RICHMOND LEA PROVISION MAPPING. Provision Maps Background SEN Code of Practice Special Educational Provision is intervention that is additional to or

RICHMOND LEA

PROVISION MAPPING

Provision MapsBackground

SEN Code of Practice• Special Educational Provision is intervention that

is additional to or different from that provided as part of the school’s usual differentiated curriculum offer.

• The IEP should only record that which is additional to or different from the differentiated curriculum plan, which is in place as part of provision for all children.


The SEN Policy

Information about the school’s policies for the identification, assessment and provision for all pupils

with special educational needs

7. How resources are allocated to and amongst pupils with special educational needs.

11. How the governing body evaluate the success of the education which is provided at the school to pupils with special educational needs

(SEN Code of Practice, Appendix A, page 197)


Accountability • Schools and LEAs have specific duties in relation

to children with SENs which funding for SEN should support.

• Governing Bodies are accountable through their reports to parents for how resources are allocated to and amongst pupils with SENs and the effectiveness of their provision for SEN. (Section 8:6)


Accountability• In the light of their statutory duties, LEAs and schools

should work together to establish sound arrangements for monitoring and accountability to ensure that resources are used to raise the achievement of pupils with SEN.

• Arrangements should focus on the effectiveness of provision made for pupils with SEN and look to ensure that children make progress and achieve well, provision specified in statements is made and the input of LEA and other support services is effective. (8:7)


Removing Barriers to Achievement

We want to encourage the further delegation of SEN resources to support early intervention and the development of inclusive practice within schools, but this must result in a better deal for children and their parents, not a reduced entitlement. (1.18)


Removing Barriers to Achievement

As more SEN resources are delegated to schools . . . it is critical that appropriate accountability arrangements are put in place so that parents may be confident that their child is receiving the provision they need, whether or not they have a statement. (4.13)

Provision MapsWhat are they?

• A management tool to provide an ‘at a glance’ way of showing the range of provision the school makes for children with special educational needs and how the school is allocating resources ‘to and amongst’ pupils with special educational needs.

Extract from School Provision Map

Yr. Gp.

Provision/Resource Staff/Pupil Ratio

Staff Involved Cost in time(Weekly)

Actual Cost(Annual x ? weeks)

3 In class small group support for literacy (3 x 1 hours)

6:1 LSA 3 hours £1316.70

Literacy – Wordshark (4 x 15 minutes) 9:1 LSATeacher

30 minutes30 minutes

£219.45£706.80

Literacy skills small group (5 x 1 hours) 6:1 LSA 5 hours £2194.50

PROVISION FOR PUPILS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS: YEAR 7

Humans. Mixed ability28/29

English Setted groupsLowest 15

Science Mixed ability28/29

MathsSetted groupsLowest 15

DTSetted groupsApprox 20

LangsMixed ability28/29

PESetted groupsLowest 22

ICTMixed ability28/29

ArtsMixed ability28/29

NATURE AND COST OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS SUPPORT

PROVISION COST (£)

In-class support 30 hours (LSA) 15105

English/Literacy group 4.5 x 50 mins (max 8) x 4 groups (SST) 20880

Registration Reading/Phonographix (2 pupils) 4 x 20 mins (SST) 1860

Registration Reading/Phonographix (2 pupils) 4 x 20 mins (LSA) 800

Allocation of resources ‘amongst’ pupils with special educational needsFebruary 2003

Resource Staff involved Cost in time Actual Cost(Annual x ? weeks)

Budget allocation for resources £500

Training budget £500

Management/supervision of LSAs (1 hour per week) SENCO 1 hour per week

£1274.14

IEP preparation and review ( 12 hours per term) SENCO 12 hours per term

£1207.08

IEP preparation and review – staff release (2 days supply cover)

Teacher 2 days per term

£1050.00

Provision MapsWhat are they?

Wave 1Inclusive quality first teaching

Wave 2Catch-up small group

intervention

Wave 3Individualised

SEN

provision

Provision MapsWhy use them?

• They enable schools to fulfil statutory responsibilities to be accountable for how resources are allocated to and amongst pupils with SENs and the effectiveness of your provision.

• They provide information for reporting within the Governors’ Report to parents.

• They provide clear and transparent information for LEA monitoring.


• They allow schools to audit the needs of children and plan systematically how best to use the school’s resources to meet those needs.

• They allow schools to plan both the staffing and the skills that will be required to meet the needs of children.

• They provide a basis for evaluating your provision and building this into school self-evaluation.


• They allow you to make sure pupils don’t get the same provision year after year.

• They prevent over-provision in some classes or some areas of need and under-provision in others.


• They have the potential to reduce paperwork by highlighting, tracking and monitoring individual pupil provision as an alternative to the traditional IEP.

• Used in this way, they provide good information for parents/carers and increase parental confidence that their child’s needs will be met.

