (DfE, 2011,p. 9). This would serve to filter out to a considerable degreethe complex interaction between the pupil’s uniquecharacteristics and experience and their school learningenvironment which is a key source of variability in theidentification of SEN. However, while problematic forpolicy makers and others who seek consistency, it is anunderstanding of this complex interaction that providesschools and teachers with a powerful focus for action.Through manipulation of aspects of the environment it ispossible to influence this interaction positively to bringabout improvements to the learning outcomes for pupilswho experience learning difficulties, delays and differencein mainstream school settings. Norwich (1990, 2002) hasargued compellingly in the past in favour of a bio-psychosocial approach to understanding and identifyingspecial educational needs which recognises and responds tothe combination of the complex range of interacting bio-logical, psychological and social factors that influencechildren’s learning.

Criteria for SEN may change and as a consequence theremay be fewer pupils categorised as having special educa-

tional needs. The curriculum is also likely to change, as arepriorities for educational outcomes. Learning is however adynamic process, as is the experience of learning difficulty.Such a difficulty is always ‘significant’ for the individualand requires attention to the cognitive, social and emotionalrelationships that underpin learning in school settings.SENCos are fully aware of this, which will add coherence totheir role at a time when the SEN Green Paper (DfE, 2011)continues its journey from paper to practice.

References

BOOTH, T. and AINSCOW, M. (2002) The Index for Inclusion. Bristol:CSIE.

DES (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee ofEnquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and YoungPeople (the ‘Warnock Report’). London: HMSO.

DfE (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment ofSpecial Educational Needs. London: DfE.

DfE (2010) Statistical First Release: Special Educational Needs inEngland: January 2010. [Online at http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000939/index.shtml]. Accessed 02/03/12.

DfE (2011) Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educa-tional Needs and Disability. Nottingham: DfE.

DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children. London: DfEE.DfES (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. Nottingham:

DfES.DfES (2002) Including All Children in the Literacy Hour and Daily Math-

ematics Lesson. Nottingham: DfES.DfES (2005a) Higher Standards, Better Schools for All. Nottingham:

DfES.DfES (2005b) Leading on Inclusion. Nottingham: DfES.DfES (2005c) Statistical First Release: Special Educational Needs in

England: January 2005. [Online at http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000584/index.shtml]. Accessed 02/03/12.

DfES (2006) Effective Leadership: Ensuring the Progress of Pupils withSEN and/or Disabilities. Nottingham: DfES.

DUNNE, M., HUMPHREYS, S., SEBBA, J., DYSON, A., GALLAN-NAUGH, F. and MUIJS, D. (2007) Effective Teaching and Learning forPupils in Low Attaining Groups. Nottingham: DCSF.

ELLIS, S. and TOD, J. (2009) Behaviour for Learning: ProactiveApproaches to Behaviour Management. Abingdon: Routledge.

ELLIS, S., TOD, J. and GRAHAM-MATHESON, L. (2008) Special Edu-cational Needs and Inclusion: Reflection and Renewal. Birmingham:NASUWT.

ELLIS, S., TOD, J. and GRAHAM-MATHESON, L. (2012) Special Edu-cational Needs and Inclusion: Reflection, Renewal and Reality.Birmingham: NASUWT.

HOLLANDER, B. (1916) Abnormal Children (Nervous, Mischievous,Precocious and Backward). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner andCo. Ltd.

HOUSE OF COMMONS EDUCATION AND SKILLS COMMITTEE(2006) Special Educational Needs: Third Report of Session 2005–06Volume I. London: The Stationery Office.

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

MACBEATH, J., GALTON, M., STEWARD, S., MACBEATH, A. andPAGE, C. (2006) The Costs of Inclusion. Cambridge: Victoire Press.

NORWICH, B. (1990) Reappraising Special Needs Education. London:Cassell.

NORWICH, B. (2002) Education, inclusion and individual differences:recognising and resolving dilemmas. British Journal of EducationalStudies, 50, 4, 482–502.

OFSTED (2004) Special Educational Needs and Disability: TowardsInclusive Schools. London: OFSTED.

OFSTED (2010) Special Educational Needs and Disability Review: AStatement is Not Enough. London: OFSTED.


SENCO UPDATE (2011/2012) Enhanced pupil premium: backdoor SENfunding? SENCO Update, 131.

WARNOCK, M. (2005) Special Educational Needs: A New Look. London:Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

CorrespondenceSimon EllisSenior Lecturer, Centre for Enabling Learning

Faculty of EducationCanterbury Christ Church UniversityHall Place Enterprise CentreHarbledownCanterburyKent CT2 9AGEmail: [email protected]


Documents

Identification of SEN: is consistency a realistic or worthy aim?