• They provide for other forms of accountability, such as evidence for requests for additional support; statutory assessment and SEN/Disability Tribunals.


Removing Barriers to AchievementIndividual Education Plans (IEPs) – many schools feel they must keep elaborate IEPs, sometimes as a result of the policy of the local authority. There is no statutory requirement for schools to prepare separate IEPs for all pupils with SEN as long as they have sound arrangements for monitoring their progress in conjunction with the child and their parents. (1.23)

Provision Maps4 pieces in the jigsaw

Audit of need Available funding

Evidence on what works

Comparison with provision

Provision MapsSteps to a Provision Map

Step 1 – Capture the current ‘additional to’ and ‘different from’ provision for each year group and cost.

Step 2 – Compare cost of current provision with amount of money within the school budget earmarked for SEN.

Step 2 – Audit projected need for each year group within the school.

Step 3 – Compare projected need with current pattern of provision and identify ‘gaps’.

Step 4 – Consider the research evidence on what works.Step 5 – Cost provision to fill ‘gaps’ and prioritise additional

provision needed.Step 6 – Plan the provision map for the next school year.

SEN ProvisionWhat Works?

• Special Educational Needs and School Improvement – Practical Strategies for Raising Standards by Jean Gross and Angela White. David Fulton Publishers.

• What works for children with literacy difficulties? (2002) DfES research report 380.

• What Works for Children with Mathematical Difficulties? (2004) DfES research report 554.

• Teaching Strategies and Approaches for Pupils with Special Educational Needs: A Scoping Study (2004) DfES research report 516. (www.dfes.gov.uk/research)

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research








Non-Teaching Support• 1998 – 2002 – the number of SEN support assistants has

doubled.• No evidence relating to additional SEN support having any

impact on pupil outcomes.• Evidence - teaching support prevents children from

interacting with peers.• Evidence – teaching support prevents class/subject teacher

from considering their role in adapting curriculum to ensure access and participation.


• Teaching assistants do improve pupil outcomes when following a prescribed intervention programme for which they have been trained and which is ‘managed’ by a teacher.

• Investing resources in additional non-teaching adult support for specific interventions with targeted pupils.


Reducing Class Sizes• Based on ‘intuition’ – children with SEN need more

individual support and attention therefore smaller class sizes must benefit them.

• No evidence to support this.• Several major reviews have failed to find any link to

improved pupil outcomes.• Exception – aged 5 – 8 if class size is reduced to below 15.• Exception – Reception Year – significant effects on

progress in literacy but no effect in Years 1 or 2.


Hypothesis?

• Reducing class size doesn’t change teacher behaviour – unless the reduction is significant – need to reduce to 15 or below.

• Investment in Foundation Stage worth considering but not elsewhere.


Setting• Setting is increasing in schools.• OFSTED (1999) found a link between the use of

setting and impressive gains in national tests.• Later OFSTED reports noted:

– Fewer examples of very good teaching in lower sets.– No overall trend for quality of teaching to be better in

setted classes.


• Number of studies have found progress better in mixed ability sets.

• Secondary Schools – makes no difference to pupil attainment overall in English and had a negative impact in maths.

• Some studies record detrimental effect on attitudes and self-esteem of pupils of lower ability.


• Lower ability sets likely to have high proportion of:– Boys– Socially disadvantaged pupils– Pupils from ethnic-minority backgrounds– Summer born children.


• Consider:– Allocating exceptionally skilled teacher.– Be aware of danger of low and self-fulfilling

expectations.– Monitor composition of lower sets carefully –

gender, race, social deprivation.


Early Intervention Programmes• Common-sense!• Convincing evidence

– 40% of 7 and 8 year olds with ‘challenging behaviour’ go on to habitual delinquency in adolescence.

– Severe literacy difficulties link with eventual exclusion from school.

– 50 – 60 % of prison population have literacy difficulties.


• Whole School Quality Circle Time

• Nurture Groups

– Expensive 1:12 pupil/adult ratio.

– Effective in the long term.

• Social Skills Group Work and parenting support

– Structured, time limited group work.

– Closely linked to whole school ethos

– Understanding own and others feelings

– Solving social problems

– Managing anger/aggression

– Making friends


• Nurture Groups in Schools: principles and practice by Marjorie Boxall (Paul Chapman Publishing)

• Webster-Stratton – Dinosaur School

How to Promote Children’s Social and Emotional Competence by Carolyn Webster-Stratton (Paul Chapman Publishing)


• Parent Support– Groups not individuals– Community-based, local settings, readily

accessible, where parents feel at ease.– Make some use of ‘behavioural techniques’

within structured programme.


Early Language and Literacy • Research estimates that 10% of children

have some degree of language and communication difficulties.

• Over 50% of all children living in areas of high social deprivation may have significant language delay.


• Limited research on effective interventions.

• Talking Partners – R and Yr. 1, teaching assistant, 10 weeks, 3 x

20 minutes, close link with NLS, can be used within literacy hour.

– Gains 13 – 18 months in expressive language development.


• Teaching Talking– Commercial package– Diagnostic assessment, intervention

programme, built in monitoring.

• Impressive outcomes – below age language skills reduced from 27% to 6 % of children in a 9 month intervention period.


Literacy

• Measure of effectiveness – should give at least ‘double’ average progress.

• Some children in some schemes gives eight times normal rate!


General Principles• Work on phonological skills – very effective but

needs to make links between phonological learning and application to text.

• Improvement in comprehension is possible using targeted schemes.

• Combining literacy support with work around improving self-esteem has proved very successful.


• Many ICT-based Individual Learning Systems have not proved effective.

• Smaller-scale applications of ICT such as talking word processors have demonstrated good results.

• Schemes which involve teachers rather than teaching assistants can give good value for money in the longer term – particularly for children with the most severe literacy difficulties.


• Reading partners (volunteer adults, peers, parents/carers) given training and support, can be very effective for children with less severe difficulties.

• Short focused interventions lasting 12 – 20 weeks have good impact.

• Interventions lasting longer than this do not necessarily produce proportionally greater benefits.


• DfES Research Report. Reports on 29 specific schemes with available evaluation evidence


• Acceleread, Accelewrite• Phonographix (Reading Comprehension)• The Catch Up Project• Better Reading Partnership• Multisensory teaching system for reading (MTSR)• Reciprocal Teaching (Reading Comprehension)• THRASS (Reading Comprehension)• Paired Reading (Reading Comprehension)


Mathematics• Very little information available

• Evidence available for KS1.

• Mathematics Recovery

– 1:1, daily, Year 1 pupils.

– Evidence of significant gains, many children attain norm levels.

• Numeracy Recovery

– 6 and 7 year olds, 30 minutes per week for 30 weeks.

– Evidence of significant gains which are maintained 12 months later.


Raising Overall Attainment and Engagement in Learning

• Peer tutoring – Inexpensive but needs an investment of time in

training and ongoing monitoring and support.


Study Support and Out of Hours Learning• Based on very successful evidence from USA.• No evidence relating to SEN in UK except

‘Playing for Success’ – improvements in numeracy and literacy for primary pupils not secondary.


• Features of effective study support– Clear goals and strong links with the school curriculum– Wherever possible, schools should use existing

teaching staff to run the programmes.– Variety in activities (building in sporting and cultural

activities) are important in developing new skills and raising self-esteem.

– Families should be involved in designing after-school schemes: children are more likely to attend if their families have been involved.


Breakfast Clubs

• Outcomes– Children more alert in class– Improved social skills and concentration– Improved attendance– No consistent evidence of improvements in

behaviour.


Social, emotional and behavioural development• Social skills training

– Structured group work focused on solving problems experienced in social settings.

– Conduct disorders, ADHD, at risk of exclusion.

– Combined with parental work – more effective.


– May focus on:• Friendship skills• Preventing or resolving conflict• Managing angry feelings• Learning how to manage relationships with adults –

particularly teachers!

– Small groups (5 to 8)– Trained adult or pair of adults– 8 – 10 weeks but some longer term programmes are

more successful. – Content – direct teaching, modelling, opportunities for

discussion and practice within sessions and outside.


Mentoring• Very mixed evidence• Lack of impact on behaviour and academic

achievements• Some evidence that significant training of mentors

makes a difference to outcomes on behaviour. • DfES Excellence in Cities – paid, school based

learning mentors are having an impact on attainment, attendance and exclusion rates.


• Features of effective mentoring schemes:– School commitment– Teachers recognising what mentors do– Sufficient time and suitable space for

mentoring sessions– Structured evaluation– Specific targets for behavioural change


Stress Management

• Little in terms of hard evidence of effectiveness.

• The Place to Be – special room, equipped with art and play materials, volunteer adults with counselling skills work with referred children.


• The Quiet Place – designated room, relaxing and pleasing environment, 6 week intervention, psychotherapy, therapeutic touch, relaxation training.

• Significant gains in behaviour (concentration, self-esteem, impulse control, interpersonal skills, cooperativeness)

• More effective with boys than girls• More effective with older children (Years 4 to 6).


Learning Support Units

• Very varied in terms of structure and approach.

• Evidence of reduced permanent exclusion.


Effective practice:

• Combination of withdrawal with in-class support.

• Involved teachers from outside the unit – partnership and shared ownership.

• Active involvement of senior staff

• Parental involvement

• A physical centre

• Pupil involvement in target setting.

• Good communication systems within the school.


Less effective practice:• On the spot referral of children

misbehaving.• Being used for long-term, respite care.• Isolated, bolt-on provision not an integral

part of a whole school behaviour and inclusion policy.

Documents

RICHMOND LEA PROVISION MAPPING. Provision Maps Background SEN Code of Practice Special Educational Provision is intervention that is additional to or